OncyT:

I understand the argument that a non-supplemented population should be the control for the experiment being discussed in the article, and I suppose I agree.

I think you might be putting a little too much faith in that there are "zero" ocean fishery impacts on those fish, and even if that's true, there are in-river fisheries that do take a toll. Granted, there are no directed ocean fisheries for springers, but when we remember that a springer is really just a Chinook that migrates upstream at a different time of year, and that it spends the majority of its adult life at sea, comingled with other salmon, we realize that a lot of what gets labeled "small" Chinook in the summer and fall fisheries may actually be next year's springers. Again, not arguing that harvest is the key with those fish. God knows, if you want to see the full extent of habitat challenges firsthand, following some Snake Chinook around will show you the whole gamut. (Keep in mind that stream nutrient levels are among those challenges, and the big reason they're lower than what they were historically is that only about 10% of the potential carcasses are being added, year after year.) That there are any of those fish still swimming is testament to how resilient salmon are.

I'm not trying to dismiss the study, its findings, or its authors. I'm neither qualified nor inclined to do so. My point was (and has been) that as long as our harvest model is set up to maximize harvest, minimum survival is exactly what we should expect.