I agree that we need more technical participation here. Rich actually asks some important questions, albeit a bit aggressively and mixed in with other nonsense. But as a published researcher with more than 35 years of experience in these debates, I understand why there might be some blowback on this board by many about the undo importance placed on freshwater habitat influences in the current low returns, which often are based on speculative and unsupported opinions by a few highly worshiped high-posters.

Although nobody questions the role of freshwater habitat quality in achieving recovery, I dont agree with a lot of what some experts say here. If freshwater habitat is the primary factor preventing recovery, why do we not see much better returns on the systems with better quality habitat? Why do million dollar resoration projects produce no results? The only reliable measure of freshwater habitat quality for steelhead and coho is spawner to smolt production. Other species seem to be doing well in the same systems, given the harvest pressures they receive. Cant be spawning habitat then, right? If we want to talk about freshwater habitat quality, lets talk about data relevant to the fw rearing aspect of the debate, and not mix in marine inflences and harvest pressures that also influence the current low adult returns.

Poor survival in the marine environment is no indication of freshwater habitat. Yet is is often cited here as such based on low adult returns. We do ourselves a huge disservice as a responsible consumer and conservator of the resource by blaming the decline of salmon only on freshwater habitat and unstoppable growth of population. That offers no hope for our cause. If recovery is hopeless given human population growth and its influences on freshwater habitat, then we should quit bitching about the tribes and their take of the few remaining fish. Game over. However, I dont think we are anywhere near that point. There is plenty of under-utilized habitat out there. Put some fish on it.

Milt out.