Yes, the continuing decline of habitat, exceeding the pace of habitat restoration, is exactly what Treaty Rights at Risk is about. The tribes are on this. I seriously do not get why the non-Indian fishing communities are not on this as well, demanding better stewardship of salmon habitat. The first step is to demand that local governments make land use decisions based on the needs of salmon, or at least by taking the needs of salmon into account. The state and the feds should be pressuring the local governments to do that, but they won't touch the issue until significant numbers of their constituents demand that they do.

I do not agree that reducing human population is the only way to save habitat and salmon. If you've travelled around the world much you've seen that most places have much higher population density than we have here. We are going to have to accommodate MORE people with LESS impact on salmon. That means living a lot differently than we do now, which is the real inconvenient truth that no politician dares to talk about.

Also, the information presented at the culvert trial documented fairly substantial losses in production due to improperly designed culverts. While it is true that the case did not hinge on the exact amount of the production lost, there is a large potential gain from opening habitat above culverts. I often wonder why more people who are interested in salmon do not spread the word about salmon habitat needs to the larger public. There is so much arguing about who gets to catch the few fish available now that people forget to talk about what we need to do to gt back some of the production we have lost.