While my experience as a professional biologist for over 30 years is primarily in the forested landscape, I do think that it is premature to write off any of the Puget Sound and Hood Canal watersheds as non-viable systems for wild steelhead production. Marine survival is clearly driving all Puget Sound steelhead adult production regardless of wild or hatchery origin. Even heavily impacted freshwater systems such as the Puyallup produced sufficient returns in the recent past to support harvestable numbers of both wild and hatchery origin steelhead. Arguably habitat is improving there, at least in many areas, in spite of continued development of the lower watersheds. Other systems such as the Nisqually have not seen a negative change in freshwater habitat to explain corresponding decreases or lack of recovery in adult returns. Recent science is suggesting that biological influences such as parasite infestations, avian and other predation are responsible for an order of magnitude decrease in marine survival compated to the 1980s. What would a 10 fold increase in marine survival do to adult returns in these systems?

Regardless if you agree or not, should we write off the existing land use regulations and other ESA protections there based on speculative assumptions about freshwater production being lost beyond repair due to physical habitat degradation? I have measured decent wild juvenile rearing densities in many areas sufficient for me to question the nay-sayers. What do we gain by tossing in the towel on these systems? Should we relax the habitat protections and restoration funding in place there now? Seems to me the final answer about the freshwater habitat quality will come after marine issues are more fully understood and accounted for. Wild steelhead are actually quite resilient to changes in freshwater habitat.