The big problem with this argument (no matter how valid), to Todd's point, is that habitat restoration on the scale it would require to achieve recovery is absolutely never going to be funded. It's WAY too much money, WAY too far down the list of spending priorities. We need to face that reality. For the most part, the habitat we've got is as good as it's going to get.

The other problem with putting all the eggs in the habitat basket is that it supports the absurd notion that current exploitation rates (outside Puget Sound) are appropriate. I will go out on a limb and guarantee that, if by some bizarre miracle the habitat were restored completely, it won't produce a significant number more fish unless we increase escapement goals. In case anyone hasn't noticed, those continue to go the wrong direction, despite the fact that habitat improvements (however small) have been made. Why's that? Because when NMFS sees run forecasts that don't allow for the standard, bought and paid for commercial exploitation rates, they go ahead and schedule fisheries at that rate anyway, leaving the Tribes and the States less to work with in their fisheries. Our co-managers all want their fisheries, too, and the only way to get there is to lower escapement goals for the limiting stocks, blaming the habitat. Just as it's irrefutable that habitat is the ultimate population limiter, it's irrefutable that lowering escapement goals so we can all fish will NEVER lead to more fish.

In a nutshell, I think salmon (and many of the plant and animal species that depend on them) are screwed; ultimately by loss of habitat, but at present, because of intentional, unrelenting overharvest. "Recovery" is a pipe dream. I think we need to be a little more realistic in our goal-setting. For example, I think doing enough habitat work to support 10-20% more spawners (much more realistic than the whole enchilada), then reducing harvest to achieve a similar increase in escapement, is a practical approach that might allow us to achieve enough recovery to uphold reasonable fishing opportunities for all stakeholders for quite a while.

It's a good article, and I understand why talk of reducing harvest is a slippery slope for the sport fishing fleet in Puget Sound. That said, to claim fishing (in general) is not part of the problem is disingenuous, and potentially damaging to the cause of raising awareness of the plight of Puget Sound salmon.

To get anywhere, we need to quit doing the same things wrong, year after year. Clearly, the status quo won't work. It's past time for us to move on from the idyllic image of fishing over historical run sizes and start living in the present. If everyone's willing to sacrifice just a little, we should be able to achieve some small measure of improvement. It just comes down to making the tough decisions that need to be made in the short run. Without that, there is no long run.