Silver Bullets, et.al.: I think the artificial enrichment was in the form of a recently developed, slow-dissolving "biscuit"
of chemicals that, dumped into the stream, would provide a long-term source of nutrients. While I can see a certain value to this sort of thing under particular circumstances, I think that the real answer lies in a change of philosophy from the Maximum Sustained Yield model that still seems to imbue our concept of fisheries management. I recently read that only an estimated three percent of historic carcass quantities are currently left in most streams. It's not difficult to see the effect that this has on mammal and bird species, but we can't look beneath the water and see the depletion of microorganisms that would feed invertebrates that would, in turn, feed trout and salmon parr and smolts. Certainly, the effect would be minimal on those species that spend little time in fresh water, that's why we still have (in some cases anyway) strong runs of chum and humpies. But, I fear, there are no silver bullets. Even with adequate numbers of carcasses in the rivers, we need good spawning habitat, not gravel beds choked with silt or washed out from floods that are the result of development and poor logging and agricultural practices; of course, if the fish wind up in a net somewhere, without having spawned, it's kind of a moot point. The ecology of a watershed is a very complex web and you can't just tweak it here and there and expect everything to be hunky-dory. I think we now have, or are at least beginning to get, good science, now all we need are political and economic interests who are willing to put that ahead of votes and profits. I wish I could be more optimistic.