Maybe the proper perspective on fish management is to view the resource as a provision gifted from god as freely accessible food,, a natural right to be able to freely gather in a sustainable manor..

Our goal should be to not regulate gods production and our actions only to enhance the peoples opportunity to gather free food..

We should decide to make illegal commercial or privatization of Gods gift of free food for the people.. Who should have the right to claim gods free gift of food and then sell it for personal profit? Who has claim to Gods labor, for personal profit at the expense of others?

Are we stopping at just food rich? Or redesigning the world as we know it?

Did you watch the "q" series?

What, exactly, would make that perspective "proper" Rich?

What makes it not the proper perspective?

Policy shifted to maximize peoples opportunity to harvest free food provided by God necessarily shifts to a maximum sustainable production model and against commercial exploitation…. Promotes environmental healing efforts,, community participation and recreation… shifts policy to support efforts to maximize fish production to feed people and entertain them for-the best life experience possible with healthy protein…. Makes any process involving salmon/steelhead strictly non profit,, focused on free access,, free harvest an encouraged participation with sustained maximized production wild/hatchery…

Its critical to National Security for the people to be food independent,, it creates an independent self sustaining population who are vested in the environment and are able to see what the Earth can provide them if they take care of it and are responsible...

The Earth provides the harvest...

Its high reward with no downside...

The only thing lost is personal wealth for a few,, everybody gains sustainable food...

You should have to be a legal resident of the state to benefit or take part in the harvest for free...

I think this could be voted on by the people to modify the state constitution...

Take Fish out from under conservation as a resource and reclassify it as a God given right to harvest/gather food...

It would be the responsibility of the State and Federal Government to protect the resource and manage it for highest sustainable abundance without special interests or personnel profit...

Everybody would have the same rules which is no rules,, no limits,, any method... The only prohibition would be all commercial sale is illegal,, all exploitation for profit illegal...

With no commercial exploitation there would be no reason for conservation or rules based management... The fish runs would rebound to whatever the environment would support and the people would see that improving the environmental conditions would only improve production...

Its too late for the buffalo of the great basin/plains but not too late for the Pacific Salmon...

The Buffalo were once an abundant God provided food resource,, herds large enough to provide the protein/meat needs for the entire North American population without human effort or energy to manage or control... If the buffalo herds were intact today,,, we could harvest the meat we need without cost and not raise beef on Gods land...

The Central Banking system exterminated the buffalo in order to control the people,,, to make it so that the people could not feed themselves for free...

Let's say we have 12 people, each with a different perspective regarding fish and natural resource management. Which one is "proper" and why is it proper and all the other 11 are not? And who decides which perspective is proper?

It is necessary to national security that food production, processing, distribution, and sales be maintained. Independence could help, but it's not necessary. For example, trade agreements with Mexico and South American countries assure the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables during the winter months.

The people will vote to modify the state Constitution according to who spends the most money on the campaign. The most money will be spent by corporate interests and not the people who want to fish for subsistance.

We have fish populations that have rebounded to the limit, the carrying capacity that the environment will support in its current condition. That amount of abundance is not enough to satisfy the demands or desires of the people. At 8 million there are just too many people for the number of wild steelhead the existing environment can produce. That makes conservation regulations necessary or functional extinction is assured.

The people who sought to exterminate the Indians are the ones responsible for nearly exterminating the buffalo. Seems like that was more of a political move than a central banking one, but likely would have been supported by large banks. Was there central banking in the 1860s?

OMG. I actually agree with ISRG. With the addition of all salmon production should be inland farmed for the masses and industry that demand them. Otherwise, if you want to eat a salmon or steelhead, you need to catch it or hire a guide to. Other management would still apply such as carry capacity of a watershed , stream health, fish habitat improvement/restoration, etc. Excess fish could be harvested by the tribes and monitor them to make sure they are not abusing their treaty rights and renegotiate the Bolt decision.

This is as crazy as anything I've seen posted...but it beats yelling at the computer

"We have fish populations that have rebounded to the limit, the carrying capacity that the environment will support in its current condition"

Salmo,, that is just plain poppycock...

I bet you on average we are at less than 1% carrying capacity and less than 1% of the available habitat is being utilized for spawning...

You do not reach maximum carrying capacity until the volume of fish exceeds the volume of water discharge under normal conditions...

The situation of scarcity we are in regarding salmon is 100% manufactured on purpose... Same bankers that had the buffalo killed put us in this position...

Manufactured scarcity results in more control over the people and facilitates a centralized control system to provide needs with conditions,,, when it comes to salmon we are talking about food and the ability of the people to feed themselves and be independent of a centralized control system... Abundance of resources equals independent people,,, scarcity of resources equals dependent people...

Harvest was used as a purposeful tool to create a situation of scarcity so that the people could be under control and dependent rather than independent...

It took lots of effort,, over a long period of time to get control over Gods creation and production of abundance, to put the pacific salmon in a critical position of scarcity where the population could be managed/controlled to the point to make them scarce and the people made dependent/controlled as a result...

There is a direct relation between management policy of Salmon and the Centralized system of control we are under... It is necessary to keep the salmon population at a critical level in order to maintain a certain level of control and advancing of an agenda...

The science you consider an accepted discipline and benchmark was manufactured in accordance with this agenda with the sole purpose to justify actions and manufacture the result of scarcity for the purpose of control...

I'm gonna have to agree with Rich, more or less.

When WDF set the Chinook goals, which are either still in use or higher than current, they explicitly stated that the goals utilized nowhere near the available spawning habitat.

In the 90s I developed, and the others at WDFW improved, a stock/recruit analysis for wild PS chum. This was at a time when chum populations in PS were significantly expanding. The R/S Ticker curve analysis showed that the current returns, for management at MSY, should have escarpments significantly higher than in use then. And probably now,

In the 90s/00s Puyallup pink expanded. The watershed supported 500-800K spawners, or more even though the MSY goal was a tad under 20K.

When the interim Lake WA sockeye goal was set it was based on the previous couple years escapement and set at 350K. After setting, WDF staff discovered that the escapments had been miscalculated and should have been in the area of 450-500K. Plus, the IPSFC staff believed that if the LW watershed was moved to the Fraser they would target a million sockeye.

So, there is a reasonable long-term record to show that goals managed for are nowhere near what the systems can/should support.

In my view, escarpment goals are set for economic reasons. What is the fewest fish we can't kill to maximize what we can.

Frankly the smartest/common sense thing to do is manage for maximum production,,, its best for the environment,, the food chain and best for humanity...

The fastest way to get maximum sustained production is to stop commercial fishing and max out hatchery smolt and fry production... Get as many fish upriver as possible regardless if they are hatchery or wild.. The rivers have to be absolutely saturated with fish which will rebuild the food chain...

Stop all harvest on the feeding grounds and migratory routes,, put all the opportunity and effort in the terminal areas as far as harvest goes...

Stop harvest on the feeding grounds and watch how fast you start seeing older age adults,,, you wont believe how much more abundance there is just from stopping harvest on the feeding grounds and migratory routes...

A prime example is the larger runs we had this year,,, its directly related to COVID and interruption of the efforts regarding harvest on the feeding grounds and migratory routes... There was in interruption in the supply chain that impacted fishing efforts and resulted in more fish to the terminal areas...

There is absolutely no reason for commercial fishing.. most of the fish get turned into animal feed anyways... Humanity has reached a technological point that the equipment needed to harvest salmon can be obtained by anyone who wants to eat fish,, boats/gear and know how...

Commercial fishing is absolutely reckless and abusive to the environment a direct threat to humanities safety,, security and health... Frankly we just have no excuse to continue doing it,, there is no upside to the human collective as only a few benefit... Its a huge waste of earths natural food production and one sided towards special interests...

As far as the tribes go,, they know better,,, they know how we got into this mess yet choose to continue the same game at everyone else's expense,, especially the environment... The best thing for the environment is as many salmon as possible spawning and then dying on the riverbank,, everybody gets to eat,, the bugs,, the birds,, the whales ,, the bears, humans and the plants and trees which ends up making more fish by default... More Salmon until the river cant hold/accept anymore and they push each other out onto the river bank which is how the natives once harvested by picking up the fish that get pushed out because there is not enough water/river for all the fish...

Salmon are like locusts,,, give them an opportunity and they will pro create and nature can support/feed more salmon than can be created... The Oceans are big 64% of the worlds Oceans are outside all nations territories/jurisdictions...

"The TerraMar Project was founded on 26 September 2012 at the Blue Ocean Film Festival and Conservation Conference in Monterey, California, and focused on the 64% of the ocean that lies outside any single country's jurisdiction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_TerraMar_Project

A novel idea that should apply to all natural recources. Capitalism at it's worst. Also," A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust expectations downward to match prevailing conditions."...Kennedy Warne, Nat Geo, April 2007
Have been fishing this low cold water. Love these conditions but only scratched up 1 bite, 1 fish in last 2 outings. Thought this might be turn around season for winter steelhead, but based on hatchery returns so far, not happening.

RichG posted: Salmo,, that is just plain poppycock...

I bet you on average we are at less than 1% carrying capacity and less than 1% of the available habitat is being utilized for spawning...

You do not reach maximum carrying capacity until the volume of fish exceeds the volume of water discharge under normal conditions...

Rich, I don't think we can have this conversation until you take and get a passing grade in:
Biology 101 - 103
Ecology 300
Physics 101 - 103
Hydraulics 300

The biomass of every living organism, including salmon, is controlled by a descending series of limiting factors. I would bet you on that 1% of carrying capacity allegation, but you would never admit that you're wrong, no matter what proof was presented, so I'll not waste that effort.

Even in pristine natural environments, the carrying capacity for fish is determined by the amount of suitable food and space. In no system on earth does the fish biomass equal the volume of water discharge.

"The science you consider an accepted discipline and benchmark was manufactured in accordance with this agenda with the sole purpose to justify actions and manufacture the result of scarcity for the purpose of control..."

Rich, you appear to suffer from the Dunning - Kruger effect which means that you're too dumb to realize that you're dumb. The science that I consider as an accepted discipline has evolved from the ancient Greeks and the more ancient Sumerians before them. The development of science goes at least as far back as 8000 years and the most ancient dams, canals, and aqueducts and is the result of systematic observation and experiment, then and now and all times in between. Science is manufactured only in your mind, like most every kooky notion that you post.

RichG also posted: "Frankly the smartest/common sense thing to do is manage for maximum production,,, its best for the environment,, the food chain and best for humanity..."

Rich, you're correct, except for the humanity part. By what you've written I can tell that you don't even understand what you're saying. Managing for maximum production has to mean zero harvest. That includes zero harvest by humans. If you allow even one salmon to be taken by a human, you are, by definition, no longer managing for maximum production.

C'man,

When RichG makes a valid point, it is more like a stopped clock being correct twice a day than by intelligent analysis.

It's true that WDF set Chinook spawning escapement goals according to the 10-year average for which the Department had data and not by any biological metric. However, you know darn well that available spawning habitat is not a limiting factor for Chinook. Juvenile rearing habitat, freshwater and estuarine, limits juvenile populations, and then populations are limited by marine foraging and predator-prey relationships. Available spawning habitat may be limiting for pink salmon, but not other species.

The Lk WA sockeye escapement goal was set according to estimates of available spawning habitat. Clearly that isn't the limiting factor for those sockeye, or else populations of that size or larger would occur far more frequently than they have. Since that doesn't happen, by definition the population is limited by other factors, most likely freshwater juvenile rearing combined with lake predator - prey relationships and passage at the Ballard Locks. If Lk WA were moved to the Fraser, increasing the escapement goal would not obviate the productivity problems that are endemic to Lk WA, and the population would still remain as it is, except for not having the passage issues at Ballard. The true life facts are that the carrying capacity for sockeye in Lk WA has been compromised by a variety of factors such that Cedar River spawning habitat and Lk WA juvenile sockeye forage are not limiting productivity.

In general I agree with you that spawning goals are set to maximize harvest. MSH became the co-management goal in 1984 when Wilkerson was WDF Director, with some exceptions.

Regarding contemporary carrying capacities, I think we have some decent examples in Puget Sound wild steelhead. The Nisqually steelhead have not been fished on since 1993, that's over 30 years. Knowing the resilience of salmonid populations, those steelhead have rebounded to today's carrying capacity, freshwater and marine waters combined. It looks like the carrying capacity ranges from around 800 to 2,000, even though the Nisqually Tribe's recovery goal is for 2,000 harvestable steelhead. This simply shows that managers can print whatever they want on paper, but given the chance, the ecosystem tells us plain as day what it can deliver under contemporary conditions.

Another example is Skagit steelhead. The wild population has been actively managed since 1978. Harvest has been allowed in more years than not, but conservatively regulated overall. Escapements have ranged from 2,500 to 16,000, with and average of about 8,000. No matter how much managers want that natural run to recover to 20,000 or more, it just ain't gonna' happen (unless marine survival rates take a significant upswing, which doesn't appear likely).

“
Rich, I don't think we can have this conversation until you take and get a passing grade in:
Biology 101 - 103
Ecology 300
Physics 101 - 103
Hydraulics 300 “

Only the edyoumakated may speak now.

One reason why Nisqually steelhead are down is the loss of Muck Creek. With its warmer water and high productivity it produced a lot of smolts, many of which were age-1. That component is gone, as is Muck Creek.

As to the Skagit, the lack of ecologically appropriate salmon escapements has kept steelhead down. The Keogh River studies showed that increasing productivity in a steelhead run was directly related to nutrient input from either fertilizer or pinks. Up in AK, on Ford Arm Creek, the coho run was considered self-sustaining. At no pink escapement it produced 1,000 harvest at a 60% harvest rate. At 2 kg pinks pre square metre you got 5-8000 harvest at that same 60% rate. The coho were self-sustaining AND at carrying capacity but capacity was determined by the number of spawning salmon. WDFW has seen a response by steelhead in some systems with lots of spawning salmon, but those are the anomaly.

We are aggressively pursuing cultural oligotrophication of our salmonid streams. We're doing lots of other stuff to them, but CO is driving carrying capacity down the hole.

I was using the Lake WA sockeye as an example of where WDF used certain numbers and when shown they were wrong they stuck with them. Lake WA's problem is all the other fish in the lake; sockeye aren't really happy in lakes with lots of other species, especially ones that eat them.

So, yes, we are at carrying capacity for many salmon in freshwater but that capacity can be increased with substantial and sustained increases in spawning salmon.

Doesn't the fact Lake WA is also cleaner now then it used to be also come into play with reduced sockeye numbers?
SF

It might. The UW limnologist who was primarily responsible for calling the pollution to the public's attention and monitored the situation for decades did actually suggest increasing the nutrient load back into the lake for the sockeye.

I do know that because of Metro the lake is cleaner, clarity has improved a lot, and there were good changes in the plankton levels.

For a while in the 90s, when there was interest in the sockeye because of the law establishing a spawning channel or hatchery, that lots of studies were done. One interesting aspect is LW smolts are among the largest, by far, of any sockeye population. If memory serves, there is very poor survival of the fry when they enter the lake, and this may be lack of small food items. Once the relatively few fry survive, they grow like hell. I think the studies kind of petered out because of a lack of funding and the continuing low returns even with the augmented runs.