if History shows anything it's that WDFW has never been right in it's wild steelhead managment and in every case where they tried to manage populations that were in trouble they only made things worse.

the main thing here is MSY. It is absolutely crystal clear that MSY is a failure it simply does not work and has lead to ever stream but a few having severly depressed runs.
MSY needs to be thrown in the trash.

As for the upper columbia.. I believe all thoes runs are listed as endangered under ESA. abundances of hatchery fish does not a healthy run make.. abundances of hatchery fish are simply a sign that too many fish are being raised and planted...

Everyone always over-analyzes this issue, IMO.

There are what, three? five? systems left in the state with "healthy" populations of native steelhead? There used to be how many?

Should we protect what remains to the extent that we can now, when they're "healthy" or wait until they are stressed to the point of extinction?

Pretty simple.

Spot on, H20...well said

I don't think the "best available science" has been used in the past in managing our fisheries. I think the best available lobbyist has won the day too often. This has meant that the commercials and the tribes trump the science time and time again. I did not say that this science comes from WDFW. They ignore their own science too often. Too often they ignore escapement goals like they have for 50 years. What I am saying is that science should shape fisheries policies, not passionate rhetoric. the science has to be accepted by all stake holders including the tribes or we are all just spinning our wheels. All you have to do at the moment is look to Vancouver Island as a model. Wild steelhead release has not saved their runs at all. I'm not even sure what will. I do know that unless all user groups adopt the same policy based on sound science we will fail.

Grandpa for once i toally agree science should rule the day.. However when it comes to hatcheries would you stand by your statements???

here is the first thing we know from fisheries science and this is a truth that us universally accepted by every single biologist.

Dead steelhead don't spawn...

Jerry -
You seem to have little problem with WDFW's best science as you harvest various salmon species, ling cod, halibut etc. If you truly believed that the "science" was the issue you would not fish for or at least not harvest any of the above species.

For me the legitimacy of the quality of the "best science" arguement in this debate is forteited by those that use it selectively.

The management of wild steelhead in this state recognizes the uncetainity of the "best science" and buffers its management for that uncertainity more than most managed species.

Tight lines
S malma

What is certain is that WDFW has done a poor job of managing wild steelhead everywhere in the state using their exsisting managment principle. (MSY) In recent years the runs that are considered "healthy" have been closed many times with emergency closures. I am telling you all that this is the beginning of the end. either we change our ways ( no harvest) or we kiss these fish goodbye permanently. The handwritting is on the wall I cannot understand how anyione cannot see it..

Inside this whole emotional debate lurks the average fisherman. Not a fanatic and not savvy to the truth as told by those who take up the torch for their causes here. That simple fisherman wants to catch and eat fish. Are we saving the fish for him? Or are we saving them for someone else? Or something else? Can we save dwindling natural resources for future use or are we destined to not use our natural resources because we cannot agree why we are saving them? Just wondering.