Yeah, but WDFW and the Feds, when reviewing Chinook fisheries for rules under ESA, concluded that fishing has no effect on Chinook size. Of course, the data set was the most recent 15 minutes but it allowed the marine mixed stock fisheries to continue which was the goal of the exercise, anyway.

This may ultimately prove true, but I will continue to resist the notion that humans and the rest of the Earth can't coexist, because asking people to stop having babies is rather a poor survival strategy, and dooming us all to a fate we can't avoid won't do anything to motivate people to change (which I think we can all agree must happen).

I believe the problem is less about our numbers than it is about profit-motivated greed. No matter how many resources there are available, a few people will always strive to gain control of those resources for personal profit. There are a lot of greedy behaviors we could clean up that would at least prolong the slide toward extinction significantly. Before we throw our hands up and declare the existing habitat isn't capable of more than it currently delivers (and will only get worse until we start killing babies), we should meaningfully reduce mixed stock harvest for a decade or two, to make sure we're right. We've seen plenty of evidence that even the current habitat, given favorable ocean conditions, can still return some very catchable numbers of salmon... especially when NMFS and the Tribes underestimate the run.

If we refuse to change our greedy behaviors, then yes, Humanity and the Earth are doomed.

Look at the areas with way lots more people and a longer history of human habitation than North and South america. What's happening to wildlife in Africa? They coexisting well with the people? Or India and China?

The earth has a fixed amount of resources. We are not creating more land, water, minerals, etc. We do recycle, but no more is made.

We can, to some point, conserve our way out of short term problems. But not in the long term.

Say a river, in its pristine state, supported 1000 people with their annual need of salmon for food. You now have 2,000 trying to live of that run. Or 3 or 4 or 10,000. At some point, the run can't sustain itself. Before it hits that point, the other resources that ate salmon or depended on the spawners for nutrients have to decline because humans have taken "their share". Same argument holds for water and any other resource.

People seem to think that our existence is somehow outside of the rules that govern ecosystems. We're not.

We ended market hunting and big game and birds are as good, if not better, than ever before. Being a land based species, we could "see" the detriment we caused by MH and course corrected with pretty great success (overall and at least in NA).

We can't "see" what we are doing to the fish. "BUT it's a big ocean!". Time to end market fishing no? It'll "never happen", but it should shouldn't it?

I doubt that current numbers for many terrestrial species are as high as , say, the 60s/70s. Some, like suburban whitetail, introduced wild turkey, white geese, and urban geese are exploding many others are showing declines. You are right that conversion fro market hunting to recreational "saved" many species. Until the recreational demand exceeds the supply. Then we get limited entry, special tags, etc.

NA certainly has "better" wildlife numbers than most of the rest of the world. We also have fewer people.

Actually he is correct. The human species has been the most destructive species or thing short of a comet or meteor in the history of the planet. European culture being the latest and greatest destroyer. Fact is unless the human population regulates itself as to population to zero growth the outcome is known it is not a secret. Growth of a population to fuel economics will achieve that but the greater the growth the greater to the environment damage. We try to contain it with laws but the reality is it is window dressing as even if we stop the visible damage you have feed, and house people. To construct something you usually have wipe out the natural order to do so.

Want to find out what the how to find out non PC? Advocate Zero population growth and mandatory growth management. Hell in the 70's that was discussed in Puget Sound to prevent the destruction of the Sound and other natural things. The folks in PS have not seen the tip of the iceberg for the coming bill for that in PS yet which is in the many many billions.

So as I hop off the box this. Humans and the natural order are 100% non compatible. Salmonids on steroids. Each time we add a house, car, boat, just about every damn thing it is another nail in the coffin. If you were born in this state and accepted the growth your responsible. If your parents moved to this state then the a equal share of the blame is that group and frankly likely more.

The discussion is along the lines of "A Christmas Carol" and the Ghost of Christmas To Come. My point is we have a choice. Not advocating for a particular action but we have come to a fork in the road. Which one do you want to take?

Weren't the salmon here smaller because they were starving because the blob killed all their feed? If we want to rebuild our stocks we might look south, I mean way south. Chile and their Austral Kings that are originally from the cowlitz yet they have some massive fish return to their rivers. How?

Do they dredge offshore collecting the salmon as bycatch? Do they fish commerically for them in the ocean?

My guess is they have big ass fish there because they are allowed to stay out 5-8 years and there is plenty of feed.

AK is gonna wipeout all their fish in no time and we would see greater returns if they would layoff the southern stocks. Change their openings and their locations so we can see some fish return.

We could blame our fish being smaller on the Blob but the smaller fish in AK are north of it and still starving. Some are. Those that feed lower on the food chain (pinks) are even showing some increase in size.

As I read more there is a real [Bleeeeep!]-storm occurring on the Pacific Coast from the Salish Sea (at least) on north into SE AK and maybe beyond there. The problem is bigger than one state or even one country, and since we have 3 involved in Pacific management (US, Canada, and Alaska) there are some real problems in getting to a solution.

Somewhere on this BB this came up. The salmon reared in South America commercially and other many had there origins from PMW hatcheries. Their size has increased due to the fact they do not have marine fisheries and are evolving back toward themselves. The egg sales I did were all Coho and went to Chile if I recall correctly. I think the Cowlitz sold surplus Chinook eggs but it has been a bit back. Long and short of it feed being down reduces a fish for his time but feed back the size is back. The gene pool removal by marine troll and sport for the 5 & 6 yr old fish has downsized our Chinook but they will also recover over MANY generations with no harvest.

You see there is a answer but lord your not going to like the price. Catch here is they cannot be wiped out to recover and spawning success will be greatly reduced by the smaller adult size extending the time line. In other words we manage Chinook about as ass backwards as a humans can do ( and we do some really stupid things ) and we do it with great fanfare each year. We have met the enemy and it is us.

What we are creating with Chinook is piscivorous Chum. They used to use big rivers because big fish could move big rocks. Now, with majority of them being large-end chum they can successfully spawn in small rivers and even large creeks. We may have, unwittingly, guaranteed Chinook's future by forcing them into smaller streams that we won't be damming for hydro.

Two Indian tribes in CA are trying to bring back some New Zealand Chinook to restore their local stock. Originally, those fish were sent to the Antipodes; now they represent the "purest" genes as hatcheries and a century of top-shelf management has mongrelized what's left in the upper Sacramento.