Salmo G is just calling a spade a spade. sometimes you have to be blunt.

Might as well make an obvious point....

Nobody believes the "habitat" excuse. The fish were already gone from over harvest by the time habitat was maybe even a problem.

To debunk the habitat theory all you need to do is look at the toutle. The river being completely destroyed by the volcano didn't hurt what fish were left much. The fish reacted, adapted and then returned quickly, what few fish had the opportunity anyways.

If the fish are present they will adapt and find a way to succeed, but you need vast numbers for them to be successful.

Salmo,

Maybe when you are in Oregon or BC fishing for salmon, you can brag how you collect a nice retirement from managing Washington stocks into oblivion. Then you can tell them that its not your fault because the law made you do it..... But you sure have a nice retirement and some nice stuff that you can use to fish in other states.

So, the real issue here is that you are jealous and/or resentful. Sad to the point of being pathetic.

By the way, NOAA does not "manage" Washington fish stocks. Rather, It does assess and issue permits for fisheries that may impact ESA listed fish. And if you don't believe that habitat (from water pollution to in stream spawning conditions to marine smolt and adult survival) is a limiting factor to recovery of wild salmon and steelhead to historic levels then you are delusional. Is habitat the only adverse impact? No. Clearly harvest and predation also affect recovery.

But, frankly, the various agencies tend to function within the various (and numerous) laws issued by the Federal Congress as well as the State. And then there are the Federal treaties and court decisions. Don't like the laws? Then get them changed. And be sure to participate in the rule making process established by the existing laws.

I know that Salmo G is a big boy and is more than capable of defending himself but I take extreme exception to your making him (or anyone else) the personal scapegoat for what is a complex situation decades in the making.

you cant read either....


solid work....

Answer it...

Redhook trying to "educate" salmo about steelhead biology? Lol. The entertainment value here is priceless. I can't wait to see what comes next.

I didn't try to educate anyone, I used different terminology than previously, to remove doubt as to what I was saying, obviously, even doing that, it still didn't work.... That's not my problem however...



SS, get a life, how many times has Parker said to keep the BS of this part of the site? Still don't listen I see, and as I said before, you always turn positive things into arguments, you basically are just doing the same sh!t that makes it so we stay in the same position were in....


Stfu and attend the next rally....

Thankfully salmon and steelhead don't utilize marine habitat....just rivers.
The blob and El Niño are just a myth to RG!
SF

That's a low blow, RICH.

We need more biologists posting during these challenging times, not less.

Leave Sg alone.

I agree that we need more technical participation here. Rich actually asks some important questions, albeit a bit aggressively and mixed in with other nonsense. But as a published researcher with more than 35 years of experience in these debates, I understand why there might be some blowback on this board by many about the undo importance placed on freshwater habitat influences in the current low returns, which often are based on speculative and unsupported opinions by a few highly worshiped high-posters.

Although nobody questions the role of freshwater habitat quality in achieving recovery, I dont agree with a lot of what some experts say here. If freshwater habitat is the primary factor preventing recovery, why do we not see much better returns on the systems with better quality habitat? Why do million dollar resoration projects produce no results? The only reliable measure of freshwater habitat quality for steelhead and coho is spawner to smolt production. Other species seem to be doing well in the same systems, given the harvest pressures they receive. Cant be spawning habitat then, right? If we want to talk about freshwater habitat quality, lets talk about data relevant to the fw rearing aspect of the debate, and not mix in marine inflences and harvest pressures that also influence the current low adult returns.

Poor survival in the marine environment is no indication of freshwater habitat. Yet is is often cited here as such based on low adult returns. We do ourselves a huge disservice as a responsible consumer and conservator of the resource by blaming the decline of salmon only on freshwater habitat and unstoppable growth of population. That offers no hope for our cause. If recovery is hopeless given human population growth and its influences on freshwater habitat, then we should quit bitching about the tribes and their take of the few remaining fish. Game over. However, I dont think we are anywhere near that point. There is plenty of under-utilized habitat out there. Put some fish on it.

Milt out.

and make sure every species is on it and that one isn't over exploited over all the others... we are so focused on one or two ESA listed species that we forget that they all are part of a giant food chain... and this includes the lowly old chum that leaves carcasses all over the lower river and estuaries, giving the smolts, crabs and shrimp a lot to eat and multiply with...

how often are chums harvested for eggs and crab bait? when those chums should be left in the river for smolt and crab food

The answers to all the problems are out there....I have no idea where... probably in a bunker under a 74' Airstream, guarded by Sasquench. The reason why the answers are not available is because every special interest group with a vested interest has their hands in the pot. If the local/state economy was contingent upon recreation $ then problems would be addressed and fixed. If salmon and steelhead dried up and became ancient history in Puget sound, probably less than 5% of the population would be affected. Look at pics of puget sound and surrounding areas 70+ years ago.....a far cry from today's mass of human encroachment. Fish habitat from source to sound have been altered in a negative way, mix in adverse ocean conditions and salmon and steelhead disappear. Nothing will ever change unless society sacrifices to protect habitat, other than that.....follow the $ and you'll find your answers. However, Bigfoot habitat remains pristine...blurry pics are still taken, huge piles of feces are still being stepped in, and houses will be slapped. Salmon and steelhead have it easy

You have the best words.

I'm in also tonight when these "things" descend into "Tree Marking Contests"

All I've been able to mark lately is my shoes.

I can't.

+1

I should have locked the thread after carcassman's reply. No truer words have since been spoken (until now) in this thread.

My mother doesn't approve of me calling out Rich G and Redhook for making the stupidest posts in the history of PP, but my lowly defense is that it gets old taking the high road all the time.

Rich, I don't dislike you, but your post was stupid beyond the belief of any informed person. You would do yourself a favor to include more sources of information in your life. You're not completely off, just mostly. Agencies do less than stellar jobs at managing public resources because the public - meaning all of us - doesn't want what's best for the public resources. They want what is best for them, and that is often to the detriment of the resource. You can be an agent of change. Remember, you're either part of the solution, and if not, then you're part of the problem. I could post my resume, and then you could decide how much I contributed to the problem, but somehow, I don't expect an honest answer.

Redhook, aka Evo, your only hope is to get a job. Until then, you really have no standing here, or elsewhere, or in real life.

Oh, and to those who appear concerned that I'm enjoying retirement at your expense, you should pay attention and note that Reagan changed the federal retirement system in 1984. All federal employees who joined federal service after that date get good old Social Security, just like most American working stiffs.

Sg