Salmo - Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with much of what you’re saying. But for the sake of discussion, I will try to address some of your points, as I see it.

WDFW can raise and release all the hatchery salmon they want but they cannot dictate who catches them. As you know, salmon cross State and international boundaries. As such, if we want them to return as fully grown adults, I’m not sure how we can prevent these fish from being targeted by other folks, including the Canadians and Alaskans. There is some control thru NMFS via the Pacific Salmon Treaty and commercial harvest management in Alaska, but I don’t see NMFS advocating for U.S. hatchery production for the exclusive use of recreational anglers. Plus, there are lots of recreational anglers who fish in SE AK for Chinook that originate in Washington State (I’ve been one of those anglers…….).

It appears you’re suggesting that successful hatchery production should be measured by the return to the recreational anglers since these folks pay the bills. Excellent point. I’m going to sound like a bureaucrat but the mission statement of WDFW says:

“The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's stated mission is to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.”

I realize this neglects the fact that recreational hunters/anglers pay the bills for WDFW. Presumably the State Legislature knows this too, but they aren’t inclined to edit out “commercial opportunities”. As such, WDFW must manage for both recreational and commercial uses. And, since there are no more commercial hunting opportunities in Washington State, only commercial fishing opportunities remain. I don’t like it either, but I know why WDFW does what it does.

At one point in time, the fish habitat in Washington State was able to produce enough salmon for all three types of fisheries (NT, T, and Rec). But those days are long gone. The loss of habitat over the past several decades have reduced the capacity significantly. The Tribes have been saying that for the past 50+ years. All three fisheries now depend on hatchery production to be successful. And sometimes even that is not sufficient.

Take, for instance, the argument the Tribes used in their successful court case on the culverts in Puget Sound: At the time of the Boldt Decision (mid 1970’s), the Tribes were getting 2% of the harvestable salmon in Washington State. Judge Boldt said they have a right to 50% of the harvestable salmon. So that’s what they got.

Now, fast-forward to today. Although the Tribes are getting 50% of the harvest, the number of salmon they’re actually harvesting is LESS than the 2% they were getting before the Boldt decision. That is how far the productivity of the salmon habitat has fallen. How did that happen? Just look around. More roads, bridges, culverts, shopping malls, housing developments, ranchettes, single family houses along rivers and streams, and a million other impacts on the ecosystem on which the salmon depend. I can see how and why we ended up where we are.

I’ll stop there. I’m not trying to argue, just trying to provide some perspective (albeit unpopular).

Thanks.