Being the final source of mortality in the life history cycle of a fish, and the one that we have the most control over, fisheries generally determine whether or not replacement or escapement is achieved. So while fisheries may not be the primary source of mortality, they are often what determines the ultimate success of each year class.

If we back off on fisheries on fish returning to under-utilized habitat, population rebound will typically occur. I think most would agree that the Grays Harbor tributaries contain a lot of under-utilized habitat. Exploitation of 72% on chinook is at the high end of what a naturally producing stock can sustain even in high quality habitats, and well beyond what many marginally productive stocks can sustain. Clearly, meeting escapement has been a failure for management of chinook in Grays Harbor tribs, further evidence of over-harvest. However, as usual, backing off on the fisheries would mean excess returns at hatcheries, which most managers are unable to tolerate. So we typically talk about shifting harvest allocation rather than a reduction in overall harvest rate even if the reduction in harvest rate might benefit all fisheries over the long term.