Evo -

I attempted to answer your question of why no hatchery coho retention for the recreational fishery. My answer was a generic one for the whole of the Puget Sound recreational fishery.

Yes in 2015 there were more than enough coho returning to the Puyallup hatchery to meet its egg taking needs. That said on the whole if I remember correctly (been a while since I looked at the numbers) for the PS WDFW hatchery in 2015 the total egg take was short by 25% of what they had taken on the average for the last 5 years. That was driven by both shortfall in total escapements to the hatcheries and the small size (and resulting low fecundity) of those returning coho.

It is true that there hatcheries in the Sound that are expected to have adequate coho brood stock; others will not. To your point about the Puyallup hatchery coho returns. Yes it does look as if there are harvestable hatchery coho returning to the Puyallup. Further it would appear that a hatchery coho only in-river recreational fishery would have been both appropriate and justified. It would appear to me that fishery was one of the victims in the effort to achieve a co-manager agreement. I'm sure that it was difficult discussion for the State to consider whether that lost of that fishery (or part of the MA 11 blackmouth season) was worth the cost of getting an agreement for the other fisheries.

And yes it sucks if one is a Puyallup river fisherman. I guess the long term question is two fold. Will the State be able to take the lessons from the last two years of failure at NOF to be able to better position themselves for success going forward (be able to prepare proactively)? Secondly will more of the fishers (and especially the river guys) engage in the NOF process with the State to insure that they concerns and needs are considered?

Unfortunately the answer to both questions based on past experience is unlikely not!

Curt