CM - I understand your position but clearly have a different perspective at least when it comes to WA Chinook fisheries. I have heard some statistics thrown around to the effect that 80% of Puget Sound returns are hatchery fish. Close? And many of those are being produced using license and Federal excise tax monies. Do we WA recreational fishers pay for all of them? No, but we certainly pay for a disproportionate portion compared to our consumption.

Then there was the recently published study which concluded that seals take 6 times what all human fisheries take and twice that required by SRKW. Barry Thom can write his letters and WFC can sue but the underlying question is whether even a total suspension of Chinook harvest would provide enough food for SRKW in the short run which leads to my final point. And then there is the rule of unintended consequences tied to a complete closure.

The hand wringing public needs to recognize and accept that there are serious predatory factors in the wild which are having a far greater impact than our recreational fisheries let alone just the WA fishery. Also, that the goal of feeding SRKW will fail unless the public is willing to accept a reduction of those other impacts be they sea lions, seals, cormorants or/or terns. Consider that acceptance being the public's share of the burden.

Again, just my perspective.