So, the crux of your argument lies with your assumption that the gamefish fishery has no impact on Chinook in the Stillaguamish or maybe anywhere else?

Because, if it's anything but zero, even a fraction of a fish, the argument immediately moves into the impact prioritization area, given the limited impacts available on this stock. In priority, of course, gamefish fisheries have little chance against marine salmon fisheries for prioritization, especially if there's no one there to ask for them. These requests to consider gamefish a priority could happen through the PS recreational fishery advisory board or at any of the NOF public meetings held around the state each year, or at the Commission meetings during public testimony.

You can certainly complain about not knowing this would happen to that fishery until after the season was set, although I don't think that knowing ahead of time would have made much difference, in the end, for this particular fishery.

"Tangible benefit" is an interesting concept in the realm of ESA listings....not sure how to address this question? I would think that, given your past work, you'd understand that there is no good take or bad take or irrelevant level of take, where mortality is concerned - there's take and the fish don't care where or how it happens....and I suppose the ESA doesn't either.