I strongly doubt any PS or CR commercial fisherman makes their entire living from fishing in either one of those locations. I knew a PS purse seiner who made a good living seining in SE AK (mostly pink salmon) in the summer and in PS (mostly chum) in the fall. This was in the 70s and 80s. The PS part no longer adds up to 1/2 of a "living wage." I met a CR gillnetter who also fished Bristol Bay AK and made a good living between the two, with the CR part being more of a "hobby" fishery, since he made good money in AK.

The only way a fisherman makes their entire living in WA is by fishing multiple areas and species - salmon, bottomfish, rockfish, crab, shrimp, etc.

These days, with almost all WA wild Chinook being ESA listed, there is no viable commercial Chinook fishing (for non-treaty) absent the presence of hatchery Chinook. Since hatchery Chinook are produced with funding mainly from three sources - mitigation, Mitchell Act, and WA state GF - it's become my contention that WA taxpayers are being fleeced to produce hatchery Chinook that mainly contribute to Canadian harvest, treaty harvest, and non-treaty harvest, and a paltry few to WA recreational harvest. Why are we throwing money down this rat hole to subsidize fisheries that we get next to nothing out of? But I digress . . .