You remember that conversation back then do ya! The people that shoulder the vast majority of cost to preserve salmon stocks get the least access. Then the fact that they actually expect to see fish in the streams for the sacrifice. When you add the value of stream setbacks for RMZ's , sewage, use restrictions the number is really large, in the billions in the Chehalis Basin alone.

The next bit is a true story about one of the best volunteers I ever had on my team. A retired Boeing guy he worked his butt off fencing a upper basin stream. Then he worked on getting his neighbors to do the same and was successful until that fateful evening when he went to a meeting where harvest was discussed. Next came the phone call with a simple direct question. If they succeeded with their stream and say got it to produce 1000 more fish what would the co managers do? The honest answer was and is harvest them. In a simplified theoretical scenario we have an escapement goal in the Chehalis Basin anything above that the co managers will try to harvest. ( a bit less now with the GHMP ) So in a theoretical look those 1000 fish die in harvest if you harvest to MSY, which despite denials by the agency is what the escapement goal is.

Second part of the question was suppose a real community effort took place and natural production of smolt was increased by 50% what would happen when the adults return? The answer is simple I told him, they will harvest them to the same level as they always have. Some will get back to be sure I told him but the stream would not get full benefit in the sense of more fish in the stream spawning. The benefit of habitat restoration and enhancement resulting in enhanced smolt production does not mean the benefit is to the stream in the sense of adults returning but rather more for harvest. His response, " I quit "