I did a lot of those updates and the r-squareds we used were much higher, in the .8s to .9s. But, regardless of the r-squareds, we used the number that, when we looked back after the season, was more accurate. If the forecast was more accurate (closer to the actual run size) we were more confident in it. If the updates were more accurate (in the past) we used that. Accuracy was most important. In looking at about a decade's worth of performance in PS, the last update of the season was almost always way more accurate than the forecast.

The risk of using updates is that they are performed in the terminal areas. Consrvation closures at that point fall heavily on the tribes (the last last really big fishery) and in-river sports. This was the reason for Hoh v. Baldridge as the conservation burden was borne almost entirely by the terminal Tribes.

As Drifter noted, we have the technology to get the catch data into one central spot way faster than we used to do it. It would cost staff time. And, the pessimist in me says, it would open the door to direct in-season management for conservation and even allocation. This would still be unpopular with the Tribes as the "outside" fisheries will always get their fish while the inside guys only get them if they are available (if we update). If we don't update, everybody (except the gravel) gets their fish.