The cyclic dominance feature in sockeye seems generally confined to the Fraser. It may well be tied to predators but is likely more complex than that. Each lake is different up there and even though you see a difference between each of four years it is not all the lakes high and low together. Even in the off year you have hugh returns. The rest of the sockeye world is more stable.

It is at least theoretically possible to plant one year high if you could get the eggs, which aren't there. But, the predators (if that was the cause) would need to crash in off-cycle years and those exotic predators evolved to utilize consistent food sources so I doubt they'd even notice the changes in sockeye numbers.

Tommy Edmondson, the limnologist who provided a lots of the LW data to not only push clean up but to show how it worked has gone on record as (back in the 90s) suggesting LW sockeye needed some more nutrients.

There are simply too many competitors and predators in the lake now. Unless you want be the public face on a rotenone project to clean out it and Sammamish........