Tug,

While the Deschutes did, and still does, produce a lot of salmon, very few of them were naturally produced. Although thousands of returning hatchery Chinook were allowed upstream to spawn, very few viable smolts resulted, considering the number of spawners. Nanophytes, the parasite that I mentioned in my post above, kills most of the juveniles before they make it to salt water. But since some number greater than zero may survive, WDFW chooses to not let any returning adults go upstream to spawn because those would become ESA protected "wild" Chinook. Crazy, yeah, but that's the way things are set up. WDFW had to go through a lot to avoid having the Deschutes included in the ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook unit.

I agree with you that sending those Chinook upstream is an environmental benefit, but WDFW may not wish to establish a precedent of allocating salmon to environmental benefits. It could conflict with harvest management priorities.

C'man,

I think the reason the Department discontinued stocking steelhead is because the SAR - smolt to adult return rate was too low to sustain even hatchery production. I think the fish came from Chambers Ck - S. Tacoma, where the adult returns were no longer enough to even sustain the hatchery run that started it all. Pretty sad, because if the rate of return were comparable to the 1980s, it would be a perfect hatchery river with no ESA conflicts.

Chum Man,

WDFW could allow fishing there and in the approach waters that have been closed for a while now. There are some bright Chinook when they first show up. Now that fishery is exclusively for seals when the Chinook are stacked up in there. Share allocations aside, it's hard to argue that a lot of fish that are produced solely to be harvested are deliberately being wasted by the state.