Salmo -
As always an interesting post and some fodder for thought on a winter day away from the river. Couple of comments:

1) As you have mention before in earlier posts having larger escapements may not necessarily lead to larger runs in the future. Wild steelhead release will almost certainly result in lower harvest, higher escapements, and more fish avaiable for the CnR fisheries but depending on the individual river under consideration the increase number of spawners may not result in consistent larger run sizes. It will depend on the what is limiting the production capacity of the river. Greatly most years on most rivers the production bottleneck appears to over wintering habitat for the parr. Though spring floods, low water in the summer, escapement, and other facts can be the limiting factor at times.

Perhaps the surest way to insure larger wild runs would the maintenance and restoration of the key habitats. The ESA driven discussion currently under way regarding habitat protection on our rivers is an area that warrants some involvement for those who wish to see healthier rivers and the fish resources that they would support. To reach that point we need changes in land management practices which in turn means political involvement (lobbying) by fishers.

Paying the tribes not to fish continues to run into the same snags. How do you purpose the annually share is determined (amount of money due)? Half of the pre-season forecast regardless of the resulting run size? Half of the sport catch? That would be an interesting twist of "they aren't reporting all their catch" rants. The agreeing tribe probably would want some agreed upon creel census which would cost additional $$.

Your "hitches" were right on the money. How the money is divided among the fishers is always a problem. I can remember hearing a similar recommendation from the tribal community (though tongue in cheek)when the state first tried Wild Steelhead Release (anyone remember the fin cards?). The suggestion then was to close the river to sport fishing and have the hatcheries distirbute the returning fish to fisherman with punch cards. In both scenerios the reposne by most fishers would be "unfair".

Creating special river taxes with dedicated funds for a specific use would regard legislative approval. They have consistently demostrated their dislike for any funds that they don't have control over.

Bardo -
The ESA card is a dangerous game to play. Not sure that those that fish the upper Columbia tribs. (Methow, Wenatchee etc) would recommend using that card.

Todd -
The move to tribal guides has appeal. The idea would be to transfer all or part of their share to tribal guide fishery. Like the Quinault situation it might require that there be only tribal guides or some such restriction. Not sure how that would fly with some on this board.

Tight Lines
Smalma