ReiterRat-
Great questions -
The fish and the conditions in the river determines carrying capacity of the system. In Western Washington most often the factor that limits the total capacity is the amount of "over-winter habitat. That is the amount habitat that provides refuge to the small parr from our winter floods.

Certainly the safest management for the fish to allow them to reach carrying capacity as often as possible. There are many that feel we should manage at that point. Mother nature certainly did a good job of that without our help. For those who feel that the regulations are too complex this is also the simpliest to manage for. Basically it means closed waters (no fishing) - can't get any simplier than that.
To achieve carrying capacity at average or worst conditions there can not be any unnautral mortalities.

Since I'm a fisher and hope to continue to fish and assume that most readers also do I decided to put forth a guideline that would allow fishing. I also believe that the long survival of our rivers and their fish needs political advocates.
Since the latest Washington angler preference survey (often referred to here on this board) found that when asked the question of "what the daily limit of wild steelhead the anglers preferred?" 78.1% reported 1 or more. Clearly there remains a large group that wishes to at least keep the occasional fish.

The proposed guidelines for average or better conditions were designed with the MSH reference point as the minimum escapement. The exploitation rates would be chosen by review past management to see what the exploitation was under various season lengths, what the "management imprecision" -how poorly the managers have done, etc. I was my guess that typically that would allow harvest rates of 10 to 20% on most systems. It would result in escapements being consistently above MSH and may reach average carrying capacity with above average survival conditions. Management success would be achieving consistent escapements above MSH. This is much different that MSH management which generally considered any escapements above the MSH goal as failed management.

As in some trout waters it is possible that as catch and release becomes more popular that all the "allowable" mortality could be taken by hooking mortality. At that point clearly effort would need to be reduced.

You mentioned the great salmon returns this pas season. The returns to the Snohomish (Assume by your name that is your home water)the largest chinook escapement in 35 years, largest coho and pink escapements in at least World War II were truly amazing. The salmon on the Snohomish are managed for wild production and under a scheme very similar the guidelines that I had proposed. Looks to me that if you goal is to have larger escapements the proposed system would do that.

Would the escapements large enough? That would be for each of us to answer. Were do you think we should be? What would you give up to get there?

As I have mentioned many times the largest arena tht needs addressing is the habitat area. We as a society continue to use much of the systems productivity to support something other than fish.

Off to work.

Tigh Lines
Smalma