Todd -
I think you need to slow down a minute and think about what you just said.

You and others have long been vocal critics of MSH management and the need for alternate management the better serves the fish.

Twodogs attepted to explain how the management of the Snohomish chum represent a break with the past management that you have take such an issue with.

Rather than continue status quo management it appears that the Tribal and State folks came up with an approach that reduced over all fishing rates (exploitations) and resulted in greatly increased escapements of Snohomish chums. According to the data prsented by Twodog over the last 8 years there has been 4 or 5 times as many chums spawning than would have been called for under the previous management paradigm. To my simple mind that would seem to me to be an improvement. Not only do the sport anglers have more fish upon which to fish in the river the increased escapement this approach represents a much more resource risk adverse system.

While this approach does not provide for maximum escapement that some seem to want it does represent a huge break with the past and I would have expected those that took a minute to think about it to have support these kinds of changes. While the paradigm prsented by Twodog may not be perfect it does represent a significant shift risks away from the fish.

BTW - with management for maximum escapement there would very rarely be any fishing of any kind.

I strongly discagree with what appears to be your position in regards to absolute need to have in season management. It seems to me that having a method of changing harvest rates/catches in season will result in over harvest pretty often due to the lack of timely updates. In virtually every case that I'm familar with reliable updates require information from well into the run. As a result an in-seaon update that indicates a larger than expected run allows for adjustment to fish the run down. However when the update is for a smaller run it may be so late that over fishing may have all ready occurred. The result is that the long term average escapements are below goals.

Consider the difference in the current Snohomish chum model. With the cap on the exploitation on large runs very large escapements are seen (witness what has happend with Snohomish chum, pink and coho) and the long term average will be likely be much larger - in the last decade the average escapements are severall times higher than the old goals. In addition those larger escapement should help buffer down turns in the various survival factors. That seem to me to be responsive to concerns that I have heard you and others expressed about "MSH" management.

I'm sure that if Twodog opts to can address your concerns more eloquently than I have.

Regardless I was some what surprised that rather than casting stones at the current paradigm you were not more supportive with such out side of the box think and breaks with past management practices. Is the current paradigm perfect? - of course not. However it does appear to me to be significant improvement with the past and with support provides for the potential of continued developement of "enlighted managment options.

Tight lines
Curt