When you get right down to it, the only thing really being managed by WDFW in this basin is harvest.

They project what the number of surplus fish available for harvest will be for the season, then set about crafting seasons to maximally harvest that surplus, allocating the "appropriate" percentages of fish to each user group.

The big wild card in this whole game is how many fish actually show up in the terminal run-size. If the run-size comes in as predicted, then the pre-planned harvest numbers should pretty well match what actually gets bonked if a sound harvest management plan is in place.

If the run-size comes in much bigger than anticipated, then the pre-planned fishing season would be expected to harvest more fish by a like percentage, reflecting the increased fishing success that goes along with fishing over more fish. Conversely, if the run-size comes in below forecast, the planned fishing season would actually take less fish simply because fewer fish were available in the first place.

You can't fairly give WDFW credit/criticism for how many fish do or don't show up... they have no real control over that. If you distill it down to basic nuts and bolts, their primary management objective is to control harvest..... nothing more, nothing less. They set a harvest objective, then plan a season to maximally harvest that objective. Giving them the benefit of the doubt on the undeniable uncertainties of run-size forecasting, the only thing they should be given credit/criticism for is how well they meet that harvest objective.

When you really think about it, they are not really in the business of managing fish, they're actually in the business of managing people..... specifically the people who exploit the fish. And the bottom line is that when they fail to manage people accordingly, the fish are over-exploited. The pre- and post-season harvest numbers are proof-positive that fisheries managers are unable/unwilling to design enough restraint in their seasons to responsibly meet their stated harvest objectives without going over. It's an alarming pattern.

The most egrigious faux pas' in recent memory occurred in 2005 and 2006.

Basin-wide chinook harvest in 2005 was THREE TIMES what was originally planned. How does anyone justify harvesting 3000 kings on a run-size forecast that was already 3000 fish below escapement? At a time when no fisheries were supposed to be purposefully targeting chinook? In the end, they missed their stated management objective of 1100 "incidental" mortalities by nearly 200%. And even accounting for an unexpected windfall of returning chinook, they still missed their exploitation rate objective by 50%.

The final harvest numbers for 2006 reflect another season of embarrassing over-exploitation of chinook. In MA 2-2 alone, FIVE TIMES as many kings were bonked in the bay than what managers budgeted for the two week recreational kill season ( 1065 versus 215). Overall, the 2006 non-treaty harvest of Chehalis chinook was nearly TRIPLE the management objective set forth by WDFW. To make matters worse the 2006 tribal harvest numbers showed that the QIN overfished their treaty share by a factor of more than 350% (1634 versus 462). Is it any wonder the minimum escapement goal for Chehalis chinook was not met?

Look we all know that WDFW management holds maximum harvest on a holy pedestal..... HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST.... to the absolute maximum that can be supported by the forecasts. And the objective's mantra is "no fish left behind" on the allocation table.

FINE... so be it. It's a legislative mandate, or so we're told.

But fish managers need to be honest with themselves (and the public they serve) regarding the validity of the harvest models being utilized to plan our fishing seasons. They simply do not reflect reality when it comes to the participants' inherent harvest efficiencies and their actual capacity to exploit wild salmon.

The time for change is LONG overdue.