If the purpose of the ESA is to maintain or recover threatened and endangered ESUs (discreet stocks within populations), then one needs to ask which native and wild stocks would be maintained? Sam knows very well that the past management actions, like the south sound HSMZ (hatchery salmon management zone) have already extirpated these wild stocks. The only coho to recover in these locations would be locally adapted populations of Green River hatchery origin coho. This would be like using the ESA to develop wild populations of Chambers Creek steelhead in all Puget Sound rivers, excepting that it could actually work with coho, unlike the Chambers Creek steelhead.

I don't see how this action will "go after" the ocean fisheries. The ocean fisheries are already constrained by natural stock exploitation rates for north sound (excluding Nooksack) wild coho stocks. That action allows plenty of south sound coho to return. It's the local management plan (terminal area hatchery wipe-out fishery in the jargon) that prevents south sound tributaries from receiving sufficient natural spawners. Putting an end to that is no big deal, really, but what higher objective is served when those wild stocks are already gone? I guess I just don't see the point or benefits of a listing in this case.

Sg