CM -
I would agree that the Chinook mark rate has increased. From what I saw last week in our catch and at the dock I thught it may have been in the 2/3 range. Of course the sample size was pretty small which is why I was asking what other folks saw.

I understand and agree with you about the quality of URBs that cut well on the grill. I don't know what it is with the coho but it seems to me that they are consistently of higher table quality than our Puget Sound fish.

Salmo g.
I asked the question about voluntarily releasing those unmarked Chinook because folks here on this site have consistently talked about wild fish protection and selective fishing. However I now see that if the fish taste good and are from what the State thinks is a healthy stock that "bonking" is approved of. Guess that means that most would not have issues with the taking of a wild Quilayute steelhead whose wild population is likely more robust than those Columbia Chinook.

OncyT
It has been recognized that one of the negatives of having hatchery fish (especially Chinook) retruning to a system is the masking of the status of the wild population. I seem to remember reading somewhere (god only knows where) that the distribution of the URBs spawning has shifted recently with fewer using the Columbia and more in the Snake. Do you have any information or insight on that potential shift? And if so would that represent a loss of NORs and an increase in natural spawning hatchery fish?

BTW -
I have no issue with taking fish from healthy populations; I just brought up the issue to see where folks were in regards to Columbia Chinook. I kind of suspected that releasing unclipped tules wasn't the issue as with those up river brights. In addition it provides another opportunity to illustrate the complexity of fisheries management.

Tight lines
Curt