Sg, I'm fully aware of the reasoning behind the harvest rates for some of the Puget Sound and LCR populations, but needing to have high harvest rates to remove tons of hatchery fish while "incidentally" harvesting natural populations at levels that cannot be sustained simply doesn't cut it. Particularly when all of these populations are listed and some are essential for recover. That approach is part of what got us where we are.

The only reason that I am making this point is because of what I perceive as your dismissal of harvest being an issue anywhere. That simply is not the case, either for some listed ESU's or for many of the unlisted populations where nobody is concerned (since they're not listed) or nobody is watching (since they're not listed).

I would be interested though Sg, in your suggested approach for watersheds that are essential or important for recovery and have large hatchery programs located in the watershed. Seems to me the only way out is to have a high level or selective harvest or reduce hatchery production significantly. Or, I guess, simply ignore them.