The problem is basic: Despite overwhelming evidence that history repeats itself, humans are too stupid (greedy?) to accept that doing the same thing that doesn't work, over and over again, leads to the same downfall, time and time again.

Lots of talk here about pay to play, lottery-based fishing opportunity, much like what is done in much of Europe, but what isn't being discussed is what led those countries to the point at which that management paradigm became necessary, which was, without reasonable question, chronic overharvest of the target species in commercial fisheries. Sound familiar?

How about another option for those of you willing to pay to play; one that wouldn't necessarily limit who gets to fish? Instead of paying for tags or lottery tickets, how about pooling those dollars and making a few campaign contributions that might inspire some of our noble and incorruptible legislators to back legislation that limits non-tribal, commercial salmon harvest by 50%, in the name of "conserving our state's most iconic natural resource?"

Let's face it: if you want results in our system, you let your wallet do the talking. I don't like it, but I accept it as reality, and unless you're hopelessly naive or flat-out stupid, you should do the same. The commercial lobby understands this, and it explains why 90% of whatever fish are out there get allocated to their fisheries.

So what benefit do steelhead get from increasing wild salmon escapement by 50%? Maybe none at all, but in theory, the nutrients the additional carcasses provide should improve the overall productivity of each stream, which should mean some improvement in fry ans smolt survival, for salmon and steelhead alike, and, subsequently, better adult returns. If no meaningful benefit is realized, we can return to the business of figuring out how much it will cost prospecting anglers to get in a drawing that gives them a chance to be allowed to fish over numbers that won't produce bites on most days. Can you tell I think that's a chitty solution? I realize it's very likely where we're headed, but I'm not at a point where I'm ready to settle for that just yet.

I've also proposed figuring out how to redesign hatcheries to support maximum, terminal harvest, in locations where the hatchery fish can be largely segregated from wild fish, then turning over the cost of operating hatcheries to commercial interests. That way, they get out what they put into it, and they can stop killing wild salmon in the open ocean, which should significantly increase the numbers of spawners returning to our rivers. It really seems to me like this would be a win-win-win scenario (for commercial interests, sporties, and the fish). Of course, this solution, assuming it's even possible, would be extremely costly up front, which means it's not likely to be considered seriously.

Reducing commercial harvest in the open ocean to increase escapements, as I proposed above, would carry very little cost (virtually none, by comparison), and the decreased supply of salmon in the market would drive the price up, establishing salmon as the premium, luxury food item they realistically should be. As in most premium markets, there would be buyers lining up, and they would pay whatever would be necessary to make the seafood processors, buyers, and fishermen whole.

Absent a drastic change in course, the writing will indeed be on the wall for our wild salmon and steelhead. I'd like to think we might change the course of human history by doing what is necessary to ensure a meaningful future for these species, but given our track record, I'm not altogether encouraged, as that would mean sacrifice, which is a concept often uttered, but rarely undertaken.