Impact on wild stocks is the nail used to tie all the conservation and restrictions together. Less impact on wild fish = better odds for recovery (so says the party line)
The elephant in the room that no one wants to address is the non-selective fisheries that are conducted on ESA listed fish.

Sport anglers are mandated to rules that reduce impacts and are given substantial fines for violating these rules. Further, recreational fishermen support the majority of the conservation efforts toward restoration and hatchery supplementation. Then there is the financial contributions to the state and communities by the sportsmen. Yet, our co-managers and commercial communities are continuing to use (and be allowed to use) gill-nets, which account for significant impact to wild stock. So, the fallacy of WDFW making decisions and using "conservation" and "reduced impacts" are all smoke and mirrors. The truth is, stocks are dwindling for a number of reason, and overharvest by commercial fleets is a major one. But it is much easier to place restrictions on the recreational fishermen then the politically connected tribes and commercials. The only recourse sports fishermen have is to complain, and that doesn't impact those that make the deals!