I get that poor ocean conditions led to the poor forecast. I also get that ocean conditions affect relative abundance each year more than any other factor. What I don't get is how maximizing impacts in the ocean fisheries (where we don't know what we're catching and everything dies) is sound management of a dangerously low forecast. Reduced impacts in the ocean would leave a much-needed cushion for Puget Sound, the rivers, AND THE GRAVEL. Seems to me the Tribes would be on board with that kind of change, but I'm probably wrong.

I was wrong to suggest that NMFS was directly responsible for the potential closures (thanks for reminding me of the rules that are the real driver, Smalma). That said, I do believe that the open ocean quotas they set, year in and year out, are what undermines every attempt we make at improving habitat, hatcheries, etc. from being successful (in terms of salmonid recovery).

My favorite example these days is habitat. It's the Tribes' favorite argument for exonerating themselves of any responsibility for declining stocks, so it seems apropos for this thread. I'll start by saying the Tribes are absolutely correct in placing emphasis on habitat. Where they lose credibility as concerned stewards is in their refusal to accept that their harvest practices are part of the problem with the habitat (a river with gillnets at the mouth is far less hospitable to migrating salmon than one without). Furthermore, the habitat work that is being done has very nearly zero chance to result in recovery, because no fish are left to seed the recovered habitat by the time the run reaches it. Why? Because escapement goals never increase. If the forecast is good, the quota for every fishery is increased to scoop up the "surplus" fish. Those "surplus" fish represent the opportunity for salmon to take advantage of habitat improvements. Seems dead fish do a poor job of spawning.

Our friend eyeFISH once stood up at a NOF meeting and said to Ron Warren that the only times Chinook have recently met escapement goals in Grays Harbor have been in years where the salmon forecast turned out to be far less than the actual returns. Makes the case that in order for salmon to exceed their planned escapements, they need to overwhelm us with numbers we weren't anticipating. Fortunately, they did just that in 2014. Unfortunately, the ocean conditions went south in 2015. Because the Co-Managers were anticipating a repeat of 2014, they planned fisheries with liberal limits. By the time they figured out the fish weren't coming, the damage was done.

My point is that if salmon are to have a future, yes, we will have to stop destroying their habitat. Yes, we will have to figure out better ways to run hatcheries. Until we stop managing to the last fish, however, no amount of work we do will make any difference.

One last thought. "Cultural" differences are often cited as reasons why the State and the Tribes can't get together on these issues. I would argue that may be true, but I believe the only cultural difference that really matters is that the Tribal interest in fishing is commercial, while ours is recreational. Pretty simple. A guy who makes money off dead fish is gonna want more dead fish. A guy who just wants to catch a fish for fun wants to see more of them alive.

We need to dispense with the lies surrounding these issues and focus our efforts on getting ocean quotas reduced, not so we can fish more, but so there can be more fish. Even a small reduction percentage-wise could make a big difference, especially in times of great uncertainty (like these).