"We characterize the overall impacts of the fishery in terms of grand-total estimates of encounters and mortalities and by using estimates specific to each of the four size/mark-status groups (i.e., legal-marked [LM], sublegal-marked [SM], legal-unmarked [LU], and sublegal-unmarked [SU]....

....To understand the potential effects of mark-selective Chinook fisheries on the CWT program, we estimate the total number of unmarked-tagged Chinook mortalities that may have occurred during the course of the mark-selective Chinook season in each Marine Catch Area. To do this, we acquire information for all marked CWT double index tag (DIT) groups present in landed catch from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission‘s Regional Mark Information System (RMIS) and then apply the methods described by the Pacific Salmon Commission‘s Selective Fisheries Evaluation Committee–Analysis Work Group (SFEC-AWG 2002) to estimate the number of unmarked DIT fish encountered6."

They classify the fish by M and UM for Adult and Sub, and then use an estimate to account for potential DIT group fish encountered/morts.... Why not just wand them and have a KNOWN proportion, if nothing else to confirm the RMIS estimate used in the estimates.

My point in asking is I have often wondered how many Puget Sound UMs are truly "Wild" and not DIT or unclipped hatchery.