It's pretty obvious rivers like the Cowlitz, Quinault, Cook Crk and others that receive massive plants get the huge returns. With that comes the crowds of anglers of course. I do agree it would be nice to designate certain rivers to stock motherloads of smolts in. Spread these locations out evenly throughout the state and thus spread the crowds. Question is, at what rivers expense? Also the point Doc brings up is a good one. One factor with coastal rivers that's glaring is the percentage of return adults is much higher than that of the Puget Sound Rivers.

I know this.... I'm tired of watching rivers shut down everywhere with zip opportunities anywhere within a hundred miles. Central and southern Puget sound are toast and seem to have no chance in Hades with our Microsoft Amazon population explosion. Pollution of the sound and tributaries and estuaries don't seem to be helping and groups like WFC just reap the rewards. When most steelbeaders in the state (and outside, even guides) flock to the Olympic peninsula and love those fish to death, we will soon have nothing and baby huey will stomp his way to the next location effectively ruining it too.

So what's the point? To fish or not to fish? What's important to us and our conscience from an environmental sense? Where do we draw the line of do we just give up and stop fishing so our grandchildren may or may not have an opportunity? Can the Puget Sound recover enough to sustain wild fish popluations? Not looking likely and ya cant bring up how well the Skagits doing because it's north of the healthy demarcation line.

I certainly don't have the answers but I hate watching the the last piece of the pie on the OP get decimated because there is no where else to catch a steelhead in the Puget Sound.