For that plan, or any recovery plan, too work, more fish have to survive AND spawn. Numbers of spawners have to go UP.

Habitat is critical, it is being fixed, and it will be years, if not decades before that work will show up in increased spawner numbers.

The two areas that continue to kill fish are predation and harvest. NOAA, for whatever political reasons, is fixated on harvest south of the BC/WA border. While it is probably the least effective place to act, it seems to be the only place they are willing to act. Perhaps it is the only place the Tribes are willing to exert influence.

As much as folks want to kill fish, until the stocks rebound there really is no justification to keep on what we have been doing as it doesn't work.

ESA had the "Gad Squad" where a species can be delisted because it "can't (read won't) be saved." Do we really want to do that? Species are listed under ESA because choices we have made are driving them to extinction. When keeping them around becomes too inconvenient why do we even try to save them at all? We caused this problem. Are we (society) simply saying that nothing is worth saving of it is inconvenient or doesn't allow me to do as I wish?