eyefish-
Thanks for the clarification; can say I am surprised that was the way things played out. I also agree that if there are to be some limitations on the WB recreational marine fishery drawing that line is likely the less painful way to go though as you say the Columbia model gains from such a move has to be dubious.

When I look at the forecasts that becomes even more questionable. This year the WB chinook forecast was 44,000 and the Columbia fall forecasts was 357,000 (both include both hatchery and wild fish). In the previous 5 years the WB forecast average 34,400 (range from 27.1 K to 39.3 K and the Columbia forecast 917,800 (range from 568.9K to 1,518.7K) meaning that the ratio of the of Columbia dip-in fish to WB fish in the bay will be the lowest in recent years.

There does appear to be some irony in that we all complain about the high degree interception of "our" fish in northern fishery (BC and Alaska) yet the managers appear to be more than willing to limit the more terminal fisheries to provide as much opportunity in our largest mixed stock fishery (the ocean). I guess it makes a difference who is doing the intercepting!

If this Willapa Bay closure zone is the going to be the new paradigm it will clearly continue the under cutting of placing a high priority on recreational fishery.

Curt