I will step up in the agency's defense for a brief moment.

When one considers that the principle objective of the policy is conservation/recovery of a self-sustaining wild chinook population, choosing Willlapa/Forks as the primary stream is still arguably the better choice in giving the agency the best opportunity for success.

That it comes at the expense of entrenched fisheries is a necessary consequence of reducing hatchery production to allow the wild component to flourish.

That would happen regardless of whether Naselle or Willapa was selected as primary. It's a necessary win-lose for those wishing to continue extracting chinook from the basin.

The "lose" side of that equation is the loss of entrenched rec fisheries launching out of Tokeland, Smith Creek, and South Bend.

If recs want to find the win for chinook, they will have to migrate into the south bay for that reward. Yeah it sucks to have to learn a new fishery, but the opportunity is definitely there. Intrepid anglers willing to do a bit of exploring WILL be rewarded, even if it means using new/different launch sites.

....

And just to be fair, let's suppose Naselle was selected primary. The agency would move the entire commercial fleet north to keep them off the Naselle fish. So while we would get to stay in the comfort zone of our traditional launch sites, rec and comm would be crammed into the same piece of water in the north bay, further exacerbating the existing gear conflicts between the two groups.

....


Nature of the beast. We would end up at the same destination either way..... only difference is we would maintain our comfort zone launching out of Tokeland/Smith/South Bend.