I agree with Dave,

The Naselle is the obviously the superior habitat for chinook in the bay. That said, none of it resembles typical chinook habitat.

As Eyefish alluded earlier, the primary decision was really a political/management decision based on minimizing gear conflict. If the fish were a consideration, it was a weak plan from the start to let politics trump biology, several argued against it, but unfortunately politcal winds blow hard.

For what its worth the plan has worked in minimizing gear conflict, but that's a pretty low bar when you're eliminating fisheries by your management plan. The 2000-2008 era had minimal gear conflict in the north bay as the competing fisheries were segregated in time (Recs before sept 15, Nets after), for reasons unknown the political will to sustain this paradigm was lost.


Now we should correct course. Its time to stop trying to put a square peg in the round hole. I think Dave's plan above could accomplish what is needed. Alternatively, we need to abandon the idea of managing for a recreational priority in WB. What we're doing now will not sustain a rec fishery of any size and is not managing for any kind of recreational priority. The third option would be to abandon hatchery operations after over 100 years.