Bingo! This is just my two cents worth but we have been starving our creeks and rivers for years for many of the reasons you listed. As I drove by a couple local streams the other day aroma of spawning success was in the air. So, what does that have to do with this topic? In this case it means that fish (probably chum and coho) have completed the natural cycle. They have spawned and their decomposing bodies have been returned to the stream with some of the nutrients to be consumed my the emerging fry.

Now drive down any of our larger streams, that aroma is pretty much missing. Back in the '70's down in southwest WA I remember seeing the East Fork and main Lewis River chocked full of decaying carcasses of kings and coho (there was no wild or hatchery controversy back then either).

Therein lies a big problem that has flown under the radar. We have been starving our salmon and steelhead smolts once they are released as smolts or hatched as fry. That natural cycle is important and we have been shortchanging our streams for years by WDFW selling of the "surplus" to fill their pockets. Whether they're smolts or fry, all of them require food which is based on nutrients left from those decaying carcasses. It doesn't matter if the food is in the river or estuary, they need to eat.

Basically our rivers have become sterile and it doesn't matter how much money you are spending on habitat, hatchery improvements or whatever, it's just a waste of money. Look at the Hood Canal rivers, they have pristine environments but returns for salmon and steelhead especially, are very poor across the board (except for the Skok but that's another topic). Well, what about the chum, they seem to be doing well? Different scenario. Chum (and Pinks), hatch and go straight to the ocean. Coho and Chinook spend a great deal of time in the stream and estuary. I'm no scientist, but we can argue all we want but it's common sense when the smolts never make it to the ocean because of lack of food we're wasting everyone's time and money.