Chum Man,
That's a perfectly reasonable question. While it's always subject to varying personal interpretations, the relevant factor is whether surplus wild chinook or steelhead exist that may be harvested without jeopardizing the respective populations from which they're harvested. With only 10 or 12 rivers remaining out of formerly 160-some producing harvestable surpluses of wild steelhead, according to WDFW and the respective treaty Indian tribes that co-manage those rivers, other people, with an equally reasonable perspective, feel that when the state is down to so few rivers, and so few steelhead deemed harvestable, then just maybe the more prudent management course of action is to discontinue directed harvests.
Harvestable wild chinook still exist in WA State, being produced in the mid-Columbia (URBs) and coastal WA rivers. Most of the wild chinook found in the marketplace, however, are from Alaska and to a lesser extent, Canada.
There would be little wrong with advertizing wild chinook or steelhead on a menu if the fish come from healthy populations that actually produce a bonafide surplus. Then you have the social issue that has nothing to do with fisheries. Because steelhead were declared a game fish in WA in about 1935, a lot of folks don't take well to the idea of steelhead being commerically harvested and sold. Like I say, that's a social issue and not an ecological one.
Sincerely,
Salmo g.