It is baffling when put that way.The regs that allow wild coho retention in MA 10 and MA 11 still seem odd to me, while MA 9 has wild coho release required.
If you just look at the Snohomish, Stilly and Hood Canal, the forecast is for a combined 117K wild fish this year.
I understand the Snohomish is the driving force behind MA 9 wild coho release.
If you take the mid and Deep South, the combined forecast is for 27K wild fish.
It isn’t like the Green, Puyallup and Nisqually have been great wild coho producers for a long time. The Puyallup being the best with a forecast of 10K wild coho. The Green is a whopping 1,500 and the Nisqually is 3,200.
I’m not advocating for wild coho harvest in MA 9, but more so interested in what drives the decision they can be harvested in MA 10 and MA 11 for that matter.
The numbers, at least to me don’t justify wild coho retention in 10 or 11.
Have they just given up on mid and south sound wild coho?
If that is the case, how about giving up on wild Stilly chinook as well.
You can also harvest wild coho in MA 12 but not in MA 13.
The answer lies with the tribes, I believe. They enjoy the wipeout coho fisheries. They also enjoy leveraging Stilly Chinook for their own benefit. It get's back to the entirety of PS permitting and the state having little to no power. Certainly confusing.