I think the your question opens a very large can of worms. The biggest gap in knowledge of our fisheries is in the marine and estuary environments. We can monitor and study juveniles out migrating in the river and we can do the same when fish return to spawn. But once these fish hit the saltwater fisheries managers struggle with tracking migratory patterns and life histories. Some studies have been done and are in progress to learn more about Puget sound survival and estuary life histories (which on a side note, a seal and sea lion scat study was done in 2007-08 showing over population and large amounts of predation on particular sizes of salmonids in Puget sound, nothing has been done, same study done again in 2014-15 with similar results).
The truth is state and tribal managers rely on the CWT program to track catch rates on particular stocks in most marine areas, some test fisheries as well, but neither of these means of tracking stocks in the marine environment is efficient, especially with bias in CWT tagging rates in some hatcheries. Essentially, you can't tag 100% of fish from one hatchery, and 10% from another hatchery and expect to see similar recoveries. Canada plays a large role in our inefficiency of tag recover and tracking marine migratory patterns in the saltwater. Hence, why the southern end of Vancouver island has nearly a year round fishery in the essentially the same waters that we are limited to a few months a year.
I understand where you are coming from. Why should 5 have a summer fishery and not East 6 when based on WDFW logic other protected stocks, like the stillaguamish summer chinook, have to navigate through more boats and hooks than the Dungeness stock. There's got to be a change in our management practices and research, which will be expensive, which requires our politicians to allocate funds more appropriately, AKA quit putting our fish and wildlife money into the state general fund and re-allocating for other purposes...