Originally Posted By: blenny
Originally Posted By: Larry B
Originally Posted By: IrishRogue
Originally Posted By: GodLovesUgly
It's pretty clear the escapement forecast was drastically under-calculated.


There are WAY more pinks than the forecast, that's true.

It seems worth mentioning that this is not a "calculation" mistake really -- it's really more a reflection that calculating fish returns is at BEST an informed estimation. While I appreciate and value those pre-season estimates, they are not great tools for managing fisheries IMO. Mid-season adjustments should be a larger part of season management -- even though I know people get frustrated by them.

The alternative is to treat the pre-season estimates as gospel -- which OVER harvests the resource when the pre-season estimate is too large, and cuts seasons off EARLY when the pre-season estimate is too conservative. Both suck.


Okay, point taken. So, their SWAG was way off......hopefully the silvers will also return significantly above the SWAG.

(SWAG = Scientific wild ass guess)



its pretty irresponsible to spread the idea that NOAA numbers and models are wild ass guesses. yes there are errors associated with them but what is the alternative? this is akin to lambasting the weather man for a random rain shower when 90% of the time forecasts are correct and provide numerous benefits to public safety and general enjoyment. do you look at the forecast before you go out fishing? i would say that weather and climate modeling have greatly increased my fishing enjoyment and safety. I'm also not so dense that i believe the models are supposed to be 100% correct and I will use my eyes and gut if things change when I'm fishing bigger water on a boat. NOAA even has a weather model/river flow model that is extremely useful for picking your fishing dates if you aren't retired and have limited time to fish. you think it was luck that their chinook forecast for the puget sound was pretty spot on? the fact we have as good of models on migratory salmon is amazing and the result of tons of hard work by scientists and public investment and sitting back smug when they aren't spot on is just silly...


Sorry if I hit a nerve but I don't see describing what is going on as a SWAG is irresponsible. If the process had a statistically high degree of accuracy over the years I would apologize but that simply isn't the case. Now, if I had said that projections were purely wild ass guesses your comment would be correct but I gave acknowledgment to the scientific aspect which draws fairly big circles......
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)