Originally Posted By: OncyT
Originally Posted By: Larry B
Whatever the number it probably is more than a paltry few. But let's take a look at the number for 2017 - 52,203 fish. But wait, there is that little footnote "a" to consider. In part it reveals that for the years 1989 to present the numbers have been adjusted by .685 due to estimates being 46% too high. Hmmm, then there is footnote "c" which indicates 2017 and 2018 numbers (actually none listed for 2018) are preliminary.

So, assuming that the 52,203 for 2017 is preliminary and not adjusted then using the prior adjustment figure the 2017 number would be 35,759. That number falls in line with numbers back to 1998. (Editorial: I would really like to see that recreational Chinook break-out by MA).

I don't think you can assume that just because the number is preliminary that it hasn't already been adjusted. Typically the difference between something being reported as preliminary and final is that either some catches aren't available yet or the estimate has not been reviewed by whatever method that particular co-manager uses before declaring a data set final. I don't believe that the Pacific Council would use one methodology to come up with a preliminary catch estimate and then another methodology (e.g. adding the adjustment) for final estimates.

Nevertheless, the catch disparity is still significant, just closer to 2.1 times the state harvest rather than 2.8. Until the state fisheries move away from mixed stock fisheries that are restrained by weak stock management, this disparity will probably always exist.



Absent a clear explanation with the data as presented I chose an interpretation which put the adjusted preliminary figure more in line with data from recent years albeit still higher. Maybe the Council needs to be provide better definitions.

Anyway, another approach is to look at the average for the prior ten years data as presented which is 34,266 and ask the whiff test question. If the 52,203 figure for 2017 is already adjusted and assumed to be pretty close and the prior ten year average is 34,266 did we recs really catch 52.3% more Chinook in Puget Sound in 2017 than the prior ten year average?

Moving past that little exercise we are in full agreement with the bigger picture as portrayed by the data - the disparity between tribal and State harvest of Chinook.
_________________________
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)