I believe that the following succinctly addresses the issue of 'Forgone Opportunity'.

This is a copy/paste from another discussion board concerning this issue.

Thanks to Todd Ripley.

posted 11-06-2001 09:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtsey of Todd Ripley:


2. Foregone opportunity: The tribes will catch and kill all the fish we release, so we should kill them first. This is exactly what WDFW steelhead managers want you to believe. Even if it were true, what would be the motivation to kill them ourselves? Again, greed is the only one I can come up with. "If you're going to kill them (tribes), then I'm going to do it first."

It seems that sport fishers are quick to criticize the WDFW managers when they make management and harvest decisions, and to claim that they are in with the tribes, and that they're selling us out, and that they want to modify hatchery practices to minimize the impacts to wild fish, and that their regulations are confusing with limited openings here and there so as to allow mixed stock fisheries while attempting to reduce impacts on depressed runs, etc., etc., etc., ....and then to accept wholeheartedly with nothing legal, biological, or historical to back it up, when they say the tribes will kill all the ones we c&r. Why does this happen? Unless someone has an argument to change my mind, greed is the answer again.

Anything done that is perceived to limit our opportunities to fill our freezers is grounds for distrust and anger for WDFW, even if it has justifications that are easy to realize. Anything that makes it easier for us to fill our freezers is the WDFW finally putting fish first (in our freezers), and is accepted even if there is no justification whatsoever.

3. Political issues with c&r: In spite of the high horse that every non-tribal steelhead fisherman seems to place himself on, due to the fact that they don't use nets to kill fish, but do it the "honorable" way by catching them with hook and line and hitting them with a stick or a rock, everyone else in the northwest who doesn't steelhead fish thinks we are at best no different, and in most cases worse, than tribal fishers. We are perceived as greedy racists who want to kill fish and we're mad because every fish the tribe kills is one that we didn't get to.

Why is that perception there? Because it is pretty close to the truth. And don't for one minute think that that perception doesn't exist and doesn't have a basis in truth.

How do we change that perception and gain political clout with the rest of the world that doesn't fish (i.e., the great majority of the people in the NW)? Take away the basis for the perception. Stop being greedy. Put the fish first. Leave the tribal fishers being the only ones who intentionally kill wild fish.

4. Collateral anti-c&r issues: Lots of these exist, and they look like extensions of the "me, me, me" greed principle.

The high mortality associated with c&r is unacceptable. Why release them when they all die anyway? We may as well just put them in our freezer so they don't get wasted. Yeah, right. All credible studies put the mortality, depending on gear types and release techniques, between 3% and 7%, give or take. WDFW would have you believe it's more like 15%, though there is no justification for that number. Even if it is 15%, that equals and 85% non-mortal release. I haven't seen any studies, but I think I can confidently say that somewhere near 100% of fish hit with sticks and stuck in coolers are incapable of successful spawning. Why is this 100% mortality acceptable when 3%-15% mortality associated with c&r is not? Because one puts fish in our freezers, and the other doesn't. Unless there's another answer, greed is it again.

WDFW will lose license sales if we don't have kill seasons. First, anyone who's launched a boat at Howard Miller, Marblemount, Government Bridge, or anywhere else on the Sauk or Skagit, in March or April, knows that there are LOTS of folks who are fishing c&r seasons. They bought licenses, not to mention hundreds of dollars of other items to be there for a chance to c&r a magnificent wild steelhead. Second, license sales have nothing to do with WDFW budgetary concerns; the money goes into the general fund, not to WDFW. Their budget comes from the general fund, not from license sales.

How do we as sportsmen improve our lot in life? We educate ourselves on the science, history, and laws that control fisheries. We apply what we have learned to our own actions. Without the credibility lent from a little self-inspection and self-control, we are both no better than other user groups or perceived as being any better. We put fish first, and then instead of paying lip service to that, we actually do it. It is very transparent to everyone when sportsmen are "fish first" when it comes to nets, but "freezer first" when it comes to our fishing.

The science shows that c&r kills very few fish, and that catch and kill does. It also shows that more fish spawning equals more fish in the river, better fitness, greater genetic potential, and greater ability to deal with environmental shifts (i.e., marine conditions).

The history of fisheries managment in Washington shows that whatever we're doing now flat out does not work. Fish have been managed to extinction or near extinction throughout the NW. History has also shown that foregone opportunity has never been shown to be the hobgoblin that our steelhead managers would have you believe. History has also shown that every time non-tribal fishermen have fought against the tribes they have been sent home with their tails between their legs. Back in the late '60's sportsmen complained that the tribes were catching too many (6%-10%) salmon and steelhead. The final result? The Boldt decision. That means 50%. This is what happens when sportsmen get greedy.

The law and the history are somewhat intertwined, what with the Boldt decision controlling the relationship with tribal co-managers. The law does not support the fear of foregone opportunity, in fact is supports our ability to c&r without fear of tribal reaction.

Todd.

----------------------------------
Again, courtsey of Todd Ripley:

Challenged asked:

1) Why is the state so concerned over the "foregone opportunity" issues? Will this increase the tribes catch before it reaches the CnR fishing grounds?

I can't help but feel that the state is so wedded to catch and kill because that's the way they have always done it. To change pace now would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong in the first place and that ocean conditions and Indians weren't the only causes for declining fish runs. Therefore, when all credible science points to the validity of cnr as a scientific, economic, and sociological factor in returning our native fish runs to anything at all like historical levels, scare tactics and questionable justifications must be used to defend their untenable positions.

The proposal language lamenting the fear of foregone opportunity smacks of 1950's moms telling their daughters that they'll get pregnant if they kiss a boy in the back of a car. The only published case that ever even remotely dealt with this issue said that the 50/50 split rule from the Boldt decision requires only that each party be given the opportunity to harvest their half of the fish, not that they necessarily get harvested. If more than half of the harvestable portion of a run is netted in the lower river by tribal fishers then non-tribal fishers have been denied their opportunity.

The foregone opportunity doctrine at worst doesn't mean anything, and at best supports our ability to have cnr seasons.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: 4Salt ]