RT,

I think you may have missed the point of Salmo's idea about decreasing hatchery production on Columbia River hatcheries.

Mitchell Act, and other, concerns aside, I think this was his point:

1. The amount of hatchery fish in the river does not create the allowable ESA impact. The amount of ESA fish creates the allowable ESA impact.

2. Assume there are 100,000 non-tribal hatchery fish to be caught and that there are 2500 ESA fish to be caught as allowable impact. (There are more hatchery fish than that in the river, but that is the allowable take within ESA impact limits).

3. The tribal fishers get 50,000 fish, sportfishers get, say, 20,000 fish, and the non-tribal commercials get 30,000 fish. (I don't know the actual distribution this year, but it doesn't really change the point.)

4. The non-tribal commercials are barely making any money off of their 30,000 fish, since prices are ridiculously low. The sportfishing industry is making bank off of all the sportfishing taking place in the Lower Columbia.

5. Cut hatchery production in half. Now the tribes get 25,000 fish, non-tribal commercials get 15,000, and sporties get 10,000. The amount of ESA fish in the river, of course, is unchanged.

6. Non-tribal commercials cannot economically justify fishing, so their 15,000 go back to the sporties. Now we have 25K instead of 20K.

7. Since we have removed a non-selective fishery from the mix (non-tribal commercials) that was going to take approximately 1300 ESA fish (2.5% x 30,000 fish caught), those 1300 allowable ESA fish can be used to increase the overall take of available hatchery fish. The increase is all hatchery fish available up to 30,000.

8. Here's the final deal: Tribes catch at least as many as before because they get a chunk of the previously unavailable hatchery fish because a non-selective fishery that took ESA fish is out of the mix. Same with the sportfishermen.

9. Sportfishermen spend at least as much money, but likely more because their take will probably increase. NSIA, etc., should be ecstatic. So should we!

10. Money is saved by the hatchery programs, and may be either reallocated somewhere else where they need it, or used to increase efficiency and productivity on the same hatcheries.

That's pretty simplified, but I think that's what Salmo was trying to say. Salmo?

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. Everyone take a glance at the thread about the Wild Steelhead Coalition's February meeting, get the info., and go check it out, eh?