Wow; an interesting and intense discussion.

Clearly this issue shows the value of watchdog groups. Sometimes they are needed to nudge folks in the proper direction.

Ramon - Thanks for taking the time to post and present more detailed information.

How about the trout fishery in the Columbia Basin seep lakes as a sport fishery supported by a hatchery program?

However what caught my interest was your reference to Washington Trout's suit against NMFS regarding the Resource Management Plan (RMP) governing fisheries affecting Puget Sound chinook. WT's new release states: "Washington Trout does not oppose commerical salmon-harversting in all cases and does not intent to challenge tribal treaty-fishing rights." No where in the release is there any mention of recreation fishing; does WT have a position regarding the recreation fisheries?

Am I correct in that the major crux of the suit is that the RMP allows excessive harvest or impacts of ESA protected Puget Sound chinook? If so what would WT consider to be acceptable impacts? Can those impacts be brought down w/o aftecting the all ready limited recreational fishing? The harvest model run used for the 2002 salmon season (based on the NMFS approved RMP stock specific expliotation rates)in North of Falcon process showed that much of the non-treaty impacts occurred in the recreational fishery; mostly as incidental impacts in fisheries directed toward either hatchery chinook or other species.

WTs news release also states:" Harvest aimed at hatchery stocks impose unacceptable risks to threatened wild stocks mingled in with the hatchery fish." Does that mean WT is opposed to selective fisheries (retention of marked hatchery fish only) when ESA protected fish are present?

In WT's comments to NMFS regarding the RMP the Snohmish basin chinook was used as an example. The comments correctly state that the explioation rates (ER) for those fish has declined from nealry 80% in the late 1970s to 55% by mid-1990s to 35% in the late 1990s. The harvest model run for the 2002 season shows a projected ER of less than 20%. It is also correct in that there hasn't much a positive response in wild chinook escapements (limited upturn the last 3 or 4 years). Doesn't that strike you as odd? With substantial reduction in fishing I would expect to see some sort of postive response in escapment. What is even more interesting is that since the mid-1990s there has been a 4 fold increase in escapement of chinook to the Wallace hatchery on the Snohomish system; precisely the kind of response expected with reduced fishing. The Wallace and Snohomsih wild chinook should be experiencing the same marine survival conditions as well as the same fishing impacts; why didn't they respond similarly? The major difference is the wild fish are more dependent on freshwater/esturay conditions than the hatchery fish. It would appear that at current reduced ERs that fishing is not limiting the wild population but rather some freshwater productive factor. Similar difference in returns between hatchery and wild chinook have been noted elsewhere in Puget Sound.

In the introductive portion of WT's comments it state; "The local and state agencies in question have shown again and again an inability or unwillingness to enforce their own existing environmental regulations." Perhaps given the difference in hatchery and wild returns the focus should be in the habitat arena rather than harvest. The co-managers appear to have made a good faith and appropriate effort to reduce the over-fishing of the past (reducing harvest rates from 70-80% to less than 35% in the Snohomish example). Has any other the other Hs reduced their impacts by 50%? or at all?

Sorry, this is all ready too long - so enough.

Tight lines
Smalma