Mornin', everyone.

Well, I'm enjoying the interplay on this thread...seems to be less complaining and more explaining than usual.

Since, both here and in threads over the last year and a half, we've discussed all the possible different biological backups for different management schemes, I'll skip those for now.

What I do want to discuss is the perception that it's all an allocation issue. To make it clear, what we're talking about here is that if there are 150 "surplus" fish, we either have a directed harvest fishery to catch and kill 150, or we have a CnR fishery to catch and kill 150 via incidental mortality.

Accepting that as a starting point, which I don't necessarily do, but will for the sake of argument, there are tremendous differences between the two "ways to kill 'em". This was the crux of the comments that I sent to WDFW on behalf of the Wild Steelhead Coalition regarding the options for this spring on the Chehalis system.

1. Angler Opportunity. Rather than look at this as "CnR guys get to fish, and harvest guys get screwed", let's look at it in a much more "big picture" way.

There will be more angler days on the system if the system is open longer. The system will be open longer if harvest is allocated to incidental mortality rather than to directed mortality. This will happen no matter what numbers the managers use for hooking/handling mortality, unless they use 100%. Even if you use a fairly conservative estimate of 10%, allowing for the ignorance or unwillingness of some anglers to use proper techniques, this is automatically ten times as much opportunity to encounter (hook and handle) a fish.

Again, assuming it is purely an allocation issue, ten times as many encounter opportunities exist.

2. Revenue. Not only does that put ten times the potential angler days on the river, it also puts ten times the potential revenue available to local communities out there.

3. Enforcement. Let's face it...due to budget restraints, our enforcement division can't be everywhere at once. The maxim "closed waters are poacher's waters" has some application here. Poachers are going to poach whatever the rules are. At least with more law abiding folks on an open river, there are more caring eyes on the river.

4. Education. As more folks fish in CnR fisheries, more folks will discover the benefits of doing it. There's only one way to change a person's mind from "opportunity to me means to harvest fish" to "opportunity means to catch fish", and that's to get people used to doing it. If the only game in town is a CnR fishery, people who would normally not fish one will, just so that they can fish.

That's probably enough for now to make my point. It seems somewhat counterproductive to argue about the different biological reasons for different management tools, sometimes, since it's not particularly well known exactly what is going on out there in the river, much less in the ocean.

This puts different management tools on a level playing field, and removes the conjecture over biology. I feel that the above conclusions are pretty tough to argue with.

All other things being equal , CnR seasons put more hours on the river, more money in the community, more eyes in the woods, and more factors for fishers to consider when they consider what "opportunity" means to them.

Seems almost like a no-brainer to me.

Fish on...

Todd.