Cohoangler,

Thanks for your obviously thoughtful post. I agree that CFM's proposal initially at least looks more like catch reallocation than anything else. However, there is a common sense basis as well.

The market for commercially caught salmon has shifted significantly. Ex-vessel prices are down very significantly, and salmon farming seems likely to keep them there. In that context alone, I find myself asking how sensible is it for state taxpayers to spend more to create a hatchery fish that, when sold commercially, yields less money than it cost to create it. For that matter, how sensible is it for state taxpayers to raise hatchery salmon for commercial fishermen to catch in the first place. And the fact that there are many other forms of subsidies and welfare does not qualify as an acceptable answer.

Next, is the public interest better served by having commercial harvesters take huge numbers of chum salmon for the value of their roe alone? I think WDFW Commissioners owe the public equal consideration of allowing those chums to "waste" themselves as excess spawning escapement and marine derived nutrients to the watersheds.

And particularly in the case of the Columbia River, with ESA listed chinook, chum, and steelhead captured with non-selective gillnets, and sold below cost, the fleet is dependent on surplus hatchery fish production. There are no harvestable numbers of wild spring chinook, wild fall chinook (excluding upriver brights), wild coho, wild chum, nor wild steelhead. I keep asking what public interest is served by the continued existence of this commercial fishery? The Columbia River gillnet fishery is totally inconsistent with wild salmon and steelhead conservation. The same is not inherently true for commercial harvest of coastal and Puget Sound populations - in all cases.

The huge production of hatchery fish on the Columbia River - intended in large part to support this commercial fishery - is a primary factor for the decline of fish populations presently listed under the ESA. And this hatchery production is a primary factor that interferes with survival and recovery of these same listed populations.

Admittedly, I've simply reached a point where I cannot biologically, economically, nor socially justify the Columbia R. gillnet fishery. Increasingly, I'm trending a similar direction regarding PS commercial fisheries on coho, pink, and chum salmon. They just don't fill the social need they once did, and the ecological cost really tips the balance in favor of termination, I believe.

Lastly, I don't know that commercial fishing interests are very significant players in the fish conservation arena. Surely, they should be, but I'm not sure that they are. I think - but don't know - that they contribute far more lip service to fishery conservation than direct financial and lobbying support. So, would we really miss their contributions to fish conservation?

I find this an interesting subject, particularly because the landscape it's played upon has shifted so dramatically in recent years. Oh, and one last reason for commercial fishing that earns no sympathy from me is the "it's our family tradition" line. Non-treaty commercial fishing has only occurred in the PNW for barely more than 100 years. If those traditional jobs are essential to society, than I guess we need to subsidize and bring back the buggy whip makers as well.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.