I'll give it a shot, Doc.

First, who sets escapement goals? Generally they are set by the State, but if the runs are are subject to the ESA, then it is done with Federal oversight, and if the run is in a tribe's U&A, then it is done in conjunction with the tribe or tribes who fish over those runs.

How are the goals set? Since we're talking about rivers that have tribal fishing, I'll focus on that. Legally speaking, U.S. v. Washington (the "Boldt" decision) defines escapement as being the minimum amount of fish required to spawn that will keep the run just above the extinction level.

Thankfully, I think that the co-managers don't use that definition, rather they set the escapement level somewhere around twice that number.

The numbers are set within the context of MSY, using the S-R models to approximate where the best return/harvest numbers should fall. Stuff like habitat degradation is, as you noted above, generally used to justify a higher harvest rate due to reduced river productivity.

Viewing yield as the amount of fish harvested is wierd when it comes to steelhead, since the two user groups are so differently seated. For the tribal fishers, steelhead is a commercial commodity that is valued by $ per pound. For non-tribal fishers, it is a recreational commodity whose value is created by the chase, rather than the harvest. The monetary value of non-tribal steelhead fisheries is developed by the money spent on gas, food, lodging, gear, guides, etc.

It's shouldn't be too hard to recognize the two very different value types, and let each party recognize the greatest value of their half in their own way.

I'm not really to sure what you mean by a "range of escapements"...the S-R models are created as a continuous range of escapements, and what the returns will be from the different escapements, and MSY is the point where the difference between the two is the greatest. I think you're suggesting that rather than choosing the MSY "point", you're talking about using a range of points to define MSY?

I think you're also suggesting that foregone opportunity would cease to be an issue because we could harvest at the lowest end of the "MSY range", but not be under-harvesting because we were still escaping below the highest end of the range?

It's an interesting idea, but I think that it still concentrates too much on a necessary amount of wild fish that must be directly harvested in order to justify not killing the rest of them. Your observations about redefining "yield" and "value" is a much better direction to go, in my opinion.

At the risk of making a few folks a little defensive, here is how the break down of the "foregone opportunity" believers goes...

1. NOAA/NMFS/USFWS - knows it is not an issue.

2. Wa State AGO - knows it is not an issue.

3. WDFW - knows it is not an issue, but continues the "it might be" myth to maintain management flexibility with the triebes.

4. Treaty tribes - Same as WDFW

Non-tribal fishermen have a range of beliefs, but I don't find most of them to be very well-informed as to the legal/social underpinnings of the doctrine, whatever it is that they believe.

Fish on...

Todd