It seems like the crux of the issue here is whether or not harvest is the only thing that matters. Does a live fish have any value under our current legal system (if not what does that say about our legal system?).

Clearly, dead fish are worth $ and live fish can generate $ through CnR fisheries, wildlife watchers, etc,etc. It seems like this should be a factor in deciding how to allocate resources. yet in my simple understanding of the law and current salmon management practice it all revolves around harvest (focusing on dead fish).

Do fish have any intrinsic value in our legal system? Clearly some other animals do (whales, seals, cormorants, eagles).

At least in my simple world it would seem that forgone opportunity is all predicated on the notion that fish have no intrisic value, which is utter nonsense IMHO.

Biologically speaking a few extra fish above MSY would only serve to benefit the ecosystem as a whole as nutrient imputs (bear food, fry food etc), if nothing else.


So legally speaking, could the idea that live fish have intrinsic value be held up in court. It seems if there were a legal precedent for unharvested fish having value, then forgone opportunity is not wasted opportunity to catch fish, but a sort of contribution to the ecosystem instead.