Smalma does have a good point, and I am no fan of the Methow fishery. If there are too many hatchery fish, we should make less, not subject the wild ENDANGERED steehead to another risk factor of a fishery.

However, I'm not sure the two situations are exactly parallel. The commercials have a fishery for hatchery spring chinook in the lower Columbia. They were given a dispensation for a 2% impact on listed steelhead in order to prosecute the fishery. We can argue about whether that is appropriate, but let's take it as a given for now. It has been clearly demonstrated that they can't prosecute the fishery in the current manner and stay within the 2% limit. Their proposed solution is not to modify how they are fishing, or face the fact that the spring chinook fishery may not be sustainable without unacceptable impacts to listed fish. Their solution is simply to ask for more accomodation.

Smalma may be able to correct me on this (and if he can I'm sure he will), but I'm not sure anybody has demonstrated that the Methow fishery has exceeded any mortality thresholds on wild steelhead that were set when the fishery was approved, or that anyone has then requested that the standard be revised so the fishery could continue.

People aren't saying the spring chinook fishery should be stopped because it impacts wild steelhead. They're saying the fishery should be held to its 2% impact threshold for listed steelhead, an impact threshold that WDFW/ODFW proposed, by the by.

Actually, I read the proposal as nothing but smoke and mirrors. I don't see how the managers can credibly claim that they'll be able to hold impacts below even 6% and still fully prosecute the fishery. They haven't been able to do it so far, and they collect and analyze the monitoring data so sloppily that their margin of error is likely larger than the difference between 2% and 6%.

The worst part of the whole thing is that this is all part of a scheme to certify their cockamamy tangle-nets and recovery-boxes as a bona-fide "selective fishery" technique. It simply doesn't work like they wish it did or claim it does. But if they can get it certified, we'll have a lot more problems than a 6% impact on LCR steelhead.

Aunty: you are right; their is some traction to be gained here at NOAA. They can be pressured not to approve the proposal, and people are working at that end. But Todd is right to that there is still the chance to get one or both commissions to rescind the proposal or simply not act on it. The knuckleheads at the depts are probably a lost cause.

Todd: Give me a call.

Ramon VB
Washington Trout