Smalma

You are getting pretty close to what I would consider “ideal” management from the sportfisher’s point of view, but as you said, the devil is in the details. Simply said, I am interested in maximum numbers of fish (wild or hatchery) to support the greatest number of angler-fish encounters in the sport fishery, AND maximum numbers of wild spawners on the gravel.

Another aspect of maximizing recreation (completely independent of MSY/MSA/MS-whatever) that we have yet to discuss is ALLOCATION. I understand that from a biologic standpoint, a dead fish is a dead fish, and the only thing that matters is an accounting of dead fish equivalents (impact). I can’t imagine that a salmon or steelhead cares much whether it perishes as a gillnet harvest, net drop, sport harvest, release mortality, or sea lion lunch. However, the readers of this board have an obvious bias in their preference, me included.

Regardless of who is killing the fish, until all the players are willing to commit to and invest in wild salmonid recovery, we will face difficulties in achieving the management that best serves the fish. Here’s my preliminary wish list of features for the ideal management plan.

1) Manage at 90-100% of MSA, as you put it “challenging the limits of carrying capacity”.
2) Selective gear/methods for ALL participants. Hook-line, seines, weirs, traps to permit live capture and unharmed release of at least 90% of non-target stocks encountered. Any method with release mortality greater than 10% BANNED.
3) 100% marking of hatchery stocks.
4) Impact on weakest stock(s) determines when fishery closes.
5) Terminal preference for spatial allocation.
6) Recreational preference for user allocation.

To use your Columbia River spring chinook example, I too believe the paradigm is on the right track in its intent, but execution is far from ideal. Let’s look at each of the six criteria I listed above.

1) Total impact set at 2%... excellent. Most commendable part of the plan.
2) Selective gear/methods…. utter failure that makes 1) totally meaningless. How can you call it “selective” when two-thirds of the fish the nets encounter belong to ESA-listed runs and the vast majority of them do not survive release?
3) 100% marking of hatchery stocks…. only in your wildest dreams!
4) Impact on weakest stocks…. HMMM the wild steelhead debacle rages on!
5) Terminal preference…. OK no ocean fishery targeting springers.
6) Recreational preference…. Only on paper. Yeah we got a 60/40 split on the document, but when the in-season return gets downsized midway thru the run and the nets have already exceeded the combined commercial and sport impact, who gets shut down before we even have a chance at our decreed share?

Bottom line, we sports still take it in the shorts!


I should add that this “new paradigm” is only the result of having ESA protections shoved down WDFW/ODFW’s throats. It wasn’t until the listed runs were at risk of extinction that fish managers were coerced into prudent action. And even in the face of those protections, the MSY mindset lingers like some latent incurable brain infection pushing them to HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST…. irresponsibly proposing tripling of the wild steelhead impact to justify additional non-selective netting of hatchery springers.

On paper and in the media, the managers like to portray themselves as the clean white-as-snow saviors of threatened runs. But just like a brand new chrome “silverbright” salmon can deceive the unsuspecting shopper at Safeway, given enough time, the old chum eventually shows its stripes. Not surprisingly, they’re the color of harvest!

Oh yeah, I almost forgot this one that I mentioned in my earlier post:

7) NO WILD BROODSTOCK for hatchery egg-take unless wild escapement is clearly projected to exceed MSA.

Over and out!