Originally Posted By: Smalma
Todd -
I was at the WDFW commission meeting in 2008 where they decided to increase the recreational share of the allowable impacts on the Columbia River spring Chinook - in effect transferring allocation towards the sport fishery. I clearly recall the debate that lead up to that decision and it was clear to all that were there that the deciding factor was the due to the sport selective fishery and the lower release mortality on the wild associated that fishery which removed more hatchery fish from the system per dead wild fish (per ESA impact).

There is little doubt in my mind that the decision would have favored the commercial fishery if it had been selective and had a lower release mortality than that associated with the recreational fishery. Given the mortality that might been seen in some of the commercial selective methods being pushed I would not be surprised to see that sharring percentages of the allowed impacts reversed and potentially a doubling or more of the commercial share of the hatchery catch. Such a move would only be consistent with Commission actions the last two years that has been so popular with the recreational community.

As you alluded to the devil is always in the details.

Tight lines
Curt


The devil is always in the details, so true.....JMO and the reason I never joined, but to me it seems like CCA felt that by requiring commercial harvest to be selective that would in turn get rid of all commercial harvest. You've hit the head on the nail here Curt....if you force the commercial industry into the selective gear corner and they turn to gear types that are more selective than recreational gear then both the proposed Hatchery Reform Policy being proposed by WDFW and the revised NOF policy dictate that they should have a shot at more of the non-treaty share. I felt that most of the quick membership growth was due to the fact that folks felt CCA could simply "get rid of" commercial due to the reason I mention here, but I don't feel you'll ever get rid of them. In fact you may have ruined a good thing by forcing them to go selective....as Todd points out, the same number of wild fish will die, and as the commercial selective gear takes out more and more hatchery fish as it becomes more selective....what happens to the sport fishery? Without a specific allocation of hatchery fish, it will suffer. And if the goal of hatchery reform and NOAA is to remove hatchery fish at a higher proportion than we are currently doing....with a more selective commercial gear that can do that....well you already said it...the devil is in the details. If history is a lesson I believe purse seines were legal on the lower columbia in the past....its just the gillnet lobby was able to get them banned through the legislature as they were too effective at catching all of their hatchery fish being produced and the gillnets wanted their fare "share". Funny how things seem to repeat themselves.