Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
OncyT,
True. That could maintain a high harvest rate on hatchery URBs while relaxing the take on wild ones. I'm imagining a disparity however, wherein the recreational fishery subsidizes the commercial fishery by fishing selectively while the gillnet fleet takes hatchery and wild, co-mingled. What do you think?
Sg

I doubt that you or Todd would want to hear what I think. Certainly freespool doesn't. BTW, I just reviewed my post about planned increases in harvest rates (to 70%) based on increasing hatchery production. It caught my eye that you were unaware of planned increases in URB's and the managers' plans to increase harvest rates. That didn't make sense to me, but now I see that I incorrectly identified URB's rather than summer Chinook as the populations that would be affected by this planned increase in harvest, I see your (actually my) confusion. What I meant to say was that it would affect summer Chinook (same ESU, different populations). I apologize for the incorrect information, but sometimes I get crazy when I think about some of the stuff that is going on. The concern for the unmarked hatchery production of URB's and masking of the real population status remains. (For some reason, I still have in my mind a plan to increase hatchery production of URB's. John Day mitigation? Maybe I'm just crazy)