Reading thru many of the individual hatch programs described in the 2004 HSRG report, I understand that one of the key recommendations of HSRG is to designate a specific objective to a hatch program. Is it for harvest? Conservation? Both?

I believe the nomenclature is all WRONG.

At its core, conservation means the sound utilization of a resource to prevent its depletion. Ironically, exploitation of the resource is inherent to the conservation mantra. But that exploitation entails responsible use, stewardship, moderation.... so that the exploitation can go on in perpetuity. Without the ability and privilege to use the resource, what's the point of conserving it? Without exploitation, it is no longer conservation, but instead, simply preservation.... a "look but don't touch" museum piece sort of paradigm. And don't get me wrong, preservation and non-consumptive use is just fine for a lot of things, if that's the ultimate objective.

But that ain't the case for salmon. The whole point of conserving them is to sustain our ability to exploit them... to catch them, eat them, you know, to mess with them.

WDFW's philosophy creates an artificial dichotomy between exploitation (harvest goals) and conservation (escapement goals). As if they were mutually exclusive, either or but not both. In truth, the two are inextricably linked.

I've posted numerous times that a hatch program is either for harvest or for conservation, but NEVER both. I now believe that assertion to be in error. Sound harvest REQUIRES sound conservation principles.... you simply can't have one WITHOUT the other.

Instead of harvest vs conservation, if there's going to be a dichotomy in the hatchery arena, it should be harvest vs recovery. It's either going to be operated for harvest OR it's for recovery, but NEVER both.

You see, once you've designated a stock depressed, then by definition it's in need of recovery. That recovery may take a multi-pronged approach, and a recovery hatchery MIGHT be one of those prongs, but then again it might not. If recovery is the objective, then NONE of those hatchery fish should be made available for intentional harvest. In essence, no hatchery fish should die.

On the other hand, if the objective is to create additional harvest opportunity, then EVERY effort should be made to gain maximum harvest access to those fish within the constraints of protecting other non-target stocks that would be impacted by the fisheries doing the harvesting. To the extent that it's practical, beyond egg-take requirements.... ALL hatchery fish MUST die.

Mutually exclusive, black/white, one or the other but NEVER both.

Your thoughts?