Originally Posted By: slabhunter
PA said most of the harvest >50% of Grays harbor Stocks(species) are harvested offshore, Alaska and Canada before returns cross the bar.

Doesn't this show the commercial interest has been served before the returns cross the bar? Why even allow the commercial method inshore?


I believe what he said is that 50% of the CWT's are recovered in AK/BC… specifically SE-AK and WCVI.

What we know to be certain is that SE-AK and WCVI take about 75% of the harvested GH chinook. Count on it.

And yes, while it is largely commercial, the rec troll fisheries in those regions contribute significantly to the northern intercept fisheries on this stock.

As I said in my testimony, the outside harvest is already largely commercial. The inside harvest is the same way. Before a single white net or hook is deployed in the basin, the fish swimming past Westport are already allocated 58% commercial.

So yes, even without a cowboy gill net fishery in GH, the public demand for commercially caught kings is already being served…. by northern intercept troll fisheries on the outside and by tribal gill net fisheries on the inside.

So as Todd so rightly points out, there is no real need to pile another commercial take in there… esp when it comes entirely at the expense of the rec share. Unfortunately, the current commission NOF policy begs to differ.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3608.html

"Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the recreational and commercial fisheries."
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!