Francis,

I also noticed that the Commission Fish Committee omitted chum salmon from the separate escapement issue. I think we need to continue to bring that issue up, understanding that reform happens at glacial speed. It's important to keep the chum issue in front of the Commission because R 6 will use the chum aggregation as rationale to schedule additional NT gillnet days in late Oct, ostensibly to prevent a dangerous coho over-escapement, while the Chehalis chum take a shellacking. And probably end up over-harvesting wild coho while they're at it.

I want to bring up the subject of hatchery salmon in the Chehalis basin again. Ron Warren's presentation showed hatchery chinook as only 8% of the Chehalis chinook population. I don't expect the Chehalis to ever be a big time chinook producer because of habitat quality issues, but total natural production potential remains significant. If the hatchery fish don't add that much, I think they might just be a liability to good management of the wild run. Since the Quinault Tribal policy is that hatchery and wild fish are equal, they have no incentive to manage for the wild escapement goal. If there were no hatchery chinook to buffer wild escapement shortfalls, then they risk their own interest by over-fishing wild chinook.

Same with coho. I'm open to the notion that Gray's Harbor fishery health and better recreational fishing might result by managing the Chehalis as wild salmon only, meaning closing the Satsop hatchery. It seems like the presence of hatchery salmon simply feeds the monster of commercial gillnetting at any cost in the Harbor, which is clearly detrimental to both the wild runs and recreational salmon fishing.

Natural production of coho would provide good sport fishing most years and a productive commercial fishery for the QIN. Chinook and chum would mostly be taken as incidental to coho fishing. I don't ever see a significant terminal area chinook fishery as long as Alaska and BC fish them.

Sg