I do not believe the science is flawed, but there are tremendous data requirements to actually find out where that 1 returner for each spawner lies. The survival rate of the anadromous salmonids is also highly variable. This means that you either have to set buffers such that harvest is fraction of the 1 returner:1 spawner ratio, or you manage for overharvest--seasonal closures, C&R, or living with the notion you took too many fish in a particular year.

The latter may sound irresponsible, but remember, that highly variable survival rate can be a friend as well as foe. A very poor run can spawn a highly successful run in the future depending upon how they survive. Living with overharvest is something that can be done, but it CAN'T be policy if you expect the run to sustain itself on the long-term.

The problem I believe lies with the data and the models used to predict run sizes. They are insufficient or out dated. The solution of course is $$, which is perpetually in short supply. And given the declining number of license sales (i.e. less $$), there may be the belief that restricting runs further (e.g., State-wide C&R) may cause further declines in license sales, so thereby rationalizing a management policy that is not conservative enough for the data. This may be your death spiral.

About the punchcards inquiry: no, WDFW doesn't assume a non-returned card is full or empty. They use some equation to estimate the number. In the past, they have conducted follow-up polls on non-returners to build the equation.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 04-11-2000).]

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 04-11-2000).]