Salmo g. an excellent point!

There is a couple other interesting twists to these tribal fisheries. I read in news release that the BIA had approved the Skagit spring Chinook season. Wonder why an agency in the Department of Interior is doing NOAA's (Department of Commerce) job by approving fisheries with potential impacts of ESA listed stocks.

In the case of the Skagit fishery there are both hatchery and wild spring Chinook present in the Skagit thus the rationale for the fish (to harvest abundant hatchery springs). On the Skagit the Cascade hatchery fish tend to return earlier than wild stocks (Cascade, Suiattle, and upper Skagit) so by fishing this early in the spring they can harvest more hatchery fish/wild impact than later in the spring. In sense this is an example of a selective fishery where the fishers take advantage of the timing difference to harvest more hatchery fish with lower wild fish impacts. On the Nooksack for several years the Lummi's have been using tangle nets to target abundant hatchery fish; again another example of a selective fishery where un-clipped wild fish can be released. The Tulalip Bay Chinook fish (which started at least 3 weeks earlier than past seasons) by fishing in a location (in or near Tulalip) can target hatchery fish with minimal impacts on nearby wild stocks; again another example of a selective fishery.

Yet some how the tribes have significant problems when the recreational fish selective (mark selection fishery) to access abundant hatchery stocks and limit/reduce impacts on wild stocks. Interesting that using selective approaches to access hatchery stocks seems OK for tribal spring Chinook stocks but not in recreational fisheries.

Curt