Am I the only person who has read this plan, read NOAA's feedback to WDFW about the plan, and feel that the Commissions remarks fall short of what is expected by NOAA, or don't do enough to save the fish and rec seasons?
It's clear we will have a round-robin effect of 5-6 critical stocks that will be forecasted with low abundances affecting all harvest year-to-year. One year it may be stocks 1, 4, and 5. The next it may be 2, 3, and 1. All of these stocks have the potential to negatively affect recreation and tribal seasons based upon their locations. All of these stocks require Habitat intervention dollars and various hatchery solutions.
Why are we talking about just the Stilly?
Any solution needs to recognize the problem for what it is, first.
What I have gleaned is that the Stilly is the poster child but recall that NOAA clearly indicated that they wanted the co-managers to readdress several other stocks.
Furthermore, comments from Commission McIssac also recognized those other stocks and that further negotiations would be required and that Staff remains tasked to try and balance ESA related conservation and the goal of having a managed fishery.
Does the Department have an impossible task? Maybe. But what I can say with certainty is that SUS fisheries are taking the brunt of impacts versus CA and NUS while Nero (oops, meant NOAA) fiddles.
Previous Topic
Index
