The original US/Canada treaty in late 80s specifically said that the benefits of increasing escapement, restoring habitat, and such were to accrue to the area of origin in order to encourage improving fish abundance.

"Begs the question if we should just stop those activities if there's no return on the investment."

Someday that question is going to be asked and answered by people in a position to make the decision.

I can only hope that when that time comes to pass, that the arbiters of the decision realize the gravity of the situation.

Oh, I suppose that is highly unlikely.

Missed that one, did notice that freespool was still a fukkin tool in 2011 though..

One of the things I was trying to suggest in my post was that I don't think the LOCAL return on investment is important to WDFW or any Washington politician. If it were, one has to think they would have stopped investing in these programs a long time ago. My suspicion is that the decisions to go ahead with these projects are made at a higher pay grade than Phil Anderson's, by people who profit from "campaign contributions" made to maintain the status quo.

Bear in mind that many of the commercial fishers in Alaska are from Washington....

The only explanation my corruption-minded brain can muster when I see injustice supported by government entities is that the unjust are out-spending the just. I suppose it's only Capitalism doing what it does when practiced to extremes, but it doesn't make it any easier for me to stomach.

On the other hand, I like the idea of terminal fisheries, but I propose a new way of running hatcheries to support said fisheries (as long as we're discussing pipe dreams). Instead of planting hatchery fish in rivers with reasonably stable wild stocks, find isolated locations (near saltwater) where there are no meaningful wild runs and locate hatcheries there. Operate them at the expense of the commercial processors who will profit from them, and allow them to terminally harvest everything that returns (minus the egg take for the next generation, of course). In other words, turn the fishermen into farmers. Meanwhile, operate a few State-owned hatcheries in places where wild runs need a little "supplementation," and limit the fisheries in such areas (also terminal) to Tribes and sporties. "Terminal," in such a scenario, would allow for fishing in areas immediately surrounding estuaries, to give Tribal gillnetters and sporties with seaworthy boats a reasonable shot at fish in the salt.

Are there problems with this idea? Sure, but I doubt the sum of those issues would be as large as that associated with the status quo (with regard to equity, fairness, and other horse$hit nobody that matters cares about).

Happy Friday, all you dreamers.

That was called Ocean Ranching and was tried in the 70s/early 80s. Kinda being done in AK by the enhancement groups there. Among the many problems is that the fish are not "your" property. I am sure that BC and AK would not respect a "Those are my Chinook" argument from an Ocean Rancher any more than they accept it from CA, OR, WA, and ID.

If I can catch it, it's mine.

I believe this bears additional emphasis…



So based on the ginormous run-size forecasts fueled largely by the 1.6 million kings of CR origin, Alaska is set to increase their take on PNW stocks by a factor of 250%. And that's over and above the exploitation their local stocks.

I don't have data as to what the Canadians have in mind, but I'm sure they're planning on ramping up their exploitation rates on this forecasted MEGA run in similar fashion.

I guess we're all guilty of licking our chops at the prospect of a MAJOR windfall of kings, me included. Everyone mentally has these fish all but caught, processed, and served before a single one has returned home. Counting our chickens before they're hatched? Ryan may well be right. By the time AK/BC have unleashed their full fishing power on these critters, who knows how many will actually make it back to Astoria.

I think I like it better when they screw up and lowball the forecast. Everyone goes in with more modest expectations, only to be pleasantly surprised by the sheer abundance of the actual return. YEE HAW!

When they forecast BIG, expectations are unrealistically inflated, the meat-market whack/stack juices get flowing… only to set us up for a major letdown when the fish fail to materialize as predicted.

Maybe everyone should just cancel their Buoy 10 reservations NOW to avoid certain disappointment?

One thing we can all agree on, gettin' low-holed sucks.

Wouldn't this ramped-up exploitation put additional harvest pressure on ESA listed fish? I'm sure there is tag data in existence that could be used to calculate the affect.

Anyone know?

It seems to me stopping investing in higher returns is attacking the problem from the wrong end. The more logical solution ,which I know is very difficult if not imposable for the people in positions of power to grasp, is to regulate the catch of the endangered and expensive to recover fish by freeloading distant fisheries. Even as cynical and PO'ed about the state of our salmon as I have become over the years, I'm not ready to call it quits on recovery because of short sighted fishing regulations that are one of the easiest......ummm.....or should be the one of easiest pieces of the recovery picture to change.

I bet a google search would turn up some interesting info. I would do it but can't right now,maybe latter. I'm sure there has been studies documenting ESA fish and I think the rational is the numbers are not high enough in the Alaskan and Canadin fisheries to justify restrictions.

And yet, the ESA fish end up dead and dead fish don't spawn. It is an argument against conservation that has been around as long as I have been in management. There simply aren't enough of (fill in the stock here) to justify protecting them.

So, pump out those hatchery fish, overwhelm the wilds, and fish away because the wilds are too rare to protect.

Works with in a species (hatchery Chinook and steelhead) and between species (hatchery chum and steelhead).

As anyone who has worked in water quality knows, the solution to pollution is dilution. Works for fish, too.

Yep… the justification goes something like this:

"There's so few of those wild ESA fish in the mix that the odds of actually encountering one are so infinitesimally small that it's inconsequential.

Now let's see what another opener looks like in the model"