All good points, as usual, Curt. Catch sharing is not the same as allocation, for sure, so an imbalance does not necessarily mean a problem or a violation of allocation principles. However, it is clear from the analysis that I've done that the move to selective fisheries has achieved the objective of increasing non-treaty opportunity in their preferred mode of mixed-stock hook-and-line fisheries. I do think that there have been some problems with hatchery escapement shortfalls outside of Samish, although there is certainly surplus escapement often as well. I also think that both state and tribal managers have not done the work to comprehensively look at how catch sharing has changed since selective fisheries were widely implemented. Basically, more harvest has gone to the non-treaty side, and, in some cases, more than half. So, selective fisheries are working, from that perspective. I'm just surprised that, with all the rancor, managers aren't paying more attention to the actual numbers. They are so focused on management objectives for wild fish that they ignore the allocation (and conservation) of the hatchery fish they are actually harvesting. Of course, they are also ignoring the habitat problems that are the real key to restoring the wild stocks.

Two Dogs

Selective fisheries are just an example of the tools available to managers to access abundance stocks while limiting impacts on other stocks of concern. Mark selective recreational fisheries are an example of selective fisheries that many folks are familiar with (Used extensive with steelhead through out the state and in the PS area for more than 30 years - and I would argue successfully). Other examples of selective fisheries include the use of tangle nets and even dip nets (used at times to access high value fish such as spring Chinook). Another major and successful selective fishery that you are familiar with would be the Tulalip bubble Chinook fisheries. In every case the goal of those selective fisheries is to benefit the users while limiting impacts on other critical stocks; I suppose whether those fishery are good or bad often depends on whether you are the user that benefits.

I agree that paying attention to the "numbers" is important and should be a high priority. And this proposal does exactly that. It calls for an examination of the decade of information collected in the intensive monitored mark selective fisheries (significant effort, biological information, code wires collected, etc.) that should provide a much better understanding how well those selective fisheries has worked . I suggest that folks take that information, the result of the new FRAM model to examine the recreational fisheries to see it tweaks to the recreational season structures to assure that the recreational fisheries are taking full advantage of the benefits of the mark selective approach without jeopardizing other conservation (wild and hatchery) concerns.

I'm glad you mentioned the habitat need to restoring the wild stocks. The natural advocates for wild fish are the fishers (whether tribal or non-treaty) however to date those users have much more concerned about arguing over how the fish pie is divided rather than increasing the size of the pie. If those users can not move pass allocation arguments both the future of the wild fish and fishing in general is doomed.

Curt

Selective fisheries are a great conservation tool when they are used and work. The WB folks can talk about some pretty bad examples of failures of them.

But, and it has been alluded to here, when you have two competing fisheries the advantages and more harvest goes to those who select. In a simple calculation, a 5% mortality on released fish means you can encounter twenty times as many of the protected fish which allows significantly more harvest of the target. Conversely, this means that if one chooses to fish non-selectively you end up with less fish.

Since the choice of how we fish is a choice, then we should accept the consequences. The recs love marine mixed stock fisheries. OK, Give up the rivers. Gillnetters love non-selective. Catch less. Make a choice, accept the result.

If sporties do enjoy mixed stock fisheries more than in-river, it's probably close to entirely due to the fact there are more fish, actively feeding, in those mixed stock areas. Even if it means smaller fish, most recs just want the best chance at catching fish. I like being out on the ocean once in a while, but if we only get one choice, as someone who cares more about a chance to fish in the future than how much he can catch today, I vote we keep our in-river fisheries, which can be more effectively managed for selective harvest of only sustainable stocks and allow ALL of us (not just the ones fortunate enough to be able to afford ocean fishing vessels) an equal opportunity to participate.

Terminal fisheries can be opened in areas and times where most wild stock encounters can be avoided. The standard should be how many wild fish are killed, not how they are killed or with what gear.

I 100% agree with all of this.

Your point about bank fishing being less expensive than fishing the "ocean" is accurate. Beyond that, let's take a somewhat different look at your post which is pitting one recreational user against another.

The majority of the salt water fishers live around Puget Sound which is generally a mixed stock fishery. Puget Sound is NOT the ocean and may be accessed by small, relatively inexpensive boats. All of those boat houses one remembers or reads about around Puget Sound launched 14 foot boats commonly fitted with 10 HP motors. One does not need a 24 foot aluminum go fast ocean boat to fish Puget Sound so lets not make this a battle between economic classes.

Another issue is that many of us who have paid our dues can no longer physically spend a day on the river bank nor is standing elbow to elbow at popular (and becoming less accessible) river fishing locations a pleasurable experience (at least for me). On that subject let me ask - just how much more high powered jet sled traffic can the rivers handle? More user conflicts?

Having gotten that off my chest what we really need to strive to achieve is maintaining reasonable opportunity in both the salt and rivers rather than an "either/or" scenario.

I'll just add this to Larry's post.
One does not need a boat to catch Puget Sound salmon......
It is helpful though, especially when targeting chinook.
SF

I'll just throw in (up) from the other side of Larry's post. I get seasick. Almost always. Can be treated with patches but it is still there. I have boat-fished quite a bit (in my mind) and only a few of the trips have been really enjoyable. I grew up walk and wade, shore based. You can open all the boat fisheries you want and I won't be there.

But, that is me and my stomach. Somehow, we have to find solutions that are not always "either-or". When I started in fish management I had to push hard for in-river fisheries for pink as the only real salmon fishing was done in the salt.

Ah, another puker! I admitted to that "failure" to the Commission when testifying against area closures in the western Straits - that is, that the Straits and inside waters were areas I could generally fish versus the open ocean.

You apparently have a much worse affliction and I do empathize and sympathize! Been there and done that in the small rental boats out of Neah Bay sitting backwards, breathing a combo of 1950s era 50:1 two-stroke "fog" and Dad's cigarette smoke and munching candy bars after a greasy breakfast at Rosie's Cafe. The outcome was inevitable but I kept going back. Not so much of an issue on the inner Sound with just wind waves versus swells.

And that takes us back to the need to maintain a combination of recreational fisheries throughout Washington waters meeting the desires/needs/capabilities of all fishers and the resource.

Just want to clarify that I'm not for an either/or approach either. IF it comes to that, I stand by my preference for terminal over mixed stock fisheries. I suppose there is question about whether that provides the best opportunity to the most citizens, but I don't think there should be any question that would be the more fish-friendly way to go. Seeing as our fisheries are more or less constrained by ESA impacts, I think it makes sense to protect as many endangered fish as possible, and mixed stock fisheries (even selective ones) fall short of that mark.

One might argue a position that any fishery (to include river fisheries) where both ESA listed and hatchery fish are present represents a mixed stock fishery.

Would it be best for the fish to simply not have any fishing in WA marine waters followed quickly by the closing of hatcheries due to collapse of license revenue stream? Is that where the logic ultimately takes us? Of course, that "logic" ignores a host of other adverse factors.