Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#288601 - 01/19/05 04:12 AM Time to reconsider MSY
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
The concept of Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) is but one construct that managers can rely upon to regulate our popular sport fisheries. An alternative construct that has received far less attention is the concept of Maximum Sustained Recreation (MSR).

From the standpoint of a purely recreational salmon or steelhead fishery, what matters most to participants is ensuring sheer abundance of fish so as to maximize angler-encounters with those fish. All other things being equal, the angler experience is maximally enhanced by having lots of fish in the river. Successful management by MSR is predicated upon putting the maximum number of fish in the river that are still capable of replacing themselves after spawning. If 19,000 fish spawn and later produce 20,000 returning adults, that would be considered a glowing MSR success.

In contrast, successful management by MSY means the ability to harvest all the “surplus” fish (the yield) that is not needed for maximal production, as measured by the ratio of returning adults per spawner (RPS). RPS ratios of one or less would be considered an utter MSY failure. Spawning escapements resulting in a RPS ratio approaching 1.0 essentially produce zero yield within the MSY construct. Using the same 19,000 fish example above, a return of 20,000 fish would be considered a very undesirable outcome in the MSY mindset, a dismal yield of barely over 5%. That 1000 fish “surplus” might only support a measly two or three days of fishing.

How then does one reconcile the fact that a return of identical magnitude can be viewed so positively in one construct and so negatively in the other? It really boils down to values; what we as a society and fishing community consider to be the highest and best use of the resource. Is it the medieval mindset of maximal harvest or is it the more modern mindset of maximal recreation? As some have so bluntly put it, are we fishing for food or are we fishing for fun? For many of our modern-day fisheries, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. This less dogmatic view of “highest and best use” should be taken into consideration in determining how to manage the resource more evenhandedly.

MSY and MSR are actually polar opposites in a continuum of management strategies that have their foundations in tweaking RPS ratios for different goals and outcomes. Theoretically, as long as RPS ratios are not allowed to dip below 1.0, the spawning escapement will replace itself, and the run will be sustained in perpetuity.

MSY is the “tried and true” strategy of harvest-based management that seeks to minimize escapements to produce the highest RPS ratios the available habitat can support. If the habitat is capable of producing 4 returning adults per spawner on an MSY escapement of 5,000 fish, then 20,000 fish would come back, resulting in a yield of 300% or 15,000 harvestable fish. As the fishing season progresses, there are fewer and fewer fish available to catch. The fishing gets tougher as more and more of them are harvested, particularly so for participants further upriver.

MSR boils down to abundance-based management that seeks to maximize escapements which result in RPS ratios hovering at or just above 1.0. If the habitat is capable of producing 1.1 returning adults per spawner at an MSR escapement of 19,000 fish, then 20,000 fish would come back, leaving a buffer of 1000 fish for hook and release mortality. The vast majority of the fish remain in the “catchable” pool of fish all season long to sustain maximal recreational opportunity.

I am not suggesting that either of these strategies is the right way to go about managing all of our fisheries. However, there must be some room for flexibility in management to reflect society’s changing values. For far too long, harvest-based management has ruled the roost. We’re due for a little change.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#288602 - 01/19/05 05:20 AM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Mr.Twister Offline
Spawner

Registered: 10/15/03
Posts: 711
Loc: Olympia
Well, it's an interesting concept. It would place too much reliance on too many to cooperate. Herding cats come to mind?
_________________________
"I'm old and tough, dirty and rough" -Barnacle Bill the sailor

Top
#288604 - 01/19/05 10:20 AM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
FNP -
Interesting policy. Nice to hear folks actually propose an alternative to MSY management rather than the generalized reponse that "MSY sucks" comments w/o an alternative.

However I feel for a valid comparsion between MSR and MSY you need to clear up the definitions. My understanding is that strictly speaking MSR is not max. fish abundance but rather a management structure that would maximize man-days of fishing recreation. That may or may not mean for managing for high fish abundance - maximum abundance likely means no fishing as there would no room for even hooking mortality. To minimize man-days of recreation the amount of harvest needed to attract anglers would likely vary from speceis to species.

For example MSR for a halibut fishery would likely rely on more harvest (closer to MSY) than say trout fishing in Yellowstone Park. Again it boils down to what anglers are interested in. If you example was apply to say chinook salmon fishing in Washington state the high hooking mortality in the salt (10 to 20% depending on the size of the chinook being caught) would likely mean no fish to harvest. While I could easily live with that my experience with a pretty broad cross section of salmon anglers in this state would tell that most would prefer to have chinook to harvest.

Strictly speak MSY escapement goals are not that level that has the highest recruits per spawner (RPS) but rather the escapement that produces the highest number of fish above the escapement goal (typically referred to as "harvestable fish"). The highest RPS on most spawner/recruit curves occurs at very low escpaements - right next to zero.

A hypothical population might have a carry capacity of say 10,000 and MSY level of 6,000 and a maximum RPS of say 100 fish. Because of the interest of anglers I would venture that the majority of salmon anglers would opt for something closure to MSY than carrying capacity where a growing number of steelhead would prefer something closer to carrying capacity.

Sorry but don't currently have more time for more detail comments.

Tight lines
S malma

Top
#288605 - 01/19/05 10:38 AM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
h2o Offline
Carcass

Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 2227
Loc: Portland
Smalma-

When you DO have time could you provide some reference/info on 'carrying capacity'.

I'm very curious as to where this idea originates, how it has come to be relied upon by the state of washington in its steelhead management, and whether or not there is any supporting data validating the idea in the first place...

....or is 'carrying capacity' just a theory?
_________________________
"Christmas is an American holiday." - micropterus101

Top
#288607 - 01/19/05 10:56 AM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Anonymous
Unregistered


Smalma-

I really dont think you and your friends know a darn thing.

It just makes me sick inside to know that we have been throwing away 30 years worth of tax dollars.

Top
#288608 - 01/19/05 11:19 AM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Head Hunter Offline
Parr

Registered: 09/30/04
Posts: 49
Loc: Snohomish
Rich G.,

I'll second that!
_________________________
I love animals; They taste good!

Top
#288609 - 01/19/05 11:20 AM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
MSY is the antithesis of abundance-based management. It is rooted in the idea that the habitat has a finite carrying capacity, and that the best way to maximize production from that finite capacity is by limiting the spawning escapement thru intensive harvest. MSY seeks to manage fisheries for the smallest possible spawning escapement to fully utilize the available rearing habitat. Any excess escapement is viewed as "waste" in this capitalistic construct, the same way that spill over dams is viewed as waste since it does not contribute to maximum power production.

The MSY ethic does not mesh well with efforts to restore abundance. In fact, as habitat is further degraded by our ever-expanding human impacts, the MSY construct seeks ever smaller escapement goals in proportion to the reduced carrying capacity of damaged habitats. The MSY mindset does nothing to pro-actively encourage habitat restoration. Rather it is used as a reactive justification to continue maximum harvest on ever-dwindling runs of salmon and steelhead.

In contrast, the MSR construct defines its success on maximizing abundance. It too recognizes a finite carrying capacity for the rearing habitat, however MSR seeks to produce the largest possible spawning escapement for the available habitat.

The MSR ethic meshes much better with efforts to restore historic abundance. Because abundance is the primary goal, MSR encourages pro-active habitat restoration efforts. MSR proponents would designate conservation of existing ecosystems a top priority, and make reclamation and restoration of lost/degraded habitats a pivotal component of the management scheme in order to ensure that sufficient habitat was available for ever-increasing numbers of spawners to seed.

If fish managers are really serious about the task of salmon restoration, they must recognize that MSY is no longer the appropriate model for managing our fisheries. A paradigm shift toward the MSR approach is the only way to recover depleted runs to historic abundance.

Over the last century, a monolithic fish bureaucracy has evolved to worship the MSY doctrine, and we have paid the price. MSY is steeped in the misguided belief that we can have more for less, that smaller escapements are good for bountiful harvests, that an unharvested salmon is somehow a "waste" once abyssmal escapement goals have already been met. Never mind that unharvested salmon's contributions to the genetic diversity of its species or the nutrient biomass of its riverine ecosystem.

This capitalistic construct of maximizing "yield" with the minimum amount of invested "seed" allowed us to be lulled into the false security that we could continue to mine the rivers for free wealth without regard for the fish, their genetic diversity, or their nutrient-deprived habitats. When harvest abuses were synergistically combined with the rampant habitat destruction of human "progress", it was a formula for certain depletion of the runs.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#288610 - 01/19/05 12:27 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Beezer Offline
Spawner

Registered: 06/09/99
Posts: 855
Loc: Monroe WA
Fish Doc, I like the way you think and believe many others on this board do likewise. And in a perfect world.......

That being said, if I am not mistaken, the mandate to WDFW is to preserve, protect and maintain sustainable fisheries, not necessarily recreation. You are correct in your comment about most people thinking that spawners exceeding escapement goals being considered a waste. That is how society looks at it. When society sees a million pinks coming back to the Skagit, they think everything is rosy and that the habitat can't be that bad. Society hears about record numbers of chinook in the Columbia and they think," hey, life is good." Society tells the politicians everything is great, break out the harvest pie. The politicians provide funding for WDFW....

Anyway, I haven't seen up to this point, that society is willing to pay the costs required for significant habitat recovery. It is difficult today to even try to save what we have left. With the general public's current mindset about habitat and harvest combined with the political clout of the non-treaty commercial fishers, then throwing in tribal views on harvest I think that trying to get management of our salmonid stocks based on maximum sustained recreation to be somewhat naive.

But hey Doc, I'm with Ya! In a perfect world.....

Top
#288611 - 01/19/05 12:34 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
lupo Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/16/02
Posts: 1571
Loc: seattle wa
i think that smalma knows alot and i allways learn something from his input.

wdfw on the other hand...... is to fish depletion as the US forest service is to clear cutts.

WDFW- is an agency that does not have common goals with anyone who wants to save our wild fish resources. it is more imprtant for them to ensure that folks in foreign countries get our resources at a great price than it is to ensure that the NW will allways have WILD salmon/steelhead returning to our tables and economies.

NOAA- in the simpilist of terms is an agency that makes up whatever "science" george wants them to. they are a total crock of ****

PS> -all of you conservatives.... where is your open market solution you guys are allway touting? in fact what is an open market solution for anynatural resource issue we are facing?
_________________________
"time is but the stream I go a-fishing in"- Henry David Thoreau

Top
#288612 - 01/19/05 12:37 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
linebacker53 Offline
Smolt

Registered: 10/06/03
Posts: 97
FNP, Is your idea one that can work with the tribes? What road is Alaska and BC on with there sport fishing?

Top
#288613 - 01/19/05 03:44 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
The MSR construct I described was presented from a recreational fisherman's point of view to allow readers of this board to digest it in familiar terms. Labelling it MSR was simply a way to differentiate it from the harvest oriented management of the day. I could have just as easily called it MSA or Maximum Sustainable Abundance. The idea being that abundance is what is required to support high-quality recreational fisheries.

MSY could just as easily be called MSH or Maximal Sustainable Harvest. It's just a name.

The implications of managing by either set of principles remains unchanged. Only one of them will set us back on a path of recovery. The other can at best maintain things the way they are. More likely, things will only get worse as we continue to manage for maximal harvest of ever-declining stocks of salmon.

I refrained from posting this earlier because I knew somebody would raise the question of how the tribal harvest fits into this whole scheme. I doubt the tribes would buy into it. The only way it would work in WA is if the nontribal share of the harvestable surplus were manged for MSR with a guarantee that any forgone harvest would not be forfeited to the tribal allocation. Without that assurance, we're toast!
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#288614 - 01/19/05 05:03 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Gary Johnson Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 07/08/04
Posts: 206
Loc: Fall City, WA
No matter what you call it Doc I agree with you 100%. I really have trouble with the "Record" runs we have been having as they in no way mean anything. I would love to see the models adjusted to allow a much higher escapement goal. Even if it means we only get to keep 1 fish instead of 2 or we can only fish x days a week. Perhaps in 2 or 3 cycles of fish we would then see an increase in abundance as you stated.

I have always felt that the "Escapement" numbers were simply an arbitrary number that someone pulled out of a hat to make it sound like they knew what they were doing. After living on the Raging River for the last 5 years I can tell you that there are far to few fish going by my house to have enough fish in the river for good natural selection. The poor fish hardly have enough numbers to find a single possible mate let alone have the choice to help in natural selection of the fittest!

Top
#288615 - 01/19/05 07:46 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Rich & Headhunter,

Not that he requires any defense by me, but I’ve known Smalma for over 25 years, and I can vouch that he does indeed know a darned thing - and then some.

In this case, what Smalma is trying to do is help FNP by clarifying the meanings of MSY and MSR. FNP has the concept almost correct, but is off a bit. Although it often looks to us like MSY management is seeking lower and lower escapements, that is not the case. MSY simply sets the escapement goal at the level that produces the highest “sustainable” harvest. I put sustainable in quotes because that is part of the problem with it. As other variables change, MSY typically results in too high harvest rates, which in turn result in underescapement. However, it is the declining productivity and capacity of habitat that drives escapement goals downward. And that would happen under MSY, MSR, or an alternative between the two.

Further, MSR can only occur at slightly less than maximum abundance, as Smalma explained, because you have to allow some proportion of fish to be lost to the inevitable hooking and handling mortality associated with maximizing recreation.

H2O,

Carrying capacity isn’t a theory. Actual measurements of habitat can be made, and using the known productivity of similar habitats that have been measured, carrying capacity of the habitat in question can be estimated. However, I always expect estimates to be off by some amount, so I like to have a follow-up assessment of productivity to see how close it comes to the estimate. By that measure, the process of estimating both productivity and capacity are improved over time.

Lupo,

Fish management agencies serve a diverse constituency. Historically, the constituent pressure has been for sustaining high harvests. As the constituents have become more diverse, there has been an increasing pressure for improved conservation and preservation of fish stocks. If you think WDFW isn’t conservation oriented today, you really don’t know what it was like in the 60s or early 70s. Institutional change comes slowly, particularly when the legislative direction hasn’t really changed to account for what we know about fish resources today.

I’m biased, and I contend that NOAA doesn’t make up science for George. However, George is not allowing vacancies to be filled, which can be read as transferring the money to the war effort, or as limiting NOAA’s ability to generate the best available science where there are controversies about science, or it might be some other reason . . .

Linebacker,

MSR doesn’t work for treaty tribes whose interest is in commercial fishing. The philosophies are almost diametrically opposed, and the management strategies and methods conflict. There could be compromises made between them, but only if the parties, or the court, supported doing so.

Gary,

The Raging River would have small escapements of fish under either MSY or MSR or something in between because the productivity, and most likely the capacity as well, are severely reduced from what they were in, say, 1850.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Top
#288616 - 01/19/05 08:33 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Gary Johnson Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 07/08/04
Posts: 206
Loc: Fall City, WA
Salmo,

Very well stated.

As for the Raging. Well I would agree to a point. The fact is that when I moved into our house 5 years ago we were able to count about 10 coho spawning that year. The next it was down to 2. This year there was 1 fish. There weren't any last year or the year before. Given numbers like that I have to seriously doubt the validity of "MSY" due to the simple fact that there just aren't enough fish in the river for the gene pool any more.

I also realize that 5 years is not a long enough period of time to go by. But that is how long I have lived on the river so I could watch it daily. In truth I would like to see them close the Raging to fishing for at least the next 15 years or so.

Top
#288617 - 01/19/05 08:37 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
FNP -
In discussing various management approachs I feel it is important that we have a clear understanding of what is being discussed - that is why I keep beating the definition drum.

In that light I believe that a review of definitions would be helpful. In this context Maximum sustainable would mean the greatest number that can be maintained.

Thus MSY/H would mean the greatest harvest that can be maintained - harvest in this case can mean dead fish that are taken home, the total mortality from all fishing impacts. Meaning it is possible to manage a fishery at MSY where all the mortality is from hooking mortaltiy (CnR season). However in todays world the fishing impacts are typcially the sum of harvest and other mortalities (hooking mortality, net drop out ect).

MSR would mean the greatest recreation that can be maintained. In this case recreation is typcially measured in man-days fishing. typcially the manager will limit gear efficency or bag limits to insure that more days of fishing will be produced from the same fishing impacts. A recent MSR example discussed here on this site was the suggestion that the bag limit on crabs be reduced from 6 to 4. This would spread the harvest out over more days of recreational crabbing.

MSA would mean the greatest abundacne ( in this case adult spawners) that can be maintained. Unless I'm missing some nuance it appears to me that MSA is essential the same as maintianing the population at carryiing capacity. To set some value for MSA management a decision needs to be made under what conditions are the number of spawners to be maximized? Average conditions? the best that have been seen?

Bottom line we have 3 different and interesting management options with different long term objectives that maximize - 1) the number of dead fish from fishing impacts, 2) the number of man-days of fishing and 3) the number of adult spawners.

Your management preference seems to have morphed from MSR to MSA which is certainly viable option. However I am interested in how you would suggest implementing such a management system for say Chinook salmon. Would you place a higher priority in wild or hatchery fish? Would there be any case where wild chinook would be allowed? How would you suggest managing mix stock areas (all marine waters) to insure that the weaker stocks would be able to reach MSA? To access hatchery fish how much impact (short fall of MSA - a failure to meet the management objective) on wild stocks would allow in the combined fisheries?

As you can see it is pretty easy to select a management option but to successfully implement such a scheme may be a little more difficult. As always the devil is in the detail.

Tight lines
S malma

Top
#288618 - 01/19/05 08:51 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
H2O -
I didn't mean to duck your question regarding carrying capacity. Thought Salmo did a good job of addressing it. If you have additional questions or need for clarification I would be happy to take a poke at addressing them.

Gary -
Coho tend to be a small stream fish as result the Raging river itself is not prime coho spawning habitat. Apt to find them in much higher densities in tribs like Deep or Canyon. The Snohomish system as a whole has one of the more robust wild coho populations in the lower 48 states. The estimated MSY escapement goal for the basin is 70,000 adult spawners. Over the last 5 years (the period you have lived on Raging) the wild coho escapement has exceed the goal every year. The escapement in 2000 was 94,000, in 2001 it was 262,000, in 2002 it was 162,000, in 2003 it was 182,000 and this year it was 227,000.

The 5 year average escapement is more than 2.5 times the escapement goal. It would appear the local fisheries managers have failed miserably in harvesting every last fish. Those kinds of densities should be adequate to insure that at least some natural selection is still operating on the population.

Tight lines
S malma

Top
#288619 - 01/19/05 10:35 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
ParaLeaks Offline
WINNER

Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 10513
Loc: Olypen
Salmo G....
Quote:
However, it is the declining productivity and capacity of habitat that drives escapement goals downward.
Did you mean "escapement goals" or "escapement"?

Smalma.....(in reference to the Snohomish Coho run)
Quote:
The 5 year average escapement is more than 2.5 times the escapement goal. It would appear the local fisheries managers have failed miserably in harvesting every last fish. Those kinds of densities should be adequate to insure that at least some natural selection is still operating on the population.
Are you trying to say that the over-escapement in the Snohomish system is a waste? Do you suppose all those wasted fish will (a) be unable to find a place to spawn (b) hatch offspring that will die due to lack of feed or (c) contribute to the ever increasing numbers of fish?

I have a real problem with the concept of capacity as interpretted by the powers that be. I grew up here. My dad grew up in Monroe. My mom grew up between Sultan and Monroe. My dad's folks grew up in Monroe. My mom's folks moved here from Montana in the early 1900's.

I think I have some idea of what constitutes a large run of fish.

I experienced First Hand the impact of Boldt. The availability of fish in off reservation rivers shot downward within very few years of the expansion of netting practices due directly to Boldt.

If there is anyone who knows of a link to data on any tribal-affected, off-reservation river showing fish numbers for ten years prior to Boldt to ten years following Boldt I would truely like to read it. Perhaps the numbers of fish prior to that dead Judge will be somewhat indicative of capacity? Certainly none after are.

For any who are interested....if you want to read a success story about stopping commercialing and replacing it with the benefits of a sports fishery, try doing a search for the history of the Redfish fishery in Florida. Now THAT'S how to manage! Rant over.
_________________________
Agendas kill truth.
If it's a crop, plant it.




Top
#288620 - 01/19/05 11:11 PM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Fun5Acres -
The Spawner/recruit relationship of a salmonid population is a function of the capacity and productivity of the habitat. As we degrade the habitat the result is the sprawner recruit function flattens out. Meaning both the capacity and MSY escapement levels are greatly reduced. To put in context the summer chinook on the Skykomish MSY escapement level under current habitat and survival conditions has been estimated to be 3,600 fish. If the habitat were restored to what has been called properly functioning (about 80% of historic conditions) the same value would be roughly 30,000 chinook. While past fisheries management has played a role in the decline in the status of our populations those impacts pale to what habitat destruction has done.

REgarding the coho situation on the Snohomish. My comments about the managers failing in harvesting all the potential fish was a tongue in cheek commnet - sorry it it was misunderstood. The recent manage of the system coho runs has intentionally been structured to allow for those larger returns. While you did say what your age is I doubt that you seen many coho larger than those recent returns. In the last 40 years 4 of the 5 largest wild coho escapments in the Snohomish been since 2000.

In that same 40 year period the largest escapement of pinks (humpy) was 280,000 until 2001 when the escapement was over a million fish. The 2003 escapements was also over a million fish. In terms of wild salmon spawning the good old days may be now. Of to achieve those escapements fishing was greatly curtailed. The point of this was to illustrate that it is not universal that our wild salmonids have been managed to the fine edge of MSY.

I think many Snohomish anglers have recent seen what large wild salmon runs may look like.

Tight lines
S malma

Top
#288621 - 01/20/05 05:18 AM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
Smalma

Your emphasis on clarifying the definitions is indeed needed to keep us all on the same sheet of music.

Your version of MSR is quite different than what I was getting at with my original post. Your description of "rationing" the fishery by restricting methods and bag limits to stretch out a longer season for a limited amount of fish is not at all what I had in mind. My version of maximum recreation refers to maximum angler-fish encounters, NOT maximum angler-days fishing over paltry runs of fish. Personally I would much rather fish fewer days knowing I can predictably encounter 15-20 fish a day and harvest zero instead of an extra long season where I have to scrape and struggle each day to even get a bite, let alone put a fish in the box.

Quote:
From the standpoint of a purely recreational salmon or steelhead fishery, what matters most to participants is ensuring sheer abundance of fish so as to maximize angler-encounters with those fish. All other things being equal, the angler experience is maximally enhanced by having lots of fish in the river.
From the beginning of this discussion, it was always about maximizing abundance. More than anything, that's what's gonna make the sportfisher happy.... predictably having lots of fish to fish over, not necessarily having the privilege to kill/harvest them. So yes, by your definition, what I was describing in my original post more closely approximates the MSA model rather than MSR. No "morphing" from MSR to MSA was ever intended.

And as your analysis concluded, escapements should probably be managed right at or just below carrying capacity (CC), assuming that escapements significantly greater than CC will not replace themselves. Surplus would be defined as any excess fish beyond CC. Those fish would be made available for harvest, C&R mortalities, and/or hatchery broodstock needs.

As far as hatchery fish go, harvest them all. Isn't that what you make the damned things for? Just stop stealing wild broodstock fish from their natural environment where they can be just as productive if not moreso than if spawned in a hatchery. At least the recruits end up contributing to further wild fish recovery instead of being converted into a harvestable fin-clipped commodity. The only time hatcheries should be allowed to mine the wild runs for eggs is when escapements are certain to exceed CC.

All gear in all fisheries must be made selective, meaning the ability to release the vast majority of non-target stocks UNHARMED to spawn!

SalmoG stated:
Quote:
However, it is the declining productivity and capacity of habitat that drives escapement goals downward. And that would happen under MSY, MSR (MSA), or an alternative between the two.
That may be true, but it is only abundance-based management that will encourage restoration of habitat and expansion of CC. Since abundance is the ultimate goal, managers would be more inclined to preserve/restore habitat. That's the paradigm shift that past and present management doesn't seem to get.

The MSY mindset could give a rip about declining CC as long as there were still fish to harvest. And that is precisely the problem with a harvest-driven management scheme. The only tool in the box is.... you guessed it.... HARVEST! As you stated, it is much more prone to errors of overharvest than underharvest, and no matter how low the MSY escapement is driven by habitat loss, there is still a provision for harvest! Why do you guys cling so tightly to this construct when you see with your own eyes its propensity to further deplete runs rather than recover them? We have done it the MSY way for the last half century. Any damned fool can see that you're not going to harvest your way out of this crisis. Isn't it time we try something different?
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#288622 - 01/20/05 09:30 AM Re: Time to reconsider MSY
ParaLeaks Offline
WINNER

Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 10513
Loc: Olypen
Dr. Fnp.........wow! Well said!
_________________________
Agendas kill truth.
If it's a crop, plant it.




Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Moderator:  The Moderator 
Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 1083 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13520
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645291 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |