If this is about CR chinook, then we have a real problem as your prioritizing a non-selective B10 fishery over a selective WB fishery.
The fact that it was ramroded through without consideration and in contravention of the WB policy is a real problem.
Let's talk about the impacts for a sec. If one assumes that we average 500 fish in WB in that zone ( I suspect less)and half of them are wild and we apply standard mortality. We're talking about 38 fish. That's about what 4 hours worth of wild fish harvest at B10.
Just understand I am only the messenger of this bad news. NONE of us wanted it, but larger powers were at play, and it WILL happen because a comprehensive but convoluted season has been crafted at PFMC to make all the numbers fit. They're counting on WB exploitation that is statistically indistinguishable from ZERO in order to make the ocean and B-10 packages fit within ESA/PFMC/PSC constraints.
Since the most prominent ESA-listed non-local stock is tules (anyone who has spent much time at WB has caught 'em), you are right. WAY MORE of them killed non-select in the ocean right next door and a few miles south off Long Beach as well as Buoy 10/in-river IN ONE DAY than we could possibly kill at WB all season
The alleged issue is that the WB fishery encounters them in enough numbers to be a concern esp since it previously hasn't been accounted for. The ocean king fishery is largely reliant upon the harvest of tules.... and yes, so is Buoy 10. Some years the proportion of kings harvested in the CR estuary is as high as 70% tules.
BUT....
This year, the coho will be a bigger constraint to the ocean season than tules. Moreover, unlike most of the past decade plus, URB's will be the rate-limiting stock at Buoy 10 for 2018 rather than tules.
If there was ever a year that a few tules could be "safely" expended at WB, this is it.
Unfortunately managers at WDFW and the PFMC were quick to pick up on this new supposed "black hole" of tule exploitation and they put it squarely in their cross hairs for elimination.
How many tules will be saved? Who really knows? The dataset is for only TWO YEARS. And now that the August rec fishing will be closed in the control zone, there will be no way to monitor the non-local contribution without a test fishery to see what's even in there in real time. HMMM.... from the standpoint of logistical efficiency to catch a big enough sample, "test" can only mean gillnet.
The saving grace is that by Policy, no gillnets are allowed in the north bay until after Labor Day. Would they make an exception for a test fishery? Who knows.... NONE of us were savvy enough to ask the question at the final WB meeting last Thursday night.