Originally Posted By: Todd
"Selective" commercial fishing is not a very good term...all types of commercial fishing, including gillnets, are "selective"...the only difference between the gear types being their relative release mortalities on non-target species.

For some reason many folks have glommed onto the idea that gillnets are "non-selective", and that purse seines are "selective", and that's as far as they're willing to go into the conversation.

"Selective" fishing really means the difference between intending to release or avoid non-target species (selective), or intending to kill whatever enters the net (non-selective), but even that is a bit of a misnomer, as time and place restrictions can be used to "non-selectively" harvest whatever is around, when whatever is around is almost entirely, or entirely fish targeted for harvest.

Some more selective means of harvest will lead to far more encounters with non-target species, so any decrease in relative release mortality for non-target species will be overwhelmed by greatly increased encounters with those fish...e.g., if the relative release mortality is halved by using different gear, but encounters are doubled, then there is no conservation benefit to the non-target critters...the same amount will die.

In fisheries that are constrained by hatchery fish harvest quotas, the more selective the gear, the less wild fish will die. In fisheries that are constrained by ESA impacts, it will make no difference to the wild fish whatsoever, there will be no conservation benefit.

They're all just tools, not answers...use the tools properly in appropriate fisheries, and they'll help...use them in the wrong way or in inappropriate fisheries, and they may hurt the wild fish worse.

It would be refreshing if those who are constantly arguing about this issue would shift their ideological mindsets from "are selective fisheries good or bad?" to "when do selective fisheries make sense, and when do they don't?"...and then advocate accordingly.

So, my answer to the original question...selective commercial fishing will not ruin sportfishing in and of itself, nor will it save fish or sportfishing in and of itself...when it's used properly, it may help both fish and fishing, and when it's used improperly, it may hurt both fish and fishing.

Fish on...

Todd


Best response I've seen you post on this topic yet.

So, that said, how do sportfishers go about advocating for a change in policy to shift to hatchery harvest quotas from ESA impact quotas?

Or would it even make a difference?

Seems to me that the use of selective commercial gear in fisheries limited by hatchery harvest quotas would serve to benefit wild fish.

What would be the good or the justification for ever limiting a fishery by ESA impacts as opposed to hatchery harvest quotas knowing that the mortality rates of selective gear are far less than gillnets?
_________________________
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.