Being the final source of mortality in the life history cycle of a fish, and the one that we have the most control over, fisheries generally determine whether or not replacement or escapement is achieved. So while fisheries may not be the primary source of mortality, they are often what determines the ultimate success of each year class.

If we back off on fisheries on fish returning to under-utilized habitat, population rebound will typically occur. I think most would agree that the Grays Harbor tributaries contain a lot of under-utilized habitat. Exploitation of 72% on chinook is at the high end of what a naturally producing stock can sustain even in high quality habitats, and well beyond what many marginally productive stocks can sustain. Clearly, meeting escapement has been a failure for management of chinook in Grays Harbor tribs, further evidence of over-harvest. However, as usual, backing off on the fisheries would mean excess returns at hatcheries, which most managers are unable to tolerate. So we typically talk about shifting harvest allocation rather than a reduction in overall harvest rate even if the reduction in harvest rate might benefit all fisheries over the long term.

AND THAT IS THE REALITY OF FISH MANAGEMENT!

Because modern-day use of the resource is furiously burning the critter's life history from both ends and everything in between, everywhere the critter swims, the guys at the end of the line by default shoulder the greatest conservation burden.

Think about this….

By the time an adult salmon/steelhead reaches home waters, each one represents a substantial chunk of what's left of the total pre-harvest production. I think about the thousands of smolts, hundreds of subadults, and dozens of pre-spawn adults that already died to allow that ONE fish to make it back home. There's a HUGE investment in that ONE fish.

It's a big responsibility to ponder before wielding the ol' wood shampoo. Giving that fish a free pass is no small bit of conservation… while whacking it over the head could mean WAY more impact than anyone of us really wants to own up to.

The hard part is having to swallow that bitter pill of conservation when so many low-holers all the way to Alaska have already exploited the resource before you even had a chance. That sucks, and yes, I understand that.

Its pretty interesting that most folks are all for conservation…. as long as they get to keep fishing the way they've been accustomed and the conservation burden falls on someone else.

Nature of the beast when it comes to a publicly shared resource.

Was anyone surprised???? Not I!

When they say it's about conservation, is it really?

As in environmental issues everyone is an all out conservationist as long as someone else foots the bill. For Chinook it is about AK & BC directed Chinook harvest and incidental catch in other species targeted marine fisheries such as draggers.

And yet again I'll ask, rhetorically I suppose, why do we spend millions of tax and license fee dollars to raise hatchery fish for someone other than WA recreational anglers to catch?

The first answer to Salmo's question is that if WDFW stopped producing hatchery salmon the Tribes would haul their *ss into court. Since Boldt II was about dead fish in the boat, the Tribes are gonna get them one way or the other. With no hatcheries the State would would to seriously protect habitat, clean up pollution, and restrict growth. NO chance of that. They would also have to deal with BC and AK interceptions. Canada "might" be induced to at least listen but since nobody takes AK fish but themselves there are no hammers.

We must remember that about half the catch off AK and BC is taken in rec fisheries, and that a great many folks from WA are on those boats. Indeed, a lot of the commercial guys up there are from WA, too, so while hatchery fish don't do much to help our fisheries down here, our hatcheries do benefit SOME WA citizens. I'm not arguing whether that's right or wrong; just pointing out that there is more than a little support for those open ocean fisheries down here....

Last time I looked the AK catch of Chinook in the marine was 3% AK origin. Yup on AK commercials as the vast majority are WA, OR, and ID residents.

AK is, supposedly, now going to be forced to deal with the SEAK troll fishery due to ESA.

Let the treaty tribes sue. The suit would be based on the U.S. federal treaty right to fish. WA state nor territory made any treaty with the tribes (states have no such right or ability.). If hatchery fish are essential to treaty fishing under the U.S. treaties, then let the federal government pay for and raise those hatchery fish. This would be a good test to see just how deep the federal treaty right reaches. It's pretty clear that the federal purpose for promulgating the treaties with Indian tribes was to facilitate the settlement of WA territory - that would become WA state - along with all the associated development that comes with settlement. There was already ample evidence that settlement and industrialization leads to dams on rivers and pollution and diminished fisheries. So the feds have that going for them should they wish to use it.

Would love to see that suit. If you'll remember back to the appeal of the Culvert Decision the WA Ag's office argued, in front of the Supremes, that the state could blow away stocks for the greater good of development.

In some ways, I doubt the Tribes would sue give the current makeup of the Court. Too much to lose. If they can deal with a government (state) with no gonads then why worry?

"Vast majority" might be a bit of a stretch. Bristol Bay gill net has majority of permits by nonresidents. Other fisheries have resident permits with the edge. For "salmon power troll" only about 18% of the permits are held by nonresidents.


https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=29&docid=64890

I stand corrected as I was thinking the pan handle troll. The 3% is correct though.