I know I live with the facts and don't rely on irrelavant history to make my decisions. Seems Smalma has brought us up to date on current relevant facts.....hmmmmm? Thanks!

Replying to smalma:

It is good news that escapements are improving in the Snohomish system (after 17 years in a row of not meeting those goals, while allowing harvest every one of those years.) But three of the last four years is still a long way from two chinook generations, which would be a minimum of ten years, so I will continue to defend my point that the hypothesis on habitat capacity is still untested.

Or undefended, at least by smalma. He says, "the latest information seems to indicate" that the existing habitat can't support more production, but doesn't offer any hint what that information is or what it proves. That's exactly the approach the RMP takes, and it's exactly the approach WT objected to. Yes, it seems likely that in some sub-basins habitat has been limited to the point where it’s carrying capacity has been lowered. But everywhere? That seems less likely. And how exactly has it been determined that habitat capacity has been lowered, where, and by how much?

How has the available habitat been quantified? How was its capacity calculated? Does the calculation allow for the habitat-enhancing contribution of marine-derived nutrients that could be provided by "surplus" escapement? If it is based on spawning/recruit models, we would again say it needs to be more thoroughly tested. Reductions in harvest rates are apparently helping in the Snohomish (or could a 3-out-of-4-year improvement be explained by other factors?). What were the escapements over the same period in the other major Puget Sound systems? Are the goals being met? If not, are those stocks continuing to be impacted by harvest, at what rate? If the escapement goals aren't being met, isn't any harvest rate too high? It's natural for smalma to want to focus on what appear to be the department's successes, but we need to look at the whole picture. Hopefully these are the sorts of things that can get sorted out in the EIS process.

Technically, escapement goals were not replaced in the RMP; they were eliminated. The only management "goals" in the RMP are the fixed-percentage exploitation rates. In other words, a percentage of fish are targeted for harvest, no matter what the run size. Say it's 20%. If 10,000 fish show up, 2,000 get caught and 8,000 will "escape" to spawn. Great. But if 5,000 return, 1,000 go on ice and only 4,000 spawn. And if only 1,000 show up, fishers still get to harvest 200, and only 800 escape. There is no "escapement" goal, only a harvest goal. The "Low Abundance Thresholds" that smalma refers to are the only management targets in the RMP that could trigger modification of exploitation. So effectively, they are the new escapement "goals," whether or not the comanagers have some other number in mind that they'd more or less like to meet, and the low abundance thresholds are generally about half the old escapement goals. And reducing allowable exploitation if a stock falls below the threshold (see smalma's appendix C), is only an option; the RMP itself only commits vaguely to "taking management action," which could conceivably mean anything, including leaving exploitation rates alone.

Finally, nothing in smalma's argument implies a defense of current hatchery practices. In fact it would tend to argue against using hatcheries as a recovery tool. Hatchery production can allow harvest opportunity (the question is at what ecological cost). But the RMP's underlying premise seems to argue against using hatchery fish to supplement natural production. If habitats are so limited that allowing increased escapement won't provide more fish, then how will putting extra hatchery fish on the spawning beds help? Doesn't letting more wild fish escape to spawn or adding hatchery fish amount to about the same thing, as far as habitat capacity goes? Either the habitat can accommodate the extra fish or it can't. And if it can accommodate the extra fish, certainly the more fit wild fish should seem a better choice. Of course, that wouldn’t “accommodate” harvesters.

I also encourage everybody to try and get ALL the facts. For instance, please note that I always identify myself and who I work for in these posts, so that my "biases" are laid bare, and they can be taken for what they're worth.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Communications Director
Washington Trout

Ramon -
I prefer to be quoted accurately; In regard to the Stillaguamish I said "the latest information seems to indicate that the quality of freshwater habitats have declined to such a degree that it is no longer capable of supporting the populations of even 25 years ago." In the 1970s the then Department of Fisheries established an escapement goal for Stillaguamish chinook of 2,000 adutls. It was thought that this was an approximation of the MSY level. As you know MSY is below the capacity or equilbrium abundance level. As I recall an EDT (ecosystem diagnostic treatment) analysis of the North Fork Stillaguamish chinook habitat estimated that the historical equilibruim abundance at about 24,000 adults. The same analysis estimate the equilibruim abundance of the North Fork under current conditions (late 1990s) with no fishing to be about 1,400; a more than 10 fold reduction! The combined equilbiruim abundance estimate for the entire basin was little more than 2,000 or about the esitmate of MSY 25 years ago.

A note regarding the development of the recovery expliotation rates (RERs) in the RMP. In all the modeling it was assumed that marine survivals would be in the low range. Chinook stocks would be much more productive under normal or above average survival conditions. The RERs that were developed were often only had about 1/2 the expliotation that would occur at MSY. This means even when harvest imapcts reach the maximum level under the plan substantial productive potential has been reserved to take advantage of additional available habitat or that habitat create from restoration efforts.

I purposely avoid hatchery issues as this has been a discussion of harvest issues.

Is the RMP a prefect document? - of course not.
Can it be improved? - certainly.
With our collective inputs during the EIS review process and the inclusion of new information collected of the next year hopefully a plan can be developed and adopted that help assure wild chinook in the future while allow appropriate access to other salmon stocks.

Finally, while it is generally know who I am and what I do for a living I have chosen to post as a private individual under the pseudonym of Smalma. After nearly 100 posts (this is # 97) in less than a year my "biases and agenda" should be transparent to most. I hope to continue to provide postings with inputs and insights on fish biology, fish behavior, and fishery management issues. My avocation continues to be the conservation of the wild fish resource.

Tight lines
Smalma

Ramon this board is composed of many people from many backgrounds....mainly we are all interested in fishing. Please don't toss low blows like you did at the end of your last post....Smalma is part of a profession that I belong to albeit in a slightly different realm of it....so are several others here on this board. We can only represent our own opinions and if you don't like the truths in our so called biases then one must wonder about the professional biases of your own professionals in WT. Comprende?

Silver, I just don't know what you could mean. I am never wrong. I actually have been a few times truth to tell. If I am wrong I am the first to admit it, and normally apologize. Crow isn't too bad, but I rarely eat it. I gather all the info I can, judge it for what it is without bias, see if I have any experience in the matter and compare that, then I make my decision. People say it is only natural that I'm a Libra, since I always hear both sides. In this case, after all the above, I FEEL that I am right. There is that word again. I have a very analytical mind and love research. I once posted a question about fish feeling pain, I had always thought fish did feel pain, that was why they fought so much. But after research, I realized I was wrong, according to science. If anyone can present irrefutable evidence that I am wrong in this case also, I would change my mind and clear my sight of a rectum. But so far all I see is the same thing over and over. Only what one side says they FEEL is the problem and how to fix the problem.

I have to agree with GOOOOOOOOSE Ramon, it is a low blow to call somebody out!!! Smalma can post as a private individual, I value the info he so freely gives and I know his personal thoughts on fish are different than the "company" he works for. I don't believe Smalma has a company agenda to prapagandize us with, what he says is what he believes. Just because you and he don't always agree doesn't make him wrong.