I'll see what I come up with... Do you have the entire plant stats for smolts released in the 2005 and 2006 brood years for the tribal hatcheries available? At a 90% number, you're obviously getting that from somewhere. Have you actually seen the hard facts or is that just hearsay?

Keith

Check on the half million smolts up around Chief joseph or Priest Rapids. Fall fish.

Now see here young man, I've already done enough of your homework, call the fish passage center and get the info you need.

503-230-4099

What about it?

Keith

OK just thinking out loud.

With WDFW taking the recommendations of HSRG to use selective commercial gear in the CR and testing coming in last year at 1% mortality for purse seines and say it comes in at 2% this year VS sport 10% and gill nets 40% tangle nets 18 ½% combined =25% mortality (the feds math). The seiners could catch 12 ½ times what current commercial gear catches now.

So let’s say they have a quota that allows them 1/4 of 12 ½X
The sports fish until their mortality impact kicks in. The commercials mop up after sports. They catch 3X’s the fish satisfying HSRG recommendation of less stray’s on spawning beds while using only 1/4 impact and eliminating gill net problems all together.

Right now we have a conservation savings of 75% of ESA listed wild fish from commercial slice of pie..

Knowing the states they will probably want to transfer that 75% savings upriver to stimulate the economy with fishing opportunity on less fish.

Add to or delete parts.
Have a good day

Or the states will elect to move commercials off the mainstem and into the SAFE Areas, shifting the entire 2% mortality to the sport fleet.
Then regulations can be relaxed on the number of poles that can be used, bag limits can be increased, seasons can become seamless, and no more allocation battles.
Keep in mind that the SAFE Areas are not the doing of any sport fishing group or organization, but rather they were created by the sate and federal governments, with the long range goal of removing commercials from the mainstem.

FS

Out of curiosity, did they set up any guidelines and schedules how all the permit holders would fish in those areas? I talked to a manager who doesnt believe all the commercials will fit in the safe areas (assuming the manager was only referring to the WA side, for WA permit holders.) (if thats is how the permits are set up.)

They have admitted to increasing the smolt production for the safe areas, but have not explained how they plan to use it.

that aint going to happen, they will be fishing right beside us.

Nothings going to happen as long as the treaty tribes aren't behind it, we still bottleneck at catch sharing. That only leaves lower river hatchery which can be moved around with a 10 inch hose and a tanker truck.

we dont have catch sharing with all the salmon runs with the tribes

Nothing says the SAFE Areas can't be altered or expanded, last spring they harvested 28K springers out of the SAFE Areas, compared to around 12K from the mainstem.
So the question about viability seems moot.

Upriver springs, Summers, Fall Chinook all have catch sharing. What am I missing steelhead and sockeye?

check the numbers, here is the non-tribal catch from last year,

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/landings/09/2009_Year_End_Col_R_Landings.pdf

here is the tribal catch from last year,

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/landings/09/2009_treaty_FALL_landings_prelim_WEB.pdf

Now that the new math shows that selective harvest can lead to esa wild restoration. Wouldn't that make gill nets obsolete?

L. Louie,

Gill nets have been obsolete for a number of years now where conservation in mixed stock fisheries is a significant issue. However gillnets are the most economical means of commercial fishing. Ergo, economics trumps conservation. But you're not surprised, are you?

Sg

Kinda like how all dams and their operations trump all conservation.

Yes I am surprised.

As soon as the terminal CR fishery went to the ocean 90 years ago there goes that theory of economics playing a role in the process.

Shouldn't ESA Wild salmon getting back to the spawning beds trump economics also?

The federal government enforces the Endangered Species Act far differently when "They" are the ones doing the damage.
One only needs to look at how they enforced the protection of the Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet.
Enforcement was swift and far reaching, there were no exceptions, hundreds of thousands of hard working PNW families were displaced.
When the feds are the ones doing the killing we see deception, denial, junk science, billions wasted on status quo techno fixes, and law makers that won't do their jobs.

What I’m saying specifically is this idea above contributes to the old math that demonstrates status quo problems.

Doesn’t getting rid of gill nets contribute to the new math that puts ESA wild back on the spawning beds with less stray’s also.

Gillnet encounters of ESA listed species in the SAFE Areas is a very small fraction of what is seen in the mainstem.
How is this status quo management?
As was demonstrated last spring, gillnets harvested 28K springers in the SAFE Areas, while harvesting 12K in the mainstem fishery.