If interested you might want to view the following:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021006&slug=gamblingchronology06m


Doesn't take long, and will give a quick view of the "History of Gambling in Washington State"

The indians continue to get away with "legal poaching". I am so sick of hearing about their customs and spiritual ways. The only spirits I see with them is beer and other alcoholic beverages. The sad thing is that they may be the biggest contributor to the demise of our fish yet they are allowed to continue. Their obvious lack of intelligence when it comes to the future is sad and heartbreaking. With all of the money and help the tribes have been given out of our tax dollars they still continue to pollute, poach and generally scam us at every turn. The idea of a 50-50 split of the resource is a joke. it NEVER happens that way.

I sent out the closure information yesterday so I thought I would follow up. I have the Chehalis & Humptulips Steelhead models for the coming season. The Summary tab is best for a quick look but the RR tab is run reconstruction which allows one a look at actual impacts in previous years. If you want them PM me and I will send them to you.

So what next is the question I keep getting? Well a lot really and I have simply told folks that for the REC fisher statewide it is time to go to war. Your target? WDF&W's budget! The REC fisher has been paying the bills and frankly getting screwed. Oh the usual organizations will pig pile into the fight ( which is good ) but they will not carry the day. It is you folks the average fisher that can. How is the question and the answer is if folks go right at YOUR local legislator and take the time to write in a informed manner, it makes a difference. Gone this next session needs to be the rubber stamp bit that the Democrats have done with WDF&W budget for years. The Republicans in the Senate are going to have a huge say so that is where the best opportunity resides. Guys that agency cannot survive without REC dollars as they are broke and going to come wanting your money again! This time we must extract reform for the REC fishers with penalties if the agency does what it has in the past, which is grab the money and just continue on as always with lip service all over that says everything and means ZERO.

Now for us INLAND Communities Chehalis folks it is the same on steroids. In the past all have pretty much depended on the Coastal Caucus but for us it is presently dominated by three legislators from the South Coast that are D's. Which by the way are rather severely aliened with commercial interest and directing the vast majority of harvest to the estuary based fisheries. Gone are Rep Kessler, Senators Owen & Snyder and frankly the North Coast Legislators are not that effective on fishery issues let alone think about the inland communities of the Chehalis Basin which are represented by Republicans. So for the inland folks your legislators to talk to are Senator John Braun, Rep. Richard DeBolt, and Rep Ed Orcutt. I have been asked to help and I will. I and others will take the time to work a timeline of just how this falls salmon season was mismanaged to the point of total failure that we now have. I have a Public Document Request in and frankly it is in a three week period of time in October that the agency has refused to define what on earth they were doing that created this problem to the degree we have. When I have the information you all will get it too.

It will be a difficult effort for you folks in the inland community but the mess the agency made of the Chehalis salmon fisheries actually can be used to benefit a reform effort. What WDF&W did this year for once left them no place to hide. To be sure they will try use the usual verbiage that says & does nothing but try to evade responsibility for this fiasco. This time around it will not work as others and myself are going make a real effort to get information out to you folks in a timely manner to insure you're not buried in BS by the agency.

BUT do not do a Dave. By that I mean fight like hell for your rights to end the discrimination that WDF&W heaps on the inland community and fish in the Chehalis Basin. That said do not do what I did yesterday. I blew my top at Steve Thiesfeld and provided him a rather rude conversation. Now that I disagree with what the hell happened this fall is a given but Steve did not deserve that. He has done nothing but work his butt off since taking that miserable job of Region 6 Harvest Manager. He has the right to expect better from all of us but especially someone like myself who has been around the block more than once with them. So Mr. Thiesfeld you have my sincerest apology for my outburst as it was uncalled for. ( again ) For all of us this old rule from Bristol. " blows above the belt, do not give a inch but keep it civilized." Do not do a Dave as it not necessary to get your point across. That conversation folks was not my finest hour, learn from it.

So it begins for us in the inland Chehalis communities. RECS, the guides, the property owners who shoulder the cost of habitat preservation, the Chehalis Tribal fishers and the fish . EVERYONE in the inland communities are taking it on the chin in this salmon harvest allocation. For the inriver REC to be treated fairly the non treaty Chehalis Tribal fisher has to get their share also. We are all tied together and we must begin to work together if we are going end the practice of directing the vast majority of harvest to the estuary fisheries. We have done it before and it is time to do it again.

It is truly " game on " time folks.

I am very familiar with the gaming laws in the State, as of now the Tribes has the only Auth slots, And last year slots alone where over 600 mil for thier coffers.
My point is offer them sole exclusion, or If they don't want to deal, offer to everyone, do you think they want to divy 600 mil with the likes of you and me. Notta a chance

Good solid post Riverguy

Adding this to the discussion for those who have not seen it. THX BB for reminding me.


Commission Budget Policy 2015-17 Reduction in General Funds and Increase in License Fees

The Department’s share of General Funds - State (GF-S) has declined dramatically over the past five years, decreasing from $110 million in 2008 to $61 million in 2014. Once again this year, the Department was directed to prepare and submit a budget with additional GF-S reductions of 15%, or roughly $11 million. The cuts presented in that submission are distributed over the activities that are largely supported with GF-S: enforcement, habitat protection, native fish recovery, and fish management activities associated with commercial fisheries.

Over this same period, the share of Department costs supported with sport fishing license revenues has grown. License fees were increased three years ago and now represent the largest single portion of funding. The Department now faces increased costs of maintaining existing services. In addition, we see the potential of additional cuts in future biennia to allow the state to meet its K-12 educational obligations under the McCleary decision. The Department also faces the prospects of additional reductions in federal funding that support hatchery production and critical fishery sampling and monitoring activities. If it is to maintain and expand opportunity for recreational fishing, the Department must pursue additional fee increases.

Approach for Sport Fishing License Fee Increases

The Commission recognizes the benefits of sport fishing across the state in generating funding for agency activities well beyond fishery management cost. Deposited in the Wildlife Account, user fees support such things as native fish recovery, fish production, and a variety of costs associated with management of the fisheries.
It is the policy of the Department to ensure that recreational license fees are used for the benefit of the sport fishery. To be successful, the Department is committed to working closely with the sport fishing community to define the new fee structure and to identify specifically the use of the new revenue created from the new fees.
The Commission recognizes that increased fees can be counterproductive. Increased fees can lead to declines in sales. To counteract that response, the Department must develop specific proposals that result in increased sport fishing opportunity.
The Commission believes that it would be beneficial to look for ways to make practical commitments to expand sport fishing opportunities at the same time that it pursues a course during this Legislative Session that avoids the need for additional license increases in the next two biennia.

Cost Benefit Analysis and Budget Decisions: Salmon Fishery Activities The Director will provide a report to the Commission that includes all the available information relative to the costs of providing and managing sport and commercial fisheries including enforcement, monitoring, and hatchery production costs. The Director will include in his report a breakdown of the revenue sources that support the activities (GFS, federal, local, DJ). Within existing resources, the Director will also report to the Commission the Department’s best estimates of the economic benefits and license revenues that are derived by the state from each major salmon fishery, e.g. Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River.

It is the policy of the Department that consideration be given to the comparable economic and agency revenue benefits of respective fisheries as various cuts, fee increases, and policy changes are proposed and discussed by budget decision-makers.

Promote Selective Fisheries

The Commission adopted policies that support hatchery and harvest reform and realigned management in a number of specific fisheries to promote more selective harvest practices. The Director will ensure that the Department’s biennial budget submission includes elements that maintain and advance selective fisheries and hatchery reform measures.

Equitable Sharing of the Costs of Management

In light of continued reduction of GF-S, the Commission directs the Department to seek means to recoup the costs of hatchery production and management of commercial fisheries from the participants in the commercial fisheries or reduce agency activities in support of these fisheries.

The cost of managing and maintaining commercial fisheries has long been funded with general fund revenue. Commercial licenses provide very limited revenues to offset management costs -- roughly 4% of the costs of these fisheries. Unlike sport fishing license revenue, funds from the sale of commercial salmon licenses largely go directly to the state treasury. The sizable reduction in general fund revenue that the Department has experienced over the last two biennia has left it without the financial means to continue providing the existing commercial fisheries the hatchery fish that sustain them. The Director will include in his legislative requests submission a proposal that is designed to raise new revenues from commercial license holders that will help offset the costs of providing commercial salmon fishing opportunities.

When we first heard we were being shut down, it was fresh on the heels of an extremely irresponsible decision on the part of WDFW to allow the NT gillnetters a couple days ahead of the closure they knew was coming. That was pretty $hitty, and I had no problem letting them know it.

Looking back on what has transpired since, it seems clear to me that the QIN has been the entity calling all the shots. When I look back at the overall catch data, there's no question in my mind whose managed fisheries were responsible for the early closures, and it wasn't WDFW's. The reason we're still not fishing is that the QIN didn't want us killing the wild coho they are continuing to target with gillnets under the guise of a "steelhead fishery."

When it comes to which co-manager is capable of disseminating more bull$hit, until recently, I figured nobody could touch WDFW. Lately, the QIN has proved me wrong.

Any reason we shouldn't send a reasonably polite letter to Fawn Sharp and Ed Johnstone (cc your local legislators and Governor Inslee), asking them what they intend to do in the future to ensure that exercising their treaty rights won't infringe on our rights as citizens of Washington State who pay for the privilege to fish?

The last paragraph of the budget report says a lot about who is fronting the costs for the commercial fishers....

With Fawn Sharp and the Qin's it's all smoke and mirrors, two years ago they close down lake Quinualt to fishing, Saying it was theirs. If you look today at the Tribel news letter on their web site, she just returned from DC petitioning congress for ownership of Lake Quinualt. So how two years ago did they close it to the non tribel fishers, when they did not own it.
Now she sends a letter to K5 news and claims little to know impact on wild Coho since they started netting thier Steelhead season Wk 48. She claims the economic loss to the members to not net would be severe,
Last year this week they netted in excess of 500 Coho and 9 Steelhead it was worse last week and the week before and stay about the same until about 18 Dec...... How do 9 Steelhead cause severe economic crises. Smoke and mirrors

Does the federal government have a subsidy program for the fisherman when they don't make their quotas? Always wondered about that.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/disaster/faqs.html#acc2

The Commission will have open mic opportunities at its Port Townsend meeting 11 and 12 December. Unfortunately, both of those opportunities are at 8:15 A.M.: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2015/12/agenda_dec1115.html.

Many sport fishers drive out to Forks to fish for a day. How about you take a day to ensure local opportunity in the future? Hope to see fellow anglers there.

Well trying to catch up some for you guys so ask if you would like the attachments mentioned. First is the Region 6 presentation on the status of 2015 Fall Salmon season to the Commission. Not much to say here as frankly except the 30 reasons staff failed and it was not the agencies fault.

Second we have the presentation from a recent public meeting on the Naselle Hatchery. I was under the weather and could not make the trip with one days notice from the agency. It appears the meeting was more about the Commercials & Legislators than the hatchery but again I did not make it. Why did not the agency let folks know in advance? Why no minutes or something that the citizens could use to understand the issue? No idea here but you might ask staff. Anyhow what I got from one person present was same o same o but loudly.

Last is a letter from Region 6 staff to the Commission requesting guidance. Interesting presentation but I do not know if the Commissioners responded or not. It does let one see the issue from staff's eyes regardless of the fact that you may or may not agree or disagree with the points put forth in the document.

So now what? In the next few months we have budget followed by NOF. I think these issue will be as adversarial and divisive as we have seen in years. Some will promote " let us all work together " and others will go right to " you dirty rat " and make it personal. Neither will work guys.

Think of it this way. In the world of salmon harvest with WDF&W Steve Thiesfeld is as good as we will get, period. That said what could he have done differently this past season? Not much is my thought. ( how is your blood pressure at the minute? ) You see R 6 is part of a system of management that is driven by history with us fishers and tribes in the courts. The way the ocean conditions played out to NOAA forecast ( PDO ), ocean harvest Rec & Commercial, and Rec Bay terminal played out one would have to be deaf, blind, and nearly dumb as a stump to miss it. I do not believe that WDF&W staff in the different divisions failed to recognize the failure as they are just much better at their individual jobs than that but rather the system utilized by their internal processes will not allow them to react forcefully to address it. Why? Us, you & I just plain all of us, have been kicking the crap out of WDF&W to the point one lady compared them to women with " battered wife syndrome. " So they react to contain whatever issue has them nailed to the floor at the minute. The key word is contain which in normal circumstances does not have resolution of the issue residing in it. They just go from hot button issue to hot button issue REACTING to circumstance.

So why cannot WDF&W react in a positive manner to things such as Rec harvest and commercial over harvest. They do not know how! The system of management designed maximize harvest over just about everything is ingrained in the " culture of harvest " that was the original purpose of WDF and still dominates their processes. Add to the mix a ever growing and darn near militant Rec fisher who WDF&W will be required to have support a ever growing portion of their budget, tribal entities supported by gambling & gas tax dollars itching for pay back for real or perceived past injustices, ( post Boldt & yes WDF&W really screwed with the tribes & yes the tribes have gotten in more than one blow in return in fact in the Chehalis I do believe the QIN could call it even up ) that are pushing the boundaries well past equitable sharing of harvest, and Non Treaty Commercial fisheries that utterly destructive to the Rec fisher combined with the tribal catch, and you have a perfect storm.

So from my spot on the stump it is really and I mean really important that we all get our arms around things. One is WDF&W does not know how fix this bloody thing called Salmon Management. Second is none of us ( including myself ) have a clue to how to do this thing either. Just beating the crap out of them ( which will happen and rightly so ) will not solve the issues either. Add to the mix this simple fact. More Rec dollars to continue the same management policies will not work in fact will be counterproductive as the Recs just will not buy in at all and will vote with their feet headed out the door.

So what and how to fix it? As to how I think I am wandering in the wilderness with the rest of you. Do to my years around WDF&W I may, well do is a better word, see the issues.......... more distinctly? So how to do this? No idea as to how.

Now what is needed I think I agree with another who has put this forward. REFORM is the word. Reform for the agencies revenue stream and harvest policies. Clearly defined objectives for meeting escapement that WDF&W be required to meet with consequences for failure. Rec harvest be the priority. That Commercial license fees pay for the entire cost of managing Commercial fisheries. That additionally Commercial fees cover the cost of hatchery fish production that primarily benefit Commercial fisheries.

Those are my thoughts on what the word REFORM means. Now how you accomplish these reform objectives is another discussion except for this. We cannot show WDF&W how to do this but rather only WDF&W can show us how to get the job done. Again we have this " HOW " thing.

Dave

Thanks LH for the heads up. So you guys can go listen ( I think ) to what was actually said.


I was listening to Steve Thiesfeld on the "Northwest Wild Country" Radio program last Saturday morning and I thought he said the tribe didn't catch much that first week. He was hard to hear because they were talking to him on his cell phone and his voice was kind of muffled. I thought he said they caught 35 coho but I could be wrong. He also said that WDFW was probably going to open the Nooch and the rest of the Hump on Dec. 16 for the sportfishermen. He said the indication was that not many coho were coming into the Chehalis. With the flooding and no netting we can only hope that some fish will make it to the gravel.

Things are about to get going.


WDFW FISHING RULE CHANGE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov

December 11, 2015

Opens fishing in Grays Harbor and tributaries Dec. 14;
changes salmon daily limit

Action:

Rescinds fishing closures for gamefish and salmon in Grays Harbor (Catch Area 2-2) and all tributaries. Fishing is open only in the locations, and during the dates, listed in the 2015-16 Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet.
Changes salmon daily limit to 1 hatchery coho in the areas open to salmon fishing.
Effective Date: 12:01 a.m. Dec. 14, 2015.

Species affected: Salmon and gamefish.

Location: Grays Harbor Catch Area 2-2 and all tributaries.

Reason for action: Hatchery steelhead are returning to Grays Harbor tributaries. Wild coho salmon remain well below the escapement goals necessitating release of all wild salmon. However, historical catch data indicate that only a small percent of the recreational coho catch occurs after November and therefore the impact to wild coho will be very small with these fisheries.

Other information: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will continue to monitor the of the coho return. All areas and seasons listed in the 2015-16 the Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet are in affect except for changes listed above.

Information contact: Mike Scharpf, (360) 249-1205

As it is that time of year I thought I would post up this e mail thread that is part of a conversation on Steelhead survival or reproductive rates. The link in the original post ( at the bottom of the page ) is to a paper that is interesting reading.



The concept of mykiss spawning and then smolting is something that I believe I saw at Snow Creek but it took a couple of decades for it to work to the forepart of my brain. While it still hasn't been confirmed for mykiss...................



Atlantic salmon males can spawn as parr (sneaky) and then smolt and spawn as 1 SW (grilse) or as 2 SW fish. Males are often sequential repeat spawners. Females seldom spawn as 1 SW, with 2 SW and rarely 3 SW maiden female spawners - then spawning is alternate year. Life history strategies are very complex in the North East Atlantic (River Teno Erkinaro)

Population resilience depends on a mix of smolt ages and maiden and repeat spawner ages. Populations reduced to limited life history strategies are the ones most in peril. Those listed as endangered in USA and Canada are down to one dominant life history strategy.

Joan



Subject: Re: Commission adopts new sportfishing regulations (steelhead, etc.)

Iteroparous salmonids are significantly more complex than even suggested here.

Males in some species (Atlantic Salmon come to mind) never smolt. There are apparently survival tradeoffs while the females go to sea to grow big eggs (simplified). Then, there are the mykiss that appear to spawn and then smolt. Finally, some Argentine populations of anadromous mykiss spawn up to eight times.

This all gets back to why would a species spawn/breed more than once. I believe that they multiple spawn because a single spawning/breeding does not produce sufficient future spawners; it is not a sustainable life history pattern. This gets most obvious when you look at something like albatross. There is a female Laysan Albatross (named Wisdom) who is banded and is known to be well over 60 years old. And, she laid an egg again this year. For argument sake, assume she started to breed at 10 and laid an egg every year since. So, she has laid at least 50 eggs. For the albatross population to be stable, she needs to have produced 2 adults, or a success of 4%. This is, actually, less because she is still laying. Put another way, that means an egg-adult LOSS of 96% annually can result in stability.

For mykiss, we nave seen populations with 50-90% repeats and they can spawn up to 8 times. Just what sort of marine smolt-adult survival would this be? At Snow Creek we had 800-1200 smolts while I was there. 50 spawners could produce this. 50/800 is 6.3% and 50/1200 is 4.2% id R/S is 1:1 which it almost never is. So, the "low" marine survivals seen in recent years are low only in the sense that they aren't large enough to support the fisheries we "want".



Here’s a relevant article re: Hal’s concerns about the importance of repeat spawning for steelhead-population viability, being particularly important for males (given additional growth between breeding seasons):

Seamons, T.R., and T.P. Quinn. 2010. Sex-specific patterns of lifetime reproductive success in single and repeat breeding steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64: 505-513 (https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B_sa2AnC9DW4VlhLcXFNUTRXVDg).

I thought this might help those ( & myself ) who wondered what exactly the NOAA over fished designation means for Grays Harbor. I dug this up in a Public Document Request so from a agency staffer is the thought on what it meant legally.



What this means is the NOAA and the Council (PFMC) (They) have determined that overfishing is occurring but the stocks are not in an overfished status at this time. They determined that a stock is currently being overfished using Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT). For Grays Harbor fall Chinook, the MFMT is 63%. That is, if overall fishing mortality (all fisheries) exceeds 63% the stock is considered to be experiencing overfishing, see EXCEL file. It is not concerned "Overfished", which is Maximum Stock Size Threshold (MSST). MSST is currently defined as half Stock maximum sustainable yield (Smsy), or 13,326 x 0.5 = 6,663.

Below is what actions are taken is a stock is determined to be experiencing overfishing, this is from the Amendment 16 of the PFMC's Fisheries Management Plan:

2.2.13.1 Overfishing
The STT will report postseason exploitation rates in the annual SAFE document, and when overfishing occurs, the Council shall:
1. notify the NMFS NWR administrator of the STT’s findings; 2. direct the STT to assess the mortality rates in fisheries impacting the stock of concern and report their findings; 3. immediately take action to ensure Council area fisheries are not contributing to overfishing, and; 4. notify pertinent management agencies of the stock’s status and the contribution of various fisheries to the total exploitation rate.


And another explanation.

Grays Harbor Fall Chinook

Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was reevaluated and changed in 2014. The new natural spawning escapement goal is 13,500 naturally spawning Chinook for Grays Harbor with 9,880 for Chehalis River and 3,620 for Humptulips River.

The Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was 14,600, 12,364 Chehalis River and 2,236 Humptulips River. This goal was adopted in 1979 and was based on available spawning habitat and a spawning density of 36 fish per mile. A level of 24 fish per mile was used for the mainstem Chehalis River and all tributaries upstream of Cedar Creek, reflecting lower productive potential. This goal is defined as a natural spawning escapement goal.

The Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) is to review the biological basis for Chinook salmon management objectives under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PSC, 2009), Chapter 3, Section 2. (b) (iv), The CTC shall “…evaluate and review existing escapement objectives that fishery management agencies have set for Chinook stocks subject to this Chapter for consistency with MSY or other agreed biologically-based escapement goals and, where needed, recommend goals for naturally spawning Chinook stocks that are consistent with the intent of this Chapter…”. The abundance-based management regime for Chinook salmon established by the 2008 Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) is intended to sustain production at levels associated with maximum sustained yield (MSY, measured in terms of adult equivalents) over the long term. Therefore, the escapement goal for Grays Harbor fall Chinook was reevaluated based on spawner recruitment analysis.

The reevaluation of the Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal occurred in 2014. Three spawner-recruit functions were considered (Shepherd, Beverton-Holt, Ricker), and the Ricker model was identified as being the most appropriate form for both the Chehalis and Humptulips datasets. Brood years 1986 to 2005 were used in the analyses. In all analyses, parent generation escapement (i.e., spawners) includes both natural- and hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally. Spawner recruitment, biological based natural spawning escapement goals were developed for Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. Based on the Ricker analysis model, a Chehalis River fall Chinook natural spawning escapement goal of 9,880 was proposed and 3,620 for the Humptulips River. A harbor-wide natural spawning escapement goal of 13,500 was proposed.

On March 18, 2015 posted in the Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 52, NMFS proposes updates to management reference point values for Grays Harbor fall Chinook as recommended By the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015. These management reference point values are conservation objectives to provide necessary guidance for fisheries management within the guidance of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
There are four management reference points established in Federal Register V. 80:
1. 13,326 natural area spawners for Grays Harbor (9,753 Chehalis, 3,573 Humptulips) goals.
2. Smsy 13,326 natural area spawners.
3. Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY), total exploitation rate of 63%. Management all fishery exploitation to 63% or less.
4. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, Smsy * 0.5), 6,663 natural area spawners (13,326 * 0.5 = 6,663. If natural area spawners drop below 6,663, stock considered “over fished”.

How many consecutive times must escapement failures of < 50% e-goal occur, before the stock is considered "overfished" ? ? ?

Is once enough?

Three strikes and you're out?

At least 3 of the previous 5 escapements?

WHAT?

...

Overfishing is occurring but the stocked is NOT considered overfished? J F C... YGTBFKM, right? These fukkin word games are such a sham.

GH chinook stocks are routinely being fished at total exploitation rates exceeding 70%. Bank on it.

Here's what the Hump piece looks like....

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post877033

You know, the thing that really frustrates me is how they continually paint escapement goal reductions as science-driven. What a crock of $hit. Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that lower escapement goals are established to create fishing opportunity that, according to the rules, shouldn't be allowed, and now we're surprised to learn that the stock is experiencing overfishing? Either these people are hopelessly stupid , or else they're convinced we are.

As long as maximum profit for the commercials is NMFS's operating goal, the slide toward extinction can only continue. The beautiful thing about MSY management (from their perspective) is that as long as we continue to kill every last fish we imagine we can, nobody will ever know if the "science" behind their decisions has been flawed.