If the confidence limit curves had been included, I'd venture that Ricker wouldn't look so robust. A splatter gram without a "goodness of fit" description is deceitful statistics.

I see Carcassman captured above a key strength and weakness of Ricker style spawner - recruit relationships. When productivity is low, a population can be driven to near extirpation if that is the management objective. And managing for MSY invariably pushes population abundance downward. That's its track record.

Looks like a simple linear model with increasing numbers of recruits for a corresponding increase in escapement would fit those data as well or better then the ricker curve. One could just as reasonably interpret the data then as an indication that habitat has not been adequately seeded to establish a density dependent response as predicted by Ricker. Only way to find out for sure is to allow more escapement and see if it produces correspondingly more recruits. Instead they head the opposite direction with escapement goals, so we'll never get a chance to find out.

Bingo. Early in the Boldt years the Tribes consistently pushed for "probing" to determine proper escapement. It made sense that one should try a variety of escapements, over time, to see what was best. But, they only wanted to probe down from what WDF had set.

As Milt says, we'll never get the chance to see what filling the streams with spawners will do. When we do have that occur, and it has with some pink and chum, we simply consider the results as outliers or not applicable to other species, or .......

. . . buncha' cynics!

I'm not surprised that Ricker or B-H derived escapement goals are low. Salmonid habitat productivity is so severely compromised. Pinks and chums are always just a good flood away from devastation. The harvest management problem that bothers me is the intent, the requirement really, to harvest every paper salmon that is forecast, knowing full well that the error bounds of the estimate are sometimes as large as the runsize. They could at least impose a buffer like they've began doing with Columbia River spring chinook. Of course that has as its objective the assurance of harvestable fish for treaty tribes upstream of Bonneville.

The problem with the Ricker mantra is there is ALWAYS a seat at the table for harvest.

Regardless of how depleted a run has become, there is ALWAYS a mathematical MSY to support continued exploitation of the population.

The MSY mindset is a poor fit for recovering depressed/threatened populations. Managers are just free to adjust the goals downward to fit the new (albeit smaller) MSY.

As some in GH/WB have identified, the ONLY seats at the table-and this includes WDFW and the Tribes- are for harvesters. There is no seat for somebody who wants to see fish on the gravel, who wants to see the ecosystem reasonably fed. Nobody speaks for conservation, just how do I get mine.

And here's what the northern intercept folks have to say about it....

http://www.thecordovatimes.com/article/1526chinook-quota-alaska-trollers-angered-reduced

"For over 30 years trollers have paid the price of habitat destruction in the Pacific Northwest," Kelley said June 26. "The stocks we've worked hard to rebuild are now returning in record numbers, yet Alaska is being held to a pitifully low quota that failed to recognize that abundance. Trollers are losing faith that they will ever see a fair shake in this process."

I find it hard to shed any tears for the Alaska trollers, I think for 30 years they have been the beneficiary of hundreds of millions of dollars of Columbia River salmon mitigation funds. Those record number of returns they "worked so hard to rebuild" are hatchery fish. There has been little improvement in wild runs and there is no reason why Alaska trollers or any marine fishery should have a greater share of impact on ESA fish.

The data and graphs you posted are probably the best information one could expect for the funding available to gather the data. Spawner recruit data is a good example. Counting spawners is a well developed technique. Determining recruits is not so straight forward. For a given brood year catch plus escapement has to be monitored for the next 5 to 6 years. For each year the age class composition of the catch and escapement has to be determined so that the fish can be assigned to a particular brood year. A Ricker curve for a given year for chinook cannot be generated until years later, time to collect the data and then more time to do the analysis. The cost to do the work for most rivers other than the Columbia probably out weighs the value of the fishery unless those Alaska trollers are willing to pay their share.

The 5 and 6 year old chinook are disappearing everywhere. 5 year old chinook are gone in the Yukon River and are probably not long for many other Alaskan rivers. The only hope would be to limit chinook fisheries to terminal areas. Of course those of us in Seattle who fish area 10 know how well that works.

In my experience, and in the literature, most escapement estimates are significant underestimates of the real number. Then, you need good age data, annually. The catch, especially for non-terminal areas, has to be divided amongst the stocks. This, too, varies annually but normally averages are used. And, as with escapement you need the ages. Annually.

Keep in mind, though, that MSY management has absolutely nothing to do with biology or ecology. It is simply and economic analysis that asks "What is the minimum amount I have to invest (spawners) to maximize my return (catch)?"

As WH1A said, we need to manage from the rivers out. For all stocks. If they all have harvestable fish, above the in-river needs, then outside fisheries might be possible.

Or, we can just fish the stocks into economic extinction and move on to some other resource to rape.

What was that bumper snicker? "Earth First. We'll Log the Other Planets Later"