interesting article- politicians worst fear coming to pass

Discussion in 'Stillwater' started by pilchuck steelie, Oct 22, 2006.

  1. Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    Posts: 1,272
    Kailua Hawaii
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Salmo-- I'll try to make a little more sense for you big fella. Just for you. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    Whew! Coach
    By the way, a drunk on speed? You know Salmo, there is only one way you could connect the dots and make that analogy. "PARTY AT SALMO'S HOUSE FRIDAY NIGHT!"
  2. Paul Huffman Lagging economic indicator

    Posts: 1,419
    Yakima, WA.
    Ratings: +132 / 0
    The more I worked with it, I came to view harvest management in the Post-Bolt era much like the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction: It's scary to give up any power, and there'll be peripheral confrontations, but if you can engineer a balance the power between two adversaries, you can enter into a period of peace and prosperity.

    In the 50s and 60s, the Ocean Troll fishery in the NW was growing alarmingly, but there was no mechanism or political will to control it. Lots of part-timers joined in. Just get a commercial license and you didn't have to stop catching when you reached the sport limit. A great summer job for teachers. And river sport catches were really just a swag. Lots of guys bragged about how many punch cards they filled up. You could just go down and get a new one, throw the old one away. It seemed like we were destined to repeat the pattern of the demise of Atlantic Salmon or striped bass on the east coast.

    After 1974, escapement goals suddenly became a big deal. Catch accounting became a big deal. Treaty area tribes got staffed up with biologists and enforcement with the help of federal fish management grants. WDG also got some federal grants to staff up in response to the challenge. It was a lot like an arms race. Each side watched the other so that they tried hard every last catch, find count every last redd, and stop the outlaws. If you couldn't meet allocation obligations and the escapement goal, somebody's fishery got shut down under the threat of court action.

    In the early 80s, I sat quietly in the audience at the Hoquiam Eagles, hoping no one recognized me as a biologist, while WDF reps at the podium told the rowdy crowd that the Ocean fishery and the commercial gillnet had exceeded the non-Indian share that season and the rivers would be closed. The crowd just couldn't believe it. Many lashed out at the Boldt case tribes, but few made the connection that WDF was going to have to control the ocean fishery to provide for the in-river fishery in this new era where escapement goals were going to be taken more seriously. In the restroom, the drunk at the next urinal told me "Spears!" I smiled politely and shrugged. What was he talking about? "The Indians should be told they have to take their share with spears just like they did when the treaties were written!" I told him "Careful what you wish for. They didn't use spears here, they had big fish traps. No big diesel gillnetters, no modern electronics, and they could still build a big fish trap, catch the whole harvestable number, and we'd really be shut down." I thought he was flushing with anger for a second, but then he picked out one image of me to look straight in the eye. "Crap, I hadn't thought of that!"
  3. Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    Posts: 1,272
    Kailua Hawaii
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Great post Paul. Thanks. I love solid insight into the past, especially from a guy who was in the trenches so to speak. Speaking of in the trenches, educate me and whoever else wants the knowledge on exactly how those escapement numbers are arrived at. Are they predicted years in advance, by air, by redds, by? As a trained biologist, how accurate are those numbers in your opinion. Thanks again. Coach
  4. TomB Active Member

    Posts: 1,620
    seattle,wa
    Ratings: +58 / 0
    Paul- that post was priceless....it is one of the better summaries of the situation that i have seen...and in an entertaining anecdotal form too. thanks for sharing it with us.
    -T
  5. Jeremy Floyd fly fishing my way through life

    Posts: 2,558
    Quesnel, BC
    Ratings: +319 / 0
    I would be all for something rediculous like rotating rivers every two years and river A and within 400 yards of the mouth is catch and release only and river B is harvestable.. two years later the opposite is true.

    I am not a biologist so I cannot tell what sort of impact this would actually have but in my mind it makes sense. We rotate crops for obvious reasons so why not animals?
  6. fatwhitedog New Member

    Posts: 120
    a place on the OlyPen, Wa.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    **Apathy and laziness which is readily apparent from the lack of pride or whatever in a large portion of society is unfortunate. Facilitating that and making it a successful lifestyle through free handouts is far worse though in my mind.**

    Now how the hell does that idea relate to specific performance regarding a contractual obligation that a treaty such as the Point No Point Treaty is?

    The white folk in this country created the problems we are facing now… and yet they want to allude to some ideology that treaty rights boils down to being lazy because it doesn’t fit into the white folks belief system of actually having to abide by the contracts their forefathers created.

    How messed up is THAT line of thinking the Indians are lazy because the white folk reneged on their obligation regarding their own contract to the tribes?
  7. Jeremy Floyd fly fishing my way through life

    Posts: 2,558
    Quesnel, BC
    Ratings: +319 / 0
    I didnt specifically say indians I said society which is everyone.. i even included examples of 'white' folks..
  8. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,476
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,619 / 0
    Coach,

    Nice try for you, I suppose. Yes, there will be a party. However, I only invite folks who can actually cobble together two or more consecutive coherent sentences in English. I'm almost sorry you won't be there, as I suspect you'd be the most entertaining fellow. Now, did this have anything to do with fisheries conservation? Yes, it does. It's difficult to discuss it unless all parties are communicating clearly. Stringing together unrelated thoughts within a single sentence, or sentence fragment, is entertaining when you do it, but fails to convey any clear thought. Hence, my drunk on speed remark.

    You ask to be educated about escapement numbers. Which ones are you referring to, the spawning escapement goals, or the escapement estimates?

    Spawning escapement goals are determined differently for different species and different areas/river systems. For most Puget Sound and coastal chinook runs, the escapement goals were determined from 10 year averages between the period 1958 - 1975 when rivers were "thought" to have been adequately seeded. Since "thought," even if professionsal, is such a subjective term, WDF and certain tribes tried to improve on the method of setting the escapement goals over time using a spawner:recruit function that estimates the escapement necessary to produce the highest average yield or harvest, over time. This is called an MSY or MSH escapement goal.

    Chinook escapements are estimated on larger rivers from aerial redd counts at 10 -14 day intervals through the spawning period. Estimates from smaller rivers and tributaries are derived by foot surveys of index streams, counting live, dead, and redds, and extrapolating for unsurveyed streams. I'd guess that chinook escapement estimates for Puget Sound are + or - 15% accurate.

    Coho escapement goals were derived via habitat modeling, estimating the quantity of juvenile rearing habitat and then estimating the number of adult spawners necessary to seed that at ~100 smolts/female coho (from Smoker at Minter Ck in the 1950s). This is described in the WDF 1976 report by Zillges.

    Coho escapements are estimated via foot surveys of index tributaries in each major river system, counting live, dead, and redds, and extrapolating for unsurveyed streams. I'd guess the accuracy of coho escapment estimates varies widely, from + or - 25% to + or - 80% accurate. Tests where known numbers of adult coho were released upstream of a wier demonstrate that coho can be exceedingly difficult to find and count. In the test I'm thinking of, fewer than 25% of the coho were accounted for.

    Pink and chum escapement goals have been determined from brood year escapement estimates that, collectively, correlate with good subsequent recruitment. In some cases, the goals were determined from escapement estimates made via adult tagging studies, but many were from much coarser estimates. Pink and chum escapements are estimated from live and dead counts from both foot and boat surveys. I think chum escapement estimates are within + or - 25% unless the river floods and washes away the carcasses, in which case the estimate is worth less than the paper it's recorded on. Pink escapement estimate varies widely, I think. I wouldn't wrap a confidence interval around it.

    Sockeye escapement goals were determined for Lake WA based on the estimated spawning area of the Cedar River and the sockeye smolt production potential of Lake WA. Escapement is estimated by lock and ladder counts and appear to be fairly accurate.

    Steelhead escapement goals were developed from a habitat model, using juvenile rearing habitat and potential steelhead parr production as the key variables. The seeding component came from fecundity and smolts/female data developed at the WDG station on Snow Creek. Some steelhead escapement goals have been adjusted based on tribal co-manager negotiation, using spawner:recruit data. I think steelhead escapement estimates are within + or - 25% accuracy unless spring runoff blows out the rivers, making survey data unreliable.

    There ya' go, Coach. Pretty dull stuff, but clear and cogent, if not convincing.

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.
  9. Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    Posts: 1,272
    Kailua Hawaii
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Convincing until those fish hit the ocean. You have more than illustrated clearly the guesswork surrounding the "science" of our anadramous fisheries. Granted our biologists are very talented and do the very best that they can. But the variables that have to be inserted into every equation are so complex and vast especially concering migration at sea (and the variables encountered on the ocean journey) that "science" and guesswork seem to overlap constantly. In fact another of our posters with some biology backround e-mailed me yesterday and mentioned how the actual model on migration as applied to our anadramous fished came from Wisconsin. The white bass I believe was the subject and we applied those findings to our fish. That is secondhand, but he convinced me. (Thanks GT) We had no idea what was going on until our friends in the Big-10 did that research. Have a great party at your house. I bet it will be a real rip roaring hum-dinger with you hosting it. Maybe someone will bring a crowbar so they can try to pull out that bug you have in your ass. (Maybe bonnet is approptiate)
    Your favorite, entertaining non english speaking drunk on speed. (Who can't put a full sentence together):D
    Coach
  10. Jason Decker Active Member

    Posts: 2,626
    Issaquah, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    .:beathead: ptyd :rofl: :rolleyes:
  11. Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    Posts: 1,272
    Kailua Hawaii
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Salmo, wouldn't ya know it? I found an old picture from one of your legendary parties. I can't see the keg in the picture, it must be in the kitchen mumps-tea-party.jpg . Sorry I missed it big guy. Make sure ya click on the picture, it'll bring a smile to your face. Love ya Salmo. Coach
  12. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    carry on salmo g. so now we have some guesstimated escapement goals, that would be smolts headed down stream. next step is determining harvest goals. explain that set of processes, thanks.
  13. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,476
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,619 / 0
    Coach,

    Ya' can't see the keg cuz we're sipping single malt from tea cups. It's not like I have a complete set of crystal here in the trailer park, ya' know. BTW, don't flatter yourself. I didn't say you were favorite. And my parties aren't legendary, even in my own mind. And if anyone brings a crowbar, I'll assume they showed up to work, and I'll find something for them to do, like prying meaning out of your posts. Although in fairness, I'll admit your last one was exceptionally cogent for you. Thanks for trying.

    I'm glad to read that you find the BS of fisheries science clearly illustrated. Clear and direct communication is my intent, and it's nice to know I'm gettin' it done.

    I can't tell if you're surprised that science and "guesswork" or estimation overlap in fisheries management. You needed be any longer. A lot of people have the misconception that fisheries science is based only on a series of double-blind, controlled experiments. Not so. Probably not for much of what is scientific. Science is nothing more than the acquisition of reliable information. What you read in Scientific American may be the result of experiments employing the scientific method, but a vast amount of science is not. And especially fisheries science. Much of what we need to know about fish simply cannot be studied in a laboratory. So fisheries requires the testing, or attempts at testing, hypotheses with many uncontrollable variables thrown in the mix. Often it doesn't matter that the results are not precise. What matters is that the results are reliable (see acquisition of reliable information above) enough to use for management purposes. And for the most purposes it is. It is weak where precision is needed for harvest allocations between user groups routinely, and it is weak where precision would reduce variability in attaining desired spawning escapements. (This does not excuse, nor is it meant to, management's unwillingness to impose more mid-course corrections between harvest and escapement, which is a different issue altogether.) However, information that is reliable enough to conserve the resource and provide harvest opportunity is the norm, but it ain't precise. And I don't know of any managers that indicate otherwise.

    Your 10/25, 12:15 post rambles on about ocean migrations. I don't know anything about the Wisconsin or white bass migration approach to Pacific salmon management and won't attempt to comment on it. There may be a lot of variables associated with the ocean phase of salmon life and migration, but the critical ones for management needs are marine surival rates and migration routes that result in harvest interception. Interception rates are pretty well documented. Marine survival rates range over an order of magnitude, and we may never have good predictive tools for that.

    I can't tell what it is that you want, other than perhaps to just piss and moan. If you insist on precision that cannot be had, then the appropriate fisheries management solution might be to simply prohibit fishing. The information, no matter how reliable, will probably never be precise. Maybe you want to prohibit the fishing that you don't participate in and allow the fishing that you do. Well, who wouldn't? However, in our pluralistic form of government, that choice ain't on the menu.
    ----------------------------------------------
    GT,

    Yes, we have escapement goals. No, that would not be smolts headed downstream, although the two are related.

    Harvest goals of the co-managers before ESA was simply to harvest surplus production. Surplus production is usually defined as the number of fish over and above the escapement goal. Since the imposition of ESA constraints, the objective has been to provide harvest opportunity without jeopardizing the survival and recovery of the ESA listed species. That is not the same as zero harvest of ESA fish. It's limiting the harvest of ESA fish while legitimately targeting and harvesting unlisted fish.

    You're welcome.

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.
  14. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    the conumdrum then becomes: a guestimate regarding escapement followed by setting a harvest allocation based on that guestimate.

    based on the actual returns, year by year, it would appear that the result of those guestimates is skewed toward the harvest side. in other words, there would appear to be far fewer fishes returning than projected. this begs the question then if these guestimates are biased toward harvest, the models of projecting escapement are incorrect, the techniques employed need to be changed and so forth.

    based on what the angler observes, just as what the bio observes, there are far fewer fish returning today than in past years.

    so the natural question then becomes: why haven't the harvest goals been reduced to take this into account? that would be native and non-native fisheries combined.

    and yes, i have been posting for some time now that the 'science' involved with fisheries management is pretty slim. trend analysis is a powerful tool to the extent you can quantify and isolate the impinging sources of variance, and obviously this is vodo with fisheries management.

    FYI, the study of the white bass of lake mendota formed the building block hypotheses for the study of pacific anadramous fish and their migration habits. interesting set of studies conducted in the early 60s that really shaped the thinking about the pacific anadramous fishes..
  15. Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    Posts: 1,272
    Kailua Hawaii
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    On a real serious note, Salmo, there's no pissing and moaning. I just wanted you to admit that really little is known about our anadramous fishes. Or how flawed the system is that we decide how many can be harvested. Each time that count is off, it puts another possible race or strain of wild fish at risk of extinction. Especially in a state that has created their own little hatchery Frankenstein of rivers and creeks. I've been willing to put my rods down for years if it helps. But you see, guys like you were my heroes. I'm not a fisheries biologist. I can't throw the big words around and the statistics at the snap of a finger. I don't drink single malt, just beer. I chew copenhagen and swear too much. I'm not as polished as you Salmo. Nor do I wish to be. I'm a flyfisherman and coach. . I've sat in clubs, listened at meetings. Cleaned up rivers, taught proper etiquette. Clipped adipose fins. Anything I thought at the time right or wrong, that would help the fish. Not just to catch them, but to watch their triumphant return to their native rivers. It makes me whole. It is in my blood, like all born and raised Northwesteners. And I did it, believing most of what you guys say. I've seen you guys call runs healthy right up until they're almost gone. We've screamed and stomped our feet that we were losing them. You told us those hatchery fish wouldn't breed with natives or wild fish. We've called you guys on things we've seen, and you taked down to us like you do to me. What could some backwoods idiot know? What worth is the opinion of some redneck that has spent a couple thousand days on a river? I used to believe in guys like you. We love those fish just as much or more as you and your "educated" guys do. We are waiting for the fish to come back. But they haven't. I'll take your insults all day to get to the truth. Today I got a little closer. You say I make no sense. You know less about these fish than even I thought. And your methods for their future arrival in our magnificant rivers are haphazzard guesswork at best. All the big words in the world can't hide that. Drink a single malt for me. And the state of Washington.
    Sincerely Coach:beer1:
  16. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,476
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,619 / 0
    GT,

    Is it really a conundrum? I'd ask, what do you need, and what are you not getting that you do need?

    Before harvest allocation comes the estimate of harvestable numbers. Before that comes the pre-season runsize estimate. The runsize estimate may be based only on brood year escapement, or it may include other factors such as peak winter flow events and early marine juvenile surveys. However, marine survival remains the dominant bogeyman as far as runsize estimate accuracy is concerned.

    You're right that runsize estimates are skewed toward harvest in that runsizes are over-estimated (~55%) more often than under-estimated (~45%). A good estimation model should over and under predict equally. Whenever the model over-estimates runsize, then yes, the escapement projection, as well as the harvestable surplus, are both in error.

    The co-managers do try to account for that discrepance in some instances and modify to factor it in. Not always. Fisheries management is a combination of biology, sociology, and economics. Actually, the economics are a sidebar of the sociology in fish management. Ultimately, decisions are a combination then of natural and social sciences. Often, the conservation result is a compromise.

    When you say that fewer fish are returning today than in past years, you need to place that statement in context. What years, and what fish, and in what areas? For example, although wild chinook returns to Puget Sound tributaries are down significantly (recent 10 year ave.) contrasted against the 1970s, wild coho, pink, and chum returns to PS tribs are up in the same time period. It's hard for me to make sense of your statement in that context. But maybe you meant another context. Columbia River chinook? They're up by the recent 10 year ave, and steelhead are about average, I think (going on memory, not looking this up).

    It's appropriate to adjust harvest goals as runsizes increase and decrease so that adequate escapements are maintained. Which ones are you concerned about?

    I don't agree that the science of fisheries management is pretty slim. I think it isn't what many folks outside the business assumed it to be. Trend analysis has been much used in fisheries, but we've been discussing its limitations. I think you have some understanding of this. I'm unsure why you'd classify it as voodoo, however.

    Thanks for the white bass ref. I almost feel as though I should have heard of it before. But fisheries science isn't so slim that I've encountered anywhere near all of it.

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.
  17. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    salmo, would seem to me that the primary goal is to ensure the survival of specific species of fishes. not the hatchery zombies but the unclipped fishes, although they may in fact be cousins of the others.

    and yes, i do understand that fisheries 'manangment' is more sociology and economic than science. thanks for owning up, appreciated.

    so what is the problem with putting the fishes FIRST???

    yes, i know there would be bitching and moaning but what is the objective here? if its allowing more fish to be snagged, have you visited the lower dungenss lately?, or to build the stocks? the choices are truely hard and they obviously weigh heavily on WDFW folks and others associated with the fishery business. BUTT, its time to put the fishes ahead of the other concerns. don't you agree??

    vodo, implies that when you do trend analysis, you must idenfiy and quantify the sources of variance in the equations. you and i both know, for a fact, that we simply don't know what all of those sources of variance may be. in addition, we simply don't have the tools available to put numbers around these variables. that is not a criticism, only a statement of fact related to the difficulties involved in this entire process.

    what i find in talking with bio's is a line of bullshit a mile long. of course they are clueless regarding my limited knowledge and i never put that on the table. however, statistics are statistics and when you run the numbers, the runs are depressed.

    you wish to point to specific drainages?? ok, that is fine with me but lets quantify the time window you are specifying so we are all on the same page.

    for once, WDFW and all of those associated with fisheries management need to step up to the plate and put the fish first, economics second.

    and yes, i believe this should be applied, with a blind eye, to all of those who are involved in harvesting fish. for too long, JQ public has belived that all of the management conversation was actually based on hard data. its time to admit that the limited data are in fact limited and 'we' really don't know until after it has happened!
  18. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,476
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,619 / 0
    Coach,

    You're sounding rational now, so I'll try to step off the high horse of arrogance and not talk down to you. It's not always easy cuz I try harder to be clear and direct than nice.

    I don't admit that very little is known about anadromous fish. We know more about them than many marine species. Obviously we don't know everything, and we especially don't have high enough precision in population estimation to suit the critics. We probably never will have enough for them.

    Nor do I think the system for runsize estimation is flawed. If it was as flawed as you seem to suggest, the % of over-estimates would be much higher than it is. The goal in estimation is to have overs and unders be equal, with the narrowest variance around the mean as possible.

    Can you explain how management system is putting specific populations at risk of extinction? (I almost can't believe I'm asking this since my personal leanings are more toward conservation than the harvest mentality. But a good technical person should be able to argue both sides of the equation.) There have been threads in this forum where Smalma has described the huge reduction in harvest rates on PS chinook, that wild coho escapements mirror the best of historic estimates, and that PS pink and chum populations are higher than they've been in over 30 years. PS steelhead are another matter, but there simply is no evidence that harvest rates have anything to do with the low recruitment experienced in recent years. All indications point to an as yet unknown early marine survival effect.

    It's unfortunate that you held fish bios as heros - we ain't all that. But we do know a few critical things about conserving and managing fish, and most of us welcome your reasonable criticisms. However, we can't do anything about it if you choose not to believe what it takes to manage a fish population. It would help if you agree to understand, even if you don't like it, that those charged with managing the fish have extremely limited authority to affect harvest allocations and dang little to protect and conserve habitat, which is ultimately the key to abundant wild fish populations.

    Also, sorry to disappoint that you think I know even less about these fish than you previously thought. It may amuse you to know that most fish bios in the business think I'm pretty damn well informed. Of course, it's all relative.

    Please believe this one thing: I want those salmon and steelhead, wild ones, around here for generations to come. And by good fortune and using my wits, I think, I get to do some pretty neat stuff that helps assure that reality. That doesn't mean the fish will be as abundant as you, or I, would like them to be. But it gives them a chance to be as abundant as they can be within the constraints imposed by our pluralist system of government and fish management.

    I'll try and remember to tip one in your name. Good discussion. Thanks for your effort.

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.
  19. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,476
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,619 / 0
    GT,

    Maybe survival of the species above any other objective is your management objective. It certainly is mine. As I've mentioned several times now, in this pluralistic system, there are parties with equal and greater influence than you or I who put harvest as a goal at the same level with species conservation. That's the reality I've come to know. People, as a species, are not altruistic. As a species, as a society, and more often than not, as individuals, we put us first, including our wants, not just our needs. Look around and see if you agree.

    Therein is the number one reason why society has choosen not to put the conservation of wild salmon and steelhead first, above all other objectives related to anadromous fish, both wild and hatchery origin.

    I think snag fisheries are deplorable more for what they say about the quality of the people involved than for the effect on the resource. Most of the intense snag fishing is concentrated in limited locales where abundant hatchery fish are stacked up. From a fish ecological perspective, there's no significant loss. The principle loss is one of human character in my opinion.

    Yes, I'd like to see fish put even further ahead in some respects. But I've been around this for a while now, and I'm very impressed with the amount of weight given to fisheries conservatin concerns these days. Believe it or not, it has not always been this good. I'm not saying that it's good enough in every case to ensure the long term conservation of every fish population, however.

    In this discussion, I think the trend analysis most relevant is the one indicating the long term declining trend. For some populations that is going to continue as a result of human population growth, and probably because social priorities will eventually change, and some current protections will be reduced over time. Nonetheless, I'm fairly confident that a significant number of populations of each species will persist quite a while into the future, thus preserving managment options for a future, potentially wiser, generation of resource managers.

    You mention again stepping up to the plate and putting the fish ahead of all other interests. If you're serious about that, the place where that can happen is the state legislature and the Congress, not WDFW, USFWS, nor NMFS. The legislature has placed harvest right along with conservation as the resource management objectives for salmon in this state. Giving a higher priority to conservation would require a modification to state law that would be heavily, and most likely successfully, against by the commercial fishing industry. The change could occur, but the vast majority of state citizens have no interest, and those who are interested in fisheries are far too apathetic to organize and fight for the change, based on my observations of past performance.

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.
  20. Manannan Mac Lir Professional enabler

    Posts: 55
    In close proximity to whisk(e)y
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    WOW! Now that's what I call a debate. Thank you Pilchuck Steelie for the original post. Then, thanks to the guys who got Coachduff riled up. That really got this party started! Then, thanks to the Coach, gt, and Salmo G for the education. Man that was entertaining and very informative. I'll raise a beer and a malt to you all for a spirited discourse on the state of things anadramous in the state of WA. No BS. Every day I learn something frrom this site.