Like drinking and driving, the two don't mix.

I find it increasingly frustrating to include allocation in discussions about recovering fisheries. I think it's obvious there are two front's, not four H's. Allocation is a political issue. It will always be a political issue. As long as we use allocation as a reason not to make commercial/tribal fisheries more selective, we won't make any progress. Because I agree, if we're getting the shaft now in the allocation front we'll likely see that continue, regardless of what happens to fisheries into the future. Allocation is a completely seperate issue.

The H's have become forever combined. Each dependent on the others. Largely due to these discussions I don't see them as separate issues, rather how they work in concert. But, I do see the separation from allocation. Fisheries recovery (the H's) is kind of like a hardware issue, the nuts and bolts. Allocation is the software. The hardware issues are either compatible, or not. The better the components, the better is the whole. Allocation is what you do with what you've got. The H's are what you do to get it. Allocation should not be considered when it comes to recovering fisheries, and I'm going to point that out from now on whenever allocation creeps into recovery dialog.


Don't see it like that? I'd like to know why.

Two of the H's...hatcheries and harvest...are part and parcel connected to allocation...hard to talk about either without allocation being part of it.

Fish on...

Todd

I agree to a point Todd. There is still an obvious distinction between harvest and allocation. Hatchery production shouldn't exceed our ability to harvest, but, the harvest quotient doesn't care who harvests. IMO. you guys use the allocation issues as a reason to oppose efforts that would add/require/create more selective options to the commercial/tribal harvesters. It's no different than the netters wanting things to remain status quo. Either perspective has the same result on our fisheries, politics influencing policy. They should be considered for their contributions, efforts to enhance harvest are part of managing a fishery, but management policies should remain independent of a harvesters bottom line, or allocation. That's part of the problem now, a big part. Policy has to put the health of a fishery in front of the bottom line. The lack of consideration for a healthy fishery is the primary reason we've failed so miserably to date. What we've done is fuking criminal. I refuse to be the enabler that allows this clusterfuk to continue. Using allocation arguments as a reason not to go more selective is wrong, IMO. The fishery requires we make necessary changes like harvest reform. We're managing a migratory mixed stock fishery for cryin out loud, how do we not acknowledge the benefits of selective harvest? How do we put your own allocation interests ahead of a healthy fishery? We haven't given up a damn thing yet, but we play the role of martar, projecting a worst case outcome for our own selfish benefit. Pathetic.

The problem is, though, is that harvest efficiency is the lynchpin to your allocation...why would the commercial industry go through the expense and effort of developing new fishing techniques if they didn't expect something in return...in the form of more of the allocation?

Fish on...

Todd

Why should those concerns influence a management policy to harvest more selectively in a mixed stock migratory fishery? Managers make the decisions. They decide who what and where. Don't think that'll fall in your favor? Why? You think the influence of commercial/tribal harvesters will squeeze you out of your allocation? Well, then face that issue head on. Don't pretend it's a valid/defensible reason for opposing commercial/tribal selective measures or gear reform. Why continue to take the end-around, when you know good and well harvesters going more selective is what's best for the fishery?

See, I don't know that. I know that them going more selective will allow them to harvest more hatchery fish while using up their ESA impacts, and that very argument his how the sporties get the higher allocation of both impacts and fish on the LCR...

I don't necessarily oppose them going more selective, but I do know it will reduce sportfishing opportunities considerably without helping out most of the wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd

There's more to LCR allocation than our reduced mortality rate. Sure it's a factor, but so are all the other fisheries prosecuted north of here in the ocean. It's not entirely because we're capable of mark-selective harvest, and lower mortality rates than a gilnet used under the wrong circumstances, that we get the numbers of fish we do on the LCR. One, they're our fish! Two, how many more brats would be on the beds if we weren't capable of selective measures?

Sportfishing opportunity is important. Allocation conflicts don't need to interfere with policies that are obviously in the best interest of a healthy, sustainable fishery. They do, and it's got to end.

I think there's opportunity if we're proactive, cooperative. It's a freekin train wreck if what we're proposing isn't a defensible position. Allocation arguments are not a defensible position if you want the resource to recover or have a sustainable harvest.

Hairlipangler wrote:

You think the influence of commercial/tribal harvesters will squeeze you out of your allocation?

i dont think that i think that if the non-tribal commercials and the tribes went to a new method with a zero release mortality rate they could in fact fish a run of hatchery fish down to escapement and any sport fishing above these new methods would be history

I'd reply, but it's too complicated for everyone but you Todd and LOF to understand. The rest of us are too stupid, can you break it down?

....break it down!



:11:

I will say this though, every time we argue allocation objections in public we look like idiots. Every legislator, commission member, reporter and the like are tired of that worn out act. It doesn't matter what clan you're from, commercial, tribal, sport, we all sound the same when we whine about allocation.

I bet they're real tired of hearing it.

Allocation arguments have a time and place. There's no place for them in recovery discussions. Step back and look for yourselves, if you can.....

It's always been about allocation, and it will always be about "Allocation"!

If it wasn't, we would all just shop fishing period! There is a reason was they list salmon as "food fish" and everyone wants their fair share of food.

Nobody's saying allocation isn't important.


What do you think the commissioners or legislators, trying to resolve very complicated recovery issues, want to hear CFM? IMO, in that context, the last thing they want to hear is me, me, me. If there's a better way to drive them away from listening to sportfishing interests, I don't know of it. Because the issues are so complicated, and they are (just look at the responses to boaters gilnet article), we further complicate and cloud the issues when allocation is the root of our objectives. Especially given the state of our fisheries, and the (selective) proposals on the table.

All the commission meetings, house and senate hearings, they just shake their heads every time they hear that me me me crap. It works against us. Plus, you leave yourself wide open for someone willing to expose that logic for what it is.

[quote="Hairlipangler"]

All the commission meetings, house and senate hearings, they just shake their heads every time they hear that me me me crap. It works against us. Plus, you leave yourself wide open for someone willing to expose that logic for what it is.

That's just pure BS hairlip! I and several others have met with several senators and state representatives several different times and that's "the name of the game".....it's Me, me, and us, us and that's how it works in the real world. It's time that you realize it...weather you like it or not!

You'll get no more then what you tell them that you want and that is a fact! :61:

Hairlipangler wrote:

(just look at the responses to boaters gilnet article)

i posted the actual numbers and how the season is modeled and they dont believe me, i dont know how they think the seasons are set.

If you're at a WDFW commission meeting on CR allocation, then yes CFM, obviously the commission wants to hear comment on allocation.

If you're standing in front of the SNRC objecting to SAFE areas and the inclusion of lower mortality gear, the committee's not going to be impressed with your "allocation paranoia" at a time they're considering selective measures to recover distressed fisheries.

How do you you react to disingenuous people wasting your time? If the senators had beaks, they'd peck your eyes out!

Point is that committee was looking for direction, and we give them too many directions, like the responses to the articles in boaters link. They had to look at the lot of us as a real pain in the ass, just getting in our own way. As much dis-information as real information.

Because we willingly let allocation creep into every damn discussion, that's all we'll ever do. Get in our own way. It's now the reason not to do everything. Good luck with that.