... Normally I'd side with Nogs position on erring on the side of conservation, but for the Alberni sockeye run, with its heavy enhancement component, the run is for all intents and purposes a hatchery run, and as such the balance of utilization and conservation tips towards a utilization bias in my opinion.
While I do not necessarily agree, I can understand this position.
However if one were to adhere to that stance, would that not also suggest that efforts should be extended to maximize the harvestable surplus for all?
The 400K number seems to be arbitrary, and may be based based on sustaining the high numbers of fish early in the enhancement program. Every enhancement program has a profile of early high numbers of fish returns followed by diminished returns as the programs mature, so its very likely this 400K number is not a number that is attainable, nor perhaps needed for the sustainable number of fish this run is capable of going forward most years.
No, the 400K number is far from "
arbitrary". A little online research would have answered that question for you before you even asked.
It was the "target" escapement (exceeded) for last year's run, and in fact is a very good predictor of what can / will be expected as far as progeny numbers down the road. The years that number is achieved (and it is the "usual" target except in years of low returns - such as this) the following four year cycle is nearly always of a correspondingly high number.
The years the escapement falls shy of that number have been proven problematic. For instance the brood stock year that produced this year's run (2013) was in the close neighborhood of 200K (about where it is today). From previous years data we already knew that would mean a depressed run for this year as the pattern has been well established. IMO the initial reaction from the department to keep it closed as a consequence was the right decision.
Analyzing the huge data set we have on this run well points out that to achieve desired population levels (and therefore maximize both escapement and harvest numbers) the escapement target should be centered on 400K as noted. Were the escapement to be allowed to approach that number in the case of "off" or low cycle years, it is entirely likely we would see a more stable and increased run size (reduce the number and level of fluctuations) which would benefit not only the fish, but all user groups alike. While this would obviously require keeping it closed for all sectors for the season in question, the eventual benefits of doing so far outweigh the consequences of not.
Will the run be destroyed by this year's activities? Most likely not.
But what these actions do is very much ensure we will be right back in the same position we started with this year in four years time.
For that reason, I believe management's decision to bow to the pressure of the commercial operators and open it for all to be a mistake.
The folks who head out and collect their FOUR fish per day are the smallest part of the problem. However when combined with the commercial and FN removals, the cumulative overall effects are demonstrably counterproductive if managing for either conservation or utilitarian purposes. It is completely up to the individual to decide if they want to be part of that process...
Insanity is often referred to as repeating history while expecting a different outcome...
Cheers,
Nog
