Fraser River Sockeye Fisheries and Fisheries Management - Cohen ...

Request #5: Sockeye allocations by gear type were obtained for 2001-2009 fromCounterpoint which covers approximately 30% of the 1980-2009 period in the originalrequest. This was not a major information gap because catches have been very similar tothe defined allocations in recent years.Request #6: The response to this request was incomplete because the methods currentlyused to estimate commercial catch have not been documented; however, interviews wereconducted with various DFO staff to obtain information on the estimation methods. Thetwo reports provided and information from interviews was sufficient to address the tasksdefined in the SOW.Request #7: This information gap was not a serious issue because the sport fisheries are arelatively small component of the Fraser sockeye harvest.Request #9: For the purposes of our report, we defined non-retention to include those fishcaptured and released and those fish that encounter fishing gear but escape capture. Thefirst category of non-retention is primarily associated with in-river recreational fisherieswhile the second category is primarily associated with in-river gillnet fisheries. Theinformation requested on fisheries where sockeye non-retention restrictions have beenimplemented would have been helpful to confirm the locations, times and gear-types forthese fisheries but this information was not essential for our review of the consequences ofnon-retention fisheries on sockeye physiology, survival and abundance.3. Are there additional quantitative or qualitative ways to evaluate the subject area notconsidered in this report? How could the analysis be improved?The report could be strengthened by addressing the following:Would in-season management decisions be sufficiently accurate to achieve harvest rate goals, orwould lower harvests be required to achieve individual escapement targets given the existingmonitoring and assessment programs?The authors have pointed out that recognition and assessment of en route lossesis critical for deriving reliable estimates of total abundance and exploitation rates. How couldthese losses influence location, as well as the complexity and costs of management by CU?LGL Response: Our report explicitly addresses the first question above as follows:“In general, in-season forecasts have been sufficiently accurate, precise, and timely to makeM-10