Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: New bycatch caps for GoA trawl fisheries

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default New bycatch caps for GoA trawl fisheries

    A recent article:

    http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/06/...inook-bycatch/

    Perhaps the folks in the Great Land already know this.

    It seems to be good news, although I don't understand both sides of the issue. It appears that the folks who rely on Chinook for commercial, subsistence, recreational purposes aren't happy, even though the bycatch is reduced considerably.

    The article mentions that there are 50 trawlers affected by this cap, and the cap is 7500 fish. So, on average, the cap is 150 Chinook per vessel. So if they hit one school of Chinook, they could be done (I realize this is not reasonable since the cap is not managed as an average).

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up Good post . . .

    Good article, Cohoangler, thanks for posting it.


    I liked our ADF&G Commissioner's input:

    But council member and Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Cora Campbell responded that salmon fishermen had already experienced plenty of economic damage, and that a policy that wouldn’t have required the trawl fleet to change its behavior wouldn’t have been fair.

    “If you set the hard cap at a level where it would not have constrained the fishery in the past 10 years, that is not a balanced approach. That is not sharing the burden of conservation between the trawl fleet and the directed salmon fishermen. What that is doing is ensuring that the burden of conservation continues to be shouldered entirely by the salmon-dependent users in the terminal fisheries.”

    Bill Tweit, who represents the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, shared comments that resonate up here in Alaska:

    “Certainly, the extent and depth of the chinook conservation crisis right now gives us no choice as a council but to respond with a conservation measure.”

    Selective harvest for conservation of Chinook salmon is affecting more fisheries than those in the Kenai's backyard.


    Thanks again for your post . . .

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default don't trust, verify..

    I only hope that the rest of the fleet is more trustworthy in reporting than American Seafoods has turned out to be!

    Observers are certainly needed to keep things honest so we can trust the 7500 cap will not be exceeded.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    A recent article:

    http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/06/...inook-bycatch/

    Perhaps the folks in the Great Land already know this.

    It seems to be good news, although I don't understand both sides of the issue. It appears that the folks who rely on Chinook for commercial, subsistence, recreational purposes aren't happy, even though the bycatch is reduced considerably.

    The article mentions that there are 50 trawlers affected by this cap, and the cap is 7500 fish. So, on average, the cap is 150 Chinook per vessel. So if they hit one school of Chinook, they could be done (I realize this is not reasonable since the cap is not managed as an average).
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •