Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Grim by catch news…...

  1. #1
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default Grim by catch news…...

    http://www.adn.com/2010/10/24/151704...-trawlers.html

    You would think when the 20 smaller trawlers in King Cove started catching kings at a rate that would allow for 24,000 of them to be killed in 17 days, they would have stood down from that area or stopped fishing. Totally irresponsible and really sad to see at this point in the fight to keep king salmon returns viable in so many drainages.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Wow. Thanks for sharing.

    That's 58,000 Chinook salmon that will not be coming back to spawn somewhere in Alaska, BC, or the PNW. By any measure, that's alot of Chinook. The only silver lining is that the restrictions that must be implemented will likely protect alot of Chinook that might otherwise end up as by-catch. Now, they may live long enough to complete their journey.

    One can only hope....

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Exclamation



    One more example of Dr. Montgomery's observation about the tension between the inexactitudes of the natural sciences and the need for predictable, economic opportunity . .


    . . one can only hope . .

  4. #4
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    I wonder if they tested any of these fish to determine their rivers/
    streams of origin?
    I would think they could test at least a handful of them anyway.

    Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  5. #5
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    Can someone remind me what happens to the 58,000 Chinook bycatch?...
    "The North wind is cold no matter what direction it's blowing"

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb



    What's interesting here and worth pondering is the article's mention that 20,000 kings-as-by-catch is normal.


    In other words, socio-economics has decided that the overall social benefit of the trawl fishery outweighs the predictable loss of chinook salmon at some level.


    It isn't so much the fact of by-catch that has us up in arms, unfortunate as any amount of by-catch may be, but the current level of by-catch.


    Hopefully this incident will generate efforts and regulations aimed at reducing by-catch across the board.


    One can only hope . .

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    In most fisheries, by-catch is tossed overboard. They are not allowed to retain by-catch. Not sure about this specific fishery however. But it's likely they tossed them. Recall that most by-catch is estimated using on-board observers, and is extrapolated to other vessels in the area.

    Plus, those 58K Chinook may not have been large enough to be marketable or edible, but the article did not indicate their average size.

    It would have been really nice if they could sample some of those fish to determine whether any were marked with either coded wire tags or PIT tags. If so, the origin of the marked fish could be determined. That type of information is really valuable to fish managers. Not only does it tell them the origin of the fish, it tells them were to sample in future years, and where the fish go during their adult/feeding phase. That information is priceless.

    Indeed, those of us in the PNW would really like to know where our spring Chinook go after they leave the Columbia River. Once they pass Astoria, we never see them again until they show up 2-3 years later. Their ocean journey is a complete mystery, unlike fall Chinook which we can track with extraordinary accuracy (to SE AK and northern BC). Our spring Chinook don't show up in any fishery anywhere on the West Coast or in Japan, and the number of tags retrieved annually in the ocean can be counted on one hand.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    . . It would have been really nice if they could sample some of those fish to determine whether any were marked with either coded wire tags or PIT tags. If so, the origin of the marked fish could be determined. . .

    Exactly. There is no reason whatsoever to conclude that the fish were Alaska chinook or from wherever. For all we know, these could have aqua-cultured chinook from New Zealand:

    The worlds' largest producer and market supplier of the Chinook salmon is New Zealand. Marketed as King Salmon, in 2009, New Zealand exported 5,088 tonnes of salmon equating to a value of NZ$61 million in export earnings. For the year ended March 2011, this amount had increased to NZ$85 million., New Zealand accounts for about half of the global production of Chinook salmon, and about half of New Zealand's production is exported. Japan is New Zealand's largest export market, with stock also being supplied to other countries of the Pacific Rim, including Australia.

    Farming of the species in New Zealand began in the 1970s, where hatcheries were initially set up to enhance and support wild fish stocks with the first commercial operations initiating in 1976. After some opposition against their establishment by societal groups, including anglers, the first sea cage farm was established in 1983 at Big Glory Bay in Stewart Island by British Petroleum NZ Ltd. Today, the salmon are born in land-based hatcheries (of which there are several) and transferred to sea cages or freshwater farms, where they are grown out to harvestable size of 3 – 4 kg. The broodstock for the farms are usually selected from existing farm stock or sometimes sourced from wild populations. Eggs and milt are stripped manually from sexually mature salmon and incubated under conditions (of approximately 10 – 12°C), replicating the streams and rivers where the salmon would spawn naturally. After hatching, the baby salmon are typically grown to smolt stage (around six 6 months of age) before they are transferred to the sea cages or ponds. Most sea cage farming occurs in the Marlborough Sounds, Stewart Island and Akaroa Harbour, while freshwater operations in Canterbury, Otago and Tasman use ponds, raceways and hydro canals for growout operations. Low stocking densities, ranging between less than 1 kg/m3 to around 25 kg/m3 (depending on the life stage of the salmon) and the absence of disease in the fish means New Zealand farmers do not need to use antibiotics or vaccines to maintain the health of their salmon stocks. The salmon are fed food pellets of fish meal specially formulated for Chinook salmon (typical proportions of the feed are: 45% protein, 22% fat, 14% carbohydrate plus ash and water) and contain no steroids or other growth enhancers.

    See this map for the distribution of chinook salmon in the Pacific . . from Russia to New Zealand:

    http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2933/en

  9. #9
    Member danmiotke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    214

    Default

    This article is from 2010


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by danmiotke View Post
    This article is from 2010

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    Good catch . . . . +1

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Marcus...... Really? The Chinook salmon from NZ are almost entirely raised in net-pens, as the article you posted points out. The chances that any of those fish just happen to escape their net pens (not likely, but it does happen), and then swim north to the GoA, and then get caught in the pollock trawl fishery in large enough numbers to be noticable is beyond credible. Yes, it would be great to know the origin of these fish. But the suggestion that those fish might originate in NZ is a real stretch (I'm being charitable here). Indeed, I would say that it's highly unlikely these fish originate anywhere outside of AK, BC, or the PNW.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink Caught in the act of hyperbole . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Marcus...... Really? The Chinook salmon from NZ are almost entirely raised in net-pens, as the article you posted points out. The chances that any of those fish just happen to escape their net pens (not likely, but it does happen), and then swim north to the GoA, and then get caught in the pollock trawl fishery in large enough numbers to be noticable is beyond credible. Yes, it would be great to know the origin of these fish. But the suggestion that those fish might originate in NZ is a real stretch (I'm being charitable here). Indeed, I would say that it's highly unlikely these fish originate anywhere outside of AK, BC, or the PNW.

    Thanks, Cohoangler, you are indeed being charitable. Indeed the article makes very plain that NZ's chinook are pen-raised, so you know I wasn't trying to pull a fast one . . it's right there in black-and-white.


    With that in mind, know that my remark was more figurative than literal . . meant merely to illustrate that we don't know where, back in 2010, that by-catch came from and to point out that chinook have a far greater range than the Kenai River in Alaska.


    Next time I'll try to find a Smiley with tongue-in-cheek . . . Click image for larger version. 

Name:	smiley.jpeg 
Views:	16 
Size:	3.0 KB 
ID:	75328

  13. #13
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Yup, the article's from 2010, but that doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be taken from it. This quote:
    ...Josh Keaton, a fisheries manager with the National Marine Fisheries Service, told the Kodiak Daily Mirror. "Hopefully it means a lot of kings are out there to be caught and they ran into a big pack of them."
    provides a glimpse into the very unscientific rationalizing that has been affecting fisheries management decision making for years, and resulted in King runs being severely overfished.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Marcus - Indeed. I shouldn't take myself so seriously either. It is afterall, Thanksgiving.


    i - I'm okay with the rationalizing as long as it doesn't affect management decisions. But it does suggest to anyone reading his quote, that the loss of 58K Chinook might be okay. It ain't, regardless of the number of Chinook in the GoA.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    . . I'm okay with the rationalizing as long as it doesn't affect management decisions. But it does suggest to anyone reading his quote, that the loss of 58K Chinook might be okay. It ain't, regardless of the number of Chinook in the GoA.

    How do we rationalize such things, Cohoangler? All human use and harvest of the earth's resources unavoidably involves waste and by-catch. How should we—indeed how must we—measure the opportunity-costs of such choices? Waste and by-catch are assuredly regrettable, but at some fundamental level, it really is okay.


    Does anyone have any idea how many metric tons of fish-protein are added to the world's food supply annually by the trawl fishery? So we regrettably lost some thousands of chinook salmon . . what's the alternative? Ground the trawl fishery? Forego all those tons of fish-protein?


    I don't think so. Simple minds want simple answers . . it ain't never that easy. Some duly-appointed board weighed the opportunity costs of the trawl fishery, politics and economics surely played a part, and a socio-economic decision was made to prosecute the fishery . . that the by-catch was worth it. How else do we exist as a species, a nation?


    Just shut it all down . . ?

  16. #16
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Marcus on this I must disagree with you.
    While some degree of bycatch in nearly every fishery will be present this goes too far.
    Even for the greater good.
    I believe there should be set levels of bycatch of certain species (primarily halibut and Salmon) and then they must fish other areas or quit fishing.
    If they can't exclude more of the bycatch then they need to move to areas with less of it.
    They will still catch their quotas of Pollock and/or Cod it will just take more trawls to catch them in these areas of less bycatch.
    As for what the aceptable levels will be I don't have that answer thats for our fisheries biologists.
    I undertand the levels of bycatch cannot be 0% but it should not be as high as the article states.
    I also believe it should be mandatory they process their bycatch at their own expense and it gets donated to food banks in Alaska or needy villages that got shut down on subsistence kings.
    The cost of that should spur them to catch less bycatch.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  17. #17
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    So we regrettably lost some thousands of chinook salmon . . what's the alternative? Ground the trawl fishery? Forego all those tons of fish-protein?
    The alternative is for the boats involved to suspend or move their fishing operations when it becomes apparent that they're fishing in an area of high salmon abundance.

    Just yesterday you called upon another member here to be the first to make the changes that he wanted to see. I would say the same here. You're absolutely right that some level of by-catch is an unavoidable fact of commercial fishing. That said, we can take steps to minimize that bycatch - even when not mandated to by law. On our longliner we intentionally fish areas that we know will result in minimal bycatch. If we unexpectedly get into an area with a higher than normal percentage of non-target fish, we move as quickly as possible. Trawlers can and should do the same. If they don't make such changes themselves, I'm sure the regulatory process will soon do so for them.

  18. #18
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Unable to REP Brian or Chris 'cause of this silly program, but thank you BOTH!
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  19. #19
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    I also believe it should be mandatory they process their bycatch at their own expense and it gets donated to food banks in Alaska or needy villages that got shut down on subsistence kings.
    The cost of that should spur them to catch less bycatch.
    Add the cost of genetic sampling and monitoring to the list of their pay-to-play expenses. Some of them may cry foul, but that's the cost of doing business. They have the option of passing a part or all of those costs right down to the consumer. They, too, should be made to help pay the true cost of those cheap fish-sticks and Fillet-O-Fish sandwiches. Or they can simply make a better environmentally-conscious food choice. It's already happening in many other sectors of the food industry.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  20. #20
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Add the cost of genetic sampling and monitoring to the list of their pay-to-play expenses. Some of them may cry foul, but that's the cost of doing business. They have the option of passing a part or all of those costs right down to the consumer. They, too, should be made to help pay the true cost of those cheap fish-sticks and Fillet-O-Fish sandwiches. Or they can simply make a better environmentally-conscious food choice. It's already happening in many other sectors of the food industry.
    Why not?
    I can accept some bycatch.
    But this level is too much.
    Maybe these expenses will force them to change when their wallet gets a bit skinnier.
    Instead of more regulations make them pay more in other ways and they just might change things on their own accord.
    Iceland found a way to exclude smaller cod from their trawls.
    Maybe the industry needs more research in that regard?
    Using their brains and technology
    to develop New trawl nets or fishing methods.

    Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •