Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Jacks or Stunted Normal Fish?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default Jacks or Stunted Normal Fish?

    Here is a thread from Washington with some interesting, at least to me, comments. Perhaps 18" kings are sometimes 3 years old, per WA F&G scale studies.

    http://washingtonflyfishing.com/foru...2#post-1096210

    Terry

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    I assume they are working with Atlantic salmon. Pink salmon on the other hand may have a different composition. For example, I believe pink salmon are considered to be evolutionary advance over other salmon and they would be considered all small by this study. It does point out the issues of salmon management and why in the past biologists said to harvest fish one should do it equally over all age classes and sizes. Unfortunately, some managers in Alaska did not get that message when the Kenai River chinook fishery was created. Size selectivity takes place in every fishery but one needs to keep it to a minimum. Now we are talking about large fish goals and that small fish mean little. I have always said that is a fool's position and this paper seems to support the idea a mix is better from an evolutionary point of view.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    OOPS, looks like the link was only to Page 2 of the comments. Try rhis for page 1. http://washingtonflyfishing.com/foru...-runts.112620/

  4. #4
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    Kings 30" or smaller should be treated as jacks and culled. As in Must Be Retained.

    Similarly, no Kings over 48" should be killed for at least the next 21 years (3 complete life cycles)
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  5. #5

    Default

    Your only refuring to Kenia kings that's 5 normal cycle for 4 year kings. 24" should be jacks and saying kings over 48" shouldn't be kept isn't going to help. They aren't being over harvested in the rivers it's in the oceans.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    So If kings are over harvested in the oceans, we should kill all the kings over 48" in the rivers because it is a ocean problem. That will solve it for sure. As Ron White said "you can't fix stupid"
    "

  7. #7
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    Kings 30" or smaller should be treated as jacks and culled. As in Must Be Retained.

    Similarly, no Kings over 48" should be killed for at least the next 21 years (3 complete life cycles)
    I was thinkin' more like 42".... basically anything over 30-35 pounds gets a free pass to the gravel.
    "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

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    Kings 30" or smaller should be treated as jacks and culled. As in Must Be Retained.

    Similarly, no Kings over 48" should be killed for at least the next 21 years (3 complete life cycles)
    Who would this serve - the fish or the people? Neither?

    We simply don't understand the roll that Jacks play, but it's pretty clear that they play some evolutionary/biological purpose. As sad as it is to see the size of our Kings steadily decline, how are we to know that it is not helping this species survive, even thrive, in today's world?

    We know that smaller fish have advantages in some systems/tributaries, and larger in others. We know that high ocean mortality can cause fish to return early, increasing their chances of procreating, and that warmer water temps typically lead to smaller fish. I think it's unwise to assume that bigger is always better. While I was VERY happy to see the size/age comp of this year's run move toward older/larger fish, I don't think we could possibly predict the effects of moving to a "big fish" goal, or encouraging the above type of management.

    IMO our best strategy is to encourage nonselective harvest across the size/age/timing range of the returns, and let natural selection do what is best for the fish. This must include some sideboards on what fish can be targeted or kept (like slot limits), in highly selective fisheries such as the Kenai River fishery and possibly some time/area adjustments in our more targeted/selective fisheries, but encouraging vastly disproportionate harvest of small or young fish could have unintended consequences.

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
  •