Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Bycatch

  1. #1
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,837

    Default Bycatch

    I will do some research, but I want to start a discussion on bycatch - what is done with it after it is caught (looking to understand whether it is wasted). What is done to minimize it? Are the commercials wasting fish? I "hear" that a lot from sport fishing folks. Would like to more understand the facts.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    271

    Default

    They are allowed to sell their bycatch up to a certain amount, which doesnt amount to much, but if they are wasting it, they can get in deep ****.

  3. #3
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,837

    Default So -

    - what happens when the reach their "level" of sold bycatch? What percentage of boats are monitored?

    Why not use the bycatch - sell it, and put it towards the yearly catch poundage?

    Would the by catch rates go way up? Limit the bycatch price somehow?

  4. #4
    Member DRIFTER_016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Yellowknife, NWT
    Posts
    3,318

    Default

    I would think bycatch rates would go way up, because they would then target them.
    I would think the best way to limit bycatch would be to have observers onboard and once their bycatch quota is reached all fishing must stop.
    I can't think of any other way to stop it. I'm sure others have given this thought and will have an opinion or two.

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    I can only speak from my experience on a small longliner, but this is our story:

    -We are allowed up to 10% of the total halibut weught as bycatch. Generally we are far below that, more in the range of 2-4%. If we were to go above, the money for the additional fish goes to the state. We keep rockfish, as they are dead at the surface, though other bycatch is released unharmed. We used to also keep skates in the early-mid 90's, but it came to the point where we had to have a processor's license to cut their wings off, and it simply wasn't worth the 15 cents/lb to deal with it.

    Very little fish is wasted in our operation and rockfish-prone areas are avoided if at all possible. For a wider experience, ask akbrownsfan, as he has worked as an observer on larger boats.

  6. #6
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,837

    Default What about salmon?

    Is there much King by-catch? Maybe the run timings differ enough that no kings are bycatch?

  7. #7

    Default Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullelkklr View Post
    Is there much King by-catch? Maybe the run timings differ enough that no kings are bycatch?
    Last year in the gulf 39,000 kings in bycatch
    Last year in Bering 122,000 kings in bycatch

    This is why I think this years king run is so low. Currently just in Kodiak all rivers have been shut down to all king fishing. From what I hear on the forum you folks are having just as bad a year in the UCI.

    Something needs to be done before the fisheries are destroyed and that means everyone.

  8. #8

    Default

    Bycatch is more of an issue with trawlers because their nets swallow everything. I believe the situation is getting better but the problem is that if a boat reaches its maximum amount of bycatch but they have not caught their quota of target fish they keep fishing to reach their quota but they cannot keep any of the bycatch.

  9. #9
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,837

    Default So

    the trawlers cannot keep the bycatch kings? What is the survival rate of the bycatch kings?

    If your numbers are correct - 150k kings in the gulf and bering - those fish could be destined for most anywhere???

    If half of them are dead or will die - they should be utilized as part of the seasonal commercial limit - when a ship reaches it's bycatch limit - they are done. Many layers of politics to this.

  10. #10

    Default

    is this thread really a search for facts or just another example of foregone conclusions used to vilify and condemn the commercial fishing industry?

    boring.

  11. #11
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default salmon bycatch info

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullelkklr View Post
    the trawlers cannot keep the bycatch kings? What is the survival rate of the bycatch kings?

    If your numbers are correct - 150k kings in the gulf and bering - those fish could be destined for most anywhere???

    If half of them are dead or will die - they should be utilized as part of the seasonal commercial limit - when a ship reaches it's bycatch limit - they are done. Many layers of politics to this.
    I believe they are required to retain their salmon bycatch until it is counted/sampled by an observer...whether this is on-board or at the delivery to a processing plant. They are not allowed to "retain" it in a sense that it can be sold. In some cases, special permits have been granted to allow them to, at least, donate it to food banks. Otherwise, it must be discarded (after counting and sampling).

    The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is already examing "hard cap" options for the chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The Council's website has a very detailed analysis on the salmon bycatch alternatives:
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/curre...bycatch508.pdf

  12. #12
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,837

    Default I have my

    own dilusions - but I really am looking for actual facts vs. the BS that you reference Gretchen.

    I am new here - and am very curious as to how it all works. I am trying to condemn no-one - even if I was I suspect that my little hiney would not git er done.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default some info

    I'll try to shed some light here.
    Shawn is correct on last years numbers and did not give the years before which are pretty much the same. Groundfish fleets in the bering and gulf have a "soft cap" on salmon which is mainly caught in the Pollock fishery. That fishery is worth over a billion dollars. Not that that should matter.

    the NPFMC (council) is looking at making a hard cap. This year the numbers are WAY lower with a little over 15,000 kings caught this year. Almost all kings caught as bycatch occur during A season or Jan-May. That is over. NOw the attention turns to Chums which are equally important but no one not from Y-K delta seems to care about.

    2 years ago the Pollock fishery decided to try to do something about it and implented a "rolling hot spot" idea, where real time data is used to find out where boats are catching the most Kings or Chums and they they are told by their company to move. Didn't seem to work last year, seems to work this year. But we really don't know as it's complicated as maybe water temp has more to do with it? Very hard to say. Also as another pointed out since they were caught at sea we have no idea where they came from or are going back to. Could be russia, canada, lower 48 or alaska.

    Bycatch in general in the North Pacific are overblown by people with limited understanding. EVERYTHING has a quota, and once reached fisheries are shut down. (except of course, salmon and pollock fisheries). So even squid shut down the pollock fleet for over a thousand square miles last year for a little while when they exceeded the seasonal cap. So while millions of pounds of something deemed "bycatch" may be caught in general I can tell you they are accounted for and are not hurting any one population as far as current data can tell.
    Entire bering sea exploitable biomass is currently 17 million metric tons. (or almost 40 million staight tons.) We ONLY CATCH 2 Million metric tons per year. Fishermen themselves limited thier catch to this level. While it serves them well ( to much fish ruins your markets) it has also benefited the entire ecosystem.

    As far as coverage levels go, any boat over 60 foot that fishes groundfish in alaska must have a federal observer on board who monitors catch, checks for true reporting on the boats parts, deals with some enforecement issues, and does special projects at the direction of NMFS. (like the salmon genetic project that is currently being done where every observer collects 250 salmon genetic samples.)
    60-124 foot are called the 30% fleet in that they must have an observer on board for 30% of thier fishing days.
    124 and over are 100% covered or they can not fish. All catcher processor trawlers in the Bering sea are actualy now 200 or 300% covered so all hauls are monitored and sampled.(one, two or three observers.) This is due to the American fishing act and the new amendment 80 for the flatfish head and gut fleet.

    Anyway I could go on and on, but if you want or need further info let me know. In ending I'd say Shawn idea that they King bycatch could be hurting us now could be true. ............or could not be true. No way to currently tell, but maybe the genetic sampling will tell us more.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullelkklr View Post
    own dilusions - but I really am looking for actual facts vs. the BS that you reference Gretchen.

    I am new here - and am very curious as to how it all works. I am trying to condemn no-one - even if I was I suspect that my little hiney would not git er done.
    listen to mrfish, akbrownsfan, brianm, and others who understand how the commercial fisheries are tightly regulated by the north pacific fisheries management council and the state,s board of fisheries. too easy, too simple-minded to ignorantly bash the commercial fisheries every time the sport contingent fails to get what it wants.

    you have a lot of homework to do.

  15. #15

    Default AKBrownsFan

    Good explanation of a complex issue - thanks for the straight facts!

  16. #16
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,837

    Default Thanks -

    That does help - if you would like to elaborate more that would be great.

    Here's an example that came from a charter sport fishing capt last year - he said that the "longliners" came through off of Montague (we were way past there - I would guess 30 miles or more) and longlined "all" the fish off the flat he was going to fish.

    Is there any longliners in the PWS? What about Cook Inlet? If so, do they catch king bycatch?

    Another area that I want to learn more about is the net fisherman in cook inlet - Their openings have to effect some of the fish runs - but to what extent...I always here - ya them %^$^ nets were in and that is why I can't catch a fish - yesterday before they set you could walk across the fish - this is for hte kenai, alexander (years past), russian - etc. What, if any, truth may exist in their statements or are these just po'd sport fisherman that saw a natural decrease in fish for a very limited amount of time?

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullelkklr View Post
    Is there any longliners in the PWS? What about Cook Inlet? If so, do they catch king bycatch?
    Yes, there are longliners in PWS. Very few boats target halibut in PWS, but there is a moderate-sized sablefish longlining season in PWS. I grew up on a longliner/shrimp boat in PWS and still fish sablefish out there once or twice a summer. I have never witnessed a king caught on longline gear. Twice we have caught a silver on a longline hook, but never a king over many hundreds of days fishing.

    As for the captain saying that the longliners had caught "all" of the fish, that is just an outright lie and demagoguery at its finest. Longlines are efficient, but not that efficient. We have set in the same exact location two or three days in a row and have done just fine on each set. If we caught "all" of the fish, such continued success would not be possible.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Bull what would you like to know? I'm all about real data addding to discussions. There are a ton of things going on from a management side. Lots of info on this forum, lots of people, ideas, and opinions. Some I agree with and some I don't. The one thing I try to make sure of is that people are using real numbers and not made up or unrelated numbers.
    There are a ton of things going on......from Gulf rationalization (gulf ratz) which is most likely not happening. (which I think is good). To the new amendment 80 boats and better data. To new sampling methods for observers to deal with in-haul varience. To total retention of various flatfish species that started this year in the Bering and last year in the gulf. (we already have total retention of all Pacific Cod or Pollock given the directed fishery is open. and generally at least 20% when not. Sometimes as we have directed fishing caps, and bycatch caps both can be reached and then anything can be in prohibited status.)

    This is one subject that I'm fairly knowledgable about. Salmon are not my thing, but Nerka knows a ton as do others.

    If people really want to know and understand I'm more than happy to help given I have time.

    I won't be checking this over the weekend though..........I'm going to either Montana creek or the Russian to FISH!!!

    Everyone have a great, safe weekend!

  19. #19

    Default Again....BS

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    I'll try to shed some light here.
    Shawn is correct on last years numbers and did not give the years before which are pretty much the same.
    The numbers were no where close. 2006 they had 86,000 in the bering 2005 70,000 some odd kings killed. Just on another post you called me out for placing inaccurate data, which turned out to be correct. Then you say this after I've supplied countless links to NOAA. You COMMFISH people are nuts, take the blinders off and see we have a problem. This affects everyone, sportfish in the UCI to the Gillneters....these fish are not feeding or supplying income to any one.

    The bering was actually 130,000 in 2007 from my previous post on the low king run on the Dehska.

  20. #20

    Default

    my favorite is the guys up at swiftwater park in soldotna whining that there aren,t any fish because "adf&g let the nets out this morning," never realizing that swiftwater is, what, 25-30 miles upriver. how long does it take a red to swim that far?

    seems to me any time the sports/guides aren,t getting fish right and left exactly when it,s convenient for them, the poor commercial nets/longliners/seines/whatever get the blame.

    tiresome.

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
  •