Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Trouble for PWS hatcheries?

  1. #1
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Trouble for PWS hatcheries?

    This article was interesting concerning hatceries in PWS. Does this company run Main Bay?


    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2009/08...ne-astray.html

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default All is not quite well!

    THANKS for the posting! I never see any of this news from the big supporters of the commerical guys.

    This article points out some of the issues I've been addressing in other threads including threats to the actual wild salmon stocks and the huge state substidies so the commerical guys - a significant number that aren't even Alaskans- can make big $$.

    I also see the use of the term "wild caught" vs "wild" salmon. I guess there were lawsuits or threats of lawsuits over the use of the term "wild salmon" for fish that start their lifes in hatcheries where they are "force fed" artifical food laced with antibiotics and artifical chemical "dyes" - just like farmed salmon.
    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

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBassking View Post
    This article was interesting concerning hatceries in PWS. Does this company run Main Bay?


    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2009/08...ne-astray.html
    Old news. ADF&G has been asking PWSAC for statutory, regulatory, and permitting compliance for over a decade.


    The only real news here is that apparently the arrogance by PWSAC has gotten so bad that ADF&G is finally doing something about. This is the very first internal review and action plan formally performed on PWSAC by ADF&G. This shows a concern by our State to stick to its established resource protection principles and recognize problems with our hatcheries...a good thing in my opinion.


    Oh, yes...Main Bay is run by PWSAC.



    As to tvfinak's comments...PWSAC hatcheries have always been partially subsidized by the State...the fisheries they provide are vital to Alaska. I'm not sure why that surprises you, or what your point is. Also wild salmon released from hatcheries have always posed a risk to native wild salmon. Again, I'm not sure why this is news to you, or what your point is.


    Please post your reference to lawsuits over wild caught salmon containing force fed antibiotics, chemicals, and dyes. I have not seen any. However, I am aware of many lawsuits by consumers surrounding farmed salmon who's feeds are laced with chemicals, antibiotics, and dyes. Their is no question that both native wild salmon and hatchery wild salmon are healthier, more natural, contain less PCB, are higher in protien and lower in lipid fats, are natural colored, contain fewer chemicals and antibiotics, and pose less of a parasitic and disease threat to native wild stocks, etc. than farmed fish.


    As for your attacks on the commercial guys...The State of Alaska, by law, specifically dictates what the commercial guys can and can not do, who can fish, and how the fishery is managed. Similarly, the State of Alaska, by law, dictates the requirements for PWSAC's hatcheries. And obviously the "commercial guys" and their "big supporters" have been involved in this well-publicized issue for well over a decade.


    Your issues are with the laws established by the State of Alaska, and the managers tasked with carrying out and enforcing those laws, not the "commercial guys". However, I am not surprised you have a problem with the laws of Alaska. After all, you have admitted to blatently breaking Fish and Game laws by knowingly taking overlimits, saying you'll just pay the fines if you ever get caught.

  4. #4
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Just trying to be informative.

    In PWS anyway, I like the comercial guys and gals as they are home grown as far as I know. Their hard work and the money they give back to the hatchery helps feed my family as I am a user of Main bay.


    Thanks!!

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default finally

    This is old news and is the product of a long term relationship between ADF&G leadership, ADF&G FRED, PWSAC failure to follow rules, and the politics in Juneau.

    In the early 80's one of the major players for PWSAC said to me that they did not have to follow the rules. They took more eggs than allowed, they did things they should not have done, and they borrowed lots of money. ADF&G was doing the same thing by the way in some of their hatcheries so they were not going to call foul ( Big Lake Hatchery is one example).

    Given this ADF&G leadership did not want to hold anyone accountable - too much of a mess. Given ADF&G and PWSAC formed the regional planning team as they do in other parts of the state it was a nice deal. Then to top it off the legislature gave millions away in loans as they have for other areas. It was and is still a mess but getting better.

    The good news is the cost recovery is paying back the loans, PWSAC just got 7 million in the Exxon settlement and I hope they pay off loans with it, ADF&G is out of the hatchery business for commercial fisheries which removes the conflict (hence the concern now), and PWSAC is losing some of its political power in Juneau.

    TV - this is not about the commercial guys on the street. They assume as you assume and everyone else assumes that the State is dealing with the issues and when they do not it is a break down with the State. It is about time the State looks into these issues. What is sad is that some of the same issues are in Southeast.

    Also, TV it is not just commercial guys as you like to say - the sport fish hatchery stocking is also questionable on wild stocks - Crooked Creek, Bird Creek, Ship Creek, lower Kenai peninsula streams, and the list goes on. Also 130 million dollars in new sport fish hatcheries is not reasonable and certainly is a questionable expenditure. So all users are involved here and have state dollars going to their self interests.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default More personal attacks

    I'm sure the my contined statements that hatchery fish - later sold as "wild" - are also being "force fed" antibiotics, "dyes", and artifical food does not sit well with you after you made such a big deal about farmed fish receiving the same treatment.
    Last edited by Brian M; 09-04-2009 at 11:52.
    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

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Obviously that wasn't a "personal attack", nor did it "accuse" you of anything. You admitted yourself to breaking the law by acknowledging that if you get "caught" you will just pay the fine. It doesn't really matter where you were and what type of fish you caught - you acknowledged breaking the law with over-limits. Although the discussion was in the Alaska Management Forum, titled Kenai River % Harvest by User Group, specifically in response to the Kenai River Personal Use fishery. My point was that your continual negative sentement toward the "commercial guys" is more a problem with fishery laws for you, particularly since you admitted to willfully violating them.


    tvfinak, I asked you to support your comments with a reference for those lawsuits over wild caught salmon containing force fed antibiotics, chemicals, and dyes you spoke of. You have not. And for the record, I don't really care what hatchery fry are fed before they are released to forage on natural, wild, marine life. You brought that topic up as a distraction from the problems with farmed salmon, and it is you who is hung up on it. As for wild salmon receiving the same treatment with regard to dyes, chemicals, and antibiotics as farmed salmon...not hardly.


    So yes, discussions with you are "embarrassing".
    Last edited by Brian M; 09-04-2009 at 11:51.

  8. #8
    Member G_Smolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    5819'59"N 13429'49"W
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    ...fish that start their lifes [sic] in hatcheries where they are "force fed" artifical [sic] food laced with antibiotics and artifical [sic] chemical "dyes" - just like farmed salmon.
    Your statements indicate a lack of knowledge concerning AK's salmon hatcheries, and aquaculture in general. Astaxanthin and Canthaxanthin are not used in AK hatchery feeds, nor is any commercially-produced prophylactic antibiotic regimen feed used.

    Chums and pinks are retained by the hatcheries for roughly 9 months, or "until the feed runs out", as one operator I worked with told me. At the time of release, pink fry are 30-40mm, chums a whopping 50-65mm in length. The hatcheries spend as little money on feed as possible, and the basic pelletized feed (3:1 protein:fat, little bit of fiber & ash(bone)) in a few different forms is all these fish get.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Not quite

    One point is that "wild" hatchery fish are basically feed to same diet while in the hatchery as farmed fish - sometimes including antibiotics - as commerical fish. "Forced fed" was your term - to appeared to have a real problem with fish being "force fed' antibiotics for example.

    My comment was to the possibility of a lawsuit- maybe it was a threat - so I'm now beginning to see more of the term "wild caught salmon" instead of "wild salmon" for hatchery salmon. I never stated there was a lawsuit so of course I can't reference it! If I do find it I'll reference it of course.

    YOU seem to have the hangup - with farmed salmon. I agreed that wild fish are superior and that I prefer them myself. But that doesn't make farmed fish unfit for human consumption - I can testify to that as can tens of millions of Americans. Free market competion is great - I think the government should bow of aiding both commerical farmers and fishermen and let the market decide the winner. Competition has improved the quality of wild, wild caught hatchery, and farmed salmon - the consumer has benefited in all three choices. Cost has also came down and consumers can enjoy fresh healthy salmon year round - what is so bad about that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post

    tvfinak, I asked you to support your comments with a reference for those lawsuits over wild caught salmon containing force fed antibiotics, chemicals, and dyes you spoke of. You have not. And for the record, I don't really care what hatchery fry are fed before they are released to forage on natural, wild, marine life. You brought that topic up as a distraction from the problems with farmed salmon, and it is you who is hung up on it. As for wild salmon receiving the same treatment with regard to dyes, chemicals, and antibiotics as farmed salmon...not hardly.


    So yes, discussions with you are "embarrassing".
    Last edited by Brian M; 09-04-2009 at 11:50.
    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

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default Your nonsense is without shame

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    One point is that "wild" hatchery fish are basically feed to same diet while in the hatchery as farmed fish - sometimes including antibiotics - as commerical fish.
    You're only kidding yourself. Hatchery fry/smolt are not fed the same chemicals, dyes, and antibiotic-laced diets as farmed salmon. And wild salmon released from hatcheries do not have the same diet as farmed fish. That is why the two have a different color, texture, taste, firmness, fat content, protien content, PCB content, health risks, environmental/ecosystem risks, markets, price, labeling, and so on.




    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    "Forced fed" was your term - to appeared to have a real problem with fish being "force fed' antibiotics for example.
    Obviously it is you who has a problem with the term "force fed". You carry on and on, while the rest of us realize that the only alternative farmed salmon have to eating feeds laced with chemicals, dyes, and antibiotics, is starvation.




    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    I never stated there was a lawsuit so of course I can't reference it!
    "I guess there were lawsuits..." - tvfinak Reference


    Please don't recklessly post something you can't back up or reference, particularly lawsuits.




    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    YOU seem to have the hangup - with farmed salmon.
    You were the first to bring up farmed salmon here, not me. In fact farmed salmon has been a theme in all your recent postings, hijacking many off topic. And you are also the one hung up on "wild" salmon, not me.




    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    But that doesn't make farmed fish unfit for human consumption - I can testify to that as can tens of millions of Americans.
    Not sure where you get the idea farmed fish isn't fit for human consumption?? Some health agencies have simply recommended that it only be consumed once per month due to potential health risks caused by the chemicals contained within it.




    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    Competition has improved the quality of wild, wild caught hatchery, and farmed salmon - the consumer has benefited in all three choices. Cost has also came down and consumers can enjoy fresh healthy salmon year round - what is so bad about that?
    Nothing. What begs to question is how that fits into your persistent anti-commercial fishing sentiment, your attacks on the commercial guys, and all the misinformation you recklessly post, particularly concerning wild vs. farmed salmon and commercial fishing.



    Tv, how about you bite your tonque for once and let the real discussion here get back on track? You've had plenty of opportunity to make your point, whatever it was. Thanks.
    Last edited by Brian M; 09-04-2009 at 11:49.

  11. #11
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Please take it outside

    Come on guys, take it outside.

    I posted this because I, like many of you, use PWS and also benifit from the hatcheries like Main Bay.

    I for one was not aware that they were under contract. I thought they were run by Fish and Feathers.

    I find the subject interesting. What is the tie between the commercial fisherman and the company that runs the hatcheries? I understand that the commericials have to pay a "fee" to help run the hatcheries correct?

    Can we please stay on subject and stop the attacks back and forth? may I suggest using a PM.......

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    It's unfortunate that the first response to your post included off-topic sour grapes from another thread, an attack on "commercial guys", repeated misinformation, and an antagonistic sentiment. But it is imparative that be addressed, or it will become more rampid than it already is.


    For the record, I patiently waited 3 hours before responding - hoping the moderators would take care of it. They didn't. Reporting posts is just ignored.


    AKBassking, hopefully you saw that I answered your original question in my first response, and included some additional facts and information for you.


    You can answer your other questions and get a better idea of Alaska's hatchery requirements by reviewing Title 5, Chapter 40 of the Alaska Administrative Code. 5 AAC 40

  13. #13
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Thanks and you did. PWS hosts many user groups and they all for better or worse intertwine with each other.

    I think it is good to see the big picture, at least with PWS.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  14. #14
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post

    For the record, I patiently waited 3 hours before responding - hoping the moderators would take care of it. They didn't. Reporting posts is just ignored.
    Since you feel it necessary to call us out publicly, I will respond in kind. Reporting posts is not ignored. I deal with 20+ reported posts every day. Sometimes it takes more than 3 hours, as all moderators have jobs, families, and time spent afield, but we always review all reported posts. We do not act on all of them, however, particularly when a member's reported posts are always from the same poster and often agenda-driven, not forum rule-driven.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    It appears to be the only way to get your attention.


    The first response in this thread breaks Forum Rules multiple ways.


    It flames certain people...the "commercial guys"...Where they live, how much money they make, and other insinuating antagonism meant to flame.


    It contains digressive, off-topic antagonism from another thread...chemicals in fish feed, "wild", "force-fed", etc. That serves no purpose here.


    It disseminates bad information, particularly about lawsuits.


    Brian, bad information is one thing, but you can't possibly expect folks to put up with the constant antagonism, accusations, insinuations, and outright lies without responding. When nothing is done, people will respond...Exactly why these discussions digress into ablivion.


    For what it's worth, I have a stack of reported posts here that, without a doubt, break forum rules. Nothing was done.


    If you have a better way to approach tvfinak's postings, rather than just turn the other cheek, then please tell us. Many of us are frustrated with him, and my PM's are full of support for addressing him head-on. I might suggest moderation per the forum rules, eliminating the attacks on certain people, stopping the continual carying on and on, and the off-topic antagonism allowed to fester. Thanks.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBassking View Post
    Come on guys, take it outside.

    I posted this because I, like many of you, use PWS and also benifit from the hatcheries like Main Bay.

    I for one was not aware that they were under contract. I thought they were run by Fish and Feathers.

    I find the subject interesting. What is the tie between the commercial fisherman and the company that runs the hatcheries? I understand that the commericials have to pay a "fee" to help run the hatcheries correct?

    Can we please stay on subject and stop the attacks back and forth? may I suggest using a PM.......
    The state aquaculture program is complex. There are State of Alaska hatcheries - sport fish division is building two new one - there are aquaculture associations - these are made up of a Board of Directors that encompass commercial fishing groups, sport fishing groups, subsistence, and personal use groups, local cities, etc. The Cook Inlet aquaculture association has representatives from the major cities and the KPB. The Board of Directors sets the direction of the association. Funding for aquaculture associations comes from a variety of sources. In the case of Cook Inlet only about 20% comes from the tax on commercial fisherman. The rest comes from grants and cost recovery of fish produced. The grants are to do specific projects. In the case of Cook Inlet there is a grant to put weirs on sockeye salmon streams in the Susitna River.

    Finally there are private non-profit hatcheries. These are run by a corporation. So in answer to your question one needs to look at the paperwork for a particular hatchery on how it is structured.

    Hope this answers your question.

  17. #17
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The state aquaculture program is complex. There are State of Alaska hatcheries - sport fish division is building two new one - there are aquaculture associations - these are made up of a Board of Directors that encompass commercial fishing groups, sport fishing groups, subsistence, and personal use groups, local cities, etc. The Cook Inlet aquaculture association has representatives from the major cities and the KPB. The Board of Directors sets the direction of the association. Funding for aquaculture associations comes from a variety of sources. In the case of Cook Inlet only about 20% comes from the tax on commercial fisherman. The rest comes from grants and cost recovery of fish produced. The grants are to do specific projects. In the case of Cook Inlet there is a grant to put weirs on sockeye salmon streams in the Susitna River.

    Finally there are private non-profit hatcheries. These are run by a corporation. So in answer to your question one needs to look at the paperwork for a particular hatchery on how it is structured.

    Hope this answers your question.
    Thanks Nerka. How are the PWS hatcheries run? Are all the PWS hatcheries run by the same group?


    My understanding of Main Bay is that before the bay is open to commercials, the hatchery takes the fish they need first for eggs/sperm. Then they sell some of the fish to a seiner to cover the cost of the hatchery. Then, I guess in coordination with Fish and Feathers, open the bay up to the commercial guys/gals.


    I think it is good for the commercial folks, good for the sport/subsistance folks at least with reds.


    I prefer to catch silvers trolling, just more fun.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default yes

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBassking View Post
    Thanks Nerka. How are the PWS hatcheries run? Are all the PWS hatcheries run by the same group?


    My understanding of Main Bay is that before the bay is open to commercials, the hatchery takes the fish they need first for eggs/sperm. Then they sell some of the fish to a seiner to cover the cost of the hatchery. Then, I guess in coordination with Fish and Feathers, open the bay up to the commercial guys/gals.


    I think it is good for the commercial folks, good for the sport/subsistance folks at least with reds.


    I prefer to catch silvers trolling, just more fun.
    Main Bay, Armin Koernig, Cannery Creek, Gulkana and Wally Noerenberg are all run by PWSAC. The cost recovery plans are regulations passed by the Board of Fish and I am not sure how the plans apply to each hatchery. You can go to the BOF web page and look up the regulations. In some cases commercial fisherman can harvest before cost recovery, in others cost recovery comes first, and of course the hatchery has egg take goals that are part of the annual hatchery management plans.

    Just for the record Armin was a major player in why PWSAC finds itself in a mess with debt, lack of following rules, and the direction of the sounds programs. I was not a fan after talking to him as he said flat out and advised CIAA here in Cook Inlet to do what they wanted.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    I think this is an example of regulations that are difficult to enforce, and PWSAC knows that. Maybe the State should adopt an incentive plan, or punishment plan, based on meeting requirements and goals. Obviously those currently in charge running these hatcheries with such arrogance and disregard for regulations should be replaced. JMO.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default I agree.

    You are correct Grampyfishes. The State has concerns about straying and other issues and allowed the hatcheries to proceed at a low level while some of these questions were suppose to be answered. However, politics and willful disregard for management plans took over. Prince William Sound is not the only place in need of a complete reveiw. Southeast could use a good review also. More important is the relationship of the production from different hatcheries to each other from a statewide perspective. Making lots of fish in one area may hurt markets in other areas.

    I sit on the CIAA Board of Directors and right now we look only at Cook Inlet issues (which includes Ressurection Bay). Our mandate is to limit ourself to this area. However, production from the Bear Creek hatchery certainly impacts markets and competition between our cost recovery program and other areas. For example, we harvest sockeye early and get a good price. However, we are in competition with wild produced salmon from other areas as a result and we have processors who historically did not have access to early run sockeye. To survive as an organization we need this funding source and there is nothing that makes us look at our production from a statewide marketing perspective.

    I wish the State would be more active in looking at what is best for the state as opposed to what is best for a region.

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
  •