Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: trawl by catch

  1. #1

    Default trawl by catch

    Yeah I know its just a blog with no credibility so all you experts need`nt read it but for us gulible fools


    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2010/car120_goa.pdf


    http://tholepin.blogspot.com/search?...max-results=14

  2. #2

    Default

    Thanks for the link. 8,920 kings wasted so far.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Thumbs up Sean Parnell!

    Will bring us starvin' Eskimos food again this winter! Oh wait, he doesn't have the political clout that Sarah Palin has, so I doubt Fraklin Graham will bring food again...

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    And we wonder where the kings are going. Yes there are other reasons as well but bycatch would have to be part of the problem.

  5. #5
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Here's a new report from the NPFMC about Chinook bycatch in the GOA.

    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/curre...bycatch410.pdf

  6. #6
    Member anonymous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak Is.
    Posts
    304

    Angry Still stinks

    so what does it mean.
    from the link Mr Fish provided it looks like about 80% of the GOA chinook bycatch occurs in the waters around Kodiak Is. Two of Alaska`s most productive chinook systems are on Kodiak Is. and are now closed to chinook retension.

    http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/regio...9kodseasum.pdf

    shows the total 09 Kodiak commercial catch was 7200 chinook and so far for 2010 the trawl bycatch
    is at 8900 and growing.
    Durring the 09 season the sein fleet was put on non-retension for part of the season and will probably be more restricted this season.

    The 09 Kodiak commercial salmon catch had a value of 35 million dollars. I wonder what the value of the Kodiak trawl catch is.

    Rambling thoughts but I think it stinks that trawlers can kill and waste salmon in areas where salmon fishing is closed to salmon fisherman

  7. #7

    Default

    It might be a good sign though that the Chinook bycatch is up for the trawlers. It might be an indicator that more kings are in the ocean this year than last. The years they had the crazy big bycatch #'s were great king fishing..

  8. #8
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    It might be a good sign though that the Chinook bycatch is up for the trawlers. It might be an indicator that more kings are in the ocean this year than last. The years they had the crazy big bycatch #'s were great king fishing..
    King bycatch is bad for everyone involved..

  9. #9
    Member anonymous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak Is.
    Posts
    304

    Angry maybe a bad sign

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    It might be a good sign though that the Chinook bycatch is up for the trawlers. It might be an indicator that more kings are in the ocean this year than last. The years they had the crazy big bycatch #'s were great king fishing..
    It might also be a bad sign:
    what if pollock are getting harder to catch so to fill their holds trawlers have to make more tows through the same water where chinook are mingled with pollock

  10. #10

    Default

    Could be.. But, the winter troll fleet is also at about 19k kings. That is up from last year too.. They have till the end of the month to fish, and it'll be interesting if they make it to 45k. The winter troll fleet catch rate is also a good indicator of how many kings are swimming around in the ocean.

    We might have a good king year.. I'm getting excited.

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

    Default

    Maybe bycatch levels in the Gulf of Alaska are some form of indicator of abundance, but that doesn't seem to be the case with Bering Sea bycatch. Their high bycatch leading up to 2007 was never followed by better returns to most of western AK (or anywhere else, for that matter).

  12. #12
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    Maybe bycatch levels in the Gulf of Alaska are some form of indicator of abundance, but that doesn't seem to be the case with Bering Sea bycatch. Their high bycatch leading up to 2007 was never followed by better returns to most of western AK (or anywhere else, for that matter).
    Exactly!! High Seas bycatch of chinook has cumulative effects on poulations due to age class stratification... So one year of high bycatch affects "many" different stocks and age class's.

  13. #13

  14. #14
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,364

    Default

    very enlightening report. This from page 18, Section 5.5...
    "No bycatch sampling studies have been conducted in the GOA trawl fisheries to look at the origin
    of salmon bycatch, although some studies have been undertaken in the Bering Sea pollock trawl fishery.
    Limited information is available from other studies into the river of origin of salmon species."

    Remember, the fisheries in question are federally managed fisheries. Apparently it is ok to lay waste to tens of thousands of chinook annually while prosecuting a billion + dollar fishery, and not spend any of that money to determine whether or not the bycatch is ruining chinook fisheries along the west coast and Canada. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

    "No bycatch sampling studies... to look at origin of salmon bycatch..."
    Sick. Just sick.

  15. #15
    Member kodiakrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kodiak, Ak
    Posts
    3,175

    Default Critical exposing this....

    Thanks Fishguts for posting this,

    I think it is Critical that this gets Exposed in every way possible as opposed to the obscure govt stats sites

    Hopefully more people will get incensed by this, it's been going on for a long time and is "accepted" by the fish managers because of pressure from a few big players in the fish politics scene.

    as low value as most trawl fisheries are as a per pound value, they still have a Lot Of Money to influence politics, because they are Dragging around for something nearly constantly throughout the year,

    What is going on that we don't see... YET

    These guys almost OWN the waters off Alaska, .... Or Do They?
    Ten Hours in that little raft off the AK peninsula, blowin' NW 60, in November.... "the Power of Life and Death is in the Tongue," and Yes, God is Good !

  16. #16
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    First off, willphish is right on...it's unbelievable that they've never done any stock ID work on Gulf of AK salmon byctach.

    Second, I'd agree with kodiakrain about bycatch, in general...but only to a point.

    Yes, bycatch sucks...and I will never, ever blindly defend it...but to unilaterally slam the Kodiak trawl fleet is kind of like shooting yourself in the foot, as a Kodiak resident. A much higher proportion of the Gulf of AK trawlers are AK residents (as opposed to the Bering Sea) and many of those Gulf boats are owned and operated from Kodiak (though not all). Kodiakrain also says that they're "Dragging around for something nearly constantly throughout the year"...but it's exactly that (the year-round flow of fish being harvested) which keeps the processing plants in Kodiak viable. I can guarantee you that without a relatively steady supply of groundfish throughout the winter, some of those plants would either fold and/or be paying lower prices to the salmon fishermen in the summer. It's also what helps keep some of the (tax-paying) processing plant workers as year-round residents in Kodiak, as opposed to being annual imports/exports for just a few weeks or months of work in the summer.

    I wish there was better byctatch accounting in the Gulf...it looks like it might be improving and I hope so, but it is already estimated to a fairly accurate degree (not perfectly, though...akbrownsfan, help me out here if you can), and those estimates are included in the annual TAC-setting process. And...yes, if bycatch of crab and halibut is reduced, then it will allow more harvest for the directed crab and halibut fishermen. No argument there.

    Sometimes, though, this gut reaction to trawling and byctatch as a simple, emotional, knee-jerk reaction (while that's what Greenpeace et. al. are aiming for) doesn't really advance the discussion.
    Art.

  17. #17

    Default

    I'll be willing to wager that Kodiakrain has a pretty good grasp on things.. Being that he's an actual fisherman, and he actually lives in Kodiak.

  18. #18
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    I'll be willing to wager that Kodiakrain has a pretty good grasp on things.. Being that he's an actual fisherman, and he actually lives in Kodiak.
    270ti, I think if you re-read my post you'll see that I'm, generally, agreeing with kodiakrain.

    I'll wait for kodiakrains reply.

    If he thinks I was calling him an idiot, then I apologize...that wasn't my intent at all. I was simply trying to point out some other facets of the fishing industry that are sometimes not fully appreciated. I certainly don't think we should get down on our knees and thank the trawlers and processing plants...but they are a part of the larger equation.

  19. #19
    Member kodiakrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kodiak, Ak
    Posts
    3,175

    Default Can we do better?

    Yes, I hear what your saying Fish, no insult recieved, but as 270 mentions, I do have a fairly good grasp on the local economy and Fish Allocation scene in the Gulf,
    Am a commercial Longliner, and have fished Kodiak waters since '85, also live here in town yr round, since '89.

    The argument that MrFish is making is the main one they have been using for so long and I feel it is a "blinders on" community that continues to believe we would all go out of business if the Trawlers had to change gear type.

    I have always believed there is a massive fleet of other gear type Fisherman that could pick up this Groundfish and keep processors running, probably employ a LOT MORE LOCALS per pound of fish caught and we would never miss a beat. Yes, I know it's a complicated thing, "could the smaller boats do in winter what the big trawlers can?" etc., etc.
    But this very large and capable fleet of small longline and potfisherman are getting shut down pretty fast on Pac Cod for example as a result of allocation issues with what is a very ugly bycatch fishery for Trawlers, "Hard on Bottom for Cod," bumping into Halibut and Crab stocks,

    But the bycatch issue settles it for me, It's just too dirty to continue, I know a lot of Trawlers captains and crewman who would agree but since it is open and very profitable they keep maximizing it. I have no intention of slamming these guys, and my question is for them as well, the guys who shovel that Tonnage overboard all year,

    "Come On, Can't We Do It Better Than That?"
    Ten Hours in that little raft off the AK peninsula, blowin' NW 60, in November.... "the Power of Life and Death is in the Tongue," and Yes, God is Good !

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Lot of great posts in this thread!! I wanted to hit on a couple things. Rain and 270 are you implying that Mr. Fish doesn’t or shouldn’t have an opinion as he’s not from Kodiak or a fishermen? (He may be or have been at some time I don’t know). That flies in the face of everything most of us would agree to on many topics. Everyone needs to have an informed voice and input for anything to work. While locals have a valuable insight they should have no more or less input than anyone in regards to public fish. That’s pretty clearly spelled out in law. Mr. Fish has proven his insight, knowledge and temperance in thread after thread. IMO.
    Also bycatch is a hot topic no doubt………..it’s mandated to be reduced. This should apply to all gear types and sectors. (that should correctly include us sportfishermen once again imo) So what type of fishery should be discussed and what bycatch is caught? Are you talking Salmon? That is only during Pollock trawler fishing. Are you talking Halibut and Crab? That is usually flatfish and P. Cod. Every sector has bycatch. Anyone who fishes does……..that’s an honest fact. You (sportfishermen, longliners, pot fishermen, etc ) may tell yourself otherwise but that’s foolish. These levels of commercial take and bycatch levels are all available and I can link anyone to them if you want. Almost all trawlers over 60 foot (which is almost all of them) in the Gulf are monitored at 30% overall but then it varies among fisheries. They still have to have a minimum of one trip covered in any fishery they fish in per quarter. So what type of fishery and what species of bycatch should be part of the issue.
    We should and could do better, imo, and there is an amendment before the NPFMC to ensure just that. NMFS should have coverage levels based on need, and done in a more random manner. Of some concern is the uncovered sectors such as under 60 foot longliners, and trawlers. The Fee mechanism to ensure accountability of all sectors needs to be addressed as well. All science costs money. I’ve posted that link numerous times but I guess you didn’t read it.
    Another thing about this is we are all biased and vested in different ways. As a sportfisher, but also someone who used to be a groundfish observer I just want sound management. I’m not into allocation as many are in these threads. Kodiak your above post sounds like just that. YOU want more. YOU want to take from THEM. You could substitute any numbers or labels in there……..Comm wants to take from PU…….PU wants to take from Comm……..Trawlers take things that longliners want……..longliners harvest things trawlers want. ………Comm charter halibut guys want what comm. Longliners want……….sportfishers want to take what comm. Charters take………it goes on and on. That’s why the council process is so great is it has allocation laws and guidelines. This is a general theme in many of these threads in the end they are usually about allocation. 270 has been clear in that regard as well. KodiakRain, you were clear though about your interests and I applaud that and wish your fishery well in any future allocation issues. I noticed you failed to mention the resent sector split that happened though. Until recently there was a general pool of P. Cod and once caught everyone was done. Now there is a sector split where trawlers have a trawler quota and longliners will have a separate quota……or am I wrong on that? I could see a small longliner with a smaller catch history than a trawler not liking how that split happened or how the allocation was allotted. Not saying you there KodiakRain as you didn’t say that, but I could see it happening. I do have issues with your argument in this thread to accomplish that. It’s fear mongering imo. Bycatch is being accounted for. Observers are out there every day and your failure to acknowledge that or discount it is worrisome. RACE cruises happen every year. (research cruises where they do tows in specific areas year after year)….that is also used………..there is CPUE stuff going on (catch per unit effort)….Vessel monitoring sytems are in place……….and live biologists on boats. NMFS doesn’t have a perfect handle on this, but these general claims of bycatch ignore the data and availability of the data!! KodiakRain, your last line is just to much………”can we do better than that”……..better than what to what by what? BEYOND that we (the public, NMFS, NPFMC, Fishers, and NGOs, staff member, and many government members and other people) ARE doing better than that. I mean what exactly are any of you discussing? Any rational person would agree bycatch is bad. Alaska and NMFS and the NPFMC is light years ahead of the rest of the world in this regard. Things are being worked on and there continues to be hundreds of days observered. Amendments are being moved through the council. What do you want really? I’m confused………..or is it just honestly, really about allocation again?

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
  •