Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: Why not leave Kings alone in the salt?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default Why not leave Kings alone in the salt?

    Just wondering why we fish kings in the salt when river after river is crashing and closed. At least with rivers you can shut it down or open it up and only impact that river. When kings are plucked out of the salt who knows what rivers fish you are killing. Not looking to start a pi$$ing match here just wondering. A

  2. #2
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default I guess people could also say...

    ... why not leave kings alone in the river, where they are trying to spawn?

    I'm betting a good portion of the kings caught in salt are feeder kings and not spawners anyway.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    I agree with leaving them alone in the rivers where need be. I am just wondering if we are taking out the kings from the salt that would be in the river in a year or so when we need them on the gravel. i am no expert my any means nor do i understand a lot about salmon biology so thats why i am asking.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default I don't think...

    the success rate in the ocean is quite the same as it is in a river...

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    fishhook, ak
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    so there is ocean fishing for kings returning to spawn, and then there is ocean fishing for the wintertime feeder kings.

    Obviously those with access to the feeders probably enjoy catching them all winter, but I share your concern that this is depleting in-river returns and probably this pressure has increased substantially in recent years.

    It doesn't target specific stocks so much as in-river fisheries...but is still a pressure on the resource that in my opinion is unnecessary.

    apparently there aren't enough other types of fish in the ocean that folks just have to hammer the kings all winter.

    Like you I am no king salmon expert but being that it is the true prize of an Alaskan river I think all users ought to be protecting these guys.


    Makes no sense to have so many closures in recent years of our UCI chinook sportfishing in the freshwater while in the ocean they are all fair game.


    Of course I do most of my fishing in the fresh.....

  6. #6
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Management would be much easier and effective if salmon fisheries were prosecuted strictly in terminal areas in/near the basin of origin. This paradigm would also confer the greatest accountability for local stakeholders and policy-makers to determine whether or not their local fish stocks prosper or perish.

    It would effectively create a unified point source of collective local harvest, eliminating the guesswork in how many fish disappear into some unaccountable black hole in distant often unknown fisheries.

    Eliminating ocean harvest would be a boon to the recovery of older age classes of salmon that have been wiped out in most of the major salmon-producing arteries of the PNW. Larger older fish simply don't stand a chance in the present day harvest milieu. Our artificially induced selection pressures weigh heavily against a life strategy with prolonged oceanic foraging. 4-, 5- and 6-salt life histories of the past are EXTREMELY difficult to genetically perpetuate because the odds are too great that a fish spending that amount of time in the killing fields would simply NEVER survive to spawn. It's no surprise that these fish are such a modern-day RARITY!

    I believe this is a key element to securing sustainable salmon populations that managers conveniently ignore or simply refuse to touch. There is just too much geo-socio-political "status quo" inertia to overcome. How do you dismantle a fully capitalized macro-economy fueled by the open ocean harvest of free-swimming wealth?
    "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

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    ... why not leave kings alone in the river, where they are trying to spawn?

    I'm betting a good portion of the kings caught in salt are feeder kings and not spawners anyway.
    Left alone, they would ALL be spawners.
    "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
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default It was...

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Left alone, they would ALL be spawners.
    ... a rhetorical question.

    I personally believe fish should be caught in both salt and fresh water, but they should be managed without regard to politics; only sustainability.

    But just for the sake of argument: if they were all spawners, would it be the catastrophe the biologists assert it would be? I mean, has man ALWAYS been in the picture to balance the stocks? I think not.

  9. #9

    Default

    Pull out all the dams in the PNW, and then we'll talk.

  10. #10
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Brilliant reply....

    Fine example of the deflection that has stalled meaningful salmon recovery for over a century. "My impact is inconsequential... someone else's impact is far greater. I won't change til they change."

    Just realize that even with the dams in place, a HUGE chunk of the existing pre-harvest adult recruitment will never see or taste its home waters.... at least not from the bottom of a fishbox or tote in AK or BC.
    "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

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,527

    Default not true

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    ... a rhetorical question.

    I personally believe fish should be caught in both salt and fresh water, but they should be managed without regard to politics; only sustainability.

    But just for the sake of argument: if they were all spawners, would it be the catastrophe the biologists assert it would be? I mean, has man ALWAYS been in the picture to balance the stocks? I think not.
    We have gone over this a hundred times in this forum. Biologist do not predict a biological catastrophe sayak - never have and never will. The discussion of escapement levels has to do with yield and yield alone. There is no doubt that yield is impacted by escapement levels.

    Also, what do you mean by balance the stocks? What balance are you speaking of?

  12. #12
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    FnP - Do any numbers exist as to the # of kings harvested by trollers in Alaska and BC? Perhaps I'm woefully naive, but I have a hard time believing that the number is very large. I am not suggesting that the harvest is inconsequential, but you keep using terms like HUGE, EXTREMELY, and NEVER.

    Not trying to be combative, as I really don't know. What do the numbers look like for chinook harvest of migrating (feeder) fish?

  13. #13
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default Don't wannna argue with you Ken-

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    We have gone over this a hundred times in this forum. Biologist do not predict a biological catastrophe sayak - never have and never will. The discussion of escapement levels has to do with yield and yield alone. There is no doubt that yield is impacted by escapement levels.

    Also, what do you mean by balance the stocks? What balance are you speaking of?
    A hundred times? I wouldn't know. I generally leave this forum alone, but this topic interested me.

    As for impending disaster; I'd hate to count the number of times I have heard biologists talk about the dangers of "overescapement". My friend, who was a fish biologist out in Dillingham, told me this meant that the salmon spawned on top of each other which somehow reduced the amount of eggs which actually hatched, which in turn could lead to a disaster down the line. I realize I am not using bio-speak here, and that was a long time ago, but that was the jist of it.

    Also, I should probably have said "manage", rather than "balance" the stock(s).

    Don't get your knickers in a twist, Nerka. I was just throwing out some arguments and questions, that's all. Relax. I'll return to other forums now.

  14. #14
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    FnP - Do any numbers exist as to the # of kings harvested by trollers in Alaska and BC? Perhaps I'm woefully naive, but I have a hard time believing that the number is very large. I am not suggesting that the harvest is inconsequential, but you keep using terms like HUGE, EXTREMELY, and NEVER.

    Not trying to be combative, as I really don't know. What do the numbers look like for chinook harvest of migrating (feeder) fish?
    The CWT recoveries (for every stock that CWT's are implanted) are available in the RMIS database. I'm not savvy enough to directly extract the data myself, but I've got an ODFW contact who knows his way in and out of RMIS like his own back yard.

    I also sit on several WDFW advisory committees and the annual North of Falcon process for setting salmon seasons up and down the PNW coast. You can imagine I have a vested interest in my local basins, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. The historic data for our local chinook is that 75% of the harvest occurs before the fish ever taste local waters. Alaska is responsible for 1/3 of that take.

    The impact is undeniable.

    I've posted details before...

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...7&postcount=26
    "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

  15. #15
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default More CWT data available from ADFG

    ADFG also has a page on the comm fish site that enables folks to seek out where CWT's are recovered and in what proportion.

    http://tagotoweb.adfg.state.ak.us/CW...rts/agency.asp
    "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

  16. #16

    Default

    Expecting us to change, because you guys screwed up your rivers, is nuts! If you want salmon back in your rivers, then fix your rivers.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Brilliant reply....

    Fine example of the deflection that has stalled meaningful salmon recovery for over a century. "My impact is inconsequential... someone else's impact is far greater. I won't change til they change."

    Just realize that even with the dams in place, a HUGE chunk of the existing pre-harvest adult recruitment will never see or taste its home waters.... at least not from the bottom of a fishbox or tote in AK or BC.

  17. #17
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default "OURS" vs "YOURS"

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Expecting us to change, because you guys screwed up your rivers, is nuts! If you want salmon back in your rivers, then fix your rivers.
    The last time I checked, these were still the UNITED States of America.... and salmon, being a shared common resource, belong to all citizens of this great land, not just the citizens of "The Great Land"

    And what about chinook rivers here in the PNW that ARE healthy.... the ones achieving pre-harvest adult recruitment of chinook rivalling even "your" Alaska streams? These rivers need no fixing.... they just need fish coming back to seed the empty gravel.

    Essentially all of the conservation burden resides here in the basin of origin, yet AK and BC harvest the lion's share of the bounty. The home team gets the scraps. In some years we don't even get those.

    The way salmon are harvested in distant mixed stock fisheries is fundamentally flawed. It's time salmon managers collectively acknowledge the shortcomings of the status quo, instead of going thru all manner of convoluted and cumbersome schemes to accommodate it. The time to embrace a new paradigm is LONG overdue.

    It's not a whole lot different than what happens in Cook Inlet's mixed stock fisheries, except on a much bigger geographic scale.

    Let's be honest here, nobody likes getting low-holed.
    "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

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    The last time I checked, these were still the UNITED States of America.... and salmon, being a shared common resource, belong to all citizens of this great land, not just the citizens of "The Great Land"
    That's incorrect. The fish and game resources of Alaska belong to Alaskans. The federal government does not manage fish and game resources for the majority of this state.

  19. #19

    Default

    You guys chose cheap electricity over salmon.

    I don't drink the Fish First Koolaid...



    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    The last time I checked, these were still the UNITED States of America.... and salmon, being a shared common resource, belong to all citizens of this great land, not just the citizens of "The Great Land"

    And what about chinook rivers here in the PNW that ARE healthy.... the ones achieving pre-harvest adult recruitment of chinook rivalling even "your" Alaska streams? These rivers need no fixing.... they just need fish coming back to seed the empty gravel.

    Essentially all of the conservation burden resides here in the basin of origin, yet AK and BC harvest the lion's share of the bounty. The home team gets the scraps. In some years we don't even get those.

    The way salmon are harvested in distant mixed stock fisheries is fundamentally flawed. It's time salmon managers collectively acknowledge the shortcomings of the status quo, instead of going thru all manner of convoluted and cumbersome schemes to accommodate it. The time to embrace a new paradigm is LONG overdue.

    It's not a whole lot different than what happens in Cook Inlet's mixed stock fisheries, except on a much bigger geographic scale.

    Let's be honest here, nobody likes getting low-holed.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,527

    Default we may choose Pebble over salmon

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    You guys chose cheap electricity over salmon.

    I don't drink the Fish First Koolaid...
    Could not pass this one up. We are about to let a Pebble Mine destroy one of the largest salmon runs in the world. Also, a coal mine on the west side of Cook Inlet will eliminate 12 milses of coho spawning habitat, a Susitna River Dam, Grant lake dam on the Kenai, and other dams are in the works, Anchorage has lost its streams and must rely on hatchery fish, and habitat destruction from urban sprawl is taking a toll. I just think we need to look more to the PNW to see what the future looks like and the cost to try and recover salmon. Not throwing stones 270ti but we really do not do it any better here and Nfish is just trying to warn us that we are on the same track.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •