Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 127

Thread: Trawler's By catch TRIPLES!

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

    Angry Trawler's By catch TRIPLES!

    I think there should be a call to shut this down. Funny thing, the returns on the Columbia River in Washington/Oregon were better than most Alaskan rivers. Aside from hatchery returns this would be one indication that this fishery is severely damaging King stocks





    http://www.adn.com/2010/10/24/151704...-trawlers.html

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

  2. #2
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    I am sure they will do research, give a brief low down to the commercial fisheries on "HOW NOT TO", and then it will get swept under the carpet.
    It's all about the dollar, and who's pocket it goes in.

  3. #3
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    You're right salmon bone. Mean while there will be countless thousands of dollars spent on in-river habitat studies involving different agencies and all the user groups pointing fingers at each other, huge dramatic BOF sessions and so on.
    Maybe this should be a last minute campaign topic? The candidates that are all about action to end this by-catch madness should be the ones we all endorse.

  4. #4
    Member kodiakrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kodiak, Ak
    Posts
    3,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullbush View Post
    Maybe this should be a last minute campaign topic? The candidates that are all about action to end this by-catch madness should be the ones we all endorse.
    I sure like that idea, wouldn't it be interesting to see what the General Populace really thinks, not just the power brokers who all have agreements with the $$ guys?

    Man, I think that would be a Daring Move on the side of some candidate to make that move, appeal to the "Sensible Fisherman" across the state, All Of Us, Commercial and Sport, and those who make their living supporting the fishermen across the state,

    "How many agree this makes sense and don't mind the Draggers continuing on this course?
    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 !

  5. #5
    Member kenaibow fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    well I think we all agree some thing has to be done, but what exactly is anther matter. I think instead of throwing the fish out they should make them keep the fish in the holds and turn them in when they drop of the fish for processing. Then maybe the state or ADFG some one like that should take it and sell it, then use the money to fund projects and studies, hatchery programs what ever.

    My thinking on this is if they fill up the hold with other fish they will spend less time fishing and more time getting to a processing plant,or driving some were to get ride of the fish. Then make it so they cannot dump the kings what so ever and if they do yank their license for the season.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Not to get into anything heated but we need more data than this article. The article says 3.2 chinook are taken for every ton of polluck. That is a pretty low bycatch. Also, without data on the size of the chinook and age I think one cannot assume that all these fish will return to their home streams. Natural mortality will kill some of them as they rear in the ocean. So before getting too excited maybe someone can find and post that information -

    I would suspect that the poor returns these last few years have more to due with natural factors than interception. There has been a change to a colder marine environment off Alaska and when that happen Alaska stocks do not survive as well and Pacific Northwest stocks do better.

    Just looking for some data to put this all in perspective. Tradeoffs are tough decisions but a ton of food for humans vs a few chinook salmon may be a valid tradeoff.

  7. #7
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Loseing 60,000 Kings to catch what twenty years ago were trash fish for long john silver and mcdonalds use is nuts.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Not to those who eat at McDonalds. Just kidding

  9. #9
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default ha ha

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Not to those who eat at McDonalds. Just kidding
    That gave me a chuckle for the morning, thanks.

    Gulf of AK salmon bycatch has stayed below the radar for a surprisingly long time. If I recall, their Chinook bycatch is usually in the ballpark of 15-30,000 annually. You're right, Nerka, in your earlier post that appx 3 Chinook per metric ton (appx 2200 lbs) is relatively low (by itself) but compared to other years for this fishery, or even the Bering Sea pollock fishery, it's huge.

    Here's the most recent info (that I could find) from NPFMC staff on GOA Chinook salmon bycatch (a discussion paper from Oct 2009)

    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/curre...bycatch909.pdf

    I've only given it a quick scan, but I didn't see anything about the age comp of the bycatch. I haven't heard anything to indicate that it's different than what occurs in the Bering Sea (fish that would be appx 1-2 years away from returning to spawn)...but again, I haven't seen the data. I can't imagine that they don't sample for it and it's likely to be available from NMFS, if requested.

    You're right that some of these fish would succumb to "natural" mortality of some sort...however I have an issue with how NMFS (over-)estimated this (i.e. "Adult Equivalent", or AEQ) in the BSAI Chinook bycatch EIS.

  10. #10
    Member kodiakrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kodiak, Ak
    Posts
    3,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    Loseing 60,000 Kings to catch what twenty years ago were trash fish for long john silver and mcdonalds use is nuts.

    It's funny, (OR NOT) that I can feel myself being SOOTHED about this by quotes like "a ton of food for humans vs a few chinook salmon by be a valid tradeoff."
    Oh, yeah, actually that's just three kings, they were probably little ones anyway, and probably would have died of "Natural Mortality" before returning to their home streams anyway, ond Oh, yeah, there's a METRIC TON of that Fish Paste they use at McDonalds now available for "Humans" to enjoy now instead.
    Ok, three little kings, only maybe make it home, or A TON of fish sticks to be fried in fat as a lowest common denominator food. But there's a ton of it, YEA
    VALID TRADEOFF, You Have Got To Be Kidding?

    Hoping not to be considered inflammatory, but we're missing something here, and it's being swept under the rug right here before our eyes on the Alaska Outdoor Forums,
    man these people are Smooth
    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 !

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

    Default

    Who's defending it or sweeping it under the rug?

  12. #12
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    MR FISH I believe its the people that think its cool to kill kings as long as they're catching mass pollack, is who I believe Al was referring to.
    Guess who the UFA (united fisherman of Alaska) is endorsing for senator? If you guessed the same person that the AFN (Alaska federation of natives) was endorsing you would win a gold star. Its also the same senator that told Exxon not to worry about that little old thing that happened in '89. I'm pretty sure this write in candidate would tell the draggers not to worry about a lil ol' thing like throwing 50+ thousand kings overboard. Not wanting to get political on the forum I'm gonna let you guys guess who the IFQ and drag fishers candidate is. I'll give you one clue, its not the guy from Sitka who really is a fisherman...nuff said
    Last edited by fullbush; 10-26-2010 at 17:38. Reason: this fisherman isn't buying it

  13. #13
    Member kenaibow fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    i wasn't going to vote for her any way.

  14. #14
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenaibow fan View Post
    i wasn't going to vote for her any way.
    Doh!! did I say she?

  15. #15
    Member kenaibow fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    maybe you could have went with the rep. that is asking people to vote for them via write in?

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

    Default

    Well, so much for the political discussion ban. As tempting as it is to come back at that, fullbush, I will refrain. I wish we had a good forum to debate the political stuff...I'd love to. Perhaps over a beer sometime. We can even drag thewhop into it. BTW, where the heck has he been lately?

    I already re-read the posts and saw what I believe kodiakrain was referencing. I had even responded to some of the points/questions in this previous post (#6), but somehow missed the overall tone that kodiakrain was responding to (I believe). I've even send kr a pm to clarify this.

  17. #17

    Default

    tis a bummer, for sure. Nobody like waste. At least it is a good indication that a bunch of kings are swimming around in the ocean right now. I'd be more worried if they weren't catching anything. Sharpen your hooks, it's gonna be a good year.

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

    Default

    270ti...I hope you're right but when the pollock fishery in the Bering Sea hit their huge king bycatch years leading up to and including 2007, the returns to western AK (whose runs compose 50-60% of that bycatch) did not see strong returns in the following years (given lag time for the age of the fish as bycatch). In fact, it was quite the opposite.

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

    Default

    Ok, I'll start with "Interesting," instead of Funny,
    I appreciated your PM MRFish, and your perspective, so as I reread I wanted to make sure you knew it was "purely coincidental" that I started that post out with "Funny, (Or Not) right after yours was titled "Ha Ha", (didn't mean to go after you specifically if anyone interpreted it that way)

    I am going after the thought, "well, three small kings vs. a ton of Pollock" and that "well this bycatch is not so bad" as wording that outside observers might think we in the industry are casual about improving what we do.
    I do know a lot of Trawlers and I agree, None of us in the Commerrcial Industry are just "Cool with Bycatch" but if we use wording like that to smooth it over, well it won't be long before it bites back. Somebody's gonna call, "ENOUGH" pretty soon and rightfully so
    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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    270ti...I hope you're right but when the pollock fishery in the Bering Sea hit their huge king bycatch years leading up to and including 2007, the returns to western AK (whose runs compose 50-60% of that bycatch) did not see strong returns in the following years (given lag time for the age of the fish as bycatch). In fact, it was quite the opposite.
    2008 stunk for kings, no doubt. But, 04-07 were pretty dang good. I dream about years like 04 and 05.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •