"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone."
The KeenEye MD
My God that might be the coolest thing I've ever seen! I'll be archiving this one for sure. I heard a couple Puget Sound seiners got a taste of that 35 million. One guy from Blaine had a 285,000 lb set and another couple guys knocked boots w/ 250k. At right around 2.00 lb thats not to shabby of a day. Too bad It didn't blow really hard from the south so the Alaska fleet could have taken a little dip out of em.
I would love to hear some theories from members of this forum as to how a run that typically gets a million fish somehow ends up getting 35 million!? I heard one theory that a volcanic eruption in Alaska in 2008 caused a huge algae bloom in the pacific which these fish feed on.
I'm skeptical of ocean food source being the reason....
Last year, the Fraser Rv got about 1.7M sockeye when they were expecting 10M. This year, they were expecting less than 10M and got 35M. Go figure. And ALL of these fish are wild salmon. Unbelievable! The Columbia Rv experienced a similar return. It was beyond anything anyone has seen. Ever. In fact, for the first time in anyone's lifetime, the Canadian First Nations (Canadian Tribes) were able to fish for sockeye salmon from a tributary of the Columbia River, the Okanogan in southern BC.
boy that'd be a good day to be on that boat... $25k in one set per crew share... ****
I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.
i'd think it was more like 70k crewshare one set. at least a 700k boat gross probably more wasn't it a 35,000 fish set?
We had a river on POW that was hurting in previous years.. I can't remember how many came though the weir this year, but it was a crazy amount.
I looks like there is an "overescapement" of upwards of 20 million fish.......guess that means the end of any sockeye runs in the future, if you buy into that theory. I'll be very interested in the returns in 5 years.
Gusdog44 - unbelievable - the comment if you buy into overescapement - I guess you do not - I just wonder what biological training you have to make that judgment? Or better yet if you have training how could you even make that statement? I just get tired of people trying to deny something that is factual. One can argue the levels of impact on future returns - how the curves look - but to deny or question the premise is just silly. This is not a theory. In fact, ADF&G in the use of Ricker curves supports the concept as a significant part of the Ricker curve is what defines overescapement impacts on future yields. Ricker curves are used by ADF&G to set goals for Kenai River early run chinook salmon, late run chinook salmon, Russian River early and late run sockeye salmon, and most of the other systems in the State that have BEG's.
Now back to the question of the Fraser. That system is very large and the distribution of those spawners is an important a question as the size of the escapement. I may look into the recent data to see how the BC biologists are looking at the question.
The sport and in-river users are the ones that usually try to disregard or deny the concept, and it's for allocative reasons. Not sayin' the allocative arguments are wrong or right, but it would be more honest to acknowedge the trade-offs and make your arguments based on that. To do otherwise, I think, weakens your arguments (at least from my perspective...but I used to weight those arguments). Those trade-offs are one of the key justifications for optimal escapement goals.
I'm not saying whether I personally believe in overescapement or not-there are a lot of people on both sides of that particular issue. The point of my post is that it is an excellent opportunity to see what results are of massive escapement over the goal set by fisheries managers......(is that a sufficiently neutral term?)....and if permanent damage is done to the fishery.
Mr. Fish, I was not trying to argue with anyone...just expressing my interest in this event providing some valuable information.
Gusdog44 - fair enough. Your post appeared to take a position. However, when you say lots of people on both sides of that particular issue who are these people? I do not think you will find many in the scientific community that will take that position as it violates basic biology if one wants to harvest salmon at high sustained yields.
Again, this is a yield discussion and the general public tends to forget that. Now if one wants to discuss the biological impacts of harvesting at MSY on the ecosystem that is a fair discussion. The size of the system, the nutrient loads, the predator activity, the distribution of spawners, and other considerations come into play. So management for high sustained yields may not be the best course of action. One obvious example is a harvest of fish outside a National Park System. That harvest may be in conflict with the goals of the Park. A prime example on the Kenai is Slikok Creek where the goals for early run chinook are met but distribution is an issue..
Gusdog, I guess I misread your post too, sorry about that.
My point is that the Constitution only requires managing for sustained yield...and that's a much larger window than managing for maximum sustained yield. "Sustainable" is the key, but I doubt anyone on here is arguing against that.
MSY is a great target to shoot for, by default and absent a good reason to manage for something else. There are, in some cases, good reasons to manage for something other than MSY (again, as long as it's sustainable)...you just need to justify it and not deny certain biological "truisms", even if those "truisms" have a lot of variables that come into play.
Is "truism" even a word, or am I just making stuff up?