Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Deshka Chinook SEG too low?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    Will you are just so wrong and failed your history test. The federal fisheries you referenced are a direct result of the MSA which I think was passed in 1976. The White Act governed salmon management in the 1950's in Alaska. That required 50% harvest of all returns. Unfortunately there was no assessment and the Federal Gov overharvested UCI fish. The State management brought back the Susitna chinook salmon. You cannot blame the lower chinook returns if the lower returns are due to a change in overall productivity. Sorry but your just wrong. Management has closed fisheries to meet goals. If those goals are wrong so be it. But you cannot blame the State. Are you saying they overharvested those streams.
    The Federally managed fisheries are still over harvesting across the board. Alaska may have solved some federal problems at statehood, but are the loser now to federal management. And you just keep convincing yourself that Alaska is managing its fisheries so well. Your metric and mine are worlds apart.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
      The Federally managed fisheries are still over harvesting across the board. Alaska may have solved some federal problems at statehood, but are the loser now to federal management. And you just keep convincing yourself that Alaska is managing its fisheries so well. Your metric and mine are worlds apart.
      willphish, I'm curious what goes into your statement that the Federal fisheries are "still over harvesting across the board."

      Since we're talking about salmon here, most of the the Chinook salmon taken as bycatch in the federally-managed fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are non-Alaskan stocks (Canadian and PNW stocks prevail). And very little of the Chinook bycatch in the Bering Sea is from GOA stocks either (most is from the rivers that drain into thge Bering Sea). And, about 95% or more of the non-Chinook salmon bycatch is chum salmon and I presume you're not talking about chums here.

      That doesn't make the Chinook salmon bycatch okay just beacuse they're not "our" fish, but how do you justify your statement?
      "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by MRFISH View Post
        willphish, I'm curious what goes into your statement that the Federal fisheries are "still over harvesting across the board."

        Since we're talking about salmon here, most of the the Chinook salmon taken as bycatch in the federally-managed fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are non-Alaskan stocks (Canadian and PNW stocks prevail). And very little of the Chinook bycatch in the Bering Sea is from GOA stocks either (most is from the rivers that drain into thge Bering Sea). And, about 95% or more of the non-Chinook salmon bycatch is chum salmon and I presume you're not talking about chums here.

        That doesn't make the Chinook salmon bycatch okay just beacuse they're not "our" fish, but how do you justify your statement?
        I apologize. My statement didn't read too well. The worst fishery is the federally managed pollock fishery, which overharvests as bycatch many species, most notably halibut and chinook salmon. Directed halibut fisheries are suffering, and this overharvest is largely to blame, as you know. As to stock comp of the chinook bycatch; we don't have good numbers from the peak years. Now that the statewide numbers of chinook have plummeted so far, it makes sense that there are few Alaska fish, proportionately, in the catch samples.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
          As to stock comp of the chinook bycatch; we don't have good numbers from the peak years. Now that the statewide numbers of chinook have plummeted so far, it makes sense that there are few Alaska fish, proportionately, in the catch samples.
          Alaska-origin chinook can't possibly be proportionately represented in the CWT recovery database because the lion's share of the CWT's are implanted into hatchery-origin fish. Most of Alaska's chinook are still wild-borne while 80-90% of those from the PNW are hatchery fish.

          Virtually everything we know about chinook distribution and migration patterns comes from these CWT's. But our understanding is muddled by the inconsistent application of CWT's across stocks.

          GSI (genetic stock identification) is a much more powerful tool that could be sampled more thoroughly and proportionately, but it's very expensive. I know that Bristol Bay sockeye are managed in real-time with in-season GSI. This could be done systematically with chinook bycatch as well... but it needs to be prioritized by the policy folks and adequately funded to be effective.
          "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
          sigpic
          The KeenEye MD

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
            I apologize. My statement didn't read too well. The worst fishery is the federally managed pollock fishery, which overharvests as bycatch many species, most notably halibut and chinook salmon. Directed halibut fisheries are suffering, and this overharvest is largely to blame, as you know. As to stock comp of the chinook bycatch; we don't have good numbers from the peak years. Now that the statewide numbers of chinook have plummeted so far, it makes sense that there are few Alaska fish, proportionately, in the catch samples.
            You are making a mis-statement here willphish..... The federally managed pollack fishery is responsible for a huge bycatch of kings but it has nothing to do with halibut bycatch. It's a midwater fishery, the nets rarely get close to the bottom and even when they do it's by accident,they run into a pinnacle or some such. Besides Kings, the biggest bycatch is usually sleeper sharks which feed on pollack and squid which are often in the area of pollack. What gets the halibut is the winter cod drag fishery which is hard on the bottom. It's also hard on crab populations in the area.
            An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
            - Jef Mallett

            Comment

            Footer Adsense

            Collapse
            Working...
            X