Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stick a fork in it!

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

  • #46
    ...
    Originally posted by Patsfan54 View Post
    About the best studies that have been done on the high seas have happened in the last few years, they drop long gillnets and take samples in the middle of the ocean...it's imprecise at best but has some good, if limited data. High seas intercept is a boogeyman that just isn't happening in the quantities required to disrupt runs across the entire range as is being seen. Inshore intercept is happening, is quantifiable, and is a known problem...it's also mostly legal. Hatchery fish are a huge problem, possibly the largest problem in a sea (pun intended) of problems.
    Spot on.

    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Patsfan54 View Post
      High seas intercept is a boogeyman that just isn't happening in the quantities required to disrupt runs across the entire range as is being seen.
      And I suppose you have data to back that up, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? It's a big ocean out there and, imo, it wouldn't actually be illogical to think that there are a lot of things that go on out there that are unseen.
      Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by 4merguide View Post

        And I suppose you have data to back that up, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? It's a big ocean out there and, imo, it wouldn't actually be illogical to think that there are a lot of things that go on out there that are unseen.
        So what you're saying is that in your opinion the boogyman exists, and in order to refute your opinion someone needs to provide data?

        ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
        I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
        The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by iofthetaiga View Post
          So what you're saying is that in your opinion the boogyman exists, and in order to refute your opinion someone needs to provide data?
          Tell me you don't know what he meant by the "boogyman." Are you someone that actually believes that if something isn't seen it must not exist? Are you also one that thinks that if the tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it that it doesn't make any sound?
          Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

          Comment


          • #50
            Nailed it. Everyone wants to blame "foreigners" (because it's an easy scapegoat and it can't possibly be us, right?), but in reality it's us that are causing the salmon problem.
            Originally posted by Patsfan54 View Post
            About the best studies that have been done on the high seas have happened in the last few years, they drop long gillnets and take samples in the middle of the ocean...it's imprecise at best but has some good, if limited data. High seas intercept is a boogeyman that just isn't happening in the quantities required to disrupt runs across the entire range as is being seen. Inshore intercept is happening, is quantifiable, and is a known problem...it's also mostly legal. Hatchery fish are a huge problem, possibly the largest problem in a sea (pun intended) of problems.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by 4merguide View Post

              Tell me you don't know what he meant by the "boogyman."
              I know exactly what he meant.

              Do you know what it is to make a false equivalency? When you state an unsubstantiated opinion and demand that any counter argument be substantiated by evidence, you are asking us to accept that your unsubstantiated opinion carries equal weight (is equivalent) to a substantiated argument.

              You say we shouldn't just accept his word that your boogyman doesn't exist without evidence, but we should accept your unsubstantiated opinion that the high seas boogyman does exist, and therefore we shouldn't take action to protect the resource near-shore/in-river? Is that your position? Because if so, that would be stacking a "whataboutism" ("what about the boogyman?") on top of a false equivalency, i.e. "We shouldn't need to stop catching fish in-river, because the boogyman is catching fish on the high seas....and anyone who doesn't think the high seas boogyman is the problem needs to prove it before we take any action in-river."
              ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
              I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
              The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Patsfan54 View Post
                About the best studies that have been done on the high seas have happened in the last few years, they drop long gillnets and take samples in the middle of the ocean...it's imprecise at best but has some good, if limited data. High seas intercept is a boogeyman that just isn't happening in the quantities required to disrupt runs across the entire range as is being seen. Inshore intercept is happening, is quantifiable, and is a known problem...it's also mostly legal. Hatchery fish are a huge problem, possibly the largest problem in a sea (pun intended) of problems.
                I'm not so sure this statement is entirely true. There is a lot of reading to do on the subject and I'm just now scratching the surface. It's clear to me that there is still some illegal high seas, intercept fishing of salmon and some bi-catch. Some people here are blaming AK dept of fish for not closing down the Kenai. From what I've read so far, it looks like foreign intercept and bi-catch numbers have historically been higher than our terminal fisheries, sport and commercial.

                It seems to me that since the reductions in Chinook returns are wide spread, even in streams that get little or no terminal pressure, there must be some indiscriminate fishing somewhere before the terminal fisheries.

                When I was a set net commercial fisherman, Alaska board of Fish would not let us fish until a species had reached the escapement goals. Some summers we could miss entire runs of fish because by the time Kings had reached the escapement numbers in our zone, it was time for the red run so we were shut down again until the reds had reached their escapement goals and so on.

                We blamed the drift fleet, they blamed high seas bi-catch and intercept fishing of salmon.

                If we don't have data to prove there's a big problem with high seas fishing, there isn't enough to show there isn't. One thing seems to be sure, from what I have read, historically it has been a big problem.

                Comment


                • #53
                  I have to agree with Patsfan that inshore intercept is the main problem. I say this by thinking of the salmons body structure not being designed for high seas travel like a tuna. Also, where is the king salmons main bait fish food source located. Find the bait find the fish. The math also needs to be considered. If a Kenai River king salmon has an average 5 year ocean life before returning and at the current rate of 20-25K per year how many fish are out there, can't be many. Consistent depletion by inshore nets has to be a problem, I would definitely eliminate nets anywhere near the mouth of the Kenai River at the time they return as well as all in river fishing for the few kings that can get there.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 4merguide View Post

                    And I suppose you have data to back that up, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? It's a big ocean out there and, imo, it wouldn't actually be illogical to think that there are a lot of things that go on out there that are unseen.
                    Prove to me that there is high sea intercept. I remember a foreign flagged vessel partaking in high seas intercept of Alaskan salmon maybe one or two times in the last decade and they were caught. We patrol the seas and know what is going on out there, if you have a laundry list of violators then let's see what data you can prove there is such a massive amount of high seas intercept to affect fisheries from California to Alaska. The researchers that have gone out have trouble locating salmon, and yet we are to believe that there are multiple factory catcher processors hundreds of miles off shore catching salmon in numbers that wipe out runs of one species but allow others to explode? The high seas intercept boogeyman goes back to the old-timers before the 200 mile limit. I remember hearing it in the 90's whenever numbers were low and especially early in the season, but as the season progressed and numbers improved the talk would subside.
                    I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. Physicist ― Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by 4merguide View Post

                      Tell me you don't know what he meant by the "boogyman."
                      For what it's worth I said boogeyman, not boogyman...so we could be talking about completely different things.
                      I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. Physicist ― Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by mark knapp View Post

                        I'm not so sure this statement is entirely true. There is a lot of reading to do on the subject and I'm just now scratching the surface. It's clear to me that there is still some illegal high seas, intercept fishing of salmon and some bi-catch. Some people here are blaming AK dept of fish for not closing down the Kenai. From what I've read so far, it looks like foreign intercept and bi-catch numbers have historically been higher than our terminal fisheries, sport and commercial.

                        It seems to me that since the reductions in Chinook returns are wide spread, even in streams that get little or no terminal pressure, there must be some indiscriminate fishing somewhere before the terminal fisheries.

                        When I was a set net commercial fisherman, Alaska board of Fish would not let us fish until a species had reached the escapement goals. Some summers we could miss entire runs of fish because by the time Kings had reached the escapement numbers in our zone, it was time for the red run so we were shut down again until the reds had reached their escapement goals and so on.

                        We blamed the drift fleet, they blamed high seas bi-catch and intercept fishing of salmon.

                        If we don't have data to prove there's a big problem with high seas fishing, there isn't enough to show there isn't. One thing seems to be sure, from what I have read, historically it has been a big problem.
                        Historically high seas intercept was a problem, but that was decades ago. Currently inshore/domestic fishery intercept is a problem. I posted the numbers of trawl caught kings last year or the year before, I will dig it up for you. Salmon are caught while heading to their natal streams. There are in river problems in some rivers. There are BILLIONS of hatchery salmon dumped into the North Pacific each and every year, most are low value humpies and chums. There are myriad problems with our wild salmon all along their life cycle, we have control over some and absolutely no control over others.
                        I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. Physicist ― Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Mark,

                          I posted this about two hears ago now https://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com...d-king-bycatch

                          The levels of halibut, sablefish, and King Salmon bycatch need addressed again.

                          In the Bearing Sea 7.73 million pounds of halibut is allowed to be taken as bycatch. Trawlers there also caught around 5 million pounds of sablefish bycatch even though their "limit" is 1.4 million pounds of sablefish bycatch.

                          In the Central and Western Gulf 2.1 million pounds of halibut is allowed to be taken as bycatch, 16,802 chinook salmon were also taken as bycatch (about 5,000 more than made it up the world famous Kenai River this year to spawn). Trawlers in the Central Gulf also caught around 4.7 million pounds of sablefish bycatch even though their "limit" is 2.3 million pounds of sablefish bycatch.

                          We have definitive proof and know who one of the boogeymen is, whether we deal with them or not is up to us.
                          I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. Physicist ― Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Patsfan54 View Post

                            Prove to me that there is high sea intercept. I remember a foreign flagged vessel partaking in high seas intercept of Alaskan salmon maybe one or two times in the last decade and they were caught. We patrol the seas and know what is going on out there, if you have a laundry list of violators then let's see what data you can prove there is such a massive amount of high seas intercept to affect fisheries from California to Alaska. The researchers that have gone out have trouble locating salmon, and yet we are to believe that there are multiple factory catcher processors hundreds of miles off shore catching salmon in numbers that wipe out runs of one species but allow others to explode? The high seas intercept boogeyman goes back to the old-timers before the 200 mile limit. I remember hearing it in the 90's whenever numbers were low and especially early in the season, but as the season progressed and numbers improved the talk would subside.
                            All I'm saying, based off a couple documentaries I watched, as well as a few articles I read awhile back, where they were catching illegal fishermen on the high seas. They all basically stated that there is no way they could catch all of them as the ocean is just way too vast to do so. They really had no idea of how many countries were involved in the activity. Maybe it's gotten better since then, maybe it hasn't. Again, I was asking if you had any data. I wasn't saying you were right OR wrong, as I would seriously like to know the latest information concerning this, because like Mark, it's not what I've heard, but I haven't kept up with the latest news.
                            Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam...net_report.pdf
                              2016 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING U.S. ACTIONS TAKEN ON FOREIGN LARGE-SCALE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING
                              Compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service Pursuant to Section 206(E) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as Amended by Public Law 104-297, The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996
                              "Sightings, boardings, and fishing vessel seizures from 2003– also indicate that the high seas driftnet threat in the North Pacific Ocean has shifted fishing effort from a primary focus on salmon to squid, sharks, and/or albacore tuna. Of the 21 driftnet vessels intercepted since 2003, only 3 had salmon on board; the rest had squid, tuna, sharks, and other fish species. This shift is attributed to a combination of factors including favorable squid markets, effective surveillance of traditional high seas salmon fishing grounds, and more effective control of fishing fleets by North Pacific countries."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by river mist View Post
                                I have to agree with Patsfan that inshore intercept is the main problem. I say this by thinking of the salmons body structure not being designed for high seas travel like a tuna. Also, where is the king salmons main bait fish food source located. Find the bait find the fish. The math also needs to be considered. If a Kenai River king salmon has an average 5 year ocean life before returning and at the current rate of 20-25K per year how many fish are out there, can't be many. Consistent depletion by inshore nets has to be a problem, I would definitely eliminate nets anywhere near the mouth of the Kenai River at the time they return as well as all in river fishing for the few kings that can get there.
                                Data I have seen (I will find it and post it here) show that (historically) you are wrong. Back before the Pacific Andromous Fish Treaty The Japanese and Russian High seas fleets used to report catches of Chinooks as large as our terminal fisheries and our escapement. The don't report catches any more because, well, it's illegal but there is no reason to think they can't and don't still do it. I'll find it and post it.
                                Last edited by mark knapp; 09-26-2021, 14:41.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X