Alaska harvests BC salmon while BC fishers tied to dock

[AKDoug]

No one thinks it's a joke! Do you have a solution?

 

[Ksyniuk]

1- Feed is important so limit the comercial herring runs

2- We need these salmon to get into the rivers. I don't have this answered but just throwing up our hands and continuing on this route is not going to work

3-Establish more hatcheries. There are some fantastic volunteer groups on Vancouver island, trying hard to keep the salmon alive. But to only see all their hard work get absorbed by over fishing is sole destroying

4-Work out a system to identify the cause of the problem.(the problem is the noticeable drop in salmon counts) Determine who can directly affect this problem and put a plan into action(that plan has to be determined by the people in the field)

 

[AKDoug]

When you get those little details all figured out, we'll all be listening attentively. Some of them we have some control over, some we don't. As well, some people feed their families with their industries, some feed themselves. What are they supposed to feed themselves with while they wait for a "new normal" that may be outside of our ability to manipulate?

There are many people far more wise to the issues than you and I who are working on it. I didn't even bother to read the article from the OP, but I am confident it's about economic loss to a foreign fishing fleet not loss of the resource.

Fluctuating runs of salmon and herring are normal, which is why in Alaska we "enhance" the natural runs with hatchery fish to stabilize the ability to harvest salmon. Those hatcheries are run by commercial interests in their own financial interests and they foot the bill to operate the hatcheries to enhance the runs. They are released along with the natural runs, and not farmed in pens as they are in Canada and other places.

As you have noted, it is a very complex issue, and we are only scratching the surface as to how truly complex it is. Enough said...

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

3-Establish more hatcheries. There are some fantastic volunteer groups on Vancouver island, trying hard to keep the salmon alive. But to only see all their hard work get absorbed by over fishing is sole destroying

In Washington and Oregon, governments have SHUTDOWN hatcheries. The powers to be have been lead to believe that hatcheries are evil.

When you get those little details all figured out, we'll all be listening attentively. Some of them we have some control over, some we don't. As well, some people feed their families with their industries, some feed themselves. What are they supposed to feed themselves with while they wait for a "new normal" that may be outside of our ability to manipulate?

There are many people far more wise to the issues than you and I who are working on it. I didn't even bother to read the article from the OP, but I am confident it's about economic loss to a foreign fishing fleet not loss of the resource.

Fluctuating runs of salmon and herring are normal, which is why in Alaska we "enhance" the natural runs with hatchery fish to stabilize the ability to harvest salmon. Those hatcheries are run by commercial interests in their own financial interests and they foot the bill to operate the hatcheries to enhance the runs. They are released along with the natural runs, and not farmed in pens as they are in Canada and other places.

As you have noted, it is a very complex issue, and we are only scratching the surface as to how truly complex it is. Enough said...

good points Doug. So why has B.C. adopted fish farms instead of hatcheries?

One of the Comm Fish hatcheries in in Main Bay in PWS, Alaska. They raise Reds (Sockeye) and do a very good job at it. There are a lot of fish to go around for both the comm fish and sport fishermen.

 

[AKDoug]

There is a tremendous amount of resistance to farming fish in Alaska, and the quality of the fish vs ocean stocks is a lot less. Hatcheries here release their stocks into the open ocean to mingle with wild stocks, and the eggs are recruited from wild stocks annually.

The commercial hatcheries are co-ops supported by a percentage taken from the commercial fishermen, sports fishermen contribute nothing to their operation. The Kenai river dip net fishery and the Main Bay fisheries are both taken advantage of by sports and subsistence use fishermen without a contribution to the hatchery programs. It's kind of a bitter pill for the commercial guys, who consider those to be "their" fish.

Agreed there are plenty to go around, but (as a sports fisherman) I think the sports and subsistence fishermen should contribute to the operation of the co-ops. Something like a fee to participate in the fishery, it only seems fair.

We used to have runs that fluctuated wildly in the Kenai river, 3.5 million fish one year and 10 million the next, the co-ops are an effort to stabilize the return for the benefit of the commercial harvesters.

My guess (only a guess) is that economic interests (fish farming organizations) in B.C. over rode the commercial fishing interests of local fishermen. Commercials in Alaska are well organized and have significant political clout.

 

[friz]

LOL!! Funny.
Washington/Oregon claim the same thing, except they clip their hatchery fish.
We are having a good king salmon tonight for dinner. Caught in Chatham Strait. Come to think about it, it had a Canadian Flag on its tail, so thanks for dinner.....

That is cold.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

That is cold.

Well offer in jest. I love B.C. it looks like we will be able to play in B.C. this year.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

There is a tremendous amount of resistance to farming fish in Alaska, and the quality of the fish vs ocean stocks is a lot less. Hatcheries here release their stocks into the open ocean to mingle with wild stocks, and the eggs are recruited from wild stocks annually.

The commercial hatcheries are co-ops supported by a percentage taken from the commercial fishermen, sports fishermen contribute nothing to their operation. The Kenai river dip net fishery and the Main Bay fisheries are both taken advantage of by sports and subsistence use fishermen without a contribution to the hatchery programs. It's kind of a bitter pill for the commercial guys, who consider those to be "their" fish.

Agreed there are plenty to go around, but (as a sports fisherman) I think the sports and subsistence fishermen should contribute to the operation of the co-ops. Something like a fee to participate in the fishery, it only seems fair.

We used to have runs that fluctuated wildly in the Kenai river, 3.5 million fish one year and 10 million the next, the co-ops are an effort to stabilize the return for the benefit of the commercial harvesters.

My guess (only a guess) is that economic interests (fish farming organizations) in B.C. over rode the commercial fishing interests of local fishermen. Commercials in Alaska are well organized and have significant political clout.

Although I agree in part, the war between comm fish and sport fish continues. In my experience both side are cordial in Main Bay. Sportfish just don't go there when it is open for comm fish.

 

[djones44]

Salmon travel all the way to Asia, and most are probably caught there. Only a small percentage returns from the sea.

Given that they already get scooped up as far as Asia - can we ban the export of salmon? We have whales to feed here at home.

Better yet, let's ban the export of all wildlife, and make North America a World Wildlife Refuge. Diversity needs a break, and we are their stewards.

 

[Slider70]

I apologize for making this so long but it is a complicated situation. What we are talking about here is an extremely serious subject.

I retired from commercial fishing in BC eight years ago after 28 years of trolling for salmon. When I left there were obvious troubles with chums and sockeye. Chinook and coho were down in numbers but still reasonably healthy. Or so I thought. Pinks were OK.

Generally when salmon leave the rivers on the West Coast they head north. It is nothing new that Alaska fishers, both commercial and sport, catch salmon from BC waters. We in BC catch them from Washington and Oregon. No matter what the media say this is not a surprise. It has been happening since there were fishermen. Is is also a known situation by both Canada and the US.

This is the reason we have an International Salmon Commission along with an agreement on catch numbers. Obviously if BC fishers, commercial and sport, are cut back in catch or shut down the Alaska fishers will be taking a higher number of chinook if they are not also cut back. They are likely not doing anything illegal, simply following the International Agreement. It appears to me that Canada did not properly address the chinook situation when negotiating the last agreement on chinook?

But I could be wrong? In Canada the Federal Government controls the salmon catch. BC has little to no say in how things go. In the US the States have more power over catch than the US Federal Government. This makes it more difficult to obtain an agreement or likely even to manage it as often the States have different agendas from each other?

Unfortunately the agreement on chinook is for ten year durations. I understand we are just into the new one by a few years. There is a provision in the agreement that it can be re-opened under special circumstances but it is not common for this to happen.

Chinook salmon, Kings if your American, are in big trouble in BC watersheds. I understand there is similar situations in many of the watersheds in Washington, Oregon and California? Our international agreement is in place to hopefully ensure that we don't wipe out the various stocks. Unfortunately for many reasons we are getting to the situation with many, if not most, of the BC strains facing this case.

To address this, right or wrong, the BC commercial harvest has been drastically reduced. The sport sector is also seeing major reductions in access. I understand similar things are happening in Washington, Oregon and California. It appears to me not so much is being done in Alaska?

We can argue, make jokes or totally ignore this situation but no action will not help the fish. I never thought in my life time that I might see the end of chinook in BC but now I'm not so sure?

 

[DNT99611]

I think the Cook Inlet commercial fishers would have no problem taxing themself to fund hatchery fish if they were allowed to harvest the majority of what they were paying for. The bigger the pie the bigger the slice for everyone. The best thing that could happen it to take politics out of the fishery and tell the biologists to manage for the largest sustainable harvest.

 

[AKDoug]

The Cook Inlet fishers do tax themselves, I think it's 2% of their gross, to fund Cook Inlet Aquaculture. I am pretty sure the Prince William Sound fishers do also, and I know there is Main Bay and Sawmill Bay hatcheries operating and there may be m ore. Main Bay is pretty far away for subsistence users and requires having a suitable boat to get there. If you have a boat all kinds of options open up for you, and when the commercial guys are working Main Bay it's crazy busy and no sane person would wander in there to sport fish.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I apologize for making this so long but it is a complicated situation. What we are talking about here is an extremely serious subject.

I retired from commercial fishing in BC eight years ago after 28 years of trolling for salmon. When I left there were obvious troubles with chums and sockeye. Chinook and coho were down in numbers but still reasonably healthy. Or so I thought. Pinks were OK.

Generally when salmon leave the rivers on the West Coast they head north. It is nothing new that Alaska fishers, both commercial and sport, catch salmon from BC waters. We in BC catch them from Washington and Oregon. No matter what the media say this is not a surprise. It has been happening since there were fishermen. Is is also a known situation by both Canada and the US.

This is the reason we have an International Salmon Commission along with an agreement on catch numbers. Obviously if BC fishers, commercial and sport, are cut back in catch or shut down the Alaska fishers will be taking a higher number of chinook if they are not also cut back. They are likely not doing anything illegal, simply following the International Agreement. It appears to me that Canada did not properly address the chinook situation when negotiating the last agreement on chinook?

But I could be wrong? In Canada the Federal Government controls the salmon catch. BC has little to no say in how things go. In the US the States have more power over catch than the US Federal Government. This makes it more difficult to obtain an agreement or likely even to manage it as often the States have different agendas from each other?

Unfortunately the agreement on chinook is for ten year durations. I understand we are just into the new one by a few years. There is a provision in the agreement that it can be re-opened under special circumstances but it is not common for this to happen.

Chinook salmon, Kings if your American, are in big trouble in BC watersheds. I understand there is similar situations in many of the watersheds in Washington, Oregon and California? Our international agreement is in place to hopefully ensure that we don't wipe out the various stocks. Unfortunately for many reasons we are getting to the situation with many, if not most, of the BC strains facing this case.

To address this, right or wrong, the BC commercial harvest has been drastically reduced. The sport sector is also seeing major reductions in access. I understand similar things are happening in Washington, Oregon and California. It appears to me not so much is being done in Alaska?

We can argue, make jokes or totally ignore this situation but no action will not help the fish. I never thought in my life time that I might see the end of chinook in BC but now I'm not so sure?

Good post. You are right that in the USA salmon are regulated by the state. However with rivers that flow from Canada through Alaska, salmon is regulated by treaty and run by the Federal Government. Example would be the Stikine River. U.S. Forest Service shut down sockeye (Reds) last summer due to poor returns.

Then there is the "by-catch" issue which is a big big issue in Alaska.

Also Halibut is run by treaty (Stevens/Magnesian Act), thus the Federal Government (NOAA) runs this program in the USA. This particular treaty has been a night mere for sport fish in Alaska. The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) has devastated sport halibut fishing. The Commission is run by Canada and the USA (California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska). The makeup of the Commission is the political arms (States and B.C.) commercial fish and one sportfish. Yep ONE sport fish. This group regulates the amount sport fishing is allowed. Needless to say all decisions and policies favor comm fish. No disrespect, but I have been told by comm fishers that there should be no sportfish! These sportfish should be forced to buy all their fish from comm fish.

I think the Cook Inlet commercial fishers would have no problem taxing themself to fund hatchery fish if they were allowed to harvest the majority of what they were paying for. The bigger the pie the bigger the slice for everyone. The best thing that could happen it to take politics out of the fishery and tell the biologists to manage for the largest sustainable harvest.

So then how would you separate wild from hatchery? By-Catch? But I do agree the politics is part of the problem. That being said look at the Alaska Constitution, Article 8, section 4. This makes it political.

SEAK (Wrangell) had record breaking pinks this last summer.

If you have a boat all kinds of options open up for you, and when the commercial guys are working Main Bay it's crazy busy and no sane person would wander in there to sport fish.

You are correct if you have a boat! PWS is an awesome place.

Main Bay don't I know!! I got trapped in Main Bay on one outing. After that night mere I looked at the comm fish openings for that area and stayed far far away.