Post by: fishngamereaper on December 13, 2017, 07:23:12 AM
And people wonder why we distrust the state so much and see the tribe's as resource killers.
I can't post a link from my phn....
Post by: Woodchuck on December 13, 2017, 07:26:05 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2017, 07:45:31 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on December 13, 2017, 07:50:08 AM
Wow, the WDFW really made an end run around the people who pay their bills. This is ridiculous. :bash:But not surprising.
Post by: Smokeploe on December 13, 2017, 08:12:15 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on December 13, 2017, 08:32:00 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2017, 08:58:02 AM
Wow, the WDFW really made an end run around the people who pay their bills. This is ridiculous. :bash:But not surprising.
Nope, unfortunately it's not. Having been shut out of a Spokane WAG meeting, it doesn't surprise me at all.
Post by: Special T on December 13, 2017, 09:53:14 AM
There is an amazing disconnect. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that they can't connect the dots enough to see why they exist.Wow, the WDFW really made an end run around the people who pay their bills. This is ridiculous. :bash:But not surprising.
What reason do we need the WDFW if they arnt interested in sportsmen... one would think a merger of them and parks would and welcomed not fought...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: SkookumHntr on December 13, 2017, 09:54:50 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on December 13, 2017, 10:01:19 AM
As near as I can tell, it at least appears that all they are interested in doing is justifying their payroll.There is an amazing disconnect. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that they can't connect the dots enough to see why they exist.Wow, the WDFW really made an end run around the people who pay their bills. This is ridiculous. :bash:But not surprising.
What reason do we need the WDFW if they arnt interested in sportsmen... one would think a merger of them and parks would and welcomed not fought...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 13, 2017, 10:20:34 AM
Habitat loss and nets can't belong in the same sentence. Of course the tribes are reducing their fishing days to compensate correct? I may as well sell my boat.Yeah, it really grinds to see a few rivers with habitat greater than you can imagine. And one can get netted six days a week and the fish are now listed as threatened.
Post by: RB on December 13, 2017, 10:34:43 AM
Post by: cavemann on December 13, 2017, 05:44:08 PM
Post by: hunthard on December 14, 2017, 12:02:24 AM
Post by: steeleywhopper on December 14, 2017, 12:25:41 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 14, 2017, 06:04:15 AM
I'll wait to see what the outcome is, but I'm not holding my breath for a positive one. Everyone collectively agrees the WDFW is worthy of plenty of criticism and takes it fair share of jabs. I agree they should and they have more than made their own beds. It is stuff like this that also feeds into the narrative against the tribes. I'm tired of the vale of secrecy and sovereignty they hide behind. If they are going to accept partnerships with WDFW on NOA application and co-management of shared resources they need to show some transparency and good faith to the general public. The explanation of the treaty's and Boldt decision is tiresome also. Things adapt, change and require adjustment. All most of us are asking of the tribes is to be a little more forthcoming and transparent if they also want us to not assume the worst and be frustrated. If they don't care about the frustrations and public image it shows, by all means carry on. But to continue to decry any of us who are frustrated with the secret meetings and lack of transparency on harvest numbers, is hypocritical and insulting. If you want a conversation, HAVE ONE IN PUBLIC!!!!
Excellent and respectful comment. Thank you.
Post by: boneaddict on December 14, 2017, 07:14:14 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 14, 2017, 07:45:39 AM
I'll wait to see what the outcome is, but I'm not holding my breath for a positive one. Everyone collectively agrees the WDFW is worthy of plenty of criticism and takes it fair share of jabs. I agree they should and they have more than made their own beds. It is stuff like this that also feeds into the narrative against the tribes. I'm tired of the vale of secrecy and sovereignty they hide behind. If they are going to accept partnerships with WDFW on NOA application and co-management of shared resources they need to show some transparency and good faith to the general public. The explanation of the treaty's and Boldt decision is tiresome also. Things adapt, change and require adjustment. All most of us are asking of the tribes is to be a little more forthcoming and transparent if they also want us to not assume the worst and be frustrated. If they don't care about the frustrations and public image it shows, by all means carry on. But to continue to decry any of us who are frustrated with the secret meetings and lack of transparency on harvest numbers, is hypocritical and insulting. If you want a conversation, HAVE ONE IN PUBLIC!!!!
I can't disagree with this. Well and respectfully put.
Post by: Stein on December 14, 2017, 10:33:01 AM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on December 14, 2017, 10:59:34 AM
Unfortunately this looks like we continue down the path of the double whammy - no or short seasons without making any changes that will recover the fish. I think you either do what you need to recover the fish as quickly as possible or let what will happen happen. If I was king of the world, I would say we are going to have some wild salmon but not in every river. Here are the rivers we can and will protect and the rest will be hatchery based. Instead, what we get is everyone suffering and the fish still teetering on the brink of the void. Simply moving the percentage of sport kill a few percent isn't going to lead to recovery.
I vote Stein for King! I agree with this, we have major issues that need to be addressed like the marine mammal protection act. Similar to the issue with wolves and deer/elk populations if you introduce/protect apex predators you will see a decline in fish stocks. Marine mammal population is currently higher than it has ever been, especially seals in Puget Sound, and this has more impact than treaty/non-treaty combined. There once was a day in the peak of habitat destruction when there was also a bounty on sealions and the salmon populations were booming. Wild stocks protection and sport/commercial fisheries no-longer go hand in hand. There are to many users of the resource, you me and my neighbor all have boats, to rely on wild stocks if we want opportunity we need to produce as many hatchery fish as possible and remove predators.
Post by: hunthard on December 15, 2017, 12:03:25 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on December 15, 2017, 05:37:33 AM
Post by: hunthard on December 15, 2017, 05:39:41 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on December 15, 2017, 05:42:27 AM
Do you think the ESA feels the same way? Not intended to be sarcastic.
Nope. Because they use the ideal for season setting, or in many cases no- season setting reasoning.
Post by: MADMAX on December 15, 2017, 05:56:47 AM
Some predator control on Seals and sea lions.
There are still rivers that are gorgeous free flowing that never see a fish run.
Nature would heal itself
Post by: hunthard on December 15, 2017, 06:01:20 AM
Post by: MADMAX on December 15, 2017, 06:25:03 AM
try and get the point
quit netting them
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 15, 2017, 09:34:06 AM
Post by: WSU on December 15, 2017, 10:55:41 AM
As much as it goes against the mantra folks have been speaking for decades, netting fish in the river is the most effective way to control harvest. When we catch 80% of the harvested fish in the open ocean, we have no idea if they are from a healthy run or one listed under the ESA. They fish are all mixed and there is no way to control. If you wait until they return, not only can you control which runs you harvest, but the fish are also as large as they are going to get because we aren't harvesting them as juveniles.
Post by: hunthard on December 15, 2017, 11:38:44 PM
Post by: Tinmaniac on December 16, 2017, 07:00:33 AM
Lots of misunderstanding of fish, seasons, and biology going on here. Too much to parse, but suffice to say, the number one thing we could do to curtail harvest is cut harvest in Alaska and Canada. Far more harvest occurs north of our border than once the fish finally return.Besides mesh size how is a gill net selective?
As much as it goes against the mantra folks have been speaking for decades, netting fish in the river is the most effective way to control harvest. When we catch 80% of the harvested fish in the open ocean, we have no idea if they are from a healthy run or one listed under the ESA. They fish are all mixed and there is no way to control. If you wait until they return, not only can you control which runs you harvest, but the fish are also as large as they are going to get because we aren't harvesting them as juveniles.
Post by: WSU on December 16, 2017, 08:41:11 AM
Post by: Tinmaniac on December 16, 2017, 09:00:10 AM
Location and time.I agree,when I know the location of the nets and the time they are in the river I stay away.When the nets are in fishing is terrible.My point is the gill nets kill tens of thousands of ESA listed fish.
Post by: WSU on December 16, 2017, 09:38:06 AM
Post by: Skillet on December 16, 2017, 10:23:38 AM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on December 16, 2017, 10:28:44 AM
Alaska and Canada kill hundreds of thousands of fish and far more than our terminal net fisheries. If you are interested, I can post a link that has all the numbers broken down.
Post by: WSU on December 16, 2017, 10:30:08 AM
The reports titled “Annual Report of Catch and Escapement for 20xx” show catches by all the various fisheries, details on stock escapements, etc. for chinook
The reports titled “20xx Exploitation Rate Analysis and Model Calibration” show by fishery where each stock is caught (or experiences mortality due to fisheries).
There is a ton of information in these reports, but they are the most comprehensive single source I know of for what you are looking for.
This is from the pacific salmon commission.
Post by: Skillet on December 16, 2017, 10:31:55 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 16, 2017, 10:32:58 AM
I'd sure be curious to see those numbers. Thanks-I've seen a few of the numbers before. I think the worst was the Hoko river out by Sekiu, with 95% intercept before making it to the strait. The Elwha was like 88% or 85%, which is kind of why hardly anyone thinks the dam removal project will restore historic fish runs.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on December 16, 2017, 11:00:44 AM
Alaska and Canada kill hundreds of thousands of fish and far more than our terminal net fisheries. If you are interested, I can post a link that has all the numbers broken down.
I would be interested to see this as well.
Lots of misunderstanding of fish, seasons, and biology going on here. Too much to parse, but suffice to say, the number one thing we could do to curtail harvest is cut harvest in Alaska and Canada. Far more harvest occurs north of our border than once the fish finally return. Far more fish are produced wildly and in hatcheries North of the Straits then WA, in season management and management in general are far superior in CAN and AK ten in WA as well. Fishing by AK, CAN, and the other salmon producing states is managed by international treaties and annual season setting that is very science intensive and thorough.
As much as it goes against the mantra folks have been speaking for decades, netting fish in the river is the most effective way to control harvest. Yes and no, in an ocean fishery the fish do not randomly mix. Certain runs hit certain corridors and many fisheries are hitting certain terminal areas for certain stocks. It is not a random barrel of fish taking whatever is there. Certain areas have been restricted because of the interception rate of non-target stocks. When we catch 80% of the harvested fish in the open ocean, we have no idea if they are from a healthy run or one listed under the ESA. They fish are all mixed and there is no way to control. If you wait until they return, not only can you control which runs you harvest, but the fish are also as large as they are going to get because we aren't harvesting them as juveniles. I’m not sure what you mean about harvesting juveniles, there is little to no market for jacks and the majority of actual juveniles are in the high seas. As far as river fisheries go, you are now fishing on a fist that has expended a significant portion of its fat and energy reserves returning to its natal stream while producing mature gametes. You are essentially fishing on the fish that are the most fit to reproduce in that watershed when they have already started to lose flesh quality. This is the reason winter kings are so highly prized, highest fat content and immature gametes. Rivers are certainly easier to fish, but, among other reasons, this is a reason the majority of commercial fisheries are in the open ocean.
Post by: Skillet on December 16, 2017, 11:02:25 AM
This is only anectdotal, but I've caught two Sacramento River hatchery kings out on the Fairweather Grounds. They really travel.
Post by: WSU on December 16, 2017, 11:11:21 AM
I fished the north tip of queen Charlotte island this summer. Like se ak, I’m sure the kings were a big mix of south bound fish. It was interesting to look at the kings and how different they look from stock to stock. I’ve seen it here in Washington obviously but it was interesting to look at dozens of kings over 4 days. We caught one that I’d bet money was hatchery tule, some that looked like urbs and some a variety of other stocks.
Post by: WSU on December 16, 2017, 11:14:01 AM
And by harvesting juveniles, I mean that all those smaller kings caught over the 3 years they are feeding up north aren’t nature yet. They’d be a lot bigger if we let them grow another 2 or 4 years.
Post by: gaddy on December 16, 2017, 03:09:20 PM
Then Japan had the tsunami that wiped out their fishing fleet. It seems that after that, we had some really high return numbers for a few years. Some years later, here we are shutting down seasons, or limiting catch numbers.
I hear about ocean conditions, water temps etc.. but have to wonder if the fish are ending up as sushi somewhere, or taken by sovereign nations
(foreign) other than the US or Canada.
Am I way off base here ?
Post by: hunthard on December 17, 2017, 12:01:52 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 17, 2017, 09:48:33 AM
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on December 17, 2017, 05:29:12 PM
Post by: deerlick on December 17, 2017, 07:51:57 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on December 17, 2017, 08:08:50 PM
I also have a question about this subject. How is it that the Average salmon caught in Alaska is much bigger than in Washington state if all of the salmon we get back are coming from all the way up there? I'm speaking from experience btw. I lived in Alaska for a short time and fished there as much as I could. The average Coho up there is 10+ lbs and the average king is 20+ lbs.. here in Washington that's a much smaller number. Another thing I have to ask about is that Pink salmon run every year in Alaska whereas here in Washington we get a run every other year. how does that make sense? I get that some of our fish go that far north but I feel like most of our salmon go mainly up into Canadian waters or just further out into the ocean. I could be completely wrong... but then again in all the years I have fished Washington state I have only pulled up a hand full of kings that were 20 lbs or more and silvers are 6-8 lbs if you are lucky. The pinks we caught up there were also bigger. 8-10 lbs average! The pinks we get down here are like 3-5 lbs. Just my :twocents: but feel free to fill me in if you have any info. I love salmon fishing and will continue to do so in the future.. just not in Washington state, unless its the hump or if I go with a charter on the Columbia lol. Btw, I'm talking sport fishing more than netting and yes I know there is a big difference in catch. My biggest king is a hair under 40 lbs and that was in Canada up on Queen Charlotte island and my biggest silver was while I was living in Ketchikan, Alaska and it was 16 lbs. I WANT TO GO BACK! :chuckle:
10+ pound average is far fetched. I worked on a salmon tender throughout the whole troll season in SE Alaska and saw 10s of thousands of coho I think the average was 5-7 pounds as the season got later.
@skillet
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on December 18, 2017, 03:42:32 PM
We had 4 people in the boat and were allowed 6 silvers per person per day. Smallest Coho we caught was 8 lbs. We weren't netting though. We were out sport fishing. We had limits of pinks, silvers, and a couple kings in the boat within 2 hrs and headed to the halibut and rockfish holes. This past summer we missed the schools, but still ended up with some nice silvers in the 9-14 lbs range and some pinks around 6-7 lbs.I also have a question about this subject. How is it that the Average salmon caught in Alaska is much bigger than in Washington state if all of the salmon we get back are coming from all the way up there? I'm speaking from experience btw. I lived in Alaska for a short time and fished there as much as I could. The average Coho up there is 10+ lbs and the average king is 20+ lbs.. here in Washington that's a much smaller number. Another thing I have to ask about is that Pink salmon run every year in Alaska whereas here in Washington we get a run every other year. how does that make sense? I get that some of our fish go that far north but I feel like most of our salmon go mainly up into Canadian waters or just further out into the ocean. I could be completely wrong... but then again in all the years I have fished Washington state I have only pulled up a hand full of kings that were 20 lbs or more and silvers are 6-8 lbs if you are lucky. The pinks we caught up there were also bigger. 8-10 lbs average! The pinks we get down here are like 3-5 lbs. Just my :twocents: but feel free to fill me in if you have any info. I love salmon fishing and will continue to do so in the future.. just not in Washington state, unless its the hump or if I go with a charter on the Columbia lol. Btw, I'm talking sport fishing more than netting and yes I know there is a big difference in catch. My biggest king is a hair under 40 lbs and that was in Canada up on Queen Charlotte island and my biggest silver was while I was living in Ketchikan, Alaska and it was 16 lbs. I WANT TO GO BACK! :chuckle:
10+ pound average is far fetched. I worked on a salmon tender throughout the whole troll season in SE Alaska and saw 10s of thousands of coho I think the average was 5-7 pounds as the season got later.
@skillet
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2017, 04:56:44 PM
I also have a question about this subject. How is it that the Average salmon caught in Alaska is much bigger than in Washington state if all of the salmon we get back are coming from all the way up there? I'm speaking from experience btw. I lived in Alaska for a short time and fished there as much as I could. The average Coho up there is 10+ lbs and the average king is 20+ lbs.. here in Washington that's a much smaller number. Another thing I have to ask about is that Pink salmon run every year in Alaska whereas here in Washington we get a run every other year. how does that make sense? I get that some of our fish go that far north but I feel like most of our salmon go mainly up into Canadian waters or just further out into the ocean. I could be completely wrong... but then again in all the years I have fished Washington state I have only pulled up a hand full of kings that were 20 lbs or more and silvers are 6-8 lbs if you are lucky. The pinks we caught up there were also bigger. 8-10 lbs average! The pinks we get down here are like 3-5 lbs. Just my :twocents: but feel free to fill me in if you have any info. I love salmon fishing and will continue to do so in the future.. just not in Washington state, unless its the hump or if I go with a charter on the Columbia lol. Btw, I'm talking sport fishing more than netting and yes I know there is a big difference in catch. My biggest king is a hair under 40 lbs and that was in Canada up on Queen Charlotte island and my biggest silver was while I was living in Ketchikan, Alaska and it was 16 lbs. I WANT TO GO BACK! :chuckle:
Genetics. ;) Just because two people eat the same food at the same table, does not necessarily mean they are going to grow to be the same size.
Fish may travel to the same feeding grounds, doesn't mean those two fish don't come from different parts of the world or different parents. :twocents:
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on December 18, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
True and I would say the majority of what we catch up there is unclipped so I would assume naturals. God I need to go back soon and get some salmon for my smoker and bbq!I also have a question about this subject. How is it that the Average salmon caught in Alaska is much bigger than in Washington state if all of the salmon we get back are coming from all the way up there? I'm speaking from experience btw. I lived in Alaska for a short time and fished there as much as I could. The average Coho up there is 10+ lbs and the average king is 20+ lbs.. here in Washington that's a much smaller number. Another thing I have to ask about is that Pink salmon run every year in Alaska whereas here in Washington we get a run every other year. how does that make sense? I get that some of our fish go that far north but I feel like most of our salmon go mainly up into Canadian waters or just further out into the ocean. I could be completely wrong... but then again in all the years I have fished Washington state I have only pulled up a hand full of kings that were 20 lbs or more and silvers are 6-8 lbs if you are lucky. The pinks we caught up there were also bigger. 8-10 lbs average! The pinks we get down here are like 3-5 lbs. Just my :twocents: but feel free to fill me in if you have any info. I love salmon fishing and will continue to do so in the future.. just not in Washington state, unless its the hump or if I go with a charter on the Columbia lol. Btw, I'm talking sport fishing more than netting and yes I know there is a big difference in catch. My biggest king is a hair under 40 lbs and that was in Canada up on Queen Charlotte island and my biggest silver was while I was living in Ketchikan, Alaska and it was 16 lbs. I WANT TO GO BACK! :chuckle:
Genetics. ;) Just because two people eat the same food at the same table, does not necessarily mean they are going to grow to be the same size.
Fish may travel to the same feeding grounds, doesn't mean those two fish don't come from different parts of the world or different parents. :twocents:
Post by: fish vacuum on December 21, 2017, 03:59:03 AM
I also have a question about this subject. How is it that the Average salmon caught in Alaska is much bigger than in Washington state if all of the salmon we get back are coming from all the way up there? I'm speaking from experience btw. I lived in Alaska for a short time and fished there as much as I could. The average Coho up there is 10+ lbs and the average king is 20+ lbs.. here in Washington that's a much smaller number. Another thing I have to ask about is that Pink salmon run every year in Alaska whereas here in Washington we get a run every other year. how does that make sense? I get that some of our fish go that far north but I feel like most of our salmon go mainly up into Canadian waters or just further out into the ocean. I could be completely wrong... but then again in all the years I have fished Washington state I have only pulled up a hand full of kings that were 20 lbs or more and silvers are 6-8 lbs if you are lucky. The pinks we caught up there were also bigger. 8-10 lbs average! The pinks we get down here are like 3-5 lbs. Just my :twocents: but feel free to fill me in if you have any info. I love salmon fishing and will continue to do so in the future.. just not in Washington state, unless its the hump or if I go with a charter on the Columbia lol. Btw, I'm talking sport fishing more than netting and yes I know there is a big difference in catch. My biggest king is a hair under 40 lbs and that was in Canada up on Queen Charlotte island and my biggest silver was while I was living in Ketchikan, Alaska and it was 16 lbs. I WANT TO GO BACK! :chuckle:I'm gonna guess your coho experience in WA is mostly hatchery fish?
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on December 21, 2017, 03:23:47 PM
I have caught a fair few "native" silver salmon in the Hump. Tossed them all back. They were decent sized but none were pushing above 8-10 lbs class.I also have a question about this subject. How is it that the Average salmon caught in Alaska is much bigger than in Washington state if all of the salmon we get back are coming from all the way up there? I'm speaking from experience btw. I lived in Alaska for a short time and fished there as much as I could. The average Coho up there is 10+ lbs and the average king is 20+ lbs.. here in Washington that's a much smaller number. Another thing I have to ask about is that Pink salmon run every year in Alaska whereas here in Washington we get a run every other year. how does that make sense? I get that some of our fish go that far north but I feel like most of our salmon go mainly up into Canadian waters or just further out into the ocean. I could be completely wrong... but then again in all the years I have fished Washington state I have only pulled up a hand full of kings that were 20 lbs or more and silvers are 6-8 lbs if you are lucky. The pinks we caught up there were also bigger. 8-10 lbs average! The pinks we get down here are like 3-5 lbs. Just my :twocents: but feel free to fill me in if you have any info. I love salmon fishing and will continue to do so in the future.. just not in Washington state, unless its the hump or if I go with a charter on the Columbia lol. Btw, I'm talking sport fishing more than netting and yes I know there is a big difference in catch. My biggest king is a hair under 40 lbs and that was in Canada up on Queen Charlotte island and my biggest silver was while I was living in Ketchikan, Alaska and it was 16 lbs. I WANT TO GO BACK! :chuckle:I'm gonna guess your coho experience in WA is mostly hatchery fish?
Post by: Skillet on December 21, 2017, 06:45:51 PM
First and foremost, I make my living killing fish and selling them. No hidden agenda here, I need a supply of fish to kill and sell. Right off the bat, this makes me an adversary of some here, since they are not commercial fisherman and see commercial fisherman as direct competition for a limited resource. I get that, this is a sportsman's forum. As a sport fisherman for over the three-plus decades before I took the jump into commercial fishing, I can still see that side of things fairly well.
Second, as I age I am getting more and more accepting that I don't know every damn thing about everything. It allows me to listen to others who might disagree with me and instead of trying to figure out a way to prove them wrong, listen to what they are actually saying. I get irritated with trying to have a discussion with someone who is only there to push their beliefs or position. Even the ones who agree with me. If I wanted to be preached at, I'd go to church.
Thirdly, I am a data guy. I have opinions and expect others will have them too, but I differentiate between the two. I prefer the numbers, I can rely on the data. It is much easier to have a rational, intelligent conversation with other folks when they also appreciate a reliance on data and understand the difference between fact and opinion. However, even good data can be interpreted, slanted, and manipulated to make any argument one wants to put forth. And data only really is just data. The discussion is always - what does it mean and what can we/should we do with it? Which brings me to the last point -
I am a skeptic when cherry-picked data is presented to support a position. If data supporting dams on rivers comes from the Bonneville Power Administration's fluff public relations literature, I instantly think "what data regarding the damage they're doing is left out?" In dealing with the sometimes disingenuous standard practices of fish politics, I've been learning to dig deeper, no matter whether what I am hearing from the presenter is reinforcing my beliefs or not. I've already gotten a comment from a board member about "staying on message with the Troller's Association" during ADFG Advisory Board meetings. I take that to mean I'm doing something right...
The point of these comments is to inform my fellow HuntWa'ers that may not share my point of view that I am here to share, listen, learn and show respect to those who are willing to have a rational discussion. Fish politics can get so heated it makes wolf politics look like child's play, imho. I have a serious investment on the line, and that makes it real to me. Maybe most here don't care enough to get worked up about it, and that's cool. Some of us do. Guys like WSU and I might be on completely opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to how we should approach some fish stocks, or what different stakeholders are entitled to. But, I have respect for his ability to put forth his argument in a thoughtful way, and seek out his opinions as a point for me to consider. There is room for both disagreement and respect between two groups who don't vilify the members of the other group. It's easy to pick out a bad apple and paint the rest of the opposition with that brush, but it is almost never an accurate picture you end up with.
Sermon over :tup:
Skillet - if you look at the numbers, the SE AK troll harvests heavily on a lot of southern stocks. I’d bet you’ve caught fish from a lot of interesting places.
I fished the north tip of queen Charlotte island this summer. Like se ak, I’m sure the kings were a big mix of south bound fish. It was interesting to look at the kings and how different they look from stock to stock. I’ve seen it here in Washington obviously but it was interesting to look at dozens of kings over 4 days. We caught one that I’d bet money was hatchery tule, some that looked like urbs and some a variety of other stocks.
The Fairweather Grounds are an interesting place. A big offshore plateau out in the NE corner of the Gulf of Alaska. Extremely rich in feed, it draws predators from all over. Some of those are kings from as far south as the Sacramento River (and probably farther if there are any runs south of the Sacramento). Since the Big C is probably the dominant supplier of kings into the
There is some dock chatter about how you can tell the southern fish from the northern fish, but I'm not sure about that. There are clearly different color variations of kings, and I'd wager they are associated with runs though. As commercial fisherman, we get to spend a LOT of time trying to make sense of the fish we are pursuing, using whatever observations and imagination we can apply. I've heard some real whoppers, and the guys telling them are totally convinced of their theory since they've spent the last three months solo on the boat believing it. :chuckle:
Post by: Skillet on December 21, 2017, 07:04:16 PM
Jh - the numbers don’t lie.
And by harvesting juveniles, I mean that all those smaller kings caught over the 3 years they are feeding up north aren’t nature yet. They’d be a lot bigger if we let them grow another 2 or 4 years.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130184 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130184)
This journal identifies a troubling trend, but is seems the kings are returning much earlier - and smaller - on average. A five-year fish is getting to be very long in the tooth, relatively, to its schoolmates.
As an anecdote, I'm always curious about the state of gonad development in the fish I catch (when eggs get big enough I keep them to sell to bait companies). By July 1, the rest of that year's spawning class is pretty well invested in starting to increase the gonad size. It is true I do catch the occasional fish with gonads that look like they still do in the winter fish I'm catching now, (which I can presume to be either a very late-returning spawning year king or a juvenile), but it is really an uncommon event.
Post by: Skillet on December 21, 2017, 07:12:10 PM
I think most of the AK fish stay near AK, some head over toward Russia and northern Japan. The maps I remember seeing had the WA fish that were closest to the coast going to the Western Gulf of Alaska. The Puget Sound fish going more toward the central part. Lower Columbia river fish going more to the SE Gulf and around Northern British Columbia. The fish that would hang around off the WA and OR coasts had a lot from Idaho and way up the Columbia, and lots from California/S Oregon.
This is similar to what I've been told, in that the fish outmigrate to where the feed is. If BC, and then SE AK, doesn't hold them, they keep going west. I know there is a fair bit of animosity against the pollock draggers in the GOA for harvesting MORE king salmon as bycatch than all of the gear groups in SE AK combined. The kings that don't hangup in the Eastern GOA head west and feed on the massive schools of pollock out there.
BUT - pollock is the biggest fish business in AK. And dragging is the only way to get them. A couple hundred thousands kings a year as bycatch is acceptable, says their immensely powerful lobbying group! Who wants king when you could have a
Post by: plugger on December 21, 2017, 08:11:04 PM
Post by: Skillet on December 21, 2017, 08:39:34 PM
It would be easy for me, as a commercial guy, to want to have the "ocean conditions" be the only reason (btw, "ocean conditions" is the catch-all for scientists to use when they just don't know). But I tend to agree with you - human interaction with the runs are causing this in some respect, but I don't know what it is. The wild runs being early and small as well suggests to me it is a bigger problem than hatchery management.
Post by: Skillet on December 21, 2017, 08:55:16 PM
We had 4 people in the boat and were allowed 6 silvers per person per day. Smallest Coho we caught was 8 lbs. We weren't netting though. We were out sport fishing. We had limits of pinks, silvers, and a couple kings in the boat within 2 hrs and headed to the halibut and rockfish holes. This past summer we missed the schools, but still ended up with some nice silvers in the 9-14 lbs range and some pinks around 6-7 lbs.I also have a question about this subject. How is it that the Average salmon caught in Alaska is much bigger than in Washington state if all of the salmon we get back are coming from all the way up there? I'm speaking from experience btw. I lived in Alaska for a short time and fished there as much as I could. The average Coho up there is 10+ lbs and the average king is 20+ lbs.. here in Washington that's a much smaller number. Another thing I have to ask about is that Pink salmon run every year in Alaska whereas here in Washington we get a run every other year. how does that make sense? I get that some of our fish go that far north but I feel like most of our salmon go mainly up into Canadian waters or just further out into the ocean. I could be completely wrong... but then again in all the years I have fished Washington state I have only pulled up a hand full of kings that were 20 lbs or more and silvers are 6-8 lbs if you are lucky. The pinks we caught up there were also bigger. 8-10 lbs average! The pinks we get down here are like 3-5 lbs. Just my :twocents: but feel free to fill me in if you have any info. I love salmon fishing and will continue to do so in the future.. just not in Washington state, unless its the hump or if I go with a charter on the Columbia lol. Btw, I'm talking sport fishing more than netting and yes I know there is a big difference in catch. My biggest king is a hair under 40 lbs and that was in Canada up on Queen Charlotte island and my biggest silver was while I was living in Ketchikan, Alaska and it was 16 lbs. I WANT TO GO BACK! :chuckle:
10+ pound average is far fetched. I worked on a salmon tender throughout the whole troll season in SE Alaska and saw 10s of thousands of coho I think the average was 5-7 pounds as the season got later.
@skillet%
There are yearly and regional variances of coho size up here, but I'm primarily with Duckslayer on this one. I haven't seen the volume of fish he has in one season, but I've seen seasons worth of coho come over my gunnels now. The fish W_Ellison is remembering likely came from Mt. Point and Clover Point areas, correct? Those fish are primarily from the Neets Bay hatchery, and they have a particularly large strain of coho. Not quite Stikine river size, but notably large. Even year coho up here have been notably larger than the odd year fish as well.
I fished those Ketchikan area coho for a solid summer (2014) and started out in July with a 5.3# average wt on my first delivery (all my ice delivery weights are gilled & gutted weight - 88% of a round fish on average). The fishing was insanely good, and they were big. At the end of the season in mid-Sept, they were 7.1# average, with 10#+ not uncommon in there. I probably caught a couple dozen teeners in Sept that year, big fish dressed at 14.5#.
2015 was a small-fish year, and coho were not as consistent. July started out under 5# average in the Ketchikan area, then I moved out to the coast and fished the Craig area. That area is served by the Klawock hatchery, and those fish were small compared to the Neets fish. It took until mid-August to get in the 6# average range, and I only had one delivery in Sept over 7# average. Big coho that year was 15.2#.
2016 was a monster sized coho year. I had the bigger boat and could range far and wide for them. I started the season on the Fairweather Grounds and was really happy to see my coho coming on at over a 6# average. Great start to the year. They got thin in late July and early August (they always seem to out on the coast), but came on strong in late Aug and Sept. My last delivery was over a 9# average, which is crazy big average for coho. My biggest coho that year was 16.2# - Round weight that was a conservative 18+#.
2017 was a tiny coho year, big contrast to the year before. The numbers, though, broke the previous records for total return. I caught couple thousand more fish than I did the year before, but they were just small... and cleaning a 3# coho is a real drag (isn't that right, @captkyle97 :chuckle:). I didn't get over a 6# average delivery until late in Sept this year. I did land several 11-12#'ers, a couple 13's and one 14# (dressed wts). The bigs came mostly from one week in Sept that were pushing into Cross Sound, clearly a larger system run in that biomass.
That's just my data, take it for what it's worth.
Pinks are an every other year fishery up there, they just don't swarm the inside on the even years like they do on the odd years. It could have something to do with the coho sizes being larger on the off pink years - that number of pinks out there can really eat up some feed. :dunno: I can't speak to pink salmon size, they aren't allowed on my boat!
Post by: WSU on December 22, 2017, 12:04:09 PM
There is a lot of factors at play. That's what makes managing these fish for MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield, as per the Alaska Constitution) a very difficult task. The really odd thing is that the wild fish in most rivers are coming back on average a full 1 or 2 years earlier than previously assumed. Is it that the fishing fleet is hammering the later fish before they get in the river? Warmer ocean speeding maturity? Lack of feed? The what if's are limitless.
It would be easy for me, as a commercial guy, to want to have the "ocean conditions" be the only reason (btw, "ocean conditions" is the catch-all for scientists to use when they just don't know). But I tend to agree with you - human interaction with the runs are causing this in some respect, but I don't know what it is. The wild runs being early and small as well suggests to me it is a bigger problem than hatchery management.
One theory I’ve read is that we are selectively harvesting for early returning fish. The longer they spend feeding in the ocean, the more likely they are to be caught during the mixed stock fisheries and removed from the gene pool. A life history that heads back to spawn with the least exposure to harvest has the best chance to pass on its genes. It makes sense to me but I am not aware of any definitive study (and am not sure one would be possible?).
Post by: WSU on December 22, 2017, 12:30:57 PM
But, as skillet points out, fisheries politics has a lot more to do with money than honest science. Many of the problems are known and fixes exist. They aren’t fixed because there is too much money to be made. Trawlers harvest fish sticks and kill hundreds of thousands of kings (and halibut). Mixed stock troll fisheries are known to kill tons of bc and southern us fish. Stopping that would require a huge shift in Alaska’s approach and would necessarily cost ak and it’s fishers lots of money. And so it continues and we point fingers at tribes, habitat, unknown foreign harvesters and all the rest.
Another thing that’s not talked about is how msy won’t allow us to increase spawning. If folks like skillet were forced to lay off our fish, we’d set seasons here in wa that would ensure we killed them once they got back. Any fish beyond he escapement goal, which is often artificially low to allow harvest, must show up in the planning model as a dead fish. If we improve habitat, the escapement goal stays the same and we kill all extra fish. The spawning population can’t and won’t grow because we make damn sure we kill every last possible harvestable fish. And usually more.
Post by: follow maggie on December 23, 2017, 10:49:05 PM
Post by: ribka on December 24, 2017, 07:12:49 AM
And again one user group, who have demonstrated they care nothing about the natural resource in out state, places nets across rivers ( critical spawning habitat) where salmon and steelhead are attempting to reproduce.
I don’t fault skillet or others for their profession. I appreciate those that can have an honest conversation and not simply regurgitate the party line.
But, as skillet points out, fisheries politics has a lot more to do with money than honest science. Many of the problems are known and fixes exist. They aren’t fixed because there is too much money to be made. Trawlers harvest fish sticks and kill hundreds of thousands of kings (and halibut). Mixed stock troll fisheries are known to kill tons of bc and southern us fish. Stopping that would require a huge shift in Alaska’s approach and would necessarily cost ak and it’s fishers lots of money. And so it continues and we point fingers at tribes, habitat, unknown foreign harvesters and all the rest.
Another thing that’s not talked about is how msy won’t allow us to increase spawning. If folks like skillet were forced to lay off our fish, we’d set seasons here in wa that would ensure we killed them once they got back. Any fish beyond he escapement goal, which is often artificially low to allow harvest, must show up in the planning model as a dead fish. If we improve habitat, the escapement goal stays the same and we kill all extra fish. The spawning population can’t and won’t grow because we make damn sure we kill every last possible harvestable fish. And usually more.
Post by: WSU on December 24, 2017, 09:13:04 AM
Skillet - I’d be really interest in your pit tag data if you are willing to share.
Post by: ribka on December 24, 2017, 09:23:55 AM
Ribka - netting the river is actually the best practice for controlling the amount of harvest. That’s not to say that the tribes always do so responsibly, but in theory it would be the best approach. Ak has lots of pretty closely managed terminal harvest designed to allow specific levels of escapement.
Skillet - I’d be really interest in your pit tag data if you are willing to share.
Ak does a much better job than WA based on my research and personal observations.
I have seen nets left in the WA rivers over the prescribed times and a lot abandoned nets in rivers where salmon an steelhead spawn. Have seen hundreds of rotting fish in abandoned nets. Has WDFW ever ticketed and tribal members for doing his? In theory maybe yes. In reality no
Does WDFW closely monitor tribal catches or just rely on reporting which is notoriously innacurate?
Similar to targeting vulnerable elk and deer for slaughter in their wintering grounds
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 24, 2017, 09:44:12 AM
Ribka - netting the river is actually the best practice for controlling the amount of harvest. That’s not to say that the tribes always do so responsibly, but in theory it would be the best approach. Ak has lots of pretty closely managed terminal harvest designed to allow specific levels of escapement.It could and should be a good way to have a controlled take. But that assumes the numbers are being provided and tracked effectively. The mess on the Quileute river this year is a great example. Nets took so many kings this year that all the rivers in the system had to be shutdown for everything for a few weeks. The kings based off the 2017 spawn aren't likely to give much of a season.
Skillet - I’d be really interest in your pit tag data if you are willing to share.
Post by: WSU on December 24, 2017, 01:58:26 PM
Post by: hunthard on December 24, 2017, 06:03:45 PM
Post by: MADMAX on December 24, 2017, 08:24:08 PM
Post by: hunthard on December 24, 2017, 10:36:00 PM