Current weather

  • Overcast
  • 54°
    Overcast
  • Comment

Kings -- a much deeper rooted problem

Posted: July 13, 2012 - 9:20am

Managing king salmon stocks on the Kenai River is not a job for the faint hearted. From 1980 to 1990 our Kenai River king runs were much more predictable than today.

The main reason these runs were more predictable then is because there were less humans attempting to intercept them back then. King salmon commercial by-catch issues back then were at a minimum as Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak and Cook Inlet commercial fisheries intercept factors were very low. By 1990 those commercial intercept factors began taking huge bites out of Alaska's extremely strong king runs. Commercial fisheries which had only been by-catching a few thousand kings annually suddenly exploded and began intercepting hundreds of thousands of these kings between 1980 and 2000. 

Kodiak Island and Cook Inlet commercial fisheries basically sell their king by-catch and Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska commercial fisheries kill their kings and throw them away dead back into the ocean. These Bering Sea and Gulf kings must be dumped dead because it is illegal to sell them. All of this basically comes down to hundreds of thousands of kings being annually removed from Alaska's saltwater before they have a chance to return and spawn within their home rivers and streams. Year after year of this ocean shredding of our king resource has had a tremendous cumulative effect thus resulting in the general suppression of all Cook Inlet king stocks.

It was in 2002 that these commercial by-catch factors first began having an effect on the Kenai River sportfish environment. That effect showed up as both first and second king runs began showing up late along with a size reduction. At first we noticed these runs only showing up a few days later than normal. Eventually the few days turned into weeks as our "second run king arrival" moved from the first week of July to the second and then even sometimes on into the third week. Occasionally our second run of kings would show up in the first or second week of July but in general the run had been destabilized and was very unpredictable by 2002.

Currently we are forced to expect our late run of kings to show up at just about anytime between July 1st - 25th. This run instability did not need to happen; it is the direct result of run-away commercial saltwater by-catch factors  These by-catch factors were also first noticed by fisheries managers in 2002 but few of them could convince themselves that our saltwater commercial fisheries were capable of such dramatic and far reaching run changes. Today we have modern fisheries managers who are "still unaware" of the history behind this delayed July king entry pattern on the Kenai River. These managers basically take a short-term view of this situation and interpret this wildly fluctuating entry pattern as some kind of recent event. Because these managers assume a freshwater king problem, they attempt to resolve the problem with only freshwater solutions. These chosen freshwater solutions are usually only freshwater sportfish restrictions. These fisheries managers are incorrectly applying freshwater fisheries solutions to a saltwater problem. This improper assessment/solution format then basically results in a delayed reaction to actually resolving the source saltwater problem. This incorrect problem solving can be compared to placing a bandage on cancer and somehow expecting the problem to go away. Using freshwater solutions to remedy saltwater problems creates even more problems as fisheries managers are lulled into a false sense of security, while they stop looking for real solutions.The end result of following this kind of a false logic and problem  solving, is that everyone stands around for years waiting for saltwater slaughtered kings to return to the freshwater.If a person desires evidence of what is happening here they need only view the results of decades worth's of king salmon freshwater restrictions on anglers in the Cook Inlet area. All of these extensive freshwater restrictions have resulted in fewer and fewer kings returning to Cook Inlet.

At this time Kenai River king salmon stocks require a fisheries manager with an extremely cool hand. The realization that our Cook Inlet king troubles are not freshwater based must dominate the solution debate and resulting regulatory changes. Most of our proposed king salmon, freshwater regulatory changes should be viewed for what they actually are, superficial camouflage for a much deeper rooted problem within the saltwater. It is not rational to continue assuming that short-term freshwater regulatory solutions will in anyway address this long-term saltwater king salmon problem.

Would you like ocean by-catch of king salmon to end? Sign the petition at http://signon.org/thanks.html?petition_id=19764=-4973638-zWWsf8

  • Comment

Comments (23) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
cormit
226
Points
cormit 07/13/12 - 10:10 am
3
1
Kenai kings

"From 1980 to 1990 our Kenai River king runs were much more predictable than today".

Hard to disagree with that statement from Mr. Johnson. This is also the time period that fishing guides descended on the Kenai River by the hundreds, bringing a unprecedented level of in-river fishing pressure and spawning ground activity with it.

The previous hundred years of Cook Inlet commercial fishing had not yet seemed to harm these stocks.

Mr. Johnson, who by the way is a fishing guide himself, doesn't think his group ..... with the hundreds of boats churning and waking through the spawning grounds ...... hooking and releasing thousands of kings ..... selectively killing the largest specimens, has harmed the Kenai Kings.

Fascinating isn't it?

northernlights
214
Points
northernlights 07/13/12 - 11:28 am
0
1
Don Johnson the guide

Of coarse he is going to blame it on others, he's been a guide for years on the river. In fact I remember, oh about 15 yrs his customers bragging how they netted above thier limit upstream, no one was round them to keep an eye then. Of coarse he is going to leave the guides out.
Cormit your comment was right on!

fish907
6
Points
fish907 07/13/12 - 03:35 pm
0
1
Don't View The Petition Unless You Plan To Sign It

It appears that if you follow the link to view the petition, you are automatically signing it. Tells me all I need to know about Mr. Johnson.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/13/12 - 04:59 pm
1
0
Sign the petition

I have another link for you to follow there fish907
By clicking the below link the earth will immediately explode.
Did you click the link fish907 ?
I bet he did.
fish907 It specifically states "Sign the petition at http://signon.org/thanks.html?petition_id=19764=-4973638-zWWsf8 "
So you clicked the link assuming to NOT sign the petition? Right...

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/15/12 - 09:17 am
1
2
cormit you said (The previous

cormit you said (The previous hundred years of Cook Inlet commercial fishing had not yet seemed to harm these stocks.)
Yes cormit it is very fascinating how you can instantly rewrite Alaska's commercial fishing history with just a wink of an eye, while the viewers just stares at their screens and wonder what you are talking about. Since you want to bring up commercial fishing history, let's take a close look at Alaska's actual commercial fishing history. Back before 1959 our Alaska commercial fish trap guys thought they had a lock on our salmon resources so they pounded a ton of log pilings into the Alaskan mud with their fish traps and COMPLETELY WIPED OUT all of our salmon! Yes cormit, I did say WIPED OUT, doe's this fits your previous 100 year proclamation that Cook Inlet commercial fishing has not harmed our salmon stocks? Do you think wiping our salmon stocks off the planet qualifies as being "harmed"? I say that when you wipe a natural resource off the map, that qualifies as being HARMED! Well most of the Alaskan public back in 1959 agreed with my assumption because they threw a fit and banned commercial fish traps in Alaska forever. cormit you have no idea what permanent natural resource damage those fish traps did back before 1959. Those traps could have wiped out special area's within our fisheries which were super sized, had super immunities to disease or virus and also super who knows what. We will never know because those fisheries WERE WIPED OUT! Because we will never know for sure what we lost, we just banned the commercial fishing traps to try to get rid of the problem. Unfortunately the traps were not the real problem. The commercial fish traps were just a way of expressing mans greed to accumulate unnecessary wealth, without regard for what he does to the natural world around him. The real problem was and still is greed. Banning the commercial fish traps did not remove the concept of greed from mans heart. Onward and forward greed goes as it searches for a new gear type, greed found that new gear type within gill nets and trawlers. So you see cormit you are incorrect when claiming that commercial fishing has not harmed Cook Inlet fish stocks, it wiped them off the map, got it hands slapped and now we are on round two as the greed build-up begins again. The Alaskan public threw our commercial fishermen out on their ears back in 1959 because of the VERY GREAT HARM they committed against our public natural fisheries resources. These fish trap big shots went from riches to rags over night and that is what can also happen to our current commercial fishermen. When you attempt to make a living off a public natural resource you had better be prepared for just about anything. A limited entry permit only grants temporary access to our salmon fisheries, it's not a holy grail to hang on the wall and bow down and worship each night. The state of Alaska can with draw limited entry permits as fast as it created them. Read the fine print on your limited entry license, the state can legally take it away from you at anytime with zero compensation to you. The same can be done to recreational fishing, believe it or not words and idea's can eventually change things.

Regarding boats "churning and waking the spawning grounds" of the Kenai River; how long is going to take to get through to comm-fish that we have rivers with and without your "churning and waking" and both are experiencing king salmon crashes. This points to a saltwater issue. Each moment you spend pointing to the freshwater is a wasted moment which could have been used to address the real saltwater problem. If you want to waste your time you can continue the "churning and waking" accusations but there isn't any real science behind it. The bottom line here is that you are attempting compare industrial ocean salmon shredders to a bunch of private common users trying to catch dinner for the family. This is an outragous comparison right along with your other outrageous claim that commercial fishing has 100 years of no harm to our fish stocks. Both claims are completely false.

cormit
226
Points
cormit 07/13/12 - 08:06 pm
2
0
kenai123

" COMPLETELY WIPED OUT all of our salmon" .. sorry to disappoint you kenai123 .... but no such event happened.

It would serve you well to learn something about your local history before being so eager to write about it.

Fish traps did not wipe out the runs of the Kenai ...... they did not wipe out the kings.

There are families here on the Kenai today that were set-netting and drifting when the last of the traps were still fishing.

My family began commercial fishing here in the late 50's ... I started myself in the summer of 1965 .... and I can assure you .... the runs were not wiped out as you claim, and there were plenty of kings. There were very few boats racing around on the Kenai River and there were no guides.

Here's an article that appeared in the Clarion back in 2001 regarding fish trap history in the Inlet.

http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/071001/cha_0710010006.shtml

Maybe it would serve you well to look up one of these old timers from that article. Ask one to tell you something about salmon history in Cook Inlet ..... and try listening.

kenai_kid
222
Points
kenai_kid 07/13/12 - 09:47 pm
0
0
Fish Traps: A history

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/fishrep/fishtrap.pdf

Let's see who picks the most facts from this 30 year old history to support their argument.

kenai-king
232
Points
kenai-king 07/14/12 - 07:09 am
0
0
Johnson

He just can't see the trees because of the forest.

Interested Party
10
Points
Interested Party 07/14/12 - 10:09 am
0
0
Regardless of Finger Pointing Don is Right about the Trawlers

Don is right. The trawlers are killing our Kings, Halibut, and all the food fish in the ocean. This is not his personal opinion this is a fact. It is sad to watch locals on both sides of this issue point fingers at each other while they should be united against a much greater evil. The trawl fleet kills way more kings than all the other commercial fishermen or the guided anglers put together. It would benefit Kenai Peninsula Residents and Visitors to turn their energy into fighting the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Trawlers throw 20% of the annual halibut catch over the side dead yet long liners and charter guides point fingers at each other. Trawlers kill hundreds of thousands of King Salmon and uncountable masses of bait they feed on each year yet Set Netters and Guides point the finger at each other. If you shut down the trawlers their would be way more to go around and it would be much easier to manage. Signing that Petition is not a Pro Vote for the guides it is an anti vote against the trawlers.

vestb2
6
Points
vestb2 07/14/12 - 02:33 pm
2
0
Salmon Killing Machines

If the very efficient killing machines, called fishtraps, had wiped out the salmon runs as kenai123 states; we would not be having this discussion at all as the salmon would be WIPED OUT. But they did create an unsustainable industry by being very effective killing machines. As well, commercial harvesting with gillnets while not nearly as efficient of a killing machine as the traps were effective enough to cause instability in the industry. Therefore, the “Greedy” commercial fishermen of the early 70’s decided to limit the participation or entry into the fisheries to allow for effective management of the valuable salmon resource.

Through the 80’s we saw the fishery expand with the creation of a new user group (dippies), and a substantial growth of commercial guides. To date neither of these user groups have any effective control over the number of participants taking of the salmon resource.

Now let’s talk resource management. These are my truths. 1. Harvesting salmon is an abundance base process. 2. Managing salmon is exacerbated by the fact that they spawn where they were born. These truths lead me to believe "the closer to the breeding grounds you harvest a salmon the more effect you have on a specific genetic code of the species. Conversely, the further from their spawning grounds; the more abundance based the harvest becomes". This means that if 1000 fish are harvested in the southern inlet the catch will represent the most abundant genetic species in that run. On the contrary, when you catch 1000 fish in the hole a specific species’ spawn in the harvest will represent nearly 100% of one genetic code.

This “truth” is supported by the management strategy ADFG commercial managers use when the select the area they allow the nylon curtains of death to be deployed. The have the ability direct fish to one spawning system while harvesting fish bound for another spawning system thus using the aboundance based strategy to manage run strength.

Finally, to have the greatest effect on rebuilding a specific genetic specie of salmon you must move the harvest of that specie further from the area they spawn. I’ll close with my opinion, we will never re-build the Kenai or Kasilof King Salmon run as long as we continue to drag hooks and nets through the place they procreate.

smithtb
240
Points
smithtb 07/14/12 - 07:56 pm
0
0
Why are the Sockeye returning?

Maybe its my unfathomable greed thats blinding me, but I don't quite get it. If it is all the fault of the trawlers and other commercial fisheries, why have we not seen these effects in our sockeye runs? Why are they not being intercepted? The average size of the Kings has dropped over 25%, and the runs are weak. Kenai River sockeye stocks are very healthy, and the size of sockeye has remained virtually unchanged. In fact, fisheries managers are tearing their hair out as we speak because they already have near the minimum escapement of sockeye in the Kenai River, and all indicators show tons of fish on the way. Political pressure will not let them open setnetters who could harvest many of these surplus fish in a short time with minimal impact on the total king run. Many East Side setnetters will have no income this year, and for the second year in a row, the Kenai will be overescaped with sockeye to save kings. All the while they are still killing Kings in the river, on top of their spawning grounds.

Sockeye spawning grounds are further upriver, and are protected. No one can fish there. Am I supposed to believe that this has not helped these runs stay healthy? We all agree that kings are important, so lets do the same for them. Oh, wait, we'd have to close the river right where Mr. 123 Johnson, one of our area's "premier" guides, has been taking his clients to fish for the "Kenai Hogs" for years. Quick, let's find some other group that catches kings and blame them!

Commercial fisheries, like tourism, is a major economic engine in Alaska. We have our share of problems, but have nearly 60 years of data PROVING sustainable harvest by the UCI gillnet fishery. We need to look at the facts before we place blame. Read through the 200+ page UCI Commercial Fisheries Management report that our dedicated biologists have compiled every year for decades. It has tons of data, down to the number of clams that are dug on our shoreline each year, and even includes all dipnet harvest data, broken down by day. These guys are REAL thorough! Then read the Kenai/Kasilof sportfish management report. THERE ISN'T ONE!!! Try to find historical King run timing that 123 is talking about on the Sport Fish website (I have no idea if they are returning later, I haven't looked yet, but I will). The data is not there! You have to use UCI Commercial Fisheries Harvest Data to get that info! We've allowed the in river fishery to grow with absolutely no limits, and have been so irresponsible in our management of it that know one even knows how bad it is, or has past numbers to compare it to. The river is the most sensitive ecosystem that our salmon spend the most vulnerable years of their life in. It has the fewest limits, and the weakest management.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/15/12 - 09:07 am
1
1
Fish traps banned after Alaska's salmon crash 1959.

vestb2, you said (If fishtraps, had wiped out the salmon runs as kenai123 states; we would not be having this discussion at all as the salmon would be WIPED OUT.)

You have got to be kidding vestb2. If you cannot even read our negative Alaska commmercial fisheries history, you are doomed to repeat its mistakes again in the future.
Okay, it seems that some commercial fishermen cannot believe the permanent "WIPE OUT"
devastating effects commercial fishing has had on our past. Below are a list of internet resources which may be used to bring all those poor history students up to date with the lethal nature of Alaska's historic commercial fishing. These commercial fish traps began in Alaska between 1896 - 1906. It did not take long for commercial fishermen to discover that they could get rich with fish traps. Those fish traps operated until 1959 when they were legally banned because the Alaska public hated them for devastating their salmon fisheries.

Here is your proof Alaska's renewable salmon resources were wiped out between 1906 - 1959 by fish traps. I followed the http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/fishrep/fishtrap.pdf
link and confirmed that Alaska's commercial fish traps in fact WIPED OUT 90% of Alaska's salmon by 1959. These once endless renewable salmon resource was basically destroyed with fish traps by 1959. FIGURE 2: PRODUCTIVITY OF FISH TRAPS, 1906-1959 clearly shows that the average Alaska fish trap went from catching a peak average of around 150,000 salmon annually in 1942 to a low of 20,000 salmon annually in 1959. At the end of their era, commercial fish traps only took seventeen years to crash Alaska's salmon resources to their lowest levels and then they were banned! When ANY renewable resource is smashed down by 90%, leaving only 10% of what it used to be, it has effectively been WIPED OUT!
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/fishrep/fishtrap.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish traps were also blamed for damaging the fisheries and sending a fortune to the Outside owners of the canned salmon industry, instead of to Alaskans who wanted to earn a living as fishermen. The fish traps worked round-the-clock and could wipe out the salmon in an area. http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=137
------------------------
METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY, ANNETTE ISLAND RESERVE, A FEDERALLY CHARTERED CORPORATION; ORGANIZED VILLAGE OF KAKE; AND ANGOON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS, v. WILLIAM A. EGAN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, AND THE STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEES, June 2, 1961

Public opposition to the trap appeared in Alaska when it became obvious that the fishery resource was being depleted. *fn5 Opponents claimed that traps wiped out entire schools of salmon headed for specific streams; that even when this did not happen they trapped an excessive percentage of the fish of a given school; that they trapped not only salmon but also fish of many other species, which, once trapped, died in the pot without being utilized for any purpose. Proponents, on the other hand, argued that the very efficiency of traps commended their use; that they produced a more marketable product because the fish were killed with less violence and reached the cannery sooner and fresher; and that the dwindling yearly salmon runs were the result of overfishing by all methods.

The very first session of the Alaska Territorial Legislature in 1913 memorialized Congress for legislation which would limit the fishing efficiency of the trap. *fn13 In 1913, 1915, and regularly thereafter, the Territorial Legislature memorialized Congress that no legislation be enacted whereby any right or title to any fish trap site in Alaska waters be granted. *fn14 In 1921 the Territorial Legislature memorialized Congress, attributing the diminishing salmon supply to the use of fish traps and requesting regulation of that method of fishing. *fn15 In 1924 Mr. Sutherland, Alaska's delegate to Congress, testified before a Congressional Committee during hearings on the White Act as follows: ***when the fish are congregated in one body moving toward the parent stream if by accident they come in contact with a trap lead and the lead fish enters the trap it is more than probable that the entire supply of that stream to the last fish is taken, and therefore a great many of the smaller streams in Alaska are barren of fish, and any number of men in Alaska will tell you by the method of trap the entire supply is exterminated.' *fn16
http://ak.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19610602_0001.AK.htm/qx
-------------------------------
The Treasury Department attempted to control the initial depletion of entire salmon runs by gradually prohibiting fishing and especially traps in streams, then rivers, and then bays.
By 1906 it was using closures of specific areas and for specific times in a sometimes-vain effort to preserve the resource.
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/fishrep/fishtrap.pdf
----------------------------------------
Physical production began to drop between 1910 and 1920, in part because so many additional traps were being added at less attractive sites. After a very low run in 1928, the federal Bureau of Fisheries (then under the Department of Commerce) began to reduce the allowed number of traps down to a level of about 425, which was maintained throughout the next two decades.
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/fishrep/fishtrap.pdf
-----------------------------------------
FIGURE 2: PRODUCTIVITY OF FISH TRAPS, 1906-1959
In 1906 there were only 60 traps, most located in Southeast, with an average annual catch of 114,000 fish per trap.
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/fishrep/fishtrap.pdf

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/14/12 - 11:45 pm
1
0
The king problem is in the salt vestb2

vestb2, you said (we will never re-build the Kenai or Kasilof King Salmon run as long as we continue to drag hooks and nets through the place they procreate)
We have rivers and streams all over Alaska which have both many and few "hooks dragged through them". All of these streams are experiencing crashing king salmon runs.
ARE YOU LISTENING? All of our rivers and streams are experiencing a king salmon crash and many of these river and streams have zero hooks fishing them. How do you account for a king run crash when there are zero hooks dragged through it? Try thinking for a just a minute. This a statewide ADF&G observation and it is screaming at you that this king salmon problem is in the saltwater. You are wasting your time placing a magnifying glass on freshwater issues as long as this is the best science we have. You are attempting to use smoke and mirrors to prove that which is non-science.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/15/12 - 02:15 am
1
0
.

.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/15/12 - 08:46 am
1
0
trawlers are shredding our kings

smithtb I can tell you your problem and it is "vested financial interest". Any person with a vested financial interest within a fisheries issue must double check every opinion they generate on that issue. The reason for checking your opinion is because even the best of us can become blinded by the financial rewards which may be heaped upon those allowed to harvest our public fisheries resources. It does not have to be unfathomable greed, it could just be a matter of being human along with a little selfishness. I can assure you that if you took an average recreational angler, liquidated something they owned and placed that cash into commercial fishing, those anglers would most likely do a flip-flop to the other side of the fisheries issue. I can also assure that if you did the same to a commercial fisherman they would most likely do the same flip-flop to the other side of the fisheries issue. The issues are being driven by money and fish, fish and money. These two items are interchangeable. If I say WHITE and it makes recreational fishing a dollar, that dollar will no doubt be taken away from commercial fishing, therefore persons within that commercial fishing will say BLACK in opposition of losing that dollar. There may be a truth to the issue but it comes secondary to the destination of that dollar. The destination of that dollar distorts the vision of the viewer. Take the illustration of searching through a junk draw; you visualize what you are looking for and only react when seeing that item you are visualizing. The other stuff in the draw is there but you don't really see it because you are not interested in it. Commercial fishing does not see recreational fishing points because it is not interested in those points because it does not realize a direct gain from them. Recreational fishing does not see comm.fish points because it is not interested in those points because it does not realize a direct gain from them.

smithtb you ask (why sockeyes are not being intercepted along with kings)
There are a couple possible answer to this question. One is that sockeyes and kings may both be salmon but they live very different lives. King's chase down and consume bait fish while sockeye salmon may be considered omnivores but they mainly feed on zooplankton and shrimp. If something caused our ocean bait fish to reduce, king populations could crash, leaving sockeye populations untouched. The same could be said for something only wiping out our ocean zooplankton or shrimp thus only effecting our sockeye. Trawlers mainly intercepting kings as they try to catch Pollock and then they try to sell the billions of resulting little fish stick around the world.

Another consideration is that sockeye's are very prolific when compared to kings. Being less prolific, kings are more sensitive to negative issue which could effect salmon in general. Like say you had a whale which increased its numbers a thousand percent and it only eats salmon. That whale could eat a lot of sockeye's and it might be a very long time before we notice the change but with kings we would notice the change faster because as they were equally effected, their numbers are fewer so we would notice the change faster.

Right now there are some really huge questions being asked regarding Gulf of Alaska steller sea lions and sea otters. Many biologists are claiming that both have been reduce by 90% within the Gulf because their prey bait fish food source is been shredded by our trawler industry. Our government has spent $123,000,000 attempting to discover what is killing our sea lions and otters and much of that resulting information points to the fact that many of these surviving marine mammals are thin and malnourished. This points to a resulting conclusion that something is removing what they are feeding on in our oceans. Our kings are also coming back from the ocean smaller than they used to be and a great many are not returning at all. Our government is reporting that the trawler industry is intercepting 3.4 king salmon per ton of Pollack (fish sticks). Twenty trawlers can take 25,000 kings as by-catch in a week of fishing. Our Gulf of Alaska trawler fisheries have recorded by-catching 60,000 kings in a single season. Bering Sea trawlers have reported by-catch of 120,000 kings per season. While "some" king by-catch is being reported, none of the bait fish kings feed on is reported as by-catch. These kings are killed and dumped because they are illegal to sell. The bait fish the trawler industry is shredding along with the kings isn't even reported; it's just dumped along with the kings. These trawlers are shredding our kings along with the bait fish they feed on, this is a double barreled effect. When they shred these bait fish they might as well also be shredding sea lions, sea otters and kings because they all feed on them.

Even if the trawlers shredded a sockeye for every king, there are so many sockeyes and so few kings that the kings would just be the first to be missed. Kings are receiving a double barrel hit from these trawlers, while the sockeye are only getting hit once. I am claiming that it is just slightly coincidental that everything which feeds on our ocean bait fish, around these trawlers, is crashing. I am claiming this is not a coincidence. I claim these trawlers are shredding our kings and what they feed on.

akmscott
129
Points
akmscott 07/15/12 - 07:03 am
0
0
You can blame guides as much

You can blame guides as much as you want!It's like Obama blaming the trillions added by his policies the past four years on Bush.The truth is,commercial fishing takes way more fish than sportfishing by far.The money brought to the state per fish caught dwarfs the commercial profits.If you want more fish, cut the commercial catch,or better yet, put a moratorium on commercial fishing for 5 years.We won't be having this discussion then!

smithtb
240
Points
smithtb 07/15/12 - 09:54 am
0
0
Foolish

Yeah a moritorium on commercial fishing. And watch Alaska's economy tank just like the Kenai King run. The seafood industry brings $5.8 billion and 80,000 jobs to Alaska each year. Every Alaskan has a "Vested financial interest" in our fishery.

123, I think you're right, the kings are more vulnerable, and something could have happened to their feed stock. Perhaps this is in part a natural occurance. King runs in Alaska are weak, but in other areas of the Northwest, they have picked up. Perhaps the ocean issues are not all the fault of man. The trawlers kill a lot of fish, but there's a lot of factors to consider.

One question. How many of Alaskan rivers with major King runs do not have a strong presence of sport fisheries on top of their spawning grounds? I don't really know, but The Fly-Out sport (commercial) fishery is huge here. I can't imagine that there is a river left with large Kings in it that hasen't experienced increased pressure in the King spawning beds.

123, families like mine have experience firsthand the devastation of our fishery, (from the traps you're talking about), and we do not wish to see special interests and poor management wipe out our fishery again. I'm sitting at home watching the impending devistation of our sockeye fishery from overescapment, and in between taking clients out to kill our last trophy kings, you have the audacity to blame the problem on my greed.

Iceddiver
7
Points
Iceddiver 07/18/12 - 03:39 pm
1
0
Teamwork

The one thing i haven't heard from either group is LETS WORK TOGETHER. My husband is a river guide and we too can speculate just like everyone else but first and foremost we need to put our big boy pants on and work through this issue together. If one group isn't fishing none of them should fish. Our fish are the most important not only for us but for our future and our children's future. I would rather shut it down for 3 years and know we are making a difference then fuss and argue about it and still get nowhere!! Come on people stop being so friggin selfish and decide what we want as a goal, fish or no fish. I understand the financial hardship, us just like everyone else is struggling due to this season but i would rather have a future. So lets work together!!!

Iceddiver
7
Points
Iceddiver 07/18/12 - 03:40 pm
0
0
Teamwork

The one thing i haven't heard from either group is LETS WORK TOGETHER. My husband is a river guide and we too can speculate just like everyone else but first and foremost we need to put our big boy pants on and work through this issue together. If one group isn't fishing none of them should fish. Our fish are the most important not only for us but for our future and our children's future. I would rather shut it down for 3 years and know we are making a difference then fuss and argue about it and still get nowhere!! Come on people stop being so friggin selfish and decide what we want as a goal, fish or no fish. I understand the financial hardship, us just like everyone else is struggling due to this season but i would rather have a future. So lets work together!!!

Iceddiver
7
Points
Iceddiver 07/18/12 - 03:40 pm
0
0
Teamwork

The one thing i haven't heard from either group is LETS WORK TOGETHER. My husband is a river guide and we too can speculate just like everyone else but first and foremost we need to put our big boy pants on and work through this issue together. If one group isn't fishing none of them should fish. Our fish are the most important not only for us but for our future and our children's future. I would rather shut it down for 3 years and know we are making a difference then fuss and argue about it and still get nowhere!! Come on people stop being so friggin selfish and decide what we want as a goal, fish or no fish. I understand the financial hardship, us just like everyone else is struggling due to this season but i would rather have a future. So lets work together!!!

julie
135
Points
julie 07/22/12 - 08:23 pm
0
0
End Salmon Bycatch

This article states the truth finally!!!! PLEASE sign this petition and post it on your facebook and email contacts. PLEASE! http://signon.org/sign/end-salmon-halibut-bycatch

julie
135
Points
julie 07/22/12 - 08:28 pm
0
0
and by the way. The native

and by the way. The native villages have had to sign away their freedom of speech just to borrow a net to get some kings. Thanks to their CDQ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Trawling-Bycatch-of-Salmon-Halibut-Petition/407719715940319

julie
135
Points
julie 07/22/12 - 08:36 pm
0
0
End salmon bycatch petition

clicking the link to the petition site DOES NOT automatically sign you. You have to sign it! I'm not going to talk history but lets look at the present facts that the trawlers have a licence to catch one fish. That means anything, ANYTHING other than Pollock gets destroyed. This is a problem. It needs to be stopped. Has anyone even addressed the fact of the ocean floor and other marine creatures that get destroyed and won't grow back for over 40 years! This is a million dollar big corporation business that is wasting a precious resource. This is supposed to be sustainable! That doesn't mean wasteful killing!

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS