Current weather

  • Overcast, light rain
  • 50°
    Overcast, light rain
  • Comment

King of a dream

Posted: January 2, 2014 - 4:53pm  |  Updated: January 2, 2014 - 6:13pm

On Tuesday night of this week, New Year’s Eve, I caught a 55-pound king salmon. The event was so exciting that I woke up and couldn’t get back to sleep.

I’ve dreamed about fish and fishing before, but this time was different. It didn’t involve fishing, hooking or boating a big fish. Instead, it was only about having a king salmon in my possession, taking it home and eating it.

It’s likely that I dreamed up this fish because I couldn’t have it in the real world. The only king salmon I caught in 2013 was a small “feeder” king, taken in March on a charter boat out of Homer. Like most other people who were concerned about the poor runs of Kenai River kings in recent years, I didn’t fish for them in 2013.

Thinking about this dream on the day after, I realized that it focused on what was most important to me about salmon fishing: the use of salmon for food. It’s outrageous that salmon can be caught and released just for “sport,” killing about one for every 15 caught while having fun and getting a photo of a “trophy” fish. And it’s even more outrageous that catch-and-release of kings is allowed during runs when it’s doubtful that the spawning escapement is adequate to sustain the stock.

Trouble is, a large and influential group not only wants to be able to catch and release king salmon, but needs to do so. In the 1970s, I considered commercial fishermen to be the main adversaries of those of us who like to fish with rod and reel, but no more. The biggest threat now is the sport-fishing industry, as represented by Kenai River guides and the Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA).

So many guides now depend upon the Kenai River, they seriously impact other fisheries whenever the Kenai is restricted. Without catch-and-release fishing, fishing guides have little to sell their clients during years of poor runs. In years when an insufficient number of kings enter the Kenai to ensure an adequate spawning escapement, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game issues Emergency Orders. “EOs” that close the Kenai to king salmon fishing and EOs that allow only catch-and-release fishing make the fishery unpredictable. When it’s unpredictable for two or three years in a row, guides start looking for other ways to make a living.

In 2002, Kenai River guides and the KRSA tried to ban all harvest, making the early run exclusively a “fun” fishery. “Catch-and-release only” for early-run Kenai River kings came very close to becoming regulation. Instead, with an aim to make the fishery more “stable and predictable,” the Board of Fisheries slashed nearly all of the early-run harvest. Together with a non-retention, 40- to 55-inch “slot limit,” the board slashed the annual early-run harvest to one-sixth of what it had been in prior years, from an average of 6,900 fish to less than 1,200. This action marked the first time ever that a traditional Alaskan salmon harvest fishery had been replaced by a catch-and-release fishery. This regulation triggered years of conflict and divisiveness in the community, some of which lingers still.

At the February 2002 fish-board meeting, KRSA board member and fishing guide Pat Carter told the Anchorage Daily News, “The Kenai is so special it shouldn’t just be treated as another meat fishery.”

In the Clarion (Feb. 15, 2002), KRSA executive director Brett Huber said about the Kenai’s king salmon fishery, “Perhaps it’s time to treat this like other trophy fisheries, like we do with rainbow trout.”

When local residents became fully aware of the ramifications of the new regulation, that the fast-growing sport-fishing industry was now powerful enough to sway the board into making catch-and-release a priority for king salmon, they became deeply concerned. If the board would do this on the Kenai River, they could do it anywhere. Were we now going to start managing Alaska’s salmon like trophy trout, just catching and releasing them for sport? If so, as guide numbers increased, all accessible salmon fishing could end up being managed not for a harvest, but exclusively for fun fishing.

Those of us who consider the catching and eating of salmon almost a holy ritual drew a line in the sand. Realizing that the guides were in it mainly for the money, and that state bureaucrats weren’t going to help, we set out to change the regulation and restore a reasonable opportunity for harvest. It took several months, but we eventually convinced the fish board that most Alaskans wanted to have an occasional salmon on their dinner table more than they wanted Kenai River fishing guides to have stable and predictable jobs.

Eleven years have passed since the guides and KRSA tried to make playthings of Kenai River kings. The danger that they could again convince the fish board to do this is greater than ever. If they decide to try when the board meets in Anchorage later this month, they should remember what happened in 2002. “Joe Fisherman” won’t idly sit by while the industry converts the Kenai River king salmon fishing to “catch-and-release only.” Taking home a king salmon should be more than just a dream.

Les Palmer can be reached at les.palmer@rocketmail.com.

  • Comment

Comments (29) 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.
borninak
651
Points
borninak 01/03/14 - 11:08 am
5
0
Great Article From A True Sportsfisherman

It's refreshing to hear from a typical Alaskan sportfisherman with no skin in the game other than wanting to eat what they catch for personal use. Rational folks can see that there is much work to be done IN RIVER if we are serious about King Salmon conservation. The commercial guide industry will scream "look out there in the salt!, to protect their business profits and spin the issue, but as Les points out the biggest enemy of those of us who like to fish with rod and reel is the sport-fishing industry, as represented by Kenai River guides and the Kenai River Sportfishing Association (KRSA). The board of fish will be taking a hard look at these people and their view of Alaska sportfishing for the future later this month. Those of you who feel as Les does about your future Sportfishing on the Kenai River may want to go up to Anchorage and testify.

beaverlooper
2785
Points
beaverlooper 01/03/14 - 03:26 pm
3
0
Ditto

Well said Les.

Suss
3517
Points
Suss 01/03/14 - 04:21 pm
5
0
KRSA = $

KRSA has always been about money. Money and the pursuit of money and influence. Ted Stevens and the power boys being lobbyied by the players of the Kenai Classic. This get together had very little to do with fishing and everything to do with lobbying for the big bucks with the big boys. Not having powerful Uncle Ted as a draw has hurt them as much or more than no Kings.

vickiel
255
Points
vickiel 01/03/14 - 08:48 pm
3
0
Great !!

Very well said Les, we are loosing the silver fishing also to the guides or small commercial as I like to refer to them.

Paul Dale
69
Points
Paul Dale 01/03/14 - 08:57 pm
5
0
King of a Dream Indeed

As a commercial fishing person, I have been reading Les Palmer for decades, this article, and several other of his recent articles, describe quite an arc of change in how Les seems to view the current fishery user groups in our fish pond. When you consider earlier history, late 1800's through statehood, you find a different mix of collusion which was damaging to our salmon resources. It seems to me that it is never about the gear, as much as it is about the corrosive action of inappropriate user group influence on regulatory agencies. Those influences have developed dramatically in our area over the last thirty years, and may account for the changing views of residents on these issues. I don't think Les is a lone ranger in his current thinking at all, thanks for the good writing

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 01/04/14 - 07:51 pm
1
6
2002 Memories...

Okay Les I usually try to not say this but you did tell some real whoppers in this article. First off, the Kenai River guides did NOT try to ban the early run king harvest in 2002. The king harvest ban did initially result but it only happened because the ADF&G deliberately withheld their recent discovery of the very negative first run king news. The KRPGA was caught completely off guard by this withheld information and basically had zero time to even evaluate the issue before they were asked for their opinion by the board. The few guides present had to basically wing-it with regard to what the main guide body position was. I personally testified against the king retention ban and attempted to direct the boards attention to the ocean for the origin of the king troubles. I did this because the scale of changes was just to large and fast to be caused by a 5% user group. There were GUIDES at this 2002 meeting which immediately began singing the praises of a retention ban as being the almighty solution. In the end the board listened to those few guides and KRSA voices as I told them to just wait until they got back home. When those voices returned home the fur hit the fan and the board meeting had to be done over again to fix the mess. Les you claim that we "came very close to the ban" and that is simply not true, the ban was adopted by the board and then rescinded after the fur hit the fan in Soldotna. This fur hitting the fan was the main guide body and general anglers freaking-out back home, that the board believed these guides and anglers who wanted a king retention ban. I don't know where you are getting this stuff Les but what you are claiming did not happened in 2002. The ADF&G caused the "conflict and divisiveness in the community". They did it by withholding the run problem information.

Les then you go on to claim that the board just "on its own" changed its mind and created the king slot limit for more stability and predictability. This is just not what actually happened Les; anglers and guides heavily lobbied that board to make that change and we therefore move from the ban to some retention in the first run. Les I claim that your depiction of (Kenai River guides and the KRSA) working to ban the king harvest at the 2002 board of fish meeting, was extremely unfair and incorrect. If you want to blame someone, blame the ADF&G for exposing the king problem to the public incorrectly. Both the guides and the KRSA were reacting to an issue which they never even dreamed they would need to address. Huge available resource were available to both groups but were never even used because of the way the ADF&G popped the rabbit out of their hat. When the guides got back home from the meeting they helped compel the board to revisit the issue and fix it. You basically claim that the board fixed this ban in-spite of what the guides wanted. This never happened and you got it incorrect.

Les then you claim that this new slot limit triggered years worth of conflict and divisiveness in the community, some of which lingers on still. What on earth are you talking about? There isn't a small piece of this issue still lingering on today, it is all still lingering on today. The early run king slot limit did not resolve anything. In 2002 I said the slot was a Band-Aid on cancer and I am still saying it today. The run cancer is out in the saltwater today just like it was back then. We currently have king problems on just about every river in Alaska and we still have "persons like yourself" who actually believe we can fix this ocean cancer with (freshwater retention or slot limit Band-Aids). Even as you have had over a decade to prove that your slot limit Band-Aids, do NOT work, you now double-down and suggest that they didn't go far enough, therefore now requiring freshwater retention bans also like back in 2002? The truth is that the freshwater slot limits failed because the king problem is in the ocean. Conflict and divisiveness lingering on? They will both linger on for the next decade also because your freshwater slots and bans cannot even hope to address our ocean king problems.

Les then you stated that "when the local residents finally realized how powerful the fast-growing sport-fish industry had become, they became deeply concerned". What on earth are talking about? Back in 2002 the "sport-fish industry and the local residents" had the same view on this issue and they both worked together to remove the ban and set-up the slot limit, which allowed you to eat a few early run kings for a decade. Now you try to claim that local residents and the sport-fish industry were against each other? Les I believe you have remembered these historic events incorrectly. It was not a locals against sport-fishing issue, it was the ADF&G manipulating users into the resulting conflict and divisiveness which you are referring to. So again Les, if you want to blame anyone you should be blaming the ADF&G for sitting on the early run bad news and popping it out of the hat at the board meeting.

Les then you claim that catching and releasing a fish is making playthings out of them. Okay, if that's the way you want to talk lets see where it goes. Your conclusion would then have to be that fish should only be caught, killed and then quickly consumed, thus reducing the "plaything" comparison. This kind of logic means that anything you do which prolongs the catching, killing or consuming would be "fisheries plaything abuse". This logic would then require you to immediately sell most of your sport-fishing gear because it all prolongs the catching of a fish, maybe you could keep just your boat. You will need that to help you run your new gill net in the future. A gill net is the most efficient killing machine we have today and therefore perfectly fits your need for a lack of "fishing playthings". Also you will need to purchase a really good industrial food processor and feeding tube because you will definitely want to grind up your fish into a liquid and pump it directly into your stomach. This is the most effective way to get the nutrients directly into your blood stream Les. You should then haul the gill net, processor and feeding tube right out in the boat with you so you can drop a live salmon right into the processor, while pressing the super-liquefy button. Then you grab the feeding tube, stick it into your mouth and jam it all the way down your throat until it hits your stomach, while hitting the ON button. You will also need nose plugs to prevent possible nose ejections should you not pay close attention to the fill gauge. Now if the ADF&G does approach your boat while you are gagging on the feeding tube, do not be afraid, you should be able to quickly hit the red auto-shutdown button wired between the processor and your 50 horse Yamaha engine. In this case you should just point at your fishing license which should be glued to the fish processor. If the officer wants to know how many fish you have consumed, you should attempt to say "around the feeding tube" that you will be glad to let him know at the next board of fish meeting.

borninak
651
Points
borninak 01/03/14 - 09:48 pm
3
1
Les Palmer Has It Right Again

Nice try spinning the events 123, but Les has it right and your long winded diatribes are getting more and more pathetic. Or pychotic.. its a real fine line. Les has no skin in the game and is a credible writer with quite a lengthy history of writing for the Clarion from the true sportfisherman's perspective. He knows what he is talking about. You on the other hand are a completely biased commercial fishing guide who attacks everyone with an opinion that might hurt your wallet.

markw3
9
Points
markw3 01/04/14 - 01:59 am
3
2
Frustrated

Let me start by saying that I love AK with all my heart, but the misconception regarding C&R in this kill, kill, kill state is beyond frustrating! The reality is that C&R has been a highly effective management tool for many fisheries all over the world, especially when it comes to species of limited abundance, just like Kenai King Salmon. There is a time & place for catch and kill, reserved for abundant species that can withstand harvest and continue sustainable populations.
The real "Joe Fishermen" out there understand that sport fishing is about much more than harvest... It's about spending time in nature, experiences with family and friends, the mere opportunity to tangle with one of Mother Nature's wild creatures, and learning valuable lessons in the process.
We have 3 choices in front of us: catch and keep, quit fishing, or catch and release... Option 1 is dangerous at this time for obvious reasons, option 2 cripples our local economy and completely extinguishes opportunity, and option 3 keeps our local economy alive while continuing to provide opportunity and severely decreases harvest....seems like a no brainer.
Everyone please quit with the "I don't play with my food" mentality. Continue harvesting sockeye, halibut, silvers, etc, and allow us sport fishermen, who actually enjoy the act of fishing (not just killing), an opportunity to partake in the sport that is King Salmon fishing on the Kenai. You can thank us later for keeping your local economy and fishery alive.

KenaiKardinal88
451
Points
KenaiKardinal88 01/04/14 - 06:42 am
2
4
Overfishing By Commercial Fishers The Biggest Problem

C&R is not my cup of tea, but the root cause of the problem is overfishing by commercial interests.

I like Les usually, but treating the symptoms (not enough Kings in the Kenai), is missing the point (commercial fishing not allowing enough Kings to enter the Kenai).

If it wasn't for KSRA and groups like them, Alaskans would no access to the sport salmon resource.

Avik66
18
Points
Avik66 01/04/14 - 08:19 am
5
0
Kardinal88 Us Sporties Should Accept Some of The Blame Too

Lets See: Commercial fishermen harvest more small Kings because of their net size but other than that they harvest indiscriminately accross age classes.

Here's where us sport fisherman should feel some guilt in what we've created in the decline of the age class structure of our Kenai R. Kings:

We harvest about twice as many Kings as the Comm. fishery

We selective harvest and sort fish to kill the biggest and best breeders

Through this selective harvest sorting practice we incur additional catch and release mortality on fish we release

We fish on the spawning beds

We ourselves have a highly efficient harvesting mechanism in the in-river commercial guide industry

Kardinal88 Now lets look in the mirror. We have to do better in-river. We have to make some changes in how we manage our in-river fishery or it will be gone before we realize it. You need to get off this mantra that it's always the commercial fisherman's fault and start suggesting some meaningfull in-river changes that will benefit the fish.

pengy
250
Points
pengy 01/04/14 - 08:54 am
1
2
To each his own, but catch

To each his own, but catch and release sportfishing is accepted and practiced worldwide. ADF&G calculates the mortality of catch and release in deciding whether or not sportfishing can continue on any given run. If they allow it, don't vilify the angler who chooses to release fish. If you're not happy with it, then direct your anger to ADF&G, not the person who chose to let "their food" go.

akdanimal79
10
Points
akdanimal79 01/04/14 - 09:25 am
4
0
King Harvest

KenaiKardinal88 is a prime example of the lack of knowledge and facts in the fishing industry. The harvest rate of commercial set nets is 13% while the in river harvest and maritime sport harvest are 26%.

So the argument that the problem is the commercial fishery is extremely flawed because the sport harvest is TWICE that of the commercial harvest.

And there have been new studies on C&R that show the mortality is closer to 20-25% instead of the the current model used of 8%.

Are there problems with trawlers catching 100,000 kings? yes this is a big problem, but what is KRSA doing about that? nothing, they just blame the set netters.

What is KRSA going to do in order to protect the spawning beds? nothing. All of their effort is focused on eliminating a fishery that has been around for over 100 years.

So I agree with Les that KRSA is the problem and those who follow their misinformation are also problematic.

Suss
3517
Points
Suss 01/04/14 - 11:19 am
4
0
C & R mortality

The second time a king is caught after having been caught and released the mortality rate goes to 100%. Most kings that go back down river after being caught and released have little strength left for spawning. Play with the spawners and you will kill the spawners. Release a Hog and kill a king, rinse and repeat.

smithtb
240
Points
smithtb 01/04/14 - 11:23 am
5
0
Thanks Les

Les,

Thanks for the honest thoughts and well written article. Thanks also for being part of a growing movement to turn what many refer to as the "fish wars" into a healthy, fact-based discussion that will better serve all user groups, our local economy, culture, and the resource.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 01/04/14 - 09:04 pm
1
5
KenaiKardinal88 is correct

KenaiKardinal88 is correct, most of our king salmon damage is happening within the saltwater and NOT the freshwater. That means the primary cause is located within COMMERCIAL FISHERIES. Avik66, the reason 88 is "always blaming commercial fisheries" is because they are the ONLY major user group out, therefore there isn't anyone else to blame.

It is actually very simple; commercial fisheries CANNOT admit our statewide king problem is located within the saltwater "even as our ADF&G has told them it is" because if they admit this, they admit commercial fishing is the most likely user group that could be involved.

So let us end the debate, get off your computer and call your local ADF&G office. Ask the people down there who know this issue, if our current statewide king problem is more likely being caused within the salt or fresh water? If they respond honestly they will be forced to admit that our statewide king problems are most likely being caused within our ocean. Once you have this response you will never again be forced to debate this issue as to which users are involved because commercial users are the only real users out there. Some die-hearts may then attempt to declare the problem to be environmental but that is another issue entirely and we can address that issue next.

If you want a sample regarding fish dying after being hooked? Take a look at the below link which claims a quarter of all kings release within commercial trolling are as good as dead when released.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Back on the water open water, commercial fisheries have expanded and developed over the decades in Alaska. For example, there’s now a chum salmon troll fishery in Southeast’s Icy Strait that targets adult returning chums.

“Well there are also immature chinook out there, too,” Orsi said. “They’re being handled and released … and there is increased charter fishing everywhere. You have to ask the question: What’s the mortality of those fish that were handled?”

Orsi and his team launched a series of studies to determine just that. Essentially, the team observed commercial troll-caught-and-released king salmon in marine net pens after their release.

“When they release a fish, they bring it up out of the water and they grab it with the crook of the gaff, and they shake it off, so there’s one hook point into it, and the fish is rolled out — they’re pretty good sized hooks, too — and what we had them do is roll them out into a tub, and we assessed the injury location at the time of shaking, and then the fish were run out to net pens where they were tagged and transferred into the net pens and then they were observed for three days.”

After that time the fish were released en masse … the ones that could, anyway. Orsi said the dead ones were tallied, as were the dead on arrival, and the team came up with mortality estimates for that fishery. They found 20 percent of legal-sized fish died after being released, as did 25 percent of sub-legal fish.

The larger fish — those of legal size — had a higher likelihood of surviving a commercial fishing encounter. In this case, an encounter with a trolling boat. But those of sublegal size — 28 inches or smaller — were less likely to survive, based on Orsi’s findings. He said it comes down the location of key features on the fish, such as the eye and the gill arches, which may or may not come in contact with a gaff or fishing hook.

A smaller fish has features that are closer together and a “frisky” attitude that raises the potential for injury. He found a king may swim away just fine immediately after being released, but within three days that fish may die anyway from injuries sustained while being caught, or face predation due to being impaired from the interaction.

“That’s a one-time hook and release,” Orsi said.

Just one. Over the course of a king salmon’s time in the ocean, this type of interaction has the potential to could occur hundreds, if not thousands of times."

"A king without a crown: Chinook vulnerable to ocean forces"
http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2013-12-28/a-king-without-a-crown-chino...

drifter
3
Points
drifter 01/04/14 - 09:27 pm
1
0
Kenai kings

After reading your article there is a few things to clear up. Being on the Anchorage AC, this past summer the majority of the Ac wanted the department to close the river to fishing instead of going to catch and release, but the decision by the department to go to catch and release was purely a political move. They didn't want to catch flak again from the set netters like they did in 2012 so they kept the river open to keep them fishing as much as they could.
As far as the early run of king's, 4 years ago the department had considered that with the escapement numbers they considered the early run an underutilized fishery and wanted people to catch and keep more kings from that run, not realizing that the escapement would drop as far as it had.
Also with any of the current data available on catch and release mortality, you can not say what the numbers would ever be and how many fish are actually hooked when it is no bait restrictions. You can't use any of the department's data as the study was very flawed and it was on silvers and it had more to do with the way the fish were handled after they were caught and not just because they were caught.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 01/05/14 - 08:08 pm
1
4
Environmental issues related to diet composition

Fisheries research has recently discovered possible thiamine B1 deficiency's within some of our salmon stocks, which could be caused by those stocks consuming large amounts of thiaminase. This kind of a deficiency can result from kings feeding mainly on capelin, (small fish) which are high in thiaminase. This possible deficiency could be a monster issue. Recent studies are showing that a thiamine B1 deficiency could reduce the size and growth of a king salmon by as much as 50%. This could then lead to reduced king salmon speed, higher predator interception thus more kings dying at sea. A thiamine B1 deficiency in our outgoing smolt kings would be invisible but they would then grow and swim slower, therefore allowing them to be predated by other fish faster than normal. A thiamine B1 deficiency could also compound the negative effects of handling because it causes increased plasma concentrations of lactate (Combs, 1992), which exacerbates the negative effects of angling, commercial trolling and temperature stress that lead to the build-up of lactic acid in the blood. These are known mortality factors.

When users see these kings they would have the appearance of starvation or just be smaller in size. Has anyone noticed smaller kings on the Kenai River? We need to be testing our kings for a thiamine B1 deficiency as they come to and leave from the Kenai River. As far as I know, nobody is testing our kings for this. We need to do this testing if for no other reason than just to eliminate this as a possible king loss factor.

Reference - Thiamine B1 Deficiency in Aquatic Food Chains The Cumulative Result of Ecosystem Disruption by Clupeids? John D. Fitzsimons.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AiSA1IeCFnA7rABtTSJpx8mbvZx4?p=Thiam...

"Thiaminase is an enzyme, possibly of bacterial origin (Honeyfield et al., 2002; Tillitt et al., 2005), which is thought to be involved in the destruction of thiamine B1 in the gut of predators that consume prey fish containing thiaminase. This leads to reduced uptake of thiamine B1 by clupeid predators and eventual thiamine B1 deficiency if thiaminase activity is high enough and clupeids comprise a high enough proportion of the diet (Honeyfield et al., 2005). Thiaminase is an enzyme that destroys or inactivates thiamine which is Vitamin B1.

Subsequent work: with Lake Ontario Chinook salmon (Fitzsimons et al. 2011a; Figure 20.1) has revealed extremely low muscle thiamine B1 concentrations in Lake Ontario Chinook salmon which are at or below levels associated with lethargy in other salmonines (Brown et al., 2005d; unpublished data). Thiamine B1 deficiency, because it causes increased plasma concentrations of lactate (Combs, 1992), would have exacerbated the negative effects of angling and temperature stress that lead to the build-up of lactic acid in the blood and that have been associated with mortality (Wood et al., 1983). In addition, thiamine B1 plays a central role in the production of ATP equivalents that support metabolism. As a result, during periods of vigorous activity such as that caused by angling or high temperature there may be additional demands on thiamine B1 reserves and if these are already depleted by a thiaminase containing diet mortality may result (Fitzsimons et al., 2005a).
Relatively little is known about the effects of thiamine B1 deficiency at the juvenile stage, even though they may be feeding on much the same prey as adults, including alewives (Madenjian et al., 1998). Juveniles appear to be more sensitive to the effects of thiamine B1 deficiency than adults (Morito et al., 1986; Ketola et al. 2008). Recent work in Lake Ontario on the ontogeny of thiamine B1 deficiency in lake trout suggests there is a strong potential for effects to occur throughout almost the entire period of piscivory including the juvenile period. Alewives are the most significant prey species in the diet of salmonines in Lake Ontario (Lantry, 2001) and both lake trout (Fitzsimons et al. 2011b; Figure 20.1) and chinook salmon (Figure 20.2) show evidence of onto genetic declines in muscle thiamine B1
relative to reference populations. Such declines are presumed to represent a diet containing a high proportion of alewives. This is based on the knowledge that as well as
being dominant in the diet of salmonines, alewives are the major prey species in Lake Ontario (Owens et al., 2003). The North American Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River and Estuary."

Reference - Thiamine B1 Deficiency in Aquatic Food Chains The Cumulative Result of http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AiSA1IeCFnA7rABtTSJpx8mbvZx4?p=Thiam...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clupeid Response to Stressors
Abstract
"Over the past five decades, a reproductive failure related to thiamine deficiency, referred to as thiamine deficiency complex (TDC), has been observed in valuable salmonine fishes in theGreat Lakes and Finger Lakes inNorth America and the Baltic Sea in Europe. The cause of TDC has been linked to the consumption of clupeid fish, which contain high levels of a thiamine-destroying enzyme called thiaminase I (hereafter referred to as “thiaminase”). High activities of thiaminase have been reported from clupeids such as Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus, Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum and Atlantic (Baltic) Herring Clupea harengus, but no consistent explanation has accounted for the wide range of observed variation in levels of thiaminase in clupeids. Chronic stress can suppress the immune systems of Alewife and other fishes, thereby reducing the number of circulating white blood cells available to suppress bacteria. Because the presence of thiaminase has been associated with thiaminolytic bacteria isolated from Alewife viscera, we hypothesized that stressful conditions, which can potentially limit clupeid immune response or alter internal physiological conditions, could allow for thiaminase to be produced more efficiently by bacteria or thiaminolytic bacteria could proliferate, or both events could occur, resulting in a subsequent increase in thiaminolytic activity. In this study, Alewives and Gizzard Shad were exposed to severe winter temperatures and low food availability, respectively, in replicated pond experiments to evaluate the influence of stressful conditions on clupeid thiaminase activity. Though responses in circulating white blood cell counts and metrics of fish condition indicated that experimental treatments affected these clupeids, these effects were not related to increased thiaminase activity. The only significant treatment effect on clupeid thiaminase was an increase in mean thiaminase activity in Gizzard Shad from ponds where only high quality energy sources were available. These data indicate that variability in clupeid thiaminase may be related to diet composition."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08997659.2013.768560

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 01/06/14 - 04:46 am
1
2
The Ocean Conversion From Herring & Capelin to Pollock.

This is the other side of the herring & capelin issue. It claims that we do not have enough herring & capelin.

The history of Alaska North Pacific herring, capelin, crab and sand lance production has varied from feast to famine over time. Many believe recent climate regime shift has acted in concert with commercial fisheries over-harvest and has resulted in increased levels of food available to pollock and invertebrates up to around 1980. The North Pacific marine ecosystem was then changed from being dominated by herring and capelin, which was previously everywhere during the 1970s, to being basically wiped from the western Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. After this destruction the ecosystem was only dominated by pollock This was a commercial fisheries over-harvest ecosystem change, within a natural climate regime shift. Together these two forces combined to produce more pollock and fewer herring, capelin and king salmon. Thus commercial over-harvest exacerbated a king reduction into a statewide king salmon disaster. This commercial fisheries species conversion scenario has been played out over and over off the coast of Alaska and has resulted in more pollock and fewer herring, capelin and crabs. http://www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/bering.php

Commercial pollock fishing in Alaska was non-existent from 1947 - 1965 because pollock populations had been commercially over-harvested and devastated previous to that. That changed as pollock populations again swelled by 1965. Commercial pollock fisheries expanded by 1970 and were catching about 2,000,000 metric tons of pollock annually until they killed off the pollock fishery again thus causing the harvest to crash back down to around 1,000,000 metric tons annually. While this commercial pollock fishery was catching pollock they were also accidentally catching, killing and dumping about (four king salmon per ton of pollock) as by-catch. This accidental king by-catch carried the potential of killing millions of adult kings per year. Commercial king by-catch, climate regime shifts and excess commercial harvest of herring and capelin then caused the direct destruction of much of our North Pacific king salmon. Commercial pollock harvest levels remained at around 1,000,000 metric tons annually until around 1998 when climate regime shift again began expanding pollock populations, thus causing commercial pollock fishermen to again take notice. Pollock catches went up again to 1,400,000 metric tons annually until about 2008 when commercial fisheries again wiped these pollock populations back down to their previous 1,000,000 metric ton level again. After 2008 these commercial pollock fisheries then collapsed again within all the excessive commercial fishing and were never able to recover. So after these North Pacific Commercial Fisheries helped wipe-out our North Pacific herring and capelin resources, they then also went on to deplete their own pollock fisheries below 50% of what it used to be.

Unfortunately this is not the end of the dramatic effects resulting from climate shift coupled with commercial over-fishing. A National Research Council (NRC) thesis states that this commercial fisheries destruction of herring and capelin along with the North Pacific climate regime shift, then also forced Stellar sea lions, which had previously fed on herring and capelin, to feed on the less nutritional pollock until the pollock were basically gone. This then began The Great Stellar Sea Lion Decline. The thesis concludes that the sea lion decline was the direct results of climate shift and commercial over-harvest as sea lions were then forced to consume what was left. What was left was the less nutritional pollock, when they should have been feeding on capelin and herring like king salmon. To a sea lion or king salmon this would be the equivalent of forcing a human to live on pop corn and potatoes chips.

In 1998 a Journal Science paper came out concluding that (the lack of Stellar sea lions) was forcing Orca whales to start feeding on sea otters, and that redirected otter feeding then resulted in (the decline of the sea otter's) in that region. This sea otter decline then allowed sea urchins to greatly increase because sea otters enjoy feeding on sea urchins. The increased urchins then resulted in the wiping out all the region's kelp beds because kelp is what sea urchins like to feed on. Herring also like kelp, herring lay their eggs on kelp, they feed on algae, plankton, kelp phytoplankton and zooplankton. What is resulting here is a less than apparent circle as commercial fisheries over-harvest our herring resources. These commercial fisheries begin a circle of destruction as the herring loss is then felt from salmon and halibut, to sea lions, to sea otters, to sea urchins, to the kelp beds and then back to the destruction of the herring by allowing them fewer and fewer locations to spawn along with less food to feed on. The bottom line is that climate regime shift may have started a small problem by reducing herring and capelin, which king salmon and sea lions feed on but commercial over-harvest then exacerbate that problem into a complete marine disaster by over-harvesting what is left of dwindling resources. The end result has become a dramatic reduction in the total numbers of herring, capelin, sea lions and king salmon along with a dramatic increase in things which help destroy herring habitat and food. The bottom line becomes that climate change may have started this fire but commercial over-harvest has inflamed that problem like throwing gasoline on a fire.
http://www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/bering.php http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroHealth2/EnviroHealth/SessE...
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5039&page=196

· "The ‘cascade hypothesis’ postulates that large reductions in whales and some fish as a result of commercial over-exploitation, increased the amount of food available for other fish and invertebrates, so that by the 1960s and early 1970s, the Bering Sea ecosystem changed from one dominated by capelin to one dominated by pollock. This change was intensified by the 1977 regime shift, which brought warmer water to the region, to the benefit of groundfish (except for cold-water species such as turbot) and the detriment of species such as capelin and sandlance." http://www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/bering.php
· · "Researchers compared the amount of energy available to the Steller sea lions when eating pollock to that available when they fed on herring. Pollock is a lean, low fat fish; it contains 1% fat and 20% protein and 79% carbohydrate. Herring is a fatty fish; it contains 10% fat, 19% protein, and 71% carbohydrate (Donnelly, 2003). It was also found that the larger pollock is a more difficult fish for the sea lions to digest than the smaller herring." http://www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/bering.php
"An experiment was conducted at the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Center to compare the relative effects of eating pollock and herring on Steller sea lions (Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 1994). Releasing live, swimming prey for sea lions to chase and capture in two very large tanks simulated the natural habitat of the Steller sea lions. The first group of sea lions was placed in a tank where they preyed upon herring as their only food source. A second sea lion group preyed exclusively on pollock in an otherwise comparable second tank. The sea lions were allowed to eat as much of each of these types of fish as they desired. Those fed herring all gained weight during the course of the experiment while those consuming exclusively pollock all lost weight." http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroHealth2/EnviroHealth/SessE...

So what does this all mean with regard to king salmon? I believe that a lot of marine life off the coast of Alaska USED to feed on herring and capelin but it has been forced to live on other less nutrition things because those items have been wiped out. This has caused a general state of distress within that marine life and we note that distress by their absents.

alaskan_fishergirl
7
Points
alaskan_fishergirl 01/06/14 - 07:54 pm
0
3
My 2 cents

We have a fishery with a limited number of fish and an unlimited number of users. That is obvious.

Go Resurrection Bay in the summer where there is no commercial fishing you WILL see a difference in the number of fish.

Try flying over Cook Inlet in July and tell me what you think. It is a sight to see! It would give the dip net fishery a run for its money. I wouldn't want to be a fish for a million dollars!

In 2013, there were 284 registered Kenai River Guides, of those guides, 90-100 were strictly upper river guides and DID NOT target kings. There are 400-500 commercial set net permits with 3 nets each which are 210 feet each and 45 meshes deep. That isn't including the drift fleet...several hundred more there....

That being said, a person fishing the Kenai river with a SINGLE hook artificial lure versus a set net permittee with 3 nets.....Who do you think is going to catch the most Kings?

borninak
651
Points
borninak 01/06/14 - 08:53 pm
5
1
Commercial Fishing in Resurection Bay

First, there is commercial fishing in Resurection Bay. In June the Seiners fish the hatchery reds from Bear Creek. It really hurts your arguement when the first thing you state is dead wrong factually.
Second, The sportfisherman will catch more Kings. Throw all your irrelevant numbers in the garbage. Its a small river with a ton of hooks in it and its a huge ocean with a few nets. Your numbers are great propaganda, but offer nothing for evidence.

pengy
250
Points
pengy 01/07/14 - 08:44 am
0
1
borninak. Here are some

borninak. Here are some facts straight from ADF&G.

2013 Kenai in river harvest late run. 1578
2013 Kenai late run cnr mortality. 42
2013 ESSN king harvest. 2256
2013 drift fleet king harvest. 426

So, the sport fishery got to fish 24 hours a day for 28 days in July of 2013.

The commercial fishery had how many openers in 2013? Mondays and Thursdays plus the EO's?

Pretty easy math to see who's the most effective fisherman.

borninak
651
Points
borninak 01/07/14 - 10:10 am
1
0
Pengy Facts

Pengy the numbers you provide from Fish & Game as "facts" regarding Sportfish harvest simply aren't facts. Sorry. They are estimates and probably poor ones at best. Hook and Release mortality is a big arguement in itself. Its just another typical example of you clinging to nothing important to justify your biased position against commercial fishing. And how about you go back and look at say the last 20 years of data so you can draw your biased conclusions using a better scientific method called bigger sample size. Is 2013 a normal year in any way. Your typical of all the commercial fishing haters that cling to any nonsense and draw narrow minded conclusions.

pengy
250
Points
pengy 01/08/14 - 07:23 am
0
1
Wow, borninak, how can you

Wow, borninak, how can you determine that I am a commercial hater when all I did was print the only facts or "government estimates" that are out there about the UCI king fishery for 2013. Never pointed a finger at any particular user group. For the record, I've participated in all aspects of salmon fishing in UCI, well, everything but drift netting and would like be able to continue to catch salmon in the future.

KenaiKardinal88
451
Points
KenaiKardinal88 01/09/14 - 03:32 pm
0
1
Commie Fishers Win - Average Alaskan Loses

Greedy commies will destroy the salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet, the only question is when?

beaverlooper
2785
Points
beaverlooper 01/09/14 - 08:14 pm
1
0
?

You mean the greedy commie guides?

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 01/10/14 - 02:54 pm
1
3
commercial fishermen and guides?

beaverlooper you can claim this disagreement is about commercial fishermen and guides but it is not. It is about convincing you that you do not understand what you are talking about. You believe that if you can just get rid of your competition that everything will be okay for you again. I have news for you, even if you got rid of your competition you guys would still be shut-down because of what you have helped do to our kings. The forces causing our king salmon losses are huge, statewide and focus mainly on the Gulf of Alaska, not around Cook Inlet. Our ocean plankton, zooplankton, herring, crab and king salmon are all about wiped out as our ocean is now at a 50 year nitrogen low which is preventing our natural marine food chain cycles from functioning properly. We need to rot more salmon in our rivers and streams, to increase nitrogen levels and then ban commercial herring and crab harvests for about ten years. That will give our kings something to at least eat as our herring slowly return. So if you did get rid of everyone the ADF&G would still shut you down cause the management plan is not going to let those east side set nets fish with the kings gone.

alaskan_fishergirl
7
Points
alaskan_fishergirl 01/16/14 - 03:33 pm
1
1
Proof in the Pudding

Copy and paste this link in your browser:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/...

Above is a third party report done by an enitity that has no association with either commercial or sport fishing.

If you read through this report, you will notice that 50% of the kings that were caught and tagged at Anchor Point, NEVER made it to the mouth of the rivers they were intended to spawn in. The kings which were tagged and tracked only traveled within the area that the setnetters would be fishing, none were found in the drift area.
Some of the kings also swam back and forth along the beach before going up river to spawn.
Also, of the tagged kings that did, they didn't come in on a ebb tide, they came in on extremely high tides. You will also notice the majority of the kings travel a little deeper in the saltwater than the reds.
Solution: Change the depth of the setnetters nets. They are currently 45 meshes. I believe a mesh is 6 inches? Why couldn't they be 25 meshes? At least give it a try and see if more kings make it to the rivers and allow the commercial to still fish and make their living.

borninak
651
Points
borninak 01/16/14 - 07:28 pm
2
0
Alaskan Fishergirl

I applaud your idea that perhaps a solution would be fishing less mesh deep and in fact a few set netters have experimented with that and we'll probably be hearing about the results of that some time soon. However, the conclusion you drew from the study is no where near as conclusive as you assert. If you read the "discussion" section again, they clearly point out that a similar study conducted by the ADF&G the year before had drastically different results and they couldn't really explain why. The correct conclusion was, we need more studies. Thanks for the link to the study!

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