U.S. pollock Trawlers Catch 130,000 Chinook - by mistake

[garyk]

While we grit our teeth in response to drastically reduced ocean salmon seasons this fall, here's some noteworthy news to consider from the Canadian press.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TERRI THEODORE The Canadian Press VANCOUVER – American fishing boats with massive nets dredging the bottom of the Bering Sea for pollock accidentally caught 130,000 prized chinook salmon last year.

About half of those salmon would have ended up in Canadian rivers.

It came in the same year that fish escapement levels were hardly reached in the Yukon River, well known for its chinook fishery.

Canadian commercial fishermen weren't allowed to take any chinook from the river and native bands pulled just 5,000 fish for a food fishery.

The record accidental catch, or bycatch, has alarmed fisheries experts, environmentalists, government officials and even pollock trawlers, who say a bycatch cap would devastate their fishery.

DNA analysis shows about 20 per cent of the chinook caught up in the football-field-sized nets were bound for the Yukon River, which runs through both Alaska and Yukon Territory.

Another 40 per cent of those salmon were destined for rivers in British Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

The U.S. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is looking over several options to prevent such a massive bycatch again, but it will be two years before new rules are implemented.

"And in the meantime nobody's watching the fish," Gerry Couture said in frustration.

Mr. Couture, a Canadian member of the Yukon Salmon Committee in the Yukon River Panel, said the process to save chinook is moving with glacial speed.

Chinook, also known as king, are the giants of the salmon world and can reach weights equal to an average seven-year-old child. They are the fish you often see in pictures where a beaming sport fisherman is using both hands to hold up his catch, after fighting to get the fish in the boat.

Pollock are small, sedate and plentiful, and often used in fish sticks or fast-food fish sandwiches. The billion-dollar Bering Sea pollock fishery is the largest in the world.

The bycatch issue has been a problem for years but never have so many chinook been caught up in the nets as in 2007.

Jon Warrenchuk, a marine scientist with the American marine advocacy group Oceana, said the failure to cut the bycatch is a failure in regulation.

"Salmon is so important to many people up and down the Pacific Coast,"
he said from his office in Juneau, Alaska. "It's boggling to me that there's no ceiling limit." And while some native bands aren't even allowed to catch their full chinook quota for sustenance, pollock fishermen are either throwing away the bycatch or donating the fish to food banks because they aren't allowed to sell it.

About 90 per cent of the 130,000 chinook bycatch was picked up by trawlers, while the remainder was captured by all other fisheries in the Bering Sea.

"I know the numbers look very bad," admitted Stephanie Madsen, executive director of At Sea Processors Association, which represents seven pollock-processing companies. She said the industry agrees the bycatch in 2007 was unacceptable but they're not sure how to avoid the salmon, which seem to be following the pollock or vice versa.

Ms. Madsen said rolling closings haven't worked because they close one spot where the bycatch is high, only to find a high bycatch in the next place they throw their nets.

"We're struggling right now to figure out how to stay out of their way,"
she said.

Each of the four options going to the fishery management council is complicated, but break down into a hard-cap closing that would stop the fishery once a certain number of chinook are caught; a trigger cap that would set off a time-area closing; fixed closings that stop the fishery at a certain time; or keeping the status quo.

The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans likes the idea of a solid cap and has informed the council it wants that cap set at 37,000 chinook.

The figure momentarily left Ms. Madsen speechless.

She said such a cap on the industry would be devastating.

"It would be a dramatic impact, dramatic," she repeated.

"If you made us live with that cap, in two years without any new tools, I can't even fathom the impact." But the industry did live with a similar cap until 2002, and every year since the cap was lifted the bycatch has jumped.

Ms. Madsen denied the pollock fishery needs to "strain more water"
through its nets to catch more pollock, adding science shows the stock isn't in trouble.

Frank Quinn, with the Department of Fisheries, agreed the industry has been trying to avoid the chinook.
"So it isn't as if there's been a blatant disregard," he said.

While the bycatch doesn't seem to be harming endangered chinook runs, Mr.
Quinn said 130,000 salmon are still a drain on the resource.

"We're seeing results in the river and that's the reason we're taking the steps that we are to have this addressed," he said.

For Mr. Couture - who likens managing a salmon run to shovelling smoke with a pitchfork - the bycatch is an issue that can be solved, unlike disease or warmer water.

"It's another cup full, you might say, in the bucket of low returns."
Mr. Warrenchuk agreed the problem must be addressed.

"To really bring these salmon back you have to address all sources of mortality including pollock bycatch in the Bering Sea," he said.

"That's something you can do something about very easily."

[Pilar]

That's the bycatch we know about. How many were fire hosed over the side at sea or poached?

This is the same crap that decimated the rockfish with bottom trawls here.

[Deepslayer]

Originally Posted by Pilar

That's the bycatch we know about. How many were fire hosed over the side at sea or poached?

This is the same crap that decimated the rockfish with bottom trawls here.

Agreed! If they can't reduce the bycatch they need to suffer the consequences. We also need to control foreign fisheries in our economic zone better!!!!
,Ed

[Grain of Salt]

This same stuff went on off Oregon in the 90's with hake (sorry, whiting)

At one point the hake boats took more than the entire troll fleet...somewhere around 1,000,000 pounds...all dumped over board.

The next year they were allowed to bring the dead fish in to donate to a food bank.

Not sure what is happening now, but the Spring hake season is coming up.


found this on the web:

Salmon

The primary salmon taken as bycatch in the Pacific whiting fishery is Chinook salmon with other salmon taken in very low amounts, if at all. The whiting fishery has a bycatch guideline of 11,000 fish, or a rate of 0.05 Chinook per metric ton of whiting. This amount is shared among all sectors of the fishery, and all fishery sectors endeavor to avoid and minimize salmon bycatch. In the catcher/processor fishery, PWCC vessels fishing cooperatively maintain very low salmon bycatch, well below the 0.05 rate. Compared to the threshold rate of 0.05, the PWCC rates were 0.01 in 2003, 0.005 in 2004, 0.02 in 2005, and 0.001 in 2006.


looks like they have cut it down a bit

[ron m]

Potentially closing the pollock season may seem drastic to the pollock fishermen, but it is also the strongest incentive available to get them to figure out methods/gear to drastically reduce the salmon bycatch.

Sounds like the amount of bycatch they had last year of NW fish was greater than the quota for this year, both commercial and sports combined.
ron m

[Two Fister]

According to the article there were hard caps until 2002 and the by catch has gone up every year since. Coincidence? I doubt it. They could survive with hard caps before and it looks like they need to be reimplemented now.
TF

[OutdoorBum]

Everybody's right...reinstate that 2002 cap and its amazing how malleable an industry can be in working within a regulation framework to still make money. Ron M is right, it'll be devastating to pollock fisherman and my kids who will have to drastically curb their consumption of fish sticks

[Blackfog]

How about get ride of the nets!

They are dragging nets to provide low cost, low end food product for the fast food industry. What is the real cost of a McFish sandwich? I don't think it's the $.99 you pay at the drive through.
If we could add up the true cost of the McProduct, it would no longer be worth the current asking price.

[s20055]

I think that everyone is missing the point. It's not a mystery or a surprise to the commercial fisherman when so many chinook are caught incidentally. I don't believe for a second that it is incidental (or accidental) to them. If you fish an area for a long time (perhaps spanning generations), you know where the fish are and when they are there. It's about $$. Chinook pay better than pollock, so someone decided to gamble. It will continue to happen until something changes.

Do you really think the fish get dumped over the side?

[KeyWest]

Marine Reserves in Oregon would stop this problem.

[Irish Pennant]

Originally Posted by KeyWest

Marine Reserves in Oregon would stop this problem.

And stop global warming and bring about world peace and and and

[tailchaser]

I absolutely have no sorrow for a commercial fishery that is decimating one specie at a time. For someone to say how devastating it would be to make adjustments or live by a rule on bycatch only to watch the rest of the world wilt away from salmon regulations just ticks me off. Boo Freakn Hoo. The alaska fishery is largely taking the toll on the west coasts supply of fish directly, or indirectly as bycatch and it's time they pay the price along with everyone else.

tc

[snaggedup]

They need to post an honest observer on board and be fined for every pound over of acceptable levels which to me is zero. Maybe they would be more careful where and how they fish. Think how much they would fine one of us for 1 over limit of halibut , or 1 salmon , or if we retained 1 yelloweye.

Now we know why we couldn't catch salmon las season.

[Killertraylor]

Originally Posted by snaggedup

They need to post an honest observer on board and be fined for every pound over of acceptable levels which to me is zero. Maybe they would be more careful where and how they fish. Think how much they would fine one of us for 1 over limit of halibut , or 1 salmon , or if we retained 1 yelloweye.

Now we know why we couldn't catch salmon las season.

Drink with that "honest" observer for a month straight and feed them well andyou are right back where you started.

[Baxter]

At this point, the technology exists and is inexpensive enough to video record the action on deck of every commercial fishing boat, 24/7, to be presented for inspection upon arrival at the dock. Problem solved?

[Mark Mc]

Don't be slamming the honesty of observers too quickly. One of them is our own Salty Dog "stickflicker."

The kind of people who follow a fishery biology career path.....don't do it for the money. Most of them actually believe very strongly in what they do.

It's not the hands-on field biologists who screw up the fishery management process.

[Ploughman]

I have a good friend who is a captain of a very large catcher/processor boat in this fishery. I have talked with him at length about many of these issues over the years. Since he is currently not at sea, I called him for some details about this.

First, the observers are very honest, independent and serious professionals. The methods they use for catch estimates are very similar to the port checkers we find in sport fishing. They take samples every 1/3 of the catch and extrapolate that out. The salmon is not kicked overboard (big fines) or sold; but is donated to food banks. Because of this, the boats have solid, real counts of their catch. For my friend, he just returned after catching 7000 Tons of pollock. In that catch, he had 105 salmon as bycatch. Not 105 thousand, but 105 individual fish. They are there to catch pollock.

I have always found my friend to be genuinely concerned about the health of his fishery and the others around him. Bycatch is always a big concern and something that is constantly avoided. It's a very bad thing and he knows it. I know that it sickens him to waste anything. He has gone as far as installing cameras and escape systems in the nets to allow salmon to escape (an experiment with limited success). There certainly are commercial fisheries out their that target their bycatch species (for profit), but this isn't one of them.

He wasn't aware of there ever being a hard cap on bycatch (lifted in 2002 according to the article). There may have been be a cap in a near shore area, but in the main bering sea, there isn't one and there hasn't been one. But it is coming and they know it. There are several working theories about why the bycatch increased last year; but, the "lifting" of the cap isn't the issue.

I don't want to sound like their spokesman; but I thought some perspective was appropriate.

[ron m]

Originally Posted by Ploughman

I have a good friend who is a captain of a very large catcher/processor boat in this fishery. I have talked with him at length about many of these issues over the years. Since he is currently not at sea, I called him for some details about this.

First, the observers are very honest, independent and serious professionals. The methods they use for catch estimates are very similar to the port checkers we find in sport fishing. They take samples every 1/3 of the catch and extrapolate that out. The salmon is not kicked overboard (big fines) or sold; but is donated to food banks. Because of this, the boats have solid, real counts of their catch. For my friend, he just returned after catching 7000 Tons of pollock. In that catch, he had 105 salmon as bycatch. Not 105 thousand, but 105 individual fish. They are there to catch pollock.

I have always found my friend to be genuinely concerned about the health of his fishery and the others around him. Bycatch is always a big concern and something that is constantly avoided. It's a very bad thing and he knows it. I know that it sickens him to waste anything. He has gone as far as installing cameras and escape systems in the nets to allow salmon to escape (an experiment with limited success). There certainly are commercial fisheries out their that target their bycatch species (for profit), but this isn't one of them.

He wasn't aware of there ever being a hard cap on bycatch (lifted in 2002 according to the article). There may have been be a cap in a near shore area, but in the main bering sea, there isn't one and there hasn't been one. But it is coming and they know it. There are several working theories about why the bycatch increased last year; but, the "lifting" of the cap isn't the issue.

I don't want to sound like their spokesman; but I thought some perspective was appropriate.

Ploughman, thanks. I have opinions, but I'm alwys wiling to revise them based on facts or solid information. Perspective is beneficial as it provides depth and understanding. It does not change the goals, but it may affect approaches for how to best achieve the goal.

Did you ask your firend how he would feel about a hard cap that was reasonable, but way below 130,000 salmon for the industry?

Also, I don't know the total pollock catch, but if it is huge (and I think it is), then 105 salmon per 7000 tons of pollock may end up being a lot of salmon.

ron m

[ron m]

I did some research on the web, couldn't find the total of last year's pollock catch, but did find an average annual catch of 2.5 billion pounds. This was on the processors site. So, using a ratio of 105 salmon per 7000 tons of pollock, there would be 18,750 salmon caught in an "average" year.

So, the captain friend of Ploughman caught salmon at a rate that would be about half of the maximum allowable rate the Canadian Fisheries is suggesting of 37,000 salmon for the allowable bycatch for the pollock fishery.
ron m

[Ploughman]

I don't think it's going to matter what the industry thinks about a cap; it's coming. There is a strong feeling among some in the pollock industry that the salmon need to be saved/protected period. The real challenge will be for the fisheries managers to allocate the bycatch appropriately so that the clean fishing boats/areas can continue.

One thing to remember is that these boats aren't working in an isolated bathtub with a couple of species. Whenever you make changes to a fishery (net size, open areas, depth, etc.) to reduce bycatch or similar goals, you have to really think things through. You don't want to screw up another fishery/species inadvertantly. A good example is net size. The pollock fishery is commonly describe in a negative light for their "football field" sized nets. The thing is that these huge nets reduced bycatch dramatically. Instead of dragging a net around for hours, they can find a thick pollock school and fill up in 10 minutes with little bycatch.

The 105 bycatch number I stated is really pretty low and wouldn't cause the big number reported. The problem is that not all boats keep with that and the reasons aren't so obvious. It goes beyond captain skill and concern. The industry is spending big bucks for a reason to try and figure it out.

[Ploughman]

Originally Posted by ron m

I did some research on the web, couldn't find the total of last year's pollock catch, but did find an average annual catch of 2.5 billion pounds. This was on the processors site. So, using a ratio of 105 salmon per 7000 tons of pollock, there would be 18,750 salmon caught in an "average" year.

So, the captain friend of Ploughman caught salmon at a rate that would be about half of the maximum allowable rate the Canadian Fisheries is suggesting of 37,000 salmon for the allowable bycatch for the pollock fishery.
ron m

Ron, I can find out a fair amount but one boat isn't a good sample. I was mainly trying to show that the attitude is more in the right place (concerned and trying) than evil doing. I do know that the bycatch sampling numbers have a fair amount of variation. For example, on one trawl, my friend caught three salmon (too many still). By luck of some sort, those three were all part of of the observer's sample. So after extrapolation, those three became something like 25 fish in the count. The trawl really did only have 3, but the sampling data would count 25. Wierd data shifts happen in sport counts and commercial stuff. My buddy would love to have three observers on board so that 24 hour counting could be in place rather than sampling. He knows what he catches (remember, its all kept and donated), and it is regularly less than the estimate. I think the most important thing is that the industry itself is not acting like that level of bycatch is just fine. They are unhappy and trying to resolve it.

[ron m]

Originally Posted by Ploughman

Ron, I can find out a fair amount but one boat isn't a good sample. I was mainly trying to show that the attitude is more in the right place (concerned and trying) than evil doing. I do know that the bycatch sampling numbers have a fair amount of variation. For example, on one trawl, my friend caught three salmon (too many still). By luck of some sort, those three were all part of of the observer's sample. So after extrapolation, those three became something like 25 fish in the count. The trawl really did only have 3, but the sampling data would count 25. Wierd data shifts happen in sport counts and commercial stuff. My buddy would love to have three observers on board so that 24 hour counting could be in place rather than sampling. He knows what he catches (remember, its all kept and donated), and it is regularly less than the estimate. I think the most important thing is that the industry itself is not acting like that level of bycatch is just fine. They are unhappy and trying to resolve it.

Ploughman, I wasn't intending to either pick on your captain friend nor use him as a good example. My intent, though I agree it was unclear, was to illustrate that 105 salmon for 7000 tons of pollock still mean a lot of salmon bycatch simply because the size of the pollock catch is so HUGE.

Also, sampling (if it is random) may occasionally mean that all of the salmon caught are actually counted, but it can also mean that salmon could be caught and NONE of them are counted. if the observer is intentionally picking out all the salmon, then it is not random. From the size of the nets and catch I saw, they haul in a really large number of fish at times. I agree with comments you and others made that the observers are pretty honest. Most people are and these folks go thru lots of education and training to do that job and they probably make a lot less than the crew, at least when the boat is catching fish! And I'll bet they are trained to make sure they take random samples.
ron m

[Ploughman]

No problem Ron, not feeling picked on at all. I'm not going to claim to be the expert at all regarding this industry, but had some insight to share. I'm an electrical engineer by training and find the technology used in alot of different fisheries very interesting. I toured his boat once and needless to say, the toys were incredible.

Having a pretty solid math background, I feel pretty comfortable reading through data sampling techniques and understand them well. I volunteer a lot on local salmon rehab and get sampling data regularly. Most of the fisheries sampling I find uses a firm protocol to assure randomness. Like I stated earlier, in this fishery, they grab a sample at fixed points when they unload the bag. The issues come from the amount of samples taken for a given data set. I didn't get the impression from my friend that the sampling was bogus, just frustration that when the real number is known, sampling is still relied upon.

Up here in WA (westport), WDFW is very reluctant to have any of the sport halibut quota dragging into salmon season. The reason is they can't sample for it. Finding a few halibut caught incidentally mixed into thousands of salmon is next to impossible without almost 100% sampling (not going to happen). So I've gotten tired of fighting them for small quotas in July.

[ron m]

Originally Posted by Ploughman

No problem Ron, not feeling picked on at all. I'm not going to claim to be the expert at all regarding this industry, but had some insight to share. I'm an electrical engineer by training and find the technology used in alot of different fisheries very interesting. I toured his boat once and needless to say, the toys were incredible.

Having a pretty solid math background, I feel pretty comfortable reading through data sampling techniques and understand them well. I volunteer a lot on local salmon rehab and get sampling data regularly. Most of the fisheries sampling I find uses a firm protocol to assure randomness. Like I stated earlier, in this fishery, they grab a sample at fixed points when they unload the bag. The issues come from the amount of samples taken for a given data set. I didn't get the impression from my friend that the sampling was bogus, just frustration that when the real number is known, sampling is still relied upon.

Up here in WA (westport), WDFW is very reluctant to have any of the sport halibut quota dragging into salmon season. The reason is they can't sample for it. Finding a few halibut caught incidentally mixed into thousands of salmon is next to impossible without almost 100% sampling (not going to happen). So I've gotten tired of fighting them for small quotas in July.

Hmmm, I wonder if because of differing size or different swimming speeds or different reactions to being in the net if it's possible that salmon are more likely than pollock--when both are in the bag--to be in a particular part of the bag when it's brought up to the boat to be unloaded. And if that particular part of the bag or catch as it's being unloaded is, or is not, one of the "fixed points" from which they take a sample, then the samples probably wouldn't be truly random. I'm guessing however that the fisheries scientists have already considered that possibility.
ron m

[Ty]

Having trouble w/ the percentages... So;

40% Lower OR, WA, & BC

20% Yukon

40%???? Rest AK Fish????

That might explain why many king runs where well below average through out the state...........

[Ploughman]

Don't forget Russia

[Ginny Ross]

Hello Salty Dogs,

I apologize if this has been answered -- I did skim through the thread, but it's late and I was just wondering if you could help me understand something. Concerning the bycatch rules for this pollock fishery, do the trawl nets generally kill the bycaught salmon in this process or is it more of a live capture fishery like purse seining? Also, once a salmon is brought on board (whether dead or alive) does it get thrown back? Thanks for this thread and for your comments.

[sealgal2008]

A pal of mine worked on one of those Pollock Proccessors and he said all the fish that come on board die, there is no way to put fish that the nets dont target back alive.

Betty

[Ty]

Originally Posted by sealgal2008

A pal of mine worked on one of those Pollock Proccessors and he said all the fish that come on board die, there is no way to put fish that the nets dont target back alive.

Betty

Even if you could let the fish go... In the trawl bag everything gets crushed..

[stick flicker]

Stickflicker here, just wanted to weight in. To all my fellow salty brothers and sisters I am a fisheries observer, have been for four years.

I take great pride in what I do, work hard, and am painfully honest. I have worked two of the largest factory trawlers in Alaska. One was the largest in the world at one time. I currently work out of Eureka, CA. I can tell you observing is a thankless job, I do it because I care about preserving the resource for future generations.
Many ,not all, of the commercial fisherman are enviormentalists. I doubt they would call themselves that, but they are. They don't want to see the resource overfished or abused. If it were they would be out of a livelyhood. Fishing is a way of life that they would like to see contined for future fishers. Its our heritage.

Sampling: All observers are required to have four year degrees in biology or a related feild, must have statistics in there course of study (sample design experience), and pass written tests on sampling methods, saftey, and fish identification. The standards are very high, and many don't complete observer training. When we return from a cruise we are debreifed, or questioned by biologists on our methods.

Factory Trawlers: The observer is in the factory for at least 1/3 of all processing but most of the time it is more like 1/2 or more. They usually sample the whole haul for salmon. But we are human and need to eat and take breaks. I can say that that the observers that work on these large vessels are usually the "cream of the crop" type of folks and are great people and feel strongly about integrity. We know what is at stake, and we care.
Catcher vessels: Here the observer samples 100% of the catch at the factory. This is grueling work. We stand at a conveyor belt for sometimes 12 or more hours collecting and recording prohibited species ie. salmon.

Salmon 2008-? I am very sadend by the facts laid out by the PFMC. Returns are at record lows and the fish are in peril, facts no one should doubt. The writing has been on the wall for decades. The question is are those in power to make changes willing to do so? Are we as a nation going to demand that the health of our enviorment be restored, preserved, and held above the profits and conveniences that we all enjoy?
I grew up fishing out of Newport with my grandfather, and have taken my son out salmon fishing. Will he be able to say the same one day? I think it is out of our hands. Big bussiness has ruled the salmons fate for over 100 years. What it will it take to change that all? I don't have the answer.

[Ginny Ross]

Salmon 2008-? I am very sadend by the facts laid out by the PFMC. Returns are at record lows and the fish are in peril, facts no one should doubt. The writing has been on the wall for decades. The question is are those in power to make changes willing to do so? Are we as a nation going to demand that the health of our enviorment be restored, preserved, and held above the profits and conveniences that we all enjoy?
I grew up fishing out of Newport with my grandfather, and have taken my son out salmon fishing. Will he be able to say the same one day? I think it is out of our hands. Big bussiness has ruled the salmons fate for over 100 years. What it will it take to change that all? I don't have the answer.

Thank you, Stik Flicker -- Just a quick follow up. Do you think this type of fishing (factory trawling) is sustainable? I am trying to sort out the commercial fishing pressures into 1) overharvesting of the target fish and 2) harvest that is so non-selective that it puts too much pressure on bycatch, even if the target fish is not being overharvested. What is your impression of trawling as a method? Should it be continued? Thanks.

[5 Salt]

CCA is my vote for starting to wrangle these issues and begin recovery.

[smalldog]

What has the North American population grown to in the past 20 years?
We have lots more people who want fish.
As the human population increases, we will loose more and more natural resources. Simple math.
It doesnt matter if it is fish or trees or land. It is all getting gobbled up by the "have to have 2.3 kids" mindset.
There is only so much of everything. When we consume it all as fast as we can.. it can't bounce back.

This is just the tip of what is to come.
Its the fresh water fishing that will be outlawed first.
After all, we are taking the fish out of the nursery (river).
Ocean commercial fishermen will still need to catch fish to feed the masses.

[Two Fister]

Originally Posted by stick flicker

Many ,not all, of the commercial fisherman are enviormentalists. I doubt they would call themselves that, but they are. They don't want to see the resource overfished or abused. If it were they would be out of a livelyhood. Fishing is a way of life that they would like to see contined for future fishers. Its our heritage.

Stick Flicker,
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being the point of the spear. It is a thankless job that many people dressed in suits in Seattle would just assume didn't exist. You Sir, are making a difference.

I used to work with a couple of 4th generation loggers from the Olympic Penisula. Both had been badly hurt and could no longer pursue the job they lived for. The quote above is almost an exact quote of what one of them told me. He knew they were logging too fast (mid 1980s-early 1990s) and he was trying to keep his 4 sons from going into the family business. He told me that one of the biggest crimes was that the "tree huggers" (that'd be me) never tried to understand the people that worked in the woods. They knew that the pace was too fast, but what good did it do for one man to make a stand. It would cost him his job and nobody would ever know. He knew that the real enemy of sustainable logging were the people in the big glass towers in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, BC that were more concerned with stock prices then anything else. It was a moment of clarity for me that I have seldom experienced.

Thank you again Stick Flicker. You are making a difference that many people could not dream of achieving.

Sincerely,
Dan Capozzola (aka Two Fister)

[ron m]

Originally Posted by stick flicker

Stickflicker here, just wanted to weight in. To all my fellow salty brothers and sisters I am a fisheries observer, have been for four years.

I take great pride in what I do, work hard, and am painfully honest. I have worked two of the largest factory trawlers in Alaska. One was the largest in the world at one time. I currently work out of Eureka, CA. I can tell you observing is a thankless job, I do it because I care about preserving the resource for future generations.
Many ,not all, of the commercial fisherman are enviormentalists. I doubt they would call themselves that, but they are. They don't want to see the resource overfished or abused. If it were they would be out of a livelyhood. Fishing is a way of life that they would like to see contined for future fishers. Its our heritage.

Sampling: All observers are required to have four year degrees in biology or a related feild, must have statistics in there course of study (sample design experience), and pass written tests on sampling methods, saftey, and fish identification. The standards are very high, and many don't complete observer training. When we return from a cruise we are debreifed, or questioned by biologists on our methods.

Factory Trawlers: The observer is in the factory for at least 1/3 of all processing but most of the time it is more like 1/2 or more. They usually sample the whole haul for salmon. But we are human and need to eat and take breaks. I can say that that the observers that work on these large vessels are usually the "cream of the crop" type of folks and are great people and feel strongly about integrity. We know what is at stake, and we care.
Catcher vessels: Here the observer samples 100% of the catch at the factory. This is grueling work. We stand at a conveyor belt for sometimes 12 or more hours collecting and recording prohibited species ie. salmon.

Salmon 2008-? I am very sadend by the facts laid out by the PFMC. Returns are at record lows and the fish are in peril, facts no one should doubt. The writing has been on the wall for decades. The question is are those in power to make changes willing to do so? Are we as a nation going to demand that the health of our enviorment be restored, preserved, and held above the profits and conveniences that we all enjoy?
I grew up fishing out of Newport with my grandfather, and have taken my son out salmon fishing. Will he be able to say the same one day? I think it is out of our hands. Big bussiness has ruled the salmons fate for over 100 years. What it will it take to change that all? I don't have the answer.

Thanks John, great post!

Some questions: are those fish pots in the photo? The don't all appear to be the same size, at least not to me. They appear to me to differ in height. any of them crab pots?

let me know when you come up to Newport to fish this year. Maybe i can buy you a beer one afternoon or evening after fishing. Be good to talk with you again. I bet you've got some good "fish" stories from working as an observer
ron m

[Grain of Salt]

Lots of good info here...thanks stick for your efforts and input.

The overcapitalization of modern fishing fleets will be the end of many species. This has been occuring for decades and the Magnson act to enact the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) just allowed the US, tho not necessarily US companies their piece of the pie.

The use of capital construction funds (CCF)...tax free investment of profits to encourage reinvestment in boats and equipment has created a monster the cant be fed forever, as shown by recent buyback programs to reduce fleet size. Read that subsidized investment bought off with taxpayer money.

A sustainable fishery is obtainable on many species but science must rule...and good science at that.
I watched in the 80's and 90's as many good salmon trollers converted over to ground fisheries to stay in business..subsidized by taxpayers, much like farming. Then of course the ground fisheries collapsed...next resource please. Not always the fishermans fault, they work within the frame work of fisheries resource managers.

A good read is a book called "Distant Water" by William Warner...it describes the exploitation and collapse of the Georges Bank Fisheries in the Atlantic..originally written in 1977... 30 years ago and we still havent seemed to learn much.

[BaitStop]

Originally Posted by ron m

Thanks John, great post!

Some questions: are those fish pots in the photo? The don't all appear to be the same size, at least not to me. They appear to me to differ in height. any of them crab pots?

let me know when you come up to Newport to fish this year. Maybe i can buy you a beer one afternoon or evening after fishing. Be good to talk with you again. I bet you've got some good "fish" stories from working as an observer
ron m

Those look to be crab pots rigged as cod pots. Cod pots are pretty good at catching cod & have a fairly low bycatch. Most of the fish bycatch is released alive unless the sandfleas get to them!

[Reel Steel]

Stick Flicker, Are you working out of Eureka now? Do you just work drag boats?

[stick flicker]

Those are pots which can be rigged for both crab and fish. They just change the opening. One cool thing about the pots is that they are rigged with halibut excluders in the trap openings. Just a couple of horizontal wires.

Currrently I collect data for the Westcoast Groundfish Observer Program. LE Trawl, LE Fixed Gear, Open Access and CA/OR Pink Shrimp. Eureka, CA. is home for now. Headed home to Coos Bay soon!

[BIGALSURF]

This makes me want to weep! We're shutting down salmon fishing and these guys get a no bycatch fishery? Notice that they had a cap and in 2003 there were tons of salmon available for us to catch. This is where the chinook are going. Why don't we just make pollock fishing in this manner illegal?

[Go_Getter]

These multi million dollar fishermen could care less. Here is an article from last year and yet another fishery they are wiping out. and of course the Pacific Fishery Management Council let them off the hook. This kind of fishing needs to be shut down!

Here is the article.

Dumping of accidental catch sparks trawl-fleet investigation

By Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporter

PREV of NEXT


DEPT. FISH AND WILDLIFE
Fish and Wildlife officer Brett Hopkins, left, holds one of the widow rockfish that washed up on the Long Beach peninsula in July after being dumped by a trawl fisherman.



Back in July, state fishery enforcement officials went to the Long Beach peninsula to retrieve some unusual evidence: 6,000 pounds of dead widow rockfish that had washed ashore with the tides.
They tracked the carcasses to a trawlnet fisherman who, they say, turned off a monitoring camera, then dumped the fish in an attempt to evade laws that require the reporting of this catch.
The dumping is expected to result in civil charges and has helped spur a wide-ranging state and federal investigation of the commercial trawl fleets that accidentally net the rockfish in pursuit of much larger stocks of whiting.
"There is a lot of money at stake here," said Capt. Mike Cenci, of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, "and when you have that kind of financial incentive, some people are going to cheat."
The investigation casts doubt on the accuracy of the whiting fleet's catch reporting, a keystone of conservation efforts to prevent overfishing. Already, it's had a big impact on the whiting harvest, which was shut down in July to protect widow and other species of rockfish.
The closure stunned the Northwest groundfish industry, which looks to whiting as the biggest dollar, and biggest volume, harvest. This year's harvest was expected to be worth more than $35 million to fishermen, and the July closure came as more than $8 million of the annual quota was yet to be taken.
Since the shutdown, fish-industry officials have been lobbying the Pacific Fishery Management Council to find some way to reopen the harvest.
Last week, the council obliged, approving on Thursday a limited whiting harvest that would begin in early October in offshore areas where some rockfish species are likely to be less abundant.
"I am hoping the industry has listened very closely and realized that all eyes are upon them and not tamper with the [camera] equipment," said Phil Anderson, a state Fish and Wildlife official who serves on the federal fishery council.
Overfished species
The cameras result from a new era of regulation as federal conservation laws require protection — and rebuilding — of overfished species.
In the Northwest, much of the protection is now focused on several overfished species of rockfish. These fish can live for decades, and once their populations are knocked down by fishing, it may be difficult to rebuild them.


In 2001, the widow rockfish was listed by the federal government as overfished, which triggered special protective measures. Its population has since begun to increase, but the species has yet to be taken off the list.
This year, the fishery council authorized a catch of only 220 metric tons of widow rockfish as trawl fishermen pursued a harvest of more than 200,000 metric tons of whiting.
This summer, some whiting trawlers sought to avoid close-in offshore areas that are often hot spots for widow rockfish. But others appear to have fished those spots. For these fishermen, there was a big incentive to discard, and not report, their take of widow rockfish, according to Cenci.
It is not hard to purposely underreport.
Most of the whiting vessels don't have federal observers on board to monitor the catch. Instead, they have monitoring cameras. But there are blind spots the cameras don't reach.
The cameras are supposed to operate continuously, but investigators found that three whiting vessels this summer had monitoring gaps of up to three hours that often occurred as fish were being brought on deck, Cenci said.
Processing plants also profit from the whiting, so their employees may have an incentive to avoid counting rockfish that might shut down the harvest.
In a surprise visit to Ocean Gold Seafoods, a whiting plant in Westport, state enforcement officers reported finding 4,300 pounds of widow rockfish on the plant floor, which — instead of being properly accounted for and sold — were headed for a grinder.
Richard Carroll, an Ocean Gold official, said the widow rockfish disposal was an isolated act neither condoned nor encouraged by management.
"We have a zero tolerance for this, and as soon as we discovered what had happened, the person was terminated," he said.
On alert for violations
When the whiting fishery resumes in October, there will be a small additional rockfish quota that biologists believe could be safely caught. The harvest will shut down once that rockfish quota is met.
The state marine enforcement division will be on alert for more violations, Cenci said, but staff cuts in recent years have made the job harder.
Industry officials expect the fleets and processors will accurately report the catch.
"Generally the industry is — and always has been — complying with the rules," said Rod Moore, a fishery council member and executive director of the Pacific Seafood Processors Association, which represents many of the companies that process whiting.
Conservationists are wary of any reopening of the whiting harvest. They worry not only about the rockfish and the whiting, whose stocks have declined in recent years, but also about young salmon that, according to a federal advisory panel, would be at greater risk of being caught up in an October harvest.
They want the fleet to carry federal fishery observers to track the catch.
"It shouldn't take dead fish washing up on the beach before managers know there is a problem," said Ben Enticknap, a representative of Oceana, a fishery-conservation organization.

[fish_on]

Modern Marvels is doing a show on the Pollock right now. They are showcasing it as a technological marvel that has taken a fish that was thought of as trash (only good to feed the ocean) and making them commercially available. I wonder if they'll show the by catch.

[jimsbuddy]

Originally Posted by Go_Getter

These multi million dollar fishermen could care less. Here is an article from last year and yet another fishery they are wiping out. and of course the Pacific Fishery Management Council let them off the hook. This kind of fishing needs to be shut down!


They tracked the carcasses to a trawlnet fisherman who, they say, turned off a monitoring camera, then dumped the fish in an attempt to evade laws that require the reporting of this catch.

Well my uneducated mind tells me that there are always some bad fish in the sea... just as most motorist will obey the speed limit set by law, there are some anuses out there that feel the need to take there little rice car up to 140mph on I-205 and 26frwy. So I don't think all drivers are bad. BUT better punishment is always a need in todays "easy get off" society/legal system.

[Mr Presentation]

I watched that polluck show on tv, watched the whole time for salmon, didn't see any taken by the observer, just halibut and skates it looked like. I really doubt they would even show Salmon on there. People like us would freak out!

[Pilar]

It sounds like enforcement and observing has been improved. During the rockfish closure process I observed trawler operators who were testifying about bycatch. They were frustrated about bycatch and nor being able to use the dead fish.

Many testified that these bycatch fish were not landed and therefore not counted. They did it that way for years. Only what made it to the dock got counted.

I sure wish I knew more about where the Salmon and Steelhead go when they leave their natal river for sea duty.

[Metal Manipulator]

Yes the Salmon are so complex for even one strain. It will still be years before they will know where there lives take them out into the Ocean. I heard (but not conclusive fact) that Tule's end up being caught close to Canadian shores. One reason for the high Hatchery output to satisfy treatie's between US and Canada. And as you can see at least three other species were caught farther ofshore in deeper water.

[Go_Getter]

People I know who fish these boats say they catch anything from crab to sole, pretty much anything that swims and happens to be in these big vacuum cleaners way!

[ron m]

Originally Posted by Go_Getter

People I know who fish these boats say they catch anything from crab to sole, pretty much anything that swims and happens to be in these big vacuum cleaners way!

I think it's more a question of how much of certain species rather than what (how many or which species) they catch. At least in terms of importance for fisheries management.
ron m

[Go_Getter]

I agree Ron, I'm just not sure the public ever gets a straight answer on how much of what. And like above when there is a violation made public, management looks the other way. Like the original article said in 2002 the Pollock fishers had to live with a 37,000 salmon by-catch limit, now a limit would devastate the fishery? I think money is managing the fish not the managers. Just my

[finnfisher]

Looks like they is a little bit of relief coming this year:

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/37377

[jimsbuddy]

Ok, so there setting much lower limits... buy how are they going to monitor this??? policing the issue is the next big issue... there making headway with reduced limits, and shutting down if tooo many fisherman dont care and catch what ever... but we have step 2 to deal with

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by jimsbuddy

Ok, so there setting much lower limits... buy how are they going to monitor this??? policing the issue is the next big issue... there making headway with reduced limits, and shutting down if tooo many fisherman dont care and catch what ever... but we have step 2 to deal with

I read where the boats are required to have onboard cameras to monitor the bycatch and severe fines are given if the cameras get turned off while they are fishing

Not fool proof by any means but at least it will keep the honest skippers honest

[Go_Getter]

Yup a boat turned his camera off last year when he had to much by-catch of Brownies I think During the hake fishery, Dumped to entire net load and they washed up on Washington beaches. He was not fined or prohibited from fishing because "he told the truth" after he was caught. That should keep them honest don't you think?

[jimsbuddy]

Originally Posted by fyshndad

I read where the boats are required to have onboard cameras to monitor the bycatch and severe fines are given if the cameras get turned off while they are fishing

Not fool proof by any means but at least it will keep the honest skippers honest

All we can do is try and adapt the policy as issues arrise

Originally Posted by Go_Getter

Y He was not fined or prohibited from fishing because "he told the truth" after he was caught. That should keep them honest don't you think?

We can only do so much... Not everyone who speeds on the frwy and gets a ticket pays right????

[PC Silver Streak]

Originally Posted by stick flicker

Stickflicker here, just wanted to weight in. To all my fellow salty brothers and sisters I am a fisheries observer, have been for four years.

I take great pride in what I do, work hard, and am painfully honest. I have worked two of the largest factory trawlers in Alaska. One was the largest in the world at one time. I currently work out of Eureka, CA. I can tell you observing is a thankless job, I do it because I care about preserving the resource for future generations.
Many ,not all, of the commercial fisherman are enviormentalists. I doubt they would call themselves that, but they are. They don't want to see the resource overfished or abused. If it were they would be out of a livelyhood. Fishing is a way of life that they would like to see contined for future fishers. Its our heritage.

Sampling: All observers are required to have four year degrees in biology or a related feild, must have statistics in there course of study (sample design experience), and pass written tests on sampling methods, saftey, and fish identification. The standards are very high, and many don't complete observer training. When we return from a cruise we are debreifed, or questioned by biologists on our methods.

Factory Trawlers: The observer is in the factory for at least 1/3 of all processing but most of the time it is more like 1/2 or more. They usually sample the whole haul for salmon. But we are human and need to eat and take breaks. I can say that that the observers that work on these large vessels are usually the "cream of the crop" type of folks and are great people and feel strongly about integrity. We know what is at stake, and we care.
Catcher vessels: Here the observer samples 100% of the catch at the factory. This is grueling work. We stand at a conveyor belt for sometimes 12 or more hours collecting and recording prohibited species ie. salmon.

Salmon 2008-? I am very sadend by the facts laid out by the PFMC. Returns are at record lows and the fish are in peril, facts no one should doubt. The writing has been on the wall for decades. The question is are those in power to make changes willing to do so? Are we as a nation going to demand that the health of our enviorment be restored, preserved, and held above the profits and conveniences that we all enjoy?
I grew up fishing out of Newport with my grandfather, and have taken my son out salmon fishing. Will he be able to say the same one day? I think it is out of our hands. Big bussiness has ruled the salmons fate for over 100 years. What it will it take to change that all? I don't have the answer.

I was a foreign fisheries observer for five years on/off back in the 1980's up in Alaska and agree with comments Stick Flicker has made. I took pride in my work and I followed all protocols and was honest/unbiased in my approach at getting/recording/sending good data to NMFS. In my opinion, a commercial boat/vessel that is fishing with nets should be required to have an observer onboard to accurately sample/count/measure all species that come up in the nets. No observer onboard, then that boat/vessel couldn't fish. This would be mandatory.

What I think that has happened over the years to a lot of the depletion of fish stocks is basically greed/money( big business/commercial interest) that had influences on decisions made by fishery managers. Today, we are having to deal with severe reductions in fishery quotas for sport and commercial, due to the past overharvesting of commerical fisheries.

Also, nobody has talked about highs sea drift nets that may be doing some damage to various fisheries out beyond 200 miles from our coastlines!

[freespool]

The most efficient way to curtail or drastically reduce incidental salmon catch is simple.
Require that the bycatch numbers be added into the commercial salmon quota for that particular area.

[Mr. BrownTrout]

I grew up in Warrenton and worked for many years at one of the seafood plants there and I can tell you back then the amount of waste and illegal activities were incredible, for a while I was even helping out one of the long time local OSP guys with some of the outlaws. If most people knew what goes on there they would be outragged. I don't know if it still happens. But its no wonder that the fish stocks are in so much trouble from over fishing. All those outlaw boats back then did not care about the future of the fishery, they just wanted all the money they could make, whether legal or illegal.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by Go_Getter

Yup a boat turned his camera off last year when he had to much by-catch of Brownies I think During the hake fishery, Dumped to entire net load and they washed up on Washington beaches. He was not fined or prohibited from fishing because "he told the truth" after he was caught. That should keep them honest don't you think?

Major Wastage Case:

The captain and owners of a Pacific Whiting fishing vessel have agreed to pay the National Marine Fisheries Service a $40,000 civil penalty for illegally throwing away 16,000 pounds of widow rockfish while at-sea and for turning off a mandatory deck camera in order to hide the violation.

Widow rockfish and canary rockfish are currently designated as over-fished by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and stock rebuilding plans are in place for these species. Rockfish can be encountered by trawl vessels that target Pacific whiting and are considered "by-catch." Strict caps on the over-fished species have been applied, and once caps are met, the directed fishing on whiting can be closed.
This violation occurred at a time when rockfish caps were quickly nearing and threatened to lock out access to millions of dollars in available Pacific Whiting. WDFW Officers initially responded to a reported fish kill on the Long Beach Peninsula. After securing several thousand fish for evidence, the officers teamed up with the Oregon State Police, the U.S. Coast Guard, and NOAA to investigate. A suspect was identified, and ultimately confessed.

[jimsbuddy]

Originally Posted by freespool

Require that the bycatch numbers be added into the commercial salmon quota for that particular area.

Now I think that would hurt...

[garyk]

I don't think I've ever before spent three sessions in Tillamook's Jaws, on the prime of the tides, and only seen a single chinook caught..... with that in mind, it's time to bring this thread back to the top.

And I'll add this news bit to it:

"While salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery has been reduced thus far in 2008, it has been an ongoing issue for the last few years. From 2003 to 2006, the number of Chinook salmon hauled up in pollock nets rose steadily from 55,594 to 87,771. 2007 saw that number skyrocket to more than 130,000. To put this 130,000 Chinook salmon in perspective, the number intentionally caught in the entire commercial salmon fishery of Chinook salmon in Alaska in 2007 was around 560,000, and the number of Chinook salmon caught by sport fishermen that same year was only 76,000."