Chinook Tanking... - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-08-2019, 04:58 PM   #1
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,275
Default Chinook Tanking...

... throughout their ENTIRE North Pacific range.


Add this one to the growing list of chinook closures for 2019....


http://aksportingjournal.com/kuskokw...6CpLjzby5he3ic


So lets see, starting in the Alaska Far West, we've got the Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, Copper, all the trans-boundary arteries of SE-AK... Alsek Taku Stikine Unuk, BC's Nass Skeena and Fraser, and of course Mother Columbia.


The PFMC and the NPFMC and the PST folks oughta be scared $h!tle$$ right now as a region-wide collapse paralleling the collapse of "inexhaustible" Atlantic NE cod stocks is imminent.


These agencies are obviously too pre-occupied with re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-08-2019, 05:07 PM   #2
Don G Baldi
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Salem/Little Italy
Posts: 9,611
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Clearly, shutting down more hatcheries will allow natural stocks to increase back to historic levels. That's what I read here on ifish.
__________________
Common sense isn't evenly distributed
Don G Baldi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 05:21 PM   #3
stumpyin08
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Over the horizon.
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Don, I hope you are trying to be funny.

There are no hatcheries on the Kuskokwim system.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fi...s/ak_hatch.pdf

A true wild river.

One native village is in talks to establish one, though.
stumpyin08 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 04-08-2019, 05:38 PM   #4
Don G Baldi
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Salem/Little Italy
Posts: 9,611
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by stumpyin08 View Post
Don, I hope you are trying to be funny.

There are no hatcheries on the Kuskokwim system.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fi...s/ak_hatch.pdf

A true wild river.

One native village is in talks to establish one, though.
Tongue in cheek. But there are some regular ifish posters that claim fewer hatcheries will mean more fish. What we have now is a put-and-take fishery. Seems to me it would be an end to any salmon season at all without hatchery fish. Put me down for pumping out as many mutts fish as possible and don't clip them.
__________________
Common sense isn't evenly distributed
Don G Baldi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 06:09 PM   #5
Bill Monroe
 
Bill Monroe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oregon City
Posts: 21,486
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Doesn't strike me as doomsday...concerning certainly, but the ocean turned around this spring...
Just sayin Francis...
__________________
Bill Monroe

"Yet it isn't the gold that I'm wanting
So much as just finding the gold."
Robert Service



Bill Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 06:46 PM   #6
stumpyin08
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Over the horizon.
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

For some perspective:

The Yukon and the Kuskokwim drain about half of Alaska's interior. That's just two of the closed rivers.
stumpyin08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 07:16 PM   #7
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

Francis concerns are legit esp considering BC and Alaska stocks are NOT rebounding.
The cumulative effects of bottomfish trawl might be the single biggest limiting factor that we as humans can control to help these fish recover.
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 07:19 PM   #8
pony keg
Steelhead
 
pony keg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 304
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Sad all the way around, issues are never addressed until it’s to late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pony keg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 07:56 PM   #9
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynmon View Post
Francis concerns are legit esp considering BC and Alaska stocks are NOT rebounding.
The cumulative effects of bottomfish trawl might be the single biggest limiting factor that we as humans can control to help these fish recover.
According ADFG it's ocean conditions.


http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...inookruns_info




What is causing low runs of Chinook salmon in Alaska?

Numerous physical and biological factors can influence production and survival of Chinook salmon in the freshwater and marine phases of their lifecycle. Research through this initiative suggests that most of the Chinook salmon mortality is occurring in the first few months of life at sea. Additional research is needed to gain a better understanding of the primary factors that are affecting Chinook productivity and abundance. Fluctuations in the survival of Chinook salmon smolt can significantly alter run strengths at local, regional, and statewide scales. For instance, the long-term marine survival for four Southeast stocks has been about four percent, meaning for every 100 smolt that emigrate to sea, four fish will return as adults over the next one to five years. Research has shown that during the period of poor production, marine survival has dipped below one percent. This decrease in marine survival, even in the face of some very good freshwater production in several systems, has resulted in a major downturn in overall adult production. The exact mechanisms behind the increased mortality rates are unknown, but environmental conditions such as precipitation, air and ocean temperatures and water currents, to name a few, are believed to affect juvenile salmon survival.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame

Last edited by freespool; 04-08-2019 at 07:59 PM.
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:03 PM   #10
Jimmy Carl Black
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newport
Posts: 1,042
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
... throughout their ENTIRE North Pacific range.


Add this one to the growing list of chinook closures for 2019....


http://aksportingjournal.com/kuskokw...6CpLjzby5he3ic


So lets see, starting in the Alaska Far West, we've got the Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, Copper, all the trans-boundary arteries of SE-AK... Alsek Taku Stikine Unuk, BC's Nass Skeena and Fraser, and of course Mother Columbia.


The PFMC and the NPFMC and the PST folks oughta be scared $h!tle$$ right now as a region-wide collapse paralleling the collapse of "inexhaustible" Atlantic NE cod stocks is imminent.


These agencies are obviously too pre-occupied with re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I always tend to protract my viewpoint on large ecological issues and I know that it's not always the best approach or most productive but this is beyond a region wide collapse.
__________________
"To cease smoking is the easiest thing I ever did; I ought to know because I've done it a thousand times."
~Mark Twain

Do not quench your inspiration and your imagination; do not become the slave of your model
~Vincent Van Gogh
Jimmy Carl Black is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:05 PM   #11
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

At what point do you open your eyes and look at these issues with a comprehensive approach? While ocean conditions overall are reducing chinook survivals in-river conservation is at unprecedented levels from Oregon to Kotzabue and none of these populations are rebounding.
The one common theme that many of these fish share is cumulative effects of bycatch in these trawl fisheries that have found numerous loopholes to NOT record bycatch.
For example 50% of annual harvest of Oregon chinook takes place in AK and Canada. Now add annual bycatch impacts on these fish and its pretty simple to see they are being over'exploited just like wild coho in the NW in the early 90's.
To your point ocean conditions combined with the 1-2 knock-out punch of ocean commercial over-explotation not only is severely depressing these populations but reducing the age and size of these fish.
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:17 PM   #12
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynmon View Post
At what point do you open your eyes and look at these issues with a comprehensive approach? While ocean conditions overall are reducing chinook survivals in-river conservation is at unprecedented levels from Oregon to Kotzabue and none of these populations are rebounding.
The one common theme that many of these fish share is cumulative effects of bycatch in these trawl fisheries that have found numerous loopholes to NOT record bycatch.
For example 50% of annual harvest of Oregon chinook takes place in AK and Canada. Now add annual bycatch impacts on these fish and its pretty simple to see they are being over'exploited just like wild coho in the NW in the early 90's.
To your point ocean conditions combined with the 1-2 knock-out punch of ocean commercial over-explotation not only is severely depressing these populations but reducing the age and size of these fish.

Can you please post links that back your opinion?
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:25 PM   #13
Big Game Fishing
 
Big Game Fishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Astoria, Oregon
Posts: 4,629
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Can you please post links that back your opinion?
https://www.dsfu.org/news-2/2018/11/...cation-program

You think stuff like this isn't a problem?

Just ocean conditions? Stream quality? Logging practices?
Big Game Fishing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:27 PM   #14
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

Freespool I don't have time to educate the masses that don't want to research these issues themselves. Its taken years to develop these opinions and not Ali the information is found in the same place.
I can tell you that after 20 summers in Alaska of which a third was working conducting fisheries science ADFG wouldn't be my first choice for finding the answers. NOAA, NMFS, and USFWS research is a good place to start considering ADFG is crippled by management biology.
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:28 PM   #15
fishchaser
Ifish Nate
 
fishchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Happy Rock, Or
Posts: 3,396
Default Chinook TANKING...

Well considering that the Fukushima has been spewing radioactive water from its nuclear plant, for the last 8 years, at 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found. And since the China Syndrome is happening, and the ground water is being contaminated now. Maybe we can add this to the problem with the ocean.
It’s a cumulative of over harvesting, radiation, plastics, red tides, and overall, Hot water.
No wonder there is anything left swimming out there.
Kill the bait fish, kill the oceans.

“Mar 29, 2018 · Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean, study finds. More than seven years after the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, radioactive water is continuing to flow into the Pacific Ocean from the crippled No. 1 plant at a rate of around 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found.” (The Japan Times)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
I'm retired, having fun is MY JOB!!
TEAM BANANA
US Army Retired
Member # 496
fishchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:33 PM   #16
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynmon View Post
Freespool I don't have time to educate the masses that don't want to research these issues themselves. Its taken years to develop these opinions and not Ali the information is found in the same place.
I can tell you that after 20 summers in Alaska of which a third was working conducting fisheries science ADFG wouldn't be my first choice for finding the answers. NOAA, NMFS, and USFWS research is a good place to start considering ADFG is crippled by management biology.

See that's the deal here, everybody wants to learn, but without links it's just your opinion.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:34 PM   #17
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

Maybe I should state my case in more practical terms. The one common theme that chinnok from Tillamook, BC, Cook Inlet, and Yukon is bottomfish trawl bycatch.... just think about that for a while.
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:48 PM   #18
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynmon View Post
Maybe I should state my case in more practical terms. The one common theme that chinnok from Tillamook, BC, Cook Inlet, and Yukon is bottomfish trawl bycatch.... just think about that for a while.


Then you shouldn't haver any problem finding information that will back what you say.
See here's the deal there's no question bycatch happens, however saying it's the reason chinook stocks are failing will take some proving.
As for ADFG not being credible, no offense but I'll take the word of a fisheries biologist over a sport fisherman all day long.
Your not the first person to have that opinion here, and thus far nobody has supported it with facts.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame

Last edited by freespool; 04-08-2019 at 08:55 PM.
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:59 PM   #19
Big Game Fishing
 
Big Game Fishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Astoria, Oregon
Posts: 4,629
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Then you shouldn't haver any problem finding information that will back what you say.
See here's the deal there's no question bycatch happens, however saying it's the reason chinook stocks are failing will take some proving.
As for ADFG not being credible, no offense but I'll take the word of a fisheries biologist over a sport fisherman all day long.
Your not the first person to have that opinion here, and thus far nobody has supported with facts.
Did you read the link I posted?

The commercial guys are turning on themselves because they know it's a problem. ADFG doesn't have your proof because the commercial fleet has a loophole to bypass observation of by catch.

The article specifically cites excessive by catch of Chinook in the 2016 Pollock fishery. Do you think issues like that could be related to our stock status in 2019?

Come on, surely we can use common sense to connect some of these dots?
Big Game Fishing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 09:11 PM   #20
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Game Fishing View Post
Did you read the link I posted?

The commercial guys are turning on themselves because they know it's a problem. ADFG doesn't have your proof because the commercial fleet has a loophole to bypass observation of by catch.

The article specifically cites excessive by catch of Chinook in the 2016 Pollock fishery. Do you think issues like that could be related to our stock status in 2019?

Come on, surely we can use common sense to connect some of these dots?
I don't connect fisheries dots, but I know who does, and currently they are not going down that rabbit hole.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 09:11 PM   #21
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

Freespool I'm sure your familiar with google. Just search trawl bycatch composition in NOAA reports. The CPR pod these effects can't be integrated as it's a fact that these impacts are underestimated.
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 09:14 PM   #22
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynmon View Post
Freespool I'm sure your familiar with google. Just search trawl bycatch composition in NOAA reports. The CPR pod these effects can't be integrated as it's a fact that these impacts are underestimated.
Nobody is saying bycatch isn't happening, what their not saying is it's the reason for the decline, big difference.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 09:19 PM   #23
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

Have you ever wondered why the size and age of north migrating stocks continues decline through out their range yet south migrating stocks don't seem to be affected by this phenomenon?

Science is answering an interesting question Freespool. I fully realize you want to disprove my ideas over seeing the possible relevance of them.
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 09:22 PM   #24
Big Game Fishing
 
Big Game Fishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Astoria, Oregon
Posts: 4,629
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Nobody is saying bycatch isn't happening, what their not saying is it's the reason for the decline, big difference.
If your "best available peer reviewed science" is based on incomplete by catch data, how can they accurately rule out by catch as a limiting factor in stock abundance?

The data is corrupt.

Wow. Just wow.
Big Game Fishing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 09:24 PM   #25
Finsalong
Tuna!
 
Finsalong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Round the bend, below the riffle
Posts: 1,275
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishchaser View Post
Well considering that the Fukushima has been spewing radioactive water from its nuclear plant, for the last 8 years, at 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found. And since the China Syndrome is happening, and the ground water is being contaminated now. Maybe we can add this to the problem with the ocean.
It’s a cumulative of over harvesting, radiation, plastics, red tides, and overall, Hot water.
No wonder there is anything left swimming out there.
Kill the bait fish, kill the oceans.

“Mar 29, 2018 · Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean, study finds. More than seven years after the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, radioactive water is continuing to flow into the Pacific Ocean from the crippled No. 1 plant at a rate of around 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found.” (The Japan Times)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



One thing is for sure, once all the fish (salmon included) are gone you will have widespread research drilling, mining, excavation and extraction.
__________________
In All The World No Finer Rod
Finsalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 10:27 PM   #26
stumpyin08
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Over the horizon.
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
See that's the deal here, everybody wants to learn, but without links it's just your opinion.


Do your own research, you'll find more that what you're looking for.
stumpyin08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 10:53 PM   #27
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by stumpyin08 View Post
Do your own research, you'll find more that what you're looking for.
I have and the answer seems to be ocean conditions, but that doesn't seem to match some people's narrative.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 11:23 PM   #28
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

So ocean conditions explain the 25% reduction in body size and overall age at maturity of all north migrating chinook through out thier range?

Really?

Last edited by Tynmon; 04-08-2019 at 11:54 PM.
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 04:46 AM   #29
Swifty27
Ifish Nate
 
Swifty27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tri-Cities, WA
Posts: 3,366
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

waterproof cameras and memory has gotten so inexpensive. It still blows me away that there's any argument about what's being caught. Cameras on the deck to be reviewed for bycatch seems more accurate and way more cost effective than paying observers to be on a boat all day.
__________________
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true." - Robert Wilensky, speech at a 1996 conference
Swifty27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 05:11 AM   #30
jacksalmon
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: portland
Posts: 3,329
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Then you shouldn't haver any problem finding information that will back what you say.
See here's the deal there's no question bycatch happens, however saying it's the reason chinook stocks are failing will take some proving.
As for ADFG not being credible, no offense but I'll take the word of a fisheries biologist over a sport fisherman all day long.
Your not the first person to have that opinion here, and thus far nobody has supported it with facts.
Since you will take the word of fisheries biologists over a sport fisher all day long, I am sure you see no problem with the increase in chinook take for the SE Alaska chinook troll fishery this summer right after the NW Oregon rivers were closed to chinook fishing last fall because of insufficient spawners. That this increase in commercial killing is happening is biologist approved, so my opinion that this is tragic does not count.

Here is the information straight from the source. I hope this meets the qualifications you set for accurate, peer-reviewed, factual posts:

"The Alaska Department of Fish and Game Monday, April 1 announced the all-gear harvest limit for chinook at 137,500. That number is set under the Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement and based on commercial trolling catch rates during the early winter season near Sitka.
Most of that, or 101,300 kings, goes to the commercial troll fleet. That’s an increase over last year’s troll allocation by 5600 chinook.
Some 25,300 fish are allocated to the sport fishing fleet and the remainder are caught in commercial net fisheries."

Yes, I know that SE Alaska is not near the Kuskokwim. But, the SE troll slaughter season was set with fishery biologist approval and will continue to decimate Oregon chinook simply for the sake of money, which, I guess, counts more than anything else in your world. I assume you love the Alaska commercials making money, while the Oregon sports get the short end.

That the commercial take of chinook salmon should be terminated is my opinion, but I am just a sport fisher, so in your world that opinion does not count either. Those fishery biologists know better how to make the chinook go extinct-----just kill 'em commercially. [The Pacific Fishery Management Council] will keep the commercial slaughter going off Oregon and Washington next week when they approve more killing for the commercial troll fleets of those states. But, that is just more fishery biologist approved slaughter, so it is okay, right?

Last edited by jacksalmon; 04-09-2019 at 06:02 AM.
jacksalmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 05:20 AM   #31
jacksalmon
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: portland
Posts: 3,329
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Nobody is saying bycatch isn't happening, what their not saying is it's the reason for the decline, big difference.
Maybe some bycatch is inevitable in order to preserve the trawl fisheries, but is it being reduced to its absolute minimum even at the cost of less money for the trawlers? I am sure that is not the case, given the fishery "managers" bias in favor of money interests when it comes to setting regulations. When one adds in the take of the commercial trollers, do you still think that the commercial killing of chinook, whether by troll or trawl, has nothing to do with their decline?

Let's say that ocean conditions are a big factor in the decline of chinook in the Pacific, then why should the biased managers allow their commercial killing as they decline for other reasons? Isn't it time to make the chinook a game fish and stop their commercial slaughter? Ducks and geese were made game birds, the take of which was reserved for sport hunters. Why shouldn't the chinook get the same treatment with regard to sport fishers?

Or do you long for the good old days when market hunters used to kill hundreds of ducks and geese in a day? Those were great times, weren't they? Don't you just love all those old time photos showing all those chinook rotting on the docks on the Astoria canneries waiting to be canned? I suppose that commercial slaughter had nothing to do with the demise of the Columbia chinook either, right? It was the ocean condition problems of the 1890s and 1900s that led to that demise, right?

Last edited by jacksalmon; 04-09-2019 at 06:04 AM.
jacksalmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 06:35 AM   #32
flatman
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: north coast
Posts: 7,571
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

neither sport catch nor commercial catch needs to be supported if it is leading to the extinction of the fish. simple as that.


and if the fish are approaching a tipping point drastic action should be taken to stop the trend.
flatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 06:44 AM   #33
No Reservations
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bend Or
Posts: 1,657
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Monroe View Post
Doesn't strike me as doomsday...concerning certainly, but the ocean turned around this spring...
Just sayin Francis...


Yes that seen a lot of ups and downs over the last 40 years. Although I know little about the rivers up in Alaska you are referencing to have done in the down times.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No Reservations is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 06:50 AM   #34
Shanel
Tuna!
 
Shanel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,330
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Can you please post links that back your opinion?


Shanel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 06:54 AM   #35
No Reservations
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bend Or
Posts: 1,657
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...



If you are referring to my post I guess time will tell! I’m not sure our fish biologists have ever been real keen at predicting ocean conditions or fish runs. I do agree change to our consumption habits need to change dramatically.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No Reservations is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 09:20 AM   #36
wak'm&stak'm
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Jacksonville Ore.
Posts: 5,411
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Leaving tomorrow meet up with my nephew who just got back from Adak on 16 hour cod season, since they drag for pollock, sole, and rock...I will ask about the by-catch.....May as well go to the source.
wak'm&stak'm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 09:39 AM   #37
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynmon View Post
So ocean conditions explain the 25% reduction in body size and overall age at maturity of all north migrating chinook through out thier range?

Really?

Perhaps we have to many salmon.


https://fisheries.org/2018/04/new-re...pacific-ocean/


“While it is good that abundance of Sockeye, Chum, and Pink salmon is high, there is growing evidence that this high abundance, especially Pink Salmon, is impacting the offshore ecosystem of the North Pacific and Bering Sea,” said lead researcher Dr. Greg Ruggerone. “This impact may be contributing to the decline of higher trophic species of salmon such as Chinook Salmon in Alaska. Hatchery salmon are exceptionally abundant now and contribute to this impact.”




http://www.cbbulletin.com/399883.aspx


“The large number of hatchery fish can lead to suppressed growth of wild stocks – especially in the years when ocean conditions are less favorable to supporting large number of salmon in the ocean. This can be critical for less productive, less abundant wild stocks.”
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame

Last edited by freespool; 04-09-2019 at 10:08 AM.
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 09:56 AM   #38
jacksalmon
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: portland
Posts: 3,329
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by flatman View Post
neither sport catch nor commercial catch needs to be supported if it is leading to the extinction of the fish. simple as that.


and if the fish are approaching a tipping point drastic action should be taken to stop the trend.
Let them get rid of commercial chinook salmon killing before they ban the sports and see what happens to the runs. Then, ban the sports, if the runs don't improve.

Last edited by jacksalmon; 04-09-2019 at 09:58 AM.
jacksalmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 10:12 AM   #39
Gun Rod Bow
King Salmon
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 13,845
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Can you please post links that back your opinion?

Wow. Lol
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Bundìn er bàtlaus mađur
Gun Rod Bow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 11:17 AM   #40
wak'm&stak'm
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Jacksonville Ore.
Posts: 5,411
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Terns and cormorants
Seals
Logging
Plastics
POLITICAL crap!
Hatcheries
Genetics
Feed supply
Blob
Ocean acidification
Commercial harvest
Reduced stream flow
Sport harvest
By-catch

Pick your poison, there is plenty of studies to quote that will support the pros and cons either way.

I say open the season on terns, cormorants, seals and politics.
Ramp up the hatcheries,...... if I was king for a day, that’s where I would start.
wak'm&stak'm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 01:01 PM   #41
jacksalmon
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: portland
Posts: 3,329
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Perhaps we have to many salmon.


https://fisheries.org/2018/04/new-re...pacific-ocean/


“While it is good that abundance of Sockeye, Chum, and Pink salmon is high, there is growing evidence that this high abundance, especially Pink Salmon, is impacting the offshore ecosystem of the North Pacific and Bering Sea,” said lead researcher Dr. Greg Ruggerone. “This impact may be contributing to the decline of higher trophic species of salmon such as Chinook Salmon in Alaska. Hatchery salmon are exceptionally abundant now and contribute to this impact.”




http://www.cbbulletin.com/399883.aspx


“The large number of hatchery fish can lead to suppressed growth of wild stocks – especially in the years when ocean conditions are less favorable to supporting large number of salmon in the ocean. This can be critical for less productive, less abundant wild stocks.”
To the extent that a large number of hatchery sockeye, chums and pinks released mainly for the benefit of the commercial industries hinder the natural production of chinook and coho, then the answer is real simple, knock down the number of those hatchery fish to make more feed available to wild and hatchery chinook and coho.

Of course, that won't happen, though, because the powers totally support the commercial industry take of sockeye, chums and pinks because that is where the money is. The hell with chinook and coho, especially if it is some trivial species like wild Oregon north coast chinook. That is the attitude of those deciding whether to flood the Pacific with hatchery sockeye, chums and pinks. The powers would like nothing better than to see the Oregon coast wild chinook go extinct, so they won't have to deal with them in approving increasing releases of sockeye, chums and pinks. They won't have to worry about those chinook not getting enough feed after the other salmon scarf it all up because there won't be any chinook. Perfect solution for the powers and the harvesters of sockeye, chums and pinks!!!

That this is a problem is well-established by scientific findings, but is only viewed as a problem by those who care about the welfare of wild and hatchery chinook. They can't get enough feed because it is scarfed up by the other salmon species who get out in the ocean before the chinook and coho do. Then, after not getting feed the chinook get harvested by the troll fleet while weighing much less than they would, if more feed were available to them. Those poor chinook; and there is absolutely no one who cares about them except the PETA people and other greeny organizations.

The fish departments and hypocritical organizations like Pacific Fishery Management Council are only interested in maximizing the number of chinook harvested by commercials not about their welfare in general. Just watch next week when they give the Oregon and Washington commercial troll fleet a bigger chinook quota than they had last year after poor returns throughout Oregon and Washington last fall. Let's kill them in quantity and as soon as possible.

Last edited by jacksalmon; 04-09-2019 at 01:04 PM.
jacksalmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 06:12 PM   #42
budnate
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,225
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishchaser View Post
Well considering that the Fukushima has been spewing radioactive water from its nuclear plant, for the last 8 years, at 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found. And since the China Syndrome is happening, and the ground water is being contaminated now. Maybe we can add this to the problem with the ocean.
It’s a cumulative of over harvesting, radiation, plastics, red tides, and overall, Hot water.
No wonder there is anything left swimming out there.
Kill the bait fish, kill the oceans.

“Mar 29, 2018 · Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean, study finds. More than seven years after the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, radioactive water is continuing to flow into the Pacific Ocean from the crippled No. 1 plant at a rate of around 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found.” (The Japan Times)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is a big deal, and no one is talking about it, even here on ifish ....its hitting our shores and f...... the water up bad for the fish, youtube geiger counters and people walking around on the beach.... you dont think our shellfish and resident rock fish are HOT.... think again .
budnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:26 AM   #43
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,545
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Reading all of this explains why NMFS is being sued, bottom line they better figure it out and continuing harvest while stocks continue to decline is POOR management, period.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:58 AM   #44
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,275
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Yes, stocks cycle up and down through history. Typically, when the stocks in the southern range are doing poorly, the northern range is thriving.... and vice verse. This has been strongly correlated to PDO here in the PNW.



But what's different about this go around is that stocks are plummeting in the chinook's ENTIRE North Pacific range. EVERY major chinook-producing artery is in decline all at once.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 10:07 AM   #45
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

Interceptions of western Alaska salmon by commercial salmon fisheries in other
regions of Alaska have been a longstanding concern, particularly interceptions by the
South Unimak Island (False Pass) and Shumagin Island fisheries, also called “South
Peninsula June fisheries”, and in non-terminal areas by the South Alaska Peninsula Post-
June fisheries (Eggers et al. 1991; Shaul et al. 2004a,b). These fisheries are collectively
called the “Area M” fisheries. Shaul (2003) reviewed the history of the South Peninsula
June fisheries, which began in 1911. These fisheries target maturing sockeye salmon, but
also have a large incidental harvest of chum salmon and other species, which are caught
along their migration routes from the Gulf of Alaska to the Bering Sea. Harvests of chum
salmon by the June fishery averaged 186,000 fish in 1960-1969, 306,000 fish in 1970-
1979, and 566,000 fish in 1980-1987, including a record harvest of 1.1 million fish in
1982 (Eggers et al. 1991). From 1994-2003, harvests by the June fishery have averaged
4,370 Chinook, 1,133,297 sockeye, 2,234 coho, 485,308 pink, and 324,1
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 10:08 AM   #46
Tynmon
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Default

The effect of groundfish trawl fisheries operating in the Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska on returns of Chinook and chum salmon to western Alaska has been a major
concern since 1977, when the NMFS scientific observer program began to provide
estimates of salmon bycatch by foreign vessels operating in the U.S. 200-mile zone
(French et al. 1982). Compared to interceptions by the former Japanese high seas salmon
driftnet fisheries, however, the estimated interceptions of Yukon River and Kuskokwim
River Chinook salmon by foreign and joint-venture groundfish trawl fisheries in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) region of the U.S. 200-mile zone in 1977-1985
were relatively low (15,200 fish in 1977, 13,600 fish in 1978, 43,500 fish in 1979, 40,000
fish in 1980, 11,200 fish in 1981, 5,300 fish in 1982, 3,600 fish in 1983, 3,900 fish in
1984, 3,400 fish in 1985, and 2,000 fish in 1986; Myers and Rogers 1988). The foreign
and joint-venture fisheries in the U.S. 200 mile-zone were rapidly phased out as the U.S.
groundfish fishing industry reached full capacity. Since then, there have been only a few
attempts to quantify the stock composition of salmon bycatch, which is largely chum and
Chinook salmon (Berger 2003). Estimates of the stock composition of chum salmon in
incidental catches by U.S. trawl fisheries in the Bering Sea in 1994 indicated that 39-55%
originated in Asia, 20-35% in western Alaska, and 21-23% in southeastern Alaska,
British Columbia or Washington (Wilmot et al. 1998). In 1995, 11% of the chum
bycatch by the U.S. Bering Sea trawl fishery was sampled, and an estimated 13-51%
originated in Asia, 33-53% in western Alaska, and 9-46 % in southeastern Alaska, British
Columbia or Washington (Wilmot et al. 1998). A substantial bycatch of chum and
Chinook salmon also occurs in U.S. trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (Berger 2003),
although there are no estimates of the stock composition of the salmon bycatch in this
region. Witherell et al. (2002) reviewed available information on salmon bycatch in U.S.
groundfish fisheries in from 1990-2001, and estimated that an annual bycatch of 30,000
immature Chinook salmon in the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries equates to an adult
equivalent bycatch (fish that would have returned to spawn had they not been
intercepted) of 14,581 western Alaska Chinook salmon or a 2.7% reduction in western
Alaska Chinook salmon runs (catch and escapement). Witherell et al. discussed problems
with estimating salmon bycatch in the U.S. groundfish trawl fisheries, including the lack
of recent estimates of stock composition, and recommended that a high priority be given
to salmon stock composition research.
Myers et al. (2003) used scale pattern analysis to estimate the bycatch of western
Tynmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 11:27 AM   #47
Half Watt
Cutthroat
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 32
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Chinook have a different diet then the other species of salmon. Are we over harvesting the things they consume (eg. herring)? I’ve seen the videos of them using helicopters to spot large schools of herring, and then the boats running big giant nets around the schooling fish. These large breeding herring they catch are used only for their roe and it is all being sent to Japan.
Half Watt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 01:22 PM   #48
jacksalmon
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: portland
Posts: 3,329
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Yes, stocks cycle up and down through history. Typically, when the stocks in the southern range are doing poorly, the northern range is thriving.... and vice verse. This has been strongly correlated to PDO here in the PNW.



But what's different about this go around is that stocks are plummeting in the chinook's ENTIRE North Pacific range. EVERY major chinook-producing artery is in decline all at once.
Why should the average sport fisher care about having chinook declines in all major chinook-producing arteries all at once when the fate of rich diners is at stake? We need to continue to have a commercial harvest of chinook for their sake. If the species goes extinct, at least the commercial trollers can say they made a lot of money from; and the diners can say they got to eat the last of the chinook.

Keep the commercial slaughter going. That this is the way the managers are responding to the decline of the species throughout the Pacific basin is very appropriate. To have those diners eat anything other than near extinct chinook would be a true tragedy. As a society, we must insure that this does not happen.
jacksalmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 01:28 PM   #49
jacksalmon
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: portland
Posts: 3,329
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynmon View Post
The effect of groundfish trawl fisheries operating in the Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska on returns of Chinook and chum salmon to western Alaska has been a major
concern since 1977, when the NMFS scientific observer program began to provide
estimates of salmon bycatch by foreign vessels operating in the U.S. 200-mile zone
(French et al. 1982). Compared to interceptions by the former Japanese high seas salmon
driftnet fisheries, however, the estimated interceptions of Yukon River and Kuskokwim
River Chinook salmon by foreign and joint-venture groundfish trawl fisheries in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) region of the U.S. 200-mile zone in 1977-1985
were relatively low (15,200 fish in 1977, 13,600 fish in 1978, 43,500 fish in 1979, 40,000
fish in 1980, 11,200 fish in 1981, 5,300 fish in 1982, 3,600 fish in 1983, 3,900 fish in
1984, 3,400 fish in 1985, and 2,000 fish in 1986; Myers and Rogers 1988). The foreign
and joint-venture fisheries in the U.S. 200 mile-zone were rapidly phased out as the U.S.
groundfish fishing industry reached full capacity. Since then, there have been only a few
attempts to quantify the stock composition of salmon bycatch, which is largely chum and
Chinook salmon (Berger 2003). Estimates of the stock composition of chum salmon in
incidental catches by U.S. trawl fisheries in the Bering Sea in 1994 indicated that 39-55%
originated in Asia, 20-35% in western Alaska, and 21-23% in southeastern Alaska,
British Columbia or Washington (Wilmot et al. 1998). In 1995, 11% of the chum
bycatch by the U.S. Bering Sea trawl fishery was sampled, and an estimated 13-51%
originated in Asia, 33-53% in western Alaska, and 9-46 % in southeastern Alaska, British
Columbia or Washington (Wilmot et al. 1998). A substantial bycatch of chum and
Chinook salmon also occurs in U.S. trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (Berger 2003),
although there are no estimates of the stock composition of the salmon bycatch in this
region. Witherell et al. (2002) reviewed available information on salmon bycatch in U.S.
groundfish fisheries in from 1990-2001, and estimated that an annual bycatch of 30,000
immature Chinook salmon in the Bering Sea groundfish fisheries equates to an adult
equivalent bycatch (fish that would have returned to spawn had they not been
intercepted) of 14,581 western Alaska Chinook salmon or a 2.7% reduction in western
Alaska Chinook salmon runs (catch and escapement). Witherell et al. discussed problems
with estimating salmon bycatch in the U.S. groundfish trawl fisheries, including the lack
of recent estimates of stock composition, and recommended that a high priority be given
to salmon stock composition research.
Myers et al. (2003) used scale pattern analysis to estimate the bycatch of western

How much bycatch of chinook should be allowed in the trawl industry is at least a debatable proposition. That the direct commercial take of chinook salmon by the trollers from Alaska to California should be terminated is not capable of being debated. It must be ended. The chinook should be made a game fish subject only to sport catch just like ducks and geese can only be killed by sports.

If sport predation continues to threaten the existence of the chinook after a few years of no commercial fishing for them, then the sport take must also be stopped. If the chinook ever regain abundance, the sport take can be restored, but the commercial take must continue to be banned.

Ok, now is the time for all you commercial chinook fishery lovers to pile on. Just do it.
jacksalmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 01:39 PM   #50
Wreckless
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hillsboro OR
Posts: 11,165
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksalmon View Post
The chinook should be made a game fish subject only to sport catch just like ducks and geese can only be killed by sports.

Ok, now is the time for all you commercial chinook fishery lovers to pile on. Just do it.
I can't imagine this ever happening, but IT'S TIME!! Chinook salmon (all salmon?) should be classified as game fish and protected for sports and indigenous harvest.
__________________
Owner/Operator: "I Can't Believe it's a Guide Service".....I miss you Dale!

"Today's the day"......Mel Fisher
Wreckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 07:51 PM   #51
pinhead2
Chromer
 
pinhead2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 994
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by budnate View Post
this is a big deal, and no one is talking about it, even here on ifish ....its hitting our shores and f...... the water up bad for the fish, youtube geiger counters and people walking around on the beach.... you dont think our shellfish and resident rock fish are HOT.... think again .
No, this is NOT a big deal. From Woods Hole:

The amount of cesium-134 reported in these new offshore data is less than 2 Becquerels per cubic meter (the number of decay events per second per 260 gallons of water). This Fukushima-derived cesium is far below where one might expect any measurable risk to human health or marine life, according to international health agencies. And it is more than 1000 times lower than acceptable limits in drinking water set by US EPA.

That was back in 2014. The following is excerpted from the InForm study in 2018:

Maximum contamination levels in seawater from Fukushima measured in waters offshore (~1500 km) and onshore British Columbia are now known to be about 8 to 10-fold lower than levels present in the North Pacific during the height of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Here, I've done some of the research for anyone that is interested:

https://fukushimainform.ca
pinhead2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 09:13 PM   #52
flatman
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: north coast
Posts: 7,571
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

its all cumulative and no amount is really safe. each person is different and its only your chances of getting cancer from radiation that changes when exposed. the less the less chance you get it. and no one knows what small doses will do to you.


just like radon gas in many houses. its the 2nd leading cause of cancer deaths, and most dont even know they have it in their house without testing.
flatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 05:07 AM   #53
jacksalmon
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: portland
Posts: 3,329
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wreckless View Post
I can't imagine this ever happening, but IT'S TIME!! Chinook salmon (all salmon?) should be classified as game fish and protected for sports and indigenous harvest.
Welcome to the club. But, to be fair to the commercials, it seems that their sockeye harvest does no real harm to the species. Therefore, let them harvest and let the rich diners eat sockeye. There is no need to feed the world the declining chinook salmon. I have no problem with the commercial exploitation of species that are abundant and doing well and whose numbers are not negatively by commercial harvest. However, when the Pacific chinook are declining, to allow their commercial harvest is immoral. It should also be illegal.

Last edited by jacksalmon; 04-11-2019 at 05:10 AM.
jacksalmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 10:08 AM   #54
roosevelt
King Salmon
 
roosevelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: transient
Posts: 23,196
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Monroe View Post
Doesn't strike me as doomsday...concerning certainly, but the ocean turned around this spring...
Just sayin Francis...
my thoughts as well. it wasn't that many years ago we had a spell of terrible runs that was followed by a spell of incredible returns.... ebb and flow of ocean conditions. i'm relatively young (35) relatively, and in that short time, I have seen a few cycles of varying abundance.... when the returns are down, everyone claims the world is coming to an end.... then just forget all about the world ending when it turns around

we do have a little storm to weather, but I think it will be business as usual in a few years
roosevelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 10:14 AM   #55
roosevelt
King Salmon
 
roosevelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: transient
Posts: 23,196
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

on the other side of this, the conditions that have been hard on salmon has been really good for other species, like nearshore rockfish stocks. through this el Niño period, we have had had some huge rockfish cohorts, and some other species have done really well too.... the health of our overall ecosystem doesn't revolve completely around salmon
roosevelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 10:25 AM   #56
stumpyin08
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Over the horizon.
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

The state of Alaska has also closed the Susitna and Little Susitna rivers, both just north of Anchorage, and restricted fishing in the upper Cook Inlet.

From The Anchorage Daily News: https://www.adn.com/business-economy...er-cook-inlet/

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game issued three emergency orders on Tuesday closing or restricting king salmon sport fishing in the Susitna River drainage and Little Susitna River drainage as well as king salmon commercial fishing in the Northern district of the Upper Cook Inlet.

Citing below-average king salmon returns in recent years, Fish and Game said in a news release that sport fishing for king salmon will be closed in the entire Susitna River drainage, though catch-and-release will be open in the Deshka and Yentna river drainages. In the Little Susitna River drainage, king salmon fishing will be allowed, but the fish may only be retained on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays. Those orders go into effect May 1 and run through July 13.

Commercial king salmon fishing with setnets in all waters of the northern district of upper Cook Inlet will also be closed May 28 and June 4, 11 and 18, Fish and Game said.

"It's no secret to anyone that our king salmon stocks have been in an area of low productivity lately," said Matt Miller, a sport fish management coordinator with Fish and Game. "(Restrictions) can have huge impacts and the department realizes that and takes restrictions very seriously. Our main objective is to manage these stocks for sustainability."

Over the past decade, king salmon populations in the Northern Cook Inlet river systems and statewide have trended down.
stumpyin08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 10:46 AM   #57
jds10
Steelhead
 
jds10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 194
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Monroe View Post
Doesn't strike me as doomsday...concerning certainly, but the ocean turned around this spring...
Just sayin Francis...
Here we go again. Despite the evidence, many will just say that we should just sit back and everything will be fine. The same people that urged us to cooperate with the feds over nets.
jds10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 10:57 AM   #58
MikeT
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Posts: 1,651
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jds10 View Post
Here we go again. Despite the evidence, many will just say that we should just sit back and everything will be fine. The same people that urged us to cooperate with the feds over nets.
Despite the evidence that salmon populations are cyclical, and we're now in a period of low abundance and corresponding poor ocean conditions, the same people are spouting nonsense and suggesting there's a conspiracy afoot. We've been here before and when conditions for salmon improve the population bounces back. There MIGHT be more to it than this, but so far no one has stepped forward with credible data.

So show us your evidence. I'm dying to learn what's causing low numbers.
__________________
Blessings upon all that hate contention, and love quietnesse, and vertue, and Angling. - Izaak Walton
MikeT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 11:16 AM   #59
Splash
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver USA
Posts: 3,807
Default

Are you asking for information beyond the long history of man's commercial over-exploitation of all resources and trashing of the planet?
__________________
Commercial friendly. Gillnet intolerant.
Splash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 11:21 AM   #60
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 17,964
Default Re: Chinook TANKING...

There are two factors that effect stock abundance in a major way, ocean conditions and inriver carrying capacity.
The CR once had 10-16 million salmon returns, now even during good ocean conditions we see remnant returns.
Looks to me like we traded robust salmon runs for other things.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Fall Chinook Regulations for NW Zone dizzy fisherman Ifish Community 79 11-02-2018 11:01 AM
WDFW & ODW Winter & Spring Wrap Up Info. ccw Ifish Community 3 07-04-2010 04:33 PM
ODFW News: Columbia Spring Chinook Seasons sharptooth Ifish Community 0 02-04-2005 04:54 PM
Treaty Fish Allocation Letter Arrived -- Answers? Deleted User Ifish 2000 archives 4 08-09-2000 12:57 PM



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:32 AM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 2.04642 seconds with 82 queries