The future of salmon in Puget Sound
- Thread starter localboy
- Start date
There are two major problems with salmon recovery that must be solved before there is ANY recovery. First, get ALL gill nets out of ALL waters. Gill nets can wipe out entire fish runs for small side streams since salmon tend to school together. Gill nets also select for the biggest, strongest fish. On the Columbia years ago the mesh size was 12 inches, then went to 8, now it's down to 4. Second, get the dam* sardine seines out of the salt water. Without a food source the fish can't grow or survive. The seines over fished Chesapeake Bay menhaden and the fishery collapsed. The seines went to the gulf of Mexico, the fishing collapsed, the seines went to California, the fishing collapsed. When I first was at Westport 15 years ago I was talking to an old guy on the dock. He was looking at a seiner moving by and said "I hate to see those guys coming to Westport". I asked him why. He said they destroyed fishing in California by sucking up all the bait fish so there was nothing left for the bigger fish to eat and they will do the same to Westport. He was right. There is no bait fish left out in front of Westport or any where else on the coast of Washington and guess what, the salmon fishing has collapsed. I contacted NOAA Marine Fishery about my concerns of the seiners taking to much bait about ten years ago. They told me not to worry as the seine fishery was going to only take 15% of the biomass. THERE AIN'T NOTHING LEFT OF THE MASSIVE BAIT SCHOOLS THAT USE TO BE OUT IN FRONT OF WESTPORT. No bait fish...no salmon. It's that simple.
PaulNBriannaLynn
New member
Every year the regulations for recreational fisherman in the Puget Sound become more strict. The perception is the recreational weekend warrior is having a significant impact. That may be true, and I think a lot of fisherman are willing to sacrifice for the future of our fish.
Yet I've seen commercial purse seiners come into the Puget sound, notably around marine area 9 and 8-2. Fish gather here in huge numbers feeding in schools and waiting for the fall rains to make their run up the rivers. These large ocean going vessels come in and pinpoint the schools using sonar, and place their nets around the entire schools. Fishing for the recreational guy goes from excellent, to the fish being non-existent in one day after these boats do their work in the area. I saw it happen year after year. it was a pretty commonly discussed issue around the marina, yet nobody does anything about it.
I've seen tribal nets placed on the Skagit and the Nisqually staggered in a strategic way so that no fish could possibly make it past. Its the same every year. Do they expect the fish to magically make it upriver of these nets to spawn somehow, or do they just not care?
There's an entitlement in both of these groups. They think they are entitled to the last fish left, and will take it by any means.
Its easiest to blame the guy out there fighting with barbless hooks working all day to get his fish or two to feed his family. Its much harder politically to blame the tribal poachers that nobody is willing to bust, or the commercial net boats processing millions of tons of fish for animal feed.
Alright rant over, I feel better.
:embarrased
Yet I've seen commercial purse seiners come into the Puget sound, notably around marine area 9 and 8-2. Fish gather here in huge numbers feeding in schools and waiting for the fall rains to make their run up the rivers. These large ocean going vessels come in and pinpoint the schools using sonar, and place their nets around the entire schools. Fishing for the recreational guy goes from excellent, to the fish being non-existent in one day after these boats do their work in the area. I saw it happen year after year. it was a pretty commonly discussed issue around the marina, yet nobody does anything about it.
I've seen tribal nets placed on the Skagit and the Nisqually staggered in a strategic way so that no fish could possibly make it past. Its the same every year. Do they expect the fish to magically make it upriver of these nets to spawn somehow, or do they just not care?
There's an entitlement in both of these groups. They think they are entitled to the last fish left, and will take it by any means.
Its easiest to blame the guy out there fighting with barbless hooks working all day to get his fish or two to feed his family. Its much harder politically to blame the tribal poachers that nobody is willing to bust, or the commercial net boats processing millions of tons of fish for animal feed.
Alright rant over, I feel better.
:embarrased
Believe me, I understand the tendency to blame overfishing, gillnets in the river, wanting to take the last fish etc. I took a lot of those calls during my career. But if that's what you believe, may I respectfully claim that you are misinformed or illinformed.
Go back and read the article. The whole article. With an open mind. Commercial fishing for wild Chinook salmon in Puget Sound is virtually nonexistent, has been for many years. None in the Stillaguamish River since 1986.
If you remove all harvest and a stock sustains itself at 1500 annually, that's the carrying capacity of that stock's habitat, everywhere.
Now look at Alaska. Massive fisheries with gillnets, purse seiners and trollers as well as recreational hook-and-line and in-river all-citizen subsistence gillnet fisheries for sockeye. Alaskan habitat can & does support those harvests sustainably because it has an extremely high carrying capacity.
jd
Go back and read the article. The whole article. With an open mind. Commercial fishing for wild Chinook salmon in Puget Sound is virtually nonexistent, has been for many years. None in the Stillaguamish River since 1986.
If you remove all harvest and a stock sustains itself at 1500 annually, that's the carrying capacity of that stock's habitat, everywhere.
Now look at Alaska. Massive fisheries with gillnets, purse seiners and trollers as well as recreational hook-and-line and in-river all-citizen subsistence gillnet fisheries for sockeye. Alaskan habitat can & does support those harvests sustainably because it has an extremely high carrying capacity.
jd
nimrod":1ri0ydoc said:
If you reread the my post you would notice that I said get the gill nets out of ALL water. Alaska hammers Washington (and British Columbia) fish with their gill nets and laugh at us when we complain. Of course British Columbia also hammers Washington fish to pay back the Alaskans (Americans) for hammering their fish and Washingtonians for hammering the Frazier River sockeye which move into the Straights through Washington water. Gill nets are bad in ALL water.
There are many, many issues that contribute to the decline of fish in the Puget Sound (and elsewhere) and some of the most obvious ones have been mentioned above - habitat degradation an loss, local commercial fishing (tribal and non-tribal), increased efficiency of both the recreational and commercial fleet (sonar, GPS mapping etc). A couple of less obvious factors are:
1) I don't think many realize the scale of the impact of the commercial ocean fisheries on our returning salmon. A large percentage of fish bound for our local waters are caught in Alaska and BC. For example, approximately 50% of all salmon caught in the SE Alaska commercial fishery are Columbia river bound fish. Ask any recreational fisherman who fishes on the west side of Vancouver Island and they will tell you about 90% of the fish they catch are Columbia River bound fish. E.g. without Columbia River hatcheries, much of the West coast of BC and Southern Alaska, wouldn't have much to fish on.
While the article I linked above talks about the percentage of the SE Alaska commercial catch that is Columbia River fish, it doesn't speak to the fraction of Columbia River bound fish that are caught prior to reaching the Columbia River. In many coastal river systems (Columbia, Grays Harbor), the estimates are that greater than 80% of the returning fish are caught prior to passing the south tip of Vancouver Island. There's no reason to think that anything different is happening to Puget Sound bound fish. So while we can complain about gill nets and purse seiners in our local waters, all of us are fishing on a small fraction of the available fish as most of them are removed by commercial operations prior to entering our local waters.
2) Another major issue is hatchery produced salmon and more specifically, the lack of cooperation between various governments on the percentage of planted fish and species planted. Over 5 billion (yes BILLION) hatchery raised salmon are release each year by a combination of Japan, Russia, the U.S. and Canada. Of those, the vast majority that are released are pink salmon and chum salmon. All of those fish feed in roughly the same waters (the Bering sea and the N. Pacific) on roughly the same food sources (or food sources that feed other food sources such as zooplankton and krill). So those hatchery fish and wild fish are all competing with each other for the same (limited) supply of food. There are no agreements in place to limit the number of hatchery fish produced by various governments so that those produced by others have a fair chance of survival. Rather it's a "cowboy" system whereby the most aggressive regions get back the most fish. One factor in finding smaller fish each year is undoubtedly the limited food supply being split amongst increasing numbers of hatchery (and decreasing numbers of wild) fish.
Ultimately, there are many "solutions" to the problems since there are many problems. Politically, that makes it easy for each group to point at the others and assure that nothing gets done. However, one thing that is absolutely clear is that commercial salmon fishing in the ocean is largest contributor to salmon stock declines. Also commercial interests in hatchery produced fish results in a system that is not cooperative between different governmental jurisdictions.
In the U.S. we have had prohibitions on commercial harvest of land mammals since the late 1800's to early 1900's. The reason for this was clear. Everyone could see the decline of various animals (bison being a prime example) and ultimately it was agreed that commercial harvest of a public resource could not be allowed if the public was to have full benefit of the resource. Commercial harvesting of land mammals was banned much earlier in most of Europe. Ultimately, I think that the same will have to happen with commercial harvest of fish from the seas. There are too many people on the planet to feed with this finite resource and commercial exploitation of fish almost always results in a crash of the population (or sometimes an extinction).
1) I don't think many realize the scale of the impact of the commercial ocean fisheries on our returning salmon. A large percentage of fish bound for our local waters are caught in Alaska and BC. For example, approximately 50% of all salmon caught in the SE Alaska commercial fishery are Columbia river bound fish. Ask any recreational fisherman who fishes on the west side of Vancouver Island and they will tell you about 90% of the fish they catch are Columbia River bound fish. E.g. without Columbia River hatcheries, much of the West coast of BC and Southern Alaska, wouldn't have much to fish on.
While the article I linked above talks about the percentage of the SE Alaska commercial catch that is Columbia River fish, it doesn't speak to the fraction of Columbia River bound fish that are caught prior to reaching the Columbia River. In many coastal river systems (Columbia, Grays Harbor), the estimates are that greater than 80% of the returning fish are caught prior to passing the south tip of Vancouver Island. There's no reason to think that anything different is happening to Puget Sound bound fish. So while we can complain about gill nets and purse seiners in our local waters, all of us are fishing on a small fraction of the available fish as most of them are removed by commercial operations prior to entering our local waters.
2) Another major issue is hatchery produced salmon and more specifically, the lack of cooperation between various governments on the percentage of planted fish and species planted. Over 5 billion (yes BILLION) hatchery raised salmon are release each year by a combination of Japan, Russia, the U.S. and Canada. Of those, the vast majority that are released are pink salmon and chum salmon. All of those fish feed in roughly the same waters (the Bering sea and the N. Pacific) on roughly the same food sources (or food sources that feed other food sources such as zooplankton and krill). So those hatchery fish and wild fish are all competing with each other for the same (limited) supply of food. There are no agreements in place to limit the number of hatchery fish produced by various governments so that those produced by others have a fair chance of survival. Rather it's a "cowboy" system whereby the most aggressive regions get back the most fish. One factor in finding smaller fish each year is undoubtedly the limited food supply being split amongst increasing numbers of hatchery (and decreasing numbers of wild) fish.
Ultimately, there are many "solutions" to the problems since there are many problems. Politically, that makes it easy for each group to point at the others and assure that nothing gets done. However, one thing that is absolutely clear is that commercial salmon fishing in the ocean is largest contributor to salmon stock declines. Also commercial interests in hatchery produced fish results in a system that is not cooperative between different governmental jurisdictions.
In the U.S. we have had prohibitions on commercial harvest of land mammals since the late 1800's to early 1900's. The reason for this was clear. Everyone could see the decline of various animals (bison being a prime example) and ultimately it was agreed that commercial harvest of a public resource could not be allowed if the public was to have full benefit of the resource. Commercial harvesting of land mammals was banned much earlier in most of Europe. Ultimately, I think that the same will have to happen with commercial harvest of fish from the seas. There are too many people on the planet to feed with this finite resource and commercial exploitation of fish almost always results in a crash of the population (or sometimes an extinction).
I stand by my claim. If you remove *all harvest*, by every single harvest method, location, time, gear commercial, recreational, subsistence and poaching *and* remove all hatchery influences in the watershed, the Stillaguamish River will not produce more than 1500 adult Chinook spawners on an average annual basis, regardless of ocean productivity. This is compared to an estimate of 50,000 average annual spawners pre-settlement.
jd
jd
I'm not disagreeing with you JD, but we don't fish on the carrying capacity of the streams but rather the returns. If the returns were to exceed the carrying capacity (typically due to hatchery enhancement), we'd be catching more fish. When most of the fish disappear in the Alaska and BC fisheries before they return, we aren't fishing as much (or at all)..nimrod":6ian3b29 said:
DrewbirdII
New member
I cruised though Alaska last June and heard a lot of complaining about their chinook runs being shut down halfway through the season do to low returns? I hope it was only a bad year and not a sign of the times to come. There was a lot of complaining about the crab fishery as well, to many Sea Otters apparently. Jim
Huh? What?
Both are consistent. The EPA and Dept of the Interior et al, are merely two examples of huge bureaucratic and bloated federal govt entities. "The wall" could be and is regarded as a matter of national security, which IS something the Federal govt is ACTUALLY tasked with and responsible for, as opposed to say, the national poet.
Supporting un-fetted and illegal immigration while also demanding more Federal govt regulation screams of hypocrisy. Some people want more regulations...but just the ones they like and that benefit a particular political party.
Now back to salmon...
Too many people.**
Too many sea lions*.
Too many seals*.
Not enough pristine spawning habitat***
Hmmmmm...
*Federally protected as "endangered" (see MMPA)
**See page 1 about illegal immigration and population growth
***See too many people
Again; hmmmmm.....
:idea: :idea: :idea:
Since 1972, the US population has increased 115 million people or 55% with roughly 12.5 million of those, illegals & none of that increase is due to birth rate. That equals the present population of our 5 most populated states & now the most populated state & many of the large cities are sanctuary areas for illegals. This is not a straight left/right issue as one party predominantly wants the cheap labor & the other the power from their votes, which has lead to what has become unfettered immigration if not in strict definition at least in reality of numbers. You are right Marty in that the majority of the people are against it, but the people who have been in power & many who still are have & continue to allow it to go on. This is not a racist issue, though many try to make it so. My oldest granddaughter is half Mexican & her Mexican family who are legal immigrants or their decendents, know their present wages & jobs are at risk from the illegals or large numbers of allowed legal immigrants, Mexican or not. It’s not just the environment being put at risk.
Well Jay, you're right .One party wants cheap labor. That's why they always vote against raising the minimum wage and send jobs overseas and their profits to the Cayman Islands. Frankly, I've had it with the right wing BS. As one of my friends said recently, "Don't get too discouraged. We spent more than two centuries building a great nation, and even a very stable genius probably needs a couple of years to complete its ruin."
Damn this thread went to crap. If I read the article right, the problem is habitat and the cure is using actual science instead of politics to manage the fishery.
I would like to suggest that folks that turned this in to a political pissing match go stand in the corner for 10 minutes....we get enough of that from other sources
I would like to suggest that folks that turned this in to a political pissing match go stand in the corner for 10 minutes....we get enough of that from other sources