Originally Posted By: GBL
And we all forget the one commercial net fact that goes unaccouted for. The Russian, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese that go uncontested into our waters and take salmon every year that are never counted but show up in every fish market in Asia in huge numbers.
Todd will agrue it is not a huge impact, but I go to these fish markets many times every year and is a jaw dropper how many fish EVERY day show up in these markets and are gone in hours to the highest bidder. Not one of these fish makes it to any kind of tally that America sees.
It is open season up there and no one cares about the foreign fleets anymore. Even the Russians are bitching now about the Chinese and Koreans in their waters!
I was just in China and they had a front page article about a 2 mile net they found that they said was from Japan but who really knows? It showed the government guys cutting it up with sissors for the media.
They are all guilty over there.


As I am often reminded I am a sports fisherman, not a scientist so I don't have to let the facts get in the way of my opinions. I do think however that an opinion that can be backed by facts is one that will be listened to. For GBL who is surprised by the number of salmon in Asian fish markets, check who has the largest chum salmon hatchery program in the Pacific, and the catches are reported. Pacific salmon abundance is probably at historical high numbers. There are no ocean salmon fisheries outside of any countries EEZ. I can assure you that it is enforced vigorously. There are no foreign salmon fisheries inside of the EEZ of the USA and though I am not sure they may be no foreign fishery of any kind in our EEZ. There is undoubtedly some catch of our steelhead and salmon by Japanese and Russian fleets operating inside of their EEZ. By far the largest interception of fish of another country origin is Japanese chums caught as bycatch in the USA pollack fisheries. To find the facts visit the NPAFC web site.

As for the other numbers being quoted they are available to the public on web sites but as Aunty M pointed out it is an effort to find them. The ADFG web site has a link to their mark/tag lab where data is available for all tag recoveries in Alaska fisheries, by fishery area, by date, and the location of where the fish was tagged. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission maintains data bases for all mark and tag recoveries in the North Pacific region. If you have a few hundred hours, sufficient computer power, and some understanding you can duplicate a part of the work that the chinook technical committee does for the Pacific Salmon Commission. You can also visit their web site and find yearly reports summarizing their work.

The chinook bycatch in the pollack trawl fishery is a concern that is being addressed by management. It appears that during the warm ocean conditions of 2005 and 2006 southern chinook stocks moved in to the Bering sea and were a significant part of the bycatch. I would add that people who have been looking at this problem for a number of years point out that years of low bycatch may be more of a problem than years of high bycatch. The size of the bycatch reflects the abundance of chinook in the fishery area. Low chinook bycatch is an indication of low numbers of fish. Any impact on a small population can have more effect than a larger impact on a large population.

Finally we have to recognize that the only way that WDFW can have an input in the solution of these problems is to maintain an active participation in the international panels that address these issues. It seems that in the last few years they have stepped up their participation.