Trust me Todd I have been working for the fish in this state primarily on the Green (King County) and Cowlitz rivers long before you moved here from California. Maybe you could point me and the rest of us in the right direction on where we could learn about the limiting factor.....habitat.


Would be more than happy to read it.

This is from NOAA
Pretty good read
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/japan/aquaculture/proceedings/report30/heard.htm

GBL any idea when that was published by NOAA Fisheries?

Good read about both harvest, habitat and hatcheries.

Jerry,

Like I said, I'm not addressing you...I think that you are a lost cause. This topic is being prolonged so others who are willing to educate themselves are encouraged to do so. You know very, very little about me...perhaps less than you know about fisheries management, if possible.

If you are actually interested in learning enough to have something constructive to contribute, you will find it...you manage to get your computer to work well enough to post here, I'm sure you can use it to find other things.

Fish on...

Todd

Agian Todd read the above. I included "rest of us". Just because we agree to disagree doesn't me you could post the info for others or does it?

And as far as knowing little about you Todd......just what I read on your Bio over at WSC. Very informative to your position on fisheries. http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.org/todd.html

Thanks again GBL, That link was a good read and very informative.

My State Biologist buddy says 2004 for the NOAA report.
I spent a great deal of time going through this site below, I was amazed. More information and free than you can imagine and the interesting part is they are not ashamed one bit to show you the numbers and what they plan to do!! I was mostly looking for more information on the foreign influence on the resource as I know what the Asian commercials do that does not get counted. Once I finish gathering more info in my next couple trips to Asia, I will let you know.
http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/finfish/salmon/salmhome.php

You like that, read this. Now it does say that harvest is mostly hatchery fish since statehood, but since 1973 our stocks have gone steadily down while Alaska Commercial harvest has skyrocketed. I am not making any claims so don't flame me yet, but this data is pretty darn good.

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/afrb/vol1_n1/meacv1n1.pdf

So maybe the fact of 212 million fish harvested in Alaska isn't a typo afterall. Just look at the graph for the last year harvested.

Looks like another report against Overharvesting in Alaska.

Oh, and I can do one better, This (below) is right out of the Alaska governor's 2008 operating budget for Fish and Game. I just don't see how anyone can argue Alaska is not screwing us up. And Alaska also has about $150,000,000 to invest in Hatchery fish. They are full in line with Hatchery programs to return as many fish as they can. They will do whatever it takes to keep the commercial industry afloat!

The 2005 commercial salmon harvest was the largest commercial salmon harvest ever and drove both exvessel
and wholesale values up for the third consecutive year. Consistently high harvests are providing abundant and
stable supplies of raw materials needed by the salmon industry as it works to regain market

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/Fish/dept11.pdf

Jerry if you had read page one you wouldn't have made that statement I realize that there are 17 pages here.

But Dogfish found the data and posted a link to it.

It was something like I had interupalated. 160,000,000 PINKS Now maybe you have a clientale that cares about PINKS but I won't feed them to my chickens

Now lets talk about something WE care about. King Salmon the AK catch was 499,000 KING SALMON Plus 120,000 KING SALMON BY CATCH.

BY CATCH is a fish you Catch accidently.

Like running over the bankies drift multiple times during the day on the mighty COW. (OOPS sorry didn't see ya standing there)

So the Pollock fleet Caught 120,000 KING SALMON on accident Whoops
Thats a problem that needs to be addresed

So now that all of my questions have been addresed please lock this thread.

I will start a new one with "NEW" questions

So back to page one 212 million fish thats alot. Alaska caught them, 160 million pinks, 15.5 million CHUMS,2.9 million COHO 17 million sockeye, less than 500K KING SALMON

Lets be honest, they are not harvesting the majority of "OUR FISH" surely a state that puts 150,000,000 into its hatchery program has plenty of ITS OWN FISH


Washingtons's fisheries are not healthy, But blaming Alaska's 212 million fish harvest is inaccurate.

Cause its been hijacked

Aunty,

First of all I believe that "212 million fish were harvested" is a typo should have read 212 million pounds were harvested [/quote]


Jason I believe that this was your reply back on page 1 to Aunty. I could be wrong. Seems to me that those charts GBL has been linking give the 212 million credible support.

OK, it is not hard to find--Right out of WDFW
Related to the treaty between US and Canada.

The major effects of the Treaty on recreational anglers in Washington State are Canadian interceptions of chinook and the need to limit our interceptions of Upper Fraser River/Thompson River coho. Canadian interceptions of Puget Sound chinook have decreased since the 1999 renewal, but for certain stocks of chinook salmon, the majority of the harvest is occurring in Canada, and sometimes Canadian interceptions alone exceed the conservation limits for Washington stocks.

And there is no such thing as a "hijacked" Christ, this is a BB, if you don't like it start a new thread, I will hijack that one as well with facts to.
Can't handle the truth?

Jerry if you had been reading the thread you would SEE where DOGFISH posted a link TO THE NUMBERS

THEN YOU WOULD SEE WHERE I ADMITED THE 212 WAS ACCURATE

It has not carried on this far about the 212, at some point it was hijacked.

There seem to be those that believe that even though ALASKA spends a Hundred Million They are catching the majority of our fish.

Did you see the part where they Alaska only caught 499,000 KING SALMON? How about the part where the Pollock fleet caught 120,000 king salmon on accident? THE 212 ? was answered on page 1 thanks DOGFISH

And just to keep it going, this should peak everyones interest. You will notice an interesting fact about Canada here.

The Stated Reasons for Sidestepping Harvest in
ESA Recovery Planning Don't Add Up.
1. "Harvest is not a significant factor in the mortality of ESA-listed salmon."
– This is false. Harvest kills many ESA-listed, spawning-ready salmon.
• Snake River fall chinook: total harvest has ranged from 40-70+ percent of adults.
• Puget Sound chinook: the catch in Canada increased 36% in 2003 (while Tribes cut back).
• Snohomish River: County's habitat effort assumes 25% harvest; actual is about 50%.
• Steelhead: NOAA Fisheries now proposes to triple "incidental take" in Columbia fishery.
– What matters is (a) the high proportion we harvest, not the absolute number, and (b)
that the salmon we harvest (adults) are the only ones able to contribute to recovery.

Who me?

I am sorry but I have just been skimming your links and didn't see any documentation of

" We are allowing Alaska's commercial fleet to harvest our fish"

I am using the word "our" to refrence Washingtons fish.

Todd,

Thanks. You said it well. I have no ill will toward Jerry. By his writing, Jerry illustrates that he doesn't know the difference between rational knowledge and emotional knowledge. If his passion and enthusiasm could be harnessed to focus where the problems are instead of where they aren't, he could be a valuable asset. Like you, I hope the BB has many readers who see and understand the difference and are willing to use rational knowledge as a power for change.

Frankly I hope CCA proves to be a viable asset for fish conservation. The main reason is that I think we'll need a regional force to sponsor and prosecute fishery initiatives in WA and OR, and I don't think we have an organization presently that can do that.

Sg