Aunty
The title of said article it "Where Did All The Salmon Go"


Then it states "We are alowing Alaska's commercial fleet to harvest the majority of our salmon"


All I am trying to point out is Alaska didn't meet their projected catch numbers.

So if they didn't meet their own number how can they be harvesting the majority of our salmon.

Theortically they could harvest 100% of our Salmon and still NOT meet their "own" number.

Here's what I don't get.........The Title of The Post? CCA?

Sorry the article is in "The Ripple Effect"

And written by, Gary Loomis the Chairman of the CCA

care to elaborate? cause I don't get it.

Myself I believe that if there is no HABITAT there will be no SALMON

I believe that Habitat = SALMON [/quote]


Here's a Question that I have been asking for almost a year now and no one can answer.

"If those Salmon can't get to the Habitat to use, then why spend the money on Habitat recovery? Anyone?"

Here's a Question that I have been asking for almost a year now and no one can answer.

"If those Salmon can't get to the Habitat to use, then why spend the money on Habitat recovery? Anyone?" [/quote]

They can't get to it because they don't exisit?

Why can't they get to it?

I have no problem people making comments about things but please know your facts first. Washington Chinnook are not being harvested in alaska by nets in the ocean. They are being harvested in a troll fishery and also in a sport fishery.

Here's a Question that I have been asking for almost a year now and no one can answer.

"If those Salmon can't get to the Habitat to use, then why spend the money on Habitat recovery? Anyone?" [/quote]

Jerry, you and others have been asking for a lot more than a year, and even though the answer is pointed out...repeatedly...you and others seem to either conveniently forget it, or ignore it...repeatedly.

To increase the numbers of fish, you have to reduce or eliminate the limiting factor.

The limiting factor is the one "thing" that is most responsible for the amount of fish we have now.

Especially in Puget Sound, habitat is the limiting factor. The habitat, as it exists now, can only support so many fish...that is about the amount of fish we have in Puget Sound right now.

You can end harvest completely...sport here, B.C., and Alaska, and commercial, here, B.C., and Alaska...and there won't be all that much of an increase of actual fish...there might be the first year when those extra fish that weren't harvested return, but there won't be the following generation.

The habitat cannot support more fish, no matter how many more are sent up there.

The habitat is the limiting factor.

Until there is habitat to support more fish, there will not be more fish, no matter what is done with harvest.

That is easily the thirtieth or fortieth time that your question that you have been asking for a year has been answered, probably in just the last six months...I suspect you'll ask it again, soon, though, along with the others who conveniently forget it...repeatedly.

Fish on...

Todd

No I don't think they can distinguish between AK and WA fish. But when you look at the numbers.
That the actual data, The projected return of King Salmon was 789,000 they caught 499,000.

Then the groundfish fishey had a 120,000 king salmon by catch.

The average by catch for 1990-2001 for King salmon was 37,819. The numbers are obiviously shooting throught the roof.Factory trawlers are intercepting, WA's or AK's Or just about anyones King Salmon.


The trawlers are indeed catching these fish ,that fishery needs some better regulation. But the article mentions the AK salmon fishery. No mention of the bycatch date from the groundfish trawl fishery.

My point is there were no Salmon. Alaska didn't catch them, they didn't exist.

Sure the SE troll fishery caught a few, the seiners caught some. But the numbers are miniscule.

They can't get to it because they don't exisit?


Overharvesting in the Ocean and miles of Industrial Gillnets! Pretty Simple.
You stated millions of pounds of fish caught in Alaska that will never see a habitat recovery site on any river

Todd are you trying to tell me that all those tribal nets on the Green for example do not stop fish from making it to all of the Improved Habitat in the Hwy 18 area of the Green river that has been there for 2 years now and other places on other streams? Just 1 example of the problem in the Puget Sound. Take away the nets and those fish can use the habitat that tax payers spend millions on every year! Again pretty simple.

Maybe its a point Todd that needs repeating and not a question......

Also thought your previous post on this topic stated something about "and thats all I have to say on this post"? Guess I could be wrong though.....

Where is this overharvesting in the ocean at? Any Facts to support your claim.

Your comment about millions of Pounds of Salmon, in regards to Washington, King Salmon should be the only topic. What Alaska does with there Sockeye, Pinks, and chums does not affect Washington.

JoJo you answered your own question..........

Well put Marsha!!!!!!!!! Took the words right out of my mouth.

Jerry come on you can do better than that. Just because chinook get harvested in alaska hardly shows proof of overharvest.

Marsha

I fish SE Alaska if you have been there you would know that sein fisheries for pinks are not on the open ocean and target local populations that return by the millions. Sockeye in bristol bay does not affect washington. Chums fisheries are also terminal fisheries in SE.

Again if you have some proof show it but I am sure you will just put another spin on it.

quote=Todd][To increase the numbers of fish, you have to reduce or eliminate the limiting factor.

The limiting factor is the one "thing" that is most responsible for the amount of fish we have now.

Especially in Puget Sound, habitat is the limiting factor. The habitat, as it exists now, can only support so many fish...that is about the amount of fish we have in Puget Sound right now.

You can end harvest completely...sport here, B.C., and Alaska, and commercial, here, B.C., and Alaska...and there won't be all that much of an increase of actual fish...there might be the first year when those extra fish that weren't harvested return, but there won't be the following generation.

The habitat cannot support more fish, no matter how many more are sent up there.

The habitat is the limiting factor.

Until there is habitat to support more fish, there will not be more fish, no matter what is done with harvest.

[/quote]

I have to disagree that lack of habitat "IS" the end all, be all limiting factor. But, I'm no scientist either.
I for one would love to see the returning fish at least have a chance to utilize the habitat that exists.
When it comes to numbers, it's hard to know what numbers to believe. I Believe that you can seque stats to suit your own interests.

But, that's just my opinion, nothing more.

So the circle of blame is,

We destroy our habitat, then blame AK for catching BC's fish, because that leads to BC catching WA's fish

Well if thats the wagon I hitched my horse to my mistake

I think we should get rid of guides in washington because they are also commercial fisherman. If we could just get rid of them everything would be peachy.