The Troll catch in AK/Canada will be triple this year from last year, most of these fish are bound for Oregon and Washington waters. The take could be in excess of 1.4 million chinooks. Those are are fish and the exploitation on our age class 4 and above is very high, in some rivers 90%.

The question is how do we get a seat at the PST table and how do we get an allocation?

2014 SOUTHEAST ALASKA CHINOOK SALMON QUOTA

Sitka. . The Alaska Department of Fish and Game announced today that under Chinook salmon
management provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST), the 2014 abundance index (AI) for Southeast
Alaska has been calculated to be 2.57, which results in an all-gear harvest quota of 439,400 treaty
Chinook (non-Alaska-hatchery-produced Chinook). This all-gear abundance-based quota represents an
increase of 263,400 fish when compared with last year’s preseason quota of 176,000 fish, at an AI of
1.20. The preseason troll treaty harvest allocation for 2014 is 325,411 Chinook, an increase of 195,549
fish when compared with last year’s preseason troll allocation of 129,862 fish.

The all-gear Chinook salmon quota is allocated among commercial and sport fisheries according to
management plans established in regulation by the Alaska Board of Fisheries [5 AAC 29.060(b) and 47.
055]. Most Chinook salmon produced from Alaska hatcheries are not factored into the AI and may be
harvested in addition to the treaty limit.

The allocations to fisheries for 2014 under the regulatory management plan are as follows:

2014 Treaty Chinook Salmon Allocations Number of Chinook Salmon
All-gear treaty quota 439,400
Purse seine (4.3% of all-gear) 18,894
Drift gillnet (2.9% of all-gear) 12,743
Set gillnet (1,000) 1,000
Total net gear allocation 32,637
Troll (80% after net gear subtracted) 325,411
Sport (20% after net gear subtracted) 81,353

The summer commercial troll quota is calculated by subtracting the treaty Chinook salmon harvested in
the winter and spring troll fisheries from the annual troll treaty allocation. The winter fishery, which is
currently in progress, is managed to not exceed the guideline harvest level of 45,000 treaty Chinook.

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=667322

Add another 200k (including sports in the north of falcon fisheries)

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/u..._2014FINAL.pdf

And from last year another 200K from canada.. (all commercial troll caught fish)

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/m...013-sm-eng.pdf

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/m...013-sm-eng.pdf

Just doing some simple projections based on last years vs this years increases.. There could be a total harvest of 1.4 million chinook this year from mixed stock fisheries in the ocean. (not counting tribal harvest)

Makes the pittance we and the gill netter take seem minor in comparison.

How do we affect the PST changes in 2018?

The PST is a Treaty between Canada, The US, and Alaska. It will need to renegotiated. Problem is that while WA takes BC fish, BC takes WA and Oregon fish, AK takes BC, WA, and OR fish there isn't anybody that takes AK fish. So, what sort of a hammer can one use on them?

Move to Alaska for the summer like WA guides do.

It will take us a sportsfishermen getting allocated a bigger piece of the pie in river.

Roy Eickler (OR) and Phil Anderson (WA) are the two locals from the PNW on the committee. Putting pressure on them is a start

Pressure on Anderson? You need to share your smoke as that guy is all about marine fisheries and status quo. That is like treating diarrhea with X-Lax!!!!

So don't wait for B-10 and get out to Westport more often this summer..........Neah bay and swiftsure!!!!. Sounds good, never really liked waiting around for fish to come to me any ways . Good luck,

SZ

I got a chuckle from that quote. Indeed, Alaska acts as if it is another country. It reminded me of another quote that said that Pacific salmon stocks are ".....harvested by several foreign countries including Canada and Alaska."

The damage will be done long before the fish hit Neah bay, swiftsure, or westport. Its being done as we speak.

does basic reading comprehension escape you?

It seems pretty clear that the commercial fisheries are the top priority, and as long as the market demand is there for salmon, that won't change.

We talk a lot about ocean conditions these days. It seems that when ocean conditions are good around here, they're not good in Alaska, and vice versa. Might the difference in what we catch around here be more attributable to the ocean conditions near Alaska than the conditions locally? If more of "our fish" stay around our coastline in good conditions (as opposed to all of them migrating to Alaska when local conditions aren't good), that should mean less of "our fish" getting caught up there, which In turn should mean more for us to catch here. Maybe it's not actually the local ocean conditions that create the poor returns is what I'm trying to say....

Terminal fisheries is the only cure. Making that happen politically means taking on powerful Alaska, Canadian and Washington interests.Alaskans want everyone's fish,Canada wants WA & OR fish to make up for Canadian fish that Alaska and Washington catch (Fraser River)fish. Changing all this would be a radical change and radical change is very difficult.

Define "Terminal". Columbia, Snake, Clearwater....? Pushing something like that too far would me no one is fishing the Columbia.

At the very least "terminal" should mean not catching 90% of the fish before they reach the lower 48.

When we are talking about fish that travel from the Gulf of Alaska to the headwaters of rivers in landlocked states, the term "terminal" is pretty relative...not surprisingly, most people who use it find the area they want to fish to be the approximate start of the "terminal area"

Fish on...

Todd

I agree that terminal fisheries would solve some problems, but it would also create others.

If I were to put a definition on it, terminal fisheries would take place in freshwater. That is, fishing would commence in the estuaries of their natal rivers.

But I don't own a boat either........

Alaska just catches it's diarrhea with it's bare hands.

I think there would have to be some compromise on defining terminal areas. I would say it would be where the different stocks reached some yet to be defined separation. It may be as little as no ocean fisheries outside of 3 miles,I don't know. I do know the fishing on mixed stocks in the ocean is not fair for localities that put a lot of effort into recovering stocks only to have them harvested in far off areas that they migrate to. As it is now the burden would be on Alaska and Canada for the most part although IMO the WA fisheries need to lay off the Fraser River sockeye in exchange for passing more Wa and OR bound fish past Vancouver Island. As I said, terminal fisheries would be a radical change and there would be a lot to be worked out but the end result would worth the work. It's really a pity to see work and sacrifice people make to try to recover a run only to have the fish harvested by groups in far off areas that have no stake in that work and sacrifice.

I think you should have to pass a piss test in order to sell fish.

Low holers suck...

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=364576

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/83045-Low-holing-in-grand-Alaska-style/page4

So simple and it would solve a lot of allocation problems……exactly why I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime, if ever.

Many are over-thinking "terminal"……..estuary inland. Again, simple.

I wonder how Anderson and others on the commission can sleep at night knowing the millions of state dollars committed to raise fish and the same dollars and thousands of volunteer hours given to local watershed enhancements by various sport groups…..all for helping AK and Canada get a little fatter.

Begs the question if we should just stop those activities if there's no return on the investment.