Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#910107 - 10/18/14 09:10 PM The case for terminal fisheries...
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#910122 - 10/18/14 10:33 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: eyeFISH]
eddie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 2432
Loc: Valencia, Negros Oriental, Phi...
Doc, thanks for posting. This is the only answer for the commercial fisheries that makes sense - unless they choose selective gear methods (which don't involve mesh!). I wish we would go to all hatchery fish, all the time in the Marine areas. With good handling practices, wild fish usually survive an encounter with a sports fisherman. For us as well, the practice and opportunity of harvesting wild fish becomes more viable the closer to the terminal we get.

Please, PM me - I need some professional advice.

Thanks!
_________________________
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman"

R.P. McMurphy - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Top
#910139 - 10/18/14 11:18 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: eddie]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The survival of released wild fish in saltwater varies greatly with the specific area and species. Better to go to entirely terminal (or better yet, in-river) until the stock in question can sustain additional harvest. Then, move the fisheries out, if desired.

Never will happen as there are too many communities that depend on marine mixed-stock fisheries. Fishing selectively will help the wild fish.

But, consider what happens as wild runs increase. They become more common but if they can't take the mortality we will need huge hatchery runs to make the fishery work, with (say) 3/4 of the encounters being retainable.

Top
#910144 - 10/18/14 11:35 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Carcassman]
eddie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 2432
Loc: Valencia, Negros Oriental, Phi...
I think with better education, most of the wild fish encounters are survivable. I share your skepticism, maybe they can do more in Canada, I know it would be extremely expensive for us as taxpayers to curtail the marine fisheries. If we can make the case that wild fish are worth it, the money will be there, I hope.....
_________________________
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman"

R.P. McMurphy - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Top
#910156 - 10/19/14 12:11 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Carcassman]
eugene1 Offline
Spawner

Registered: 09/17/10
Posts: 885
Loc: out there...
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Better to go to entirely terminal (or better yet, in-river)


Makes a lot of sense to me!

Top
#910157 - 10/19/14 12:15 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: ]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
While I agree that moving harvest toward/to terminal areas simplifies management, I don't see it solving the problem as many in-river fisheries are mixed stock as well. Certainly from mid-Puget Sound south, every river has mixed hatchery and natural populations. The most significant tributary to Hood Canal would also be a mixed stock fishery. Any rivers on the coast with both hatchery populations and wild populations of concern? Yeah, I think so.

Top
#910160 - 10/19/14 01:18 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: OncyT]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
I'd happily let Fraser sockeye return to terminal areas for selective harvest. Think B.C. will return the favor and allow Washington state chinook and coho return to WA for terminal area selective harvest? Ain't likely.

Sg

Top
#910167 - 10/19/14 11:41 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: OncyT]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Sure, the hatchery/wild stocks present a problem in rivers. selective harvest can be used. Unless there are genetic reasons why they can't be fished selectively.

We can also confine hatchery fish to watersheds incapable of producing wild fish or make the decision to sacrifice some wild populations for hatchery harvest rates.

If we want wild fish we should actually manage for them.

I think Joe Blum tried to offer the Canadians the non-Indian share of Fraser sockeye in trade for US coho. If memory serves, the US tribes opposed that. But, I think it would be a good move to have a treaty that guarantees the originating country no less than 95% of the harvest of the fish its streams produce.

Top
#910180 - 10/19/14 04:16 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Carcassman]
Jerry Garcia Offline



Registered: 10/13/00
Posts: 9160
Loc: everett
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
But, I think it would be a good move to have a treaty that guarantees the originating country no less than 95% of the harvest of the fish its streams produce.


Wouldn't that spell doom for the Alaska commercial fleet?
_________________________
would the boy you were be proud of the man you are

Growing old ain't for wimps
Lonnie Gane

Top
#910186 - 10/19/14 05:12 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Jerry Garcia]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Only their fisheries in mixed stock areas.

Too bad smile

The people who actually pay for the habitat protection (property owners in watersheds) should be the first to reap the benefits of their action instead of 9as is the case now) the last if at all. (See Willapa streams and upper Chehalis as examples).

Top
#910189 - 10/19/14 05:31 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Carcassman]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
Quote:
Any rivers on the coast with both hatchery populations and wild populations of concern? Yeah, I think so.


Willapa is a complete mess as to NOR ( natural origin recruits ) with Chinook and it is a problem. GH it is really only the Hump Wild Coho and that is simply that both WDFW & the QIN have utilized the returning HOR ( hatchery origin recruits ) strays to make escapement. At times the Hump Coho have more HOR spawners in the gravel than NOR.


Edited by Rivrguy (10/19/14 05:31 PM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#910249 - 10/20/14 10:56 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Rivrguy]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
This video is a bit naive. I would suggest that 75% of the fishing being done in the PNW is a mixed stock fishery.

All marine fishing is mixed stock, even recreational. Buoy 10 is a mixed stock fishery. All mainstem Columbia and Puget Sound fishing is mixed stock. The Tribal fishery in Zone 6 on the Columbia is mixed stock. Most fishing on the Snake or Willamette is mixed stock.

In other words, in any situation where you have the chance of catching fish from low productivity areas (e.g., ESA listed stocks) while also catching fish from high productivity areas (hatcheries) are a mixed stock fishery. I realize that CNR fisheries exist for non-clipped fish. But that only applies to recreational angling in the Columbia River during certain times of the year. I also realize that commercial fishing is a huge driver of mixed stock fishing. But if the point of the video is to eliminate commercial fishing, then they should just say so. But if the point is to eliminate mixed stock fisheries, then these familiar words apply to many of us recreational anglers (of whom I am one):

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee".

Top
#910255 - 10/20/14 12:59 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: cohoangler]
Swifty27 Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 08/21/13
Posts: 389
Loc: Tri-Cities, WA
Nailed it cohoangler.

Top
#910264 - 10/20/14 02:08 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: cohoangler]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Gets down to the basic question of whether we want wild fish or fishing. In order to restore wild fish to levels that will sustain some annual harvest while meeting the needs of the ecosystem we will need to stop killing so many of them. All of us who fish, all the rest who use water, lumber, hydropower, and agricultural products.

Top
#910267 - 10/20/14 02:18 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: cohoangler]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
I've long believed and oft expressed that terminal harvest is the answer to the management issues mixed stock fisheries present. Several of the challenges have been addressed in this thread, but I think there are ways to work around each of them. As usual, getting enough momentum in the state and federal governments to make such changes would probably be the hardest obstacle to overcome.

First, a couple of caveats/assumptions:
1. All hatchery fish are intended for harvest and re-seeding future generations.
2. Some component of the wild salmon population should be available for tribal and sport harvest in the absence of open ocean, mixed stock, commercial fisheries.

I think the scenario I would most favor would be one where, as Carcassman mentioned, we make some decisions to manage streams with few or no wild fish strictly for harvest and build hatcheries in the lower reaches of those streams. These hatcheries should be owned and operated by seafood processing companies and/or treaty tribes, with federal and state government footing some percentage of the construction and production costs (to compensate for any hatchery fish that get harvested in sport fisheries). Ideally, these streams would be located in coastal areas, to ensure the best quality product (from a fat content perspective) possible. If a stream is managed strictly for hatchery production, it can be assumed that every returning fish is available for spawning the next generation or harvest. Any fish not in marketable condition could be used in nutrient enhancement programs in streams being managed for wild stocks (with a per x pounds government incentive available to companies who choose to participate).

The next step would be to cease all hatchery operations on streams with wild populations, and manage those streams strictly for wild fish. Spend some of the money saved by closing the hatcheries on habitat improvements. In the absence of mixed stock fisheries, my hypothesis is that we would see much larger numbers of wild salmon returning to our rivers, and they would provide meaningful in-river opportunities for sport and tribal fisheries. Clearly, there would still be the problems of managing the tribal gillnet fisheries and sport fisheries so that struggling stocks don't get overfished, but I think that would be a much more surmountable task than trying to effectively estimate encounter rates in mixed stock, open ocean fisheries.

To be clear, I am proposing effectively ending open ocean, commercial fisheries as we know them today. Obviously, that carries a significant human impact, as it would eliminate a lot of jobs. Ideally, I think the scenario I described could also create a lot of new jobs (at the terminal hatchery sites), so that might absorb some of that impact. Ceasing hatchery operations on rivers shifting to a wild fish management paradigm would also land a lot of state hatchery workers on the unemployed list. Perhaps the new hatcheries could employ some of those workers as operations specialists and managers - they would clearly be well-qualified for those positions.

Such a shift would also change the nature of tribal and sport fishing. In the beginning, that might not all look very good, but assuming the theory that more wild fish would be available holds true, both sport and tribal interests should end up with better, less-complicated fishing opportunities. One sport fishery that would become difficult to justify would be the open ocean fishery. Certainly, losing that fishery would seem unacceptable to a lot of sport fishers, but if the goal is to eliminate mixed stock fisheries, it would be hard to argue that fishery should remain open.

Again, I see plenty of issues here, but I think the potential benefits of moving to a system of terminal harvest far outweigh the negatives, where the very opposite appears true under the status quo.

Top
#910283 - 10/20/14 03:39 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: FleaFlickr02]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
FF2 - I won't defend the status quo, and your ideas are certainly welcome here. But I should point out a few things.

Most hatcheries were constructed as mitigation for hydropower development, especially on the Columbia Rv. As such, the hatcheries are located in fairly close proximity to the dam. This ensures that the fisheries affected by the dam are helped by the hatchery. You seem to suggest that hatcheries should be in the lower river, or on coastal rivers. However, placing a hatchery on a coastal river as mitigation for a dam in Idaho (for example) won't help anyone in Idaho. If hatcheries are intended to replace what was lost, they need to be located fairly close to the area of impact.

You can't open a hatchery as you would a Wal-Mart or a Home Depot. You can't just have a hatchery anywhere. The area has to have a reliable source of cold, clean, disease free water 24/7/365. If not, the hatchery won't produce fish reliably. I recognize that some hatcheries currently do not have a reliable source of water, but those facilities struggle mightly to maintain production every year. In some years, they can't; and the loss of juvenile fish can be enormous.

The last thing the Tribes want is a fundamental change in how they manage and harvest salmon. They have been fishing in their traditional areas since time immemorial. They don't intend to change anytime soon. Besides, many of the Tribes believe a wild fish is just as good as a hatchery fish. They ain't gonna change based on a distinction they don't recognize.

Again, I don't mean to throw cold water on a productive discussion. I'm just pointing out some things to consider.

Top
#910295 - 10/20/14 04:32 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: cohoangler]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Those are good points, cohoangler, particularly the point about dam mitigation. Hadn't given thought one to hydropower implications, or how the hatcheries came to be in the first place, in my argument.

I understand that a hatchery can't go just anywhere, and that it's not a Home Depot or a Walmart (those are for building in flood plains, don't you know - Chehalis basin humor -). The locations I had in mind were some of the coastal creeks that have running water all year but have severely limited or virtually extinct salmon populations I'm not sure I can name any off the top of my head (I don't know 'em cause I can't fish there!), but I think some of those exist. The reason I singled out those locations was that there is a reasonable argument that fish harvested from the freshwater locations that currently exist aren't of marketable quality, and my thought was that reducing the distance from the salt to the hatchery would maximize quality. I'm not sure that does much to help my argument or refute your point, and I have been careful to admit that I know there are a lot of challenges.

I agree that the Tribes have shown little interest in changing what they do, but I'm not sure what I proposed necessarily requires them to do that. The concept of owning commercial hatcheries was only an expression of a possibility that might appeal to the side of tribal fisheries that is much more for the sake of money than any ceremonial purpose. The Tribes have consistently expressed that they want the State and the Feds to fund habitat improvements (or remove blockages to salmon passage our past logging practices created) as a means of helping wild salmon, so I should think the prospect of the State dedicating vacated hatchery funding to habitat work would be one they would be inclined to support. I also think they would respond very positively to a promise of more fish available for harvest in their traditional fisheries. That promise would not be a big stretch in the event there were no longer open ocean, mixed-stock fisheries catching the majority of the fish bound for all our rivers.

I'm sure I don't have all the answers, but I do believe we need to stop accepting that the best we can do now is always what gets done. We can do better, but it will involve some sacrifices, no matter how we slice it. The biggest problem is that the ones who can afford the investments don't want to make them.

Top
#910299 - 10/20/14 04:38 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: FleaFlickr02]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
I think the first step in changing how commercial fisheries are operated is NOT letting someone tell you "The Public deserves salmon, too!" without telling them to suck it.

No they don't.

They don't deserve elk, or ducks, or largemouth bass, either. If they want them they can go buy a license and a fishing rod and go get it done.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the deck of the USS Commercial Salmon Fishery will not ever help. Not purse seines, not tangle nets...not bird excluders, and not SAFE zones.

Stop subsidizing their fisheries, that's where this needs to go. They make zero sense economically, or socially. Those fish are infinitely more valuable on the end of sport lines or spawning, whether it be in the rivers in the case of wild fish or in the hatchery in the case of hatchery fish...period.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#910305 - 10/20/14 05:17 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Todd]
NickD90 Offline
Shooting Instructor for hire

Registered: 10/26/10
Posts: 7260
Loc: Snohomish, WA
It's a pipe dream, but affordable land based, closed loop Aquaculture would be a great start. Farm fresh Nebraska salmon as spawned in water from the sparking Ogallala aquifer. Nice ring to it...
_________________________
“If the military were fighting for our freedom, they would be storming Capitol Hill”. – FleaFlickr02

Top
#910310 - 10/20/14 05:25 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Todd]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Some interesting ideas here!

Clearly terminal fisheries make the most biological sense but sure that many here would be willing to pay the price to convert entirely to such a system.

For most fisheries if the goal is to have the fisheries in terminal areas (and in river are the logical place to have such fisheries) it will take a huge change in how the non-treaty fisheries are conducted to achieve a more or less equal sharing between the treaty and non-treaty fisheries. That sharing seems to be a high priority for most here on this site. To achieve such a sharing will require that the focus of the non-treaty fisheries be in some form of commercial fishing. In terminal areas hook and line fisheries (especially in heavily exploited fisheries) is just to darn inefficient to harvest anything close to the non-treaty share.

Outside of the possible cases of steelhead and spring Chinook the recreational fleet is probably incapable of exerting high exploitation rates. To my knowledge Baker Lake sockeye recreational fishery is one of the most successful terminal fishery I know of. Even there it seems that the cap on harvest levels is around 60%. One needs only to look at the recent Baker Lake thread and the desire to change things to see how that is working out. Most of the other in-river recreational fisheries can not come close to those Baker lake levels.

Curt

Top
#910318 - 10/20/14 05:45 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Smalma]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Why would there need to be a non-Indian commercial fishery to access the NI share? If the recs had a good opportunity to take the share in the river or bay what is then wrong with letting the tribal commercials take the rest of the harvestable?

So long as WDFW had the gonads to allow maximal rec harvest, and push to ensure the fish were there to be caught and not just paper fish, it would seem that sporties would be happy.

At the worst those fish would make it to the gravel to spawn and feed the ecosystem.

Top
#910327 - 10/20/14 06:26 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Carcassman]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Why would there need to be a non-Indian commercial fishery to access the NI share? If the recs had a good opportunity to take the share in the river or bay what is then wrong with letting the tribal commercials take the rest of the harvestable?



This.

The State seems to have no problem creating and prosecuting recreational fisheries for paper fish that get netted before they make it to the rivers...now they might have some actual fish for us to fish for.

So the tribes end up with more than 50%?

So what? So long as the recreationals get as many as we can catch...which is more than we get now...and we all get the economic benefit of such a thing...which none of us is getting now...then fine by me.

Sporties worrying about making sure non-tribal commercials get their fair share are wasting time, money, and fishing time.

Screw those guys...they've been screwing us...well, more to the point, the State has been screwing us by doing that, no reason for us to help.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#910344 - 10/20/14 07:40 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Todd]
GBL Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 1879
Loc: Yakutat
Well said Todd!

Top
#910347 - 10/20/14 08:02 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: GBL]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
CM -

When I have looked at the how successful in river salmon fisheries have been in the Puget Sound region it is shocking how poorly they do. For the various "S" rivers of north Puget sound the recreational fleet consistently have been able to only catch less than 10% of the in-river run. The mark selective Chinook fisheries for the Skagit spring Chinook and Skykomish summers are also often in the 10% range. A couple of the fall Chinook fisheries have better luck with the Samish and Skokomish topping the list with something in the mid 30% range.

If the non-treaty share it to be caught by the recreational fleet the NT share will always be well below the treaty share. Now I have no problem with that but I felt it is important that folks understood the potential cost in total landings for the non-treaty fleet in such a change.

As you know with most issues in the fish management world things are more complicate than they appear on the surface.

Curt

Top
#910349 - 10/20/14 08:11 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Smalma]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Even if we only caught 10% of what was left by the time it got to the river it would a damn sight more than getting 10% of what's there now...and we would be able to have more liberal seasons and bags, and we'd be more successful fishing over more fish, and spending far more money to do it.

It's a win-win-win...except for the handful of commercial guys that cost the economy and us money with their subsidized hobby.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#910352 - 10/20/14 08:14 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Smalma]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Right now, using your estimates, the sporties get 10% and the commercials 90%. So, the rec fleet is always way below. If the Tribes netted 90% it would still be the same split.

But now, as the GH folks can attest, the bay net fisheries preclude in and upper-river sport fisheries.

Could there be rec fisheries for salmon in the Cascade, Sauk, Suiattle, Whitechuck (for example) if the management scheme in place was able to allocate more than just (maybe) escapement up there? I know that many folks would not find a salmon fishery up there to their personal liking but some folks might like the chance.

Top
#910366 - 10/20/14 09:37 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Carcassman]
milt roe Offline
Spawner

Registered: 01/22/06
Posts: 925
Loc: tacoma
Co-managers = Co-maximizers. Sport fishing is an annoying and inefficient necessity as long as we maintain a share. We could live with terminal and/or selective fisheries (we already do) nobody else apparently can.

Top
#910394 - 10/21/14 12:00 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: milt roe]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Successfully fishing selectively is an embarrassment to netters. Selective fishing is a choice they choose not to make and it looks bad when somebody else successfully does it.

Top
#910399 - 10/21/14 01:16 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: NickD90]
Fishyfeller Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 06/22/13
Posts: 191
Loc: Port Angeles, Wa
Do you want to save the salmon|? Is it salmon first? If you want to save the salmon ban all sales of in the wild caught salmon. Just like our terrestrial dwelling wildlife. Let the natives harvest there half to feed the village. just do not allow sales to markets. No one raping the resource for money.

Make it like deer, elk , ducks, ect. It is available for harvest, but if you want to eat it you have to go harvest it.

This will never happen, but if it did, it would pretty much fix it.

Top
#910435 - 10/21/14 09:25 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Fishyfeller]
cncfish Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 258
Loc: whale pass
so where are you going to put all the boats that fish area 9,10,8-1,and 8-2?

I can not imagine what the lower Snohomish would look like with all those boats in there. the Stillaguamish is to small for most of them, and the Skagit is going to be filled with all the area 7 boats. terminal fisheries for Lake Washington are going to be a mess to figure out and the Green/ Duwamish dosn't want rec boats blocking the commercial shipping lower river so most likely no fishing below the Boeing field area... all those boats generate a huge amount of money for the state... I would bet most never apply for the road tax back on the gas they buy, that alone is millions of dollars you would be asking the state to be giving up.

Not to mention the fact that it could be argued that the Snohomish is a mixed stock fishery. that you would need to move all fishing above to the sky, Pilchuck, Sultan, Wallace,,,,, when is it a terminal fishery? when they hit the creek they spawn in?

what i see you advocating is all fishing to look like the Samish and Skokomish snagfests.... is that really how you want to fish all the time? not me! no thank you! some days its fine.... but some days I want to fish without the crowd.

Top
#910440 - 10/21/14 11:17 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: cncfish]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
I'd like to take the same stand as Todd and say that everyone who wants to eat salmon should have to go outside and catch it. I think the trouble is that salmon are so well-established as a market staple that the only thing that will get them out of stores would be the runs being wiped out to the extent that most of our wild game were before commercial hunting was outlawed. In other words, when there's nothing left to sell, they'll quit selling it.

As long as we're stuck with hatcheries, we might as well turn their operations over to the sector that benefits from them most (the commercial). That way, the financial burden of supplying product for their own markets will fall on them, which is the way it works in just about every other free market enterprise I can think of. I was thinking the other day about the fact that the citizens in the salmon-producing states pay for the salmon the entire world eats through our tax dollars and license fees. Put another way, we're paying so that people in New York can have access to salmon. Rubs me a little wrong. I say locating hatcheries away from areas where mixed stocks are common, putting the production burden on those who profit, and ending open ocean commercial fisheries is what's right for everyone involved (including the wild salmon). The ones who have the money to invest in change won't do it, but they'll spend as much as is needed to maintain the status quo. Sad, but typical of how big business operates.

Top
#910501 - 10/21/14 07:03 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: FleaFlickr02]
blackmouth Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2713
Loc: right place/wrong time
Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
The ones who have the money to invest in change won't do it, but they'll spend as much as is needed to maintain the status quo. Sad, but typical of how big business operates.


The ones who have the money will invest it in change if they believe that they can obtain a competitive advantage. That is how 'big business' operates.
_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.

Top
#910574 - 10/22/14 01:48 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: blackmouth]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Wait a minute, there, Rev... Don't you preach that success in business comes at the cost of investment and effort? My point was that those making the real money off the resource (NOT talking gillnetters here) have invested as much or more over the years in lobbying for the status quo that entitles them to untold percentages of natural resources they DON'T invest in than it would cost them to own and operate hatcheries that could support their businesses much more efficiently (and cost-effectively, if you consider the middle men and fishermen they have to pay to get the fish to the processing facilities today).

I'm pretty sure the reason they're doing it the way they do now is so they still have access to a large percentage of the "harvestable" wild fish, in addition to the majority of the hatchery fish you and I pay for. In addition, limitations on what they can harvest (keep on the boat instead of putting back dead) lead to limited supply, which in the face of constant demand yields higher prices per pound. I never called them stupid....

I'll readily admit that my "ideas" don't always meet with reality, but don't you believe that dreams and new ideas are where success begins?

Top
#910596 - 10/22/14 12:18 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: FleaFlickr02]
blackmouth Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2713
Loc: right place/wrong time
Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Wait a minute, there, Rev... Don't you preach that success in business comes at the cost of investment and effort?

Yes I do. Your quoted statement (above) is not that far from what I said while i was paraphrasing you.

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
My point was that those making the real money off the resource (NOT talking gillnetters here) have invested as much or more over the years in lobbying for the status quo that entitles them to untold percentages of natural resources they DON'T invest in than it would cost them to own and operate hatcheries that could support their businesses much more efficiently (and cost-effectively, if you consider the middle men and fishermen they have to pay to get the fish to the processing facilities today).

If that was your point, I must disagree with you on it.

Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
I'll readily admit that my "ideas" don't always meet with reality, but don't you believe that dreams and new ideas are where success begins?

Begins, perhaps? But most know that there is also great deal of effort, time, and money invested in most successful business's. And if when you refereed to success you where speaking of successful change the same investments will need to be made.

I think it is great that people gather on this board and discuss all types of matters, I usually find it at least entertaining, if not stimulating or even enlightening. So thank you all, for contributing to the fray. Please keep it up.



_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.

Top
#910602 - 10/22/14 12:41 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: blackmouth]
cncfish Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 258
Loc: whale pass
"but don't you believe that dreams and new ideas are where success begins?"

Weyerhaeuser had a salmon ranch back in the late 70's to early 80's... it's not a "new idea"

Top
#910750 - 10/22/14 10:33 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: cncfish]
eddie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 2432
Loc: Valencia, Negros Oriental, Phi...
Ore-Aqua foods sold to Weyerhaeuser back in the 70's. It was an interesting concept. They used warm water (I think effluent from a pulp mill) to raise the smolts to release size quicker. But their idea for aquaculture was to release them into the saltwater to complete a normal salmon life cycle. This doesn't solve the mixed stock marine fishing problem, it only makes it worse.
_________________________
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman"

R.P. McMurphy - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Top
#910759 - 10/22/14 10:55 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: eddie]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Ocean ranching works when the producer harvests the product when it returns home. For it to work, there needs to be an elimination of the marine mixed stock fisheries. If corporations got into ocean ranching they might be able to put together the power to close those fisheries. That is, I believe, why many states such as AK outlawed ocean ranching.

Top
#910911 - 10/24/14 01:48 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Jerry Garcia]
luckydogss Offline
Smolt

Registered: 09/20/06
Posts: 92
Loc: Renton
Look at Neets Bay, part of the SSRA( http://www.ssraa.org/). I've fished for years around this bay in Ketchikan. The fishing is great for both commercial and recreational plus...the hatchery is self sufficient financially. Everybody is happy!
The commercial guys pick off a lot of our fish on the outside waters but those fishing inside catch more of these fish than those heading south of the border. They catch them all the way to an imaginary line across the bay where they become the hatcheries for either brood stock or cost recovery.
This hatchery is basically a warehouse parked on a small creek with a very efficient processing facility and a few ponds. They have a barrier net where 100's of thousands of adult fish stack up. They have to set the net because they will come in such numbers that they'll suffocate at the end of the bay.
They spawn an unimaginable amount of fish and they move a barge and tenders in every summer process all the fish products they sell. The chums, silvers, AND kings exceed the quantity of what tribes and recs get in all of Puget Sound.

This is one hatchery on a little creek, on a bay full of happy fisherman, that's financially responsible. I don't have to make a comparison to our hatchery system, the difference is obvious. What I don't understand is why we don't quit making our rivers the terminal fishery and do something like this instead? I've read a through a lot of arguments on PP and this seems like it might be a solution, at least in some areas.

In Puget Sound, I can think of a few places like Sinclair inlet that would work great for this kind of set up. Close the in-river hatcheries and strategically place a couple like these and with any luck the tribes will leave the rivers alone. Maybe that's wishful thinking but at the least they won't be netting 90% of every fish trying to enter the river so they can make sure they catch all the hatchery fish!

Alaska is like us in that we both have a lot of user groups and rivers that can't possibly produce what everyone wants. These hatcheries were set up to raise their own production and a lot reap the benefits. They put them on a quiet bay instead of a naturally producing river. I think we could use similar benefits and should give their success a serious look. Take a look at the numbers this hatchery produces and imagine how much better fishing would be here or take a trip up to Ketchikan and check it out for yourself!

Top
#910920 - 10/24/14 10:18 AM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: luckydogss]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
For any one of a myriad of reasons it won't work in Puget Sound. Getting beyond ESA (increased mixed stock fishing) and Treaties (the tribes are entitled to half) there is the simple problem of water.

To run a hatchery you need high quality water. The amount varies depending on how long the young fish are reared but tuly large volumes of clean, unpolluted, disease-free waster is needed. And, you need land. Going to be expensive to buy land on some nice little inlet.

Top
#910961 - 10/24/14 03:05 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Carcassman]
luckydogss Offline
Smolt

Registered: 09/20/06
Posts: 92
Loc: Renton
I just threw it out there for a different perspective. I gave an example of a classic terminal fishery, one that works for all partys and is financially self sufficient.
This Neets bay hatchery is on a small creek. I don't know where they get the large qty of clean water you say is needed but this one hatchery produces enough smolts for multiple release sites.

Using the Sinclair Inlet as an example, you have the Minter Creek hatchery in the back of the inlet. You got water, property, and a bay long enough to provide multiple fisheries within it. And there isn't any river systems to worry about.


I'm sure a hatchery terminal fishery like I suggested will never work. The reason is we as anglers and our "managers" will never change from the existing model. We argue, we go to court, and when all is said and done we end up losing opportunity. There's no inovation, there's just excuses for why we can't change.

If it does ever change I'll get a boat to fish here again but after 35 yrs of watching decline, I've decided to keep my boat in Ketchikan.

Top
#910976 - 10/24/14 05:16 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: luckydogss]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
And as more people move to AK, as the Tongass gets logged, as fisheries increase in harvest, AK will follow the rest of the West Coast in destroying their salmon and other fish stocks.

Even if the AK marine mixed-stock fishery are held where they are now, the decline in BC, WA, and OR stocks that feed it will mean their stocks get hit harder. If the Internet is any measure, AK Chinook (Yukon,Kenai, and elsewhere) are not doing too well.

They're just a few decades behind us. And, as in human nature, they will ignore history as we did.

Top
#910979 - 10/24/14 05:52 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Carcassman]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
They won't ignore human nature, they will embrace it...by destroying their own heritage, screwing what they profess to love, and then blame it on someone else.

Every penny or minute we waste "fixing" commercial fisheries is just continuing to waste time and money.

Instead of sportsmen looking for ways to help commercial fishers net up what is left we need to refuse to help or subsidize them any more.

If they want to do it let them pay for it. The public has to pay $94 a pound for salmon?

Toughshit.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#910981 - 10/24/14 06:25 PM Re: The case for terminal fisheries... [Re: Todd]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
At least the AK hatcheries that are providing those mega-inlet fisheries are paid for by the commercial users. They tax themselves to fund those facilities. Which is why, if memory serves, most are chum, pink, and sockeye. Net fish that are not highly sought after in the marine mixed-stock hook and line fisheries.

WA commercials (non-Tribal, anyway) could do the same. They may have tried it with the Hood Canal chum a few years back but not sure how that flew in the Leg.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
CHUBS
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 939 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645302 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |