OK. Now what? What may, can, or will happen from this? Hard to believe that AK's and Canada's commercial fleet is all the sudden gonna stop fishing. Is this just a symbolic decision? Or, something that has teeth to shut it down. Appeals? How many more years until something changes?

The decision will have no direct affect on Canada. They are, after all, another country and not required tis follow US court decisions. Since the US/Canada (or Canada/US if you are from further north) Treaty sets limits Canada is well within their right to stick to them. May make annual negotiations interesting but they can always fall back on Treaty Law.

When they say it's about conservation, is it?

And WINNING... at least for the moment.

https://www.nationalfisherman.com/alaska...d-killer-whales

In the meantime, all of Alaska's own chinook stocks are tanking statewide... Yukon, Kuskokwim, Bristol Bay, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, Copper, and all of Southeast... including key "transboundary" streams with Canadian headwaters.

Among the saddest of stories is the Taku...

https://www.juneauempire.com/opinion/opinion-a-pessimists-view-of-taku-river-king-salmon/

The entire North Pacific has become an inhospitable place for chinook salmon. Humankind suxbalz.

WHOOP… there it is!

https://www.adn.com/business-economy/202...-troll-fishery/

Huge.. Am I seeing this correctly? It will go into effect THIS season?

“This is an abuse of the Endangered Species Act by out-of-touch, ideological, serial litigants.”

Ba-hahahahahaha!

fb

Any way to see what percentage the trollers take? A friend of mine that works up there in fisheries was telling me it’s not much compared to trawlers and their nets. I imagine trawlers have the big money for lobbyists where independent trollers don’t?

Read the opening post carefully, youngunner. It provides a solid data-based perspective on the issue.

It is also not just the number of fish but teh specific stocks taken. Stocks go to different places and the WA stocks seem to love SE AK. The trawlers seem to be hammering the western AK fish like the Yukon so they are in the gunsights too.

Reading over the original post, I’m seeing that in Washington waters, the commercial trollers take twice the amount of rec trollers.

In regards to Alaska fisheries, they’re taking 48%. I’m just curious as to the breakdown of that 48%. Trawlers, trollers, rec, bycatch. I’m not at all defending anyone fishing on Washington-origin fish while they’re in Alaskan waters.

Can’t imagine it’ll ever happen, but in my opinion, Chinook salmon shouldn’t be a marketable commodity other than through terminal and near-terminal commercial fisheries, likely tribal. Too many populations in the dumps up and down the west coast.

Overwhelmingly troll. It’s spelled out in the PSC harvest matrix I posted on page 1

Finally got it. Thanks for walking me through it. I was downloading other documents that didn’t list that sort of thing.

Wow. Overwhelming large percentage of the SEAK fishery taken by trollers. Will be sharing this info.

Our fish... OK How can we stop them from heading North??? Maybe Alaska should charge an annual pasture fee for the WA state stock from heading North?? Been going on for how long? SMDH

Alaska (Jeff Koenings) made the argument that since they protected the ocean (Ya, sure, you betcha) they were entitled to the fish. This was when Canada was trying to get harvest from the stocks they preserved spawning grounds for.

As it stands, the SE AK troll fishery for Chinook will not happen for this year. But things could change.

If the almost-certain appeal to the 9th Circuit results in a stay of the ruling, the SE AK fishery would commence, but perhaps with some additional restrictions. Or the 9th could take the appeal but deny the request to stay the ruling (most likely). In that case, the fishery would likely close entirely for this year.

In the meantime, NMFS would write another biological opinion that they believe can withstand another court challenge. But that won't happen quickly (i.e., not this year). Next year maybe. WFC is likely to challenge whatever biological opinion NMFS develops for this fishery in the future. And NMFS knows this. So whatever they write is not likely to result in anything close to the SE AK fishery as it has existed in recent years. The fishing restrictions might be fairly substantial.

And the Alaska fishery for coho and chum might also be affected since the fishery for these species also catch immature/feeder Chinook. The recovery rate for 'shaker' Chinook caught and released while fishing for coho can be really low, particularly when using commercial trolling gear..

All this is good news for everyone (except, of course, those folks who depend on the SE AK troll fishery for their livelihood). Perhaps nobody more so than the folks at the Bonneville Power Administration. The SE AK troll fishery is/was heavily dependent on Columbia River fall Chinook (some tules but mostly URB's). Reducing the harvest of these fish in SE AK will definitely put more Chinook into the Columbia River. That increases the benefits of the measures taken by the Federal hydro-power system to protect salmon. And the Tribes will be really happy since URB's are their target species in the fall.