Feds declare fisheries disaster for Yukon River




ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has declared a fishery disaster because of low Chinook salmon returns along Alaska's Yukon River.

Locke made the announcement Friday during an appearance in Anchorage after informing Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell in a phone call.

Locke said the 2008 commercial Chinook salmon harvest was 89 percent below the five-year average. There was no commercial fishery allowed in 2009 because of low returns.

He says he knows Alaska fishermen and their families are struggling.

The declaration does not open up federal money but could pave the way for congressional appropriations.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke declared a commercial fishing disaster for Yukon River king salmon Friday following two years of poor runs, fishing restrictions and bans. .....
http://www.webcenter11.com/news/state/st...PQ.cspx?rss=201



ALASKA: Officials praise commerce secretary for paving way for relief funds. ...... http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/1095790.html

Seems like a disaster all around lately.

Wow, an article that actually used the word by-catch. In an Alaskan newspaper no less. I'm shocked but impressed. Maybe the world is waking up to the tremendous waste that is involved with commercial by-catch around the globe. It's ignored and not factored in until it affects a river near you.
I had this report on global commercial by-catch on another thread awhile back, but here is the link again if you missed it.It is estimated that between 35,800,000,000 - 79,000,000,000 lbs of fish are wasted annually by commercial by-catch.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t4890e/T4890E00.htm#TOC

The authors estimate that between 17.9 and 39.5 million tons (average 27.0 million) of fish are discarded each year in commercial fisheries. These estimates are based on a review of over 800 papers. The highest quantities of discards are from the Northwest Pacific.

Lucky Louie

Boater,
That's why you are paid the big bucks.

SBD, would have had the sea lions eating the Yukon River
fish as an appetizer and the other 70 Billion lbs. of missing
fish as the main course.

Hmm I always thought Bering Sea Pollock was a Pelagic Fishery here they have listed as bottom trawl?

We used both mid water and bottom gear depending on where the fish were.The summer seasons usually left us dragging on the bottom blindly scratching for fish.Last I knew it was ilegal to drag bottom for pollack.Took away our rock gear and such.All that really meant was that we spent a lot more time sewing up our mid water gear.



The declaration -- requested by Gov. Sean Parnell and others -- does not automatically send money to communities hammered by the loss of chinook salmon to eat and sell.

But in the past, such declarations have meant federal money for research, infrastructure or payments to fishermen. Parnell's office said it could also fund training programs and other regional projects.



This ,in my humble opinion, is the incentive for our local governments to manage our fisheries the way they do.There is getting to be little mini economies following these federal decisions around.

I should have looked at the dates, its 20 years old..Fishmeal was just starting along with the Asian Fish Farms, to much money in meal now to be tossing it over.


http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldne...;ndb=1&df=0

Another shining example of accross the board Ocean collapse.


If these poluk fisheries have been hammering these fish for so long, how come they didn't talk about them in 2001-2004 when we saw some of the best returns in many years? Is it because the poluk fishery didn't exsist then? No.

When something goes wrong it is always turned back to the fisherman for the problem. We've had a couple bad years on kings accross the whole NW region and it all comes down to harvest? What a crock.

So this year we are expected to get the largest return of spring chinook in 100 years. Did we somehow cut harvest back so much that this is the result? If people really think this is directly related, then you have been brainwashed.

Kevin: Did you skip logic class at the same time you skipped spelling?

You say there was an across the board ocean collapse, then tell us we are looking at a record Columbia River chinook return.

In fact, the pollack fishery has taken as many as 60,000 Yukon River chinook per year in recent years. I suspect that could have an effect.

Dave,

Were you sleeping in 2001-4 when our fisheries were as good as we have had in many years. The Poluk fishery was in full swing then and it will be in fullswing this year too. So how does someone blame the poluk fishery when the runs come back this season to as good as they have been in the last 50 years.

Yes, I think the Ocean had a complete Collapse in 2003-5 resulting in poor King returns 4 years after the 2003 collapse. Hense the poor fishing in 2007,8,9.

I don't think anyone here can say that king fishing was poor due to over harvest of the poluk fishery in 2006-9 and then say when this years huge returns come back to the Columbia that it is related to a harvest reduction from the poluk fishery. Not a chance they are going to reduce their allocations.

Did the Poluk fishery kill all the Sacramento fish too? Where do you stop the blame on the poluk fishery that only kills 150k fish, when the Sac and Klamath fishery are short 500k fish. The numbers don't add up, neither do the Yukon fish that are absent in the last two years.

On the Togiak we saw less 4 salt fish the last two years than ever before. We also was the biggest population of three salt fish last year than ever before. If our Bering Sea Poluk fishery takes so many of those fish, how come we had such a big return of three salt fish. maybe the survival of those fish in the ocean was better than before.

The FAO report of 1994 was and is the most comprehensive report of by-catch on a global platform that I can find to date, (maybe somebody can help out). There are recent individual and Country fishery reports available with by-catch numbers.

In all fairness,since this report came out new techniques, gear, and BRD's have contributed to dropping by-catch waste numbers, but #'s still obscene. As the years have passed , new questions need to be addressed that are associated with by-catch and that would be:

"Fishery by-catch, especially discarded by-catch, is a serious problem in the world's oceans. Not only are the stocks of discarded species affected, but entire trophic webs and habitats may be disrupted at the ecosystem level".

Received 23 Aug 2005 Accepted 13 Oct 2005

Kevin:

I really don’t know why I bother, except many who read this will be capable of grasping simple concepts. Not every river is the same. If you take a huge number of fish from one river and not other rivers will see different results.

You came close to understanding when you mentioned the Sacramento. (About as close as you can get to spelling Pollack correctly apparently.) From reports I have read the Pollack fishery took a disproportionally high percentage of Yukon chinook. That would, IMHO adversely effect Yukon stocks.

No doubt there are myriad issues affecting every fishery, but to ignore over harvest is simply folly.

Actually Dave, since you are into correcting things, the proper spelling is "Pollock" but that's a mute point. You evidently were skipping spelling as well.

Knock yourselves out guys, it looks like another "Tragedy of the Commons" to me.



http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidpdfs/Sp09-26.pdf

My really big question about harvest reform as a recovery tool is what about all the species that are ramping down, but don't appear as bycatch?
Sea run cutthroat, chum salmon and lamprey ells come to mind.
These species are declining, yet they don't end up as bycatch, why?

By catch doesn't help any species except maybe crabs and seagulls.

"Fishery by-catch, especially discarded by-catch, is a serious problem in the world's oceans. Not only are the stocks of discarded species affected, but entire trophic webs and habitats may be disrupted at the ecosystem level".
This could be in itself or probably in conjunction with any myraid of other problems affecting fish returns.

Let's get back to the real problem here, Spelling!

Kevin:

At least you learned to spell "poluck" sic. BTW thanks for the correction. I was wrong, but I will learn from it. You on the other hand were repeatedly corrected on previous comment where you misspelled the word, but apparently did not learn from it. Now go look up mute point, as you screwed that up too.

Then go look up the statistics on the rivers of origin of Alaska Pollock fishery bycatch. Then go look up migratory patterns of southern Oregon and California salmonids vs. those from more northern climes. Once you have done all that you may have a somewhat better understanding of the issue. Not that a lack of understanding has ever kept you from posting.