The aquamarine and yellow chiffon bands make it obvious how the SEAK trollers hammer our summer and fall brights headed for the upper CR

In my (probably warped) view, you should fish on the fish you produce in your rivers. So, that troll fishery should be limited to SEAK...

To the Alaskans, your cows are grazing on my pasture so I'm gonna take a few for grazing fees.

I have always thought the assumption that "they were born in my river so they're my fish" to be pretty damned arbitrary, but it does feel more fair that those who bear the most habitat burdens should receive some payback for that burden.

Fish on...

Todd

No matter where the fish are going or where they are feeding, Alaska would be taking these fish . They're like "Janice from accounting, she just don't give a fu*k" (apologies to the Colbert Show). The "right thing to do" has never entered their thought process. It's Alaska, after all.

Jeff Koenings, when he was in AK, argued to the PSC that AK was owed Canadian and Lower-48 salmon because they "protected" the ocean.

Consider, if you believe that AK can take what they want then can Canada, for example, take all the water out of the Yukon, Columbia, Skagit at the border? If not, why not?

What pray tell does AK do to protect the ocean?

They clean the ocean out (to the best of their abilities) of all those pesky salmon that think they have unfettered access to their home waters. Not to mention all those spawning big halibut girls that they also scoop up as "bycatch'.

Actually, AK plants lots of pinks and chums who eat up all the zooplankton. Makes the ocean cleaner. Might cause other species to starve, but the water doesn't have all those pesky zooplankters.

AK doesn't dump oil in the ocean, they don't dump sewage from ships. They are, after the Tribes, the "First Conservationists".

The fishing occurs off SEAK, but the people doing it are mostly from ports in the states getting "low-holed." Somehow, it annoys me more that a few people from our area seem to be entitled to the lion's share of ALL North American salmon than it would to know it was actually Alaskans doing the low-holing.

I'd argue Canada gets screwed over the worst under the status quo, considering that our harvest up there consists of something like 30% Canadian fish. They take more American fish, but at least one COULD argue those fish are America's to manage. Not so for Canada's fish, which are effectively being poached..

Which is why Canada goes after WA and OR salmon off of WCVI. They hav e been unsuccessful at getting the attention AK; they hoped WA and OR could/would. Istead, we'll collectvely fish those stocks into oblivion and then wonder what happened. Or blame the Ocean.


Pogo was right.

The bycatch numbers are staggering. Over 200,000 lbs of halibut in one week!

https://www.kbbi.org/post/week-bycatch-october-22#stream/0

But what was the target catch? What percent of the target catch was halibut? And how does it compare with the rates we use for C&R?

Do not know but during that one week alone 4677 kings were also killed during that pollock trawl fishery. That’s a lot of by-catch. Surely there must be a better way. Such waste.


“ By-catch of king salmon remained above average for the week ending October 12. Onboard observers recorded four thousand six hundred seventy-seven kings, over half of which were caught by pelagic trawlers targeting pollock in Area 610, covering the southern side of the Eastern Aleutians. Bycatch of the other four species of salmon is typically much higher than chinook. However, during this week, observers recorded only one thousand six hundred and ninety three non-chinook salmon.”

The by catch in those AK fisheries are, percentage-wise and poundage-wise minuscule. IT may be a lot of halibut or a lot of salmon but since it is a tiny fraction of what they are after it doesn't matter. At least to the managers.

IT’S OFFICIAL!

Yea!

If the hammer comes down, don't expect it to fall just on Alaska. So. U.S. fisheries including WA/OR ocean, Puget Sound, Columbia River are mentioned too in the Treaty and are part of the annual assessments of fishing impacts. It could very well be that the nuclear option would mean just BC fisheries and perhaps Tribal Treaty fisheries would be the only game allowed. Check out Chapter 3 pg 47.


https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psc.org%2Fwp-admin%2Fadmin-ajax.php%3Fjuwpfisadmin%3Dfalse%26action%3Dwpfd%26task%3Dfile.download%26wpfd_category_id%3D45%26wpfd_file_id%3D2337%26token%3D355d07112ed25d88e8b785147168a816%26preview%3D1&embedded=true

In order to feed the SRKWs, you need to get adult salmon back to them. Obviously marine mixed stock fisheries should get hit. But, fisheries after the fish pass the whales are constrained only by conservation and allocation. If there is no ocean fishing, then it should be close to 50:50 in the bays/rivers.

That line of thinking makes sense but things don't necessarily work out that way. Federal court is like a box of chocolates you never know what you are going to get (eg corporations are people too).