We know that salmon (including steelhead)are intercepted before reaching freshwater streams. The result is harvesting of stocks that that shouldn't be taken. The fish run a gauntlet starting with the high seas fishery, then Alaskan, then Canadian, and then U.S. commercial fisheries. All of those are OCEAN and therefore INDISCRIMINANT commercial fisheries. What I'm getting at is not new. Wouldn't it be better if the stocks were taken commercially at their natal streams? Sure, it wouldn't be popular with a lot of financially/politically powerful commercial interests that fish in Ak., but you would probably have B.C. on your side. Also, quite a few Ak. commercial fishermen are from Wa. & Or., so you would have the most political pull dealing with them. Selective Fisheries: using fishwheels,fish traps,( or whatever would be the best way to release certain fish).......that would allow the DISCRIMINANT taking of fish in their natal streams (yeah, freshwater tributaries). So the comm. fishermen give up their boats......too bad!

[This message has been edited by AkBill (edited 03-13-99).]

This sounds like a good idea, but you would have to stop indiscriminate commercial fishing for several years, to see what kind of returns will make it to the rivers. Also certain fish, like chum, change colors well before they hit the river mouths. So this wouldn't work. This might help regulate native american net fisheries. What I don't like is it might introduce a private industry net season for steelhead. Also there would be all kinds of arguments about how much fish could be caught, etc., etc.
It would go back to the issue of escapement models, and accurate surveying.--mike


[This message has been edited by KORE (edited 03-14-99).]

Thanks KORE...First, if I remember right, comm. fishermen only get pennies per pound for chums and most of those pennies are for the eggs. If that's true then maybe Wa., Or., and B.C. chums would actually be worth more when caught in their home streams than in Ak.. Second, NO NETS.....only devices that allow release of unharmed, non-targeted species (especailly steelhead). Third, there are already all kinds of arguments about how many fish should be harvested.....if anything, I believe what I proposed would help reduce those arguments, and make it easier for the fisheries departments to decide on allowable harvests from individual streams. .......Of course what I propose would be just one piece of the puzzle, but at least you would get the fish that were born in your streams. If you would like to read the article that I read about this, go to www.anglingbc.com/bigpicture.html

[This message has been edited by AkBill (edited 03-14-99).]

Fish traps:then the money the tribes getfrom the fish could be equally alloted amoung its members. The 50% could be monitored and all native steelhead could be released. Better yet, sell their fishing rights for slot machines.

Terminal fisheries are absolutely the best idea to protect weak stocks. If a river has a weak stock, don't fish it. If it has a healthy one, fish it with fish traps. Take out the targeted species, release the rest.

Sounds pretty simple to me. What a political nightmare to get people to go for it.

No more bycatch, of fish birds, whales, dolphins, dumbass fishermen who run over nets, etc. Only the fish who are targeted are retained. Anything that simple would be fought over for twenty years while the nets continue to rape.
If B.A.N. finally passes, I bet we'd have the commercial fishers singing that tune in about five minutes, and the tribes may even chime in. Who knows?
Fish on...
Todd.

Except the problem we have now is due in part to river closures placing added pressure on the next closest river decimating that stock also. Same with the "bubble" fisheries.

I like the idea of the slot machine trade-off, tho I wonder if the coastal tribes would be interested. And the fish traps would certainly be ideal, as well as more "traditional." I asked Billy Frank, more than 10 years ago, about their return to traps. All I got was a dirty look! From my observations, the few tribal guys who do the fishing don't want to share the booty with their other tribal members, and Frank seems to support that. TU (Hal Boynton) actually built a nice fish trap a few years ago and encouraged the tribes to use it, but they had no interest. Maybe (??) if all non-tribal nets were banned,the tribes would have the pick of so many hatchery fish they would finally consider traps.

First to KORE ... you won't have to worry about a private industry steelhead fishery ... do remember that commercial fishing for steelhead in the state of WA was outlawed back in the '30's.

I will have to say that I would love to see traps incorporated into mixed-stock fisheries (see my mention of the Kasilof under the Kenai / Cook Inlet regs) ... where those can take place ... the problem we have here in the state and specifically with the coastal streams in getting this to be emplaced is something that I've mentioned before ... BOTH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND THE TRIBES AGREE THAT THE STOCKS ARE HEALTHY ENOUGH TO CONTINUE HARVEST!!! Or so the models say ... but where is there any eveidence in this state of these models working ... nowhere! In all areas of long-term harvest, the fishery has collapsed ... the favorite place of the media is to point fingers at the 'habitat' ... easy to do in some areas ... but you never hear about overharvest by ALL user groups. Until the way in which these runs are modeled and managedis changed, the slaughter will continue until the fishery collapses ... can you say Puget Sound Chinook? A season on them this year??? What in the hell is the state thinking??? A limit of two kings on the rivers?

The changes in Kenai Peninsula, AK regs in recent years are a good example of hopefully preventative measures ... one king limit ... annual limit ... getting away from the simple minimum escapement ... going to higher escapement levels ... in other words, erring on the side of the fish ... our biggest hurdle in WA is not the nets, nor the sport harvest, nor the habitat ... it simply saying that we have goofed, our models haven't been working and inceasing the number of fish we put back on the beds!

[This message has been edited by Bob (edited 03-19-99).]