Don't be confused however by the real thing in which said fish actually spawn and have ten times as many fish show up ten years down the road.

yes there is, but not on a scale like this... its an organic source, not a chemical source, so over fertilization would be impossible...

and it does fertilize the enitre river, on a small scale... everything goes up and sh!ts that fish crap out, then here in Wa we have this thing called rain, and it rains on hilltops where everything just sh!t on, and that washes down cuz theres another thing called gravity ... not all of it washes down obviously, because its consumed by every organism in the soil, BUT, some does...

leaving the fish on the bank like that im afraid to say, is far better nutrient dispersion wise than letting birds and such eat it, or putting it into a compost pile....

but im still not for it, or feel good when i see it....

I just made a little jingle about those three very important things for a coworker yesterday. Strange. Solid reference by the way.


Michael!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do I feel like I'm sitting in an eighth grade biology class in Chimacum? Just sayin'.... carry on.

maybe cause it was the highest grade you completed?

Yeah, that must be it.

Because you are watching the WWF on TV and it reminded you of the strong feelings you had for Bill Nye the science guy as a blossoming young boy?

No wait, yeah..THAT must be it.

Notice how Audball handled that, Nate?

are you implying you have your grade 8 ?
























/

I really like the "I don't believe it so it can't be true" style of thinking.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f06-029?journalCode=cjfas#.Uo9aY9qA21s


Some big words in this article.

Originally posted by: Brewer
are you implying you have your grade 8 ?


I would never imply such a thing. Boasting of one's scholastic achievements is unnecessary and of poor form. I was simply making an observation. Good question though, Skippy.

Wrong. Talkin out your arse again.

I have worked and helped sort fish in hatcheries and even the seasoned gurus of 30+ years can be confused. Sex is obvious in some fish and not so much in others.

You do realize that you have way less of a diverse life experience than everyone here and you come up with stuff based on your limited experience? Time to enter the real world.

Typical, somebody posts a picture, adds some conjecture, and everybody piles on adding their lack of knowledge to the mix.

I wonder if there's a "rest of the story", or if this picture really is the story....

http://nwifc.org/2005/05/skokomish-fishermen-net-award-for-hood-canal-chum-carcass-project/

Interesting article in their own publication; especially the part about how a glut of farm raised Atlantic salmon has depressed salmon prices therefore justifying the switch to eggs as a saleable product. Is that somehow intended to justify what the picture has now captured?

Now, if the Tribe and/or the NWIFC wants to set the record straight (thereby avoiding all of the unsubstantiated conjecture) they could/should (or already should have) be issuing an explanatory news release as to what their accepted practice is, how the picture represents a violation of that practice/Tribal regulation, and what is being done to punish the perps to include a later after action summary - chances of that are zip/zero as we know.

notice the date on the report.

May 17th, 2005

It's been interesting (and in many ways frustrating) to see the developments that have occurred in what has been a record year of salmon returns in many basins around the state. Taken at face value, the images presented in this thread instill a sense of anger in anyone who has been concerned about the overall trend of declining stocks over the past several decades. Without question, such mass wasting is a nauseating sight to any sport fisherman whose opportunity to catch salmon has been severely limited by commercial fisheries through the years.

In reality, what we are seeing is likely the gruesome result of the same policies the Tribe has been applying to their fisheries for years being applied in a year of abnormally large returns.

I absolutely agree that this is a shameful, wasteful practice, but as has been said, the economics are sound, and the ecological benefit will likely be substantial (assuming we do get a high water event before too much decay occurs in the current location). From a fisheries management perspective, this scenario, sickening as it is to a sportsman, is probably viewed as a win-win.

Is anybody else concerned that this year's anomaly will lead to increased commercial effort that may or may not be sustainable in the next few years?

What is really interesting is how the state and tribes will describe the amount of carcasses. Research has shown that up to 2 kilogrammes of carcass per square metre of stream (as measured at summer low flow) is the point at which the direct benefits to rearing juvenile salmon has a inflection from a steeply rising line to a flatter one. Represents a good target.

So, if it their position that the amount of carcasses provides an ecological benefit then why not let actual fish go upstream, spawn, and then provide the carcasses. Seems to me that it will be hard to say that what is seen in the picture is ecologically beneficial but allowing 1% of that number as the optimum number of spawners would seem to be a disconnect.