 |
|
|
|
Between October 8, 2001 and February 22, 2002, panelists representing different perspectives from Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington were available to answer students' questions related to salmon biology on the Salmon Summit Web site. In selecting participants for the Salmon Summit panel, we tried to choose panelists with different opinions and different backgrounds. The opinions expressed by the panelists were their own. They may not agree with those of other panelists, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of 7th Floor Media.
The panelists are not currently online. However, you will find the questions submitted by the students and the responses received from the panelists, below.
|
|
|
|
| Q - How much salmon is fished near the four Schools (the schools are in Prince Rupert BC, Vancouver BC, Ketchikan AK, and Seattle WA)? | | Q - How could one find out how many salmon have been caught sport fishing? | | Q - What are the Canadian sport fishers concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | | Q - Which canneries do the best and how are they the best? Also if possible, could you please tell me how did they get to be the best? (What techiques) | | Q - What are the Canadian First Nations' concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | | Q - What are the Alaska commercial fishing concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | | Q - What are the Alaska sports fishers concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | | Q - What are the concerns of the Alaska environmentalists involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | | | Q - How much salmon is fished near the four Schools (the schools are in Prince Rupert BC, Vancouver BC, Ketchikan AK, and Seattle WA)? | |
A - Well, I see where the question is going but am not in much of a position to answer that kind of a question. I will ask someone to see if I can get some numbers, (ie) annual averages for the Rupert area. Perhaps more pertinent to the issue would be numbers of late as a result of various circumstances beyond and within our control. I really don't know much of the issues related to Alaska/British Columbia/Wash, Harvest/Treaty agreements. What I can speak of is my opinions as to possible problems we've encountered along the way to where we are now.
There have always been issues around who gets to harvest what percentage of which species. Some of the problems arise when differing gear/vessel types want greater shares of certain species. This happens when one stock of fish become too few to harvest or another type of gear learns how to catch another specie, or one specie becomes lower in value and/or another becomes more valuable. An example of one might be the Pink Salmon between Southeast Alaska and BC in the Dixon Entrance. For years, there had been huge disputes between Canadian Trollers and American Seiners over just where the border should lie in order to decide who got best access to those Southeast Pinks. Now I don't think this was much of an issue pre-1981, when very few trollers in the Dixon Entrance fished for Pink Salmon, but as Pink prices climbed and vessel size changed, Fishing gear technology evolved and freezers became more the "norm," especially on the larger trollers, access to these Pinks suddenly became a very hot issue. Much time and effort was put into tagging these fish all across the Entrance, to determine just whose stocks they were in order to determine who did and who did not get access and/or who got more and who got less access.
Then issues like the Fraser Sockeye at Noyes Island (Alaska) and the Skeena Sockeye at Noyes Island and Tree Point (Alaska) became hot topics, because there were stocks of concern issues that were creeping up. Who was impacting the Rivers Inlet/Smiths Inlet Sockeye Stocks that were disappearing so dramatically? Then Trollers discovered the Fraser Sockeye outside of the West Coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands. This made for the start of an uneasy relationship between not only the Noyes Island Fishery in Southeast Alaska, but also the West Coast Vancouver Island Trollers, the Northern tip of Vancouver Island Net Fisheries, and the Juan de Fuca Net Fishers from both lower BC and Washington State.
As gear developed and technology developed, new issues were constantly on the horizon. For instance, Chum Salmon, always thought to be a "net" fish, was also becoming now a target of the Troller. Originally, way back when, only two species were really considered "Troll Fish": Coho (Silvers) and Spring Salmon (Kings, Chinook). The other three, Sockeye, Chum, and Pinks were always considered "Net Fish." Technology changed all that.
Then, enter the Sports Fishers. We used to joke about bringing some "Sporties" out to Langara Island, in the early 80's, but could never figure out why anyone would want to come out there. In 1985, all that suddenly changed. Lodges suddenly appeared, bringing with them, access to some of the finest fishing for King Salmon anywhere on the Coast of BC. It was no longer a joke!
Now, suddenly there was a threat to the Trollers and their "share" of the Spring Salmon. Then as more and more people became aware of the Sports fishing around Prince Rupert, Coho became very much in demand. Most all Salmon that rear and travel throughout the North Coast, are transient between Alaska and BC. They don't understand Borders. Now with all the pressure from all sides on the Stocks, some couldn't stand up to the effort being applied by all the groups wanting a "share." This inevitably put some stocks at risk and needed sudden and very dramatic management action to be taken and applied to all fishers alike.
Most Fisheries are "interception" and "mixed stock" by nature. That is, as they make their way back to their Natal or home streams, we all try to catch them. Salmon generally all come back home in the summer. This means that as they arrive at their home streams they become "mixed" and when we try to target one specie, inevitably, we wind up "encountering" or "catching" or "intercepting" other stocks travelling amongst them. Now add to that problem, the fact that they are travelling back home, passing through another country?s waters. That is, most all Salmon born in a stream between Washington State and Alaska, will travel, through the course of their life, up through BC and on into Alaska, all the way to the top of Alaska. When they are mature and start their return journey to spawn, we all try to catch a share of them. This is where the problems begin. For example, Native American Indians in Washington State, have a court appointed right of access to 50% of all the Salmon Native to Washington State. Somehow, between Washington State, Alaska and BC, people need to decide how issues like that will be dealt with. Up here in the Nass River, the Nishga Natives have signed a Treaty with the Governments and they must be allocated or guaranteed a designated amount of the surplus Salmon returning each year now. All these issues have to be dealt with first, before any harvesting can take place and threaten to jeopardize these Treaties and/or weaker Stocks of Salmon.
Then to make matters even more interesting/complicated, when one or more Stocks or Species of a certain River, no matter which Country of origin, become at Risk, Threatened, or Endangered, they must also "run the gauntlet" of all us people trying to catch the fish. With the fish travelling through so many jurisdictions, (Alaska, BC, and Wash and even into Oregon), and so many people with so much sophisticated gear and boats these days, how do the treaty negotiators even begin to manage the fishery much less protect weak stocks and still divide the fish surpluses from strong runs of fish between all the various user groups?
One of the first consequences of protecting weak stocks of fish here on the North Coast, was trying to protect Steelhead in the Central area. This was done by studying their habits of migration and realizing that in general those fish travelled very near the surface. As a result, the web on a gillnet was dropped 4 feet by means of special ropes or "Gangions" that suspended the net 4 feet under the surface. Then came the issue of weak stocks of Coho. In order to harvest more Sockeye here on the Skeena, while at the same time encountering less Steelhead and Coho, fishers tried moving to a "mono - filament" type of webbing, which was less visible to the fish. In Alaska, fishers had already moved to this new web, in a six strand format. That is the twine consisted of 6 strands of "mono-filament." The old netting had to have a minimum of at least 30 strands of a certain size of nylon twine. This twine was more visible.
In order to try and become more effective, another idea was to make the nets deeper. Regular nets are 60 meshes deep. These new nets were 90 meshes deep. The reason for this was that in order to avoid the Steelhead, they had to drop their nets down 4 feet, leaving a space for the Sockeye to swim over. While more effective on Sockeye, these deeper nets now dropped down into the Coho zone. This created a new problem as Coho were now under scrutiny for weak stock management. These new Coho encounters were not a welcome sight to the fishery managers.
Now, as Coho weak stocks became a huge issue, the Trollers, who had traditionally targetted the Coho, became themselves the target. The result was shutting down an entire Industry segment for a number of years. This also created huge problems for the net fleets and for 10 years, more or less, we endured heavily cut back fishing time on the Sockeye and our other species to harvest, in order to give the Coho a chance to rebuild. This summer was the first time in many years that the net fleet has fished most of its quota. For quite a number of years now the net fleet on the North Coast has not fished beyond the 18th of July, to allow for the Coho Stocks entering the system, mixed with the Sockeye and Pinks, to make the run up the Skeena River with no problems (like fishermen catching them). This also had a huge impact on the Sports sector. They were restricted to certain times and areas to fish and non-retention/non-possession issues as well.
Things change; this year for the first time in many years, we got to fish almost the full season on the Skeena Sockeye, the Sports Sector got to target Coho Stocks, with higher retention limits, and greater fishing areas and last, but not least, the Trollers still never got to harvest any Coho. It would seem that at least for the Commercial Fishery, we've moved closer and closer to the "Rivers of Origin" in order to harvest our share of the resource. This has meant a much-changed fishery for the Trollers especially, as their traditional fishery was one of free ranging in the Coastal waters, pretty well wherever they so chose. No more; life as a fisher is very different now, management of our resources is changing, along with opportunity and responsibility.
Certain groups are gaining access to resources; others are losing access, depending on each group's abilities to fish selectively. Selective fishing is defined as "having the ability to either avoid or if unable to avoid, non-target species or stocks, then to have the ability to release said encounters alive and unharmed." I can only imagine that because it is next to impossible to identify one Stock of Coho from another while they are at sea, this is what is creating the problems for the Trollers. For the net fleets, once the fish are near their home streams, it is much easier for the Fishery Managers to identify, through run timing, just when certain stocks are either in or just entering the Fishing zone and can then curtail or manage through various newly adopted/developed fishing strategies and/or techniques, ways to protect the weaker stocks while still allowing for harvest of the target stocks.
Certainly this has presented Managers on both sides of the Border with many challenges. For instance, Skeena River bound Coho, move back and forth between Alaska and BC all summer. As all the stocks of Coho are pretty well travelling together as a huge group, how do you identify one small group of weaker stocks of fish, while still allowing harvesting opportunities on the stronger stocks of fish? The fish don't come with a little sign on their back saying "I'm Canadian" or "I'm a weak or endangered stock." It takes some pretty close "working together," on the part of American and Canadian Biologists to keep track of all these things.
--
The Hawkshaws
| |
A - Your question might be reworded to ask "What is the harvest of salmon in Southeast Alaska (i.e., Ketchikan), Northern British Columbia (i.e.,Prince Rupert), Southern British Columbia (i.e., Vancouver), and Puget Sound (i.e., Seattle)." As a fisheries biologist in southeast Alaska I've got harvest estimates for this area which I'll try to summarize. Commercial harvests of salmon in Southeast Alaska have been at historical high levels in the past 15-20 years. Since commercial fisheries began around 1878, eight of the highest annual harvests (in numbers of salmon) have occurred in the past 13 years! Sport and subsistence/personal use harvests of salmon have also been high and reflective of strong runs. Wild salmon dominate the harvests but hatchery fish account for about 20% of the coho harvested and probably 75% of the chum harvested since 1994. Pink salmon typically comprise about 75% of the salmon harvested but sockeye, chum, and coho salmon often bring in over two-thirds of the commercial "ex-vessel" value. Some real numbers...recent 10-year (1992-2001) harvests have averaged 50 million pink, 12 million chum, 3 million coho, 2 million sockeye, and .2 million chinook salmon in Southeast Alaska (including Yakutat).
Harvests of salmon in southeast Alaska have not always been this high. There was a period of low runs and harvests in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s that followed a long period of declining runs that had peaked in the 1910s (sockeye), 1920s (chinook and chum), and 1930s and 1940s (pink and coho). These declining runs reflected a long period of deteriorating escapements that began with the very first commercial fishing in the region. The early fisheries were poorly regulated and over capitalized and had a pattern of overfishing individual runs or run timing segments. Alaska inherited at Statehood in 1959 a badly depressed resource but the combination of habitat protections, fishing restrictions to rebuild escapements, enhancement, and generally favorable climate/ocean conditions have now boosted returns to historical high levels. Only summer chum and some small island/coastal sockeye populations have still not rebuilt to historical production levels. We can expect that future returns will continue to fluctuate with natural variations in survivals but average much higher than they were in the 1950s and 1960s providing that habitats and escapements are maintained - and global warming is cooled! Unfortunately, the higher the harvests the lower the price/pound and earnings - so while our stocks are generally healthy the commercial fishing industry is, well, economically challenged.
--
Ben Van Alen
| |
A - Estimated total 2001 harvest by all commercial gear groups and sportfishing in Alaska.
Chinook - 21,815
Sockeye - 855,988
Coho - 727,977
Pink - 38,225,150
Chum - 1,936,762
--
Jerry Hughes
| | |  | | Q - How could one find out how many salmon have been caught sport fishing? | |
A - Boy, oh boy, now that's a tough one! Just to begin with, what do you mean by "caught"? Would that be hooked, landed and taken home to eat or mount as a trophy, or would that be just simply "hooked"? Why I ask is to present you with the real issues that we all have to deal with in this new "age" of fishing responsibly.
People go fishing for different reasons. Some people go fishing solely with the intent to catch and release all the fish they hook for relaxation and pleasure. Some people go sports fishing to take their "limit" home for fish to eat. Some people go fishing simply for the pleasure of the experience and would like to take home just one fish and would quit fishing after they catch that one fish, regardless of its size or specie.
Let's explore the various impacts that each of these people may have on the resource. Through various studies that have been undertaken by people on all sides of the border, it has been documented to a pretty close degree, the amount of fish that will die as a result of being caught by a hook. (This also applies to commercial fishing and has been the cause of much heated debate and frustration amongst the fishers!) So, for example, if a person goes out fishing just to take one home to eat, and no more fish are hooked that day, that will be the only mortality resulting from that person's efforts. For the person who goes out simply for the pleasure of being out on the water and catches and releases all his/her fish, there must still be a mortality or "caught and killed" number applied to that experience. Now for the person who is out to catch a trophy fish, to mount and display at home, and pays for two or three days stay at a lodge for instance, that person might "hook" or "encounter" many fish, in their search for "the big one." This will result in only one fish being recorded as "killed," providing that person does not take any others home to eat. However, a different tale must be told when recording the actual amount of fish that died as a result of taking that one fish home.
I don't have the precise percentage that has been assigned to hook encounter mortality, but I've heard it said that it is in the 25% range. (For the gillnet fleet that number was as high as 65 - 70%. Better education, gear, and different gear applications are moving that number downwards today, anywhere from 1.5% (our work this year with the "Live Capture Tangle Net") to 25 - 40% for the regular gillnets. Whether or not that particular number is the actual or average number is largely the result of the individual person's effort to handle their fish, either responsibly with care, concern and skill or irresponsibly, carelessly and unskilled.
So, let's explore this particular scenario. If the fishing guide recorded every fish that was hooked and released, we would have to come up with a very different number for the actual amount of fish that were killed as a result of searching for that one trophy fish. If that person "hooked" and released 10 fish, then it is assumed that 2.5 of those fish will die and not be shown as part of the annual TAC or "total allowable catch." Then there's also the "one's that get away." How many of those die without that figure ever being known? This is where the biologists have to do their work. How many people, who actually hooked and released fish, did so responsibly? As more and more people hook more and more fish, that "average" will have to move to a much higher standard of responsibility. (This will apply to the commercial sector even more so, as we can have by far the greatest impact through shear numbers of fish encountering our harvesting gear. It is going to take a great shift in all fishers' skills, attitude and education about responsibility when handling encountered fish.)
Then you have the person who goes out for the day, to catch a fish to eat, but finds the experience of fishing so exciting that he/she decides to fish the whole day. That person might only take his/her limit home, but during the course of the day, might also have "hooked and released" quite a number of either unwanted species (eg. looking for a Coho and kept catching Pinks in the process) Once again we must attach a presumed mortality to that person's day fishing, beyond what they actually brought home. On the other hand, not every person who goes out fishing, will catch their limit, or fish for more than their limit and/or would take home whatever specie they caught. This then would result in an actual number of fish caught and killed.
As we have seen, there is not only a lot of skill involved when trying to arrive at anywhere near actual numbers of fish killed during a season, but also a lot of trust applied as the number of fish killed is largely dependent on that particular person's sense of responsibility.
This also applies to the commercial fishing sector. It seems, through various studies that have been undertaken over the years, that any human encounter with a fish can, but not necessarily will, result in a certain amount of mortalities. These numbers need to be factored in when the biologists do their annual assessment work to determine who caught what and how much. Some of you students might possibly become the next generation of commercial fishers. You will have the responsibility of learning and developing these new skills, gear types and responsibilities. Some of you will become tomorrow's Sports fishing people; you will have to learn to conduct yourselves much differently than previous generations have.
So we see just how complicated these issues really are. Handling fish, whether encountered and intended for release, or for food, is a responsibility and a skill that must become something that is taught and learned as a part of the future of fishing for all gear types. Our resources depend on us to understand them and their needs and just how we grow to learn and respect more about their needs, where and how we fit in their world, will inevitably and ultimately determine whether or not you will have wild fish for your future generations to enjoy. Their future is in your hands.
--
The Hawkshaws
| |
A - I wanted the most accurate numbers I could get, so I asked Wayne Saito in our Recreational Fishing about the numbers of fish caught near the schools in sport fishing. Here's the info he has provided.
Below are catch reports for 2000. The 2001 season estimates have not been completely compiled yet.
Prince Rupert
Chinook - 6,000
Coho - 4,000
Sockeye - 80
Pink - 1,700
Chum - 225
Vancouver
Fraser River Mainstem from Sumas River to Coquihalla River
Chinook - 7,105
Coho - 435
Sockeye - 50,265
Steelhead - 16
Here is the salmon catch and effort data for the sport fishery management area adjacent to Seattle (Area 10). Area 10 is bounded on the north by a line drawn from Apple Cove Point (about 1.5 statute miles north of Kingston, WA) to Edwards Point (at Edmonds, WA) and on the south by a line drawn true east-west through the northernmost point of Vashon Island. (This latter line is approximated by running a line from Point Southworth to Point Vashon then to a point 600 south of Brace Point.) Area 10 would include all marine waters between these two lines. Here are the preliminary Area 10 sport fishery salmon catch and effort data for the calendar year 2000. Note that these are preliminary data and subject to further revision. Catches are in numbers of fish and effort is in angler trips.
Chinook - 2,957
Coho - 11,540
Pink - 0
Chum - 58
Sockeye - 0
TOTAL - 14,555
Angler Trips - 44,916
For Ketchikan, AK, go to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Web site. This offers some general information that may, or may not meet your needs for Ketchikan catch figures.
--
Joanne Day
| |
A - There are several programs run by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, to estimate the harvest of salmon (those that are caught, killed, and kept) by sport fishermen in Alaska. The main tool is an annual questionnaire that is mailed out to a random selection of folks who had bought sport fishing licenses that year. Harvest estimates are available from this mailout questionnaire survey starting in 1977. The average sport fish harvest in fresh and saltwater in Southeast Alaska/Yakutat for the 10-year, 1990-1999, period is estimated to be: 55 thousand chinook, 158 thousand coho, 16 thousand sockeye, 63 thousand pink, and 12 thousand chum salmon.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, also has creel survey programs associated with the major communities in Southeast Alaska that provide in- and postseason estimates of the harvest of salmon. There is also a sport charter log book program in southeast Alaska. The WEB would be the first place to look for more information on sport fish harvests in southeast Alaska. Check out www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/FISH.GAME/sportf/region1/r1home.htm. From this web site you can read summaries of the past fishing season, read reports (search for "salmon harvest" or "harvest"), get contact e-mail addresses, and link to other sites like ADF&G's, Sport Fish Division home page.
--
Ben Van Alen
| | | | | Q - What are the Canadian sport fishers concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | |
A - I posed this question to Gerry Kristianson, the Recreational Fishery Commissioner, who works with the Pacific Salmon Commission regarding the Pacific Salmon Treaty issues and recreational fishing. This was his response:
"The main concern of the sport sector in Canada has been to ensure implementation of Article Three of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with respect to chinook and coho, the two species of primary interest to recreational anglers.
In our view, the fact that the original 1985 terms of the treaty did not provide for abundance based-management of chinook and coho made it impossible to 'prevent overfishing' and to ensure that each country received benefits 'equivalent to the production of salmon originating in its waters.'
The 1999 agreement provided much-improved rules for abundance-based management of chinook and Northern coho, as does the recently reached agreement on Southern coho. These arrangements provide for a substantial reduction in overall harvest rates as well as reductions in interceptions of Canada's fish by Alaska, and of fish from Washington, Oregon and Idaho by Canada.
There are some remaining pieces of the puzzle to put in place. In particular, the recreational sector is anxious to ensure implementation of the commitment 'to adopt a management framework for chinook salmon based on total fishing mortality.' The 1999 agreement said that the parties intended to put a total mortality regime in place for all chinook fisheries 'by 2002 if possible.' We are pressing for this to happen since it is obvious that both Canada and the US South will benefit if Alaska has to account for the sub-legal chinook encountered by the troll fishery and the incidental mortality of chinook in various net fisheries aimed at sockeye, pink and chum."
--
Joanne Day
| | | | | Q - Which canneries do the best and how are they the best? Also if possible, could you please tell me how did they get to be the best? (What techiques) | |
A - Wow! This panelist is quite nearly caught without a response. Canneries for salmon in Washington State, and the southern US in general, are history. The first cannery on the Fraser River for example, was built at Brownsville, opposite New Westminster, about 1870. The number of canneries in that area increased rapidly toward the end of the nineteenth century. Other B.C. areas where canneries played a major role in processing salmon were the Skeena River and on the Nass River. The canning industry in Puget Sound started in the 1890's in the north around Bellingham. Sockeye salmon were the principle species used for canning and chinook salmon were the principle species used for the fresh fish market in this area. In the Columbia River, chinook salmon populations were the largest in the world and so canneries were built to process the various runs returning during the year starting in the spring and early summer, when the highest quality fish were available. Canning salmon created markets all around the world, while fresh fish marketing was limited by the technology available at the time for shipping and preserving.
The decline in salmon populations, whether it was sockeye from the Fraser or chinook in the Columbia River, was the demise of the canneries. It has been argued that the canneries, or the need to keep them economically viable, was a cause in the decline of these species.
The development of new techniques for processing salmon in recent years, such as deep-freezing of fish caught at sea, has made canneries obsolete. Today, only a few canneries operate in the Puget Sound or Columbia River region - I'm not sure of the status of canneries in B.C. Even canneries that were built to process sport-caught salmon in Washington during the heyday of the fishery here (1960-1980) have gone out of business because of the decline in numbers of fish that are caught. Even its hard to find a cannery to process sport-caught salmon today.
So, since canneries are not really an economically viable industry any longer, the question you asked about which ones do the best is, at best, a relative question. I know of a few that are economically viable today, for example the Quinault Tribe of Washington has a cannery that does a good business processing their catches of sockeye (Quinault Lake sockeye) and they also can razor clams. They are successful in providing a specialty product to a select market.
I hope I've given you some information that is valuable for you in understanding the history and current condition of this industry.
--
Patrick Pattillo
| | | | | Q - What are the Canadian First Nations' concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | |
A - First Nations are concerned about the proper management of pacific salmon for conservation and to ensure that their constitutionally protected right for food, social and ceremonial needs is met. First Nations are concerned about having adequate input to the Pacific Salmon Treaty to ensure that enough fish are allowed to pass through the commercial fisheries to provide for their needs as well as for spawning requirements.
Many First Nations people also participate in the regular commercial fisheries and have the same concerns as other commercial fishermen, that they share in the harvest of healthy salmon stocks that will be managed to provide a strong commercial fishery for the future.
--
Joanne Day
| | | | | Q - What are the Alaska commercial fishing concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | |
A - In Alaska, Commercial fishermen fear that reduced quota allocations of salmon will cause the collapse of the salmon fishing industry.
--
Jerry Hughes
| | | | | Q - What are the Alaska sports fishers concerns involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | |
A - Primary concern in Ketchikan area is with the reduced quota allocations of king salmon resulting in smaller bag limits, and closures in some areas for the protection of treaty fish.
The charter fishing guides are concerned about their ability to attract nonresident fishermen due to the small annual bag limits placed on nonresident fishermen.
--
Jerry Hughes
| | | | | Q - What are the concerns of the Alaska environmentalists involving the Pacific Salmon Treaty? | |
A - The environmentalist groups seem to be primarily concerned with the protection of wild runs and would support treaties and government regulations that would protect those runs.
--
Jerry Hughes
| | | |
|
|
|
