GOA bycatch news

[entropy1]

http://tholepin.blogspot.com/

New pics of dragger crew sorting halibut and crab bycatch with pews and knives.

Also a screen shot of nmfs weekly chinook bycatch of 5200 fish.

[Rusty]

Thats sick. In this day and age when the catch word is sustainable resource. This waste is unforgivable. Every news service in the US and the American public should see this. Conesumer this is why you are paying $30.00 a pound for fresh halibut

[Salty]

Thanks so much for this link. As longtime readers of this forum know I actually put together a short video years ago for the Alaska Marine Conservation Council from research sub video showing the effect of trawls on coral and sponge beds. Then I staffed a booth at the Kodiak Marine trade fair where we played those videos. it is my view that groundfish trawling is so destructive to habitat and so unselective in targeting harvest that like salmon traps and high seas gillnetting it should be either much much more strictly regulated or prohibited like it is in SE Alaska.

[yak2you2]

This IS sad, and disgusting. Unfortunately, much the same as is it is with damage caused by the hydroelectric conglomerations, your up against big money here. These guys are able to weald their money and influence to such a degree that even some of our fellow fishermen and organizations are hesitant to speak out against their actions, even when they know it is wrong to allow it to happen. Some choose to ignore it for fear of direct repercussions against their own fisheries' by-catches rather than look at ways of cleaning up their own actions , while others view them as a valuable ally whom they don't wish to offend. They are the biggest donator to the biggest commercial fishermen's organizations in most cases, this, I suspect, is the reason for the silence, and it's also the reason I can't be a part of these organizations.
Until we can obtain a unified voice as fishermen against this wasteful destruction, I doubt anyone will put much stock in what is said, and even then, they still have all their political ties. Some of the guys who own the boats, that cause so much destruction, sit on the boards that make the decision to allow them to do it in the first place.
What is wrong, is wrong, there are no gray areas, or in this case, acceptable mortality levels, simply because your referring to the species that pertains to you personally. So much hell is raised about the king salmon mortality, but no one ever hardly even talks about the 250,000 to 500,000 chums they waste every year. Why? Is it because king salmon are more valuable?, or because chums are more prevalent and we can afford to let them be wasted? You'd feel differently about that if you lived on the Yukon River I bet.
What's wrong is wrong. To that end, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't be throwing dying fish over the side either, simply because their not worth enough to the fleet. There is usually a certain sub-legal mortality factored into every treaty or quota, why aren't we at least bringing in that estimated mortality and utilizing it? In theory, if we all would quit throwing dead fish over the side because of this legality or that, we might all actually end up with more fish to harvest some day. I'll say it in advance to those who are offended by opinion, I'm sorry, but you can't lie to me, whether it's in the river, or in the ocean, hook and release doesn't work, more often than it does.
To me, the sooner we acknowledge what everybody already knows, the better. Then we we can get on with calling the guys who are really destroying our fisheries.

[yak2you2]

I should make it clear that its not that I feel trolling has some huge by-catch issue, fact is it's my opinion that it is by far the cleanest fishery going. I just feel like all of the by-catch, by all other user groups, trollers, longliners, sport, gillnetters, crabbers, etc., don't amount to a fraction of the damage done by the drag fleet, and I am dismayed that our various groups won't speak out as strongly as I feel that they should to stop it. It seems like they are intimidated by the drag fleet for reasons I can't see. If further reducing our by-catch is what it would take in order to make our group leaders feel comfortable enough to get off of the fence and pick a fight with these guys, then this what I'm saying we should look at.
It makes no sense to me to watch our groups throw rocks at logging, hydro-electric interests, or fish farming, and then remain what I would deem to be basically passive on the drag issue.
I don't get how anyone can publicly state that they're ok with this fishery continuing,,,in any compacity. Clear cutting and strip mining used to be considered ok too once.
If it's not fear of our own by-catch skeletons that holds our leaders back, then someone should enlighten me.

[yak2you2]

I can hear the unwritten thoughts of some, "do we really need another enemy right now?" or, "hey, they're just fishermen, trying to make a living, think about how many jobs and communities depend on this fishery". Neither excuse works for me, the level of destruction is just to great to ignore. I've talked to guys from out West who are in the know, that say there is a lot worse going on than even what we know about.
First, is dragging the absolute only way to catch Polluk? How about a pot fishery? Yeah, the price of Mc D's fillet o' fish will go up, so?? No one is saying stop catching Polluk, just stop bulldozing everything to get them. Second, and more importantly, it IS a fight we should take, I don't care if they are bigger, it's our ocean, and we have to draw the line somewhere.
Sorry, but I am deeply disappointed by all who are hesitant to throw their full weight against this. So what else is for sale? If we get the farmers to sign with us to fight the dams should we ignore their practices as well? I don't say that venomously, to me that is exactly the message we are sending to the world by not speaking out as a united group against what the drag fleet is doing.

[KimberlyAnn]

I think draggers should be banned along with nets over 1 mile and that would allow more smaller boats into the industry to keep up with the demand thus creating more jobs all around , to make a living at it with smaller vessels need to be cheaper to operate with better hull desighns with smaller engines like sail boat hulls , thats my 2 cents worth

[Abundance]

The two issues with bycatch that have always concerned me is waste and or damage to fish stocks. I don't know of any fishery in southeast that has any significant problems that I am aware of, but I do know that it makes me sick to see trollers through rockfish and pinks overboard, sometime by the thousands. I have personally seen days where I caught over five hundred rockfish in the course of a day. I just can't keep them off the gear. Obviously there is enough of them to sustain that year after year, but I have made it a point to never kill a fish that I don't use. Sometimes it's inconvenient, but it ultimately very satisfying. I think that as a fishery we need to be aware of ourselves, what it would look like if a person from a more sensitive background saw us at work. My father always made a point of letting me know that were making a living at killing things, and that we need to have some self control to keep a moral head on our shoulders. Greed has no place in the business of killing things. The sheer greed that I see out shrimping, or in the dive fishery, the netters, and all too often in our own gear group, is deeply unsettling. A lot of people are just outright rapists. If things had gone a little different in my past, I might have been a pollock trawler. Who can say how I would feel about this argument had that path come up? but considering how I feel about our relatively small problems, I can't imagine that I would be happy about it. Sucking a big hole in the ocean is just not a proper way to fish. I read in National Fisherman that a lot of shrimpers in Maine are switching from trawls to pots. I admire any fishery that, rather than escalate, switches to less impactful means. I honestly can't imagine how the trawlers could pay for such massive boats with pot fishing though. Maybe mid-water longlines? That would almost completely cut salmon out of the equation. Maybe they would catch a few sharks, but a lot less than the other way. If other fisheries can change their ways, so can they.

[charger]

I see corporate greed, Large trollers mostly from Seattle and Oregon coming to ALASKAN waters. Blatantly destroying our resources protected by our states fish and game. They don't spend a dime in Alaska. All the product is taken south, prossed down south, sold down south, and we are left with scorched earth. Same thing goes with the King killing, good thing we support them by hatching salmon for them to kill. Seems like we are spending our hard earned bucks so they can make money to take south! Maybe these vessels should have to have 100% observer coverage, and have to pay a fine for each halibut, tanner, king the kill over a certain percentage. If they cant do it they can always fish off there own coast.

[SilverT]

Charger,

Your frustration is understandable. Also, you missed the Californians. I know a couple and they wouldn’t want to be left out. Your statement about out of State trollers not spending a dime in Alaska could be better addressed by my wife, but I’ll give it a shot. All of the product is not taken south by trollers. How does a troller who fills his boat in three days not sell to a local processor? Or how do they get away from a local processor employing local people process and/or package their salmon for shipment by local shippers? No, most fish are handled by Alaskans. Personally, when I did get back down south after a summer, I bought back some of that fish and believe me, Alaskans made good money on the deal. Trollers fill up their fridges with foodstuff from local establishments, eat out when they come to town, pay for expensive repairs, buy fuel, rent rooms, pay for moorage and buy those can’t live without lures and equipment. I must somewhat agree, though, as all the southern trollers gave up drinking years ago, which is why there aren’t many bars in SE.

Back in the 70’s, in the southern fishery, charter fishermen and trollers steadfastly refused to set limits on the upper end of how many permits could be sustainably fished. While they were bickering and attacking each other, the number of permits went through the roof and the stocks through the basement. The government shut the fishery down. Emboldened by the crisis, and taking advantage of a lull in the fishing, the government then (looking at their books) decided that only “wild” fish had a chance of creating the needed stock recovery. Since no one was fishing anyway, the best move seemed to be to go ahead and close all those expensive hatcheries that were costing the States so much money and only benefitting fishermen. They quietly closed them and little was said by the team because it didn’t affect anyone down south. Not even sport fishermen were fishing at that time so how could we know there were fewer fish out there.

Those closed hatcheries produced king salmon, some of which stayed south, but most of which migrated north through Canada to Alaska to feed, grow and be caught. Not only did we have fewer fish in the south, but shortly after the hatcheries closed, Alaskans had fewer fish as well. Even though I was a young man, I do remember the “conversations” between Washington, Canada and Alaska regarding fish traveling north, never to return. The southern States and Canada were extremely frustrated by Alaska’s unwillingness to limit their harvest of kings off “their coast.”
Fishermen down south said, “Why should we raise fish and let them go, only to have Alaskans & Canadians harvest them & keep the money in Alaska & Canada?” When all those hatchery fish disappeared, suddenly folks up and down the coast were willing to negotiate. But, it took a crisis to make it happen. And it took understanding to realize that just because you can catch a fish off your coast, doesn’t necessarily mean you should. Fishermen began to realize that someone else might have paid for the hatching and rearing of the fish they were catching.

The hatcheries in Washington (and Canada) were closed years ago, yet our “crisis” persists. We have a few “wild stocks” that are in decline. As long as that is the case, the governments of the southern States can and will continue to justify a huge management team, fin-clip programs and an anti-hatchery stance. We have really large government regulation down south because of a crisis created by fishermen who, when they had a chance to do so, chose to attack each other rather than working together to establish limits. That continues to affect the Alaska fishery to this day and I doubt we will get the hatcheries opened again in my lifetime.

Currently a limit exists on the number of troll permits in Alaska. What is needed is for a really honest, passionate, charismatic leader to lead the charter industry to honestly research the sustainability of their industry and set an upper limit on the number of charter permits, even if that means getting rid of a few. Perhaps a new limit has been set that I’m not aware of.
Alaska could show Washington, Oregon and California how good management works (they already have in many ways) by establishing that sustainable line (for charter operations) and then growing the stocks through good hatchery management and self-disciplined permit management. Fish stocks could grow, troll permit prices could be higher than southerners could afford , charter operations could be operating at 90-100% capacity. Charter permit prices and profits would grow by demand and quality, rather than by how many customers an exhausted lodge owner could process every year through the addition of boats, guides, boats and more guides.

Greater concern should be for the unwillingness of Alaska’s charter operations and the businesses supported thereby to establish a sustainable limit on the number of charter vessels. If the charter folks are ever going to get their industry managed for sustainability, they are going to need lots of friends in well managed fisheries who are not blatantly hostile, but helpful, encouraging and skilled in the art of persuasive conversation. They will need people who can discuss the issues, come along side and shoulder a burden if needed. It will take a really, really long time. Rarely are people motivated to see another’s position when all they can see is anger, even if the anger is well-deserved. The charter industry sees a bunch of angry trollers. Naturally, they have someone to resist and don’t spend a lot of time on introspection. To some degree, I understand.

Charger, sorry for even considering taking some of your money down south, but in my case, I believe you came out the winner.

Lane

[charger]

Lane,
I agree with every word you wrote 1000%. Southeast is the last hold out were trollers have a chance to make a living, thanks to people like you.

I am a bone head! When I posted my last I meant to say "trawlers" NOT " trollers. A couple letters can change the whole meaning. I haven't been able to find out how to delete or correct a post once it is submitted. I noticed the typo shortly after sending it. Spelling and grammar is not my forty. Again My apologies.

[SilverT]

Well, that does change everything Thanks for clarifying. I should have picked up on that. I've had a hard time editing after the fact as well. Now that I understand, I have to say I agree with you as well. Trawling sure seems to be a destructive fishery and perhaps your suggestion of increased monitoring would help. Not sure we want you to send them south though.

Thanks again,

Lane

[mydona]

A large amount of comment deadlines are due by the end of the month. 2 directally related to this are;
32. Comment deadline Jan 23 on Amendment 93 Chinook bycatch in GOA Pollock fishery
Federal Register notice:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11 ... -30267.htm

NPFMC Chinook salmon bycatch home page:
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/bycatch- ... catch.html
and;
33. Comment by Jan. 20 on GOA Pollock Chinook Salmon Bycatch Amendment 93
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 93 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The proposed regulations would apply exclusively to the directed pollock trawl fisheries in the Central and Western Reporting Areas of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) (Central and Western GOA). If approved, Amendment 93 would establish separate prohibited species catch (PSC) limits in the Central and Western GOA for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), which would cause NMFS to close the directed pollock fishery in the Central or Western regulatory areas of the Gulf of Alaska, if the applicable limit is reached. This action also would require retention of salmon by all vessels in the Central and Western GOA pollock
fisheries until the catch is delivered to a processing facility where an observer is provided the opportunity to count the number of salmon and to collect scientific data or biological samples from the salmon. Amendment 93 would increase observer coverage on vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) length overall that participate in the directed pollock fishery in the Central or Western regulatory areas of the GOA by January 2013, unless the restructured North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program is in place by this time...

DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Alaska local time (A.l.t.) January 30, 2012...

Federal Register Notice:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12 ... -31973.htm
I recived these via United fishermen of Alaska; http://www.ufa-fish.org/ The 12/31/2011 news letter is out but the link on the home page isn't posted as of yet. Keep checking back in the days to follow