The Anchorage Daily News reports that king salmon runs are failing to reach minimum escapement goals on two of the most famous king salmon rivers in Alaska.
www.adn.com/2010/03/20/1192593/poor-returns-shut-2-kodiak-king.html
This should not come as a surprise, as we have reported here that continued unobserved trawler operations in the Gulf of Alaska, the Shelikof Strait, and the Bering Sea are catching tens of thousands of king salmon every year thus depleting the spawning stocks and starving northern Alaska villages. This a perfect opportunity for the sport fishermen of the world to demand 100% observer coverage on all trawling operations in the Gulf of Alaska. While the Bering Sea is already covered, the NMFS and the NPFMC simply turn their backs on their responsibilities to the king salmon resource while allowing continued pollock trawling for giant profits. The fact is that the Kodiak pollock trawlers are out in front of the Karluk River today, cleaning out the feeder kings.
Friends should never allow friends to eat artificial crab, fillet o fish, or any other form of pollock. For whitefish, insist on hook caught fish only.
So not only are the Gulf of Alaska trawlers destroying halibut, purportedly making dirty tows on young halibut simply to destroy what they see as a resource that restricts their growth, but hammering the rising stocks of tanner crab and the depleted king crab, both with bottom trawls and with supposedly mid water or pelagic trawls. How else does X get the belly of his pelagic trawl ripped out with crab pots?
The destruction of king salmon is just another pawn in the game of trawling the Gulf of Alaska to death. Demand 100% rock solid observer data to stop the wholesale destruction of these precious resources.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Balsinger is Afraid of Public Response?
Head of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service is apparently afraid to be truthful to the general public-(you)-about the status of the Steller Sea Lion. Yes, that's me and mine. Why? What kind of spin or reconsideration of the scientific facts need to be created to tell the truth?
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kial/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1619391/Local.News/Steller.Sea.Lion.BiOp.delayed
Seriously, we are grownups (some of us) and we are used to the truth (just kidding). Why does Balsinger have to prepare the 'stakeholders' and the 'scientists' anyway. Seems to me you might have that backasswards, sir, don't you mean the scientists and then the steakholders? Get the spin masters to make the right mix of science and fantasy, statistics and voodoo to placate the steakholders and the public at the same time? Sounds like the energy companies preparing an ad campaign to convince us that we have to keep going the same old way...to suck up and destroy the very world we all depend upon in order to be comfortable. FCS!
Keep yer flippers wet.
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kial/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1619391/Local.News/Steller.Sea.Lion.BiOp.delayed
Seriously, we are grownups (some of us) and we are used to the truth (just kidding). Why does Balsinger have to prepare the 'stakeholders' and the 'scientists' anyway. Seems to me you might have that backasswards, sir, don't you mean the scientists and then the steakholders? Get the spin masters to make the right mix of science and fantasy, statistics and voodoo to placate the steakholders and the public at the same time? Sounds like the energy companies preparing an ad campaign to convince us that we have to keep going the same old way...to suck up and destroy the very world we all depend upon in order to be comfortable. FCS!
Keep yer flippers wet.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Bycatch News and Analysis-Comment
Bycatch News:
Klas Stolpe, of the Juneau Empire, reports in part, that "fishery managers are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch and what it means to other harvests in the Northwest Pacific." www.juneauempire.com/stories/030410/loc_570703342.shtml
"'The issue here is, as a result of research during past years' fisheries, we have realized that halibut are moving more than we had assumed they were,' IPHC ED Bruce Leaman said. ' That has meant that impacts of bycatch are now estimated to be more extensive...than we had previously thought. Over the last decade or so, we had been thinking that bycatch was primarily local in its effect but it is more extensive than that. So that tends to make bycatch in US waters have an impact on Canadian waters.'
"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides observer data to the IPHC from Canadian waters. According to the IPHC, the Canadian observer program provides a more stable fishery with less variation in its bycatch rates. Canadian trawlers, for instance, are required to have 100 percent observer coverage on board.
"In the US, observer coverage depends upon vessel size. Vessels above 125 feet are required to have 100 percent coverage. Boats between 60 and 125 feet are required to have 30 percent coverage, and observers aren't required for vessels under 60 feet.
"'The Canadians have a much better system for bycatch control where there are individual bycatch caps for each of the trawlers that are working, for example, in the trawl fishery in BC,' Leaman said. 'Where as in the US it tends to be a global cap of all of that sector. In general it is still not an individual responsibility in the US.'
"The NPFMC would like to see a progress report at the IPHCs interim November meeting, but no firm timeline has been established to define new objectives.'
"'Right now it is a work project in front of the commission staff and working with some of the agencies in the US and Canada,' Leaman said. "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an effect on how much bycatch there is.'"
Analysis/Comment:
Fisheries managers "are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch..." Discussions have been going on for decades over bycatch. Nothing happens. American managers and their political handlers have been so concerned about competition in world markets for fish that they have thrown all caution to the wind in order to harvest as much as possible, often without considering the value of the fish they catch or the destruction to the oceans that follows using trawlers as the primary harvesters.
Bruce Leaman's statements that 'halibut move more than we thought and that impacts of trawl fleet bycatch were primarily local' point up the blatant spin doctoring of his statements or his ignorance. When an entire area, the central Gulf of Alaska, is being hammered to pieces by unconstrained trawler bycatch of course it is going to affect other areas of the North Pacific Ocean. Mr. Leaman, this is called the 'eocsystem.' The implication is that halibut destruction is perfectly acceptable as long as it stays in the central GOA. This is prima facia mismanagement and an outrage. Mr. Leaman should apologise and resign. 'Bycatch in US waters has an impact on Canadian water,' indeed. So all that matters, are Canadian waters? This is completely short sighted, uninformed, and region centric.
In regard to observer coverage and data, it is well known that observers are overworked. Asked to provide far too much junk observation and data, they are frequently off deck, off task, and/or too busy to observe what is really going on. Estimates of 50% reliability of their observations is the most common figure kicked about in discussions with experienced trawler crew. As one reliable trawler crewman told me, 'You'd be surprised how easy it was to hide things from the observer.'
That the Canadians have a much better observer program maybe the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal record of disastrous mismanagement of Canadian fisheries in general. One hundred percent observer coverage and making individual Canadian trawlers responsible for individual bycatch caps are two things that the US should copy from their Olympic hockey champion neighbors, post haste.
But don't hold your breath. "No firm timeline has been established to define new objectives" on US trawler bycatch and halibut destruction. Nothing is going to change until this preventable resource waste and destruction captures the international media's attention, or gets scrutinized by the US and Canadian's as a violation of the International Pacific Halibut Treaty.
The final ill informed remark by Mr. Leaman, "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an affect (sic) on how much bycatch there is," reflects his ignorance of the increases in trawler horsepower, new super 58s, hull sponsoning, net size, cod end capacity, and other known and yet uncomputed factors leading to trawlers' greater ability to catch larger breeder halibut by towing the net at higher speeds, holding larger deckloads, increasing the time halibut remain out of the water or under the pressure of tons of fish pressing upon them. This has resulted in millions of pounds of halibut wanton waste. Wake up, Mr. Leaman, the time of smoke and mirrors is ending. Fishery managers must move into a new era of honest concern for the long term health of the fisheries or resign and go to work for the trawlers or the processing industry and leave fishery management to a new and hopefully more informed and transparent group of managers who will answer to the fishermen and the public of the US and Canada for these precious resources that are currently being destroyed.
Are you listening in to this, Mr. Schwaab? Ms. Lubchenco?
Keep yer flippers wet.
Klas Stolpe, of the Juneau Empire, reports in part, that "fishery managers are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch and what it means to other harvests in the Northwest Pacific." www.juneauempire.com/stories/030410/loc_570703342.shtml
"'The issue here is, as a result of research during past years' fisheries, we have realized that halibut are moving more than we had assumed they were,' IPHC ED Bruce Leaman said. ' That has meant that impacts of bycatch are now estimated to be more extensive...than we had previously thought. Over the last decade or so, we had been thinking that bycatch was primarily local in its effect but it is more extensive than that. So that tends to make bycatch in US waters have an impact on Canadian waters.'
"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides observer data to the IPHC from Canadian waters. According to the IPHC, the Canadian observer program provides a more stable fishery with less variation in its bycatch rates. Canadian trawlers, for instance, are required to have 100 percent observer coverage on board.
"In the US, observer coverage depends upon vessel size. Vessels above 125 feet are required to have 100 percent coverage. Boats between 60 and 125 feet are required to have 30 percent coverage, and observers aren't required for vessels under 60 feet.
"'The Canadians have a much better system for bycatch control where there are individual bycatch caps for each of the trawlers that are working, for example, in the trawl fishery in BC,' Leaman said. 'Where as in the US it tends to be a global cap of all of that sector. In general it is still not an individual responsibility in the US.'
"The NPFMC would like to see a progress report at the IPHCs interim November meeting, but no firm timeline has been established to define new objectives.'
"'Right now it is a work project in front of the commission staff and working with some of the agencies in the US and Canada,' Leaman said. "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an effect on how much bycatch there is.'"
Analysis/Comment:
Fisheries managers "are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch..." Discussions have been going on for decades over bycatch. Nothing happens. American managers and their political handlers have been so concerned about competition in world markets for fish that they have thrown all caution to the wind in order to harvest as much as possible, often without considering the value of the fish they catch or the destruction to the oceans that follows using trawlers as the primary harvesters.
Bruce Leaman's statements that 'halibut move more than we thought and that impacts of trawl fleet bycatch were primarily local' point up the blatant spin doctoring of his statements or his ignorance. When an entire area, the central Gulf of Alaska, is being hammered to pieces by unconstrained trawler bycatch of course it is going to affect other areas of the North Pacific Ocean. Mr. Leaman, this is called the 'eocsystem.' The implication is that halibut destruction is perfectly acceptable as long as it stays in the central GOA. This is prima facia mismanagement and an outrage. Mr. Leaman should apologise and resign. 'Bycatch in US waters has an impact on Canadian water,' indeed. So all that matters, are Canadian waters? This is completely short sighted, uninformed, and region centric.
In regard to observer coverage and data, it is well known that observers are overworked. Asked to provide far too much junk observation and data, they are frequently off deck, off task, and/or too busy to observe what is really going on. Estimates of 50% reliability of their observations is the most common figure kicked about in discussions with experienced trawler crew. As one reliable trawler crewman told me, 'You'd be surprised how easy it was to hide things from the observer.'
That the Canadians have a much better observer program maybe the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal record of disastrous mismanagement of Canadian fisheries in general. One hundred percent observer coverage and making individual Canadian trawlers responsible for individual bycatch caps are two things that the US should copy from their Olympic hockey champion neighbors, post haste.
But don't hold your breath. "No firm timeline has been established to define new objectives" on US trawler bycatch and halibut destruction. Nothing is going to change until this preventable resource waste and destruction captures the international media's attention, or gets scrutinized by the US and Canadian's as a violation of the International Pacific Halibut Treaty.
The final ill informed remark by Mr. Leaman, "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an affect (sic) on how much bycatch there is," reflects his ignorance of the increases in trawler horsepower, new super 58s, hull sponsoning, net size, cod end capacity, and other known and yet uncomputed factors leading to trawlers' greater ability to catch larger breeder halibut by towing the net at higher speeds, holding larger deckloads, increasing the time halibut remain out of the water or under the pressure of tons of fish pressing upon them. This has resulted in millions of pounds of halibut wanton waste. Wake up, Mr. Leaman, the time of smoke and mirrors is ending. Fishery managers must move into a new era of honest concern for the long term health of the fisheries or resign and go to work for the trawlers or the processing industry and leave fishery management to a new and hopefully more informed and transparent group of managers who will answer to the fishermen and the public of the US and Canada for these precious resources that are currently being destroyed.
Are you listening in to this, Mr. Schwaab? Ms. Lubchenco?
Keep yer flippers wet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
