California ban on salmon fishing likely for '09

Sushihunter

Active Member
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/25/BADJ164VV1.DTL&tsp=1


California ban on salmon fishing likely for '09
Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 25, 2009


(02-25) 20:26 PST -- Prospects are not good this year for the folks who fish for salmon off the California coast - or for the people who like to eat it.

The number of chinook in the ocean right now is barely enough to meet the minimum sustainable goal when the fish return to spawn in the Sacramento River system this fall - and that's assuming no fishing is allowed this year, according to a forecast today by a federal agency.

The ominous news, contained in the Pacific Fishery Management Council's report on ocean salmon fisheries, comes on the tail fins of last week's announcement that fewer salmon than ever recorded swam through San Francisco Bay last fall to spawn in the Sacramento River.

"This is grim news for the state of California," said Don Hansen, chairman of the council, a federal body that regulates commercial and sport fishing. "We won't be able to talk about this without using the word 'disaster.' "

Last year only 66,286 adult salmon returned to the Sacramento River to spawn, only the second time in 16 years that the number of fall run chinook failed to meet the council's goal of between 122,000 and 180,000 adult fish. Six years ago, the peak return was 13 times higher.

The dismal showing forced a ban on commercial salmon fishing off the California and Oregon coasts, the first total closure in California history.

Wednesday's report projects a return of 122,196 fish next fall, assuming no salmon are hooked and reeled in for food in the meantime. The chinook that spawn in the fall are the same ones that are normally fished out of the ocean during the summer.

The council will discuss another possible ban during its annual meeting March 7-13 in Seattle, and things aren't looking good, said Chuck Tracy, a staff officer for the council.

"Certainly fisheries are going to be very restricted at the best," he said.

One positive sign in the council report is that the number of salmon returning to the Klamath River is expected to exceed the council's goal. Chinook and coho salmon runs in the Columbia River, which empties into the ocean on the Oregon-Washington border, are expected to be strong this year, meaning fishing restrictions there are likely to be less severe.

Chinook, also known as king salmon, are the prized fish of Northern California. They were once abundant in the ocean and in almost every river and stream along the coast throughout the year.

They have struggled for centuries against the powerful currents of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, laying eggs in the gravel. Their young would hatch in the rivers, swim out the bay and live in the ocean, returning to their birthplace three years later.

The mighty fish, which was the primary food of many Native American communities, are now worth millions of dollars to the economies of fishing communities up and down the coast.

Scientists believe warmer ocean conditions have reduced the food supply for the fish, while record exports of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta coincided with major declines in chinook.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is expected to make a final decision on fishing quotas by May 1, when California's salmon fishing season begins.

E-mail Peter Fimrite at pfimrite@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/25/BADJ164VV1.DTL

Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://ca.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
 
The Good News for those guys is that for the most part they have lots of Tuna, if they get the right weather and right water temps.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
freshwaterlagoonnuquicw3.jpg
 
Yeah and they had better get rid of those nasty fish farms, cause we all know that's the only thing in BC that's killing wild salmon. Oh wait, they don't have any. Maybe it'something else which is causing the wild salmon issues? What a novel concept for those on this forum to have to embrace.
 
Fish farms are not our only problem, just one of them.

IMG_1445.jpg
 
You have already forgotten that we did discuss that the farms that I know of in California are in cement tanks out of the water.

IMG_1445.jpg
 
Well you could have fooled me by the way people on this forum villify farms. When compared to the real issues facing wild salmon, farms have been given far too much attention and emphasis, which far outweighs their impact. I am merely stating that there are issues far greater in scope and effect than fish farms which are having the real impact. I find people are focussed on the farm issue and are ignoring the real threats which are reducing wild fish popoulations up and down the coast.
 
F%6& O&f sockeyefry and stop hijacking any post. Go to the fish farm topic and post your nonsense there where people may be interested in. But I guess ran out of steam there so you thought you can find new victims for your nonsense here....Forget it! [xx(]
 
You have a point but the fish pens still have to get out of the water while there is time. If you hide your head in the sand the issue will still be there.

IMG_1445.jpg
 
Sockeyefry you said,
quote:posted - 02/27/2009 : 15:55:29 Well you could have fooled me by the way people on this forum villify farms. When compared to the real issues facing wild salmon, farms have been given far too much attention and emphasis, which far outweighs their impact. I am merely stating that there are issues far greater in scope and effect than fish farms which are having the real impact.

True, there are real issues having great negative impact on wild salmon where there are no salmon farms in other areas of the eastern Pacific. However in the Broughton and other areas of BC, those same issues (eg. water extraction, dams, habitat loss, pollution) contribute far less to the problems wild salmon face thus salmon farming becomes a much larger issue. This is why salmon farming impacts have become the focus in those areas.
 
Cuttle,

Then maybe it isn't such a point source such as a fish farm. If salmon are in trouble all along the coast, maybe it is something on a global scale?

Easy Chris73, such language, Where are the moderators when we need them. Actually you are partially correct, inspite of the sentence enhancer, and I shouldn't have hijacked the thread, but I am allowed to make my point aren't I, without such an attack.
 
Cuttle,

Then maybe it isn't such a point source such as a fish farm. If salmon are in trouble all along the coast, maybe it is something on a global scale?

Easy Chris73, such language, Where are the moderators when we need them. Actually you are partially correct, inspite of the sentence enhancer, and I shouldn't have hijacked the thread, but I am allowed to make my point aren't I, without such an attack.
 
Sockeyefry,
You're right about global impacts to salmon. But that doesn't mean there aren't a variety of local threats as well. The threats to local wild salmon from fish farms have been addressed earlier on another thread. You have posted there frequently. You have been made aware of the science earlier but I'll refresh your memory that a recent peer reviewed global assessment has shown that where ever there are salmon farms, wild salmon populations are declining at a faster rate than where there are no salmon farms.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033
I'll leave it there because this discussion should take place in the fish farm thread.
 
Back
Top