Mass flooding event effect on spawning salmon

A few weeks ago it was the rivers were dry and salmon spawning will be wiped out, and now it's flooding and predictions of the same are coming in. Sooke and Cowichan rivers in our area are not having a problem and I predict the same for the Washington State and Colombia rivers and hatcheries are not presently threatened.
Fish Farms are a bigger threat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think chum may be getting wiped out in the pacific by illegal drift nets. As chum
Spend the most time out in the open pacific
 
Chum are definitely one of the salmon species having one of the hardest time "recovering". I would add 4 more stressors/impacts to that list of negative stressors: 1/ climate change, and 2/ past legacies of seine fishing, 3/ in some areas - pathogens and sea lice loading, and 4/ seals.

Undoubtably, climate change is one of the largest stressors on all salmon species - affecting them in both freshwater and saltwater, and through all life history changes. It is the same for chum.

Where there are 2 chum runs that are large enough to be still noticed - there is usually one around the 3-4th weeks of August, and one around the 1st week of October. My experience is that on the North Coast - the late August run is usually the dominant run, while in Southern BC - it is more often the early October run.

But at that time of year (early fall) - and more increasingly the past 20 years or so - the instream water temperatures are often nearing or exceeding 20C.

The length of incubation until mid-hatch and subsequently emergence from the gravels after buttoning-up is determined by adding up water temperature over time as degree-days and ATUs (accumulated thermal units). The larger eggs need more time; smaller eggs need less. The very large Chinook eggs typically need something like 530+ degree-days to 50% hatch, 725+ to emergence. Chum need more like 320+/440+ for 50% hatch & emergence timing respectively - slightly less than Chinook on average. Different stocks and age compositions (older females often have the largest eggs) often have slightly different ATU benchmarks, but Chinook and chum often have the largest eggs.

eggs.png

If the water temperatures are high at the front end of the incubation period - that quickly adds up as ATUs and causes eggs to prematurely hatch early on the back end at emergence in the spring - maybe as early as late February verses instead April - the usual & expected timing.
chum incubation.png
But estuaries - which are important rearing areas for both Chinook & chum juvies are more triggered by sunlight and river discharge. Are these estuarine processes (esp. the production of harpacticoid copepods that can transform short-chain fatty acids to longer & more nutritious ones) tracking & matching the changing temporal needs of early emergence juvenile chum salmon in estuarine production?

No, they are not - is generally the answer and the earliest emerged chum juvies often have little to eat in the estuaries in February/March.

Even if early-emergence fry manage to survive the reductions in estuarine production in estuaries - they still need to eat plankton in the ocean after they leave the zone of estuarine production. Is the production in the ocean also matching marine-entry timing and feed/growth needs of juvenile Chum Salmon?

Often there is a match-mismatch in that timing, as well.

Then there are the legacy impacts of past seining activities.

Chinook and coho females often have a long ways to go upstream and often takes a while to get to the spawning grounds. So, they enter watersheds while still "green" and the eggs ripen enroute. This makes egg takes challenging at times - holding females until they are ripe. Those familiar with stock assistance/hatchery activities on these species will easily recognize this reality.

Not so with chum. Chum spawn typically in the lower reaches of rivers and even in the estuaries themselves - so they don't need that time and don't enter watersheds that early as predators can get them more easily in confined waters. When their eggs are nearly ready - chum run into the creeks, and the instream residence time (days alive) for females is commonly only like 5 days. So, females eggs ripen - guess where?

Outside and adjacent to the creeks in the inlets - where the seiners can easily intercept them. Roe is the only viable market & dock-side reimbursement for chum - commercial fishers get paid next to nothing for the meat. Seining of gravid chum next to creeks is less of a problem today - but was like 20+ years ago.

It takes time to rebuild stocks, especially with any and all of these additional stressors even including sea lice loading in areas, as well.
 
Last edited:
A good and thoughtful post agent. In your opinion, what would be the best way to recover chum stocks coast wide?
 
Well, good question Dave.

It's tough to have any direct impact in the direction of the freight train called global warming in the short term. Even if we human species were wiped off the map suddenly - those excess released carbon molecules would continue to have an impact for the next 1500+ years or so.

There has been tremendous cut-backs in catch numbers and commercial fishing pressure in the past 20 year or so. I don't think current-day commercial fishing is the problem.

Another issue I forgot to add is seals. It's a bit more spotty and complex of a topic - but sea lions take the largest (and oldest and most fertile) individual fish species and harbour seals clean-up on spawning salmon near the mouths - especially the females.

So, a seal market needs to be developed and at choke points (including haulouts on log booms) - we need to take seals and tell the ENGOs who are only emotionally connected to the seal pictures to step back and shut-up and maybe learn something from people who are out there and actually have experience and attachment to an area have their voices heard.

There's a longer conversation on pathogens including sea lice. We are still in our infancy in understanding these issues - particularly with the newer disease vectors. But there is work going on - esp. thanks to the bunch @ PSF for this knowledge - despite DFO Aquaculture's resistance to bad news and their efforts to cover these data up. That work needs to continue - and certain areas are more key to understanding those impacts. Clayoquot Sound and WCVI, as an example.

Short-term stock assistance is always an option - for a few generations using the newest tools like PBT (Parental-Based Tagging) to understand and tweak hatchery protocols and release strategies. This needs work and funding. The PSF has recently done considerable work here, as well:
www.marinescience.ca

Science Tools - PSF Marine Science Program

The EPIC4 genomic project and the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative, two major projects that have received support from PSF throughout the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project, have generated interesting results […]
www.marinescience.ca

But unless the species of concern is a key economic generator - like Chinook, sockeye, or coho - those other species seem to fade from attention and funding for research and assistance. Maybe the newest stock provisions section in the newest version of the Fisheries Act may assist here.
 
Thanks for the link, Dave. I'll have a read.

I was critical of Beamish's initial attempts to generate a 1 season study way out in the Gulf in 2018 because (as we all know) we need to follow a few populations/cohorts for a few life cycles to assess things like mortality - and a one-shot study wouldn't do that. And the costs of 3-5 trawlers @ $30K+/day for 3+ months adds up quickly - $millions/year - $10M in 2022 alone.

But Beamish is at least determined - and sometimes that determination (& work) pays off. I hope it continues as long as possible. Those results are at:

Home

No ordinary fish. No ordinary year. Photo credit: Jonny Armstrong The International Year of the Salmon Initiative 2018 - 2022 Establishing the conditions necessary to ensure the resilience of salmon and people in a rapidly changing world. The International Year…
yearofthesalmon.org yearofthesalmon.org
 
Last edited:
I think every poster on here "gets it".

Stressors/impacts are cumulative - not mutually exclusive. But some stressors may have a larger impact than others. That's the focus of the Likely Suspects Framework (link above in post #28). It's a bit of a detective game. After the "likely suspects" are identified - which ones are the ones you can actually do something about?

Deep sea driftnets may capture chum. But chum have to get there; and survive past their juvie stage to make it there. And where is "there" wrt where chum adults go and the locations of drift nets? Do they coincide? Where do both legal and illegal fishing boats from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China go to fish? Keep in mind the Pacific is vast and fuel is costly.
web1_231011-cvr-n-salmon-spawning-season-1_2.jpg

And are the drift nets made with a net size to capture chum? The tuna nets have a mesh size of 170–180mm (6.7-7"); while the squid fishery uses smaller mesh from 100-135mm (4-5"). The tuna mesh is in the size range for adult chum; the squid fishery for subadult. So where do they fish? See pic below of tuna fishing effort.
tuna.gif
There could be some interception in the NE corner of the map from tuna gillnet fishing. What about the squid fishery? See pic below:

squid.gif

Looks a bit too far South, but maybe that NE corner again. And would chum be that small by the time they made it there, if they go there?

So, what did Beamish's work uncover thru the IYS surveys wrt stocks/locations? See below:
iys chum.png
Note that 50N 145W was the location where they caught chum from North America OA-1 stocks. Now compare that location with the maps of the gill net fisheries. That's just outside of the NE corner of the catch effort for these fisheries by about 5 degrees of latitude or 300 nm or 600km. The available data doesn't support the suggestion that these gill net fisheries would be expected to intercept any large numbers of chum stocks.

This is a great recording, as well:

What about surface and mid-water trawls? Nobody mentioned these boats/fisheries. Why not? What about the hake fishery?
 
Last edited:
you gotta be kidding, you really believe that the continued state sponsored illegal fishing going on in the great Pacific cares of what size a net is that their boats are useing, and where they fish?? and when they are seized there are dozen more being launched to replace them..
The western governments KNOW this is going on and has been for decades ffs..
..and its NOT just chum...
SMH...
 

Enforcement Activities​

The Committee on Enforcement (ENFO) is the forum for coordinating and exchanging information among fisheries enforcement agencies of the member countries regarding compliance with the provisions of the NPAFC Convention.

BACKGROUND AND MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS​

ENFO’s inaugural meeting, first as a sub-committee, was held in Ottawa, Canada in 1993. The combined monitoring activities in 1993 by the Parties included over 1,400 ship patrol days with 40 patrol vessels and more than 1,100 aerial hours with one helicopter and three patrol aircrafts. During this period, six vessels were sighted with unauthorized activities and two of them were apprehended. Information on trade and suspected trafficking in anadromous fish taken in violation of the Convention as well as statistics on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen salmon were reviewed. International trade data from 1992 showed that non-salmon producing countries continued to export canned and frozen salmon to the European Union and Australia. Many of the salmon were believed to be illegally caught on the high seas. The concept of a certificate of harvest origin program was discussed to deter trade in illegally harvested salmon.

In 1994, no unauthorized high seas salmon fishing activity was confirmed in the North Pacific Ocean. Such fisheries would be inconsistent with the United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a global moratorium on large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing in the high seas and could adversely affect the conservation of anadromous stocks.

The United States reported the discovery of one stateless vessel in 1995, which was actively engaged in driftnet fishing on the high seas of the Convention Area. The vessel was seized and taken to Guam, USA. It was recommended that the Parties should, as appropriate, encourage States or entities not party to the Convention to deposit their instrument of acceptance to the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas as soon as possible. This could serve as a mechanism to obligate non-member states to support and cooperate with other objectives and principles of the treaty.
A Taiwan driftnet vessel actively engaged in fishing with a large-scale driftnet in the Convention Area in 1996 was detected by cooperative enforcement efforts among Parties. The seizure of the vessel and arrest of the master and crew were made by the Taiwan authorities acting on a request by the United States Government

Six vessels were detected in 1997 for their illegal high-seas driftnet fishing operations in or near the Convention Area. One of the vessels was registered under the People’s Republic of China. The People’s Republic of China indicated that the vessel was ultimately seized by its authority. The United States, in cooperation with Canada and Japan, seized another stateless high-seas driftnet vessel which was fishing in the Convention Area. READ MORE

In 1998, cooperative enforcement efforts resulted in the detection of several high-seas driftnet vessels. From these sightings, four vessels were apprehended. READ MORE Due to the continued threat of high-seas fishing for salmon in the Convention Area, all Parties pledged to maintain 1999 enforcement activities at levels similar to those of 1998, as a deterrent to the threat of potential unauthorized fishing activities.
An Enforcement Standardization Symposium was organized in Kodiak, Alaska, in 1999. The “List of Questions for Standardization of Enforcement Practices” was developed at the Symposium, assisting in planning and improving the effectiveness of high seas driftnet (HSDN) patrols. The Enforcement Planning and Coordinating Meeting was held in Tokyo in 2000. During that meeting the organizational structure of the agencies primarily responsible for HSDN enforcement efforts was discussed and information on primary points of contact for HSDN cases was exchanged.
Several NPAFC enforcement events and activities were conducted in 2001, which contributed to improved enforcement cooperation and coordination: the Pre-Season Enforcement Planning Meeting held in Victoria, Canada; the ad hoc Patrol Coordination Group hosted by the US Coast Guard in Juneau, Alaska; and the Enforcement Evaluation and Coordination Meeting in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia.
In 2001 the level of international cooperation was highlighted by the first ever enforcement patrol of the Convention Area by a US Coast Guard C-130 patrol aircraft staged out of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia, with representatives from each of the Parties. In 2002 the Concept of Operations on the Joint Operations Information Coordination Group was adopted and the Enforcement Procedures Working Group was created to review the existing and other possible enforcement activities.

In 2003–2006 the Integrated Information System (IIS) was developed. This web-based program was designed to share information and facilitate real time enforcement efforts throughout the year. In 2006 the first ever joint enforcement plan was created. A comprehensive plan resulting from the cooperative efforts of all the Parties (Canada, Japan, Korea, Russia, and United States) included patrol vessel and aircraft surveillance of the Convention Area throughout the high threat season. An enforcement symposium, “Patrol tactics, planning and execution of enforcement in the NPAFC Convention Area”, was also held in 2006. The purpose of the symposium was to bring together enforcement professionals from each country to share lessons learned and best practices from their respective agencies.

Pursuant to the UNGA Resolutions on prohibiting driftnet fishing on the high seas, Taiwan authorities implemented the followings measures to forbid high-seas driftnet (HSDN) fishing by the Taiwan-flagged vessels in North Pacific Ocean: prohibition of direct fishing for anadromous stocks, HSDN fishing, at-sea transportation of driftnet fishing gear or equipment, and foreign driftnet fishing vessels entering any national port. Taiwan contributes in fisheries enforcement among their national flagged vessels by dispatching their own patrol vessels, conducting onboard inspections of squid and saury vessels that operate in the fishing grounds of the North Pacific Ocean, and reports this information to the NPAFC.

In 2005–2012, Taiwan sent 1 to 3 patrol vessels for monitoring operations in the southwestern part of the NPAFC Convention Area for 84 to 242 days annually. During patrols, Taiwanese vessels sighted and reported on four HSDN boats with their photos and description of illegal fishing operations that was very helpful for the NPAFC-related enforcement.
 
In 2007 the ENFO initiated a program of cooperation with the Technical Committee on Compliance (TCC) of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC; www.wcpfc.int) and the Fisheries Working Group (FWG) of the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum (NPCGF)
.
In 2008 the first ever International North Pacific IUU (illegal, unreported, unregulated) fishing workshop was held in Vancouver, Canada. Participants included numerous groups involved with fisheries enforcement, including NPAFC ENFO, NPCGF FWG, WCPFC TCC, and the International Monitoring Control and Surveillance Network. These organizations vary in membership and representation both by state and agency, and the convention provisions on monitoring control and surveillance, area, and species of interest. What the agencies have in common is the strong mandate to protect the natural marine resources of the Pacific Ocean and to combat IUU fishing.

In 2008–2009 Canada employed a newly-launched earth surveillance satellite (Radarsat 2) as a means of monitoring vessel activity in the NPAFC Convention Area. The space-based Automated Identification System (AIS) has also been employed as an additional tool for enhancing information on vessel contacts provided by Radarsat 2.

In 2010 the United States initiated a bi-weekly enforcement conference calls with participation of the enforcement agencies of the member countries on a voluntary basis. These calls are an effective real-time communication tool for coordinating enforcement patrols and updating case information.

In 2011, enforcement cooperation was successful in reducing illegal high-seas fishing. One stateless fishing vessel was spotted by an aircraft of the Fisheries Agency of Japan. This information was passed to the US Coast Guard, which responded with a patrol vessel. The vessel was engaged in unauthorized and illegal high-seas large-scale drift-net fishing. The US Coast Guard patrol vessel conducted boarding and inspection and found 30 tons of squid and 54 shark carcasses. The vessel was seized for violation of US Law. READ MORE

In 2012, Commission members also continued successful enforcement collaboration in the Convention Area. Patrol efforts included a combined 153 ship patrol days, over 370 aerial patrol hours, and the use of radar satellite surveillance.

The combined monitoring activities in 2013 by NPAFC-related enforcement agencies included over 120 ship patrol days, more than 498 aerial patrol hours, and satellite support. Members collaborated through joint ship patrols, participation of personnel in the air and ship patrols of other member countries, and regular conference calls.

The combined multilateral efforts in 2014 resulted in
significant enforcement actions. Two suspicious vessels were sighted by US Coast Guard air patrolling. Later, one of these vessels was detained in Russia for not having a valid fishing license. In another case, a suspected high seas drift net (HSDN) vessel was encountered by a Canadian CP-140 aircraft during its patrol with two FAJ inspectors aboard. The USCG Cutter enforcement officers investigated this vessel and found that the net tube, net spreader, and 3.3 km of driftnet had been dumped over sea during the night. During investigation, half a ton of net-scarred salmon was discovered in the ship’s freezer. READ MORE

The combined multilateral efforts by enforcement agencies of NPAFC member countries resulted in no observed high seas driftnet or IUU fishing activities in 2015. The coordinated enforcement efforts of the member countries in 2015 covered significant portions of the NPAFC Convention Area, including over 400 hours of aircraft patrols and exceeding 100 ship days. Over 500 fishing vessels were sighted and none were detected conducting illegal fishing activities. Inspection of several transhipment vessels did not indicate retention of salmon captured on the high seas. This confirms that a high level of coordination and patrol and inspection effort acts as a strong deterrent to IUU fishing.

In 2016, a suspicious fishing vessel under the People’s Republic of China flag was sighted by Fisheries Agency of Japan patrol vessel to be equipped with driftnet gear (net tube, rollers) and carried radio buoys used for driftnets within the Convention Area. A refrigerated cargo ship was sighted by the US Coast Guard patrol aircraft unflagged and with vessel name painted out within the NPAFC Convention Area in the Bering Sea. The Committee on Enforcement considered an expanding of enforcement activities by directing investigation efforts towards transshipment vessels/suppliers.

The Parties scrutinized over 2,000 fishing vessels by the Parties’ aircrafts and cutters in 2017. No high seas driftnet fishing interdiction or IUU fishing activity in the NPAFC Convention Area was sighted during the 2017 patrolling season. Member Parties also discussed the status of acceptance of the FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA). This international agreement is designed to harmonize and strengthen controls and deter illicit activity by preventing illegally caught fish from entering the global marketplace. The Agreement has gone into force as of June 5, 2016. Effective and consistent application of this Agreement by nations would add a new level of deterrent by decreasing the profitability of illegal transshipment of fish at sea and in port.

Prior to 2018 ENFO regular meeting, a one-day ENFO workshop on “Emerging IUU indicators and warnings in the North Pacific Ocean” was held. The main purposes of the workshop were to identify indicators and warnings, establish an updated contact list for enforcement, investigation, and prosecution, and share information on how to combat IUU fishing. READ MORE

On June 11, 2018, the Chinese flagged fishing vessel, Run Da, conducting illegal high seas driftnet (HSDN) fishing in the North Pacific Ocean had been sighted by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) C-130 aircraft. After a joint boarding and inspection conducted on June 16 by the USCG and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Coast Guard shipriders, custody of the vessel was transferred from the USCG Cutter Alex Haley to the PRC Coast Guard Vessel 2301 on June 21, 2018, for prosecution. The captain of the Run Da admitted to fishing with driftnets up to 5.6 miles in length. The joint boarding team discovered one ton of squid and 80 tons of chum salmon on board. PRC Coast Guard Vessel 2301 has escorted the Run Da back to China for prosecution. READ MORE

Prior to the 2019 Committee on Enforcement (ENFO) regular meeting, a one-day ENFO workshop on “Combating IUU Fishing and New Technologies” was held. At the workshop, there were presentations from six invited global enforcement and commercial experts. Presentations focused on overviews of contemporary approaches to Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) development, including collaborative organizations and new technologies in combating IUU fishing that could potentially be applied within the NPAFC Convention Area.
In 2020–2022, due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, ENFO held email meetings twice a year to coordinate patrol plans and discuss regular business matters. In addition, ten to twelve email conferences to communicate patrol outcomes were completed every year. No IUU fishing or vessel of interest sightings were reported in 2020–2022. Canada reported multiple discrepancies between AIS information transmitted by fishing vessels and the IRCS markings. The U.S. summary patrol report showed that significant Pacific salmon bycatch exists at the massive pelagic fisheries in the northwestern North Pacific Ocean. Preventing salmon bycatch was actively discussed with the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC). NPFC encouraged its members, on a voluntary basis, to report significant encounters of salmon during inspection to the SWG on Operational Enforcement, which will discuss any report on a case-by-case basis. In May 2023, at the first ENFO in-person meeting after the break, the five-year work plan to the NPAFC/NPFC Memorandum of Cooperation was adopted and joint workshops were proposed on at-sea transshipment and salmon bycatch matters.
 
The Study Group on IUU Vessel Listing Process was formed on September 10, 2021. Draft Terms of Reference for an NPAFC IUU Vessel List proposed by the United States was elaborated upon, along with submission for external review to SPRFMO and NPFC Compliance Managers. At the 2022 E-mail ENFO Meeting, the committee recommended approving the revised draft Terms of Reference for the NPAFC IUU Vessel List which is to be launched at the 2023 NPAFC Annual Meeting. During the First Plenary at the 2023 NPAFC Annual Meeting, the Report of the 2022 ENFO Meeting containing the Terms of Reference for the NPAFC IUU Vessel List was adopted. The Working Group on Listing of IUU Fishing Vessels (WG-IUU) continues working with Parties proposals to amend the Terms of Reference for the NPAFC IUU Vessel List to make this tool more effective in combatting IUU fishing in the NPAFC Convention Area.

In October 2022, Korean government officials from the Fisheries Monitoring Center (FMC) of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF) of the Republic of Korea—visited the NPAFC Secretariat as part of a two-week training program arranged by the Secretariat. The program consisted of several lectures from the Secretariat that included general NPAFC roles and functions as a regional fisheries management organization, law enforcement systems and activities, and scientific research activities and statistics. Two lectures from outside entities were provided—by Dr. Rashid Sumaila from the University of British Columbia (UBC) regarding IUU fishing, and by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) presenting on Canada’s fisheries resources management system. After the training, FMC joined the ENFO community and reported on the Port State Measures implementation in Korea at the 2023 NPAFC Annual Meeting.

A one-day ENFO/CSRS Workshop on Threats and knowledge gaps related to Pacific salmon conservation on the high seas was held on May 14, 2023. Seven invited presentations were delivered covering such important topics as fisheries monitoring systems, analysis of fishery fleet movement and usage of satellite luminescence for fishery efforts monitoring, application of genetics and salmon tagging methods for the IUU fishing enforcement, and results of the 2022 International Year of the Salmon (IYS) Pan-Pacific High-Seas Expedition. The workshop developed recommendations on data collection and sampling protocols, data collection, development of predictive models for salmon migrations, and collaboration with other RFMOs.

Ongoing efforts to curtail the large-scale high seas driftnet threat by continuing a constant vigilance at sea and in port is crucial for sustainable fisheries management and the conservation of salmon in the North Pacific. Multilateral enforcement operations coordinated in the NPAFC arena, regular information exchanges between NPAFC-member enforcement agencies, and a consistent enforcement presence in the North Pacific all act as effective deterrents against IUU fishing activities.
 
wildmanyeah said:
alaskapublic.org

Kodiak-based Coast Guard intercepts illegal Chinese fishing vessel

An illegal fishing vessel was intercepted off the coast of Japan with 80 tons of chum salmon and one ton of squid onboard. Listen now
alaskapublic.org alaskapublic.org

"An illegal fishing vessel was intercepted off the coast of Japan with 80 tons of chum salmon and one ton of squid onboard."
Click to expand...
"off the coast of Japan" are they key words there. NOT our OA-1 stocks. Thats some 8000 km away or more.

Look - I'm not trying to defend illegal fishing. They should throw the book at them. Agreed.

BUT what stocks are at risk from what fishing where? Where do the impacts happen - if they do? Why are stocks declining? What are the most reasonable & most likely suspects? Is it fishing - either legal or illegal - and where using what gear type to intercept what stocks? Or is it another factor - or both?

I'm not going to blame a trout angler on VI for the decline in white sturgeon in the Fraser. Different location - different gear. Only those unfamiliar with fishing wouldn't understand this.

If you listened to the posted interview in post #30 you will hear the researchers describe how different chum stocks are found in very specific areas - they show great fidelity to rearing areas. That's where you catch them - only if you are there - the #1 rule for catching fish. Gear type is #2.

And even in illegal fishing - they have to make money. They have to catch enough to pay for their expenses. If the boats go long distances - they will need to catch lots to pay for the fuel. The guy at the fuel dock doesn't get paid in unicorn farts and rainbows. If the fish are thin - it doesn't make sense to go too far looking for them. Best to say close to your coast - like the Coast of Japan and grind it out there.

And they get paid next to nothing for chum ($0.5-$1/lb) as opposed to say instead targeting tuna ($3-13/lb); 6-10 times more per lb. Maybe they'll go farther to access tuna. And how much fuel does it take and cost to travel 8000 km? And the more time they spend travelling 4000 nm @ only 8-9 kts - the less time they spend actually fishing and making money (no fishing - no fish to sell) - besides spending $ on fuel & operating expenses.

Just think about the factors you would think of if you wanted to go out 300km or more to catch tuna? Would cost of fuel and fuel capacity of your tanks enter into your mind? Wouldn't that be like the 1st thing to enter your mind along with where to go - where the fish might be and whether you have the right gear, bait, ice, grub and all the stuff you need to operate? I hope so. It's kinda common sense, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
I found this one a

decent read

https://www.npafc.org/wp-content/uploads/Newsletters/NWSL-54.pdf
Modify message
 
agentaqua said:
What about surface and mid-water trawls? Nobody mentioned these boats/fisheries. Why not?
Click to expand...
www.kcaw.org

North Pacific Council's science committee voices concerns over chum bycatch plan - KCAW

The scientific committee of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council was tasked with identifying the "scientific uncertainty of management options" for chum bycatch. They cautioned against too much emphasis on temperature data, as "the environment is likely to continue to experience warming."
www.kcaw.org www.kcaw.org

www.adn.com

ADN Politics podcast: Bering Sea factory trawlers and Alaska salmon

Host Elizabeth Harball talks to longtime fisheries reporter Hal Bernton, who went out on a factory trawler this August with ADN photographer Loren Holmes to report on the pollock industry’s impact on Alaska’s salmon runs.
www.adn.com www.adn.com
 
agentaqua said:
Undoubtably, climate change is one of the largest stressors on all salmon species - affecting them in both freshwater and saltwater, and through all life history changes. It is the same for chum.

Even if early-emergence fry manage to survive the reductions in estuarine production in estuaries - they still need to eat plankton in the ocean after they leave the zone of estuarine production. Is the production in the ocean also matching marine-entry timing and feed/growth needs of juvenile Chum Salmon?
Click to expand...
www.fisheries.noaa.gov

New Evidence of Marine Heatwave Impacts on Western Alaska Chum Salmon

Alaska ecosystem changes may pose challenge for juvenile chum salmon under warming ocean temperatures
www.fisheries.noaa.gov www.fisheries.noaa.gov

"This was not the case because when juvenile salmon entered the marine environment they didn’t find the food they needed to attain sufficient fat reserves prior to winter. As a result, scientists suspect this likely impacted juvenile salmon survival and potentially contributed to recent annual variation in adult survival. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OldBlackDog
BCWF, Conservation Hatchery. Things to Contemplate by Bob Hooton.
Replies
7
Views
791
Derby
Derby
B
'Stop the bleeding': B.C. groups call on Alaska to halt interception of Canadian salmon
Replies
10
Views
2K
searun
searun
GLG
$647.1 million Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative
Replies
25
Views
3K
cuttlefish
cuttlefish
OldBlackDog
Here we go again, by Bob Hooton .
Replies
130
Views
7K
onefish
O
C
Maple Ridge conservation group takes legal action against city
Replies
1
Views
333
wildmanyeah
W
Back
Top