scott_harpell Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Have they been snagging them too? They also didn't take 33.7% of the run. Their ancestors had a bit more respect for the environment. Got any stats to back that up, I don't think so. Prove it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Since you made the assertion is it up to you to prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 There ya go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 What is this!??! THe canadian know it all didn't know something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Hey kid - I wasn't asking about illegal fishing but about how many fish the "ancestors" you mention took from the river and how they did it "respectfully". You might be surprised! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 C'mon Dru, with an exact number down to a tenth of a percent, you are supposed to take it at face value. Surely a number with 3 significant digits convinces you of its scientific validity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 I just gave him the source. here is another on closer to Seattle this weekend. Saturday, December 4th: Tychman Slough Planting Location: Sultan Time: 10am-2pm Join us for the second planting along this active side channel to the Skykomish River. Your efforts will help improve water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and erosion control. Please RSVP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=bc_home&articleID=1783925 "Record returns!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=bc_home&articleID=1783925 "Record returns!" Of Chum salmon; which has little or no commercial value. In fact, we chuck the chums that the natives catch into the river to replenish the nutrients in the river; because they would just throw them out anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 They taste good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 7, 2004 Author Share Posted December 7, 2004 No they don't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Yum they sure do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitergal Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 question...and this is an honest question because I really don't know....what is the impact on the huge (international and national) commercial fishing ships out in the ocean? I mean..I totally agree with protecting our local waters here...but really?? Aren't the big ships the cause of most of the decline? I really don't know...this is just something I've heard as a counter argument against this. I'd love to know the response I should be giving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 question...and this is an honest question because I really don't know....what is the impact on the huge (international and national) commercial fishing ships out in the ocean? I mean..I totally agree with protecting our local waters here...but really?? Aren't the big ships the cause of most of the decline? I really don't know...this is just something I've heard as a counter argument against this. I'd love to know the response I should be giving. The two main forces at work here are: 1) Overfishing (over 99% done via commercial nets) 2) Habitat destruction. If the eggs are not able to mature, you obviously will not have any salmon. That is why so much work i done with bank stabilization and stuff. Both are problems that need to be addressed. The only practical thing that I can do is work on the habitat so that is what I focus on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 no one knows where the salmon go to mature so it can't be huge international ships in deep waters doing the overfishing, not that they wouldn't do it if they knew where to go to catch em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 no one knows where the salmon go to mature so it can't be huge international ships in deep waters doing the overfishing, not that they wouldn't do it if they knew where to go to catch em. I must know where they go to mature, cause I do it for a living. Most salmon are taken right before they go into the river. You know where they are gonna go and you can set up to prevent it. In the open ocean, you have little to no chance to catch a salmon. Especially if you wanna make a profit doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 They are ALREADY mature when they come back out of the ocean to the river. It's where they have been for the past couple of years that no one can say with certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryland_moore Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Chum are a listed species down here in Oregon. Combining the ruling on the Snake River dams with opening roadless areas, which are areas where the majority of bull trout, chinook, and coho spawn, it shows a huge detriment. Do all you can if you believe in sustaining fish. I have heard that some of the hatcheries around here are trying to create hatchery fry by mimicing wild fish and by letting fish spawn "naturally" in a free flwoing stream (inside a hatchery facility of course) and then releasing them. It will be interesting to see if the strength and genetic make up of these fish compares. In each Columbia Basin state, there are "Water Trusts" working with farmers, ranchers, and local municipalities to transfer water back instream for anadromous fish habitat. Check out Oregon Water Trust and Washington Water Trust's website. Idaho is through the state. These organizations have single-hgandedly created contracts with landowners compensating them for crops they lost due to shutting off irrigation, but it restored miles of dry streambed and allowed fish to get back to historical spawning grounds. They also work to change points of diversions and remove barriers like push up dams. Cool folks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 In the open ocean, you have little to no chance to catch a salmon. Especially if you wanna make a profit doing it. Bullshit. Californian's regularly sport & commercially fish Salmon in the ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 In the open ocean, you have little to no chance to catch a salmon. Especially if you wanna make a profit doing it. Bullshit. Californian's regularly sport & commercially fish Salmon in the ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shapp Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 There as been a lot of miss information in this thread. Let me preface first that I hate bush and the new critical habitat designation is totally bogus. Speaking as a fisheries scientist, There are several hatcheries operated in the Puget Sound area to produce chum for commercial, recreational, and ceremonial purposes. People do catch chum for sport and eat them. They are also sold commercially in nearly every grocery store sold as "Keta" salmon. These are bright fish from sea-water. When captured fresh and quickly frozen they offer a very tasty flesh. Secondly the story about kokanee. All of the stuff reported previously is mostly speculative. Kokanee and sockeye were introduced into Lake Washington, primarily from Baker Lake and Lake Washington stocks. There is some speculation that a native Kokanee stock did exist and a few sockeye did use the lake, but a local sockeye stock likely did not historically exist. Kokanee can give rise to anadromous off spring, like wise sockeye juveniles may residualize and stay in freshwater (termed kokanee). Not a whole lot of differene between the two fish. Kokanee and sockeye happend to need a lake to complete their life cycle (don't get picky with me as there are a few rare cases of riverine sockeye). The Cedar River did not historically flow into lake washington and could not have supported a kokanee or sockey stock anyway (see below). Historically, there were very large chum and pink salmon populations in Lake Washington, which are extinct. I don't see anyone bitching about this. Every one seems to bitch about sockeye and kokanee which non-native to the lake. Huge impacts occured have occured historically in Lake Washington. In the past 150 years, the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish watershed has been dramatically altered from its historical condition. This started with heavy logging of old growth forest throughout much of the watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle began diverting water out of the upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910 through 1920, the natural Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. During that same decade, the Cedar River was redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington. In the ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been the expansion of urban and suburban development. In the upper Cedar River, land is devoted almost entirely to preservation of forests. Residential, industrial, and commercial uses prevail in the lower reaches of virtually all the streams. The Puget Sound drainages are primarily residential in nature. On the idea that you can harvest fish at the mouth of rivers to limit harvest impacts and bycatch of threatened fish. Hey dude, in many rivers there are several disticnt fish stocks of the same species. Some might migrate a few miles and spawn, others might migrate hundreds of miles to spawn (like in the columbia river). Some stocks that are doiing all right might co-mingle with fish that are very much endangred in a marine or estuarine area at the mouth of a river. Commercial fishing in any co-migled area cannot seggregate between stocks. Commercial harvest segregation by stock is nearly impossible and has been shown to be totaly ineffective in most areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shapp Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Oops, I ment kokanee and sockeye were introduced from Baker Lake and Lake Whatcom stocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 Kokanee and sockeye happend to need a lake to complete their life cycle (don't get picky with me as there are a few rare cases of riverine sockeye). The Cedar River did not historically flow into lake washington and could not have supported a kokanee or sockey stock anyway (see below). Sockeye don't dude. What kinda fisheries expert are you? Kokanee are lake locked sockeyes and yes they need a stream to breed. Oops, I ment kokanee and sockeye were introduced from Baker Lake and Lake Whatcom stocks. These aren't the fish I was talking about. These were old native runs that have come back after they were declared "extinct." Chum tastes like shit even if you catch it in the ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 On the idea that you can harvest fish at the mouth of rivers to limit harvest impacts and bycatch of threatened fish. Hey dude, in many rivers there are several disticnt fish stocks of the same species. exactly. a bycatch where fataly injured fish are tossed back into the water as per regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.