Total fishing ban on salmon weighed

[RSS Feed]

SACRAMENTO – Officials warned Thursday that a total closure of commercial and recreational salmon fishing may be needed this year to protect dwindling Sacramento River fall-run chinook populations.

http://www.sacbee.com/fishing_hunting/story/749444.html

 

[Val]

Here we go again. Over 90% of fish are caught by commercial fishermen, therefore we must punish the sportfishermen for the actions of the commercial fishing industry. After all they pay the politicians to allow them to rape our fish stocks. "The best politician your money can buy", our form of Government.

 

[IAK]

I just logged onto this site and saw this thread. Val, you can't blame the depletion of salmon solely on the commercial fisherman. Are you a biologist? Do you have actual figures to support your statements? Commercial fisherman are becoming more and more limited in seasons and areas where they are allowed to fish than sportfisherman. I know commercial fisherman who have had to all together quit commercial fishing. It's a dying proffession. Last I heard, the average age of a commercial fisherman was around 50 or so. If anything, it's depletion and alteration of spawning habitat that has the most serious effect on salmon numbers today. I know, I've seen the actual maps and regions that unfortunately do not host spawning today. Whether you like it or not, the libs aren't going to choose between sport or commercial fishing, it's going to be either all or nothing. You are pulling a Jim Zumbo if you know what I mean. I'm not agreeing with a ban, I'm just disagreeing with a popular, but false view of commercial fishing today.

 

[Val]

Yes, I agree that habitat reduction and destruction of habitat by man's enchroachment is a very significant problem. The real root of the problem is that there are 6.5 billion people on this planet that all need food. However, you can't tell me that sportfishermen who are allowed one or two salmon per day based on the time of year, make a dent in what is caught by the commercials. No, I'm not a biologist or do I have the figures, but I have hunted and fished for over 50 years and common sense makes it pretty obvious what is depleting our fish stocks. With the ever improving technology, purse seiner nets, bottom trawl nets that destroy the habitat, high tech fish finders, aircraft spotters, etc., the commercial fishermen deplete the fish stocks. Then, they want our tax dollars to bail them out by buying their boats and subsidizing them. I have seen reports by sportsmen organization that state that 93% of fish are caught by commercial fishermen. Yeah, you can argue that it's all a myth if you want, but the fish stocks are disappearing and it certainly isn't because of the sportsmen.

 

[IAK]

Your arguments don't even pertain to the topic which is about king salmon and even more specifically those that are of the Sacramento River. The commercial fisherman here troll with hoochies/bait with barbless hooks. I would like to know what reports you are talking about. Statistics can be twisted to support whatever you want. 93% of what species? Or is for total volume of all fish, shellfish, and mollusks harvested? Is this for California? The United States? The world? Like I said before, the root of the issue of Sacramento kings is the loss and degradation of spawning habitat. Furthermore, I never said that sportfishermen competed against commercial fisherman or were even close to putting up their numbers. Please feel free to check my post above. Also commercial fisherman don't "want" our tax dollars to buy them out in any way. Believe it or not, they would rather fish. However, as I said before, increasingly restricting regulations, dwindling numbers, and people like bashers/tree huggers/you force them to sell their boats to any buyer for a paltry sum. My argument was not in regards to or meant to encompass all commercially fished species in different areas of the world.

Yes, certain fish stocks are disappearing, and no it's not fair to blame sportsman. But in the case of Sacramento kings to put the blame solely on commercial fisherman is ludicrous. By the way, I'm not a commercial fisherman, but have fished my entire life (sportsfisherman). I was a wildlife, fish and conservation biology major, and even my fisheries professor agreed that salmon in California were more affected by the loss of habitat than ever decreasing commercial fishing. Common sense is easily trumped by actual scientific research and talking with actual commercial fisherman. How can you present a fair, unbiased argument if all you do is listen to propaganda presented by a sportsmen's organization dedicated only to it's own self preservation and promotion? But don't worry about the future too much. At the current rate local commercial fisherman are being forced to give up their livelihoods, overfishing will be a nonexistent factor in the coming years.

 

[Val]

If you truly believe that the average Joe Sportsman who goes after salmon a few times a year has a significant impact on the resoursce as the commercial fisherman, so be it. But fishing daily at the mouth of a river like the commercials without a one or two fish limit, in my simple little mind has a much greater affect. Yes habitat reduction is the main culpret, but what is left of the resource is being devastated by the commercial fishing industry. They fish themselves out of a job. Short term profit is their goal, never mind the future of the resource.

 

[rodneyshishido]

I did a search for some statistics for California. The newest I could find was for 2005. The commercial fishery reports 4,324,517 pounds of Kings. The reported sport harvest for the same year was 143,200.

 

[IAK]

I notice you are again trying to put words in my mouth. And once again again, I ask you to point out where I suggest or even blame the average sportsman! Please feel free to quote where I say that. That being said, there's areas where up to 5 salmon bag limits (10 in possession) exist (not just the 1 or 2 you suggest) and I know people who routinely take up to that number in a day. Before you try to say that I am saying sportsman are at fault, I am in no way trying to say that they do. I guess I'm just questioning the validity of your arguments. I also see you skirted all of the questions I asked about your "data" in order to provide any substance to your arguments. I am always interested in learning in new information. At least we agree now that habitat is the main culprit in reducing salmon numbers today. My goal was to correct a common misinterpretation of a commercial fishery that is promoted by today's media, and tree hugging advocates. I'm not trying to start a fight or put down anybody here. There is always two sides to a story, but if one refuses to examine them both, then how could they form a fair opinion? It's like if you went to court and the judge/jury listened to your opponent's testimony, and not yours. Yes, salmon numbers used to be impacted by commercial fishing, but are now not to the extent that you say they do. But I dare say I will fail to convince you. What about another person? In fact, I had just emailed a former professor, and prominent California fisheries biologist about this, and this is his email to me:

"The cause of the salmon decline is complex and due to the interactions
of lousy conditions in the Delta and freshwater and variable conditions
in the ocean. The commercial fisheries is not a cause of decline, it is
more like the victim of the decline. It was a problem in the distant
past, but no longer.

If you want to know more about CA chinook you can find it in my
book Inland Fishes of California (2002, UC Press)."

Peter Moyle


With that, next time please do some research before you decide to spout off and declare that commercial fisherman "pay the politicians to allow them to rape our fish stocks." But maybe now you will say they pay off University of California biologists too? It's obvious you came in with a closed mind and and misinformation. Will you leave the same?

 

[IAK]

Rodney, please see my above post to Val. Commercial fisherman are required to log and send in how many pounds they catch. I would like to know how they go the figures for the sport take. Not knocking your info, just curious.

 

[rodneyshishido]

I do not know how California tracks the sport catch. Washington State used to employ a puch card.

Interesting note is that in Vancouver B.C. statistically the sportfisherman contributed 4 times as much revenue to the area as the commercial side. Don't know what the catch ratio was.

"Fix the problem not the blame"

 

[IAK]

Rodney, punch cards for salmon used to be only required for ocean fishing up above Horse Mountain (about 1/8-1/9) or California coastline and for fish caught in the Klamath River system. Forgot to add that the 2008-2009 proposed regs are only going to require salmon punch cards for the Klamath River fish.