• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Kiss King Fishing Goodbye

Here's an easy read summary updated June 2019 of the current State of Alaska research plans for King Salmon: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=chinookinitiative.main

The links included are worth reviewing especially this 2013 publication that discusses what was known and planned for at that time: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/SP13-01.pdf

The State's role is dependent on annual legislative funding and with this year's budget there may be reductions. Other Federal Agencies and groups are involved which may help continue the research and provide answers. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/chinook-salmon#science

Gary
 
Last edited:
Now I am laughing. Every study I have seen done up here usually comes to the conclusion that they need more $ to study longer because they got more questions than answers.

They have been studying salmon for years, yet still have zero idea on what is eating/killing the Kings. The one statement we continue to hear is that is not fresh water, but ocean survival. That statement coupled with the one that "Chilkat Fish are inland feeders", (meaning they stay within the southeast Alaska waters), but they don't attribute the increase in whales, seals, sea lions, improvements in fishing effectiveness and multi million hatchery fish released in the southeast waters as a problem.

We can control one variable- amount of fishing pressure. But we don't.

The more we know, the more we know how little we know.
And scientific studies present more questions than answers - that's just the nature of studying complex natural systems. So yes, more money will be needed to answer these new questions, which will then present more questions, which will then need more money. But the rewards are worth it.
It may also appear that there is conflicting information coming out of these studies, but let's take Chinook salmon as example using some very, very rough numbers:
A female lays 5,000 eggs on average (varies by female weight and can be as much as 10,000 or more).
The egg to smolting survival is about 7% (varies by stock/stream, water temperature/flow, density of spawners, weather, etc.)
Smolt to adult returning survival is about 2% (well it used to be, but now it's less than 1% for some stocks and is dependent on lots and lots of factors).

There are a number of studies that look at various causes of mortality at every life stage, and sometimes the answers may appear conflicting because many factors are interacting in ways that are hard to predict.
For example, increased fresh water temperature increases metabolic rates and growth of the fry but if there is little food, then their mortality increases, otherwise with sufficient food, they grow bigger, increasing their survival.
Then there are predator-prey interactions - and answers to questions such as what happened to the herring? What is the effect of changing prey field on Chinook salmon survival?
And then my field of studies - adaptive plasticity and population resilience due to standing genetic variation, meaning if and why some populations are able to adapt better than others. For example, why some Chinook stocks are affected so differently by the recent marine heat waves?
The list is almost endless.
Like you said, we can control amount of fishing pressure, but seeing and understanding the whole picture is not without merit either.
 
Like you said, we can control amount of fishing pressure, but seeing and understanding the whole picture is not without merit either.

Jacek,

Well said!!

My desired point, though not said well, is that we are in need of extreme action if we wish to save the Kings. While it would be nice to 'know' all of what is going on, that will never happen as for years they have studied. If they do not act to save them now, take drastic measures, we might as well let the species go.

Easier to study them if we have some coming back I think.

But in practical sense, if after 40+ years the questions are not answered, more study over the next few probably won't come to an earth shattering finding.


How is the 170?
 
Chinook-King have been in decline for over a Century. Started in California and worked its way north. Some stocks/populations have done ok others not. It's not universal and as researchers have noted the species has a plastic-like variable life style more than other salmon and some ability to adapt. They're moving across the Arctic in search of new habitat.

Loss of overall numbers and older large spawners impacts freshwater fertilization and genetics for their progeny to prosper and grow big. Ocean predation happens - Sharks, Sea Lions, and Cetaceans like Killer Whales feast and are popularly supported. Bycatch happens. And in mixed stock fisheries it a challenge to preserve the few at the expense of the many. Stock-specific DNA sampling might help delineate oceanic range and contributions to overall harvest.

Naturally occurring stocks may be doomed to minimal abundance despite efforts understand and improve. There's always the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that can bring out torches and pitchforks: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/chinook-salmon-protected and https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=E06D. It might come to that in Alaska, or at least more severe restrictions on any harvest in both salt and freshwater. They aren't car tires that can be replaced.

Gary
 
Back
Top