Friday, February 8, 2013

What's up with WASSIP?

A number of recent comments on the blog have mentioned WASSIP.

Not being entirely sure of the meaning of this ugly acronym, Deckboss went fishing for answers.

Turns out WASSIP stands for Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification Program.

Quite a few government, Native, commercial fishing and other organizations are part of the effort, which involves genetic analysis of commercial and subsistence chum and sockeye salmon.

The goal is to "help all stakeholders better understand the composition of harvests" in Western Alaska.

In other words, who's catching whose salmon!

Learn more about WASSIP here.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Everybody knows who's catching them, the big question is, what is going to be done about it?
Let's say for a minute you had genetics in hand, and let's say that one of the fisheries under the control of the Board of Fisheries, Chignik for example, were found to be harvesting say 50%. What percent of the total Yukon run would that be? and most importantly, how would it stack up to the percentage other users are catching who are under federal jurisdiction? The drag fleet catches massive numbers of Yukon destined salmon, so even if the Chignik guys are catching as much as 50% Yukon fish, they still might not be doing a fraction of the overall damage that the drag by-catch is, even if their percentage of Yukon fish were smaller. So the big question is, will any information produced by WASSIP be used to compile a lessened impact shared equally by jurisdiction, and yet based on the overall total impact?
It won't do any good to do a study, have the BOF use it to curtail fisheries in Alaskan waters, if the NPFMC won't support the effort, and equate an equal share of the pain by imposing realistic by-catch hard caps on the guys who are doing the lion's share of the damage, which is the drag fleet.

Anonymous said...

Those who have been present during the WASSIP presentations ( and there have been two presentations) have heard that the main goal of the study was not achieved. The main goal was to determine whether chums harvested by Area m seiners and in some cases gillnetters were chums that were heading towards the wester Alaska rivers, ie Yukon and Kusko. Unfortunately the genetic markings of the Chum are not very complex and it was impossible to make specific identification of chum stocks. The study did identify Sockeye stocks of most terminal rivers on the Peninsula, Bristol Bay, and western Alaska. Tests over three years did show that stocks from those areas were being caught by Area M fishers in varying percentages. The most outstanding intercept occurred in the outside waters of Port Heiden where tests showed that a majority of the fish harvested there were destined for Ugashik and Egigik. Many of the study's conclusions will be germane and discussed during the nest BOF Area M meeting in a couple of weeks. Their will be some fireworks.

Anonymous said...

What did WASIP have to say about the chum caught in the Nushagak district and where they were bound?

Was that addressed?

Anonymous said...

3:42 is an Area M'er trying to put up a smokescreen. However, he fails to realize that even the BB chums are categorized as CWAK. Perhaps they mean to call attention to the SOCKEYE caught in nushagak? The Department has already explained that if you had been paying attention.

Anonymous said...

Why are all of the on shore fisheries ready to fight each other over who's catching what, but no one is pointing at the draggers who REALLY catch everybody's fish? Sure everybody grumbles about it, but nobody is ready to take the feds to task and tell big industry to stop clear cutting the ocean. Where is William Wallace when we need him?, it's time to unite the clans.

Anonymous said...

do em' like they did the loggers, lawsuit them to death. You don't have to win, just make them tie up long enough to go out of business. After that, there will be plenty of fish for everybody.

Anonymous said...

I'm not an area M'er.

I don't care how BB chums are "categorized". That's just a weasel word. What % of Nush chums are bound for the Kusko and points west and north.

3:51, are you so afraid of the answer that you won't let the question be asked?

Anonymous said...

@ 6:18: go read the report because your comments indicate that you clearly haven't

Anonymous said...

7:43

They didn't ask the question and their grouping CWAK is politically convenient . As it obscures what I am guessing is likely the greatest intercept of Kusko and Yukon chums outside thier respective management regions.

That said the fisheries in the lower Kusko and Yukon are also major intercept fisheries though its not pc to refer to them as such.

Anonymous said...

@ 12:14...they most certainly did ask that question, but were not able to find that level of genetic resolution without having giant error bars around the estimates.

You may be right that there is significant interception occurring there, but WASSIP failed to get there. Not from a lack of trying, however.

Anonymous said...

wassip gave some good ancillary info, but quite simply, it failed at what it set out to do.

Anonymous said...

@ 5:47...it failed to identify chums because Denby Lloyd oversaw the project. Think he wanted better chum stock ID from Area M? Just look at who hired him back immediately after he "retired".

Anonymous said...

Well, it was a good thing that the WASSIP study was done even though it provided another stall for the Norton Sound region, especially the Nome area rivers on getting anything done to help the salmon runs that are crashing toward extinction and the back- door meetings continue and the people are regulated to "non-salmon" workshops and jigging sticks for trash fish like tom cods and bullheads.

Anonymous said...

2/19@7:42 pm. Congrats, that's quite possibly the dumbest comment ever on Deckboss, and that's saying something.

CWAK chums are so homogenous genetically that, with even the latest genetic technology, they can't be distinguished accurately. There is no dark, sinister motive. Go tell your theories to the guys in the Gene Lab in Anchorage, they might find them amusing.

Anonymous said...

ooooooh, Denby's testy this morning!

Anonymous said...

Cape Denby Headquarters?

PROPOSAL 211 – 5 AAC 09.XXX. Area M fishery regulatory changes and/or management plans pertaining to chum and sockeye salmon. Placeholder for possible regulatory changes based on results from Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification Project (WASSIP) as follows:
ISSUE: This is a placeholder proposal to allow fishery stakeholders, the board, and the department an opportunity to discuss proposed regulatory changes in Area M based upon results of the Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification Project, which will not be available until late summer 2012.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Potentially important information regarding fisheries management will not be utilized until the next Alaska Board of Fisheries cycle for Area M in 2015/2016.

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (HQ-F12-230)

Anonymous said...

There were no real surprises in the WASSIP report. Everyone has known for a long time that AREA M fishers have been harvesting sockeye stocks that were destined for other terminal areas. What stands out the most is the high number of Sockeyes harvested in Outer Port Heiden By Area M fishers that are headed for Egigik and Ugashik. There will be some feathers flying over some of the proposals that take that fishery away from them. One way of looking at the overall issue is understanding that if Area M fishers don't catch them, someone else will. So the question is; in the absence of a need to get those fish into the Egigik or Ugashik rivers in order to make escapement , which is not currently necessary, should the allocation to Area M which has been in effect since 2007, be changed. And what would be the reason for doing so, other than the argument that "they are our fish". Some will argue that if these fish are not harvested at the present location that there will be that dreaded over escapement into the Meshik river. But it is clear that a large percentage of the fish caught are not going to the Meshik, rather to more northern BB rivers.There will some healthy discussions on these proposals.

Anonymous said...

I am not Denby, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I have to agree - the comment about Denby having Super Hero powers to reorganize Chum DNA truly is one of the most stupid comments ever on the DeckBoss.

Anonymous said...

So is BOF going to mandate salmon marking programs for Western Alaska without the blessings of ADF&G????? It needs to be done and it can be done because it was proven to be done in Western Alaska.

Anonymous said...

Hold on Area M, it's gonna be a bumpy ride. 30 years of intercepting other peoples fish against ADFG/BOF policy is long enough. Time to adhere to non-interceptive policy objectives.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Area M needs to be shut down in order for the salmon to safely reach their spawning grounds.

Anonymous said...

Area M has plenty of their own fish to catch after June. Who says they need to keep catching Bristol Bay and AYK's fish in June?

Anonymous said...

I love how some commenters portray themselves as lilly white terminal fishermen.

There are more AYK chums caught in the Nushagak than area M. The fisheries in the mouth of the Yukon and Kuskokwim are total intercept fisheries in that they are fishing on mixed stocks and have a far greater likelyhood of doing damage to escapement the area M.

None of the BB districts are truly terminal fisheries but that doesn't stop the self righteous whining.

Anonymous said...

more smoke from the area m guy at 4:07. technically, nushagak chums are in the same reporting group as the rest of the ayk chums (cwak).

Anonymous said...

5:37, I'm sure that it is a great comfort to those living on the Kuskokwim and Yukon that Nushagak chums are in the "same reporting group"

I'm not an area M fisherman and it's not "smoke"

Anonymous said...

You guys swimming around with the schools of salmon going here and going there?

How about no Commercial Fishing until all rivers in Alaska reach their escapement goals for sustainability. That'll cut out the crap.

Anonymous said...

Denby is free to work for whomever he wants. After all ...this is the American system where you work for the Gov't and then "whore out" to whomever will pay you. Smart, well connected, and savvy on who is going to pay his bills in the future. What's your cause? How much $ you got? Sure I will push your agenda....what is it you want me to say? After that just tell him where the next contract is. Denby....you are a "sell out!" It was one thing to watch you as an emerging involved young lobbyist years ago. But now it is an example of just how wrong our system is at all levels from local ,state, to the smell at the Federal level. From decision making public sector...to private "what do you want to prove or disprove". Can we please just have someone that isn't chasing the instant money for their "expert testimony!"

Anonymous said...

I feel sorry for those sorta smart people who have to pimp for people dumber than they are. It's the entrenched BULLY system that Alaska is becoming quite famous for.

Anonymous said...

The "smell" is throughout this state - local, state and federal.

That's what happens if a huge percentage of a population is too busy surviving day by day and there is no time left to watch the so called leaders guide the destiny of ones homeland.

Those who take the time to pay attention are bullied and trashed. There is no justice in Alaska.

Anonymous said...

OPF=Other People's Fish

Anonymous said...

APF= American Peoples Fish

Congress needs to take a closer look at what's going on in Alaska and off the coast of Alaska. We're trashing poor peoples way of life just to feed the world poor quality bulk fish such as pollock.