Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Plenty of herring expected again at Togiak

Here's the Togiak herring forecast for 2017. It shows a quota of 22,943 tons for the sac roe fishery.

Last season, the industry took more than 15,000 tons of herring at Togiak, but that was far short of the 28,782-ton quota.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's time for the 32 foot vessel limit on Togiak herring fishery.

Anonymous said...

Alaskan herring are worth more left in the water.

Anonymous said...

No stock assessment/violating their mgmt. plan. Playing with fire, it also smells fishy.

Anonymous said...

The 32 foot boat length limit in Bristol Bay is living proof of the lack of progressive leadership in the Watershed. Normally a legacy is something that you leave behind, after you have gone to your great reward. Given that around 50% of the boats in the fishery are so out of date, and in basic shambles, it's become the real-life legacy that the leadership in Dillingham can claim as their own, while everyone is still alive and well.

With RSW mandates on the horizon and deferred maintenance endemic, BBEDC's throwing buckets of money toward the revitalization of their fleet, is too little, too late. The market value of the watershed vessels that they have consistently attempted to preserve, by objecting to lengthening boats in the fishery, leaves them woefully ill-prepared for the new market realities. Lipstick on a pig comes to mind.

Moreover, it is in direct conflict with their State-of-the-Art longline, pollock and crab investments that they have made, which they are more than eager to brag about at any opportunity. Have they no shame?

Anonymous said...

I agree, its time to lengthen the 32' boats to 35' in Bristol Bay, the average RSW unit is about 3' long anyway and majority of the boats are lacking space on their vessels, the quality of fish has become more important and that requires a slightly bigger boat.

Mark E said...

October 5, 2016 at 4:06 PM{ What in the hell are you talking about? This is herring, not salmon.

Mark Ervice

Homer

Anonymous said...

I think it's high time to go to a 10% or 15% harvest ratio in an attempt to stem the flood of cheap herring on to a flooded market. Togiak has become 'the tail that wags the dog'. Killing fish to the max is not the way into a bright future! You want bragging rights or cheap thrills Mr. Highliner? You are a loser in the first and in the end.

mike svenson said...

I need someone to explain to me the logic of their worth more left in the water. up there will it produce more crabs, sockeye,chums kings or cohos. one thing I do notice is that people who don't like to work always say that. and people who like to work will work hard just to make some or a little money to support their families and their operation. mike Svenson sitka

Rosvold said...

Besides that the Togiak Herring Fishery provides 1000+ jobs in the spring of the year in catching, tendering, and processing, we should all be concerned that this is the "canary in the coal mine". The actual resource that could be available to harvest is more than double the State numbers the Department currently uses. While the story's author likes to proclaim large numbers, when herring harvests are proposed, one does not have to go very far back in Department history to see 300,000 tons used as a biomass estimate speculation. Those of us whom may have spent every spring since the 70's chasing the fish understand how vast, and how difficult to quantify the resource is. The "canary" part is that the Department doesn't feel it has the funds to properly manage the fishery, so they will back down to the lowest common denominator to protect the fish, according to our Constitution. Applying this logic, across the realm of State managed fisheries, one might expect reductions in Tanner Crab, Red King Crab, Shrimp, and the list will go on. In certain circumstances, where the Department can cost recovery, by fishing and selling product in season, there will be less impact. Just less fish for us fishers to peddle.
I think this the larger story, that should concern us all.

Anonymous said...

For decades, industry has defended the f&g comfish budget, held to that position by the department's threat that budget reductions will necessitate more conservative management, resulting in lower harvests. What I haven't seen or heard talked about is the cost efficiency of f&g in the management of our fisheries.
In se, the department has two research vessels with crews. These are used for surveys for tanner and red crab, shrimp, herring, and I believe some salmon stuff. Do we really need two? Herring spawn depositions surveys are on the blocks here in se for getting cut. Probably not Sitka, but Hoonah sound, Seymour, etc. That means even if there is a major spawn that would result in a fishery the next year, there would be none, as no spawn deposition = no biomass estimate = no fishery.
The red crab fishery, a fishery that is dependent on a survey that has been proven flawed by the mark recapture program, is non-existent. Basically, the only management has been managing not to have a fishery. The department stubbornly stands on this survey, despite, at least from industry perspectives, it's abject failure as a tool to accurately assess biomass. For many years now the fleet has been required to fill out confidential reports that must be turned into the department when delivering their catch. These reports have the number of pots hauled, location, and numbers of crab harvested. These reports have given the department a huge data base of CPUE information, which they do not use. Why not scrap the survey, give industry a 5 day season with mandatory call in, compare catch rates to past seasons, and extend or close the season on based on those numbers? How much money would they save? How much damage could the fleet do in 5 days on a poor season? How much would coastal communities benefit by having a annual fishery, albeit small, that people would gear up for? How much would the state benefit from having an annual high value product fishery, again, small, but every year?
I'm really not interested in the idea that the state gets into the fishing business. I'm still mad at the divers for subjecting themselves to a management tax. The idea that commercial fishing should pay its entire way is something that came out of the railbelt and doesn't consider the scope of economy that surrounds our coastal communities. It seems to me that f&g is more interested in taking care of its employees than they are with taking care of our economy or fish.