Post by Admin on Jul 4, 2019 6:58:49 GMT
ALASKA'S ONCE GREAT SALMON RUNS
Many people are asking where our once great populations of king salmon have gone. Few people have any idea what may have happened to these once great salmon runs but if you ask the Alaska Department of Fish & Game they will announce a new catch-all term called (Lack Of King Salmon Abundance). This term is offered in an attempt to convince the public that there isn't an official cause for the missing salmon. The ADF&G prefer that you believe “abundance issues” are like "the rain falling out of the sky", uncontrollable and therefore you take what you get. I do not agree with this alleged Lack Of Abundance theory. There are known causes for Lack Of Abundance Issues but along with identifying a problem like this you need to also locate the causes of the problem. Our ADF&G has identified a (Lack Of King Abundance Problem) but are unable to locate the possible cause of that problem. It is my purpose to list possible reasons Alaska is currently seeing fewer and smaller king salmon, silver salmon and halibut today than observed historically.
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KING & SOCKEYE SALMON
The king salmon abundance issue begins with a very simple question. Why the dramatic difference between king and sockeye salmon abundance in Cook Inlet? Cook Inlet naturally produces a higher abundance of sockeye salmon along with a lower abundance of king salmon. Since these salmon migrate side-by-side there is a reasonable assumption that our king salmon problems are not happening while kings and sockeyes migrate together. This is assumable because during migration what happens to one stock would logically happen to the other. Sockeyes are more prolific than kings therefore kings should recover slower from a marine disaster or commercial over-harvest but in general both stocks should respond in the same direction regarding food chain issues.
Commercial and public fisheries have been impacting king salmon stocks for many years. Commercial activities have had the dominate impact on these fisheries but that impact has been happening for many years, while we have not observed today's kind of dramatic king salmon decreases. This abundance of sockeyes and non-abundance of kings says that different factors are impacting these salmon at sea. King and sockeye salmon feed on different prey while at sea so the king salmon problem appears to be directing our attentions towards a problem within the marine food chain.
KING AND SOCKEYE OCEAN FEEDING
To explore a possible marine food chain problem, the differences between king and sockeye salmon need to be investigated. King and sockeye salmon have many things in common along with some significant differences when it comes to how they live and feed. To find the differences you need to discover what these salmon feed on. King and sockeye salmon both begin feeding on much the same things. Both begin their lives by feeding on zooplankton like euphausiids (crab larvae). Juvenal kings feed on euphausiids until they reach about (16 inches) in length but these older euphausiids need to be greater than 17 mm in size for juvenal kings to target them. Sockeyes feed on much younger euphausiids which are less than 5 mm in sizes. After wild juvenal kings reach (16 inches) they begin “exclusively” feeding on things which prey on plankton like euphausiids (crab larvae). Adult wild kings (larger than 16 inches) then switch over to preying on things like herring, capelin (small fish), sand lances, pollock and lanterfish, which also prey on (17 mm) or larger crab larvae. Sockeye however continue feeding mainly on very small less than (5 mm) plankton and zooplankton like euphausiids, while wild juvenal kings feed mainly on (17 mm) or larger euphausiids. After reaching (16 inches) adult wild kings switch from euphausiids to herring and capelin. It is this king dietary leap that allows them to grow to their much greater size. Adult sockeyes, pinks and chums are not required to make this kind of a dietary leap, they continue preying on very small crab larvae their entire life. King salmon feeding characteristics are therefore the focus of this investigation.
The consumption of euphausiids by the pelagic fish community off southwestern Vancouver Island, British Columbia
————
“large fish predators like hake, sablefish and dogfish exhibit a decrease in the proportion of euphausiids (and an increase of fish) in their stomachs with increasing predator length [e.g. (Tanasichuk, 1995)”
www.researchgate.net/publication/31099333_The_consumption_of_euphausiids_by_the_pelagic_fish_community_off_southwestern_Vancouver_Island_British_Columbia
———-
With sockeye, pink and chum salmon exclusively feeding on (5 mm) or smaller euphausiids and wild juvenile king salmon exclusively feeding on (17 mm) or larger euphausiids, there may appear to be no feeding conflict. Unfortunately when sockeye, pink and chum salmon reduce younger crab larvae numbers, that larvae reduction eliminates larvae from growing to the larger (17mm) size that wild juvenile kings target. This means that when you drop a hatchery sockeye, pink or chum into the Pacific Ocean, you have actually placed a prey “line cutter” in front of wild juvenile kIng salmon. When you place billions of “prey line cutters” into the ocean you have selectively manipulate the marine ecological system to favor hatchery sockeye, pink and chum salmon, while reducing the prey available to juvenile wild king salmon.
This “prey manipulation factor” then specifically targets (5 mm or less T. spinifera, euphausiids 'crab larva') which would have later become prey for wild juvenal king salmon when reaching a length greater than 17 mm. Wild juvenile kings smaller than 16 inches need euphausiids greater than 17 mm in length or they will starve to death. Larger crab larvae are what wild juvenal kings survive on during this delicate period in their life. When hatchery salmon populations are expanded they begin to operate as a supreme feeding machine along with billions of pollock living in the same waters. Together these vastly superior numbers of (small crab larvae feeders) then sweep the ocean for all euphausiid larva which are less than (5 mm) , thus leaving little (if any) larvae to grow larger for wild juvenile king salmon. Without plenty of larger larvae available wild juvenile kings will fail to build sufficient fat reserves to allow them to make the jump to feeding on herring or capelin. This feeding jump is caused by surging hormones, which causes a surging appetite, which causes a huge weight gain. When a juvenile king salmon is hit by uncontrollable feeding when there is nothing to feed on, it’s body quickly exhausts fat reserves and starvation results. It is this delicate time period within a wild juvenile kings life that can exposed them to the deadly combination of (maximum appetite confronting minimum prey). Maximum appetite / minimum prey can then drain fat reserves which eventually begins a starvation cycle that if uninterrupted will result in death.
Our latest marine science's are now showing a dramatic reduction in the North Pacific marine production of crab larva. Science has confirmed that we are currently seeing the Pacific”s lowest production of (17mm) or larger crab larvae ever, which is about 1% of what it use to be historically. We still have good production levels of the smaller less than (5 mm) euphausiids, which are feeding hatchery salmon and pollock but 99% of the main diet of wild juvenile king salmon is now completely missing. Fisheries managers should be shocked when hearing that a prey element like this has gone missing within our marine environment. The ADF&G is not registering shock, they are claiming our missing king salmon are part of a natural marine cycle, "like rain falling from the sky".
“Chinook and coho could find it difficult to obtain an adequate small prey such as calanoids nd cyclopoids.” page 38,
www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org/resources_54_1982202140.pdf
————
The consumption of euphausiids by the pelagic fish community off southwestern Vancouver Island, British Columbia
“the fivefold decline in adult euphausiid biomass observed in the 1990s off southwestern Vancouver Island.“ Page 1660.
academic.oup.com/plankt/article/22/9/1649/1478098
————
“Tanasichuk estimated the biomass of adulteuphausiids (>10 mm: T.spinifera and E.pacifica) by sampling with bongo netsseveral times during the upwelling season, and he estimated a fivefold declinefrom 1991 to 1997 (Tanasichuk, 1999).” Page 1650-1653.
The empirical studies of hake–euphausiid spatial aggregations and fish stomach-content analyses in the La Perouse region indicate intensive preda- tor–prey interactions.
“Coupled with these interactions is the observation that adult euphausiid biomass in Barkley Sound, near the La Perouse region, has steadily declined during the 1990s to about 20% of the peak biomass estimated in 1991 (Tanasichuk, 1999). Based on food-web theory, the large decline in adult euphausiid biomass might be attributed to one of two processes. Environmental conditions in the coastal ocean may have changed sufficiently to result in reduced growth or survival of larval euphausiids (‘bottom-up’ processes), or the impact of size-selective fish predators may have resulted in reduced survival of large adult euphausiids [‘top-down’ processes (McQueen et al., 1989)].“ Page 1650-1653.
www.researchgate.net/publication/31099333_The_consumption_of_euphausiids_by_the_pelagic_fish_community_off_southwestern_Vancouver_Island_British_Columbia
————
Implications of interannual variability in euphausiid population biology for fish production along the south‐west coast of Vancouver Island: a synthesis.
“Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), the dominant planktivore, fed on larger (>17 mm) T. spinifera, even though the biomass of this part of the euphausiid biomass decreased by 75% between 1991 and 1997, but Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) may have begun feeding on smaller E. pacifica. Therefore, any study of the relationship between fish production and krill biology must consider that part of the euphausiid biomass exploited by fish. In addition, some fish species and/or life history stages appeared to adapt to changes in euphausiid availability, while others did not“
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2419.2002.00185.x
—————-
These mangers continue to manage our fisheries as if we still have sufficient euphausiid resources to feed our wild juvenal king salmon. This lack of resource knowledge regarding our wild juvenile kings then allows the ADF&G to claim the lack of returning adult king salmon is a "natural" Lack Of King Salmon Abundance. There is nothing natural about this lack of king salmon. If you follow the trail of bread crumbs they will lead you to a lack of greater than (17 mm) crab larva. That lack is the direct results of ADF&G fisheries mis-management in Alaska.
If you somehow assume that these wild juvenile kings find enough crab larva to survive to adulthood, then you must consider their chances of finding enough herring or capelin to survive on as adults. Unfortunately these small fish also feed exclusively on the same greater than (17 mm T. spinifera, euphausiids). With only 1% of what we used to have in larger euphausiids, herring and capelin are now also faced with the same dramatic lack of wild prey just like wild juvenile king salmon. This lack of adequately sized marine prey then demands closer examination. This examination does not require another king salmon study, it needs to study the current dramatic ocean reduction of adequate prey for wild juvenile king salmon, herring, sardine, anchovy and capelin.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.666.2141&rep=rep1&type=pdf
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-91, Salmon Stomach Contents, From the Alaska Troll Logbook Program 1977-84, By Bruce L. Wing , October 1985. Type, Quantity, And Size Of Food Of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus) In The Strait Of Juan De Fuca, British Columbia, Terry D. Beachami.
PLANKTON, PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON CRAB LARVAE
Our North Pacific marine food chain begins with (plankton). These plankton drift with ocean currents because most cannot swim. Phytoplankton are single celled organisms that absorb energy from the sun and diatoms from the water as they retain carbon to fuel their survival. That carbon then plays a fundamental part within the (carbon cycle) as it and the (oxygen cycle) work together to produce about half of the oxygen we breath. This oxygen results from photosynthesis between ocean nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. Plankton lives within these cycles expelling oxygen, absorbing carbon, dying and then sinking to the bottom. This results in a planet-wide cycle which removes millions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere and replacing it with trillions of cubic feet (tcf) of oxygen. This is an (Anti-Climate Change Cycle). This is not all plankton do before dying; they also make up the foundation of our ocean marine food chain. Phytoplankton are then eaten by the more complex zooplankton animals which are marine life like euphausiids (crab larvae). At night, zooplankton like crab larvae sneak up to the surface and feed on phytoplankton in relative safely. Once these larvae's become adults they go on to basically feed just about everything in the ocean with their resulting crab larvae. These zooplankton crab larvae then become the focus of this investigation as they live and feed within the phytoplankton.
Female crabs release their larvae during a spring high tide which helps limit predation. As the high tide peaks the larvae swim to the surface and are carried away from the hatch site. These crab larvae are meroplankton because they spend part of their life living and growing within the plankton after exhausting their yolk sack. They may spend minutes or years within the plankton before graduating to their adult benthic (seabed) existence. Young crab rapidly adapt to a deep-water pressurized existence and cannot survive the upper parts of the water column. Life at this pressurized existence carries one atmosphere for every (10 meters) of water. This pressure change is the reason much discarded commercial crab by-catch fails to survive. Sunlight doesn’t penetrates these depths therefore the main energy source for these deep benthic ecosystems is dead and decaying matter like “rotting salmon carcasses” which sink from the higher water column.
Increased salmon escapements increase freshwater salmon rotting, which increases nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient water levels, which increases ocean photosynthesis, which increases plankton, which increases both the oxygen production cycle and the carbon absorption cycle, which increases the removal of billions of tons of destructive carbon from the atmosphere while replacing it with trillions of cubic feet (tcf) of fresh breathable oxygen. Rotting salmon therefore works to accelerate The Cycle Of Life on earth while working to also reverse climate change.
For the past decade commercial fisheries have been doing everything they can to reduce salmon escapements because they claim those escapements are “over-escapement waste”. It is obvious that the more freshwater salmon rotting we have, the healther the earth’s atmosphere becomes. These marine events prove that any fisheries management actions which works to maintain minimum salmon escapements are in fact working to reduce ocean photosynthesis and thereby further increase climate change and reduce the oxygen cycle. This information scientifically proves that the term “salmon over-escapement” is clearly NOT true science because science clearly proves that salmon over-escapement works to REDUCE climate change and INCREASE fresh oxygen.
Salmon, oxygen, carbon and photosynthesis equals an explosion of marine life. Crab production is part of that explosion therefore rotting salmon equals exploding crab populations. Crabs reproduce by molting, kind of like a cadapiler changing into a butterfly but underwater. Immature crab larvae pass through a number of stages as they move from hatching to adult. They will go through many molts as their very hard exoskeleton sheds away over and over to allow the crab to grow larger. If these crab larvae metamorphose (change to different physical form) too far from a suitable settlement site, they will die. Once they locate a suitable site they will feed on plankton for several months while molting many times until finally sink to the bottom. On the bottom they become (non-swimmers) that begin looking like crabs while still smaller than a penny. A primary goal of fisheries managers is to determine these crab settlement areas and label them as “essential crab habitats” which should be permanently closed to commercial crab fisheries.
MARINE ENERGY AND CRAB PRODUCTION
Crabs must molt their shells in order to grow but female crabs must also molt their shells in order to mate. These shell moltings require a huge amount of energy and that energy is expected to come from ocean nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient levels. Maturing crab will prey on: sea urchins, snails brittle stars, worms, clams, mussels, other crabs, algae, sand dollars, barnacles, crustaceans, fish, sponges and sea stars. Crab are directly affected by a decrease in ocean nitrogen, phosphorus and nutrient levels. They are also indirectly affected when their prey suffer from the same lack of nutrients. If crab do not have sufficient nutrient rich waters they cannot molt or reproduce properly due to low energy levels. A low marine energy problem can be misinterpreted in many ways. Some may claim “climate change” or “ocean acidification” is causing our low marine energy problem. There are at least three factors that could cause low marine energy, insufficient salmon escapement and rotting, climate change and ocean acidification. Each of these factors alone could cause our current low marine energy levels.
SALMON ESCAPEMENT, SPAWNING, DEATH, ROTTING, NUTRIENTS, PLANKTONS AND EUPHAUSIIDS PRODUCTION
A major way to increase the survival of all forms of plankton and therefore also crabs, is to allow as many salmon has possibly to escape, spawn and die in the fresh water. This is basic gardening and can be directly applied to plankton and ocean crab production. The death and rotting of a salmon is as much a part of this cycle of life as any other part. Spawned-out salmon carcasses are a vital link between freshwater and saltwater marine ecosystems. Without these decomposing salmon carcasses it is impossible for nursery lakes to maintain adequate nutrient levels thus also causing the ocean they flow into to become nutrient impoverished. Nutrient impoverished oceans work to prevent increased phytoplankton, which works to prevent increased zooplankton like crabs. Ocean nutrients feed the phytoplankton which feed young crabs. That phytoplankton is currently at a 50 year low in the North Pacific. Reduced salmon escapement levels have resulted in reduced biogenic fertilization, which has resulted in reduced juvenile and adult crabs. Phytoplankton enhancement is at least as important as salmon enhancement but we have seen no ocean phytoplankton enhancement while millions of dollars are spent on salmon enhancements.
SALMON HATCHERIES AND COMMERCIAL BY-CATCH
It is not a coincidence that the North Pacific is currently at a 50 year low in wild king salmon production while at the same time being at an all time high in hatchery salmon production. It is also not a coincidence that Alaska has been escaping minimal salmon escapements for about 50 years. Commercial fisheries removal of these salmon resources has dramatically lowering our ocean nitrogen, phosphorus and nutrient water ratio levels. This removal of rotting salmon from our waters has effectively removed the primary building blocks necessary for ocean planktons to build on within our marine food web. This removal has resulted in ocean nutrient depletion, which then resulted in plankton depletion, which resulted in euphausiids depletion. Then around 1980 many Pacific Rim nations began annually releasing billions of hatchery salmon that also feed on the same crab larvae that (wild juvenile king salmon, herring, sardine, anchovy and capelin) feed on. That commercial hatchery activity then worked to forced a North Pacific regime change which advanced sockeye, pink and chum salmon while reducing wild king salmon, herring, sardine, anchovy and capelin resources. These (hatchery reduced wild resources) were then quicken replaced by pollock resources which commercial fisheries could legally harvest while by-catch killing and dumping the remaining adult wild resources.
NORTH PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CRAB OVER-HARVEST
It is shocking to discover that the North Pacific has 99% less euphausiids today (which are larger than 17 mm.) than it had 50 years ago. Why have these larger euphausiids disappeared from the North Pacific? A review of Alaska commercial crab fisheries harvest can shed light on these missing euphausiids.
Peak tanner crab commercial harvest was 66.6 million pounds in 1978. By 1979 tanner crab populations crashed because of commercial over-harvest. By 1984 the commercial harvest was down to 1.2 million pounds annually. Bering Sea tanner and snow crab stocks were both officially declared crashed and commercially over-harvested in 1999. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game came together and drafted a crab rebuilding plan in 2000, to try to clean up the crab mess they created. Unfortunately these crab populations refused to rebound because they still lacked the necessary ocean nutrient energy level to fuel a rebound but none of the above fisheries managers understood this.
The same thing happened in 1980 when the Bering Sea, red king crab commercial harvest peaked at 130 million pounds annually. That commercial over-harvest caused a red king crab (crash) from then until today where we now expect about an annual 15 million pound harvest. (15 million is 11% of 130 million)
The above commercial crab fisheries have peaked and crashed over and over until finally settling at annual harvest levels which are from 10 to 30 percent of what they used to be historically. Within all this excessive commercial harvest, millions of undersized and female crabs were killed as by-catch when thrown back into the ocean. Many of these crab died unseen on the way back down to the bottom because they could not tolerate the radical pressure changes. This tremendously excessive and wasteful commercial crab harvest further erode Alaska’s total crab biomass thus further reducing the euphausiids necessary to feed our juvenile king salmon, herring, sardine, anchovy and capelin.
The North Pacific Climate Shift and Commercial Over-Harvest
The history of Alaska North Pacific herring, capelin, crab and sand lance production has varied from feast to famine over time. Most of these changes or abnormal events are the result of more than one cause. Some of these causes are related to large-scale climatic shifts, human influences and even the increase of natural predators in the ocean. There are a great many scientists who believe that the reason for these climatic shift may lie in large-scale shifts in climatic and oceanic conditions in the Bering Sea and eastern North Pacific Ocean. These (climate regime shifts) appear to have also happened in 1925, 1947, 1977, 1989 and 1998. A 1996 report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), shows that from 1977 on, climate shift resulted in concert (with human influences) to bring about the profound changes in and around the Bering Sea and North Pacific. This report refers to a (cascade hypothesis) or Trophic Cascade which claims that climate change caused a small scale climate related reduction in herring, capelin and crabs. That small reduction was turned into a large scale ecosystem regime shift by over-fishing commercial fisheries. The term (cascade hypothesis) refers to the commercial fisheries over-harvest that resulted after 1977 which increased levels of prey available to juvenile pollock and sockeye, pink & chum salmon along with some invertebrates. The North Pacific ecosystem was then forced to change from being dominated by herring and capelin, which was previously everywhere before 1977, to pollock and sockeye, pink and chum salmon. Commercial fisheries triggered this cascading prey change which then extended downward into the marine food web by removing predators consuming larger crab larvae and added predators consuming smaller crab larvae. Once small larvae feeders exceeded large larvae feeders few if any larvae were able to mature to feed large larvae feeders. Large larvae feeding juvenile king salmon, herring and capelin then began starving to death and the regime shift was complete.
TROPHIC CASCADE DISRUPTION
Trophic cascade is a top-down disruption of an ecosystem and results from humans removing predators that are essential aspect of the ecosystem. Trophic cascade ecosystem disruption resulted when humans removed predators like wolves and cougars from Yellowstone National Park which allowed deer and beaver to become destructive. Trophic Cascade Science is now revealing that the commercial fishery removal of North Pacific predators that feed on large crab larvae may have destructively increased small larvae feeders. It is obvious that the North Pacific went through this regime change but the reason for the change is at question. The ADF&G is claiming it was a natural regime shift but the evidence supports a commercial fisheries caused trophic cascade ecosystem disruption.
After that destruction the North Pacific ecosystem was dominated by pollock. This commercial fishing over-harvest ecosystem disruption attached to a natural climate regime shift and the two forces combined to produce more pollock and fewer king salmon; thus commercial over-harvest exacerbated a minor climate change into (a major ecosystem disaster).. The end result is now more pollock and fewer herring, capelin, crabs and king salmon. www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/bering.php
Trophic Cascade theory has been around for hundreds of years. Historically it was referred to as (a commercial fisheries over harvest of a valued species, which then allowed less valuable ones to take over).
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/history-of-commercial-fisheries
————-
The consumption of euphausiids by the pelagic fish community off southwestern Vancouver Island, British Columbia
“the fivefold decline in adult euphausiid biomass observed in the 1990s off southwestern Vancouver Island.“ Page 1660.
academic.oup.com/plankt/article/22/9/1649/1478098
————
“Tanasichuk estimated the biomass of adulteuphausiids (>10 mm: T.spinifera and E.pacifica) by sampling with bongo netsseveral times during the upwelling season, and he estimated a fivefold declinefrom 1991 to 1997 (Tanasichuk, 1999).” Page 1650-1653.
“The empirical studies of hake–euphausiid spatial aggregations and fish stomach-content analyses in the La Perouse region indicate intensive preda- tor–prey interactions. Coupled with these interactions is the observation that adult euphausiid biomass in Barkley Sound, near the La Perouse region, has steadily declined during the 1990s to about 20% of the peak biomass estimated in 1991 (Tanasichuk, 1999). Based on food-web theory, the large decline in adult euphausiid biomass might be attributed to one of two processes. Environmental conditions in the coastal ocean may have changed sufficiently to result in reduced growth or survival of larval euphausiids (‘bottom-up’ processes), or the impact of size-selective fish predators may have resulted in reduced survival of large adult euphausiids [‘top-down’ processes (McQueen et al., 1989)].“ Page 1650-1653.
www.researchgate.net/publication/31099333_The_consumption_of_euphausiids_by_the_pelagic_fish_community_off_southwestern_Vancouver_Island_British_Columbia
————
Implications of interannual variability in euphausiid population biology for fish production along the south‐west coast of Vancouver Island: a synthesis.
“Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), the dominant planktivore, fed on larger (>17 mm) T. spinifera, even though the biomass of this part of the euphausiid biomass decreased by 75% between 1991 and 1997, but Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) may have begun feeding on smaller E. pacifica. Therefore, any study of the relationship between fish production and krill biology must consider that part of the euphausiid biomass exploited by fish. In addition, some fish species and/or life history stages appeared to adapt to changes in euphausiid availability, while others did not“
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2419.2002.00185.x
————
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OnMSYEFSLQ&app=desktop
CLIMATE CHANGE, COMMERCIAL OVER-HARVEST AND HERRING
We are currently seeing studies on our Alaska halibut and salmon resources that say our fish weigh half of what the same age class weighed in 1988. All of these fish resources depended heavily on herring as the main element within their diet. Most commercial and sport fishermen in Alaska understand that our historic stock levels of herring have greatly declined. All of this has resulted from climate changes that were made even worse by commercial over-harvest.
How did all these negative factors combine together to seriously impact today’s abundance of salmon? Our Alaska Department of Fish & Game opened herring roe fisheries in 1976. Back then we had (7) major herring spawning areas in Southeast Alaska, and many other smaller ones. Currently we only have (2) major herring spawns areas left and the smaller ones are completely gone. Each year our ADF&G conducts massive herring harvests which average around 20 - 30 million pounds from the Sitka Sound. We are currently looking at total disaster within our salmon and halibut resources, not to mention all the other species which depend on this herring resource but we are still commercially harvesting herring. Many Alaskan communities and their economies depend on the salmon and halibut which feed on herring but this natural resource has been greatly reduce by commercial over-harvest. With herring, salmon and halibut disasters now hanging over our fisheries, our ADF&G continues to open and over-harvest our herring resource every year? This is not conservative fisheries management.
Alaska did have thousands of square miles of Southeast waters filled with major herring spawning areas. Now with only Sitka Sound remaining as a major herring spawning area, we in Alaska come face to face with a tremendous lack of both salmon and halibut. Most areas which had swelling populations of herring now host much smaller, severely depleted or even nonexistent populations. Alaska used to have many herring reduction plants going 24 hours per day, year around as our commercial fisheries could not catch all of the herring. Alaska had thousands of people employed as they worked continuous shifts trying to process and ship out all of Alaska’s herring. Our bays were so over-flowing with herring that docks and harbors were inundated as anyone could catch them just about anywhere from a dock.
The beginning of the end of our herring happened in 1976 when Alaska's commercial sac roe herring fishery began hammering away at our seeming endless supply of herring. Buyers from Japan were paying $2,200 per ton for herring sac roe as we watched our herring masses decrease. Commercial fishermen watched on as our herring biomass withered while our ADF&G biologists denied that our herring were decreasing. The ADF&G continued claiming that the reason fishermen could not find the herring was because they had moved. Herring do not usually move, they like to spawn in the same location year after year. The truth is that the ADF&G allowed commercial fisheries to destroy Alaska’s massive herring resources along with its massive crab resources. With those key marine resources now basically gone many other fishery resources have also begun staggering.
CONCLUSION
The ADF&G has had a dismal track record regarding its stewardship of Alaska’s once magnificent fisheries resources. Alaska had tanner crab resources that allowed a 67 million pounds annual harvest back in 1978. The ADF&G then quickly managed this thriving resource down to a 1 million pound annual harvest by 1984. Both tanner and snow crab were officially declared crashed by 1999. The ADF&G did the same thing in 1980 when the annual Bering Sea, red king crab harvest was 130 million pounds. The ADF&G then quickly managed this thriving resource down to a 15 million pound annually harvest.
The ADF&G attempted to rebuild these crab populations but it failed because it lacks the motivation, dedication and tenacity of a private company to succeed.
The ADF&G opened Alaska’s herring roe fisheries in 1976. When Alaska had (7) major herring spawning areas in Southeast Alaska, and many other smaller ones. Alaska’s herring resources allowed a 100 million pound annual harvest back in 1985. The ADF&G then quickly managed this thriving resource down to a 10 million pounds annual harvest by 2018. Currently Alaska only has (2) remaining major herring spawns areas left and the smaller ones are completely gone.
The ADF&G allowed these herring spawning grounds to be diminished by conducting massive herring harvests which average between 10 - 30 million pounds annually from the Sitka Sound. Alaska is now looking at total disaster within its herring resources but it is still commercially harvesting herring like it has plenty to spare. With herring, salmon and halibut disasters now hanging over most of Alaska’s once great fisheries, our ADF&G continues to open and over-harvest these once great resources almost every year. This is not conservative fisheries management.
Alaska had enough king salmon statewide to allow a 1,014,423 king harvest in 1924, and a 1,037,816 king harvest in 1937, and a 662,303 king harvest in 1971. Cook Inlet had enough king salmon to allow a 8,566 king harvest back in 1966, and a 19,963 king harvest in 1994 and then a 2,526 king harvest in 2012. After 2012 the ADF&G stopped recording the Cook Inlet king harvest because the resource was so depleted that most fisheries were closed.
www.adfg.alaska.gov/fedaidpdfs/TDR.009.pdf
www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/371793118.pdf
Alaska did have thousands of square miles of waters filled with major herring spawning areas. Now with only a few major herring spawning area remaining Alaska come face to face with a tremendous lack of both salmon and halibut. Most areas which had swelling populations of herring now host much smaller, severely depleted or even nonexistent populations. Alaska used to have so many herring reduction plants going 24 hours per day that it could not catch all of the herring. It had tens of thousands of people employed as they worked continuous shifts trying to process and ship out all of Alaska’s fisheries. Alaska’s bays were so over-flowing with herring that docks and harbors were inundated and anyone could catch them from just about any dock.
The beginning of the end of our herring happened in 1976 when Alaska's ADF@G began hammering away at our seeming endless supply of herring. Buyers from Japan were paying $2,200 per ton for herring sac roe as we watched our herring masses decrease. The ADF&G watched on as Alaska’s herring biomass withered while its biologists denied that our herring were decreasing. The ADF&G tried to claim that the reason fishermen could not find the herring was because they had moved. Herring do not usually move, they like to spawn in the same location year after year.
The truth is that the ADF&G allowed commercial fisheries to destroy Alaska’s once massive herring resources along with its massive crab resources and now its king salmon resources. Alaska is now seeing studies on its halibut and salmon resources that show those fish weighing half of what the same age class fish weighed back in 1988. With all these core marine resources now basically missing many other fishery resources have also begun staggering.
Both acidification and climate change theory mimic nutrient depletion theory therefore how can anyone determine which theory is actually causing the Lack Of Abundance Theory? The truth is that it doesn’t matter which theory is involved when the ADF&G allows commercial fisheries to dramatically manipulate and over-harvest fisheries resources. Human greed within commercial fisheries needs to be acknowledged and anticipated before it has a chance to destroy all of Alaska’s fisheries.
The ADF&G needs to admit its past fisheries mismanagement errors.The Department needs to close these commercially depleted resources to commercial fishing for a very long time. Will the Department continue denying responsibility for mismanaging these resources while the rest of Alaska’s fisheries resources follow them off the excessive harvest cliff?
The Department needs to admit it has failed to protect and maintain Alaska’s historic massive fisheries resources.The Department needs to either completely change the way it manages Alaska’s salmon resources or get out of the way and let a private company come in and try. If that private company also fails Alaska should fire that company and hire another until its historical resources begin recovering. The only alternative is to do nothing and Alaska eventually losing all its fishery resources.
Alaska’s ADF&G currently lacks the motivation, dedication and tenacity of a private company to aggressively manage these valuable fisheries resources. The State needs to either wake up and realizes it’s current fisheries mismanagement errors or it needs to hire a private company to manage all of its fisheries problems.
Many people are asking where our once great populations of king salmon have gone. Few people have any idea what may have happened to these once great salmon runs but if you ask the Alaska Department of Fish & Game they will announce a new catch-all term called (Lack Of King Salmon Abundance). This term is offered in an attempt to convince the public that there isn't an official cause for the missing salmon. The ADF&G prefer that you believe “abundance issues” are like "the rain falling out of the sky", uncontrollable and therefore you take what you get. I do not agree with this alleged Lack Of Abundance theory. There are known causes for Lack Of Abundance Issues but along with identifying a problem like this you need to also locate the causes of the problem. Our ADF&G has identified a (Lack Of King Abundance Problem) but are unable to locate the possible cause of that problem. It is my purpose to list possible reasons Alaska is currently seeing fewer and smaller king salmon, silver salmon and halibut today than observed historically.
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KING & SOCKEYE SALMON
The king salmon abundance issue begins with a very simple question. Why the dramatic difference between king and sockeye salmon abundance in Cook Inlet? Cook Inlet naturally produces a higher abundance of sockeye salmon along with a lower abundance of king salmon. Since these salmon migrate side-by-side there is a reasonable assumption that our king salmon problems are not happening while kings and sockeyes migrate together. This is assumable because during migration what happens to one stock would logically happen to the other. Sockeyes are more prolific than kings therefore kings should recover slower from a marine disaster or commercial over-harvest but in general both stocks should respond in the same direction regarding food chain issues.
Commercial and public fisheries have been impacting king salmon stocks for many years. Commercial activities have had the dominate impact on these fisheries but that impact has been happening for many years, while we have not observed today's kind of dramatic king salmon decreases. This abundance of sockeyes and non-abundance of kings says that different factors are impacting these salmon at sea. King and sockeye salmon feed on different prey while at sea so the king salmon problem appears to be directing our attentions towards a problem within the marine food chain.
KING AND SOCKEYE OCEAN FEEDING
To explore a possible marine food chain problem, the differences between king and sockeye salmon need to be investigated. King and sockeye salmon have many things in common along with some significant differences when it comes to how they live and feed. To find the differences you need to discover what these salmon feed on. King and sockeye salmon both begin feeding on much the same things. Both begin their lives by feeding on zooplankton like euphausiids (crab larvae). Juvenal kings feed on euphausiids until they reach about (16 inches) in length but these older euphausiids need to be greater than 17 mm in size for juvenal kings to target them. Sockeyes feed on much younger euphausiids which are less than 5 mm in sizes. After wild juvenal kings reach (16 inches) they begin “exclusively” feeding on things which prey on plankton like euphausiids (crab larvae). Adult wild kings (larger than 16 inches) then switch over to preying on things like herring, capelin (small fish), sand lances, pollock and lanterfish, which also prey on (17 mm) or larger crab larvae. Sockeye however continue feeding mainly on very small less than (5 mm) plankton and zooplankton like euphausiids, while wild juvenal kings feed mainly on (17 mm) or larger euphausiids. After reaching (16 inches) adult wild kings switch from euphausiids to herring and capelin. It is this king dietary leap that allows them to grow to their much greater size. Adult sockeyes, pinks and chums are not required to make this kind of a dietary leap, they continue preying on very small crab larvae their entire life. King salmon feeding characteristics are therefore the focus of this investigation.
The consumption of euphausiids by the pelagic fish community off southwestern Vancouver Island, British Columbia
————
“large fish predators like hake, sablefish and dogfish exhibit a decrease in the proportion of euphausiids (and an increase of fish) in their stomachs with increasing predator length [e.g. (Tanasichuk, 1995)”
www.researchgate.net/publication/31099333_The_consumption_of_euphausiids_by_the_pelagic_fish_community_off_southwestern_Vancouver_Island_British_Columbia
———-
With sockeye, pink and chum salmon exclusively feeding on (5 mm) or smaller euphausiids and wild juvenile king salmon exclusively feeding on (17 mm) or larger euphausiids, there may appear to be no feeding conflict. Unfortunately when sockeye, pink and chum salmon reduce younger crab larvae numbers, that larvae reduction eliminates larvae from growing to the larger (17mm) size that wild juvenile kings target. This means that when you drop a hatchery sockeye, pink or chum into the Pacific Ocean, you have actually placed a prey “line cutter” in front of wild juvenile kIng salmon. When you place billions of “prey line cutters” into the ocean you have selectively manipulate the marine ecological system to favor hatchery sockeye, pink and chum salmon, while reducing the prey available to juvenile wild king salmon.
This “prey manipulation factor” then specifically targets (5 mm or less T. spinifera, euphausiids 'crab larva') which would have later become prey for wild juvenal king salmon when reaching a length greater than 17 mm. Wild juvenile kings smaller than 16 inches need euphausiids greater than 17 mm in length or they will starve to death. Larger crab larvae are what wild juvenal kings survive on during this delicate period in their life. When hatchery salmon populations are expanded they begin to operate as a supreme feeding machine along with billions of pollock living in the same waters. Together these vastly superior numbers of (small crab larvae feeders) then sweep the ocean for all euphausiid larva which are less than (5 mm) , thus leaving little (if any) larvae to grow larger for wild juvenile king salmon. Without plenty of larger larvae available wild juvenile kings will fail to build sufficient fat reserves to allow them to make the jump to feeding on herring or capelin. This feeding jump is caused by surging hormones, which causes a surging appetite, which causes a huge weight gain. When a juvenile king salmon is hit by uncontrollable feeding when there is nothing to feed on, it’s body quickly exhausts fat reserves and starvation results. It is this delicate time period within a wild juvenile kings life that can exposed them to the deadly combination of (maximum appetite confronting minimum prey). Maximum appetite / minimum prey can then drain fat reserves which eventually begins a starvation cycle that if uninterrupted will result in death.
Our latest marine science's are now showing a dramatic reduction in the North Pacific marine production of crab larva. Science has confirmed that we are currently seeing the Pacific”s lowest production of (17mm) or larger crab larvae ever, which is about 1% of what it use to be historically. We still have good production levels of the smaller less than (5 mm) euphausiids, which are feeding hatchery salmon and pollock but 99% of the main diet of wild juvenile king salmon is now completely missing. Fisheries managers should be shocked when hearing that a prey element like this has gone missing within our marine environment. The ADF&G is not registering shock, they are claiming our missing king salmon are part of a natural marine cycle, "like rain falling from the sky".
“Chinook and coho could find it difficult to obtain an adequate small prey such as calanoids nd cyclopoids.” page 38,
www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org/resources_54_1982202140.pdf
————
The consumption of euphausiids by the pelagic fish community off southwestern Vancouver Island, British Columbia
“the fivefold decline in adult euphausiid biomass observed in the 1990s off southwestern Vancouver Island.“ Page 1660.
academic.oup.com/plankt/article/22/9/1649/1478098
————
“Tanasichuk estimated the biomass of adulteuphausiids (>10 mm: T.spinifera and E.pacifica) by sampling with bongo netsseveral times during the upwelling season, and he estimated a fivefold declinefrom 1991 to 1997 (Tanasichuk, 1999).” Page 1650-1653.
The empirical studies of hake–euphausiid spatial aggregations and fish stomach-content analyses in the La Perouse region indicate intensive preda- tor–prey interactions.
“Coupled with these interactions is the observation that adult euphausiid biomass in Barkley Sound, near the La Perouse region, has steadily declined during the 1990s to about 20% of the peak biomass estimated in 1991 (Tanasichuk, 1999). Based on food-web theory, the large decline in adult euphausiid biomass might be attributed to one of two processes. Environmental conditions in the coastal ocean may have changed sufficiently to result in reduced growth or survival of larval euphausiids (‘bottom-up’ processes), or the impact of size-selective fish predators may have resulted in reduced survival of large adult euphausiids [‘top-down’ processes (McQueen et al., 1989)].“ Page 1650-1653.
www.researchgate.net/publication/31099333_The_consumption_of_euphausiids_by_the_pelagic_fish_community_off_southwestern_Vancouver_Island_British_Columbia
————
Implications of interannual variability in euphausiid population biology for fish production along the south‐west coast of Vancouver Island: a synthesis.
“Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), the dominant planktivore, fed on larger (>17 mm) T. spinifera, even though the biomass of this part of the euphausiid biomass decreased by 75% between 1991 and 1997, but Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) may have begun feeding on smaller E. pacifica. Therefore, any study of the relationship between fish production and krill biology must consider that part of the euphausiid biomass exploited by fish. In addition, some fish species and/or life history stages appeared to adapt to changes in euphausiid availability, while others did not“
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2419.2002.00185.x
—————-
These mangers continue to manage our fisheries as if we still have sufficient euphausiid resources to feed our wild juvenal king salmon. This lack of resource knowledge regarding our wild juvenile kings then allows the ADF&G to claim the lack of returning adult king salmon is a "natural" Lack Of King Salmon Abundance. There is nothing natural about this lack of king salmon. If you follow the trail of bread crumbs they will lead you to a lack of greater than (17 mm) crab larva. That lack is the direct results of ADF&G fisheries mis-management in Alaska.
If you somehow assume that these wild juvenile kings find enough crab larva to survive to adulthood, then you must consider their chances of finding enough herring or capelin to survive on as adults. Unfortunately these small fish also feed exclusively on the same greater than (17 mm T. spinifera, euphausiids). With only 1% of what we used to have in larger euphausiids, herring and capelin are now also faced with the same dramatic lack of wild prey just like wild juvenile king salmon. This lack of adequately sized marine prey then demands closer examination. This examination does not require another king salmon study, it needs to study the current dramatic ocean reduction of adequate prey for wild juvenile king salmon, herring, sardine, anchovy and capelin.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.666.2141&rep=rep1&type=pdf
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-91, Salmon Stomach Contents, From the Alaska Troll Logbook Program 1977-84, By Bruce L. Wing , October 1985. Type, Quantity, And Size Of Food Of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus) In The Strait Of Juan De Fuca, British Columbia, Terry D. Beachami.
PLANKTON, PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON CRAB LARVAE
Our North Pacific marine food chain begins with (plankton). These plankton drift with ocean currents because most cannot swim. Phytoplankton are single celled organisms that absorb energy from the sun and diatoms from the water as they retain carbon to fuel their survival. That carbon then plays a fundamental part within the (carbon cycle) as it and the (oxygen cycle) work together to produce about half of the oxygen we breath. This oxygen results from photosynthesis between ocean nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. Plankton lives within these cycles expelling oxygen, absorbing carbon, dying and then sinking to the bottom. This results in a planet-wide cycle which removes millions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere and replacing it with trillions of cubic feet (tcf) of oxygen. This is an (Anti-Climate Change Cycle). This is not all plankton do before dying; they also make up the foundation of our ocean marine food chain. Phytoplankton are then eaten by the more complex zooplankton animals which are marine life like euphausiids (crab larvae). At night, zooplankton like crab larvae sneak up to the surface and feed on phytoplankton in relative safely. Once these larvae's become adults they go on to basically feed just about everything in the ocean with their resulting crab larvae. These zooplankton crab larvae then become the focus of this investigation as they live and feed within the phytoplankton.
Female crabs release their larvae during a spring high tide which helps limit predation. As the high tide peaks the larvae swim to the surface and are carried away from the hatch site. These crab larvae are meroplankton because they spend part of their life living and growing within the plankton after exhausting their yolk sack. They may spend minutes or years within the plankton before graduating to their adult benthic (seabed) existence. Young crab rapidly adapt to a deep-water pressurized existence and cannot survive the upper parts of the water column. Life at this pressurized existence carries one atmosphere for every (10 meters) of water. This pressure change is the reason much discarded commercial crab by-catch fails to survive. Sunlight doesn’t penetrates these depths therefore the main energy source for these deep benthic ecosystems is dead and decaying matter like “rotting salmon carcasses” which sink from the higher water column.
Increased salmon escapements increase freshwater salmon rotting, which increases nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient water levels, which increases ocean photosynthesis, which increases plankton, which increases both the oxygen production cycle and the carbon absorption cycle, which increases the removal of billions of tons of destructive carbon from the atmosphere while replacing it with trillions of cubic feet (tcf) of fresh breathable oxygen. Rotting salmon therefore works to accelerate The Cycle Of Life on earth while working to also reverse climate change.
For the past decade commercial fisheries have been doing everything they can to reduce salmon escapements because they claim those escapements are “over-escapement waste”. It is obvious that the more freshwater salmon rotting we have, the healther the earth’s atmosphere becomes. These marine events prove that any fisheries management actions which works to maintain minimum salmon escapements are in fact working to reduce ocean photosynthesis and thereby further increase climate change and reduce the oxygen cycle. This information scientifically proves that the term “salmon over-escapement” is clearly NOT true science because science clearly proves that salmon over-escapement works to REDUCE climate change and INCREASE fresh oxygen.
Salmon, oxygen, carbon and photosynthesis equals an explosion of marine life. Crab production is part of that explosion therefore rotting salmon equals exploding crab populations. Crabs reproduce by molting, kind of like a cadapiler changing into a butterfly but underwater. Immature crab larvae pass through a number of stages as they move from hatching to adult. They will go through many molts as their very hard exoskeleton sheds away over and over to allow the crab to grow larger. If these crab larvae metamorphose (change to different physical form) too far from a suitable settlement site, they will die. Once they locate a suitable site they will feed on plankton for several months while molting many times until finally sink to the bottom. On the bottom they become (non-swimmers) that begin looking like crabs while still smaller than a penny. A primary goal of fisheries managers is to determine these crab settlement areas and label them as “essential crab habitats” which should be permanently closed to commercial crab fisheries.
MARINE ENERGY AND CRAB PRODUCTION
Crabs must molt their shells in order to grow but female crabs must also molt their shells in order to mate. These shell moltings require a huge amount of energy and that energy is expected to come from ocean nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient levels. Maturing crab will prey on: sea urchins, snails brittle stars, worms, clams, mussels, other crabs, algae, sand dollars, barnacles, crustaceans, fish, sponges and sea stars. Crab are directly affected by a decrease in ocean nitrogen, phosphorus and nutrient levels. They are also indirectly affected when their prey suffer from the same lack of nutrients. If crab do not have sufficient nutrient rich waters they cannot molt or reproduce properly due to low energy levels. A low marine energy problem can be misinterpreted in many ways. Some may claim “climate change” or “ocean acidification” is causing our low marine energy problem. There are at least three factors that could cause low marine energy, insufficient salmon escapement and rotting, climate change and ocean acidification. Each of these factors alone could cause our current low marine energy levels.
SALMON ESCAPEMENT, SPAWNING, DEATH, ROTTING, NUTRIENTS, PLANKTONS AND EUPHAUSIIDS PRODUCTION
A major way to increase the survival of all forms of plankton and therefore also crabs, is to allow as many salmon has possibly to escape, spawn and die in the fresh water. This is basic gardening and can be directly applied to plankton and ocean crab production. The death and rotting of a salmon is as much a part of this cycle of life as any other part. Spawned-out salmon carcasses are a vital link between freshwater and saltwater marine ecosystems. Without these decomposing salmon carcasses it is impossible for nursery lakes to maintain adequate nutrient levels thus also causing the ocean they flow into to become nutrient impoverished. Nutrient impoverished oceans work to prevent increased phytoplankton, which works to prevent increased zooplankton like crabs. Ocean nutrients feed the phytoplankton which feed young crabs. That phytoplankton is currently at a 50 year low in the North Pacific. Reduced salmon escapement levels have resulted in reduced biogenic fertilization, which has resulted in reduced juvenile and adult crabs. Phytoplankton enhancement is at least as important as salmon enhancement but we have seen no ocean phytoplankton enhancement while millions of dollars are spent on salmon enhancements.
SALMON HATCHERIES AND COMMERCIAL BY-CATCH
It is not a coincidence that the North Pacific is currently at a 50 year low in wild king salmon production while at the same time being at an all time high in hatchery salmon production. It is also not a coincidence that Alaska has been escaping minimal salmon escapements for about 50 years. Commercial fisheries removal of these salmon resources has dramatically lowering our ocean nitrogen, phosphorus and nutrient water ratio levels. This removal of rotting salmon from our waters has effectively removed the primary building blocks necessary for ocean planktons to build on within our marine food web. This removal has resulted in ocean nutrient depletion, which then resulted in plankton depletion, which resulted in euphausiids depletion. Then around 1980 many Pacific Rim nations began annually releasing billions of hatchery salmon that also feed on the same crab larvae that (wild juvenile king salmon, herring, sardine, anchovy and capelin) feed on. That commercial hatchery activity then worked to forced a North Pacific regime change which advanced sockeye, pink and chum salmon while reducing wild king salmon, herring, sardine, anchovy and capelin resources. These (hatchery reduced wild resources) were then quicken replaced by pollock resources which commercial fisheries could legally harvest while by-catch killing and dumping the remaining adult wild resources.
NORTH PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CRAB OVER-HARVEST
It is shocking to discover that the North Pacific has 99% less euphausiids today (which are larger than 17 mm.) than it had 50 years ago. Why have these larger euphausiids disappeared from the North Pacific? A review of Alaska commercial crab fisheries harvest can shed light on these missing euphausiids.
Peak tanner crab commercial harvest was 66.6 million pounds in 1978. By 1979 tanner crab populations crashed because of commercial over-harvest. By 1984 the commercial harvest was down to 1.2 million pounds annually. Bering Sea tanner and snow crab stocks were both officially declared crashed and commercially over-harvested in 1999. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game came together and drafted a crab rebuilding plan in 2000, to try to clean up the crab mess they created. Unfortunately these crab populations refused to rebound because they still lacked the necessary ocean nutrient energy level to fuel a rebound but none of the above fisheries managers understood this.
The same thing happened in 1980 when the Bering Sea, red king crab commercial harvest peaked at 130 million pounds annually. That commercial over-harvest caused a red king crab (crash) from then until today where we now expect about an annual 15 million pound harvest. (15 million is 11% of 130 million)
The above commercial crab fisheries have peaked and crashed over and over until finally settling at annual harvest levels which are from 10 to 30 percent of what they used to be historically. Within all this excessive commercial harvest, millions of undersized and female crabs were killed as by-catch when thrown back into the ocean. Many of these crab died unseen on the way back down to the bottom because they could not tolerate the radical pressure changes. This tremendously excessive and wasteful commercial crab harvest further erode Alaska’s total crab biomass thus further reducing the euphausiids necessary to feed our juvenile king salmon, herring, sardine, anchovy and capelin.
The North Pacific Climate Shift and Commercial Over-Harvest
The history of Alaska North Pacific herring, capelin, crab and sand lance production has varied from feast to famine over time. Most of these changes or abnormal events are the result of more than one cause. Some of these causes are related to large-scale climatic shifts, human influences and even the increase of natural predators in the ocean. There are a great many scientists who believe that the reason for these climatic shift may lie in large-scale shifts in climatic and oceanic conditions in the Bering Sea and eastern North Pacific Ocean. These (climate regime shifts) appear to have also happened in 1925, 1947, 1977, 1989 and 1998. A 1996 report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), shows that from 1977 on, climate shift resulted in concert (with human influences) to bring about the profound changes in and around the Bering Sea and North Pacific. This report refers to a (cascade hypothesis) or Trophic Cascade which claims that climate change caused a small scale climate related reduction in herring, capelin and crabs. That small reduction was turned into a large scale ecosystem regime shift by over-fishing commercial fisheries. The term (cascade hypothesis) refers to the commercial fisheries over-harvest that resulted after 1977 which increased levels of prey available to juvenile pollock and sockeye, pink & chum salmon along with some invertebrates. The North Pacific ecosystem was then forced to change from being dominated by herring and capelin, which was previously everywhere before 1977, to pollock and sockeye, pink and chum salmon. Commercial fisheries triggered this cascading prey change which then extended downward into the marine food web by removing predators consuming larger crab larvae and added predators consuming smaller crab larvae. Once small larvae feeders exceeded large larvae feeders few if any larvae were able to mature to feed large larvae feeders. Large larvae feeding juvenile king salmon, herring and capelin then began starving to death and the regime shift was complete.
TROPHIC CASCADE DISRUPTION
Trophic cascade is a top-down disruption of an ecosystem and results from humans removing predators that are essential aspect of the ecosystem. Trophic cascade ecosystem disruption resulted when humans removed predators like wolves and cougars from Yellowstone National Park which allowed deer and beaver to become destructive. Trophic Cascade Science is now revealing that the commercial fishery removal of North Pacific predators that feed on large crab larvae may have destructively increased small larvae feeders. It is obvious that the North Pacific went through this regime change but the reason for the change is at question. The ADF&G is claiming it was a natural regime shift but the evidence supports a commercial fisheries caused trophic cascade ecosystem disruption.
After that destruction the North Pacific ecosystem was dominated by pollock. This commercial fishing over-harvest ecosystem disruption attached to a natural climate regime shift and the two forces combined to produce more pollock and fewer king salmon; thus commercial over-harvest exacerbated a minor climate change into (a major ecosystem disaster).. The end result is now more pollock and fewer herring, capelin, crabs and king salmon. www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/bering.php
Trophic Cascade theory has been around for hundreds of years. Historically it was referred to as (a commercial fisheries over harvest of a valued species, which then allowed less valuable ones to take over).
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/history-of-commercial-fisheries
————-
The consumption of euphausiids by the pelagic fish community off southwestern Vancouver Island, British Columbia
“the fivefold decline in adult euphausiid biomass observed in the 1990s off southwestern Vancouver Island.“ Page 1660.
academic.oup.com/plankt/article/22/9/1649/1478098
————
“Tanasichuk estimated the biomass of adulteuphausiids (>10 mm: T.spinifera and E.pacifica) by sampling with bongo netsseveral times during the upwelling season, and he estimated a fivefold declinefrom 1991 to 1997 (Tanasichuk, 1999).” Page 1650-1653.
“The empirical studies of hake–euphausiid spatial aggregations and fish stomach-content analyses in the La Perouse region indicate intensive preda- tor–prey interactions. Coupled with these interactions is the observation that adult euphausiid biomass in Barkley Sound, near the La Perouse region, has steadily declined during the 1990s to about 20% of the peak biomass estimated in 1991 (Tanasichuk, 1999). Based on food-web theory, the large decline in adult euphausiid biomass might be attributed to one of two processes. Environmental conditions in the coastal ocean may have changed sufficiently to result in reduced growth or survival of larval euphausiids (‘bottom-up’ processes), or the impact of size-selective fish predators may have resulted in reduced survival of large adult euphausiids [‘top-down’ processes (McQueen et al., 1989)].“ Page 1650-1653.
www.researchgate.net/publication/31099333_The_consumption_of_euphausiids_by_the_pelagic_fish_community_off_southwestern_Vancouver_Island_British_Columbia
————
Implications of interannual variability in euphausiid population biology for fish production along the south‐west coast of Vancouver Island: a synthesis.
“Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), the dominant planktivore, fed on larger (>17 mm) T. spinifera, even though the biomass of this part of the euphausiid biomass decreased by 75% between 1991 and 1997, but Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) may have begun feeding on smaller E. pacifica. Therefore, any study of the relationship between fish production and krill biology must consider that part of the euphausiid biomass exploited by fish. In addition, some fish species and/or life history stages appeared to adapt to changes in euphausiid availability, while others did not“
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2419.2002.00185.x
————
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OnMSYEFSLQ&app=desktop
CLIMATE CHANGE, COMMERCIAL OVER-HARVEST AND HERRING
We are currently seeing studies on our Alaska halibut and salmon resources that say our fish weigh half of what the same age class weighed in 1988. All of these fish resources depended heavily on herring as the main element within their diet. Most commercial and sport fishermen in Alaska understand that our historic stock levels of herring have greatly declined. All of this has resulted from climate changes that were made even worse by commercial over-harvest.
How did all these negative factors combine together to seriously impact today’s abundance of salmon? Our Alaska Department of Fish & Game opened herring roe fisheries in 1976. Back then we had (7) major herring spawning areas in Southeast Alaska, and many other smaller ones. Currently we only have (2) major herring spawns areas left and the smaller ones are completely gone. Each year our ADF&G conducts massive herring harvests which average around 20 - 30 million pounds from the Sitka Sound. We are currently looking at total disaster within our salmon and halibut resources, not to mention all the other species which depend on this herring resource but we are still commercially harvesting herring. Many Alaskan communities and their economies depend on the salmon and halibut which feed on herring but this natural resource has been greatly reduce by commercial over-harvest. With herring, salmon and halibut disasters now hanging over our fisheries, our ADF&G continues to open and over-harvest our herring resource every year? This is not conservative fisheries management.
Alaska did have thousands of square miles of Southeast waters filled with major herring spawning areas. Now with only Sitka Sound remaining as a major herring spawning area, we in Alaska come face to face with a tremendous lack of both salmon and halibut. Most areas which had swelling populations of herring now host much smaller, severely depleted or even nonexistent populations. Alaska used to have many herring reduction plants going 24 hours per day, year around as our commercial fisheries could not catch all of the herring. Alaska had thousands of people employed as they worked continuous shifts trying to process and ship out all of Alaska’s herring. Our bays were so over-flowing with herring that docks and harbors were inundated as anyone could catch them just about anywhere from a dock.
The beginning of the end of our herring happened in 1976 when Alaska's commercial sac roe herring fishery began hammering away at our seeming endless supply of herring. Buyers from Japan were paying $2,200 per ton for herring sac roe as we watched our herring masses decrease. Commercial fishermen watched on as our herring biomass withered while our ADF&G biologists denied that our herring were decreasing. The ADF&G continued claiming that the reason fishermen could not find the herring was because they had moved. Herring do not usually move, they like to spawn in the same location year after year. The truth is that the ADF&G allowed commercial fisheries to destroy Alaska’s massive herring resources along with its massive crab resources. With those key marine resources now basically gone many other fishery resources have also begun staggering.
CONCLUSION
The ADF&G has had a dismal track record regarding its stewardship of Alaska’s once magnificent fisheries resources. Alaska had tanner crab resources that allowed a 67 million pounds annual harvest back in 1978. The ADF&G then quickly managed this thriving resource down to a 1 million pound annual harvest by 1984. Both tanner and snow crab were officially declared crashed by 1999. The ADF&G did the same thing in 1980 when the annual Bering Sea, red king crab harvest was 130 million pounds. The ADF&G then quickly managed this thriving resource down to a 15 million pound annually harvest.
The ADF&G attempted to rebuild these crab populations but it failed because it lacks the motivation, dedication and tenacity of a private company to succeed.
The ADF&G opened Alaska’s herring roe fisheries in 1976. When Alaska had (7) major herring spawning areas in Southeast Alaska, and many other smaller ones. Alaska’s herring resources allowed a 100 million pound annual harvest back in 1985. The ADF&G then quickly managed this thriving resource down to a 10 million pounds annual harvest by 2018. Currently Alaska only has (2) remaining major herring spawns areas left and the smaller ones are completely gone.
The ADF&G allowed these herring spawning grounds to be diminished by conducting massive herring harvests which average between 10 - 30 million pounds annually from the Sitka Sound. Alaska is now looking at total disaster within its herring resources but it is still commercially harvesting herring like it has plenty to spare. With herring, salmon and halibut disasters now hanging over most of Alaska’s once great fisheries, our ADF&G continues to open and over-harvest these once great resources almost every year. This is not conservative fisheries management.
Alaska had enough king salmon statewide to allow a 1,014,423 king harvest in 1924, and a 1,037,816 king harvest in 1937, and a 662,303 king harvest in 1971. Cook Inlet had enough king salmon to allow a 8,566 king harvest back in 1966, and a 19,963 king harvest in 1994 and then a 2,526 king harvest in 2012. After 2012 the ADF&G stopped recording the Cook Inlet king harvest because the resource was so depleted that most fisheries were closed.
www.adfg.alaska.gov/fedaidpdfs/TDR.009.pdf
www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/371793118.pdf
Alaska did have thousands of square miles of waters filled with major herring spawning areas. Now with only a few major herring spawning area remaining Alaska come face to face with a tremendous lack of both salmon and halibut. Most areas which had swelling populations of herring now host much smaller, severely depleted or even nonexistent populations. Alaska used to have so many herring reduction plants going 24 hours per day that it could not catch all of the herring. It had tens of thousands of people employed as they worked continuous shifts trying to process and ship out all of Alaska’s fisheries. Alaska’s bays were so over-flowing with herring that docks and harbors were inundated and anyone could catch them from just about any dock.
The beginning of the end of our herring happened in 1976 when Alaska's ADF@G began hammering away at our seeming endless supply of herring. Buyers from Japan were paying $2,200 per ton for herring sac roe as we watched our herring masses decrease. The ADF&G watched on as Alaska’s herring biomass withered while its biologists denied that our herring were decreasing. The ADF&G tried to claim that the reason fishermen could not find the herring was because they had moved. Herring do not usually move, they like to spawn in the same location year after year.
The truth is that the ADF&G allowed commercial fisheries to destroy Alaska’s once massive herring resources along with its massive crab resources and now its king salmon resources. Alaska is now seeing studies on its halibut and salmon resources that show those fish weighing half of what the same age class fish weighed back in 1988. With all these core marine resources now basically missing many other fishery resources have also begun staggering.
Both acidification and climate change theory mimic nutrient depletion theory therefore how can anyone determine which theory is actually causing the Lack Of Abundance Theory? The truth is that it doesn’t matter which theory is involved when the ADF&G allows commercial fisheries to dramatically manipulate and over-harvest fisheries resources. Human greed within commercial fisheries needs to be acknowledged and anticipated before it has a chance to destroy all of Alaska’s fisheries.
The ADF&G needs to admit its past fisheries mismanagement errors.The Department needs to close these commercially depleted resources to commercial fishing for a very long time. Will the Department continue denying responsibility for mismanaging these resources while the rest of Alaska’s fisheries resources follow them off the excessive harvest cliff?
The Department needs to admit it has failed to protect and maintain Alaska’s historic massive fisheries resources.The Department needs to either completely change the way it manages Alaska’s salmon resources or get out of the way and let a private company come in and try. If that private company also fails Alaska should fire that company and hire another until its historical resources begin recovering. The only alternative is to do nothing and Alaska eventually losing all its fishery resources.
Alaska’s ADF&G currently lacks the motivation, dedication and tenacity of a private company to aggressively manage these valuable fisheries resources. The State needs to either wake up and realizes it’s current fisheries mismanagement errors or it needs to hire a private company to manage all of its fisheries problems.