This post is here on the forum and you may or may not find it of interest. > An Inconvenient Possibility
It's About Time I Said Something About this.
- Thread starter Ard
- Start date
karstopo
Well-known member
Sounds pretty dire. Do you think the state will make the right moves to rescue and hopefully restore the King Salmon fishery? The harvesting of the females for the eggs seems like it should be the first thing to stop, but like most complicated fisheries problems there’s probably a lot of things that need to be addressed like the things you mentioned.
I know down here the fisheries have in the past gotten dealt a bad hand by nature (complicated by human activities) for a few years running, droughts on top of floods on top of freezes on top of red tides, but then several years might be nearly ideal weather and water wise and the fish bounce back. But the State of Texas steps in and adjusts limits, seasons, etc. when things are bad and that really protects enough of the brood fish to enable the recovery of the resource. I realize we aren’t talking salmon here in Texas, but hopefully Alaska has a solid plan to restore the King and other salmon to healthy numbers.
Can you foresee a possibility where the State of Alaska makes all or most of the right moves conservation wise and the weather conditions are favorable would it be possible to restore the King Salmon numbers to where they were? How long of process or how many years would it take best case scenario?
How much effort or attention is put on the commercial harvest of King Salmon? Are there quotas and if so are the quotas adjusted appropriately?
Anyway, I feel for the salmon and hate when our activities needlessly decimate a species, especially one like King Salmon. One would think the biology and ecology of salmon would be understood enough so that measures could be implemented to fix things. But if the environment and the climate is on a bad trend for salmon there’s not a lot Alaska can do on its own on that. I really hope that something can be done to restore these fish to their former numbers. Sounds like a lot of moving parts and not an easy fix, though.
I know down here the fisheries have in the past gotten dealt a bad hand by nature (complicated by human activities) for a few years running, droughts on top of floods on top of freezes on top of red tides, but then several years might be nearly ideal weather and water wise and the fish bounce back. But the State of Texas steps in and adjusts limits, seasons, etc. when things are bad and that really protects enough of the brood fish to enable the recovery of the resource. I realize we aren’t talking salmon here in Texas, but hopefully Alaska has a solid plan to restore the King and other salmon to healthy numbers.
Can you foresee a possibility where the State of Alaska makes all or most of the right moves conservation wise and the weather conditions are favorable would it be possible to restore the King Salmon numbers to where they were? How long of process or how many years would it take best case scenario?
How much effort or attention is put on the commercial harvest of King Salmon? Are there quotas and if so are the quotas adjusted appropriately?
Anyway, I feel for the salmon and hate when our activities needlessly decimate a species, especially one like King Salmon. One would think the biology and ecology of salmon would be understood enough so that measures could be implemented to fix things. But if the environment and the climate is on a bad trend for salmon there’s not a lot Alaska can do on its own on that. I really hope that something can be done to restore these fish to their former numbers. Sounds like a lot of moving parts and not an easy fix, though.
Once again ... I'm reminded that the Earth needs another extinction level event. We need a pandemic to course through the human population. We need to cull the herd. Unlike bygone eras, where the fit survived and the unfit pass on without leaving offspring, that's not the case now.
We fix ugly, with plastic surgery. We extend life with invasive surgeries and life extending drugs.
So, human overpopulation is killing everything else. There should be limits on reproduction. Couples get to make two babies ... to replace themselves when they die. Zero population growth would be desirable ... population reduction preferable.
There is no global or local problem that can't be blamed on mankind.
We fix ugly, with plastic surgery. We extend life with invasive surgeries and life extending drugs.
So, human overpopulation is killing everything else. There should be limits on reproduction. Couples get to make two babies ... to replace themselves when they die. Zero population growth would be desirable ... population reduction preferable.
There is no global or local problem that can't be blamed on mankind.
Lewis Chessman
Well-known member
That's a woeful read, Ard, and very familiar to those of us in the UK, only regarding Atlantic salmon and sea trout. Our decline has been dramatic over the past 20 years and runs parallel to massive expansion in inshore, caged salmon farming by Norwegian companies wholeheartedly support by the Scottish government - this despite the fact that the Norwegian government have now made caged farming illegal in their own country.
I'm aware that the farming of Norwegian-stock Atlantic salmon in B.C. has brought European diseases to wild Pacific species - is this a potential issue for you in Alaska?
A major problem cages bring for our stocks is the proliferation of sea lice, a parasite which occurs naturally but multiplies astronomically in farming environments.
The lice then attack our smolts as they run to sea, depleting their growth rate. Forty lice is sufficient to kill a smolt. Earlier this month I took part in a sweep of a small spate system with a large farm at the sea-loch's entrance through which the fish must pass. The level of infestation here was critical - one 15 cm sea trout smolt had 141 sea lice on its body. Out of the 60 fish we monitored at least 2/5ths had potentially mortal levels of infestation.
Their response can be to return to freshwater where the lice fall off but this, of course reduces their salt-water feeding period and is dependant on sufficient rainfall to give access to the spate rivers - and their intuition to leave the sea. It's a sorry site to see.
Note the loss of the dorsal fin and how little of the skin's protective outer layer remains.
I'm aghast that eggs are still a legitimate bait in Alaska, they've been outlawed in the UK for decades. Prohibition must be a principal aim for you guys to promote. The conservation benefits are transparent and simple to convey (as you have so well). What is required is a change in the mindset of anglers.
While catch-and-kill was the way of things here until the 1990s, the obvious necessity to preserve the species if we are to preserve the sport has led to widespread catch and release. Indeed, the moral onus to return fish has become so much the norm now that many are highly critical of any willful killing and poor handling of returned fish. Where once anglers subsidised their holiday's cost by selling on their bycatch now they are, well, if not 'happy' as such, content to return almost every fish. A 70% - 80% return rate is not uncommon on publicly accessible association water in Scotland today.
A rule commonly imposed by fishery owners is that all hens are returned, bar none, throughout the season. If a fish is hooked, bleeds and dispatched it is handed over to the estate's head gillie. If he decides it was an honest misfortune then the might be returned to the angler but this is at his discretion.
Many fisheries must return all fish prior to June 1st to give added protection to Spring fish and often there's a 'first cock fish goes back, second you may kill' or a 'two sea trout per rod' limit. Given how hard it is to catch just one fish these days the chance of catching two cocks in a day, even a week, is pretty low on many rivers so, while it sounds reasonable it gives a lot of protection to the fish.
These simple rules have meant that I have killed only one salmon for a guest in the past 5 years - and that was a 13 year-old's first fish, a tradition I like to see perpetuated when feasible.
I appreciate that our waters, being often private, are more heavily 'policed' than your wilderness can be. Sadly, some, I'm sure, will carry on regardless, considering it a birthright to kill for the larder by any means but, if you can challenge that perspective with sound argument (and you can, Ard), this mentality can be altered drastically over just one decade. For most of us, after all, killing or releasing is not an economic issue nor one of survival but a moral dilemma based on our own self-gratification.
The bleak choice is 'catch and eat now but soon never again' or 'catch and release until stocks recover' (we hope!).
I would urge you to petition your representatives about banning salmon egg baits. Good luck, chum.
I'm aware that the farming of Norwegian-stock Atlantic salmon in B.C. has brought European diseases to wild Pacific species - is this a potential issue for you in Alaska?
A major problem cages bring for our stocks is the proliferation of sea lice, a parasite which occurs naturally but multiplies astronomically in farming environments.
The lice then attack our smolts as they run to sea, depleting their growth rate. Forty lice is sufficient to kill a smolt. Earlier this month I took part in a sweep of a small spate system with a large farm at the sea-loch's entrance through which the fish must pass. The level of infestation here was critical - one 15 cm sea trout smolt had 141 sea lice on its body. Out of the 60 fish we monitored at least 2/5ths had potentially mortal levels of infestation.
Their response can be to return to freshwater where the lice fall off but this, of course reduces their salt-water feeding period and is dependant on sufficient rainfall to give access to the spate rivers - and their intuition to leave the sea. It's a sorry site to see.
Note the loss of the dorsal fin and how little of the skin's protective outer layer remains.
I'm aghast that eggs are still a legitimate bait in Alaska, they've been outlawed in the UK for decades. Prohibition must be a principal aim for you guys to promote. The conservation benefits are transparent and simple to convey (as you have so well). What is required is a change in the mindset of anglers.
While catch-and-kill was the way of things here until the 1990s, the obvious necessity to preserve the species if we are to preserve the sport has led to widespread catch and release. Indeed, the moral onus to return fish has become so much the norm now that many are highly critical of any willful killing and poor handling of returned fish. Where once anglers subsidised their holiday's cost by selling on their bycatch now they are, well, if not 'happy' as such, content to return almost every fish. A 70% - 80% return rate is not uncommon on publicly accessible association water in Scotland today.
A rule commonly imposed by fishery owners is that all hens are returned, bar none, throughout the season. If a fish is hooked, bleeds and dispatched it is handed over to the estate's head gillie. If he decides it was an honest misfortune then the might be returned to the angler but this is at his discretion.
Many fisheries must return all fish prior to June 1st to give added protection to Spring fish and often there's a 'first cock fish goes back, second you may kill' or a 'two sea trout per rod' limit. Given how hard it is to catch just one fish these days the chance of catching two cocks in a day, even a week, is pretty low on many rivers so, while it sounds reasonable it gives a lot of protection to the fish.
These simple rules have meant that I have killed only one salmon for a guest in the past 5 years - and that was a 13 year-old's first fish, a tradition I like to see perpetuated when feasible.
I appreciate that our waters, being often private, are more heavily 'policed' than your wilderness can be. Sadly, some, I'm sure, will carry on regardless, considering it a birthright to kill for the larder by any means but, if you can challenge that perspective with sound argument (and you can, Ard), this mentality can be altered drastically over just one decade. For most of us, after all, killing or releasing is not an economic issue nor one of survival but a moral dilemma based on our own self-gratification.
The bleak choice is 'catch and eat now but soon never again' or 'catch and release until stocks recover' (we hope!).
I would urge you to petition your representatives about banning salmon egg baits. Good luck, chum.
olsaltydog
Well-known member
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
Ard, I think you did a pretty good job writing that. I know many outdoorsman tend to want to put the blame somewhere else when issues arise in both hunting and fishing but I think you did a pretty good job addressing your view. Don't think it is incorrect either, hope you get your view out and hope others take the time to actually reflect on what your talking about.
I know from all the reading I have done on many species one of the most predominant causes to their situation is mankind. Whether it is how we treat our environment or how we treat the species themselves. I wouldn't go as far as Mikechell, but I also agree with his premise. Nature only has so much in natural carrying capacity that mankind does everything it can to exceed this limitation. One method is to create and develop farms like what Lewis mentions and it is only after we realize the consequences of these actions like disease spreading, possible genetic inferiority, and even the sea lice issue do we take an honest look at what we are doing. Do we actually do anything about it, not really, we try to patch fixes here and there in our own attempt to make our ideas more perfected while completely ignoring that nature itself has perfected this already, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, we should just try first to think ahead and resolve as many of these issues before getting further into a hole
What I will say is your idea is probably a predominate cause to the stocks continual decline, but it is also compounded by the other issues you and others mention and while it is worth while to address primary concerns, we should never rest on our laurels.
I know from all the reading I have done on many species one of the most predominant causes to their situation is mankind. Whether it is how we treat our environment or how we treat the species themselves. I wouldn't go as far as Mikechell, but I also agree with his premise. Nature only has so much in natural carrying capacity that mankind does everything it can to exceed this limitation. One method is to create and develop farms like what Lewis mentions and it is only after we realize the consequences of these actions like disease spreading, possible genetic inferiority, and even the sea lice issue do we take an honest look at what we are doing. Do we actually do anything about it, not really, we try to patch fixes here and there in our own attempt to make our ideas more perfected while completely ignoring that nature itself has perfected this already, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, we should just try first to think ahead and resolve as many of these issues before getting further into a hole
What I will say is your idea is probably a predominate cause to the stocks continual decline, but it is also compounded by the other issues you and others mention and while it is worth while to address primary concerns, we should never rest on our laurels.
ia_trouter
Senior Member
Hi Ard
I knew this thread was coming after I checked the king run numbers a few days ago. I've been watching those numbers for almost 5 years now. I have had the advantage of discussing this at length with you over a few Sierra Nevada Pale Ales.
I think some of the reasons are valid. Although a few seem laughable like the seals and whales. It is VERY clear there is too much pressure from sport fishermen. You go to extreme efforts to avoid it. Few in the lower 48 would even believe how stupid thick the anglers are during salmon runs. It's just too much and it comes from all anglers. The locals want their kings. I get that, AK is harsh and you aren't there for the fine golf courses and country clubs. The tourists are paying some good bucks and they want their kings too. I also get that. There is no easy way for a tourist to fish good water cheap in AK. Some just need to kill and ship a fish or two home. That too seems reasonable for the price paid. I am quite content with my photographic memories, but I think we remain in the strong minority on this line of thinking Ard. Most have to be told not to kill fish.
Commercial fishing has to be taking it's toll. I can only guess they have become more efficient over the years. I know they have harvest rules but it has to be taking a toll. AK doesn't have 100 good occupations to choose from so I am guessing curbing this is a real problem.
I can't help but believe the weather is a significant issue. I have found sites that claim Anchorage annual temps have risen 4.5 degrees since around 1950. That's much worse than most places in the world, and not a small problem.
I hope AK can sort it out but the life cycle of salmon makes it nearly impossible in a time period short of several decades, even if the weather cooperates. Could AK absorb the loss of commercial fishing and tourism dollars for a decade or more? Sounds like political suicide from here. I think they will have to run it completely into the ground before real moves are made. Kings are already in the ground, but a few other species are seem adequate for now. In the meantime sportsmen with money will move north and make it a problem there if it's allowed.
I knew this thread was coming after I checked the king run numbers a few days ago. I've been watching those numbers for almost 5 years now. I have had the advantage of discussing this at length with you over a few Sierra Nevada Pale Ales.
I think some of the reasons are valid. Although a few seem laughable like the seals and whales. It is VERY clear there is too much pressure from sport fishermen. You go to extreme efforts to avoid it. Few in the lower 48 would even believe how stupid thick the anglers are during salmon runs. It's just too much and it comes from all anglers. The locals want their kings. I get that, AK is harsh and you aren't there for the fine golf courses and country clubs. The tourists are paying some good bucks and they want their kings too. I also get that. There is no easy way for a tourist to fish good water cheap in AK. Some just need to kill and ship a fish or two home. That too seems reasonable for the price paid. I am quite content with my photographic memories, but I think we remain in the strong minority on this line of thinking Ard. Most have to be told not to kill fish.
Commercial fishing has to be taking it's toll. I can only guess they have become more efficient over the years. I know they have harvest rules but it has to be taking a toll. AK doesn't have 100 good occupations to choose from so I am guessing curbing this is a real problem.
I can't help but believe the weather is a significant issue. I have found sites that claim Anchorage annual temps have risen 4.5 degrees since around 1950. That's much worse than most places in the world, and not a small problem.
I hope AK can sort it out but the life cycle of salmon makes it nearly impossible in a time period short of several decades, even if the weather cooperates. Could AK absorb the loss of commercial fishing and tourism dollars for a decade or more? Sounds like political suicide from here. I think they will have to run it completely into the ground before real moves are made. Kings are already in the ground, but a few other species are seem adequate for now. In the meantime sportsmen with money will move north and make it a problem there if it's allowed.
As with most things ... we complain, but rarely do anything about it.
"Oh woe is us !!!" exclaim the tree huggers, as they drive their SUVs to the trees they'll chain themselves to.
What I really like are the big name stars who rant against global warming, then fly in their private jet to the set ... or drive their gas guzzling supercar to the club.
An example is the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
All the uproar about the spill ... and somewhat justified. BUT, the one year moratorium on fishing did more to restore aquatic populations than any damage from the spill did to hurt them. In fact, most locals are seeing record numbers and sizes of gamefish and food fish. One year, without fishing, and most populations have fully rebounded from human depredation.
So, are we doing one year moratoriums anywhere else? No, because no one wants to give up their fun or take a break from harvesting fish. One year, and full rebound in numbers, but no one will do it.
I stand by my assessment. As long as the human race exist at present numbers or higher, the Earth will never recover, no matter what we TRY to do.
"Oh woe is us !!!" exclaim the tree huggers, as they drive their SUVs to the trees they'll chain themselves to.
What I really like are the big name stars who rant against global warming, then fly in their private jet to the set ... or drive their gas guzzling supercar to the club.
An example is the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
All the uproar about the spill ... and somewhat justified. BUT, the one year moratorium on fishing did more to restore aquatic populations than any damage from the spill did to hurt them. In fact, most locals are seeing record numbers and sizes of gamefish and food fish. One year, without fishing, and most populations have fully rebounded from human depredation.
So, are we doing one year moratoriums anywhere else? No, because no one wants to give up their fun or take a break from harvesting fish. One year, and full rebound in numbers, but no one will do it.
I stand by my assessment. As long as the human race exist at present numbers or higher, the Earth will never recover, no matter what we TRY to do.
spm
Well-known member
Ard,
I'm not smart enough to make any kind of intelligent comment, so I will simply say; thank you for raising the level of awareness.
steve
I'm not smart enough to make any kind of intelligent comment, so I will simply say; thank you for raising the level of awareness.
steve
Dewayne touched on the difficulty of this management problem in his post above. In my view the larger part is getting the general public onboard understanding that these fish and other species as well are living within a cycle that can extend as far as 6 years. That's to say that it takes between 5 and 6 years before you can gauge whether any steps taken in 2018 have had a positive effect. The fish that come next year are the progeny of adults that reproduced back in 2012 or 2013.
This gap in years between egg and fish on the line is why I said that I believe that nothing short of a no kill fishery lasting at least 5 years can have any determinable effects. If we get a decent run next year only to react by pulling out the bait and returning to the ways that put the fish in this predicament to start with we may only create a disastrous return for the year 2026 or 2025 for the early fish.
Handling the at sea commercial fishing boats will be the job of the legislature but will have to be put forth by the department of fisheries. I can only make honest comments on what I can see and therefore what I think I know when it comes to suggesting a way out of the high grass.
el jefe
Well-known member
It is amusing to me that humans are the only species that thinks it should get rid of itself, but the individuals advocating it don't think that they should be the ones to go. They are more enlightened, evidenced by their wish for their own species's demise. Makes sense... Every other species in nature has survival as its primary need; why would humans be any different? We are smarter and better equipped than any other species, and at the top of the pyramid, and some want concede that spot, and get rid of some undefined subset of humans-- the nebulous "them"--and place limits on how the species reproduces. I assume that limitation must be global, crossing all political boundaries, enforced in every country and culture. I'm sure that will work out fine.
The statement that "[t]here is no global or local problem that can't be blamed on mankind" is puerile. Mankind surely has its own problems, but has made its mark in positive ways orders of magnitude beyond its negatives. Your reference to plastic surgery is a non-sequitur, and I am not even sure of your point there. It appears that you just don't care for it, which would seem to be a simple aesthetic preference and irrelevant to shrinking salmon populations that Ard wrote about, and really doesn't have much to do with anything else.
"Unlike bygone eras, where the fit survived and the unfit pass on without leaving offspring, that's not the case now." The irony of that statement as the underpinning of your philosophy is completely lost on you. Yes, there are drugs that prolong life, because we are good at it, smarter than the other species, and we can take of our own better than any other species out there, including a guy mentioned in the next paragraph. We--humans--came up with those life extending drugs, for our own survival. We have found ways to care for our own, far better than any other species can. That is an historic achievement. You also do not follow your own statements to their logical conclusion. If more of the unfits are surviving, leaving offspring, that would actually result in the decline of the species. That's not how that works, anyway. It's pretty clear that the unfit you reference above are not really the genetically unfit--which is what survival of the fittest is all about--but are actually those you dislike or with whom you disagree. World history is punctuated with people with those attitudes who rose to power, and they reduced the human population by millions in the process. So I guess that was a good thing?
My daughter is one of those "unfit" ones you rue, whose life is prolonged by those life extending drugs. I am grateful that we humans are capable of such great things. Her time will be brief, but because of some very smart, dedicated, and fit humans there is more time. The gratitude and appreciation I have for those people cannot adequately be expressed. To withhold life extending drugs means Stephen Hawking perishes much sooner, and the world does not benefit from his work. Good idea...let him go!!
I like my species, and celebrate it. The world is a better place because of us. We are awesome. That your life is so worry free that you have the luxury to wish for the extinction of your own species is a testament to just how fit and good we humans are. You undercut your own position by citing achievements as a problem. We have advanced so far beyond the primary needs that you can sit there and complain about your own species. If you get your way, there won't be any fly fishing in your days. Appreciate your life, appreciate your species, for we are good.
ia_trouter
Senior Member
I appreciate the points made, but lets not blow this thread up. It is very interesting and important to me. Alaska is not going to stop people from moving there. It is likely a good thing in many other ways. AK isn't exactly NYC just yet.
Let's walk it back to discussion of practical solutions please...........
Let's walk it back to discussion of practical solutions please...........
I agree,
It may be a good idea for the post that stirred things up to be edited or removed by the creator of same that would be a step in the right direction. I learned when I was just a boy that throwing the inside pitch could get my point across but if you throw inside you will no doubt hit some batters.
I'd like to stay on the topic although comments aren't really necessary, it's nice to have a bit of back and forth but I don't know what else I could say about this situation. I'd also like to not have to manage the thread, remember I'm a member too and this is just a post from me.
It may be a good idea for the post that stirred things up to be edited or removed by the creator of same that would be a step in the right direction. I learned when I was just a boy that throwing the inside pitch could get my point across but if you throw inside you will no doubt hit some batters.
I'd like to stay on the topic although comments aren't really necessary, it's nice to have a bit of back and forth but I don't know what else I could say about this situation. I'd also like to not have to manage the thread, remember I'm a member too and this is just a post from me.
dharkin
Well-known member
So two people actually liked a sponsored ad? This place is certainly changing.
ia_trouter
Senior Member
Discussion on threads like these are good in that they raise awareness. Problems similar enough to this one apply to most all of us on local water.
The non-expiring edit feature here is a wonderful thing. Other forums I visit it's card layed, card played. No chance to take a breath and mellow a post out for the good of community.
Back on topic, a few things come to mind...
AK fish and game needs to make these calls way in advance if they want to preserve tourism. If I was a meat hunter I need enough time to change the date on my AK trip. I'm not coming back if you change the rules on me two weeks out and I just have to eat it.
Might be time to consider adding a new king hatchery just for south central AK. They can use AK genes. It sure beats the crash alternative IMO. Seems to me 2018 numbers are really that bad and I don't think there is time to recover. Not the first year lately it has been mediocre, but this is a whole new level of bad.
The non-expiring edit feature here is a wonderful thing. Other forums I visit it's card layed, card played. No chance to take a breath and mellow a post out for the good of community.
Back on topic, a few things come to mind...
AK fish and game needs to make these calls way in advance if they want to preserve tourism. If I was a meat hunter I need enough time to change the date on my AK trip. I'm not coming back if you change the rules on me two weeks out and I just have to eat it.
Might be time to consider adding a new king hatchery just for south central AK. They can use AK genes. It sure beats the crash alternative IMO. Seems to me 2018 numbers are really that bad and I don't think there is time to recover. Not the first year lately it has been mediocre, but this is a whole new level of bad.
ia_trouter
Senior Member
I find it interesting that I said "walk it back" in a post and we immediately get an ad that mentions "stepping back". Coincidence? I don't think so. I just know we are being watched lol.So two people actually liked a sponsored ad? This place is certainly changing.
And BTW we actually liked Ard's post and it credited it to the ad instead. See what happens when you assume? Stop trying to derail this thread dharkin.
Last edited:
Perhaps some levity will help, I sent this to someone in a PM just a few minutes ago.
[Quote Ard] Hey don't be fooled, seals eat salmon and just because there are fewer salmon doesn't mean that those same seals won't be out in some club tonight eyeing some hot looking cow. They ain't going to stop maken babies just because we screwed things up. Hell they are probably out there on some sandbar humping as I write this
[Quote Ard] Hey don't be fooled, seals eat salmon and just because there are fewer salmon doesn't mean that those same seals won't be out in some club tonight eyeing some hot looking cow. They ain't going to stop maken babies just because we screwed things up. Hell they are probably out there on some sandbar humping as I write this
westcoast
Well-known member
I think that Salmon with it's dependency on rivers/streams for reproduction and following die-off is a "doomed" species, regardless of any fishing restrictions.
It wouldn't surprise me, with the warmer water current pattern changes, there will be a new game fish taking center stage along the PNW and up to Alaska within the next few decades.
It wouldn't surprise me, with the warmer water current pattern changes, there will be a new game fish taking center stage along the PNW and up to Alaska within the next few decades.
ia_trouter
Senior Member
That is exactly what has happened "down south": over the 40 years I have been fishing. Smallmouth bass replace brown trout (that aren't native in WI but still revered). LM bass replace Pike in MN. But what happens in AK climate? It's proven Northern Pike will invade AK stillwater. Ard's lake is proof of that. What other game fish can survive? AK is warmer but it isn't Missouri just yet. The obvious answer is trout, but they better find something to eat other than king salmon eggs. That said, some salmon species runs are still pretty good all considered. Trout may adjust to the new reality. Time will tell.
I was hoping for levity and you give me that! Now where did I put that rope...................................
westcoast
Well-known member
The PNW studies show that the spawning stream waters and hatcheries are getting too warm and are cooking the fry. Some are saying that with an ice-free northern passage (warmer water), the eastern salmon will mingle with it's pacific cousin sooner than later. Then there is always the possibility of Cod using the passage to establish themselves in the Pacific as well. Interesting times.
Last words at the gallows
Last edited: