Fall chum run looks dismal for Yukon River
by Tim Mowry / tmowry@newsminer.com
Aug 13, 2010 | 2846 views | 10 10 comments | 7 7 recommendations | email to a friend | print
FAIRBANKS — As if things weren’t bad enough for Yukon River salmon fishermen, the fall chum run, which many fishermen were counting on to make up for a lack of kings this year, is either very late or very poor.

“I wouldn’t say we’re in panic mode by any means,” biologist Jeff Estensen, the fall chum manager for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said on Thursday. “We’re getting a little concerned. We need to see some fish pretty soon.”

Through Wednesday, only an estimated 143,024 fall chums had passed a sonar counter at Pilot Station, about 120 miles upstream from the mouth of the Yukon. That’s about half the normal Pilot Station passage for fall chums on that date.

“The fall chum run is not developing the way we expected,” Estensen said in a Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association teleconference on Tuesday. “There’s a lot of uncertainty whether it’s late or we’re looking at a very poor run.”

Before the season, biologists were predicting a run of about 600,000 fall chums. At the rate it’s going now, this year’s run is projected to be only about half of that.

“It does not look good,” said fisheries biologist Fred Bue with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Fairbanks. “We’re at the midpoint (of the fall chum run) and we don’t have very many fish.”

Not only does a poor fall chum run mean fewer fish to put away for subsistence in the form of human and dog food, it also means no commercial fishing, which provides a source of much-needed income for residents along the Yukon River, especially in the lower river.

It takes 400,000 fish just to satisfy escapement and subsistence needs, Estensen said. Biologists need to be confident the run will be at least 500,000 before allowing any commercial fishing.

“We’d have to have some pretty big pulses go by there before we consider having any kind of commercial openings,” Estensen said.

Managers were considering reducing fishing time for subsistence fishermen in the middle and upper Yukon from seven days per week to five to conserve fish, but they decided not to because high water has made catching fish difficult.

“Right now fishing conditions are horrible because of high water,” Estensen said. “We know people are not harvesting a lot of fish.”

The possibility of reduced fishing time didn’t sit well with Tanana fishermen Gerald Nicholia.

“We’re trying to get our winter food and we’re having a hard time doing it with this high water and drift and everything,” he said during Tuesday’s teleconference. “We want the option of fishing seven days a week so we have the option of fishing in the sunshine instead of the rain and high water.”

The first pulse of fall chums is generally used for people food, while fish that show up later in the run are used to feed sled dog teams, Bue said.

“That first pulse of fall chums is a good one,” Adlai Alexander, natural resource director for the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government in Fort Yukon. “They’re almost like king salmon. They’re good eating when they first come through.”

Biologists are still holding out hope the fall chum run is simply late, similar to this year’s king run.

Fall chums typically enter the Yukon River in large pulses or waves, and managers have yet to see a large one this year. The only pulse was a shot of 25,000 fish at Pilot Station during two days late last week.

Based on catches in state test nets at the mouth of the river earlier this week, however, biologists were expecting a pulse of fall chums at the Pilot Station sonar starting yesterday or today. Fish numbers were beginning to increase Thursday afternoon, Estensen said.

“When you see pulses like this you expect to see 100,000 or more fish,” Estensen said. “We’re going to be watching what happens the next couple of days very closely. It’s looking low now, but that could change real quick if we see some big pulses.”

Bue, who retired as the state’s fall chum manager last year and then went to work doing the same thing for the feds, said the start of the 2007 fall chum run was similar to this year “and we ended up with a pretty good run.”

“Fall chum are really pulsy fish,” Bue said. “In a couple days, you can get 150,000 fish cross the sonar, and all of a sudden you’re all caught up.”

One thing that has biologists scratching their heads is a contradictory pattern seems to be developing with the Yukon River fall chum run.

Since the mid-1990s, years with low escapements have produced high returns, and vice-versa.

For example, the parent year of this year’s fall chum crop was a record run in 2005, which was spawned from one of the lowest escapement years on record in 2001.

“That’s why we’re having such a tough time projecting what’s going to happen,” Bue said. “It’s completely contradictory.”

While biologists are optimistic the fall chum run will pick up, the Yukon River’s king salmon run has pretty much played out and the numbers don’t look good.

With only an estimated 33,500 kings past a sonar counter near the Canadian border at Eagle as of Wednesday, there is almost no chance Alaska will meet the minimum escapement goal laid out in an international treaty between Alaska and Canada. The treaty calls for a minimum of 42,500 kings past the Eagle sonar counter.

“We’re going to come up pretty short (at the border),” biologist Steve Hayes, the state’s Yukon king manager, said.

Managers will sit down with fishermen this winter to determine what kind restrictions will be put in place for next year’s king salmon run to ensure the treaty goal is met, Hayes said.

Chances are there will be restrictions similar to last year’s, when fishing was closed the entire length of the river to allow the first pulse of kings to make it through unmolested.

“We’ll work on that with fishers this wintertime,” Hayes said.

Contact staff writer Tim Mowry at 459-7587.
Comments
(10)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
everything
|
August 13, 2010
Panic vs. reality mode. Take your pick. Make your move, er go fishing. I live in the midwest, great lakes area, also a hotbed for natural fish species, but over run, drained, polluted, fished out, or tried to be replaced with hatchery fish which never really survive in the wild and can't compete anyways unlike maybe Asian carp. Which we fished for sport as kids because what native fish left were hard to find. Yes. Their will always be a few left. If anything because the habitat is ideal. The birds still move eggs as do flooding. Every fishery area has a uniqueness all to it's own, it's awesome. If you had a 100 percent restriction on some of these species in the middle of the food chain you'd see things you never saw before, we fish the natives but not the invasive ones. It's a full circle, life is an amazing thing, just rotating your crop fields is not enough anymore.
ryemil
|
August 13, 2010
The king runs will be very weak in numbers in the future because of the bycatch numbers, the only thing anyone should concentrate on is subsistence & escapement. King salmon eggs are poor quaity compare to the summer & fall chums, but the king meat is better quaity. If there is plenty of fish,

go ahead & commerial harvest the summer & fall chum for roe, too many is too many no matter how you look at it. If low numbers, them only subsistence. Some years the ICH INFECTION shows up more, but not constantly every year or at great mumbers.

Bering Sea kings doesn't have the oil content that makes them high quaity fish(that everyone wants)like the Yukon kings. Bering Sea kings have more of a dry meat, not much moisture when cooked because lack of oil in the meat.
ryemil
|
August 13, 2010
WINDRUN: To help you out on salmon quaity on the river- the farther the salmon have to go, they have to stay in good shape, so yes, some of the Upper Yukon Salmon are in great shape! The kings that go to Canada, their in good shape most of the way through Alaska, there are kings at the Lower Yukon that spawn out & are in bad shape, ugly & not worth looking at! It varies up & down the River, when the salmon are close to the spawning grounds, they loose their quaity!
sldon
|
August 13, 2010
Where's the HATCHERY?
ryemil
|
August 13, 2010
To AKNUT: The bycatch number has been lowered, but we're not sure if their reporting false numbers or not, their bycatch has dropped greatly

in the last 2 years, which could be a sign of not much 'kings' left. We tried 'chum caps' with Area M in the 80's & 90's, but placing caps on them just gives them loopholes, they hired chum chuckers to throw them back in the sea as dead fish that wouldn't be counted for the chum cap.

Also, false numbers were reported just to keep their fishery opened. The only good thing that can happen is what Area M did this summer, shut it down(5 days) with no fishing & false numbers won't be reported! Same with the trawlers, get them out of the 'king hotspots'! Then maybe the kings will have a chance, so far, nothing has been done that would make a different, the so called "hard cap" that was placed on the trawlers was a joke! Caps never have worked & they never will! The Yukon will continue to suffer while others wipe them out, guess who the restrictions are going to be on? That's right, the people on the River systems, not the intercept fisheries! Have a nice day!!!
ryemil
|
August 13, 2010
We new in the 80's that Area M(False Pass) was intercepting the Fall Chum, they finally had a study in 1996 or 1997 to prove it, so far, no one has made a move to do anything about it, I don't think anyone cares!!! Well, study upon study, there will be another one in 2012 to prove the other study. How many more studies do we need to keep proving the same thing over & over? Answer: It gives the intercept fisheries more time to keep making more money, "NOW THAT'S

A GREAT MANAGEMENT MOVE?" That's how it's always been, think it's traditional now! Same thing going on with the 'kings' on the Yukon, trawler bycatch. The fruits of their efforts is beginning to show, the trawlers have been intercepting the 'kings' for two many years, now the return on them is low numbers. Even the trawlers are saying that, their king bycatch has dropped greatly, it's a sign that the kings are getting wiped out. Who's going to suffer, the kings, the subsistence person, F&G will place stricter fishing on the Yukon while the trawlers are still out there interceping the kings having 'FUN'! MMAKING MONEY!!! But WHO CARES! Think we need a study on 'WHO CARES', does F&G, THE COMMISSIONOR, GOVERNOR or perhaps Washington DC!!! THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY "DOESN"T CARE!!! It will take 4-6 lifecycles for the fish to return at this rate or more, since nothing is being done with intercept fisheries. Area M did the right move this summer with the Yukon summer chumthey agreed not to fish for 5 days, what a different that made for the returns on the Yukon!

AKNUT
|
August 13, 2010
Hmmm. I wonder if all those salmon being caught by the pollack fishery has anything to do with this. They had record by-catch rates and now we have no fish. Time for the pollack industry to start owning up and time for Alaska to lower the by-catch rate.
RapidFX
|
August 13, 2010
"We want the option of fishing seven days a week so we have the option of fishing in the sunshine instead of the rain"
init4life
|
August 13, 2010
This issue will continue to "baffle" the so called experts until they start looking to the deep water commercial fleets.

They won't look at the by-catch as a reason because those companies are the ones who provide the "science" to prove it isn't commercial fisheries causing the low returns. A large amount of tax monies used to fund the state fisheries agencies come from these big companies. The state isn't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

The heads of the advisory boards and committees are also the heads of the major corporations who happened to be concerned with the bottom dollar. Whether it be salmon, halibut, pollock, p-cod... The damage people is being done off-shore, not inside the state's area of control.

Sorry Cananda... Sorry Yukon subsistence fishermen and women. Until the fingers are pointed to the deep water by-catch... this won't end. :(
Mushroom
|
August 13, 2010
"Since the mid-1990s, years with low escapements have produced high returns, and vice-versa. For example, the parent year of this year’s fall chum crop was a record run in 2005, which was spawned from one of the lowest escapement years on record in 2001."

Maybe your method of counting fish is flawed.
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.