1951 and ’52 stand out as remarkable years for Cook Inlet fisheries.
In 1951 the emergent drift fleet reached a peak of about 600 boats. That’s quite an ascension, compared to the years between 1882–1946, when there were never more than a handful. I suppose it’s no real surprise that 1951 set a record for sockeye harvests with 2,738,219 caught.
The Lead Up to the Biggest Year
Between 1948 and 1951 the sockeye harvest was over two million and grew each year. In every sense this was the zenith of sockeye harvests during the 69-year-old fishery. The very next year, 1952, king salmon hit their record harvest, 174,912. The new drift fleet, using 8.5-inch king salmon web, contributed to that peak harvest. They caught more king salmon than traps did in 1949, 1953 and 1954. For 1951 and 1952 no record exists of the catch by gear type, but we can guess that drifters and setnetters were both enjoying the abundance (1952 records do show the trap catch, which was 21% of the total). From 1937 to 1958 setnets caught more king salmon than traps did, every year. Usually, the setnet catch was about double the trap catch. That pattern probably preceded 1937, the year records began to be available by gear type.
Like the sockeye harvest record, the king salmon record did not come out of the blue. The king salmon harvest topped 100,000 in 1948 and remained extremely high for eight years.
These fantastic harvests apparently came at the expense of sufficient escapement. King salmon harvest went into a general decline, falling to 23,000 in 1959 (the last year of federal management).
Closing fish traps after the 1958 season didn’t solve the stock depletion problem for king salmon. In 1962 the setnet season was delayed from May 25 to June 8 as a conservation measure. In 1964 the season was further delayed to June 25, and maximum mesh size was reduced from 8.5 inches to six inches.
The Big King Salmon Crash That Followed
Under the new restrictions the king salmon harvest fell to 4,622 in 1965 and then to 4,536 in 1969. These low harvests were probably the result of overharvesting and the delayed season and gear restriction. Those tactics made good sense; the king salmon stocks needed to be rebuilt.
Fisheries management biologist Jim Rearden testified to the Board of Fisheries and Game that “80-85% of the king salmon harvest occurred before June 25.”
If that is true, this reduction of gear and time should have brought king salmon back to their former abundance. But we don’t know if it did because those restrictions were never rescinded.
Building Toward Another Peak
A new peak for king salmon came in 1987 and 1988, two years when over 39,000 king salmon were harvested. Some of the 1987 number was no doubt caused by the extra time fishing for largest sockeye harvest in Cook Inlet history, 9,469,248. There is no baseline to compare the 39,000 harvest of 1987 with the 188,000 king salmon harvest of 1952.
Sockeye management benefitted from the introduction of sonar-counters. They were first used for management in 1968. That year the Kenai River had an escapement goal of 150,000, and it wasn’t achieved.
Commercial fishers suffered in the early 1970s as the Alaska Department of Fish and Game raised escapement goals on the Kenai and Kasilof rivers and began reaching those targets.
King salmon didn’t have sonar counters in the 1970s or 1980s. But just like the entrance of the drift fleet in the late 1940s, king salmon won a new user group—sport fishers!
This group came with guides who advertised with a wide net for clients. And they fished for king salmon right on their spawning grounds. All while pursuing a tradition of throwing back small king salmon and keeping lunkers.
We know that king salmon begin shrinking. Not before your eyes like the movie, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. They shrank through time, ever-smaller in the ensuing years.
The cause could be the sport fish practice of sorting fish by size, keeping big ones and throwing little ones back to spawn. Or it could also be lack of sufficient food somewhere along their migration route. This could be caused by ocean warming, or by acidification of the ocean, or by competition from pink salmon. The problem could be all of the above.
The internet is awash in articles by scientists who think hatchery pink salmon are harming king salmon. In 2023 the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 5509, which includes $1 million for a third-party assessment of hatchery programs in the state, including analysis of their costs and benefits.
Sorting Through the Research
There is simply no way to duck the opinion of numerous science studies. So, we should meet these accusations head on by learning as much as we can. In the end, we don’t want to be like the Catholic Church who persecuted Galileo for believing the sun was the center of the solar system. Truth has a habit of shining through.
Perhaps we can find hope in the Kachemak Bay king salmon. They find their way from British Columbia, past Prince William Sound and its hatchery pink salmon, to this basin. They grow and seem to thrive, finally swimming away back to British Columbia. No government official has complained, as far as I’ve heard.
And if all that is true, these fish should be studied to find out why they are doing so good.
2023 and 2024 are also remarkable years. They are the first time in 141 years that setnetting has been closed on the east side of Cook Inlet. Restricting fisheries to rebuild stocks won’t work if king salmon are starving because hatchery pinks are stealing their food.
Closing the setnet fishery won’t solve that problem. It will make setnetters find ways to avoid catching king salmon. On the other hand, if the State has merely used king salmon as an excuse to close setnetters, that is clearly a “taking” and setnetters should be bought out.
