Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Kenai sockeye Numbers not as large a projected

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Kenai sockeye Numbers not as large a projected

    Just caught this in the ADN: http://www.adn.com/2011/08/01/199553...rn-scaled.html

    New numbers are around 6 million fish with about 5 million harvested - that would leave about a million in the river?
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Just caught this in the ADN: http://www.adn.com/2011/08/01/199553...rn-scaled.html

    New numbers are around 6 million fish with about 5 million harvested - that would leave about a million in the river?
    TV, the 5 million harvested is the total harvest all stocks. The escapements are looking good everywhere. Kasilof is good, the Susitna streams are doing good - they are waiting on Larson Lake - and Fish Creek is good. I just do not get what the point of your posts is - that the counts are higher than what you think is in the river? Maybe but how much higher in your opinion. What number would you put on the Kenai River escapement and what is the factual reason for that number? History tells us that when the Kenai return is on or above 4 million the escapment is usually around 1 million Bendix or 1.4 million Didson ( if you believe the adjustment). Present escapement is 1.5 million headed toward 1.8-2.0 from what staff told me today. Given the limitations on fishing and the rush of fish to the river on those three days the numbers are not out of line.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default

    My "point" is to point out an interesting news article in ADN that I can't find on the F&G website for new releases etc.

    I did find they have another emergency opening for tonight - but of course the dipnetting is closed down - it doesn't get extended I guess.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    TV, the 5 million harvested is the total harvest all stocks. The escapements are looking good everywhere. Kasilof is good, the Susitna streams are doing good - they are waiting on Larson Lake - and Fish Creek is good. I just do not get what the point of your posts is - that the counts are higher than what you think is in the river? Maybe but how much higher in your opinion. What number would you put on the Kenai River escapement and what is the factual reason for that number? History tells us that when the Kenai return is on or above 4 million the escapment is usually around 1 million Bendix or 1.4 million Didson ( if you believe the adjustment). Present escapement is 1.5 million headed toward 1.8-2.0 from what staff told me today. Given the limitations on fishing and the rush of fish to the river on those three days the numbers are not out of line.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    My "point" is to point out an interesting news article in ADN that I can't find on the F&G website for new releases etc.

    I did find they have another emergency opening for tonight - but of course the dipnetting is closed down - it doesn't get extended I guess.
    TV - you have lost it. You did not answer my question as to what you think the sockeye escapement is given your posts.

  5. #5

    Default

    tv- I too wish the dipnet season had been extended. And I abhor this fishery and would love to see it abolished. Because of the board of fish and their insane windows and restrictions the local manager has a huge overescapement on his hands through no fault of his own. Will we ever return to a scientifically managed fishery?

  6. #6
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    By regulation, the dipnet fishery must close on July 31st. We do not have an allocation so a time slot is set up instead. Only by an order from the BOF can a dipnet fishery be extended. This happened, I believe in 2006, when the dipnet fishery was closed down early due to a slow start of the red run, so the BOF voted by telephone to open it up for a couple of more days longer, to make up the time.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    By regulation, the dipnet fishery must close on July 31st. We do not have an allocation so a time slot is set up instead. Only by an order from the BOF can a dipnet fishery be extended. This happened, I believe in 2006, when the dipnet fishery was closed down early due to a slow start of the red run, so the BOF voted by telephone to open it up for a couple of more days longer, to make up the time.
    Whop - ADF&G has the authority to extend the season without the BOF. Time and area are under their control including extending seasons. They have done this numerous times in Kodiak and other areas. So it is the will of ADF&G not to do it - I suspect the sport fish division would rather have coho in sport fisherman nets than pu nets. They could care less about sockeye salmon goals.

  8. #8

    Default

    Extending the pu fishery would require going outside the management plan and the allocation set by the board. F&G extended the season in 2006 when the run was historically late. This was authorized by the commissioner and was coupled with commercial fishery actions also outside the plan. This year, the commercial fishery has stayed within the plan so the is no reason for the pu fishery to go outside the plan. Saying F&G could care less about sockeye goals is just ridiculous.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commfish View Post
    Extending the pu fishery would require going outside the management plan and the allocation set by the board. F&G extended the season in 2006 when the run was historically late. This was authorized by the commissioner and was coupled with commercial fishery actions also outside the plan. This year, the commercial fishery has stayed within the plan so the is no reason for the pu fishery to go outside the plan. Saying F&G could care less about sockeye goals is just ridiculous.
    No it is not. The fact the escapement is going well over the goals at this point and there is a harvest potential that is at the river mouth and not being used says that the goals are not a priority relative to social issues. However, the BOF also said in the management plans that you quote that escapement goals are the priority. So not fishing to keep the escapement close to the goals is going outside the management plans and putting social and political issues first. Sorry commfish but you should read all of the plans. Also ADF&G did go outside the plans this year. When the run is over 4 million they have allocated fish away from the set nets to the drift fleet by not fishing the set net fleet to save chinook salmon. There is nothing in the plans that give them that authority. They have done that on their own and are using their e.o authority by statue to do it.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commfish View Post
    Extending the pu fishery would require going outside the management plan and the allocation set by the board. F&G extended the season in 2006 when the run was historically late. This was authorized by the commissioner and was coupled with commercial fishery actions also outside the plan. This year, the commercial fishery has stayed within the plan so the is no reason for the pu fishery to go outside the plan. Saying F&G could care less about sockeye goals is just ridiculous.
    Hey Nerka, is the late run Russian River going to make it's goal without restrictions? Would love to hear your "expert" opinion. I believe the sport fish division manages that run.....hmmmmm. Oh, and by the way....what coho??? Have you bothered to ask your area "contact" what the coho harvests are for UCI? If you did, than how can extending the PU fishery put enough coho in the Kenai to matter to sport fishers????
    Last edited by Icebear; 08-04-2011 at 16:09. Reason: Removed rude comments, not allowed.

  11. #11
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    The biggest problem managers face with trying to prevent "overescaping" sockeye into the Kenai is that there is currently no commercial fishing method in the Cook Inlet that selects only Kenai sockeye. They also catch sockeye, chum, pink, coho and chinooks bound both to the Kenai and the rest of the Cook Inlet. It was confirmed by the Board in this last meeting that other stocks, such as Upper Cook Inlet coho, must also be managed and minimum goals met, and that this must be done throughout their run, not just at the run's terminus. UCIDA's successful suit against the state claiming they don't manage according to Magnusen Stevens Act also brought up the importance of managing fish throughout their run- I believe its Article 3 in the MSA. Kudos to the Board for paying attention to the MSA and looking at silvers as they transit the entire Inlet.

  12. #12
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Is this not a can of worms? So Nerka, I'm confused. Didn't the BOF vote by telephone to extend the PU fishery in 2006? If they did, why? If Fish and Game can do the same thing? Maybge Dementia is setting in!!! Can't tell anymore!!!
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  13. #13
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Is this not a can of worms? So Nerka, I'm confused. Didn't the BOF vote by telephone to extend the PU fishery in 2006? If they did, why? If Fish and Game can do the same thing? Maybe Dementia is setting in!!! Can't tell anymore!!!
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Is this not a can of worms? So Nerka, I'm confused. Didn't the BOF vote by telephone to extend the PU fishery in 2006? If they did, why? If Fish and Game can do the same thing? Maybe Dementia is setting in!!! Can't tell anymore!!!
    The Board was polled I believe but no formal vote. A vote would have required a public meeting notice. Polling the Board to see if they agreed does not require the notice. So ADF&G did this to check with the BOF - what would have been interesting if the BOF had said no what would ADF&G do. The Brown decision fully allows ADF&G to act on their own when they want to for escapement goal management. That is one reason in 2008 the BOF put into the UCI management plan that nothing in the plans impacts ADF&G emergency order authority. Hope this helps. It is confusing. Bottom line - ADF&G could extend the PU fishery if they feel the goals are not being met or that they could say no if they feel that coho biologically cannot stand the harvest. In this case they picked coho over sockeye and PU fisherman.

    As a side note Whop there is a growing pressure down here for PU fisherman to release chinook salmon - led by some powerful guides. Get ready - I expect to see lots of petitions to the BOF this winter.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Overstated?

    As I've stated before: from my observations and those of others it simply appears to me that the escapement is overstated compared to previous high runs that I've observed.

    I wouldn't begin to come up with a number - my observations don't support any level of accuracy that you can put a meaningfully number on.



    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    TV - you have lost it. You did not answer my question as to what you think the sockeye escapement is given your posts.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    No it is not. The fact the escapement is going well over the goals at this point and there is a harvest potential that is at the river mouth and not being used says that the goals are not a priority relative to social issues. However, the BOF also said in the management plans that you quote that escapement goals are the priority. So not fishing to keep the escapement close to the goals is going outside the management plans and putting social and political issues first. Sorry commfish but you should read all of the plans. Also ADF&G did go outside the plans this year. When the run is over 4 million they have allocated fish away from the set nets to the drift fleet by not fishing the set net fleet to save chinook salmon. There is nothing in the plans that give them that authority. They have done that on their own and are using their e.o authority by statue to do it.
    Where in the plan does it specify an allocation between the set nets and the drift fleet? Where in the plan does it say F&G cannot fish the two gear types separately? In fact, didn't the BOF specifically direct the department to do just that by fishing the drift fleet in the corridor when the set nets are in a window? F&G never exceeded the EO time allowed for set nets and never fished into a window with the set nets. If meeting the sockeye goal was the only thing to consider, F&G would have fished the commercial fleet more, not extend the pu fishery without any additional commercial action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Relative to coho the Kenai PU fishery closes to sockeye fishing at the end of July because of coho allocation to the sport fishery. I was at the Board meeting when this discussion was happening and the regulations written. Why do you think it closed at the end of July when Kasilof goes longer. It is coho so please do not tell me about doing my homework.
    I'm left scratching my head as to why you would claim that F&G has no concern over meeting sockeye goals when you know the real reasons why the pu fishery wasn't extended.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    commfish - you made my point - the goals are secondary in ADF&G mind to other social and political issues as you state. Yet they are mandated to put the goals as a priority. So if it comes down to exceeding a goal and providing addition fish for allocation to user groups the goals come first.

    The plans only state the drift fleet can be fished when the set nets are in the windows. Using your logic ADF&G could fish only the drift fleet for the whole season and keep the set nets closed. That would not be legal under a number of state laws - one cannot do that type of reallocation without significant justification. In the case of chinook vs sockeye and the set nets the ADF&G may be on shaky ground relative to the rationale. The plans state that the set nets are only to be managed for chinook salmon when the ADF&G projects the escapement will be below the goal and in that situation all users are to close. This year they put additional burden on the set nets without any allocation authority to do so in the plans. Plain and simple if you read the plans in detail. So they went outside the plans relative to this topic.

  18. #18

    Default

    I just have to laugh reading a couple of the these posts. I called to talk to local F&G today about my favorite area to fish and they gave me the state of affairs with kings especially the reds in kenai. I suggest you do the same and stop making up stuff too make yourselves seem so smart because you need better informaton and need to be informed. I am starting to get a feeling some or much of the stuff on here is not typed in by people who do much fishing because they'd really know what is going on or finding out and provide correct information. Fish on litterally....

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerline1 View Post
    I just have to laugh reading a couple of the these posts. I called to talk to local F&G today about my favorite area to fish and they gave me the state of affairs with kings especially the reds in kenai. I suggest you do the same and stop making up stuff too make yourselves seem so smart because you need better informaton and need to be informed. I am starting to get a feeling some or much of the stuff on here is not typed in by people who do much fishing because they'd really know what is going on or finding out and provide correct information. Fish on litterally....
    Be more specific - what is made up - what is incorrect. When you post something like this you should at least reference some data to support your position. What was your take on ADF&G comments, what plans are not being discussed correctly and why, what data do you have to support the position that stuff is made up?

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    commfish - you made my point - the goals are secondary in ADF&G mind to other social and political issues as you state. Yet they are mandated to put the goals as a priority. So if it comes down to exceeding a goal and providing addition fish for allocation to user groups the goals come first.

    The plans only state the drift fleet can be fished when the set nets are in the windows. Using your logic ADF&G could fish only the drift fleet for the whole season and keep the set nets closed. That would not be legal under a number of state laws - one cannot do that type of reallocation without significant justification. In the case of chinook vs sockeye and the set nets the ADF&G may be on shaky ground relative to the rationale. The plans state that the set nets are only to be managed for chinook salmon when the ADF&G projects the escapement will be below the goal and in that situation all users are to close. This year they put additional burden on the set nets without any allocation authority to do so in the plans. Plain and simple if you read the plans in detail. So they went outside the plans relative to this topic.
    Please show me where in the plans it states that the drift fleet can be fished when the set nets are in the windows. There are no restrictions on the amount of eo time for drifters and when they can fish during the season. There are some restrictions on where drifters can fish, but nothing on the amount of time or when they can fish during the season. Allowing the drifters to fish and keeping the set nets on the beach to reduce the harvest of chinook salmon is well within the authority of F&G in order to achieve the king salmon escapement goal based upon the same regulation you cite for making sockeye goals under 21.363. Again, there is nothing in the plans that state the harvest between those gear types must be 50/50.

    All of this is nonsense and just detracts from the point I was trying to make that your statement that F&G could care less about sockeye goals simply because the pu fishery was not extended has no merit.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •