Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: UCI King Salmon Task Force Update

  1. #1

    Default UCI King Salmon Task Force Update

    The UCI King Salmon task force's second meeting was today. It was a bit more informative and productive than the last, since we now have current King data - thank you ADFG!!!

    The Setnetters presented a proposal that is quite reasonable.

    ADFG Recommended a new late run Kenai King SEG of 15,000-30,000

    The Setnetters asked that, given the importance of sockeye to Alaskans, the sockeye goal and harvest also be taken into consideration. During times of low King abundance the SEG of 15,000-30,000 would become an OEG of 11,000-30,000, sport fishing would remain open with restrictions, and the ESSN's would be managed by EO only. This seems reasonable seeing as the new data suggests that the yield of Kings at an escapement of 11,000 is almost the same as the yield at an escapement of 30,000. It would allow sport fishing to remain open, and would allow ADFG the freedom to fish ESSN's when sockeye are abundant - maximizing sockeye harvest while minimizing king harvest. Adaptive, abundance based management.

    Some interesting facts:

    - We have never failed to make the lower end of the new LR Kenai King SEG.
    - Unlike we have heard over and over, Kenai King runs have not been in steady decline since the 80's. In fact, returns in the early 2000's were very high, and returns from 2003-05 were the highest on record.
    - We have exceeded the upper end of the new LR King SEG 15 of the last 26 years.
    - The department reported that expected sustained yield is maximized around 20,000 spawners. In the last 26 years, we have exceeded that escapement number every year save one. Obviously, we just figured this out, but the fact remains...
    - While decreased ocean survival is likely a large factor, past overescapement is very likely a factor involved in the last several years of poor Kenai King returns.

    - The new data shows that ESSN's long-term annual average harvest rate of LR Kenai Kings is only 13%!
    - Other user groups average 26%, for a total average exploitation rate of 39%
    - Yes, that means that ESSN's don't take 1/2 of the Kings, as we've heard for years. They take, on average, about 1/3 of the total harvest by all user groups.

    Here's a link to the presentation. Hopefully it will open up some constructive, common sense discussion.

    http://youtu.be/w7xTSzcqTT8

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Conservation concern? What conservation concern?

    Harvesting our way back to abundance?

    Been there, done that. Just look to your neighbors to the south.

    Managers should heed the perils of the 5th H.... history.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  3. #3

    Default UCI King Salmon Task Force Update

    The status of the Late run Kenai King salmon does not meet Alaska's definition of a conservation concern in any way. We were less than 1,000 fish from breaking the upper end of the LRK escapement goal. We don't need to harvest our way back to abundance. There still is an abundance, albeit smaller than desired due to a few factors - some of which we can control and some of which we can't.

    FnP, I have apppreciated many of your posts - thoughtful and factual.

    Why do you tell us to look south to see our future while suggesting we adopt the management practices employed there (eg outlawing gillnets)? Ours (Alaska's) is a long history of sustainable, responsible harvest. We look to that history, and attempt to learn from the many mistakes made in the past. Periods of low abundance have happened before. Habitat protection, good science, and proper management are the best solution. Overreaction is not.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Conservation concern? What conservation concern?

    Harvesting our way back to abundance?

    Been there, done that. Just look to your neighbors to the south.

    Managers should heed the perils of the 5th H.... history.
    Right on.

    I'm sure this will work just as well as the lowering of the escapement goals for the first run....That's been working great!

  5. #5

    Default

    Sportfish overharvest of early run Kings that remain in the main stem longer than previously thought is a factor that we CAN control.

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Here y'all go . . today's Clarion:


    http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/201...ions-discussed


    Kevin Delaney, quoted in the Clarion piece:

    Kevin Delaney - Fishery Biologist Consultant
    Kevin Delaney is a fishery biologist consultant with Kenai River Sportfishing Association. Delaney retired in 2000 after 25 years with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. The last position he held there was Director of the Division of Sportfish. Delaney was an active member of the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fish Policy Committee and he has worked on various committees with the International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies and the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. He enjoys spending time with his wife, Karen, who shares his love of fishing. Delaney also enjoys training horses, hiking, snowmachining and working on the family cabin in Talkeetna.

  7. #7

    Default

    Thanks for the link Marcus. I haven't always agreed with Kramer but I do like his proposal to bait restriction until the strength of run can be determined. I always scratch my head when the first run is managed conservatively (no bait until run strength is determined) and the second run is not. Hope this finds traction.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by tcman View Post
    Thanks for the link Marcus. I haven't always agreed with Kramer but I do like his proposal to bait restriction until the strength of run can be determined. I always scratch my head when the first run is managed conservatively (no bait until run strength is determined) and the second run is not. Hope this finds traction.

    Well, keep your fingers crossed.


    Reckon KRSA's moving their derby until August might help . . . ? . .

  9. #9
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcman View Post
    Thanks for the link Marcus. I haven't always agreed with Kramer but I do like his proposal to bait restriction until the strength of run can be determined. I always scratch my head when the first run is managed conservatively (no bait until run strength is determined) and the second run is not. Hope this finds traction.
    Agreed. Precautionary is better.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb


  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Why start the 2nd run conservatively? On the vast majority of years everything is fine and we even exceed the goals:

    From the original poster:


    - We have never failed to make the lower end of the new LR Kenai King SEG.
    - Unlike we have heard over and over, Kenai King runs have not been in steady decline since the 80's. In fact, returns in the early 2000's were very high, and returns from 2003-05 were the highest on record.
    - We have exceeded the upper end of the new LR King SEG 15 of the last 26 years.
    - The department reported that expected sustained yield is maximized around 20,000 spawners. In the last 26 years, we have exceeded that escapement number every year save one. Obviously, we just figured this out, but the fact remains...
    - While decreased ocean survival is likely a large factor, past overescapement is very likely a factor involved in the last several years of poor Kenai King returns.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question Are you asking as a commercial, Kenai River guide?

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Why start the 2nd run conservatively? . . .

    For the same reason KRSA moved their derby to August?



    Attachment 67329

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    It doesn't matter "who I am asking as" give it a rest, why get personal, this is about ideas right? With the new information put forth by ADF&G and the facts presented by the original poster it appears that part of the problem may be that we overescaped the second run.

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Why start the 2nd run conservatively? On the vast majority of years everything is fine and we even exceed the goals:

    From the original poster:


    - We have never failed to make the lower end of the new LR Kenai King SEG.
    - Unlike we have heard over and over, Kenai King runs have not been in steady decline since the 80's. In fact, returns in the early 2000's were very high, and returns from 2003-05 were the highest on record.
    - We have exceeded the upper end of the new LR King SEG 15 of the last 26 years.
    - The department reported that expected sustained yield is maximized around 20,000 spawners. In the last 26 years, we have exceeded that escapement number every year save one. Obviously, we just figured this out, but the fact remains...
    - While decreased ocean survival is likely a large factor, past overescapement is very likely a factor involved in the last several years of poor Kenai King returns.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up Good question . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    It doesn't matter "who I am asking as" give it a rest, why get personal, this is about ideas right? With the new information put forth by ADF&G and the facts presented by the original poster it appears that part of the problem may be that we overescaped the second run.

    Of course it matters, yukon, nor is it personal. Each user group—ESSNs, private sports, guides, drifters, etc.—all have their "ideas" of how the fishery should be managed with such ideas, in every case, filtered through the grid of their self-interests.


    The ESSNs have the candor to identify themselves when making a proposal, private anglers here have done likewise, so it's only fair to ask which interest group's ideas your question represents . . not you personally . . but your question, your idea. Let me rephrase my question in hopes of removing any unintended offense:


    Does your question, "Why start the 2nd run conservatively?" represent your own idea of the current state of affairs or the idea of a Kenai River guide's idea of the current state of affairs. Seems to me that, if as you say we really did over-escape the second run of Kenai kings, a fair question.


    Indeed . . as yukon asks . . why start the 2nd run conservatively?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Its about ideas, the fish don't care if you are a guide, commercial fishermen, dipnetter etc.....it is that bickering that makes things political

    Again, according to the OP here are the facts:

    - We have never failed to make the lower end of the new LR Kenai King SEG.
    - Unlike we have heard over and over, Kenai King runs have not been in steady decline since the 80's. In fact, returns in the early 2000's were very high, and returns from 2003-05 were the highest on record.
    - We have exceeded the upper end of the new LR King SEG 15 of the last 26 years.
    - The department reported that expected sustained yield is maximized around 20,000 spawners. In the last 26 years, we have exceeded that escapement number every year save one. Obviously, we just figured this out, but the fact remains...
    - While decreased ocean survival is likely a large factor, past overescapement is very likely a factor involved in the last several years of poor Kenai King returns.

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    . . past overescapement is very likely a factor involved in the last several years of poor Kenai King returns.

    AHA!


    There it is in red and white for all you skeptics of over-escapement.



    Oh, ye doubting Thomases . . .

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    that quote is from the original poster, give credit where credit is due.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    According to the original poster we may not have killed enough kings in the past and that is one of the "very likely" factors in the last several years of poor kenai king runs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    AHA!


    There it is in red and white for all you skeptics of over-escapement.



    Oh, ye doubting Thomases . . .

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    During times of low King abundance the SEG of 15,000-30,000 would become an OEG of 11,000-30,000,..........
    I disagree with proposing to lower the escapement goal below what is recommended by F&G. It seems hypocritical that F&G gets bashed whenever they propose lowering an escapement goal, yet here it is being proposed by industry. If all of the facts listed are true, then why would a lower goal even be necessary? If we are in a time of low abundance, does it make sense to lower the goal? The escapement goal report states that the expectations of yield performance upon which the escapement goal is based are developed from stock dynamics of brood years 1979 to 2008. But the more recent brood years, 2004-08, showed about a 29 percent decline in productivity. If the lower-than-average conditions persist, it could result in a reduction in yield of nearly 50 percent from the 1979-2008 average conditions, the report states.

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    - We have never failed to make the lower end of the new LR Kenai King SEG.
    - We have exceeded the upper end of the new LR King SEG 15 of the last 26 years.
    - The department reported that expected sustained yield is maximized around 20,000 spawners. In the last 26 years, we have exceeded that escapement number every year save one. Obviously, we just figured this out, but the fact remains...
    - While decreased ocean survival is likely a large factor, past overescapement is very likely a factor involved in the last several years of poor Kenai King returns.
    All of these “facts” are irrelevant because the fisheries were managed under a different set of goals with a different assessment project. Management would likely have been very different and the escapements would also have been different.

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    - The new data shows that ESSN's long-term annual average harvest rate of LR Kenai Kings is only 13%!
    - Other user groups average 26%, for a total average exploitation rate of 39%
    - Yes, that means that ESSN's don't take 1/2 of the Kings, as we've heard for years. They take, on average, about 1/3 of the total harvest by all user groups.
    So the ESSN harvest takes about 33% of the harvest. Since there is a guiding principle in the sustainable fisheries policy that states the burden of conservation shall be shared among all fisheries in close proportion to each fisheries respective use, shouldn’t there be some restriction to the ESSN before the run goes below the escapement goal? Why should all of the reduction in harvest come from the sport fishery first, just to keep the commercial nets in the water with regular periods and full eo time?

  20. #20
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    If the take-home lesson of this whole exercise is that "we need to kill more LR kings," God help us. We've missed the flippin' boat!

    Where's the intellectual honesty? How could anyone with decades of on-the-water experience doubt the evidence of their own eyes? Healthy? Overescaped? YGTBFK right? Overescaped on paper with phantom sonar fish from the virtual realm.... certainly NOT the real free-swimming kind.

    History folks, history. With the stroke of a pen, we lowered the goals for ER kings eight years ago..... and VOILA! Healthy run.... just like that! Only problem is no one sent the official memo to the fish. Early run returns suck worse than ever. Is that really what we want for the LR stock?

    Seems "anything goes" in order to justify the ongoing kill kill kill mindset.

    Beyond sad.....
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •