Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 83

Thread: Kasilof wild/hatchery objectives

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Kasilof wild/hatchery objectives

    The SEG for naturally-produced king salmon in Crooked Creek of 6501,700 was not achieved in two of the past four years including 2012. The 2012 escapement of 631 naturally-produced king salmon and 163 hatchery-produced king salmon is the lowest total escapement of king salmon the department has observed at the Crooked Creek weir since complete counting of escapement began in 1999.

    This
    low escapement occurred despite restrictions to the Kasilof River early-run king salmon sport fishery which prohibited the retention of naturally-produced king salmon beginning June 15 and prohibited use of bait on June 19.

    Production of hatchery-produced king salmon to enhance the Kasilof River early-run king salmon fishery originates from naturally-produced king salmon that are surplus to Crooked Creek escapement needs.

    In addition, hatchery-produced fish that reach the weir may be used to supplement king salmon stocking programs at other Southcentral Alaska locations, thereby providing increased harvest opportunity in the Kasilof River early run king salmon sport fishery as well as other Southcentral Alaska king salmon sport
    fisheries.

    During 2012
    , the king salmon run strength was not sufficient to achieve the SEG and provide broodstock for hatchery stocking in 2013.


    ....


    So did ADFG do an egg take for 2012 or not? If so, was it done at the expense of missing the SEG?

    Tally?

    "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

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post


    So did ADFG do an egg take for 2012 or not? If so, was it done at the expense of missing the SEG?

    Tally?

    I was told that they did not take any eggs for the Kasilof in 2012.

  3. #3
    Member FishGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fishing your hole before you get there
    Posts
    1,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hawg boss View Post
    I was told that they did not take any eggs for the Kasilof in 2012.
    That is correct
    Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

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

    Default

    Thank you.
    "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

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    The ditch is dead, that used to be a fun fishery that took the pressure off other streams and natural runs, especially the Kenai. I say stock the living heck out of that river so pressure is taken off other fisheries and people have a place to go catch a king, I love that river, I caught my first "river" king there on about my 5th cast in Alaska. The fish have been mixing together for years so there are really not "native" early fish.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    The ditch is dead, that used to be a fun fishery that took the pressure off other streams and natural runs, especially the Kenai. I say stock the living heck out of that river so pressure is taken off other fisheries and people have a place to go catch a king, I love that river, I caught my first "river" king there on about my 5th cast in Alaska. The fish have been mixing together for years so there are really not "native" early fish.
    I started to fish the ditch over twenty years ago. We used to catch the crap out of the steelhead in April and always had a bet to see who would catch a king by may 1.... Those days I'm afraid are long gone... Real shame!

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    The ditch is dead, that used to be a fun fishery that took the pressure off other streams and natural runs, especially the Kenai. I say stock the living heck out of that river so pressure is taken off other fisheries and people have a place to go catch a king, I love that river, I caught my first "river" king there on about my 5th cast in Alaska. The fish have been mixing together for years so there are really not "native" early fish.
    I agree Yukon. I believe that they used to plant 400,000 Kings and who knows how many Steelhead in Crooked cr. I believe that all of the surplus Kings used to be allowed above the weir to spawn. Now I believe they release 60-80 thousand King smolt. Sometimes they release none!!

    There has been some weird management down there. When they first started the hatchery only retention only 10% of the hatchery fish were marked. We had to release a lot of unmarked hatchery fish that year as most of the clipped fish were jacks. They also made it illegal to take more than one group of clients per day, even though the limit was one king. Now they release 1/4 the amount of smolt but you are allowed 2 fish per person!! When there were way more fish you could not take 8 people to catch 8 kings, but now with less fish you can take 4 people to catch 8 kings!!! I don't get it.

    I used to run doubles for most of June down there along with everyone else, and there were quite a few days during the peak that I would do 3 trips per day. That river used to bring a lot of money to the economy, and reduce pressure on the Kenai. That says nothing about all of the happy tourists that came from all over the country, and various parts of the world.

    Sad.

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

    Thumbs up We need more hatchery fish . . .

    On another forum, some posters mentioned something called the Native Fish Society, which evidently hates and tries to do away with the idea of hatchery fish?


    Have scanned their Web site, and they seem harmless enough . . kind of biological Luddites in their ideology. Anyone know anything about them up here? Evidently, from some remarks elsewhere, some anglers subscribe to a sort of fundamentalist doctrine of Every Hatchery Fish Must Die (EHFMD). Also seems to me that I've caught vague references to the sacrosanct nature of supposedly wild fish in the past.


    As yukon said, there really are no truly wild fish any longer . . several on the other forum made that point as well. Does anyone know whether this kind of primitivism has anything to do with lack of stocking the Kasilof?


    As for stocking, I couldn't agree more. Aquaculture is the future as mankind learns to cultivate the oceans.

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

    Default

    Sorry Marcus, science won't be there to back you on this one. Hatchery fish have HUGE impacts on wild populations wherever they are allowed to co-mingle. In a nutshell, less is best.... hence the AHFMD mantra.

    Sustainable wild salmon policies are the backbone of the modern salmon conservation movement.

    Conservation of wild populations trumps fisheries and hatcheries... the health of wild fish WILL dictate how we catch and hatch salmon for "enhanced" fisheries. Where wild populations have been depressed, fish managers must be esp diligent about how they go about hatching and catching their way to recovery.
    "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
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    I think they should go back to stocking the heck out of the Kasilof, they have already mixed the stocks in that fishery and there is no "native" fish that will come back if they quit stocking. As I said before, that is the perfect river to take the pressure off other natural runs, there is boat access and shore access. IMO, instead of stocking thousands of 10" rainbow trout in dozens of lakes, the hatcheries should produce more king salmon (or silvers) and dedicate more terminal fisheries, again, it would take pressure of native stocks of fish and people could get salmon for the freezer.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Sorry Marcus, science won't be there to back you on this one. Hatchery fish have HUGE impacts on wild populations wherever they are allowed to co-mingle. In a nutshell, less is best.... hence the AHFMD mantra.

    Sustainable wild salmon policies are the backbone of the modern salmon conservation movement.

    Conservation of wild populations trumps fisheries and hatcheries... the health of wild fish WILL dictate how we catch and hatch salmon for "enhanced" fisheries. Where wild populations have been depressed, fish managers must be esp diligent about how they go about hatching and catching their way to recovery.

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink The science of ideologies . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Sorry Marcus, science won't be there to back you on this one. Hatchery fish have HUGE impacts on wild populations wherever they are allowed to co-mingle. In a nutshell, less is best.... hence the AHFMD mantra.

    Sustainable wild salmon policies are the backbone of the modern salmon conservation movement.

    Conservation of wild populations trumps fisheries and hatcheries... the health of wild fish WILL dictate how we catch and hatch salmon for "enhanced" fisheries. Where wild populations have been depressed, fish managers must be esp diligent about how they go about hatching and catching their way to recovery.



    Well, maybe and maybe not, Doc. Though a new organization to me, the NFS seems more driven by ideology than by objective science. Everyone knows one can find a "scientific" opinion for any philosophy. I'd venture to guess that the NFS's "science" is the opposite of the science of the world's aquaculture societies like the World Aquaculture Society.


    At first glance, the NFS comes across as biological Luddites, the kind of ideology that Postrel writes about in The Future and Its Enemies. Same kind of ideology that tells us the world is going to stave to death unless we return to primitive seeds.


    It seems that others too disagree with your opinion.


    ". . every age [and every ideology] gets, within certain limits, the science it desires. . . Nature has all sorts of phenomena in stock and can suit many different tastes."

    —C. S. Lewis



  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    You should pick up a copy of Lichatowich's Salmon Without Rivers.

    Sobering look at the 140+ year history of artificial salmon culture.

    Less is best.
    "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

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    You should pick up a copy of Lichatowich's Salmon Without Rivers.

    Sobering look at the 140+ year history of artificial salmon culture.

    Less is best.

    Just as soon as you pick up a copy of Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies.


    Sobering look at how we view the future.


    "Less is best" is a meaningless aphorism.

    An overworked figure of speech, such as, inter alia, "at the end of the day," or "it is what is," or "thinking outside the box," or "leverage our resources." Crutchphrases are a common refuge of speakers who have difficulty articulating ideas or concepts without reflexively using jargon and cliché. Often relied upon by powerpoint-user speakers who simply repeat what is already printed on the Powerpoint slide.

    The use of a crutchphrase is often an open admission of an unwillingness or inability to think, let alone use language effectively.


    "At the end of the day," the speaker droned, "we have to think out of the box if we are to successfully leverage our resources." Note the split infinitive.


    "But," protested a listener, "you're not making any sense at all, you're just babbling a bunch of crutch phrases!"


    "It is what it is," replied the speaker, retreating to the safe territory of a crutch phrase.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    The ditch is dead, that used to be a fun fishery that took the pressure off other streams and natural runs, especially the Kenai. I say stock the living heck out of that river so pressure is taken off other fisheries and people have a place to go catch a king, I love that river, I caught my first "river" king there on about my 5th cast in Alaska. The fish have been mixing together for years so there are really not "native" early fish.

    I have always been for the stocking program as well. Aside from their size and beauty, Kings are by far the best tasting salmon in my opinion. I never found the adipose fin too tasty so I could care less if they had them or not. As for the stocking/hatchery programs, I'm for them, although I wonder how much they play into the global scene of putting more cows (fish) on a smaller pasture. At the same time, someone's going to do it - it may as well be us!

    Also, I need to research this a little more, and maybe you people could help. How is this stocking funded? If I remember right there was some heartburn a while back cause some of the money used for these programs came from taxes on local fisheries, and fry taken from this program were sent to other areas, hence the decline in the number dumped back into the Kasilof. Can anyone verify this?

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    You should pick up a copy of Lichatowich's Salmon Without Rivers.

    Sobering look at the 140+ year history of artificial salmon culture.

    Less is best.

    Doc, I think you and I disagree on a few things, but I've always valued your posts. So I say this respectfully, but I have a problem with your philosophy. I haven't read "Salmon without rivers", but you argue that "less is more" in regards to hatchery fish while supporting the belief that it is perfectly acceptable, even healthy, to overescape our rivers with native fish. As per my previous post, I understand the effects of too many fish in the ocean, but if "less is more", why doesn't that apply to native populations with respect to healthy fisheries?

  16. #16
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Hatcheries were originally conceived as the "easy" way out of the depletion caused by wholesale overharvest of salmon in the PNW. When any salmon returned at all, the hatcheries were automatically assumed to be the "de facto" reason for the continued existence of the runs... despite the complete absence of proof to support it. The mere presence of any returning adult fish was proof enough that hatcheries "worked". They would ensure that fisheries could go on without regard to harvest restraint.... the hatcheries would simply manufacture more.

    As "progress" claimed the region over the next century, salmon habitat would succumb to logging, mining, agriculture, and hydropower. With each incremental assault, the natural productivity of salmon ecosystems became "progressively" depleted in proportion. Mitigation for all of these assaults and the salmon depletion they caused would eventually take the form of artificial propagation on a MASSIVE scale. Hatcheries would be dogmatically cemented in the fabric of fisheries policy to become the backbone of the salmon recovery effort. The "more is better" mantra was alive and well.... we would simply hatch our way out of our harvest and habitat abuses.... past, present, and future.

    Turns out it doesn't work that way at all. The arrogant notion that we can simply produce more fish "at will" has proven to be a very dangerous conceit that is no longer sustainable.

    Looking back on the totality of the hatchery experience in the PNW, it's clear that hatcheries have failed to recover, let alone sustain, any populations of self-perpetuating wild salmon in the region. NONE. What they have successfully sustained are the negative impacts of fisheries and industry on salmon ecosystems. Hatcheries have successfully diverted attention away from comprehensively addressing these key causes of salmon depletion. Along the way, they've also usurped most of the funding for salmon recovery, leaving the efforts to tackle habitat and harvest with inadequate financial means.

    But even those charged with the mass-manufacture of mitigation fish are finding they are extremely expensive to raise. Hydro-electric power companies are reneging on their mitigation obligations to fund hatchery production. The recent legislative fiscal crisis has slashed hatchery budgets in WA state to a fraction of previous production. Bottom line is that no one can afford to raise these fish in perpetuity.
    "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

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy Mayberry is the past . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    . . The "more is better" mantra was alive and well.... we would simply hatch our way out of our harvest and habitat abuses.... past, present, and future.

    Turns out it doesn't work that way at all. The arrogant notion that we can simply produce more fish "at will" has proven to be a very dangerous conceit that is no longer sustainable.

    Looking back on the totality of the hatchery experience in the PNW, it's clear that hatcheries have failed . .



    Doc, just sayin' something doesn't make it so . . lots and lots of people, scientists included, disagree with the ideologically driven assertions above.


    It is anything but clear that hatcheries have failed . . there are many who believe aquaculture is the future.


    "New occasions teach new duties,
    time makes ancient good uncouth . . "


    Can't never go back to Mayberry . . .

  18. #18
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I haven't read "Salmon without rivers", but you argue that "less is more" in regards to hatchery fish while supporting the belief that it is perfectly acceptable, even healthy, to overescape our rivers with native fish. As per my previous post, I understand the effects of too many fish in the ocean, but if "less is more", why doesn't that apply to native populations with respect to healthy fisheries?
    The "more is better" dogma has so dominated the hatchery arena for the past century. It's only been in the past 10-12 years that we've begun to look at the direct detrimental effects of hatchery fish on wild populations. What we have seen in the PNW is that swamping a struggling wild population of salmon with hatchery fish sets up a series of events that eventually leads to further depletion of that wild population.... in many cases to the point of functional extinction.

    1) "Enhanced" populations become the target of mixed-stock fisheries. In our quest to maximally harvest the hatchery fish, the wild ones have been subjected to unsustainable exploitation rates.

    2) Uncaught hatchery-origin adults have been allowed to stray onto the spawning grounds where they negatively impact the reproductive fitness of wild naturally-produced fish.

    3) At the other end of the life cycle, hordes of hatchery-origin juveniles are thrust into the rivers where they compete directly with wild juveniles for limited riverine resources (food and space).

    4) In the ocean pasture, wild fish are forced to compete w/ hordes of hatchery fish being released by Japan, Russia, AK, BC, WA, OR, and CA.

    The overall effect over time is that every life stage of the wild critter is becoming swamped with genetically inferior hatchery clones that are COMPLETELY dependent on the hand of man for their very existence. The end game results in systematic replacement of wild naturally producing salmon for inferior fish with markedly reduced reproductive fitness. What keeps them going is some limited influx of natural wild-origin genetic material to keep them from becoming complete inbred mutants... and the very artificial coddling provided by the hand of man.

    Sounds like the ultimate welfare state to me.
    "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

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down The myth of pristine nature . . .

    The Western myth of pristine nature . .


    "Yet the ideal of the untouched paradise, of orderly nature undisturbed by human action, still shimmers in many imaginations. Nature is a source of moral authority for some, of security for others. It offers standards and models. It is autonomous and eternal. 'The chief lesson is that the world displays a lovely order, an order comforting in its intricacy,' writes Bill McKibben in his best-selling book, The End of Nature. 'And the most appealing part of this harmony, perhaps, is its permanence—the sense that we are part of something with roots stretching back nearly forever, and branches reaching forward just as far."' Throughout its long history, this image suggests, nature has not really changed. Its harmony and order are permanent, reminders of the beauty of stasis.

    "Changeless nature is not just a matter of utopian dreams. Those who seek stasis in the human world argue that they are following nature's way, that dynamism is not merely disruptive but unnatural. 'The characteristic that best distinguishes flourishing ecosystems is never growth, but rather stability (a conservative virtue in its own right),' writes John Gray, the British philosopher, in his appeal for conservatives and greens to join forces. 'This is a truth which is acknowledged in the discipline of ecology in all of its varieties....Modernist political faiths which advocate the unlimited growth of population, production and knowledge...are effectively in rebellion against every truth we have established about order in the natural world' (emphasis added.) The open-ended future of discovery and learning is not merely disruptive but downright perverse. The infinite series, Gray maintains, defies the natural order of things."

    —from The Future and Its Enemies, chapter six, "Creating Nature," read the rest of the chapter here: http://www.dynamist.com/tfaie/Ch6.html

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    With this said. How can you dare to stress a wild King Salmon after all it has had to put up with, with C&R? I hope you make it your goal to devote all your time to get rid of all the inbred mutants in the PNW and let all the wild fish in Alaska be unstressed by C&R!
    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    The "more is better" dogma has so dominated the hatchery arena for the past century. It's only been in the past 10-12 years that we've begun to look at the direct detrimental effects of hatchery fish on wild populations. What we have seen in the PNW is that swamping a struggling wild population of salmon with hatchery fish sets up a series of events that eventually leads to further depletion of that wild population.... in many cases to the point of functional extinction.

    1) "Enhanced" populations become the target of mixed-stock fisheries. In our quest to maximally harvest the hatchery fish, the wild ones have been subjected to unsustainable exploitation rates.

    2) Uncaught hatchery-origin adults have been allowed to stray onto the spawning grounds where they negatively impact the reproductive fitness of wild naturally-produced fish.

    3) At the other end of the life cycle, hordes of hatchery-origin juveniles are thrust into the rivers where they compete directly with wild juveniles for limited riverine resources (food and space).

    4) In the ocean pasture, wild fish are forced to compete w/ hordes of hatchery fish being released by Japan, Russia, AK, BC, WA, OR, and CA.

    The overall effect over time is that every life stage of the wild critter is becoming swamped with genetically inferior hatchery clones that are COMPLETELY dependent on the hand of man for their very existence. The end game results in systematic replacement of wild naturally producing salmon for inferior fish with markedly reduced reproductive fitness. What keeps them going is some limited influx of natural wild-origin genetic material to keep them from becoming complete inbred mutants... and the very artificial coddling provided by the hand of man.

    Sounds like the ultimate welfare state to me.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •