Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Making Goals!!!

  1. #1

    Default Making Goals!!!

    Just wanted to share some great news - I just checked today, and minimum escapement goals haven been met for Chinook on the Deshka, Crooked Creek, and the Anchor River. The Ninilchick River escapement is over double what is has been on this date at any time in the last 5 years.

    Can't wait to watch the Kenai pick up steam and follow suit!

  2. #2
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Just wanted to share some great news - I just checked today, and minimum escapement goals haven been met for Chinook on the Deshka, Crooked Creek, and the Anchor River. The Ninilchick River escapement is over double what is has been on this date at any time in the last 5 years.

    Can't wait to watch the Kenai pick up steam and follow suit!
    Keep your fingers crossed....!!!
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Yukon at 118,000 and more than last year at this time by almost 20,000. (pilot station). Almost everywhere I can find data on seems to having solid Chinook escapement with the exception of the Kenai ER. LR is slow though, but hopefully picking up steam. The Nush is kicking butt with 91,552 Kings, 20,000 more than last year. Little Su ended up with almost 2,000. Gulkana is hitting right now 1,020 and double last years at this point.

    Where are all the chicken littles from this winter/spring? The doom and gloom doesn't seem to hold water. Well........ in most cases........................... Kenai ER I'm looking at you.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    Yukon at 118,000 and more than last year at this time by almost 20,000. (pilot station). Almost everywhere I can find data on seems to having solid Chinook escapement with the exception of the Kenai ER. LR is slow though, but hopefully picking up steam. The Nush is kicking butt with 91,552 Kings, 20,000 more than last year. Little Su ended up with almost 2,000. Gulkana is hitting right now 1,020 and double last years at this point.

    Where are all the chicken littles from this winter/spring? The doom and gloom doesn't seem to hold water. Well........ in most cases........................... Kenai ER I'm looking at you.
    Kenai River ER is there - just wait until the trib weir counts come in and they blow the Didson sonar out of the water.

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

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    Yukon at 118,000 and more than last year at this time by almost 20,000. (pilot station). Almost everywhere I can find data on seems to having solid Chinook escapement with the exception of the Kenai ER. LR is slow though, but hopefully picking up steam. The Nush is kicking butt with 91,552 Kings, 20,000 more than last year. Little Su ended up with almost 2,000. Gulkana is hitting right now 1,020 and double last years at this point.

    Where are all the chicken littles from this winter/spring? The doom and gloom doesn't seem to hold water. Well........ in most cases........................... Kenai ER I'm looking at you.

    That is good news indeed for all concerned.


    Very nice to know ADF&G is on the ball . .

  6. #6
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Fish count data link

    I wasn't sure where to find this, and Bonnie Borba in the Fbks office just sent me the link:
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishCounts/

    Yukon is just over 112,000 right now, and Bonnie reminded me we need 100,000 for escapement, and even with harvest reductions last year 30K were taken overall. So we won't know whether we actually make Yukon escapement or not. 138,000 is historical average by Pilot Station for July 10, and the restrictions/closures in all districts right now are (necessarily) severe. We may get a 24 hour subsistence opening in the upper Yukon at best, 6" or smaller mesh only. It truly sucks, even though it's totally necessary.

  7. #7
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Chicken Little? For MatSu businesses and sport anglers who like to eat their fish, the sky did fall. There was one road accessible wild run available for retention; Little Su River, which is more a boat fishery than bank fishery. I pray the restrictions did allow rivers to make minimum escapements; we need all the fish we can get to build back future runs. Minimums aren't enough, though. Escapements have to be well above minimum to allow retention of fish. At least in sport fisheries.

  8. #8
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Just wanted to share some great news - I just checked today, and minimum escapement goals haven been met for Chinook on the Deshka, Crooked Creek, and the Anchor River. The Ninilchick River escapement is over double what is has been on this date at any time in the last 5 years.

    Can't wait to watch the Kenai pick up steam and follow suit!
    And the flip side of the coin: http://www.ktuu.com/news/king-salmon...,6978775.story

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Kenai River ER is there - just wait until the trib weir counts come in and they blow the Didson sonar out of the water.
    I hope it is at least what the old goal use to be 5,300 like fish and game says is way way down we are all praying for many more like the good old days!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerline View Post
    I hope it is at least what the old goal use to be 5,300 like fish and game says is way way down we are all praying for many more like the good old days!
    The Funny River projection by USFWS is for 750 fish - if the historical percentages hold up that means around 5300 - however, the mainstem fish may not be there in historical percentages. In that case the Didson program is still undercounting and the question is what happened to the mainstem spawners remains (overharvest???). In either case the Kenai ER is not great but at least not as bad as thought with a Didson count of 2038.

    Last year the counts from genetic estimate for early run was 6500 fish and the Didson 5300 or so. But what is weird is that only 3% was in the main stem from the tagging data. So where are the 2000 fish that are not accounted for in the weir data. They are missing in the system which suggest the Didson counts in 2012 over counted significantly. This is most troubling since nothing is consistent and that can lead to major management error.

    Today ADF&G did a good thing in keeping the area above Slikok Creek closed to the end of July. I think they understand that the mainstem fish are missing or at least need additional protection from harvest.

  11. #11
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    A more enlightened approach, for sure.

    Encouraging to see these fish getting some additional protection.
    "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

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    I want to correct a figure. The tagging data was 12% mainstem in 2012 for early run - not 3%.

  13. #13

    Default

    Wow.... The department is so screwed. They are going to have to do a complete analysis of their Didson sonar capabilities as it relates to the ER counts. I know their are some newer numbers for trib / mainstem spawner percentages but they are not that far off from the long established 1985 Burger/Hammerstron and 1990-1991 Bendocks numbers of 58% Killey, 19% Funny, 16% mainstem, 7% other tribs. If you use these numbers and apply them to last years trib weir counts you fall far short of the 5,171 Didson counts

    2012 ER Count
    Killey weir 1631 + 25% spawning below weir 2,040
    Funny weir 879
    Slikok Cr weir 28
    Mainstem 15.6% 460
    Other Tribs. 7% 238
    _____________________________________________

    Total 2012 3,645

    So where did the other 1,500 fish go, or were they ever there? I have fished rainbows in the spawning areas between Bing's and Skilak since 1991 and I can tell you that the percentage of ER spawners is way down from historical levels to almost scary levels. Even last year with the closures there was'nt very much and certainly a lot less than I expected to see.


    Now this year. If you work backwards off of the 750 Funny projections you would have a total escapement of around 3,750 and the Didson only counted 2,038. So this year the "New and Improved" sonar under counted by about 1,750 and in 2012 it over counted by about 1,500. So what to make of this. I don't know about you but I'm very worried for the fate of the ER if the department can't figure this out. They can come up with all the voodoo science and magical numbers they want but the ER component of our Kenai R. King run is to important to keep adjusting the numbers to fit the situation.


    I hope the department will admit there is a huge problem here and conduct a complete independant study of these Didson issues. If Didson is going to be our future in-season run strength indicator and management guideline then we have to figure this out. This ER King resource needs it figured out before it's to late.

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

    Wink

    I know you believe you understand what it is you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what I said is not what I meant.


    And I'm thankful that we have in place our Board of Fisheries and the hard-working, dedicated staff of Alaska Department of Fish & Game to make sense of all the numbers and EOs and OEGs and counts and BEGs and and and and . . . for us.


    Phew . . . all these numbers wear me out . . .

  15. #15
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    How can the Didson be under or over counting? Fish and Game told us it was the best counting system out there, that all others paled by comparison, and are so outdated they must be replaced by Didson in order for any accuracy in counting to occur. Are you implying that Fish and Game was wrong about its counting methodology?

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    How can the Didson be under or over counting? Fish and Game told us it was the best counting system out there, that all others paled by comparison, and are so outdated they must be replaced by Didson in order for any accuracy in counting to occur. Are you implying that Fish and Game was wrong about its counting methodology?
    One reason is that error is not consistent in one direction. The sources of error have to do with pulling chinook out of the more numerous sockeye counts. It is a species apportionment issue and the variables for that change each year on influencing the counts.

    For the late run the latest report shows Didson mixture model of 2709 and a net apportioned model of 5703 as of July 11th. That is a difference of more than 2X. Both counts use Didson sonar target numbers. One uses fish larger than 750 mm and then corrects for not counting the smaller fish by netting chinook. The other method uses all the targets and then defines species by the netting program relative to the number of sockeye and chinook. Both use the netting data in a different way.

    When asked ADF&G staff on site have said they have no idea why the difference. Some think the netting species method is flawed more than the netting age composition method. Either case the netting program is flawed. Independent reviewers a couple of years back pointed this out in published articles given to the Board of Fisheries. ADF&G made few modifications to the netting program and none of the major ones suggested and as a result here we are.

    Just for the record no one is saying that ADF&G is not hard working. This is not about personalities. It is about the science of counting fish and one thing ADF&G has been asked for years is to bring in an independent review team to help sort this out. That is good science. Leaving it just to ADF&G results in 30 years of failed counting - first it was the single beam sonar, then dual beam, then split beam, and then Didson. All were suppose to be much better at seeing fish targets and that is true.

    However, the real problem is species apportionment and that has to do with netting data and assumptions on where fish migrate. It took 30 years of consistent failure to get ADF&G to move the site upstream. It took a collapse of the early run to get them to close upstream of the Slikok Creek for the whole month of July. Those decisions were not based on science but political decisions relative to ADF&G budget and other considerations. If one wants proof one only has to ask retired sport fish biologist in the Kenai Area Fisherman Coalition who tried to make changes and were stopped by political considerations.

    What some of us are asking is that the whole counting project go out for independent review where the public and other scientists can provide input and questions and suggestions for improvement. That would be good science, it would help remove the political overtones to this project, and in the end the resource will be better off. Remember it took an outside (not totally independent) to move from split beam to Didson and throw out years of counting data as flawed. The past split beam counts cannot be used. So ADF&G needs some help in sorting this all out.

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

    Red face The uncertainty of the natural sciences . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    How can the Didson be under or over counting? Fish and Game told us it was the best counting system out there, that all others paled by comparison, and are so outdated they must be replaced by Didson in order for any accuracy in counting to occur. Are you implying that Fish and Game was wrong about its counting methodology?

    It is as Dr. David Montgomery observed in his book, King of Fish:



    "Though the fate of salmon rests in human hands, it is not clear that we will be able to save them even if our society wants to. Part of the problem lies in the conflict between the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences and the certainty demanded by policy makers when balancing natural resource protection against economic opportunities. (emphasis added)"

    (King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon, Montgomery, Westview Press, 2003)

    The natural sciences, especially as illustrated in the endless squabbles about data, escapements, OEGs XYZs. and so on over and over again on the Fisheries Management forum, are notoriously inexact. Add to that inherent inexactitude the fact of individual bias, self-interest, institutional quirks, and we have what we have.


    Some years back, an ADF&G manager sent me a copy of an article, "Institutional Differences among Marine Fisheries Scientist's Views of their Working Conditions, Discipline, and Fisheries Management."


    Scientists working in management agencies were somewhat more positive about working with the fishing industry and more negative about using predefined management standards than were scientists working in conservation groups and uni- versities.

    —from the article

    There is, in short, no such thing as purely objective, scientific management of our fisheries. It is the function of our BoF and the boots-on-the-ground staff of ADF&G to make sense of it all.


    The article is quite lengthy and worth reading in its entirety. Anyone interested can PM me their personal email, and I will send a PDF file of the article.


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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    One reason is that error is not consistent in one direction. The sources of error have to do with pulling chinook out of the more numerous sockeye counts. It is a species apportionment issue and the variables for that change each year on influencing the counts.

    For the late run the latest report shows Didson mixture model of 2709 and a net apportioned model of 5703 as of July 11th. That is a difference of more than 2X. Both counts use Didson sonar target numbers. One uses fish larger than 750 mm and then corrects for not counting the smaller fish by netting chinook. The other method uses all the targets and then defines species by the netting program relative to the number of sockeye and chinook. Both use the netting data in a different way.

    When asked ADF&G staff on site have said they have no idea why the difference. Some think the netting species method is flawed more than the netting age composition method. Either case the netting program is flawed. Independent reviewers a couple of years back pointed this out in published articles given to the Board of Fisheries. ADF&G made few modifications to the netting program and none of the major ones suggested and as a result here we are.

    Just for the record no one is saying that ADF&G is not hard working. This is not about personalities. It is about the science of counting fish and one thing ADF&G has been asked for years is to bring in an independent review team to help sort this out. That is good science. Leaving it just to ADF&G results in 30 years of failed counting - first it was the single beam sonar, then dual beam, then split beam, and then Didson. All were suppose to be much better at seeing fish targets and that is true.

    However, the real problem is species apportionment and that has to do with netting data and assumptions on where fish migrate. It took 30 years of consistent failure to get ADF&G to move the site upstream. It took a collapse of the early run to get them to close upstream of the Slikok Creek for the whole month of July. Those decisions were not based on science but political decisions relative to ADF&G budget and other considerations. If one wants proof one only has to ask retired sport fish biologist in the Kenai Area Fisherman Coalition who tried to make changes and were stopped by political considerations.

    What some of us are asking is that the whole counting project go out for independent review where the public and other scientists can provide input and questions and suggestions for improvement. That would be good science, it would help remove the political overtones to this project, and in the end the resource will be better off. Remember it took an outside (not totally independent) to move from split beam to Didson and throw out years of counting data as flawed. The past split beam counts cannot be used. So ADF&G needs some help in sorting this all out.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nerka again.
    "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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    One reason is that error is not consistent in one direction. The sources of error have to do with pulling chinook out of the more numerous sockeye counts. It is a species apportionment issue and the variables for that change each year on influencing the counts.

    For the late run the latest report shows Didson mixture model of 2709 and a net apportioned model of 5703 as of July 11th. That is a difference of more than 2X. Both counts use Didson sonar target numbers. One uses fish larger than 750 mm and then corrects for not counting the smaller fish by netting chinook. The other method uses all the targets and then defines species by the netting program relative to the number of sockeye and chinook. Both use the netting data in a different way.

    When asked ADF&G staff on site have said they have no idea why the difference. Some think the netting species method is flawed more than the netting age composition method. Either case the netting program is flawed. Independent reviewers a couple of years back pointed this out in published articles given to the Board of Fisheries. ADF&G made few modifications to the netting program and none of the major ones suggested and as a result here we are.

    Just for the record no one is saying that ADF&G is not hard working. This is not about personalities. It is about the science of counting fish and one thing ADF&G has been asked for years is to bring in an independent review team to help sort this out. That is good science. Leaving it just to ADF&G results in 30 years of failed counting - first it was the single beam sonar, then dual beam, then split beam, and then Didson. All were suppose to be much better at seeing fish targets and that is true.

    However, the real problem is species apportionment and that has to do with netting data and assumptions on where fish migrate. It took 30 years of consistent failure to get ADF&G to move the site upstream. It took a collapse of the early run to get them to close upstream of the Slikok Creek for the whole month of July. Those decisions were not based on science but political decisions relative to ADF&G budget and other considerations. If one wants proof one only has to ask retired sport fish biologist in the Kenai Area Fisherman Coalition who tried to make changes and were stopped by political considerations.

    What some of us are asking is that the whole counting project go out for independent review where the public and other scientists can provide input and questions and suggestions for improvement. That would be good science, it would help remove the political overtones to this project, and in the end the resource will be better off. Remember it took an outside (not totally independent) to move from split beam to Didson and throw out years of counting data as flawed. The past split beam counts cannot be used. So ADF&G needs some help in sorting this all out.
    Thank you Nerka. Very important stuff that needs more publicity.

    In other words, it is no surprise that the Didson is flawed and can't see every king - that was expected. The netting is a very important aspect for determining what the Didson is or isn't seeing. Sounds like it needs some work.

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

    Default

    Moving the new (future) sonar site upriver will help tremendously with species apportionment.

    At that site, sockeye have committed to the bank (< 3-4 ft deep) while chinook prefer the main channel (> 4ft deep).

    The only issue is the small fraction of chinook migrating up the side channel behind the island. I see another transducer has been deployed there along with a 1/2 weir to help direct fish into the beam. Regardless, there is HUGE potential for red/pink contamination in that side channel which will inflate the small fraction of kings travelling thru.



    An adjustment will also need to be made for mainstem spawners between ER and Fall In.
    "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
  •