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

Thread: Late Run Kenai sockeye and chinook

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default Late Run Kenai sockeye and chinook

    I thought I would start a new thread since the late run discussion was in the early run Didson thread.

    First and foremost, I agree with ADF&G actions to not fish the commercial fishery and restrict the sport fishery on Kenai chinook at this time. There are a number of reasons why this is a good decision. First, the chinook run timing is in question and a few days for that to sort out is good. If the return is late and a strong August component is coming then the MSY goals will be met but higher than the minimum. Second, the Kenai sockeye return appears to be lower than forecast and there are no fish on the beach. So the chinook to sockeye ratio would be terrible and for little gain relative to the Kenai sockeye goals. Third, the Department has maintained the flexibility to respond with the ESSN commercial fishery if needed for meeting the sockeye goals if fish do come to the beach in late July or early August.

    The next significant data point is what the drift gill net fleet catches on Thursday. I hope they fish District wide as that is the best indicator if Kenai sockeye are on forecast or significantly below forecast. The OTF program lost too many days to weather and mechanical issues to be useful right now so the drift fleet is the best indicator. Also, the Northern District sockeye appear to be meeting goals and coho appear strong. That is a win win for everyone.

    So it is time to wait and see how this sorts out.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    First, the chinook run timing is in question and a few days for that to sort out is good. If the return is late and a strong August component is coming then the MSY goals will be met but higher than the minimum. Second, the Kenai sockeye return appears to be lower than forecast and there are no fish on the beach. So the chinook to sockeye ratio would be terrible and for little gain relative to the Kenai sockeye goals. Third, the Department has maintained the flexibility to respond with the ESSN commercial fishery if needed for meeting the sockeye goals if fish do come to the beach in late July or early August.
    Good points all, esp the ones in bold.

    If king timing proves to NOT be late, and we are already past peak passage, Nerka... do you support the concept of a mainstem "sanctuary" for LR chinook?
    "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
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Good points all, esp the ones in bold.

    If king timing proves to NOT be late, and we are already past peak passage, Nerka... do you support the concept of a mainstem "sanctuary" for LR chinook?
    I support a whole new look at how we view these returns. I am inclined to manage the tributaries separate from the mainstem. Then within the mainstem discussion provide for equal exploitation across the run and age classes. That would by definition require some type of mainstem sanctuary or moving closed areas. For example the sport fishery could fish into August but below the in-river spawning areas. The area above would be closed and thus a sanctuary in August. Other options are available. All this requires a change in thinking and so far there is little effort to do that as allocation gets in the way.

  4. #4

    Default

    Woulda been interesting to see what happened if the sockeye were still coming in droves. Now that woulda put F&G between a king rock and a sockeye hard spot (worse than they already are that is). Every once in a while you catch a lucky break.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I support a whole new look at how we view these returns. I am inclined to manage the tributaries separate from the mainstem. Then within the mainstem discussion provide for equal exploitation across the run and age classes. That would by definition require some type of mainstem sanctuary or moving closed areas. For example the sport fishery could fish into August but below the in-river spawning areas. The area above would be closed and thus a sanctuary in August. Other options are available. All this requires a change in thinking and so far there is little effort to do that as allocation gets in the way.
    Lots of folks on this BB were hoping ADF&G would have done what you are suggesting after the 2012 fishing season. As we all know, 2012 was a difficult year for fish managers on the KP, so a complete review and reconsideration of management tools and options would have been timely and appropriate. However, that didn't happen. It's likely that ADF&G felt that one rather difficult year was not enough to justify a complete reexamination. Let's hope they are more convinced now.....

  6. #6

    Default

    Good discussion. Nerka, I agree with your statements. ESSN's should not be fishing right now. That said, ADFG should, in my opinion, be careful not to put themselves in a box where they can't fish ESSN's if that missing Million Sockeye all of a sudden show up on East Side beaches. Those fish don't care what day of the week it is, and it has happened - we have seen over 1,00,000 Sockeye enter the Kenai in August before. I believe in 2006?

    I have heard several reports from ESSN's that the King harvest last opener consisted of more larger, higher quality fish rather than just a bunch of Jacks. That's good news. Regardless, I would doubt that King counts pick up too much before next week - I don't believe that Kings have historically moved into the river in great numbers on these large sets of tides.

    Time will tell - interesting year for sure.

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question Take it to the BoF . . . ?

    Aren't ADF&G's current attempts to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis a predicament manufactured wholly by our Board of Fisheries?


    Seems to me that ADF&G gets everyone's collective fingers poked in their collective eyes for merely trying to do what BoF mandates . .


    Attachment 72394


    Poor buggers can't win for losing . . .

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Aren't ADF&G's current attempts to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis a predicament manufactured wholly by our Board of Fisheries?


    Seems to me that ADF&G gets everyone's collective fingers poked in their collective eyes for merely trying to do what BoF mandates . .


    Attachment 72394


    Poor buggers can't win for losing . . .
    Same old story Marcus - can you not leave this thread to the discussion of options instead of the poor ADF&G discussion? We all know how you feel about discussing management and questioning ADF&G. Just not sure why you are on the management thread except for you wanting to discuss catch and release fishing. ADF&G supports that so they must be right on that one also.

    However, in answer to the question - no it is not left to just the Board of Fish and Marcus you should know that from your time on the AC. The Commissioner of ADF&G has full authority from the Legislature to alter in-season the management plans based on new and significant information. The Commissioner of ADF&G also has full regulatory authority just like any other Commissioner. The relationship between the Board of Fish and ADF&G has been well established in case law that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Read section (e) of 5 AAC 21.363 Upper Cook Inlet Management Plan where the Board recognized the legal right of the Commissioner to alter the plans to meet escapement objectives. So in simple English the answer to your question is NO>

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Red face Not sure I made my question clear . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    . . in answer to the question - no it is not left to just the Board of Fish . . The Commissioner of ADF&G has full authority from the Legislature to alter in-season the management plans based on new and significant information. The Commissioner of ADF&G also has full regulatory authority just like any other Commissioner. The relationship between the Board of Fish and ADF&G has been well established in case law that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Read section (e) of 5 AAC 21.363 Upper Cook Inlet Management Plan where the Board recognized the legal right of the Commissioner to alter the plans to meet escapement objectives. So in simple English the answer to your question is NO>

    Thank you though I'm not sure it answers my inquiry.


    My question was specifically directed at at Bfish's comment about putting "F&G between a king rock and a sockeye hard spot ," and that remark, to me, seems generated as a direct result of BoF tying the prosecution of the sockeye fishery unalterably (?) to the prosecution of the chinook fishery.


    Does that BoF-mandate still apply, or is ADF&G free to ignore it given "new and significant information"?


    Bfish . . . would you care to explain . . ?

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

    Angry Pleeeeeze . . . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Same old story Marcus - can you not leave this thread to the discussion of options instead of the poor ADF&G discussion? We all know how you feel about discussing management and questioning ADF&G. Just not sure why you are on the management thread except for you wanting to discuss catch and release fishing. ADF&G supports that so they must be right on that one also.

    I am doing just that . . discussing options as I understand the issue.


    And, no, I doubt "all" know any such thing as that of which you accuse me.


    Please leave me alone. If you wish to know why I am on the management thread, just ask me rather than assume.


    Thank you . . .

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    the Kenai sockeye return appears to be lower than forecast and there are no fish on the beach. So the chinook to sockeye ratio would be terrible and for little gain relative to the Kenai sockeye goals.
    The glaring contrast in chinook:sockeye ratios hits you like a ton of falling bricks when you compare stat areas and gear type

    At the last opener for ESSN's stat areas 244-32 (Kal-N) and 244-41 (Sal-S) the combined ratio was 55 sockeye per chinook expended.

    At the last opener for Drift stat area 244-60 (Central drift) the ratio was 7249 sockeye per chinook expended.

    Talk about your clearcut surgical opportunities! One gear type in a very well-defined area is negatively affecting chinook escapement by more than 2 orders of magnitude greater impact (think Reichter scale, here folks). Yes... the difference is earth-shaking!

    If it's so critical to pass those kings upriver that the rec fishery is being restricted to NON-retention, how can ADFG condone that level of impact in the ESSN stat areas immediately adjacent to the rivermouth?

    Conceptually, closing Kal-N and Sal-S would be the equivalent of creating a rivermouth sanctuary area just like we do for ER sockeye at the Russian and ER kings at Killey Funny and Slikok.

    If you don't like the sanctuary analogy, just think of it as moving the fishing deadline "downriver". It's really no different in principle than the current rec king salmon closure on the inriver fishery where the fishing deadline has been moved from the outlet of Skilak Lake downriver to the Slikok sanctuary. Think of it as an imaginary extension of the Kenai mouth onto the adjacent east-side beaches.

    Seems like a no-brainer if we really want to conserve enough kings to make goal.
    "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
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question Still don't get it . . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    . . if we really want to conserve enough kings to make goal.

    But don't we also want to maximize the harvestable yield of sockeye?


    Cook Inlet is a mixed-stock fishery . . give and take . . balance . . why should the "conservation" of a single species preempt at all costs the prosecution of a mixed-stock fishery to the economic detriment of our area and state and established patterns of harvest?


    Help . . .

  13. #13
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    At all costs?

    YGTBFK, right?

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...salmon_harvest

    Nearly 2.4 million sockeye have been harvested to date.

    Yet LR kings are still tankin'.
    "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

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

    Thumbs down A rational response, please . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    YGTBFK, right?

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...salmon_harvest

    Nearly 2.4 million sockeye have been harvested to date.

    Yet LR kings are still tankin'.

    No, I'm not "F"-ing kidding or any other kind of vulgar kidding. I'm asking a legitimate question.


    The numbers are immaterial . . 2.4, 3.4, 1.4, whatever. What matters is the sacrifice of harvestable yield to the economic detriment of our area and to established patterns of harvest for the sake of one species of fish and the narrow self-interest of one, small user group.


    I'd appreciate a rational response rather than some "YGTBFK" crap.

  15. #15
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    No, I'm not "F" kidding or any other kind of kidding. I'm asking a legitimate question.


    The numbers are immaterial . . 2.4, 3.4, 1.4, whatever. What matters is the sacrifice of harvestable yield to the economic detriment of our area and to established patterns of harvest for the sake of one species of fish and the narrow self-interest of one, small user group.


    I'd appreciate a rational response rather than some "YGTBFK" crap.
    Before I make an attempt to answer rationally, I need more information from you....


    Economic detriment - can you provide evidence or a comparison from this years commercial harvest to other years and the current detrimental economic sacrifice?

    Describe your so called narrow self-interest of one group please. I can think of several groups that have an interest.
    "The North wind is cold no matter what direction it's blowing"

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

    Thumbs up Thank you . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by DannerAK View Post
    Before I make an attempt to answer rationally, I need more information from you....


    Economic detriment - can you provide evidence or a comparison from this years commercial harvest to other years and the current detrimental economic sacrifice?

    Describe your so called narrow self-interest of one group please. I can think of several groups that have an interest.

    Thanks, Danner, fair questions.


    1) The amount, from year to year, is immaterial. The principle is maximum yield whatever the number might be.


    2) Yes, several groups have a vested, self-interest in Cook Inlet's mixed stock fishery—set-netters, UCIDA (drifters), PU users, chinook sport and commercial, and sockeye sport come to mind. I was referring specifically to the in-river, chinook fishery both sport and sport-commercial.


    Thank you for a civil and rational response to my concerns . .


    The Kenai, in-river chinook fishery, private and commercial, is a relatively small part of Cook Inlet's overall, mixed-stock fishery.

  17. #17
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    What about intrinsic value? Does this have a seat at the table?
    "The North wind is cold no matter what direction it's blowing"

  18. #18
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Sorry for getting off-topic. Hijack over.
    "The North wind is cold no matter what direction it's blowing"

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

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by DannerAK View Post
    What about intrinsic value? Does this have a seat at the table?

    All value is intrinsic, and all value is imputed.


    The value of the chinook sport-fishery is likely greater to a chinook angler than to, say, a set-netter. The value of the set-net fishery is likely greater to a set-netter than to a chinook sport-angler.


    That's the problem as various management options are put on the board. One interest-group values this, another interest group values that.


    Then there's relative value—which fishery, in terms of measurable, economic benefit, is worth more?



    No hijack . . all management options are subject to individual assessment of the intrinsic value of the fisheries in play.

  20. #20
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    That's the problem as various management options are put on the board. One interest-group values this, another interest group values that.
    So just because you are, and have been, ready to throw in the towel on our Kenai kings, doesn't mean the rest of us are. Isn't it obvious that the F&G that you seem to support feel our Kings are of enough importance to do what they do? Seems to me that most here see some value in our kings where you on the other hand seem to only attach a dollar sign to them. So who here is the special interest group that is bellyaching the most at the potential risk of our kings? Sorry John but once again you seem to be in the minority. Plainly put, we value our kings over your monetary value.

    As I've said before, don't fault the fish over our own misgivings. We get that you don't like C&R, and I don't practice it regularly either. But understand that there are millions of people all over the world, probably most that don't even fish, that don't want to see any species, be it fish or wildlife, go by the wayside.....especially in this day in age.
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

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
  •