Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Bob Penney again...Did you guys hear this?...

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default Bob Penney again...Did you guys hear this?...

    I heard Bob Penney beating his drum on radio 920 again this morning....

    "Overescapement is a myth."
    "Overescapement is just a way to let commercial fishermen catch more fish"
    He cited the Exxon oil spill and it's subsequent good returns, apparently in his mind due to no commercial fishing.

    It looks like Penney with his "Kenai King Conservation Alliance" has finally lost his marbles!

    Penney needs to pull himself out from under his emotional anti-commercial fishing and pro-economic agendas, and understand some basic concepts:

    Overescapement is grounded in Alaska's Constitutional mandate to provide sustained yields of fish, Article VIII, Section 4. That mandate provides the impetus for a scientifically defendable escapement goal policy in Alaska (5 AAC 39). "Overescapement" is part of that policy, defined by ADFG as escapements that are above the range of the current escapement goal. Obviously Alaska can't possibly sustain it's fisheries and meet it's Constitutional mandates without setting escapement goals. The commercial fishery helps meet those goals, all while sustaining the fishery and harvesting yields. Fish above escapement goals that are not harvested are lost yield. Countless defendable scientific studies show that in general, overescapements lead to lower yields.

    What's stuck in Bob Penney's craw, is allocation; his selfish, blatent, sportfishing allocation agenda of, "all-for-me-none-for you." He is the chief exterminator of commercial fishing - a vital fishery. Chief exterminator of the Kenai River via endless economic exploitation - a vital fishery. The great divider among the various users.

    I encourage everyone to reject Penney's ideals, speak out against his representation of the sport fishery, expose his hypocritical "conservation" monikers, and inform others of his dangerous antics. He is the worst thing for sportfishing and us sportfishermen. I can't figure out why KSRM 920 is giving him air time or even recognizing his "Alliance."

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Another point of agreement with you Funstastic. What is sad is that I hear this bull from a lot of people in the community because misinformation is hard to kill once it is out there. I thought Pat Shields comments in response were spot on against this nonsense of Bob's.

  3. #3

    Default

    Science...????!!!!!!!

    We don't need no stinking science!!!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default

    I'm for all for "pro-economic agendas" myself! For a vibrant, growing economy we need good, well paying year round jobs in Alaska - and face it- commercial fishing just doesn't go there!

    And the commercial crew and their supporters aren't without their spin also. I heard on the radio just last week about all the jobs commercial fishing creates in Alaska - but no mention at all that about 80% are held by people from out of state and even aliens brought in from outside the US.
    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

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    ...but no mention at all that about 80% are held by people from out of state and even aliens brought in from outside the US.
    I've refuted that statement before with information from the state department of labor. Do we really need to go there again?

  6. #6

    Default

    Brian,
    I ask you, is it possible to just ban the poster that you responded to from this forum? His constant negativity and misinformation are of no value.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default not just fishermen..

    My reference was to all the jobs created - including processing - not just the actual "fishing" that you had referenced in the past. Sorry for not being more clear in my reference to "jobs created" Data source: http://labor.alaska.gov/research/seafood/seafood.htm

    The reference was to show that the past and present "spin" goes both ways - it is not just Penny's group that twists reality to support their positions. What is the old saying about people in glass houses throwing stones?


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    I've refuted that statement before with information from the state department of labor. Do we really need to go there again?
    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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    I rarely agree with Mr. Penny, but on this issue, he's right.

    Over-escapement IS a myth. It's used as a justification to remove fish from the watershed (by whatever means) as being in the best interest of the fish. If that's the case, how did these fish survive for thousands of years before we showed up? (with nets and hooks and large chest freezers). The fact is, the fish did just fine. There were ups and downs. And that still occurs today. Fishing by whatever means does nothing to help the fish. Killing lots and lots of adult fish (just before they spawn), and removing them from the watershed will not help these stocks or the watershed. It helps people but it does not help the fish.

    Over-escapment is not in the Alaska Constitution. Sustained yield is. Avoiding over-escapement is a laudable goal given that it also provides an important source of protein and cash to the local economy. Nothing wrong with that. But let's not confuse the attempts to avoid over escapement with sustainability. They are not the same. In fact, it's possible they are mutually exclusive. That is, by removing large amounts of marine-derived nutrients from the watershed (by fishing), we are also reducing the long-term productivity of the watersheds, which leads to reduced yields in the future. If you think I'm dreaming, look no farther than the Pacific Northwest. It's already happened here. The loss of the annual input of marine-derived nutrients (from large numbers of adult salmon) has starved the watersheds to the point where the juvenile wild fish cannot survive in sufficient numbers to replace themselves as adults.

    I'm not saying this is happening on the Kenai River or anywhere else in Alaska, but we should not make the assumption that we understand all the factors that contribute to sustained yield, and ADF&G is therefore harvesting on a sustain yield basis. They may not be. And if you doubt that, then explain the State-wide reductions in the Chinook stocks that occurred in Alaska last year, and to some extent this year. Nobody has a good answer to that, which means we don't know or understand all the factors that contribute to sustained yield.

    My view is that "over-escapement" is a myth; and that "sustained yield" is a work-in-progress.

    This is not a new issue. We've been around the block more times than I care to count. But no harm in going around again.......

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

    Angry Trolled . . .

    . . reference was to all the jobs created - including processing - not just the actual "fishing" that you had referenced in the past. Sorry for not being more clear in my reference to "jobs created" Data source: http://labor.alaska.gov/research/seafood/seafood.htm

    I could not find verification that "80% [of commercial fishing jobs] are held by people from out of state and even aliens brought in from outside the US" at the link referenced above.


    But it's immaterial. This thread, along with countless others, has been hijacked to serve one person's endless, repetitive, opinionated abuse of Alaska's commercial fishing industry . .


    . . and we have been trolled . . .


    . . . again . .



  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default

    Worth repeating - excellent summary of where we are on the myth of "over-escapement".


    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    I rarely agree with Mr. Penny, but on this issue, he's right.

    Over-escapement IS a myth. It's used as a justification to remove fish from the watershed (by whatever means) as being in the best interest of the fish. If that's the case, how did these fish survive for thousands of years before we showed up? (with nets and hooks and large chest freezers). The fact is, the fish did just fine. There were ups and downs. And that still occurs today. Fishing by whatever means does nothing to help the fish. Killing lots and lots of adult fish (just before they spawn), and removing them from the watershed will not help these stocks or the watershed. It helps people but it does not help the fish.

    Over-escapment is not in the Alaska Constitution. Sustained yield is. Avoiding over-escapement is a laudable goal given that it also provides an important source of protein and cash to the local economy. Nothing wrong with that. But let's not confuse the attempts to avoid over escapement with sustainability. They are not the same. In fact, it's possible they are mutually exclusive. That is, by removing large amounts of marine-derived nutrients from the watershed (by fishing), we are also reducing the long-term productivity of the watersheds, which leads to reduced yields in the future. If you think I'm dreaming, look no farther than the Pacific Northwest. It's already happened here. The loss of the annual input of marine-derived nutrients (from large numbers of adult salmon) has starved the watersheds to the point where the juvenile wild fish cannot survive in sufficient numbers to replace themselves as adults.

    I'm not saying this is happening on the Kenai River or anywhere else in Alaska, but we should not make the assumption that we understand all the factors that contribute to sustained yield, and ADF&G is therefore harvesting on a sustain yield basis. They may not be. And if you doubt that, then explain the State-wide reductions in the Chinook stocks that occurred in Alaska last year, and to some extent this year. Nobody has a good answer to that, which means we don't know or understand all the factors that contribute to sustained yield.

    My view is that "over-escapement" is a myth; and that "sustained yield" is a work-in-progress.

    This is not a new issue. We've been around the block more times than I care to count. But no harm in going around again.......
    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

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

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Over-escapement IS a myth [IF] . . It's used as a justification to remove fish . . as being in the best interest of the fish. . . removing [fish] from the watershed will not help these stocks or the watershed. It helps people but it does not help the fish.

    . . Avoiding over-escapement is a laudable goal given that it also provides an important source of protein and cash to the local economy. Nothing wrong with that. But let's not confuse the attempts to avoid over escapement with sustainability. They are not the same. In fact, it's possible they are mutually exclusive. That is, by removing large amounts of marine-derived nutrients from the watershed (by fishing), we are also reducing the long-term productivity of the watersheds, which leads to reduced yields in the future. If you think I'm dreaming, look no farther than the Pacific Northwest. It's already happened here. The loss of the annual input of marine-derived nutrients (from large numbers of adult salmon) has starved the watersheds to the point where the juvenile wild fish cannot survive in sufficient numbers to replace themselves as adults. . .



    Personally, I have never heard anyone try to rationalize the idea of overescapement as being good for the fish . . overescapement is about yield . always has been, always will be.


    Second, can anyone reference lack of MDN as solely responsible for the PNW's salmon woes? Can anyone reference the possible degree to which lack of MDNs has contributed to the PNW's salmon woes?


    At worst, isn't a lack of MDN only one, small factor in a sea of factors affecting salmon production? Does Dr. Montgomery even mention MDN in King of Fish?


    More significantly, is the MDN thing largely a straw-man? A hypothetical, "maybe/possibly" boogyman?


    It's certainly not happening in Alaska . . how many years, decades, and centuries has mankind been taking fish out of these rivers and oceans?

  12. #12

    Default

    Maybe it's time to talk about allocation. I agree with the OP that this is an allocation issue. Cook Inlet salmon runs just so happen to run the gauntlet of the States largest populus. Does it make sense for the allocation to be 85% commercial? Maybe a lareger peice of the pie should be going to Subsistence, Personal Use and Sport Fishing? What about a 50/50 split, between commercial fishing and the rest? 60/40? I don't know.

    Would a re-allocation of Cook Inlet's salmon allow larger escapements? You bet it would. Is that bad? Maybe we need to find out.....

  13. #13
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Good post Cohoangler.
    "Grin and Bear It"

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Thanks TB. Appreciate it.

    Marcus - I agree that the loss of MDN is not the sole reason for the decline in Pacific salmon in the PNW. There is no single reason for their decline. It was a result of a multitude of factors including fishing, loss of habitat, logging, and many more. However, re-introducing MDN has to be a key piece of the salmon restoration puzzle. Without a large input of MDN, habitat restoration can't be entirely successful. What appears to be happening is that the amount of MDN is directly related to the amount of food available to the juvenile salmon. The amount of food available to the juveniles has a direct affect on their size, numbers, and ability to withstand the rigors of life in freshwater and migration to the Big Pond.

    Research on Vancouver Island has shown dramatic improvements in the Pacific salmon stocks on several watersheds where MDN was artificially introduced (e.g., spawned out hatchery fish). However, all other factors were reasonably well controlled. That is, the habitat was in great shape, harvest was low, and the water quality and quantity was great. One research scientist called the addition of MDN to these Vancouver Island streams a "silver bullet" that was directly responsible for salmon restoration. That might have been a case of "irrational exuberance", but adding MDN was clearly an important contribution.

    Conversely, reducing MDN has the potential to reduce the food supply to the juveniles, which might reduce future yields. Not saying that's occurring in the Great Land, but the potential is there. I'm also saying that avoiding over-escapement does not mean that ADF&G is, by definition, managing on a sustained yield basis. Avoid over-escapement does not necessarily mean "sustained yield".

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool Be careful what you wish for . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Charlie View Post
    Maybe it's time to talk about allocation. I agree with the OP that this is an allocation issue. Cook Inlet salmon runs just so happen to run the gauntlet of the States largest populus. Does it make sense for the allocation to be 85% commercial? Maybe a lareger peice of the pie should be going to Subsistence, Personal Use and Sport Fishing? What about a 50/50 split, between commercial fishing and the rest? 60/40? I don't know.

    Would a re-allocation of Cook Inlet's salmon allow larger escapements? You bet it would. Is that bad? Maybe we need to find out.....

    Yes, I too believe the real issue here is allocation . . not overescapement.


    However, relative percentages of allocation are meaningless.


    First, can an 85% allocation of Cook Inlet's fisheries to the gill-net industry be substantiated?


    Second, is anyone suggesting that sport-angling, private and commercial, are not presently being allocated enough fish?


    Keep in mind that our fisheries are to be managed for sustained yield to the benefit of all Alaskans, not just some Alaskans. If, at whatever percentage of allocation currently, sport-anglers are being amply supplied with opportunity, then any additional allocation represents loss of yield to the detriment of all Alaskans. The gill-net industry's harvest, if radically reduced, would represent a loss of sustainable yield for no other purpose than to placate the imagined need of some Alaskans.


    We could allocate 100% of Cook Inlet's fish to sport-angling, and all we would accomplish is loss of yield. There is no way that sport-angling can harvest the sustainable yield of Cook Inlet's fisheries. Moreover, were such reallocation as Penny wants were to happen, what additional cost must the environment bear? Penny's priorities have already decimated the size of Kenai River chinook. What next? Be careful what you wish for . .

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

    Default

    Cohoangler, in all the discussions of over escapement, except for Mr. Penney, the discussion is about yield and the trade offs between sockeye and chinook yield. What I find funny is that Mr. Penney is stating that the chinook goal ( which is MSY) should be met and that the sockeye goal which is a sustained yield goal should not be met. Both assume some loss in production if not met. Therefore his positions are in conflict depending on the species.

    Relative to MDN there are systems in Alaska that this consideration should be taken into account when setting a goal. However, in glacial systems like the Kenai that is less of a concern for sockeye and chinook as light tends to be the limiting factor on production. There are a number of papers on this published by ADF&G. Chinook spawning in clear water tributaries, like Slikok Creek, would be an example of a clear water system. However, if you look at the number of fish for MDN input the Kenai is well above levels recommended for PNW streams.

    Next, maybe it is time to use a different word that over-escapement. It has become a red flag word that has little meaning in the discussion as people have misused and misunderstood what it means. It was used to simplify a complex issue-- for example a lay BOF to understand. Over-escapement can be one fish or 1 million fish above a goal. So when I hear someone say over escapement is a myth what are they saying - one fish or 1 million fish? What really should be discussed is density dependent impacts on fish production. Density dependent means the number of fish impact there own survival. More mouths at the table can lead to starvation - density dependent impact. Spawning on top of each other and digging up eggs of the previous female - density dependent impact. In contrast, density independent means that the number of fish present has little to do with future production - think of a toxic spill into a river system. The number of fish in the system is not the cause of the impact or decline in numbers.

    There is no denying that at some point more spawners in a system or more rearing fish in a system than the system can handle produces less yield in the future on average. For Kenai River sockeye salmon the drop in average production takes place as one moves from around 600,000 to 900,000 upward and continues to decrease as one goes higher. There is no question about that as the empirical data are soild. Even for chinook salmon the returns of late are associated with higher escapements and in the ADF&G escapement goal report they note that density dependent factors are part of the issue.

    So saying density dependent impacts are a myth is not a biologically sound concept. Plain and simple density dependent impacts are real for most animal populations we manage. In contrast, insect numbers tend to be controlled more frequently by density independent factors.

    Relative to sustained yield you are correct in what the Constitution states but what you did not state is that the founding fathers wrote about MSY management for fish and left it as sustained yield because it applied to all animals that are managed - think moose. The Constitution also states in the public good which can be defined outside MSY and has been for Kenai River sockeye salmon - it is called an OEG goal. So sustained yield goals in Alaska are usually MSY goals (called BEG's here) but allow for OEG goals.

    Relative to the statewide decline in Chinook it may be density dependent factors in the ocean. Density dependent is not limited to freshwater. Therefore, if systems statewide put out lots of fish and the ocean does not have the capacity to feed them the resulting decrease in production is density dependent. There are a number of good people who are asking the question about ocean rearing capacity and hatchery impacts due to large release programs in the U.S, Canada, PNW, Japan, and Russia. So the second part of this discussion is that density dependent does not mean or be limited to freshwater. Production curves do not assign a cause for the return being lower. Just that it is related to the number of spawners in some manner.

    I guess what I find up setting by Mr. Penney is that he is so hypocritical relative to his position on this topic. He is yelling for the MSY chinook goal to be met at the same time saying that the sockeye density dependent upper limit has no meaning. Not a consistent or defensible position.

    I also find Mr. Penney holding up a large plastic chinook salmon as his proof that these fish should be a priority fish sickening. His plastic fish is a symbol of ego and what Mr. Penney may be really about - trophies. In contrast, I would like to see a family standing next to him when he does this grand standing with freezer bags of sockeye salmon and let the contrast speak for itself.

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

    Thumbs down More for me/less for you . . to the detriment of all Alaskans . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Marcus - I agree that the loss of MDN is not the sole reason for the decline in Pacific salmon in the PNW. There is no single reason for their decline. It was a result of a multitude of factors including fishing, loss of habitat, logging, and many more. However, re-introducing MDN has to be a key piece of the salmon restoration puzzle. Without a large input of MDN, habitat restoration can't be entirely successful. What appears to be happening is that the amount of MDN is directly related to the amount of food available to the juvenile salmon. The amount of food available to the juveniles has a direct affect on their size, numbers, and ability to withstand the rigors of life in freshwater and migration to the Big Pond.

    Research on Vancouver Island has shown dramatic improvements in the Pacific salmon stocks on several watersheds where MDN was artificially introduced (e.g., spawned out hatchery fish). However, all other factors were reasonably well controlled. That is, the habitat was in great shape, harvest was low, and the water quality and quantity was great. One research scientist called the addition of MDN to these Vancouver Island streams a "silver bullet" that was directly responsible for salmon restoration. That might have been a case of "irrational exuberance", but adding MDN was clearly an important contribution.

    Conversely, reducing MDN has the potential to reduce the food supply to the juveniles, which might reduce future yields. Not saying that's occurring in the Great Land, but the potential is there. I'm also saying that avoiding over-escapement does not mean that ADF&G is, by definition, managing on a sustained yield basis. Avoid over-escapement does not necessarily mean "sustained yield".



    Sounds right, Cohoangler, the problem is that the MDN boogyman is being flounced about up here in an effort to pooh-pooh overescapement in an effort to rationalize taking fish from our gill-net industry and giving them to private and commercial sport anglers:


    "Who cares how many fish go up the river? It's good for the river and the fish. Who cares how much sustained yield is lost just so I get more opportunity?"


    MDN may or may not play whatever part in the restoration of PNW salmon, but MDN is not a factor in Alaska. The MDN card being played up here is a smoke screen, a non-starter, a non-issue except as it rationalizes more fish for sport at the expense of commercial.


    Nothing more . . same ol', same ol' "more for me/less for you" . . hey, whatever works . .

  18. #18
    Member FishGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fishing your hole before you get there
    Posts
    1,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Cohoangler, in all the discussions of over escapement, except for Mr. Penney, the discussion is about yield and the trade offs between sockeye and chinook yield. What I find funny is that Mr. Penney is stating that the chinook goal ( which is MSY) should be met and that the sockeye goal which is a sustained yield goal should not be met. Both assume some loss in production if not met. Therefore his positions are in conflict depending on the species.

    Relative to MDN there are systems in Alaska that this consideration should be taken into account when setting a goal. However, in glacial systems like the Kenai that is less of a concern for sockeye and chinook as light tends to be the limiting factor on production. There are a number of papers on this published by ADF&G. Chinook spawning in clear water tributaries, like Slikok Creek, would be an example of a clear water system. However, if you look at the number of fish for MDN input the Kenai is well above levels recommended for PNW streams.

    Next, maybe it is time to use a different word that over-escapement. It has become a red flag word that has little meaning in the discussion as people have misused and misunderstood what it means. It was used to simplify a complex issue-- for example a lay BOF to understand. Over-escapement can be one fish or 1 million fish above a goal. So when I hear someone say over escapement is a myth what are they saying - one fish or 1 million fish? What really should be discussed is density dependent impacts on fish production. Density dependent means the number of fish impact there own survival. More mouths at the table can lead to starvation - density dependent impact. Spawning on top of each other and digging up eggs of the previous female - density dependent impact. In contrast, density independent means that the number of fish present has little to do with future production - think of a toxic spill into a river system. The number of fish in the system is not the cause of the impact or decline in numbers.

    There is no denying that at some point more spawners in a system or more rearing fish in a system than the system can handle produces less yield in the future on average. For Kenai River sockeye salmon the drop in average production takes place as one moves from around 600,000 to 900,000 upward and continues to decrease as one goes higher. There is no question about that as the empirical data are soild. Even for chinook salmon the returns of late are associated with higher escapements and in the ADF&G escapement goal report they note that density dependent factors are part of the issue.

    So saying density dependent impacts are a myth is not a biologically sound concept. Plain and simple density dependent impacts are real for most animal populations we manage. In contrast, insect numbers tend to be controlled more frequently by density independent factors.

    Relative to sustained yield you are correct in what the Constitution states but what you did not state is that the founding fathers wrote about MSY management for fish and left it as sustained yield because it applied to all animals that are managed - think moose. The Constitution also states in the public good which can be defined outside MSY and has been for Kenai River sockeye salmon - it is called an OEG goal. So sustained yield goals in Alaska are usually MSY goals (called BEG's here) but allow for OEG goals.

    Relative to the statewide decline in Chinook it may be density dependent factors in the ocean. Density dependent is not limited to freshwater. Therefore, if systems statewide put out lots of fish and the ocean does not have the capacity to feed them the resulting decrease in production is density dependent. There are a number of good people who are asking the question about ocean rearing capacity and hatchery impacts due to large release programs in the U.S, Canada, PNW, Japan, and Russia. So the second part of this discussion is that density dependent does not mean or be limited to freshwater. Production curves do not assign a cause for the return being lower. Just that it is related to the number of spawners in some manner.

    I guess what I find up setting by Mr. Penney is that he is so hypocritical relative to his position on this topic. He is yelling for the MSY chinook goal to be met at the same time saying that the sockeye density dependent upper limit has no meaning. Not a consistent or defensible position.

    I also find Mr. Penney holding up a large plastic chinook salmon as his proof that these fish should be a priority fish sickening. His plastic fish is a symbol of ego and what Mr. Penney may be really about - trophies. In contrast, I would like to see a family standing next to him when he does this grand standing with freezer bags of sockeye salmon and let the contrast speak for itself.
    Thank you for that response. You saved me a lot of typing
    Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Nerka pretty much said it all, but I had this lengthy one already typed out...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Over-escapement IS a myth. It's used as a justification to remove fish from the watershed (by whatever means) as being in the best interest of the fish.
    ...and that ideology is what Bob Penney is hoping to breed, feeding on folks like yourself who don't understand what overescapement means, the sustained yield principle, or Alaska's constitution.

    Best interest of the fish? Where do you come up with that? The Alaska Constitution, Section VIII, clearly mandates that Alaska's resources, including fish, be developed for maximum use and maximum benefit of its people, under the sustained yield principle.

    So Cohoangler, how in the world do you do that without a range of escapement goals? Are you suggesting fish until they are gone? Are you suggesting waste and underutilize valuable renewable and sustainable resources? Are you suggesting putting our resources under a boom-or-bust mandate? Are you suggesting open-ended escapements in the name of accomodating allocation for one user group? Do you not believe there is a level where fish can be utilized and consistently sustained at the same time? Or maybe, without defendable science backing you up, you just think the goals should be higher?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    If that's the case, how did these fish survive for thousands of years before we showed up?
    The reality is; we did show up. You are simply suggesting that man has no business utilizing his renewable resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    The fact is, the fish did just fine. There were ups and downs. And that still occurs today.
    Pure speculation. After all, there are many systems void of salmon and certain species of salmon. Part of the beauty of the sustained yield principle is that, using escapement goals, runs can be managed for consistent yields.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Fishing by whatever means does nothing to help the fish. Killing lots and lots of adult fish (just before they spawn), and removing them from the watershed will not help these stocks or the watershed. It helps people but it does not help the fish.
    Not true. People or not, every system has a carrying capacity. When that carrying capacity is exceeded, mass amounts of fish die (starvation, competition, lack of oxygen, small size/poor survivability, etc). Returns can get extremely inconsistent, if not decimated by disease. Whether you like it or not, there is defendable science supporting levels of capacity where yields can be consistently sustained and resources protected...they are called escapement goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Over-escapment is not in the Alaska Constitution. Sustained yield is.
    Exactly. What you fail to understand is that Alaska's constitution of sustained yield is the impetus for escapement goals. If you would like to explain how sustained yield can be accomplished without escapement goal policy, I'm all ears.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    But let's not confuse the attempts to avoid over escapement with sustainability.
    Sustainability is not the issue here with Bob Penney's ideology. Allocation is. A run can be sustained with 2 fish. The fact is, sustainable yields and overescapement go hand-in-hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    That is, by removing large amounts of marine-derived nutrients from the watershed (by fishing), we are also reducing the long-term productivity of the watersheds, which leads to reduced yields in the future.
    Bunk. Post your reference. Part of Alaska's sustained yield policy is not only to protect the resource, but the environment too. Understand, that does not mean maximizing production of fish or marine-derived nutrients. There are scientifically defendable levels of harvest that can take place without harming the resource or environment. I once saw a study referenced here showing that the nutrient level and environment of the Kenai River are healthy under the sustained yield principle. I will look for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    If you think I'm dreaming, look no farther than the Pacific Northwest. It's already happened here. The loss of the annual input of marine-derived nutrients (from large numbers of adult salmon) has starved the watersheds to the point where the juvenile wild fish cannot survive in sufficient numbers to replace themselves as adults.
    That's not Alaska. Never will be. Your fisheries are completely different, and they were/are managed differently. They are the result of completely different happenings. Bringing your Vancouver mentality to Alaska is apples and oranges.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    ...we should not make the assumption that we understand all the factors that contribute to sustained yield, and ADF&G is therefore harvesting on a sustain yield basis. They may not be.
    That is why Alaska implements the sustained yield principle conservatively, per policy. If you understood the science and biology behind those goals, including overescapement, you would know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    explain the State-wide reductions in the Chinook stocks that occurred in Alaska last year, and to some extent this year. Nobody has a good answer to that, which means we don't know or understand all the factors that contribute to sustained yield.
    You have no idea if the Chinook stock issue is related to sustained yield policy. But one thing's for sure, your buddy Bob Penney was a major player in exploiting the ER Kenai Kings into oblivion - the ESSN commercial fishery didn't have a thing to do with it - it's been closed for decades. His hypocrisy is astounding - pathetic.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Nerka - I completely agree with your argument on density dependent mortality. You're spot on. There is clearly on upper limit on how many fish can spawn in a given body of water. However, that's not the whole story. All those dead adults are contributing to the ecosystem and the watershed in ways we don't yet fully understand. Density dependent mortality will depress the next year's productivity, as you have stated, but it will greatly enhance productivity in the out years (two or more years in the future). Everyone can agree on the short-term reduction in yield, but they don't always see the long-term benefit. It's sort like, "one step back and then two steps forward". We can see the "one-step back", but the "two steps forward" is not obvious.

    My point is that over-escapement is not nearly as problematic as we once thought. And that every fish is important. It either contributes to the next generation (fertilized eggs in the gravel) or it contributes to the productivity of the watershed thru MDN. Either way, each fish is important and makes a contribution to the environment in which they live. Now, does that hypothesis undercut a major argument for fishing (commercial, recreational, PU, etc)? Yes, it does. That's one reason why some folks are reluctant to recognize it.

    But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should not be fishing. Fishing is a wonderful occupation, provides a sustainable liveilhood for lots of folks on the KP and elsewhere, and supports many small towns and villages across the Great Land, and some places in the PNW. I'm just saying that fishing doesn't help the fish or the environment in which they live. Fishing helps people, not the fish.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •