Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 109

Thread: They met escapement???

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default They met escapement???

    I saw the article in the ADN that stated that over 15,000 kings made it up the Kenai and that the goal was met. I have a question. Is 15,000 a real number? That seems very low to me but I am not an expert. any thoughts? To me it seems like if you cant hit your goal then lower the goal.

  2. #2
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    It's the new math; less is more.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    I saw the article in the ADN that stated that over 15,000 kings made it up the Kenai and that the goal was met. I have a question. Is 15,000 a real number? That seems very low to me but I am not an expert. any thoughts? To me it seems like if you cant hit your goal then lower the goal.
    ADF&G has on their web site a link to the escapement goal report that set these numbers. Actually, the lower MSY goal is 13,000 but 2000 fish were added as a precaution against uncertainty in the counts.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    I saw the article in the ADN that stated that over 15,000 kings made it up the Kenai and that the goal was met. I have a question. Is 15,000 a real number? That seems very low to me but I am not an expert. any thoughts? To me it seems like if you cant hit your goal then lower the goal.
    What seems low to you? The goal or the run-size estimate? Or both?

    Is the run-size estimate (15K) for the entire run for 2013, or just the LR?

    It would also be interesting to know the % of the entire run of spawning adults that came into the river after July 31........

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    What seems low to you? The goal or the run-size estimate? Or both?

    Is the run-size estimate (15K) for the entire run for 2013, or just the LR?

    It would also be interesting to know the % of the entire run of spawning adults that came into the river after July 31........
    Numbers are not in but the 15,400 is spawners not total return (lower site total return will be around 18-19K. You need to add in the commercial harvest and harvest below the counting site by the sport fishery. Also, this is not the final escapement number. As you recall the early run had counting problems with weir counts much higher (double) the sonar estimate. The late run has a second counting system upstream and those numbers have not been published. My understanding is those numbers will come out in November according to the Director of Sport Fish.

    It is hard to put any of this in perspective. The historical data from split beam is not good. The Baysian estimates are based on indexes that are questionable and this year the lower site was run and used knowing the netting program and counting site are flawed (the reason to move the site upstream). Given all of this it is hard to know what the late run total return is. However, having said that the upper river site will provide some information and hopefully sources of error will be identified to help put these numbers in some perspective.

  6. #6

    Default

    Just wondering who would oppose an unbiased, independent review of ALL of the counting systems on the Kenai. With the amount of uncertainty and skepticism surrounding our counters, it seems that all user groups would appreciate and benefit from this.

    Who would oppose it? If we can spend hundreds of thousands to tag a handful of Kings, surely we can scrape together the funds to make this happen on a river which supports so many Alaskans.

    Heck, if we ask uncle Bob real nice, maybe he'll support it - seems like he's awful good at getting the state to spend our money....

    HA!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    What seems low to you? The goal or the run-size estimate? Or both?

    Is the run-size estimate (15K) for the entire run for 2013, or just the LR?

    It would also be interesting to know the % of the entire run of spawning adults that came into the river after July 31........
    I was just wondering it 15,000 were enough fish to really sustain a good run.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,527

    Default

    If the data are good this should produce more than enough harvestable surplus to provide for all fisheries without restrictions - of course one can always have a poor year but on average this should sustain the fisheries and the run.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Yes, but averages can be deceiving......

    I agree with Nerka. But he knows better than most of us that future run-size predictions and yield are dependent on a multitude of factors, many of which we know little or nothing about. But, in terms of eggs-in-the-gravel, I will take his word for it that 15K is enough.

    That is, provided the adult sex ratio was normal, the size of the females (and thus the number and size of the eggs) was about average, spawning success was reasonably close to normal, and pre-spawn mortality was minimal.

    I'm not trying to nit-pick here. Only to help educate the audience on the many factors that determine survival and run-size, even at an early stage.

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

    Wink Guessing games . . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Yes, but averages can be deceiving......

    . ., future run-size predictions and yield are dependent on a multitude of factors, many of which we know little or nothing about. . .

    That is, provided the adult sex ratio was normal, the size of the females (and thus the number and size of the eggs) was about average, spawning success was reasonably close to normal, and pre-spawn mortality was minimal.

    I'm not trying to nit-pick here. Only to help educate the audience on the many factors that determine survival and run-size, even at an early stage.



    Well noted, Cohoangler, and serves to reinforce Dr. Montgomery's caveat about the "inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences."


    Add institutional and personal bias to that uncertainty, and we get what we've got . . Attachment 73225




  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Marcus - I agree that personal and institutional bias is part-and-parcel of human existence, particularly when dealing with large amounts of uncertainty, such as natural sciences. However, in this specific instance, I'm having difficulty seeing the purpose of any personal or instituational bias. In your view, is the bias towards higher estimates of the adult return, thus reporting MORE fish than actually occurred (for the statisticians among us - a Type II error)? Or is the bias towards lower estimates, thereby reporting FEWER fish than actually occurred (a Type I error)?

    If a bias exists (and I'm not saying it does), but if it does, it has to be one or the other. I'm not sure why ADF&G or anyone else would bias the estimates in either direction. In other words, what is the motive? I'm not trying to call you out, just trying to understand your views, as they apply to this situation. Assuming that they do.......

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

    Wink Healthy skepticism . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Marcus - I agree that personal and institutional bias is part-and-parcel of human existence, particularly when dealing with large amounts of uncertainty, such as natural sciences. However, in this specific instance, I'm having difficulty seeing the purpose of any personal or instituational bias. In your view, is the bias towards higher estimates of the adult return, thus reporting MORE fish than actually occurred (for the statisticians among us - a Type II error)? Or is the bias towards lower estimates, thereby reporting FEWER fish than actually occurred (a Type I error)?

    If a bias exists (and I'm not saying it does), but if it does, it has to be one or the other. I'm not sure why ADF&G or anyone else would bias the estimates in either direction. In other words, what is the motive? I'm not trying to call you out, just trying to understand your views, as they apply to this situation. Assuming that they do.......

    Cohoangler,


    As you say in your first sentence, "personal and institutional bias is part-and-parcel of human existence." All I'm saying in this specific instance is exactly that—bias is a fact of life—period. In no way would I presume to second guess ADF&G, its managers, or its biologists as to the motives driving their views. I'm simply saying it is there, and it adds to the inherent and objective uncertainty of the natural sciences.


    If you wish, I'll email you a PDF file of the article "
    Institutional Differences among Marine Fisheries Scientists’ Views of their Working Conditions, Discipline, and Fisheries Management."


    My concern is not to accuse anyone but simply to justify a healthy skepticism of so-called "scientific" management of our resources, Now don't get me wrong . . I loooove science as a tool but despise '"science" as a worldview.* We do need and use science to implement management of our resources in the same way we need a hammer to drive a nail. How we manage and where we drive the nail are not scientific questions. That's all.





    *
    A worldview is the system into which a person organizes and understands what he learns about the world around him. It is the reference point from which he measures truth and makes decisions. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism



  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,527

    Default

    I was not going to respond to an earlier post but this last one needs a response. Words like despise science as a worldview is just not relevant to the discussion of Kenai River escapement goals and whether they provide for long term sustainability of the resource. I doubt any scientist on this forum is a member of Scientism but that should be of no concern here. So here is my response to the above bias.

    It's Scientism that turns my stomach
    - Marcus


    The definition of Scientism is:


    To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[20] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[15] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[23][24]


    Thus Scientism is a belief system and would be in the same category as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other ism - like Calvinism. The idea that a belief system turns someone stomach may be a true representation of how one feels but it also points out an extreme prejudice against individuals who have that belief system. It also has no place on this forum because to attack a position because of someone’s belief system is not ethical or appropriate. Are we going to ask who is a Christian or any other belief system so we can figure out a persons bias?As this individual has stated numerous times ideas not the person but when one states the above it is very obvious about the person, especially in the context of refuting or disagreeing with a scientific claim. It is also very personal to say a belief system turns my stomach. That is very personal to the person with that belief system.


    For the record, I doubt anyone on this forum has this belief system but I really do not care and neither should anyone else. What is important here is facts and data and that information is correctly provided. It is not only about ideas it is about factual information that allows a person to reach a conclusion regardless of their belief system.

    I would never say that someone's belief system turns my stomach. I would provide some level of respect for that person and that belief system regardless of how I feel about it.

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

    Default

    Not trying to defend Marcus here, but I missed the "turns my stomach" quote. Perhaps he used it in another thread, but I don't see it on this one.

    However, we are all guilty of using language that is sometimes over-the-top, just to get our point across. It's tempting since we only have words-on-the-page to express our thoughts. I'm as guilty as anyone. I view Marcus's language as just an exaggeration to emphasize a point. I try not to read too much into it.

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

    Red face Uh oh . . . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Not trying to defend Marcus here, but I missed the "turns my stomach" quote. Perhaps he used it in another thread, but I don't see it on this one.

    However, we are all guilty of using language that is sometimes over-the-top, just to get our point across. It's tempting since we only have words-on-the-page to express our thoughts. I'm as guilty as anyone. I view Marcus's language as just an exaggeration to emphasize a point. I try not to read too much into it.

    Oh, my . . did I upset someone?


    Thanks for your post, Cohoangler, let me try to explain. I did use the phrase "turns my stomach" in another post somewhere on these fora and in specific reference to Scientism. Alas . . 'tis too true . . Scientism, like radical Islam and Atheism, turns my stomach . . can't help it.


    Howeverrrrrrr . . while I can't say the same for an Islamic terrorist, I have met more than a few Atheists with whom I have and would enjoy sharing a drink and a cigar. Why wouldn't I? People are people, people are not ides.


    Heck, the other forum I frequent has several Atheist members . . they know how I feel about Atheism, and I know how they feel about my Christianity. Nobody gets their tit in a wringer over such things . . we accept each other as persons though we frequently ridicule each other's belief systems and ideas.


    What's the problem?


    Ideas . . not people . .

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default well I'm a skeptic

    Others here are posting that they're not necessarily comfortable with the numbers, their origin, and management; I've expressed similar.

    I understand the numbers must be generated by science and technology, but in the end it is common working people that need to put their trust in those numbers and that system. Nerka, I applaud you again for explaining more of the tech and mgmt issues involved; you bring great information here.

    But in the end, if there is less than trust in the system then the system has failed.

    Nerka, I'd ask you to please put down your biologists hat for a second and imagine yourself a construction guy that pines away for a little time at the end of the day to get his line wet. Now read your post below. Just how much of that explanation do you think he'll trust, understand, or repeat to co-workers? My bet is close to none of it.

    Imagine what would happen if that construction guy's boss asked him why he framed in a section of roofing or wall the way he did, and he answered like the paragraph below, he'd be fired on the spot.

    All I'm saying is that we need more-assured (something that is trusted) numbers that have already been verified by second sources that are equally solid as the primary ones. We need something that both the bios and the public trust and I don't think we have that today.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Numbers are not in but the 15,400 is spawners not total return (lower site total return will be around 18-19K. You need to add in the commercial harvest and harvest below the counting site by the sport fishery. Also, this is not the final escapement number. As you recall the early run had counting problems with weir counts much higher (double) the sonar estimate. The late run has a second counting system upstream and those numbers have not been published. My understanding is those numbers will come out in November according to the Director of Sport Fish.

    It is hard to put any of this in perspective. The historical data from split beam is not good. The Baysian estimates are based on indexes that are questionable and this year the lower site was run and used knowing the netting program and counting site are flawed (the reason to move the site upstream). Given all of this it is hard to know what the late run total return is. However, having said that the upper river site will provide some information and hopefully sources of error will be identified to help put these numbers in some perspective.
    Again, please don't think I'm picking on your post Nerka. I'm just using it to illustrate what happens when the complexity of the current situation meets the voting public. The result is not a positive one (for anyone).

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    FM - Nerka was likely responding to my question, and since he knows my technical background, he may have inadvertantly narrowed his audience to the point where nobody else understand him. It's an easy thing to do.

    So lemme interpret his comments:

    About 15K spawners made it to the gravel to spawn this year. Pre-spawn mortality (fishing, natural mortality, predation, etc) was likely 4K to 5K. So the total return to the river was likely close to 20K. But since the sonar unit is somewhat unreliable, ADF&G had to reconstruct the estimates using some tricky math, which is not unusual for fish management, but it will take some time to get a final estimate. And, lastly, it's always better to get an accurate count from the really expensive technology they've installed in the river. That beats tricky math everytime.....

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Messy business . . .

    . . we need more-assured (something that is trusted) . . We need something that . . the public trust and I don't think we have that today. . .

    Exactly. When not even professional managers and biologists can agree, when as soon as someone goes to work for, say, KRSA or UCIDA their views are pooh-poohed, when numbers and goals bounce around from year to year, when every faction and interest group is screaming that "science" is on their side, who can blame the public for wondering what the hell's going on?


    Resource management is not science. All resource management decisions are fundamentally social and economic, not scientific. Science is the tool that society uses to hopefully implement social priorities.


    Nor, to my mind, is there any cure for the dog-and-pony show that is Cook Inlet's fisheries, their allocation, and management. Everyone has priorities and biases, and anyone who tells you they don't will fib about other things as well.


    Grin and bear it . . democracy is messy business . . just don't confuse politics with science . . they are not the same thing.


    And never, never forget Dr. Montgomery's warning that:


    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)

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Others here are posting that they're not necessarily comfortable with the numbers, their origin, and management; I've expressed similar.

    I understand the numbers must be generated by science and technology, but in the end it is common working people that need to put their trust in those numbers and that system. Nerka, I applaud you again for explaining more of the tech and mgmt issues involved; you bring great information here.

    But in the end, if there is less than trust in the system then the system has failed.

    Nerka, I'd ask you to please put down your biologists hat for a second and imagine yourself a construction guy that pines away for a little time at the end of the day to get his line wet. Now read your post below. Just how much of that explanation do you think he'll trust, understand, or repeat to co-workers? My bet is close to none of it.

    Imagine what would happen if that construction guy's boss asked him why he framed in a section of roofing or wall the way he did, and he answered like the paragraph below, he'd be fired on the spot.

    All I'm saying is that we need more-assured (something that is trusted) numbers that have already been verified by second sources that are equally solid as the primary ones. We need something that both the bios and the public trust and I don't think we have that today.




    Again, please don't think I'm picking on your post Nerka. I'm just using it to illustrate what happens when the complexity of the current situation meets the voting public. The result is not a positive one (for anyone).
    Family Man I think we agree that the Didson counting methodology needs a complete independent review. I have a record since 1985 of questioning the ability to pull out 10-30k chinook from 1 million sockeye salmon. I still think it is almost impossible to get a total chinook count. However, the idea of counting just large fish may actually work. That question is yet to be answered.

    I also agree that the public has lost trust in the counting of chinook and that has bled over into the sockeye counters. It is just a function of the lay public not understanding the difference in what is being counted and how. However, at this point ADF&G would do well to have independent reviews of both counting sites and methods.

    I will say I spoke with the Director of Sport Fish Division the other day in the Soldotna office and he is opposed to the review. He feels they are doing a great job and working toward a solution with the up river site. That is not what the public feels and I tried to explain your very point to him. Trust is lost and at this point it must be restored. He may be correct but the early run counts and weir counts being two to three times higher does not create trust. We left it at that.

    As a final note would everyone let Marcus know you have read his bible on fishery management so we can stop seeing quote after quote. What is interesting is that the author of his quotes is a scientist and has a worldview as expressed in his book. Somehow that is ironic to me and maybe others.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Family Man I think we agree that the Didson counting methodology needs a complete independent review. ...

    I also agree that the public has lost trust in the counting of chinook and that has bled over into the sockeye counters. It is just a function of the lay public not understanding the difference in what is being counted and how....

    I will say I spoke with the Director of Sport Fish Division the other day in the Soldotna office and he is opposed to the review. He feels they are doing a great job and working toward a solution with the up river site. That is not what the public feels and I tried to explain your very point to him. Trust is lost and at this point it must be restored....
    Thank you Nerka; I do believe you understand what I've been expressing (probably not so clearly - - sorry; doing best I can).

    I don't want to start or cause an anti-dept thread/post/sentiment, but I do believe quite clearly the trust has been lost. But if we itemize publicly here on this forum what those issues are that lost trust public trust in the dept, it'll further divide and that isn't my goal.

    But I do strongly feel that its a problem that the Director feels that he and his currently have enough/proper public support.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •