Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: What does the Homer halibut derby tell us??

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

    Default What does the Homer halibut derby tell us??

    Some observations that pose some interesting questions. First of all from the looks of it they tagged 112 or so fish. 29 tags have been returned with an additional 2 that were caught without a derby ticket for a total of 31. That would mean than about 28% of the halibut tagged were caught. One could infer that 28% of the halibut were caught that were in the areas that the fish were released based on those numbers. It makes on wonder what percent of the catchable fish in CI are harvested every year. I know they put the fish in the chicken patches but it does make one wonder.

  2. #2
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    In Seward we got one but the fish were tagged over a much larger area. Some 60 miles. I often wonder the same thing about the upper river Kenai Rainbows.....

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    KG - The assumption you're making is that the tagged fish represent the population of halibut, at large, in Cook Inlet. If that is the case, then yes, you can assume that recreational anglers are taking 28% of the halibut in CI. But it's highly unlikely the tagged fish represent the population at large. Whoever is doing the tagging would have to tag many more fish, over a much broader area to make that assumption.

    As an example, here on the Columbia River, millions of juvenile salmon are tagged and clipped before they are released back into the river. And we openly wonder whether those 10's of millions of tagged salmon represent the run-at-large (which numbers in the 100's of millions). So even at this tagging rate, our assumptions are fraught with uncertainty. As such, tagging 112 halibut from a population that is likely over a million is quite inadequate.

    But that wasn't the intent either. It's only a fishing derby, not an estimation of the population size or the exploitation rate.......

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up Good illustration . . .

    . . on the Columbia River, millions of juvenile salmon are tagged and clipped before they are released back into the river. And we openly wonder whether those 10's of millions of tagged salmon represent the run-at-large (which numbers in the 100's of millions). So even at this tagging rate, our assumptions are fraught with uncertainty. . . .


    Cohoangler,

    An apt and practical illustration of the "inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences" . . .

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Yes, indeed. But we still need to make decisions based on the best information available. Even if it's really bad.

    It would be nice to have better information, and alot less uncertainty. But we don't have the choice of not making decisions because the levels of uncertainty are higher than we'd like. It is what it is. In the world of natural resource management, including fish, wildlife and water, the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences is never a reason for not making a decision.

    However, research into natural sciences might be a different question. With a different answer.....

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink Bias is like opinion . . everyone has one . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Yes, indeed. But we still need to make decisions based on the best information available. Even if it's really bad.

    It would be nice to have better information, and alot less uncertainty. But we don't have the choice of not making decisions because the levels of uncertainty are higher than we'd like. It is what it is. In the world of natural resource management, including fish, wildlife and water, the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences is never a reason for not making a decision.

    However, research into natural sciences might be a different question. With a different answer.....

    Absolutely, and I couldn't agree more!


    What choice do we have but to work with what we've got?


    However, that the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences limits our understanding of the material world should serve to make us more cognizant of the necessity for civil process as society works out politically its social and economic priorities.


    And the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences should make us very, very cautious of the role prejudice, bias, and special interests play in the politics of fisheries management . . . all in the name of science of course . .


    . . trust me . . . Attachment 73523


  7. #7

    Default

    I think halibut move more than we give them credit for. Halibut have "runs", where certain size fish show up to certain areas to feed, and then leave just as quickly as they arrived. I'll try some of my spots 3 or 4 times and get nothing in early june, then one day it'll be full of 30-90lb halibut. Tough to nail down the timing, as it can vary 2 to 3 weeks, on either end of the season for when they show up and leave. Believe me, you'll have a red hot spot go dead in 1 day. All the fish pick up and move somewhere else. Can't explain it, but fishing halibut from Memorial Day to Labor day shows me some stuff. Certain spots have lots of 12lb halibut, and the halibut in that spot never "grow". When they get bigger, they leave, and a 12lb halibut replaces them. Other spots hold 25-40lb halibut, with the occasional bigger one. No small ones.

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
  •