Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: ADF&G Kenai River early run chinook salmon tagging data

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default ADF&G Kenai River early run chinook salmon tagging data

    So we know the Kenai early run chinook weir counts and below is some preliminary information on ADF&G tagging data. What has been stated a number of times on this forum is that the netting program is not working. The reason the 1.95 may not be correct is that the smaller fish are not caught in the net. If these smaller fish were not caught then the Didson large fish expansion model would be off and explain part of the counting problem.

    In any event ADF&G now is out in public stating that they have a serious problem and that is good. I just hope that they do a full independent review of the counting options. I think the denial of some of these problems is over. Today, it is just a matter of getting some of the leadership to get past the politics and use all the tools in the tool box - which means using all the experts they can afford and being totally transparent (this is a start). Also, we should not beat ADF&G up over this as that will just mean they will not share information - I appreciate the honest comments below.


    "In 2013, we radio tagged 37 fish that went into the Killey River drainage. 19 of those went upstream of the Killey River weir. So you would multiply the Killey River weir count by 1.95 to get a rough estimate of total Killey River passage.

    Donít be surprised if we end up with something different than this in the final analysis. There are some serious size discrepancies between our netting data and the weir data that will have to be accounted for (in other words 1.95 may not be the right expansion factor because we did not tag a representative sample of the weir passage). We just received the genetics data for this year and plan to start working on the SSART estimate ASAP. "

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Thanks Nerka. That information was out there this summer when everyone was freaking out about the weir data vs the didson data. The high number of fish going through the weirs were small fish, too small to be counted in the didson or in the nets. Talking to the head biologist this summer he readily have that information out.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    And yes, I too am happy that F&G is looking at the numbers and how they get data. The radio tags and weirs are a huge step in verifying the other data. Hopefully we are getting more fish back than they are saying we have during the season.

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

    Thumbs up Onward and upward . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    . . happy that F&G is looking at the numbers and how they get data. The radio tags and weirs are a huge step in verifying the other data. . .

    Me too . . happy, that is.


    But what would one expect? All the natural sciences are plagued with uncertainty, the science of anadromous fisheries especially so. Scientific knowledge is a dynamic process, not some written-in-stone, established fact.


    And what would one expect from ADF&G but continued efforts to gain ever more knowledge and ever more efficient management of Alaska's fisheries? They're professionals after all, and that's what we've hired them to do.


    Relax . . we learn as we go . . .

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Thanks Nerka. That information was out there this summer when everyone was freaking out about the weir data vs the didson data. The high number of fish going through the weirs were small fish, too small to be counted in the didson or in the nets. Talking to the head biologist this summer he readily have that information out.
    I'm weary of the level of concern over the high numbers of small fish this year. I heard this from ADFG staff this summer as both a defense for the inaccuracy of the sonar vs weir data and as a justification for a higher escapement. Not saying that we shouldn't be aware, but who are we to say that an escapement with a large component of younger males isn't the same "quality" as any other escapement on any given year? Mother nature could have a billion reasons why a large jack component is suitable for this particular escapement. The most basic explanation could be that the strong showing of age 1.1 and 1.2 Kings is indicative of better survival for that age class of fish which, if I'm not mistaken, came from brood years 2009 & 2010. What's that little Rickie? Yes, as you've stated a thousand times, two of the lowest recorded escapements of late run Kenai Kings (still well within predicted MSY). Hmmm.

    Again, just a theory. Only time will tell.

    Biologists, feel free to blow holes in my theory. I welcome it cause that's how we learn...

  6. #6
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Isn't this thread about ER kings?
    "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

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    This is about early run chinook as the portion of 1.1 and 1.2 in the tributaries is very high - some reports indicate 80%. Not sure if that is accurate.

    Tbsmith is correct. The quality of escapement debate does not hold water for this season. At the time of decisions they were made on the assumption that escapement numbers were below the goal - period.

    The quality of escapement discussion is one that in my humble opinion is one of biological arrogance. Like we know the evolutionary history and advantage or disadvantage of age composition shifts. In fact, the reason one wants to have equal exploitation rates on all segments of the return - timing and age structure is to maintain that evolutionary outcome.

    Now one could say that if the number of females is so low that egg deposition is low then one could just raise the goal to get more females but still maintain the sex ratio and age class ratio. That could be done in-season once those numbers are established. However, given that the netting program does not catch chinook in proportion to their abundance the whole discussion is somewhat mute until those technical issues can be solved.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Isn't this thread about ER kings?

    Ok, so let's look at the ER King historical escapement. 2009 & 2010 escapements (2013 jack brood years) were just over 6,000 fish - right smack in the middle of the 3,800-8500 SEG that ADFG has set. These were much lower escapements than those of several years previous (2013 large fish brood years), which were well over the SEG -some years even double.

    Again, who knows. Time will tell.

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

    Wink The never-ending thread . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Isn't this thread about ER kings?


    It is, it is indeed . . and the question is . .


    . . which comes first . .


    Do we fish 'em to death, or do we talk 'em to death . . .

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Isn't this thread about ER kings?
    Since the title is " ADF&G Kenai River early run chinook salmon tagging data" I would assume so! LOL

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

    Wink Yakety yak . . .

    Just kiddin' . . .


    . . I'm guilty too . .


    . . . if only our endless, yakety-yak could produce this kind of harmony . . .



  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    This is about early run chinook as the portion of 1.1 and 1.2 in the tributaries is very high

    That's definitely being reflected in the hen numbers as well.

    Out of the 3188 aggregate fish counted at the weirs (Funny, Killey, Quartz) only 563 were hens. That's just under 18% hens! When less than one in five of the fish in the escapement are hens, what's that say about total production from the 2013 brood?
    "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

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    It says lets hope the bears like males to eat.

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
  •