Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 152

Thread: WAYWARD salmon

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default WAYWARD salmon

    Buddy sent me this rather interesting link that shows quite graphically the migration pattern of adult sockeye and chinook tagged in Lower Cook Inlet.

    Feel free to play around with the settings and the zoom to get a detailed look at these migration patterns.


    Watch how one sockeye travels all the way Cook Inlet to the mouth of the Kenai before deciding it's lost, then backs out of the inlet, and finally finds its way to Kodiak Island.


    One Kenai king swims 34 laps back and forth in front of the Kenai mouth for 17 days before finally committing to the river.


    One exceptional king travelled south for 16 days all the way down to Tongue Point in the Columbia River estuary.


    http://kintama.com/animator/CookInlet2013/
    "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

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,763

    Default

    I tried it out but did not go any place it did not work for me [ 3 times ]

  3. #3
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Try zooming in for more detail... and don't forget to hit the PLAY button at the top (as if you were viewing a video).
    "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

  4. #4
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Thanks for the link it sure was interesting watching the migration of kings like that.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Tho one that went to Tongue Point was on a tug and barge

  6. #6

    Default

    So does anyone have an idea about how many dollars were spent on this, per fish? I think our king issues could have been better served by using this money for more meaningful studies for a lot less money. Just my two cents.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Cool video!

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akcarv View Post
    So does anyone have an idea about how many dollars were spent on this, per fish? I think our king issues could have been better served by using this money for more meaningful studies for a lot less money. Just my two cents.
    Looking at the array of receivers in front of the Kenai/Kasilof sections and the timing of the project, it seems like it was done more for sockeye than anything else. The king portion was just an afterthought with side-benefits.
    "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

  9. #9

    Default

    Cool stuff though I'm not sure I'd trust anyone with a web domain named "kintama" literally translated in Japanese meaning "gold balls" or the typical usage meaning uhh..well...the proper biological term would be "testicles" usually human.

  10. #10
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    I took it upon myself to record the migration of every tagged chinook in greater detail.

    There were a total of 12 chinook tracked. Five of those fish (42%) never escaped to fulfill their life purpose… they simply never made it to the river. While it's remotely possible they may have succumbed to predators (beluga, salmon shark, seal) their most probable fate was entanglement in a drift gill net.

    Of the seven fish that entered the Kenai, most spent 2-3 weeks milling in front of the Kenai-Kasilof mouths before finally committing to the river. Had there been sockeye set gillnets deployed along the beach corridor (they were closed by emergency order effective July 27) even fewer of these fish would have made it past the gauntlet. Certainly so for fish #9562 who burned 25 days in the Inlet mindlessly running the relay between Kenai and Kasilof before finally committing post haste to the Kenai on Aug 19.
    "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

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    I took it upon myself to record the migration of every tagged chinook in greater detail.

    There were a total of 12 chinook tracked. Five of those fish (42%) never escaped to fulfill their life purpose… they simply never made it to the river. While it's remotely possible they may have succumbed to predators (beluga, salmon shark, seal) their most probable fate was entanglement in a drift gill net.

    Of the seven fish that entered the Kenai, most spent 2-3 weeks milling in front of the Kenai-Kasilof mouths before finally committing to the river. Had there been sockeye set gillnets deployed along the beach corridor (they were closed by emergency order effective July 27) even fewer of these fish would have made it past the gauntlet. Certainly so for fish #9562 who burned 25 days in the Inlet mindlessly running the relay between Kenai and Kasilof before finally committing post haste to the Kenai on Aug 19.
    Hey Doc, since you took the time to track everyone, I'll be lazy and ask. Did any of the kings tracked "disappear" between say Homer and Ninilchik close to the east shore? i.e. sport fishing possibility? I just saw you specifically mention drift gill nets and not set gill nets so I am assuming the tracked ones traveled further offshore? or was it simply during the time the set netters were out of the water. VERY interesting!

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    I talked to the guys doing the trolling, and tagging of salmon for this study. After talking to them and seeing how they were trolling it would be more likely the lost kings died do to C&R mortality. For fishdoc to say it was most probable drift gill net entanglement is nothing more then pointing fingers at everyone but himself. No merit in your words now doc stop passing the buck! Shame on you!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kardinal_84 View Post
    Hey Doc, since you took the time to track everyone, I'll be lazy and ask. Did any of the kings tracked "disappear" between say Homer and Ninilchik close to the east shore? i.e. sport fishing possibility? I just saw you specifically mention drift gill nets and not set gill nets so I am assuming the tracked ones traveled further offshore? or was it simply during the time the set netters were out of the water. VERY interesting!

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

    Default What about the sockeye… were they all C&R morts, too?

    I saw 29 sockeye targets migrate into UCI… one of them backed out (ultimately homing back to Kodiak). So 28 UCI sockeye recorded.

    Among those 28 targets, 13 never made it to freshwater. Despite what MGH55 has to say, the overwhelming probability is that the fate of virtually all these sockeye that failed to escape UCI was entanglement in drift gillnets. Two fish appear to have been taken by the ESSN's before they were closed... one off the Kenai Section on 7/17 and the other off the Kasilof mouth on 7/11 (possibly a fish harvested in the PU fishery as well). One lone fish made it past the Central drift fleet into the Northern District… to be entangled on a setnet site in Tyonek. That comes out to a 46% exploitation rate (13/28) among UCI sockeye tagged for this project.

    Yes it's possible that a fish or two may have succumbed to natural predation (beluga, salmon shark, seal). It's also possible that a fish or two may have died as a release mortality from the tagging project itself. Not likely, but possible. So let's be intellectually honest here… the overwhelming majority of the fish that failed to escape UCI realistically died in gillnets. Since the fish were externally marked, it's possible to have a full accounting of recovered fish if the tagged fish were reported at the time of harvest.
    "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
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Most of the drift fleet was done by the 28th of July. When you look at the date of tagging and where the kings tracking stopped and do the math, not a very high chance of a drift gill net being the cause. A king that has been a C&R victim may not be able to avoid a predator. Late in the season as the number of reds fall, seals work very hard to get fish in the areas where the kings tracking stopped.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    And now you change from kings to sockeye. Why the change? Never change horses mid stream. You end up all wetI hope we did are job and got those sockeye, that's what we are out there fishing for. Doc you can do better.
    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    I saw 29 sockeye targets migrate into UCI… one of them backed out (ultimately homing back to Kodiak). So 28 UCI sockeye recorded.

    Among those 28 targets, 13 never made it to freshwater. Despite what MGH55 has to say, the overwhelming probability is that the fate of virtually all these sockeye that failed to escape UCI was entanglement in drift gillnets. Two fish were taken by the ESSN's.. one off the Kenai Section and the other off the Kasilof Terminal area. One lone fish made it past the Central drift fleet into the Northern District… to be entangled on a set net site in Tyonek. That comes out to a 46% exploitation rate (13/28) among UCI sockeye tagged for this project.

    Yes it's possible that a fish or two may have succumbed to natural predation (beluga, salmon shark, seal). It's also possible that a fish or two may have died as a release mortality from the tagging project itself. Not likely, but possible. So let's be intellectually honest here… the overwhelming majority of the fish that failed to escape UCI realistically died in gillnets. Since the fish were externally marked, it's possible to have a full accounting of recovered fish if the tagged fish were reported at the time of harvest.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Yes let's be intellectually honest, some of the tracked fish dropped from tracking on days the gill net fleet was not even fishing. Some of the fish dropped from tracking in areas that were not open to the drift fleet. So are you going to say that the gill net fleet killed those fish? That shot came from the grassy knoll, down and to the left.

  17. #17
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kardinal_84 View Post
    Hey Doc, since you took the time to track everyone, I'll be lazy and ask. Did any of the kings tracked "disappear" between say Homer and Ninilchik close to the east shore? i.e. sport fishing possibility?
    NONE.

    All 12 of them made it past that zone into UCI. As I posted earlier, 5 perished in UCI… specifically in the time period 8/4 thru 8/16. For the record, drift gillnets were definitely still fishing during this time period. Without physical recovery of the tagged fish, no one can say with certainty what their actual fate was. While predation and release mortality are plausible, the highest and proximate probability would be capture in the fishery.

    If predation was the likely cause, boy oh boy, do we have a problem if 42% of the kings can't make it past the seals.

    If release mortality was the likely cause, how is it that ALL the tagged fish were able to migrate ALL the way up the inlet? And tracked for a week or more…. the majority for 2-3 weeks… and one for a whopping 37 days?
    "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

  18. #18
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Speaking with intellectual honesty, C&R still a possibility...

    … just NOT the release you are thinking about.

    Those fish survived their release encounter with the highly trained taggers just fine. The goal of their capture/tag/release technique is to ensure maximum survival. And it clearly showed…. the fish took off just fine and travelled for days into UCI.

    The "C&R mortality" that is FAR more probable is that from gillnets… either thru intentional conscientious release by the gillnet fleet, or by unintentional dropout. The injury/damage inflicted from a gillnet encounter can't be compared.

    In contrast to the to the research-tagged fish, the gillnet injured fish are far more likely to have resulted in direct mortality… or to be rendered so weakened as to more easily succumb to predation shortly after the gillnet encounter.
    "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

  19. #19
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    One has to admit though that 12 fish is a pretty small size group to be basing much off of.
    I wish people especially Kenai river guides would stop blaming everyone else and step back and look in a mirrior for a change.
    Has the gillnet fleet historically caught 42 percent of the Kings? The answer is absolutly not!
    If we are to use this info and guess that the gillnetts caught these 5 fish we could also guess and say whatever we wanted to to make it suit our personal cause could we not?
    I am not neccassarily siding with the commercial fishermen on this issue but saying they caught 42% of a total of 12 fish without proof of any kind is rediculous and really proves nothing. Well other than there are still a bunch of commercial fisherman haters out there who will blame them to the end for the King salmon dilema.
    Doc are you insuinating that the numbers from this small study show that the all the previous data is wrong and gillnets do catch 42% of the late run kings? Also do you think I was born yesterday?
    If you hate them that much save your money and start buying out setnet permits and not fishing them.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  20. #20
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    Doc are you insuinating that the numbers from this small study show that the all the previous data is wrong and gillnets do catch 42% of the late run kings?
    Not at all.

    Just trying to make sense of what was observed in THIS project with regard to the movement of sockeye and chinook in (and out!) of UCI.

    As has been alluded to in my last post, the fleet need not necessarily harvest 42% of the fish to result in the observed 42% mortality. Just like the in-river fishery, fish in the box/hold are just one piece of the mortality/exploitation equation.

    Regardless of who wants to blame who for the most precise and proximate cause of the marine chinook mortality observed in this project, it's clear that the environment/conditions to which these kings are subjected in UCI is NOT conducive to their survival to the next life-stage…. in-river spawner. It's clear that a good chunk of them simply don't make it into the river. Seems to me the fish did just fine traversing lower Cook Inlet. It wasn't until they encountered the gillnet fleet concentrated in front of the Kenai/Kasilof river mouths that any fish perished. Coincidence? I think not.

    I'd like to see this project repeated for several years with a bigger aggregate sample size before drawing any firm conclusions.
    "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

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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
  •