Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 87

Thread: Old MacDonald's singin' up a storm...

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

    Default Old MacDonald's singin' up a storm...

    EO here...
    EO there...
    EO EO everywhere.
    E-eye
    E-eye
    O-H-H-H

    The first litany of rec EO's announced today… PRE-season!

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/EONR/i...ADFG=region.R2
    "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
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    It is good to see the steps to save the Kenai Early Run King have started!!!!! I hope it works, and who knows the second run just might get some good out of it too.

  3. #3
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    No reason to restrict the commercial side of it yet, as sport fishing is still allowed and not shut down. MGH, this EO is for Little Su, Susitna and Yentna tribs.


    The restrictions are a necessary reaction to a long string of failed runs, and are an attempt to allow more fish into the spawning grounds to spawn. The single, solitary road accessible stream where retention of wild fish will be allowed is the Little Su. Eklutna is also road accessible and not restricted, but it is a hatchery run. All the major roadside fisheries of the Parks are hook and release only, which will reduce angler caused mortality to nearly zero.

    Most sports anglers agree to the need to restrict, having seen the runs decline over the past years. And most will also ask the question, "If there are too few fish returning to the rivers to make spawning goals and allow us to fish, why is there a commercial fishery at the mouth of the Su that catches over a thousand of these fish, with no regards to their streams of origin?" Another question asked is "what good will our conservation measures do, if there is still a commercial fishery conducting business as usual?"

    I asked these very questions to one of the ADF&G comfish employees last summer. He responded that it was a very small number of fish. that there are over 250 streams in the anadromous catalog that these fish are being caught from. Northern District had been restricted... (to catching an average number of fish) He basically laughed off all my concerns.

    But this was my point. After the 2012 summer, only 3 of the 17 streams that fish and game monitors for kings met their minimum goals. One of these, the Deshka, had catchable surplus within its range, but it was also restricted inseason in order to stay within range. The other 2 streams had less than a thousand kings between them over the minimum, and were no where near the top end of their goals. They had both missed goals in several of the past 5 years, as well. With Deshka out of the equation, the other 16 rivers had a net deficit; the two rivers that met goals did not have enough excess fish to cover the deficit, if they were all together in a pool with the rivers that did not meet goals. For many of the streams that missed goals, this made several years in a row missed.

    System wide, there were not enough fish to allow the harvest of 1200 or more kings, unless they were specifically targeted in the Deshka. If the enumerated streams are the measuring stick, then over 80% did not meet escapement, and this should be applied to all the streams in the catalog. This is the available science. The Board and Department are charged to manage by the best available science. So the Department is fine prosecuting a blanket fishery on stocks that are over 80% failed, while closing sport fishing on the same stocks due to conservation concerns. Basically, they're saying that there are still a couple rivers out there with enough fish in them, so we can't afford to miss that commercial opportunity on mixed stocks in order to conserve the rest that have consistently failed to meet goals.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    No reason to restrict the commercial side of it yet, as sport fishing is still allowed and not shut down. MGH, this EO is for Little Su, Susitna and Yentna tribs.


    The restrictions are a necessary reaction to a long string of failed runs, and are an attempt to allow more fish into the spawning grounds to spawn. The single, solitary road accessible stream where retention of wild fish will be allowed is the Little Su. Eklutna is also road accessible and not restricted, but it is a hatchery run. All the major roadside fisheries of the Parks are hook and release only, which will reduce angler caused mortality to nearly zero.

    Most sports anglers agree to the need to restrict, having seen the runs decline over the past years. And most will also ask the question, "If there are too few fish returning to the rivers to make spawning goals and allow us to fish, why is there a commercial fishery at the mouth of the Su that catches over a thousand of these fish, with no regards to their streams of origin?" Another question asked is "what good will our conservation measures do, if there is still a commercial fishery conducting business as usual?"

    I asked these very questions to one of the ADF&G comfish employees last summer. He responded that it was a very small number of fish. that there are over 250 streams in the anadromous catalog that these fish are being caught from. Northern District had been restricted... (to catching an average number of fish) He basically laughed off all my concerns.

    But this was my point. After the 2012 summer, only 3 of the 17 streams that fish and game monitors for kings met their minimum goals. One of these, the Deshka, had catchable surplus within its range, but it was also restricted inseason in order to stay within range. The other 2 streams had less than a thousand kings between them over the minimum, and were no where near the top end of their goals. They had both missed goals in several of the past 5 years, as well. With Deshka out of the equation, the other 16 rivers had a net deficit; the two rivers that met goals did not have enough excess fish to cover the deficit, if they were all together in a pool with the rivers that did not meet goals. For many of the streams that missed goals, this made several years in a row missed.

    System wide, there were not enough fish to allow the harvest of 1200 or more kings, unless they were specifically targeted in the Deshka. If the enumerated streams are the measuring stick, then over 80% did not meet escapement, and this should be applied to all the streams in the catalog. This is the available science. The Board and Department are charged to manage by the best available science. So the Department is fine prosecuting a blanket fishery on stocks that are over 80% failed, while closing sport fishing on the same stocks due to conservation concerns. Basically, they're saying that there are still a couple rivers out there with enough fish in them, so we can't afford to miss that commercial opportunity on mixed stocks in order to conserve the rest that have consistently failed to meet goals.
    More misinformation from willphish4food I copied the estimates of abundance done by LGL and ADF&G below. As you can see 89,000 chinook went upstream of the Yentna. So when you add in the Yentna component over 100,000 fish went into the system in 2013. Also look at the distribution - most of the fish are going to non-road areas which means that the smaller eastside streams just cannot handle the pressure from sport fishing. This is a fishing power/distribution issue not a harvest issue in the over all system. The commercial fishery took around 1,000 fish and not at the mouth of the Susitna. This is less than 1% of the total chinook entering the Northern District. No wonder the comm fish guys laughed at you willphish4food - your position makes no sense given these data. Also for the record not all of the Susitna was closed to sport fishing just those streams with high pressure.

    Based on 568 Chinook salmon radio-tagged in the Lower River that
    appeared to spawn above the tagging site, and an estimated 19,952
    Chinook salmon measuring 50 cm METF or greater inspected for tags at
    the Deshka River and Montana Creek weirs, the estimated escapement of
    Chinook salmon to the Susitna River above the Yentna River confluence
    was 89,463 (SE = 9,523). Of these, an estimated 18,469 (SE = 1,573)
    spawned in the Deshka River drainage, 24,408 (SE = 3,008) spawned in
    the Talkeetna River drainage, 16,867 (SE = 1,873) spawned in east side
    tributaries below the Talkeetna River, 2,432 (SE = 259) spawned in west
    side tributaries or in or near the mainstem between the Chulitna and
    Deshka rivers, 19,607 (SE = 2,161) spawned in the Chulitna River
    drainage, and 7,680 (SE = 898) spawned in tributaries or in or near the
    mainstem between the Chulitna River and Devils Canyon.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    No reason to restrict the commercial side of it yet, as sport fishing is still allowed and not shut down. MGH, this EO is for Little Su, Susitna and Yentna tribs.

    The restrictions are a necessary reaction to a long string of failed runs, and are an attempt to allow more fish into the spawning grounds to spawn. The single, solitary road accessible stream where retention of wild fish will be allowed is the Little Su. Eklutna is also road accessible and not restricted, but it is a hatchery run. All the major roadside fisheries of the Parks are hook and release only, which will reduce angler caused mortality to nearly zero.

    Most sports anglers agree to the need to restrict, having seen the runs decline over the past years. And most will also ask the question, "If there are too few fish returning to the rivers to make spawning goals and allow us to fish, why is there a commercial fishery at the mouth of the Su that catches over a thousand of these fish, with no regards to their streams of origin?" Another question asked is "what good will our conservation measures do, if there is still a commercial fishery conducting business as usual?"
    From the EO:

    "Northern Cook Inlet king salmon runs have been well below average since 2007, and this trend is expected to continue in 2014. Below average runs during previous years, past performance of fisheries within the Susitna and Little Susitna drainages under previous years’ management strategies, and uncertainty over how returns may recover in the future justify starting the 2014 season with these restrictions. Data gathered from weirs, boat surveys, and aerial surveys will be used to gauge run strength during the season. This management strategy, in combination with reducing Northern District commercial king salmon fishing periods from five to four periods, and reducing each period from 12 hours to 6 hours, is designed to provide fishing opportunity throughout the season and reduce the potential for midseason closures, yet achieve the escapement goals in Northern Cook Inlet."

    Not exactly "business as usual" for anyone at this point. Wish you would stick to the facts...

    And the commercial fisheries may well be restricted even further - ADFG does not usually give commercial fishermen a month's notice for restrictions. They are expected to stay informed, and restrictions/liberalizations can be EO'd within minutes of an opening/closure.

  6. #6
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Smith, you say I misinform. I referenced 2012 run data in my call to fish and game, not 2013, as you did. 4 6 hour periods is 33 percent more fishing time than northern district had prior to the 2005 BOF meeting. The "restriction" is a restriction from liberalized regulations in 2 straight board meetings, which have been followed, in your quote of ADFG literature, by ""Northern Cook Inlet king salmon runs... well below average since 2007". Yet the only preseason restriction now is to keep them above the level of effort that they were granted when healthier runs were expected.

    Meanwhile, sport fishing is restricted to levels not seen since the mid 90's when the deshka was actually closed to king fishing, and ND commercial was completely closed. [/I]

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    4 6 hour periods is 33 percent more fishing time than northern district had prior to the 2005 BOF meeting. The "restriction" is a restriction from liberalized regulations in 2 straight board meetings, which have been followed, in your quote of ADFG literature, by ""Northern Cook Inlet king salmon runs... well below average since 2007". Yet the only preseason restriction now is to keep them above the level of effort that they were granted when healthier runs were expected.
    [/I]
    Forgive me, I do not know the history of this fishery as well as you. Are you saying that prior to 2005, the ND only had 3-6 hour periods, or 18 total hours of fishing time available by regulation? I did not realize just how insignificant this fishery really is! Still not sure how that qualifies your "business as usual" statement.

    Also, I hope you realize how speculative you are being simply because there weren't more preseason restrictions on this fishery in FEBRUARY. As I said, those guys don't need months of notice. Give it a break man, you'll have plenty of time inseason to bash the commies with inaccurate data and hyperbole.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Back to early run Kenai River chinook salmon. Did anyone notice the obvious omission in the emergency order? Here is a hint - there are a few of these, they fish on the east side beaches, they catch early run chinook, they have fish available to them all summer and they have been granted to special interests groups.

    There are two groups actually - the educational gill net permits which fish in May and June and the Kasilof personal use gill net fishery. Last year the PU fishery was closed in-season because it starts on 15 June so there are data on which a decision is made. The educational permits, which have no priority and fish at the pleasure of the Commissioner last year were told they could not retain chinook salmon - dead ones were thrown over board. So the question - why has ADF&G not closed these fisheries? They actually have a greater probability of catching more chinook than a catch and release sport fishery - throwing over a dead chinook is still a dead chinook.

    I suspect I know the reason for this omission but maybe ADF&G representatives who read this forum can explain it - aktally???

  9. #9
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Just curious….

    Anyone have an estimate on the forgone revenue to ADFG in licenses and kings stamps that won't be sold in 2014 as a result of these sweeping EO's
    "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

  10. #10
    Member FishGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fishing your hole before you get there
    Posts
    1,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Just curious….

    Anyone have an estimate on the forgone revenue to ADFG in licenses and kings stamps that won't be sold in 2014 as a result of these sweeping EO's
    I would assume it's the same as last year.
    Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Just curious….

    Anyone have an estimate on the forgone revenue to ADFG in licenses and kings stamps that won't be sold in 2014 as a result of these sweeping EO's
    It cannot be much. The license sales for the PU fishery and other sport fisheries would over shadow the early king only license sales. Most people fish the late run kings so again given the history of this fishery I doubt it is much. There is no way to separate it out given they do not collect the data but common sense would suggest it is low.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Just curious….

    Anyone have an estimate on the forgone revenue to ADFG in licenses and kings stamps that won't be sold in 2014 as a result of these sweeping EO's
    One hundred biiiiillion dollars!!! Muahahaha!

    Don't forget the drop in property values.....

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    None that we need!
    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Just curious….

    Anyone have an estimate on the forgone revenue to ADFG in licenses and kings stamps that won't be sold in 2014 as a result of these sweeping EO's

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    It cannot be much. The license sales for the PU fishery and other sport fisheries would over shadow the early king only license sales. Most people fish the late run kings so again given the history of this fishery I doubt it is much. There is no way to separate it out given they do not collect the data but common sense would suggest it is low.
    When did they start selling licenses for the PU fishery?

  15. #15

    Default

    You must buy a sportfish license to pu fish. Unless you're old or poor, then they're free or supercheap.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Just curious….

    Anyone have an estimate on the forgone revenue to ADFG in licenses and kings stamps that won't be sold in 2014 as a result of these sweeping EO's
    The question you should be asking is what the price will be if we don't implement these EO's, and instead continue to fish the run until it is decimated. Also, keep in mind the commercial ESSN fishery, once a major economic driver, was closed to fishing Kings during this period decades ago. Alaskans managed then, just like they will manage now.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    nice to see you back Funstastic - hope you were not away for any reason other than your choice - no medical or other issues

  18. #18
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    An indicator of the impact of restrictions to Valley businesses would be state park revenue from Willow Campground last year under hook and release restrictions compared to 10 years ago with robust runs and regular fishing allowed.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    An indicator of the impact of restrictions to Valley businesses would be state park revenue from Willow Campground last year under hook and release restrictions compared to 10 years ago with robust runs and regular fishing allowed.
    Problem is willphish4food, for a long time those affected Valley businesses enjoyed their fortunes on the back of an over-exploited fishery, as much as they could, until it was gone. They created their own problem. I don't ever recall a Valley business, 10 years ago and ealier, raising their eyebrow and demanding that the unfettered sportfishing growth be restricted on behalf of the future of their business. And I certainly don't recall any Valley business being guaranteed stability or revenue based on good fishing. I do recall lots of finger-pointing and blame on other areas and users. I believe many Valley businesses consciously knew the party couldn't last forever, and that depending on fish runs was a risky venture. Man combined with money has always created a get-it-while-you can mentality. I don't begrudge the entrepreneurship, only the short-sighted sacrifice of the resource for it. Those Valley businesses, like every other business with problems, will have to adjust, ride the wave, change tactics, or move on. The exact thing we do when we fish...that's fishing.

  20. #20
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    Problem is willphish4food, for a long time those affected Valley businesses enjoyed their fortunes on the back of an over-exploited fishery, as much as they could, until it was gone. They created their own problem. I don't ever recall a Valley business, 10 years ago and ealier, raising their eyebrow and demanding that the unfettered sportfishing growth be restricted on behalf of the future of their business. And I certainly don't recall any Valley business being guaranteed stability or revenue based on good fishing. I do recall lots of finger-pointing and blame on other areas and users. I believe many Valley businesses consciously knew the party couldn't last forever, and that depending on fish runs was a risky venture. Man combined with money has always created a get-it-while-you can mentality. I don't begrudge the entrepreneurship, only the short-sighted sacrifice of the resource for it. Those Valley businesses, like every other business with problems, will have to adjust, ride the wave, change tactics, or move on. The exact thing we do when we fish...that's fishing.
    Fun, valley sport fisheries are managed by Fish and Game, and people fishing those fisheries depend on management to regulate for sustainability. Following the rules set forth by the Board and Department, Valley residents enjoyed sport fishing and businesses that support and profit from the fishing. No different than commercial fishing. But management did not prevent Chinook runs from collapsing. It did not sustain the sockeye runs. It did not sustain coho abundance. Chum salmon numbers are also down, though little is mentioned about that.

    Given today's salmon numbers compared to those of 10, 20, and 30 years ago, people are looking for answers. When actions taken seem insufficient or inadequate, people suggest other actions, and point to things they think are wrong. That is what management debate is all about. There should be no sacred cows when it comes to saving and rebuilding collapsed runs. Deriding the messenger doesn't get it done.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •