Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Matsu Salmon Research

  1. #1

    Default Matsu Salmon Research

    I received these the other day. Haven't read them yet, but others may be interested.


    Mat-Su Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2020150501.pdf


    Mat-Su Salmon Information Review & Gap Analysis Draft:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2020150501.pdf

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    I have read this and there are some good things in it but like most documents most of these recommendations will go unfunded or be designed in such a way that they will not get to completion. The other problem with this approach is that the list is very long and funding will tend to dictate what is done. Lower cost projects tend to get done first even if they rank low on the list. I will say that this is a good effort and I appreciate they took the time to do it. I would have not selected the people they did for consultants since they are so closely tied to KRSA. It just does not look good.

    However, one major point of disagreement I have with the document is the number one priority of economic evaluation. This is purely an allocative project and does not produce one more fish. The Mat/Su just cannot get out of that mind-set. They have lost hundreds of thousands of salmon to pike and it ranks second. Just cannot see that thinking. Also, they need to produce fish and if they focused on that it would reduce the list significantly. I am all for understanding how systems produce fish but this funding source will never allow that to happen. The sockeye work on the Kenai has taken 30 years. ADF&G should build that into their budget and let this short term money do some good relative to pike and other invasive species.

  3. #3
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    oh, of course you disagree with the priorities and premise of the studies coming from the valley, Nerka. Wouldn't expect anything different from you.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    oh, of course you disagree with the priorities and premise of the studies coming from the valley, Nerka. Wouldn't expect anything different from you.
    Way to help with the constructive discussion Willphish.

    Thank you Nerka for commenting on these reports. The issues you raised make sense and I agree, and am thankful to you for putting your educated opinion out there for us all to judge.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    oh, of course you disagree with the priorities and premise of the studies coming from the valley, Nerka. Wouldn't expect anything different from you.
    Willphish4food, put your personal bias aside and try to look at what I said - economic studies do nothing to create fish which is what the valley is asking for constantly. You could take the whole drift fleet catch of coho and it would not make one bit of difference in the perception of what is happening. However, if you could remove pike and have a restoration/management program you could increase sockeye and coho by measurable amounts.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Or try to put commercial fishermen out of work, and keep doing the same old thing for the next 3 to 5 years till the fish are all gone. It is so much better to just blame, and point at every other user group.

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

    Default

    It is so frustrating in trying to help the valley and they throw stones. Yet from an intellectual viewpoint they know pike are a major issue. It is number 2 on their own report yet there Senator Huggins said he gets mad when he hears this. Willphish4food takes a shot when I said I agreed with the report except for one part which was the economic study. This report had everyone in the room and it is not bad. So the collective wisdom of the group says we need to deal with pike and invasives but then no one goes forth with a plan to do so. ADF&G limits their actions to one small creek. CIAA is tracking pike with radio tags which will do nothing to create fish and the valley is still focused on harvest. It just points out to me that in UCI it is very hard to get past the emotional response even when faced with a collective effort that says we need to deal with this. I hope the decision makers on the spending of money focus on pike and bring in some new thinking.

    I have put forth some ideas but they do not want to hear from me. Willphish4food comment said it all.

    One thing science and art have in common is imagination and creativity. When faced with a problem the breakthrough comes from these areas and unfortunately most people cannot do anything new or innovative so status quo happens until someone with these attributes breaks the model. If they would just open the process up to all the crazy ideas they may just find that breakthrough. The group they had sitting around the table is not the group that will break out of this pattern.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    It is so frustrating in trying to help the valley and they throw stones. Yet from an intellectual viewpoint they know pike are a major issue. It is number 2 on their own report yet there Senator Huggins said he gets mad when he hears this. Willphish4food takes a shot when I said I agreed with the report except for one part which was the economic study. This report had everyone in the room and it is not bad. So the collective wisdom of the group says we need to deal with pike and invasives but then no one goes forth with a plan to do so. ADF&G limits their actions to one small creek. CIAA is tracking pike with radio tags which will do nothing to create fish and the valley is still focused on harvest. It just points out to me that in UCI it is very hard to get past the emotional response even when faced with a collective effort that says we need to deal with this. I hope the decision makers on the spending of money focus on pike and bring in some new thinking.

    I have put forth some ideas but they do not want to hear from me. Willphish4food comment said it all.

    One thing science and art have in common is imagination and creativity. When faced with a problem the breakthrough comes from these areas and unfortunately most people cannot do anything new or innovative so status quo happens until someone with these attributes breaks the model. If they would just open the process up to all the crazy ideas they may just find that breakthrough. The group they had sitting around the table is not the group that will break out of this pattern.
    I agree. Look at that one effort they made in the Susitna's Alexander Creek...it is now seeing the best Chinook returns in a decade, and smolts are recolonizing old rearing areas at numbers above the threshold of Pike predation. Alexander Creek is one of many in the Valley with major productivity problems - imagine if similar efforts were made on those.

    http://www.adn.com/article/20150113/...-turned-corner

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
  •