Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59

Thread: cook inlet salmon management plan

  1. #1

    Default cook inlet salmon management plan

    What a joke. Trying the fish managers hands with this ridiculous plan. The kasilof will overescape in all likelihood the Kenai will overescape and larsen lake has yet to have a sockeye return . All this when oil revenues are down and the state and the cook inlet region could use a shot in the arm. But wait! We do have the kasilof terminal harvest area available to us. Fish board members should be tarred and feathered and run out of state on a rail.

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Assessment of the 2015 Upper Cook Inlet Sockeye Salmon Run

    On July 28, 201
    5, Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) Commercial Fisheries staff estimated the total Kenai River sockeye salmon run to date to be 2.0 million fish. The final run to the Kenai River is projected to range from 2.3 million to 3.5 million sockeye salmon.

    The entire UCI sockeye salmon run to date was estima
    ted to be 3.7 million fish through July 27, with a final run projected to range from 4.2 million to 5.9 million fish.

    With this inseason assessment, management of the Upper Subdistrict set gillnet and Central
    District drift gillnet commercial fisheries remain under the guidelines for run sizes of 2.3 million to 4.6 million Kenai River sockeye salmon. Based on this projected run size, the Kenai River sockeye salmon inriver goal remains at 1.0 million to 1.2 million fish.
    "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

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    What a joke. Trying the fish managers hands with this ridiculous plan. The kasilof will overescape in all likelihood the Kenai will overescape and larsen lake has yet to have a sockeye return . All this when oil revenues are down and the state and the cook inlet region could use a shot in the arm. But wait! We do have the kasilof terminal harvest area available to us. Fish board members should be tarred and feathered and run out of state on a rail.
    But it really isn't that simple. Northern district bound coho and chum get scooped up along with the abundant Kenai and Kasilof fish. Sockeyes returning to areas where they are listed as stocks of concern get caught in higher numbers with increased fishing hours for Kenai/Kasilof sockeye. Catching fewer sockeye from those systems impacts those systems far less than does catching more fish from areas of less abundance.

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

    Default

    Thru 7/28 comm fish reports 1.66 million reds taken in the Central District.... along with 5.7K kings.

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...salmon_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

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    But it really isn't that simple. Northern district bound coho and chum get scooped up along with the abundant Kenai and Kasilof fish. Sockeyes returning to areas where they are listed as stocks of concern get caught in higher numbers with increased fishing hours for Kenai/Kasilof sockeye. Catching fewer sockeye from those systems impacts those systems far less than does catching more fish from areas of less abundance.
    Is this an issue for drifters, less so for beach nets?

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tee Jay View Post
    Is this an issue for drifters, less so for beach nets?
    One would think so, but both fisheries affect Northern bound fish. Drifters, since they catch more fish, catch more Northern bound fish, but the genetic study showed some beach sets with good numbers of Northern District fish.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    The issue of Northern bound fish is about allocation not conservation and willphish4food knows it. The sockeye concern has to do with systems with serious in-river issues. The exploitation rate of the drift fleet is very low on chum and coho (less than 15%) and can in no way threaten the Northern stocks. However, when you want all the fish then use biological reasons to get an allocation objective.

  8. #8
    Member MaximumPenetration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The issue of Northern bound fish is about allocation not conservation and willphish4food knows it. The sockeye concern has to do with systems with serious in-river issues. The exploitation rate of the drift fleet is very low on chum and coho (less than 15%) and can in no way threaten the Northern stocks. However, when you want all the fish then use biological reasons to get an allocation objective.
    Hey Nerka, are there any studies that determine how many of the coho caught by the drift fleet are destined for the Kenai River?
    An unarmed man is subject, an armed man is a citizen.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumPenetration View Post
    Hey Nerka, are there any studies that determine how many of the coho caught by the drift fleet are destined for the Kenai River?
    Yes there are and it is a very low percentage. I do not have them in front of me but I remember something less than 1% but need to verify that.

  10. #10
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The issue of Northern bound fish is about allocation not conservation and willphish4food knows it. The sockeye concern has to do with systems with serious in-river issues. The exploitation rate of the drift fleet is very low on chum and coho (less than 15%) and can in no way threaten the Northern stocks. However, when you want all the fish then use biological reasons to get an allocation objective.
    There is a very active debate over this issue, and strong evidence that it is not allocation only as Nerka states, but conservation as well. Trying to shut down an opposing view point is not the sole proprietorship of Nerka. It is a tactic used by many in the state, as is readily observed at any Cook Inlet Board of Fish meeting. It is not a settled argument like Nerka so boldly asserts.

    "The exploitation rate of the drift fleet is very low on chum and coho (less than 15%) and can in no way threaten the Northern stocks." This statement defies logic. Since one stock is smaller, the exploitation rate of that stock logically will be low as a percentage of the whole. But that doesn't mean that stock isn't affected.

  11. #11
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    There is a very active debate over this issue, and strong evidence that it is not allocation only as Nerka states, but conservation as well. Trying to shut down an opposing view point is not the sole proprietorship of Nerka. It is a tactic used by many in the state, as is readily observed at any Cook Inlet Board of Fish meeting. It is not a settled argument like Nerka so boldly asserts.

    "The exploitation rate of the drift fleet is very low on chum and coho (less than 15%) and can in no way threaten the Northern stocks." This statement defies logic. Since one stock is smaller, the exploitation rate of that stock logically will be low as a percentage of the whole. But that doesn't mean that stock isn't affected.
    Of course the stock is affected. Every fishery affects the stock. The question is, does it affect the stock in such a way that the stock cannot be sustained? I think not, cause the fishery has been going on for a long time.
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  12. #12

    Default

    Willphish, do you think the drifters in the current management plan are destroying northern bound Coho and Chum stocks? Do you think setnets are? If so, what evidence/data do you have, and what do you propose for a solution?

    Obviously the nets let lots of fish by this year. Wasn't last year a great silver year? I think this year will be too.

    And how many people actively sport fish for chum? Should they be high on the sport fish priority radar?

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    There is a very active debate over this issue, and strong evidence that it is not allocation only as Nerka states, but conservation as well. Trying to shut down an opposing view point is not the sole proprietorship of Nerka. It is a tactic used by many in the state, as is readily observed at any Cook Inlet Board of Fish meeting. It is not a settled argument like Nerka so boldly asserts.

    "The exploitation rate of the drift fleet is very low on chum and coho (less than 15%) and can in no way threaten the Northern stocks." This statement defies logic. Since one stock is smaller, the exploitation rate of that stock logically will be low as a percentage of the whole. But that doesn't mean that stock isn't affected.
    I said threaten. An exploitation rate of 15% is well below levels for a fixed exploitation rate fishery model. If the habitat remains healthy one can harvest at this level and sustain the resource. However, add pike, beaver dams, elodea, and other diseases to the mix and you get a loss of production.

    What is your strong evidence it is not allocation. Produce one paper that says a fixed exploitation rate of 15% when habitat is good cannot be sustained. Produce one piece of evidence that shows that harvest rates by the drift fleet are higher than ADF&G studies suggest. You cannot do it. Instead of working on solutions to in-river issues people like willphish4food want to continue to bash a red herring.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Trying to shut down an opposing view point is not the sole proprietorship of Nerka. It is a tactic used by many in the state, as is readily observed at any Cook Inlet Board of Fish meeting. It is not a settled argument like Nerka so boldly asserts.
    Thing is, you never justify your claims by doing the math, because you know the numbers don't add up and the data shows you're wrong. You never accept the studies and reports, because you know they show you're wrong - it's just easier for you to ignore the obvious in-river issues effecting your stocks and blame the commercial fisheries south of you. Folks here have been showing you the data and reports, and doing the math for you for years. Yet you appear to have no shame, and continue to post the same garbage over and over, unable to accept or acknowledge the truth. Your posts have little merit. So all you can do is portray those who prove you wrong as bad guys, and continue to deny the allocation issue.

    Lets look at your beef with the Coho for instance....

    Coho in the Northern District are enumerated at three locations; Little Su, Jim Creek, and Fish Creek.

    In the last 20 years the Little Su has met Coho goals 65% of those years - a good majority. 25% of the time it exceeded goals, sometimes by almost 300%. Yep, it's a very temperamental, fluctuating, and hard to predict run. It's had some tough times; floods, wash-outs, drought, over-fishing, predation, and just plain poor returns. Yep, the commercial fishery does have some affect. It's also had some phenomenal returns and liberalizations with an ongoing commercial fishery. All-in-all, it is being managed well.

    Jim Creek has had such great Coho returns in the past, that in 2001 managers decided to increase yields and raise the goal. With few exception it has not only met those goals, but exceeded them. Yep, there's been some downers, and again it's a temperamental system. But that's hardly the commercial fishery's fault. All-in-all, it is being managed well.

    The most stellar example is Fish Creek. In the last 15 years, not only has it met goals 87% of the time, but in the majority of years it has exceeded them, sometimes by almost 300%. In fact Fish Creek, along with streams like Cottonwood Creek and Wasilla Creek, have a history of liberalized limits and fishing time increases for Coho. All-in-all, it is being managed well.

    https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishC...adfg=main.home

    willphish4food, usually when we ask you to explain your claims, you tend to avoid the questions and mysteriously leave the thread. Go figure. We always give you the opportunity to make your case - that's not a "tactic of shutting you down." Just the opposite. So...

    Would you show us how the commercial catch south of you is ruining your fisheries - with some facts and data? Will you do the math for us - show us how it adds up?....

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Willphish: don't waste your time debating with Fun. There is no logical argument he would ever accept. You cannot do or say anything to satisfy his one sided position. He claims to be a sports angler and while he does sports fish he has commercial connections with friends and family and certainly is not a fan of in river harvest by PU or guided sports. I have been told that at BOF meetings and have seen on this site how he aupports com proposals and opposes sport and PU proposals. Every time! And while I strongly disagree with Smithtb and Nerka they at least have a sense of humor and try to provide facts or data to support their positions. Fun, unlike them, offers nothing but criticism and unpleasant accusations. when he tries he conveniently forgets the waters that have been not reaching goals, that are stocks of concern, and just how little opportunity Anch and the Mat Su Valley have had in recent years. This is clearly shown in his last post. Don't get me wrong, the others can try to draw blood too. But sometimes their posts have useful Kernels. Fun's never seem to. I can't wait to see his response to this post and look forward to the usual suspects circling the wagons in their attack of me. Let's see? First Fun, then smithtb, Hoose, tee Jay, maybe, and possibly Nerka. They are so cute coming to each other's defense!

  16. #16
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    More diversion tactic. Good post Fun. You're right, they won't answer questions. But they will 'divert'.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!

  17. #17

    Default

    I have waited and waited for a thread on the likely verrrry good sport King fishing in the Northern District. Deshka will be making the upper end of its goal with fairly unrestricted sport fishing this season - 5 king season limit back in effect! Catch statistics should be interesting this year.

    No luck on the positive threads. Only more negativity about the few stocks that aren't making goals... Maybe we could start with a list of the systems with returns that won't make goals this year? I heard silvers are showing up there - Little Susitna Coho are double last year so far - and the goal was exceeded by 36% last year. I will openly admit that there are a few times my nets can pick up northern bound coho/chum, and this year seemed better than average. When there aren't as strong of runs, those oddballs (as we call them, since they are a very small percentage of total catch), are virtually non-existent. Sort of like the exploitation concept which Nerka has tried to explain to you.

  18. #18

    Default

    This is from a Little Su thread in the freshwater fishing section of this forum:

    Quote Originally Posted by troutslayer View Post
    Now is a great time and I prefer vibrex. Find a nice hole and should do great. 3 of us went yesterday a good ways up river all managed a silver and the rest of our limit in reds in about 2 hours. We found a hole with a little bit of clean run off and we fished the muddy water line.

    Willphish, are you experiencing this type of fishing? My nets have been in the water catching primarily Kasilof sockeye longer this year than in recent years past. Have you noticed a decrease in abundance?

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Come on Quest. Why is a logical discussion that posts facts and data, and asks someone to justify their claims, too much for you to handle? Is it not a detriment to our stocks to have a discussion based on emotional conjecture? What did your post contribute? Zippo.

    This is a perfect opportunity for you and willphish4food to show the evidence and do the math - a perfect opportunity to convince us of your claims. Justify them based on the merits, and I will certainly accept them. That would be in the best interest of our stocks, and all Alaskans. But...post divisive, emotional garbage which harms our fisheries and other user groups, and you can bet I will criticize it. Why wouldn't I?

    You can only wish that I forget about missed goals, stocks of concerns, and fishing opportunity for Mat Su. When really, that is the area I am most concerned and educated about. I would love to discuss any one of those systems. Be prepared, I will have reports, data, and studies in hand. For what it's worth, unless something has changed, neither you nor willphish4food will be able to justify that the commercial fisheries ruined any of them. So which one do you want to talk about first?

    Once again you are so desperate to smear me that you must lie about who I am. So once again you have my permission to post my name and tell the world who you think I am. What BOF meetings have I attended, if any? And what proposals have I supported or opposed, if any?

    Oh, and for the record, I'm not a groupie and I don't come to anyone's defense except my own. However, I will defend posts based on their merit, no matter who posts them, you included.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Willphish, do you think the drifters in the current management plan are destroying northern bound Coho and Chum stocks? Do you think setnets are? If so, what evidence/data do you have, and what do you propose for a solution?

    Obviously the nets let lots of fish by this year. Wasn't last year a great silver year? I think this year will be too.

    And how many people actively sport fish for chum? Should they be high on the sport fish priority radar?
    Couldn't have anything to do with corridor management... no correlation at all between more restrictive areas for the drift fleet and more abundant coho returns to the valley.

    Actually, isn't that exactly what the valley contingent predicted would happen if the board accepted the proposals to limit the areas the drift fleet could fish? So far, their predictions are being met.

    Same thing with Fish Creek. Despite the total absence of hatchery enhancement now, sockeye are returning in sufficient numbers to allow dipnetting, and provide opportunity for thousands of Alaska residents to enjoy a personal use fishery in their own back yard. The nursery waters of this fishery still have beavers, now have pike, and are still heavily polluted. Yet the fish have "mysteriously" recovered. What else has happened the last two years? Many of the setnets have fished very little if at all, and the drift fleet has had its area restricted.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •