Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: BIG Kenai sockeye forecast for 2016

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

    Default BIG Kenai sockeye forecast for 2016

    4.7 million expected this summer out of 7.1 million to UCI

    "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 willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    "Forecast DiscussionThe recent 5-year average commercial harvest was used in the forecast, because regulatorychanges have substantially restricted harvests of these species in recent years"

    "The Susitna River sockeye salmon run forecast is 372,000, which is 12% less than the 10-yearaverage of 421,000."

    So we're in for strong stock management again this year; as long as in season indicators show that the forecast is right. The 4 million fish threshold for Kenai River means maximum allotted fishing times and emergency time throughout central district commercial fisheries.

    It is my bet that if fishing times are maximized the Susitna run will fall below the forecast, which is bad for the following reason: the 10 year average has left the stocks of concern in stock of concern status. A 12% lower return will not be beneficial to these stocks, nor hasten their removal from stock of concern status.

    Looks like lots of bigger fish in the forecast- that will be great! Also plenty of fish coming back to Fish Creek to allow dipnetting again; that would also be great. Weird how a system full of beavers, pike and polluted waters, and no fish hatchery, could be producing so many fish.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    willphish4food, you keep demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of what the forecast says and fish production in the valley. First, fishing time cannot make a forecast fall below the forecast. The forecast is total return and thus fishing can reduce escapements but not the total return. A forecast is either right or wrong but it cannot be changed except by data gathered in-season.

    The Susitna are stock of concern for yield not conservation. Please be complete in your use of the terms as it is misleading to imply a conservation concern.

    Next, your pike and beaver dam comment is just plain not worth responding with examples. Been there and done that before and for some reason you just cannot get it into your thinking. So be it.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    "Forecast DiscussionThe recent 5-year average commercial harvest was used in the forecast, because regulatorychanges have substantially restricted harvests of these species in recent years"

    "The Susitna River sockeye salmon run forecast is 372,000, which is 12% less than the 10-yearaverage of 421,000."

    So we're in for strong stock management again this year; as long as in season indicators show that the forecast is right. The 4 million fish threshold for Kenai River means maximum allotted fishing times and emergency time throughout central district commercial fisheries.

    It is my bet that if fishing times are maximized the Susitna run will fall below the forecast, which is bad for the following reason: the 10 year average has left the stocks of concern in stock of concern status. A 12% lower return will not be beneficial to these stocks, nor hasten their removal from stock of concern status.

    Looks like lots of bigger fish in the forecast- that will be great! Also plenty of fish coming back to Fish Creek to allow dipnetting again; that would also be great. Weird how a system full of beavers, pike and polluted waters, and no fish hatchery, could be producing so many fish.
    Yep, if only that forecast were a few million fish less... Then everyone would be happy...

  5. #5
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    willphish4food, you keep demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of what the forecast says and fish production in the valley. First, fishing time cannot make a forecast fall below the forecast. The forecast is total return and thus fishing can reduce escapements but not the total return. A forecast is either right or wrong but it cannot be changed except by data gathered in-season.

    The Susitna are stock of concern for yield not conservation. Please be complete in your use of the terms as it is misleading to imply a conservation concern.

    Next, your pike and beaver dam comment is just plain not worth responding with examples. Been there and done that before and for some reason you just cannot get it into your thinking. So be it.
    My comment on the beavers, pike and impaired status of the fish creek watershed is a response to your stand, Nerka. I'm not pulling it out of the air. You have repeatedly claimed that commercial fisheries management is not the problem with getting sockeye into Fish Creek; it is a rearing problem. You cite CIAA as the expert voice on this issue; they quit stocking big lake with Sockeye because they felt they could no longer get ROI from this program.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    "The best source of information on FishCreek is the director of Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association. They have been doing the smolt studies and they can tell you the poor survival rates. They put lots of fish into the lake and they just do not survive. This year they are holding fish to smolt size for release to bypass the lake rearing environment."
    There has been one significant change made in the Fish Creek watershed since you wrote the above, in 08. The lake's outflow was changed to allow better fish passage. If, as CIAA and you have claimed, the main issues were pike, beavers and polluted water, the run would have steadily dwindled since the hatchery program ended. We need a new theory from you to explain why not only has the run not dwindled away, but it has exceeded goals several times in recent years. Disparaging my intelligence does nothing to further science and advance management.

    Meanwhile, there have been several regulatory changes to the various cook inlet fisheries, the corridor being very significant, and large setnet closures during early July. Do these help explain the resurgence of the Fish Creek run?

    I will posit that there are many factors at play. It is easy to get lost in the weeds, or intentionally run around in the weeds, but it comes down to one thing. For fish to hatch, fish must spawn. For fish to get back to spawn, they must survive from hatching to spawning. Up to a point, the more fish that spawn, the more fish will hatch. What has changed during that lifecycle to allow so many more adults back into the stream?

    I don't understand why you keep downplaying stock of yield concern, rather than conservation. It is a stock of concern, the first on a 3 step level of severity. Any stock of concern status is put in place because goals in place for sustainable fisheries, which are required in the state's constitution, are not being met. So downplay it all you want, but it is still a stock of concern, with specific protocols in place to bring it back to a sustainable fishery.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    First, the stock of yield concern was done as a result of reduced yield and we can point to the cause of that reduction. Systems in the Susitna drainage were not producing because of pike, beaver dams, and disease. Shell Lake is a good example.

    Next, I never said beavers or pike were a cause of Fish Creek issues. The Fish Creek issues had to due with conditions in the lake and disease of smolts as they left the system. That is why you continue to fail to see the forest for the trees.

    There is no protocols in place as that would take efforts in those lake systems suffering from in lake issues. Escapements in other systems without these issues are doing O.K.

    As long as people in the valley keep focusing on harvest you will continue to see reduced returns as pike expand and habitat is degraded. It is your choice to ignore the obvious and focus on harvest. In my opinion the ignorance of the valley representatives on this issue is costing your community valuable opportunities to increase fish production. But so be it. I have heard the valley position for three decades and in that time period Susitna sockeye yields have gone from 600,000 to 100,00 or less. Yet escapements to the total Susitna have been fairly good and cannot explain this loss of production.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    As long as people in the valley keep focusing on harvest you will continue to see reduced returns as pike expand and habitat is degraded. It is your choice to ignore the obvious and focus on harvest. In my opinion the ignorance of the valley representatives on this issue is costing your community valuable opportunities to increase fish production. But so be it. I have heard the valley position for three decades and in that time period Susitna sockeye yields have gone from 600,000 to 100,00 or less. Yet escapements to the total Susitna have been fairly good and cannot explain this loss of production.
    I would add that pristine habitat is the backbone of Alaska's management principles. While Willphish is free to believe whatever nonsense he chooses, public representatives are not. These fish are a state and national resource - loss of production in the northern district due to habitat issues affects more than just the northern district. The same entity which is building a parking lot the size of 2 football fields at the mouth of the Kasilof river in the name of habitat conservation should be all over habitat and production issues in the northern district, just like they should be all over habitat assessment on the Kenai. While I know some are working on it, these issues don't seem to get as much attention or funding as they should. In recent decades, they have been virtually ignored.

  8. #8

    Default

    In completely unrelated news....

    http://radiokenai.net/nikiski-first-...nating-elodea/

    Thanks to all who are paying attention to both this and our Pike issues on the Peninsula. People all levels of Gov't have been quite responsive to invasive species issues on the Kenai, and have been working hard to keep them from getting out of hand. Willphish, perhaps they deserve some of the blame for those Kenai/Kasilof forecasts being stronger than you'd like... Ha just kidding.

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    First, the stock of yield concern was done as a result of reduced yield and we can point to the cause of that reduction. Systems in the Susitna drainage were not producing because of pike, beaver dams, and disease. Shell Lake is a good example.

    Next, I never said beavers or pike were a cause of Fish Creek issues. The Fish Creek issues had to due with conditions in the lake and disease of smolts as they left the system. That is why you continue to fail to see the forest for the trees.

    There is no protocols in place as that would take efforts in those lake systems suffering from in lake issues. Escapements in other systems without these issues are doing O.K.

    As long as people in the valley keep focusing on harvest you will continue to see reduced returns as pike expand and habitat is degraded. It is your choice to ignore the obvious and focus on harvest. In my opinion the ignorance of the valley representatives on this issue is costing your community valuable opportunities to increase fish production. But so be it. I have heard the valley position for three decades and in that time period Susitna sockeye yields have gone from 600,000 to 100,00 or less. Yet escapements to the total Susitna have been fairly good and cannot explain this loss of production.
    Nerka, you're completely sidestepping the point I am making. I have never claimed that pike are not a problem in the Susitna. I whole heartedly agree with you that compromised habitat has affected Susitna and Yentna sockeye returns. But I disagree with you that those are the only things affecting them, that changing commercial fishery management would have no effect. But that's a red herring to my point about Fish Creek- distract, distort, confuse. Those are Goebel's tactics, not those of a research minded biologist. It does not explain Fish Creek, which is not part of the Susitna drainage.

    Your claim: "The Fish Creek issues had to due with conditions in the lake and disease of smolts as they left the system." This is a very bold claim, Nerka, but one which the evidence does not support. If this were the sole cause of the successive years of very poor returns to Fish Creek, then returns would still be very poor, as little has been done to change those conditions. The wild stock would not have been able to recover and produce high per spawner yields. How do you explain that? You cannot, or will not, so you resort to badgering me and other valley residents for our belief that interception of adult fish has played a very significant role in the returns to Fish Creek.

    "There is no protocols in place as that would take efforts in those lake systems suffering from in lake issues. Escapements in other systems without these issues are doing O.K."

    Good point, Nerka, and exactly what I am saying, at least in the first half. There is no protocol in place to clean up and improve the habitat in Fish Creek/Big Lake. This is the lake system that is suffering from in lake issues, yet lets take a look at the last few years' escapements. 2008-19k 2009- 83.5k 2010- 126.8k 2011- 66.7k 2012- 18.8k. 2013 18.9k 2014 43.9k 2015 102.3k. Nerka, these are awesome escapement per spawner numbers. Even after dipnetting taking a good chunk of the run in the years with numbers over 40k, the numbers are pretty sweet. The vast majority of Fish Creek salmon are 1 and 2 ocean fish. for 2015, the escapement of 102,300 sockeye came out of runs of 18.9k (2 ocean) and 43.9k (1 0cean), and a smattering of fish from an 18.8k run. How can wild fish produce such great returns per spawner if they are spawned and reared in a habitat that was unable to support the threshold of the goals? Your assertion that in lake issues are what caused Fish Creek to consistently fail to meet lower end goals is ludicrous in the face of the escapement numbers, as the issues to which you point have not changed. And these escapement numbers are the best possible; they come from a weir in a shallow stream with no open sockeye fishing upstream of it.

  10. #10
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    In completely unrelated news....

    http://radiokenai.net/nikiski-first-...nating-elodea/

    Thanks to all who are paying attention to both this and our Pike issues on the Peninsula. People all levels of Gov't have been quite responsive to invasive species issues on the Kenai, and have been working hard to keep them from getting out of hand. Willphish, perhaps they deserve some of the blame for those Kenai/Kasilof forecasts being stronger than you'd like... Ha just kidding.
    This is good news, as is any news about proactive watershed management.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    It is my bet that if [Central District] fishing times are maximized the Susitna run will fall below the forecast
    Same old story from willphish: Forego harvest of healthy Central District runs to increase yields in production-plagued Susitna runs.

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Weird how a system full of beavers, pike and polluted waters, and no fish hatchery, could be producing so many fish.
    Again, his same old story: Just keep feeding systems with known production problems more fish at the cost of other productive systems south, and those runs will magically become strong again.

    Just once I would like willphish to use the data, do the math, reference the facts, and show how his plan to squelch the Central District has merit - show us how it works. After all, anyone can concoct an ideology, conjecture, assume, and argue.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    I don't want to step too deeply into this issue, but the concern being raised is not uncommon in the world of Pacific salmon management.

    Those folks who are not getting good returns (e.g., the folks farthest upstream) are constantly asking the folks downstream to lay off "their" fish until those fish can reach their spawning grounds, even if it means forgone fishing opportunity elsewhere.

    Although they frame the issue as a conservation concern, their interest is usually focused on harvesting those fish for themselves. This upstream/downstream issue is normal in the Columbia River, particularly for spring Chinook. Both Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe want to see more of those spring Chinook in their backyard, so they are always pushing Washington and Oregon to "cease-and-desist" until lots of those fish clear Lower Granite dam at the Washington/Idaho border.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    I don't want to step too deeply into this issue, but the concern being raised is not uncommon in the world of Pacific salmon management.

    Those folks who are not getting good returns (e.g., the folks farthest upstream) are constantly asking the folks downstream to lay off "their" fish until those fish can reach their spawning grounds, even if it means forgone fishing opportunity elsewhere.

    Although they frame the issue as a conservation concern, their interest is usually focused on harvesting those fish for themselves. This upstream/downstream issue is normal in the Columbia River, particularly for spring Chinook. Both Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe want to see more of those spring Chinook in their backyard, so they are always pushing Washington and Oregon to "cease-and-desist" until lots of those fish clear Lower Granite dam at the Washington/Idaho border.
    At the same time, exploitation rates on these weak and ESA listed stocks have been severely reduced for real conservation concerns due to low productivity resulting from freshwater habitat and passage problems.

  14. #14
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    Same old story from willphish: Forego harvest of healthy Central District runs to increase yields in production-plagued Susitna runs.

    Again, his same old story: Just keep feeding systems with known production problems more fish at the cost of other productive systems south, and those runs will magically become strong again.

    Just once I would like willphish to use the data, do the math, reference the facts, and show how his plan to squelch the Central District has merit - show us how it works. After all, anyone can concoct an ideology, conjecture, assume, and argue.
    Its not worth even engaging you, as you will only attack my person rather than the figures, but here goes... I am not talking about the Susitna river. I am talking about Fish Creek, where the depleted runs were blamed on pollution, pike and beavers. The hatchery program was pulled because so few fish were returning from it. now that the hatchery is gone, and the man made fish passage problem into Big Lake has been resolved, runs of less than 20,000 fish are ESCAPING over 100,000 fish. We have no idea what the actual return in 2015 was; the more than 100,000 is escapement through the weir. Compromised habitat did not stop these fish from being spawned, reared, and returning. If compromised habitat is not limiting the escapement, then what is?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Its not worth even engaging you, as you will only attack my person rather than the figures, but here goes... I am not talking about the Susitna river. I am talking about Fish Creek, where the depleted runs were blamed on pollution, pike and beavers. The hatchery program was pulled because so few fish were returning from it. now that the hatchery is gone, and the man made fish passage problem into Big Lake has been resolved, runs of less than 20,000 fish are ESCAPING over 100,000 fish. We have no idea what the actual return in 2015 was; the more than 100,000 is escapement through the weir. Compromised habitat did not stop these fish from being spawned, reared, and returning. If compromised habitat is not limiting the escapement, then what is?
    Willphish4food, again you use selective data with little understanding of the system you are talking about. First CIAA pulled out because they ran a smolt program and documented very poor freshwater survival. IHN in outmigration of smolt was just one factor in poor survival. Next, meadow creek sockeye were eliminated for the State hatchery. This system was restocked after the hatchery closed. Next, the outlet of the lake was modified to increase fish survival. Finally, systems can have years when things come together to produce fish but one needs the brood tables to look at production over the long term. I know you do not have those.

    No one in ADF&G is saying Big Lake is a system that produces sockeye consistently or that the Lake does not have pollution issues. ADF&G has put out reports on the lake condition. Willphish4food, you failed to mention that in your post.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I am not talking about the Susitna river. I am talking about Fish Creek, where the depleted runs were blamed on pollution, pike and beavers. The hatchery program was pulled because so few fish were returning from it. now that the hatchery is gone, and the man made fish passage problem into Big Lake has been resolved, runs of less than 20,000 fish are ESCAPING over 100,000 fish. We have no idea what the actual return in 2015 was; the more than 100,000 is escapement through the weir. Compromised habitat did not stop these fish from being spawned, reared, and returning. If compromised habitat is not limiting the escapement, then what is?
    Here's the link to the most recent UCI management report, from which I cut and pasted.

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR15-20.pdf

    "Fish Creek Sockeye salmon runs to Fish Creek, which drains Big Lake and flows into Knik Arm, have been highly variable. There have been inconsistencies in achieving the escapement goal for this system (Appendix B10) and in total run size. Since 1998 (17 years), escapements have been below the goal 8 years, within the goal range 5 years, and exceeded the goal in 4 years. Additionally, from 1980 to 1996, the average total run was 212,000 fish; from 1997 to 2001 and 2004 to 2008 (8 total years), the average total run fell to 42,000 fish (Tobias and Willette 2004), while the total sockeye salmon run to Fish Creek in 1997, 20022003, and 20092013 (7 total years) averaged nearly 115,000 fish. The 2014 total run forecast for Fish Creek sockeye salmon was 79,000 fish (Table 3; Appendix C1); the actual estimated total run was approximately 65,000 fish (Tables 5 and 6). The escapement goal at Fish Creek is an SEG of 20,00070,000 fish; the final escapement in 2014 was estimated at approximately 44,000 fish (Table 1). Using an age-composition allocation method of allocating the commercial harvest to stock of origin, the commercial fishery harvest rate of Fish Creek sockeye salmon averages approximately 34% per year. In 2014, approximately 15,000 Fish Creek sockeye salmon were estimated to have been harvested commercially, which equates to a harvest rate of 23% for this stock. A decline in sockeye salmon numbers in the late 1990s led to a technical review assessing Fish Creek sockeye salmon production. This review was completed prior to the 2002 BOF meeting (Litchfield and Willette 2001). The report proposed 2 likely causes for the decline in sockeye salmon production: 1) degradation of spawning habitat as a result of questionable hatchery practices; and 2) placement of a coffer dam at the outlet of the lake, which prevented many wild fry from being able to recruit into the lake, as well as causing a productive spawning area at the lake outlet to be filled in with silt and mud. At the 2002 BOF meeting, Fish Creek sockeye salmon were found to be a stock of yield concern, and ADF&G proposed additional studies to more clearly define limitations to sockeye salmon production in this system. As a result of identifying the coffer dam as a barrier to upstream migration of juvenile sockeye salmon fry, modifications were made at the lake outlet that allowed fry to more easily recruit into Big Lake. It was expected that more adults would again utilize this productive spawning area. Fish hatchery culture methods and stocking procedures were also modified in the hope that these changes, combined with the modifications at the lake outlet, would improve sockeye salmon production in Big Lake. In response to improved runs, Fish Creek sockeye salmon were removed as a stock of yield concern at the 2005 BOF meeting. CIAA historically stocked Big Lake with sockeye salmon fry, but fry-to-smolt survival was very poor (Dodson 2006). The number of smolt emigrating Big Lake from 2003 to 2008 ranged from 117,000 to 632,000 fish (http://www.ciaanet.org/). In an attempt to try and isolate the mechanisms

    leading to poor juvenile survival, CIAA released fish at 3 different time intervals and juvenile life history stage: spring fry, fall fry, and spring smolt. However, the number of smolt emigrating Big Lake did not increase, even with the stocking of larger juveniles. As a result of the poor sockeye salmon smolt emigrations from Big Lake, CIAA ceased enhancement activities after the fry release in 2008. From 2002 to 2012, the average annual hatchery proportion of the run to Big Lake was 40%, ranging from 2% in 2002 to 73% in 2006."



    Willphish, you listed 8 years of escapements in your previous post. Did you realize that 5 of those years still contained hatchery origin fish in the return?

    This is by all accounts a highly variable system - for a host of reasons, yet you constantly use it to make arguments and draw your conclusions.

    In 2014, approximately 15,000 Fish Creek sockeye salmon were estimated to have been harvested commercially, which equates to a harvest rate of 23% for this stock.

    Why are you so focused on Fish Creek? Even in the best documented years, total returns to this system averaged only 200,000 fish. The Susitna drainage could dwarf that if it was productive. The Kenai and Kasilof both return MILLIONS of sockeye each year, resulting in the catch and harvest of many millions of Sockeye for many user groups and people. Why the hell would we drastically change Cook Inlet fisheries management, possibly foregoing harvest on millions of Sockeye to improve (already goal-making) returns in an upstream drainage by a piddly 15,000-20,000 fish? Especially when people from the Fish Creek area harvest many times more Sockeye from the Kenai/Kasilof rivers than they ever could Fish Creek?

    Nothing personal Willphish - believe what you want, but it troubles me that data and theory like yours is the kind of nonsense that your government-paid lobbyists are pounding into our legislators' and BOF members' heads. It's bad for everyone.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Its not worth even engaging you, as you will only attack my person rather than the figures, but here goes... I am not talking about the Susitna river. I am talking about Fish Creek, where the depleted runs were blamed on pollution, pike and beavers. The hatchery program was pulled because so few fish were returning from it. now that the hatchery is gone, and the man made fish passage problem into Big Lake has been resolved, runs of less than 20,000 fish are ESCAPING over 100,000 fish. We have no idea what the actual return in 2015 was; the more than 100,000 is escapement through the weir. Compromised habitat did not stop these fish from being spawned, reared, and returning. If compromised habitat is not limiting the escapement, then what is?
    That's hogwash willphish. What I attack is not you, it is your ill-informed ideology and your ad nauseam attempts to ruin healthy fisheries and use commercial fishing as your scapegoat. I consistently give you every opportunity to attach merit to your claims using the facts and figures. But you never do.

    For the record, you were talking about the Susitna River - right from your first post. You simply used Fish Creek as a distraction...

    "It is my bet that if [commercial] fishing times are maximized the Susitna run will fall below the forecast..." - willphish4food


    willphish, there is a reason Fish Creek has a SEG of 20,000 sockeye with a range of 50,000. There is also a reason Fish Creek's returns have generated several Big Lake production enhancement projects. And it ain't because of commercial fishing time in the Central District.

  18. #18
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    That's hogwash willphish. What I attack is not you, it is your ill-informed ideology and your ad nauseam attempts to ruin healthy fisheries and use commercial fishing as your scapegoat. I consistently give you every opportunity to attach merit to your claims using the facts and figures. But you never do.

    For the record, you were talking about the Susitna River - right from your first post. You simply used Fish Creek as a distraction...

    "It is my bet that if [commercial] fishing times are maximized the Susitna run will fall below the forecast..." - willphish4food


    willphish, there is a reason Fish Creek has a SEG of 20,000 sockeye with a range of 50,000. There is also a reason Fish Creek's returns have generated several Big Lake production enhancement projects. And it ain't because of commercial fishing time in the Central District.
    I don't know, fun, that sounds pretty personal. You're stating that what I say is "hogwash," my "ideology is ill-informed," what I write causes nausea...

    As to commercial fishing time not causing Fish Creek to fall below its goals: the report states that commercial fishing takes on average about 35% of the fish creek run... so on years when escapement was in the 18k range, with zero personal use or sport fishing during the run, the estimated run would be 28,000 fish, safely within the goal. Less commercial fishing time in the areas that carry the highest concentrations of Fish Creek fish would have allowed the Sustainable Escapement goals to be met.

    I do not want to end commercial fishing, as you try to make people believe. I am for management of the fishery so that other fisheries are not completely closed or runs decimated past their recovery point. The commercial fishery can catch fewer fish, and still fish, still make mass profit, AND allow thousands of Alaska residents to participate in a traditional fishery. What do you call your vehement opposition to that type of management?

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I do not want to end commercial fishing, as you try to make people believe. I am for management of the fishery so that other fisheries are not completely closed or runs decimated past their recovery point. The commercial fishery can catch fewer fish, and still fish, still make mass profit, AND allow thousands of Alaska residents to participate in a traditional fishery. What do you call your vehement opposition to that type of management?
    Again, your preference would be to forego harvest on possibly millions of Sockeye in one system for an increased 15,000-20,000 fish yield in another. I don't get it.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,036

    Default

    willphish4food, I oppose your idea of fish management because it is not about fish management at all. It is about you getting more allocation, and it's all based on an unwillingness to understand goals, yields, productivity problems, and an insatiable fetish for scapegoating the commercial fishery.

    In the last 20 years Fish Creek has met or exceeded it's goal 15 years, or 75% of the time. That is remarkable from a management perspective and aligns with SEG goal criteria, especially considering the inherent and unpredictable freshwater problems this particular stream exhibits. For 5 of those years or 25% of the time, goals were exceeded causing a total surplus of almost 150,000 fish. Yes, also for 5 of those 20 years or 25% of the time, goals were missed (barely) totaling only about 9,000 fish.

    Reference: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishCounts/

    That's right willphish. Fish Creek is missing a whopping 9,000 fish spread out over the last 20 years, while in that same time providing a surplus of 150,000. Yet you want to close commercial fishing time, all while dramatically impacting our most utilized, abundant, and healthy runs of millions of sockeye. I do not find that rational.


    Clearly you are incapable of understanding what Fish Creek's goal means when you talk about "decimated runs past their recovery point". Or you are deliberately planting the seed of hyperbole as leverage in your allocation war. Fish Creek's SEG provides for sustained yields over long periods. It allows for ups and downs throughout the years. It's very wide escapement range is based on inconsistent productivity and uncertainty - smack face things your ideology just can't grasp in lieu of scapegoating the commercial fishery.

    You further expose your reallocation ideology (what you call fish management), when you suggest closing commercial fishing so Alaskans can participate in a traditional fishery. Apparently in your mind, Alaskans don't already have enough opportunity to fill their freezers in traditional fisheries, even as Fish Creek and other streams throughout the State just provided more sockeye than Alaskans could possibly harvest. Apparently in your mind, the very commercial fishery you want to close is somehow not a traditional fishery providing for Alaskans.

    Willphish, for the sake of protecting our fisheries and other users, I will continue to attack your irrational ideology. I can't help it if you take that personally.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •