Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: Susitna Sockeye

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default Susitna Sockeye


  2. #2
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tee Jay View Post
    Thats one opinion.

  3. #3

    Default

    Interesting article with some cited opinion, and lots of good facts. Thanks for the link. DJ's articles seem informative and level-headed. Counting fish is no easy task, and this is an issue that affects both sport and commercial fishermen. Hopefully it is being worked on collaboratively by both ADFG divisions.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Interesting article with some cited opinion, and lots of good facts. Thanks for the link. DJ's articles seem informative and level-headed. Counting fish is no easy task, and this is an issue that affects both sport and commercial fishermen. Hopefully it is being worked on collaboratively by both ADFG divisions.
    Do not want to get into this too much but the article is very misleading about what happened during the Bendix years. The UCIDA comments are just flat out wrong. Today the Susitna is producing 300,000 to 400,000 fish compared to 800,000 or more in the 80's. Return per spawner is less than 2:1 and that means no harvestable surplus yet the drift fleet is still harvesting at 35-40% based on recent ADF&G studies.

    The Bendix counter was an index and yes it had error. I pointed this out in 1985 but there was little alternative as oil prices crashed and a weir program was rejected by leadership and the public. However, it was undercounting on an absolute sense but the goal was based on the counts so it was an index. In addition, the drift fleet representatives always want to use the mark/recapture estimate which everyone knows is biased high because of not meeting assumptions of the method.

    Enough said. User groups in UCI are providing more misinformation every day because of greed and competition. Sad state of affairs.

  5. #5

    Default Susitna Sockeye

    Interesting Nerka, thanks. And here I thought I was a cynic...

    I know a lot of the Susitna systems were/are counted with single aerial survey, which is also very inaccurate.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Do not want to get into this too much but the article is very misleading about what happened during the Bendix years. The UCIDA comments are just flat out wrong. Today the Susitna is producing 300,000 to 400,000 fish compared to 800,000 or more in the 80's. Return per spawner is less than 2:1 and that means no harvestable surplus yet the drift fleet is still harvesting at 35-40% based on recent ADF&G studies.

    The Bendix counter was an index and yes it had error. I pointed this out in 1985 but there was little alternative as oil prices crashed and a weir program was rejected by leadership and the public. However, it was undercounting on an absolute sense but the goal was based on the counts so it was an index. In addition, the drift fleet representatives always want to use the mark/recapture estimate which everyone knows is biased high because of not meeting assumptions of the method....
    Who are you and what have you done with the real Nerka?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Same Nerka you just never understood my positions. Relative to Susitna the system is in trouble but harvest regulations will not solve it. The lakes being monitored are doing fine but the rest of the system is not. Due in part to pike, disease, and beaver dams. But there is more going on and it will take a concentrated effort to figure it out. ADF&G has shown no desire to do that and with the budget cuts probably will continue down the path of no action. That means these resources are at further risk.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Same Nerka you just never understood my positions.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Cartoon 2.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	39.4 KB 
ID:	88095

    We all take ourselves too seriously sometimes

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    true Bfish. Enjoyed the cartoon.

  10. #10
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    There are many things in ucida's article i could adress, but i will start with this. The department went from an inseason management tool with flaws to a management tool with flaws that cannot be used inseason and which only monitors 3 lakes in the system. Up to half the sockeye in the susitna and yentna river spawn in sloughs and flowing waters and are not monitored at all now. Ucida is lobbying to exploit at a higher percentage than they do now, yet they gloss over the missed escapements in these 3 lakes under the new monitoring method.

    I agree with UCIDA that sockeye enumeration in the su/yentna is not as good as it should be. But here is a novel idea: ucida makes more money if they exploit these stocks more heavily. The inriver users of these stocks dont see increased revenue from healthier or more abundant stocks. They get more fish in their freezer. Why not increase the taxes and fees UCIDA pays to the state to fund more accurate counts, as UCIDA wants these counts in order to make more money from exploiting the resource?

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    There are many things in ucida's article i could adress, but i will start with this. The department went from an inseason management tool with flaws to a management tool with flaws that cannot be used inseason and which only monitors 3 lakes in the system. Up to half the sockeye in the susitna and yentna river spawn in sloughs and flowing waters and are not monitored at all now. Ucida is lobbying to exploit at a higher percentage than they do now, yet they gloss over the missed escapements in these 3 lakes under the new monitoring method.

    I agree with UCIDA that sockeye enumeration in the su/yentna is not as good as it should be. But here is a novel idea: ucida makes more money if they exploit these stocks more heavily. The inriver users of these stocks dont see increased revenue from healthier or more abundant stocks. They get more fish in their freezer. Why not increase the taxes and fees UCIDA pays to the state to fund more accurate counts, as UCIDA wants these counts in order to make more money from exploiting the resource?
    Sounds like a great plan. Why don't you buy everyone lunch so they can work this out?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    There are many things in ucida's article i could adress, but i will start with this. The department went from an inseason management tool with flaws to a management tool with flaws that cannot be used inseason and which only monitors 3 lakes in the system. Up to half the sockeye in the susitna and yentna river spawn in sloughs and flowing waters and are not monitored at all now. Ucida is lobbying to exploit at a higher percentage than they do now, yet they gloss over the missed escapements in these 3 lakes under the new monitoring method.

    I agree with UCIDA that sockeye enumeration in the su/yentna is not as good as it should be. But here is a novel idea: ucida makes more money if they exploit these stocks more heavily. The inriver users of these stocks dont see increased revenue from healthier or more abundant stocks. They get more fish in their freezer. Why not increase the taxes and fees UCIDA pays to the state to fund more accurate counts, as UCIDA wants these counts in order to make more money from exploiting the resource?
    Anyone who knows anything about UCI drift fishery management knows that the Susitna counts were not used for critical inseason management decisions of the drift fishery. By the time the counts come in the major decisions have been made.

    Also, willphish4food is not telling the truth again. The lake goals have been achieved but not every goal every year. This is expected and some of the goals were exceeded.

    Finally, I think pike were stocked by sport fisherman so maybe willphish4food sport fisherman should pay for removing them from the system under your logic. They have done more damage to production than fishing every has in the valley.

  13. #13
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Anyone who knows anything about UCI drift fishery management knows that the Susitna counts were not used for critical inseason management decisions of the drift fishery. By the time the counts come in the major decisions have been made.

    Also, willphish4food is not telling the truth again. The lake goals have been achieved but not every goal every year. This is expected and some of the goals were exceeded.

    Finally, I think pike were stocked by sport fisherman so maybe willphish4food sport fisherman should pay for removing them from the system under your logic. They have done more damage to production than fishing every has in the valley.
    I wish you could just enjoin a debate without calling me a liar, Nerka. It gets so old. Especially when its so patently false!

    "the Susitna counts were not used for critical inseason management decisions of the drift fishery." Now who is being mistruthful? Emergency closures of fishing periods are considered by those experiencing the closure to be "critical inseason management decisions of the drift fishery". The salmon management plan did have inseason measures in place based on the sonar count.

    I just have to laugh when I read your accusations against me, Nerka! I said: "they gloss over the missed escapements in these 3 lakes under the new monitoring method." Which they did in the article. and there have been numerous missed escapements since they went to the 3 lake weir system.

    So your response is that "The lake goals have been achieved but not every goal every year". Right, some goals have been achieved, some haven't. Exactly what I said. I said "missed escapements." I did not put a number to it. There have been missed escapements. Nerka, when you take a true statement from someone and use it to claim that they are lying, it makes you look rather foolish. Sorta like the doddering old mad scientist puttering around with his bubbling vials... and it really does little to promote healthy discourse on where to go with our fisheries management.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,038

    Default

    willphish4food, you're not being honest. You did not talk about achieved goals. You talked about "numerous missed escapements." If you want to cherry-pick and base your argument on just missed escapements like you did, then fine. But don't claim to be truthful.

    Also, closing or restricting southern fisheries based on northern counts is hardly critical in-season management. Those fish have already passed the drift fleet. As Nerka pointed out, the critical decisions for the drift fishery are made long before the fish are counted north. Yes, the MP and sonar count were used, but it's an after-the-fact management method.

    This is just willphish4food beating his theme here like a dead horse...forego healthy southern UCI fisheries for the sake of putting more fish in his production-plagued northern systems...more tax, fees, and restrictions against the commercial guys, all for the sake of better sport fishing...just keep feeding those production-plagued systems like trying to fill a bucket with holes, all at the cost of healthy fisheries south.

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

    Default

    Willphish: regrettably I have concluded that the fab five or six will NEVER change. There method is to insult in some way or another or to call those who oppose "not truthful" which is exactly the same as calling them liars. They are part of the problem of the inability to find solutions. Yours, mine, and a very few others cahoots post here will never change their attitudes or their antipathy for those who oppose their agenda. I have decided to simply not respond to their vitriol. What ever you post will have no impact. So I suggest that those of us who have views that favor others or believe that there still may be hope for an amicable solution just not participate. And remember that these few are outliers and do not speak for the majority of the commercial fishing fleets.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    Willphish: regrettably I have concluded that the fab five or six will NEVER change. There method is to insult in some way or another or to call those who oppose "not truthful" which is exactly the same as calling them liars. They are part of the problem of the inability to find solutions. Yours, mine, and a very few others cahoots post here will never change their attitudes or their antipathy for those who oppose their agenda. I have decided to simply not respond to their vitriol. What ever you post will have no impact. So I suggest that those of us who have views that favor others or believe that there still may be hope for an amicable solution just not participate. And remember that these few are outliers and do not speak for the majority of the commercial fishing fleets.
    So questair you do not want people pointing out lies and misrepresentations. You defend willphish4food when he has historically misrepresented the data and situation. Peer pressure calling someone out is an effective method with some people. Also you calling people names and lumping them in one group hardly givrs you any ethical position to argue from

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    So questair you do not want people pointing out lies and misrepresentations. You defend willphish4food when he has historically misrepresented the data and situation. Peer pressure calling someone out is an effective method with some people. Also you calling people names and lumping them in one group hardly givrs you any ethical position to argue from
    Hard to figure you out Nerka. About the time I think you may be balanced and fair and have resigned from the fab five you cross over to the insulting side again. There are meds for a bi polar condition. You might want to investigate them. Fire away. Say what you wish. I won't respond.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    Willphish: regrettably I have concluded that the fab five or six will NEVER change. There method is to insult in some way or another or to call those who oppose "not truthful" which is exactly the same as calling them liars. They are part of the problem of the inability to find solutions. Yours, mine, and a very few others cahoots post here will never change their attitudes or their antipathy for those who oppose their agenda. I have decided to simply not respond to their vitriol. What ever you post will have no impact. So I suggest that those of us who have views that favor others or believe that there still may be hope for an amicable solution just not participate. And remember that these few are outliers and do not speak for the majority of the commercial fishing fleets.
    Clearly there are a limited number of responders here. They tend to be pretty well informed on the subject at hand, and even go so far as to quote statistics and reports produced by the State and others. The focus seems to be on the science surrounding fisheries management. When they call BS on an assertion I suppose you could call it vitriol, or micro aggression, or intrusion on your safe space. As alluded above, there is simply no way to base drift fleet fishing times and areas in real time based on observations and counts occurring a week later in the Susitna drainages.

    There are issues in the MatSu, and they are primarily related to the burgeoning population. They are not going to be cured exclusively by beating up on the drift fleet. Put another way, it is not 1967 any more.

    If you take your football and go home, not much will change. You burst on the scene a year ago, had your say, encountered the opposing arguments, and now what? Retreat with your tail between your legs? Step up the quality of the arguments?

    Most of your arguments and posts have been in the political arena, and most of the opposing arguments have been in the science arena. The court has ruled. Your arguments are interesting historical footnotes. Time to move on to a new legislature and more influence.

    Your posts have not lacked vitriol, although you have improved. Perhaps you have learned that focused insult is not conducive to persuasion.

    Carry on.

  19. #19
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Do not want to get into this too much but the article is very misleading about what happened during the Bendix years. The UCIDA comments are just flat out wrong. Today the Susitna is producing 300,000 to 400,000 fish compared to 800,000 or more in the 80's. Return per spawner is less than 2:1 and that means no harvestable surplus yet the drift fleet is still harvesting at 35-40% based on recent ADF&G studies.

    The Bendix counter was an index and yes it had error. I pointed this out in 1985 but there was little alternative as oil prices crashed and a weir program was rejected by leadership and the public. However, it was undercounting on an absolute sense but the goal was based on the counts so it was an index. In addition, the drift fleet representatives always want to use the mark/recapture estimate which everyone knows is biased high because of not meeting assumptions of the method.

    Enough said. User groups in UCI are providing more misinformation every day because of greed and competition. Sad state of affairs.
    HAHA! FOOLED YA ALL!! That was me, not Nerka.. I hacked his account. Its obvious; he would never claim that central drift is over exploiting susitna stocks. I believe they are, and this post with Nerka's name on it claims they are, and Nerka also claims I am always lying in my posts so it is obvious that I hacked his account!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Again wiiphish you draw a conclusion that I did not state. If the production is down due to non harvest issues harvest restriction will not fix it. I never said there should be no harvest. What I said is looking at the total system there is no harvestable surplus. But I maintain that a system approach is too broad. The system needs a subsystem approach and evaluation.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •