Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 72 of 72

Thread: Susitna Sockeye

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Thanks Fun for the clarification. I was the Research Project Leader not the Area Management Biologist except in 1991 when I filled in for the manager who was sick during the summer. I was just trying to point out that in-season the management biologists around the State, based on their expert knowledge of the area (the reason for Area Management Biologist) and history of Board of Fisheries allocation objectives, make trade-off decisions that have significant allocation implications. Not by choice but by circumstance.

  2. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    448

    Default

    When the Board of Fish leaves behind a steaming pile of conflicting objectives......

    Dear ADF&G:

    We don't want to annoy the King Fishers so please make lots of them, Oh and while you are making lots of Kings please also make lots of Reds for the dippers. Also. please make sure the Reds escapement is kept within bounds and not too many make it upriver to spawn, we want lots in the future.

    Love
    BOF

    OK, manage to that by implementing the policy, not making policy.

    Oh, the radar shows one thing, the test nets show something quite a bit different, and the set net data is not available due to paired restrictions. Later arriving wier data is even goofier. Guide data is reasonably current, PU, sport, offshore catch data may be available a year from now.

    Go ahead, ADF&G, make any decision on in-season management. You will be called on it no matter the decision, and the BOF skates by with the classic What, Me Worry?

  3. #63
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,807

    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.
    Sad state of affairs indeed.

    And staff is currently pushing REMOVAL of the stock of yield concern for Susitna sockeye at BOF 2020. YGTBFKM, right? Glad to see astute board members asking ***?
    "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

  4. #64
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,807

    Default

    Who should shoulder the burden of conservation?

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...na_sockeye.pdf
    "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. #65
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Sad state of affairs indeed.

    And staff is currently pushing REMOVAL of the stock of yield concern for Susitna sockeye at BOF 2020. YGTBFKM, right? Glad to see astute board members asking ***?
    STOCK OF CONCERN? What concern? Evaporated with the stroke of a pen earlier today.
    "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

  6. #66
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    STOCK OF CONCERN? What concern? Evaporated with the stroke of a pen earlier today.
    Seriously, Doc, this has been a name only thing. Actual management action to adress this stock of concern has been minimal at best. The big problem with Susitna sockeye is there is no huge terminal fishery. Most sockeye entering the Su quietly spawn, die, and disappear into the ecosystem. Its a thorn in the side of managers and profiteers of the stronger Cook Inlet salmon stocks. The fish and game has done very little to protect or rebuild this stock. Their management plan does nothing to address the many lakes and sloughs within the Susitna and Yentna that are now overrun by pike, that used to host returns in the tens or hundreds of thousands of sockeye annually, but now produce very few to zero sockeye annually. Fish and game completely failed the mandates within the stock of concern statutes, that require a plan with management actions designed to return a harvestable surplus to the fishery. Run strength overall is still less than half the historic return, with many sub runs within the overall return either completely or nearly gone. I do not see the justification to removing this stock. If anything, it should have been moved to a more serious concern status, rather than removed or left in the least serious status.
    On the flip side, actions taken which will lessen the take of Susitna fish by Kodiak and Cook Inlet commercial fishermen should have a big positive impact on this (former) stock of concern.

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Seriously, Doc, this has been a name only thing. Actual management action to adress this stock of concern has been minimal at best. The big problem with Susitna sockeye is there is no huge terminal fishery. Most sockeye entering the Su quietly spawn, die, and disappear into the ecosystem. Its a thorn in the side of managers and profiteers of the stronger Cook Inlet salmon stocks. The fish and game has done very little to protect or rebuild this stock. Their management plan does nothing to address the many lakes and sloughs within the Susitna and Yentna that are now overrun by pike, that used to host returns in the tens or hundreds of thousands of sockeye annually, but now produce very few to zero sockeye annually. Fish and game completely failed the mandates within the stock of concern statutes, that require a plan with management actions designed to return a harvestable surplus to the fishery. Run strength overall is still less than half the historic return, with many sub runs within the overall return either completely or nearly gone. I do not see the justification to removing this stock. If anything, it should have been moved to a more serious concern status, rather than removed or left in the least serious status.
    On the flip side, actions taken which will lessen the take of Susitna fish by Kodiak and Cook Inlet commercial fishermen should have a big positive impact on this (former) stock of concern.
    Will, I agree with everything you just posted except the last sentence. First ADFG is irresponsible for removing Susitna sockeye. As you point out the Susitna use to produce 800,000 sockeye and now it is less than 400,000. The systems they now monitor do not have pike and invasive plants. So now they get to do nothing. While the MatSu attacks the commercial fishery they said nothing about not having any action on this for 20 years of more.

    Relative to Kodiak another example of public desire and ignorant BOF making million dollar decisions and causing lots of heartache. The actions they took at most may save 100,000 sockeye is some years. Susitna is about 7% of that which means 7,000 fish spread in the basin. It will not even be measurable.

    I am moving out of State for health reasons but I will leave this message for Alaskan. Stop fighting each other over allocation and put pressure on ADFG to do scientific peer reviewed work. Because right now they are making political decisions and letting an outdated Board of Fish process and membership destroy habitat and resources because of ignorance and in some cases stupidity. Alaska fisheries are way beyond the Board of Fish in terms of complexity and decision making.. In the 70's and 80's the Board had a common goals of building returns and little allocation. Today it is all about allocation and the goal setting is about allocation. KRSA has figured out the higher the goals the in-river fisheries still function with catch and release or in the case of sockeye better catch rates and even if yields are reduced due to high escapements the sport and PU fisheries still function. That will not last for the PU fishery in the long run. Anyway burden of higher goals is on the commercial fishery and loss of economic viability. When KRSA lost the set net ban approach they took this new tack. It is working with Commissioners and Gov who appoint Board members based on allocation. Board member Wood in Kodiak said he was appointed to put more fish in the Mat/su. That is not the criteria the Legislature had for Board members. So it is time the Board gets an update and facelift.

  8. #68

    Default

    Nerka, The last section of your post gets my vote for best post of the year. Your willingness to share your expertise on this forum with knuckleheads like me is and has always been geatly appreciated. Good luck with the move, sincerely hope your health improves, and please consider continuing to provide us here on a.o.f. your valuable insight .

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Will, I agree with everything you just posted except the last sentence. First ADFG is irresponsible for removing Susitna sockeye. As you point out the Susitna use to produce 800,000 sockeye and now it is less than 400,000. The systems they now monitor do not have pike and invasive plants. So now they get to do nothing. While the MatSu attacks the commercial fishery they said nothing about not having any action on this for 20 years of more.

    Relative to Kodiak another example of public desire and ignorant BOF making million dollar decisions and causing lots of heartache. The actions they took at most may save 100,000 sockeye is some years. Susitna is about 7% of that which means 7,000 fish spread in the basin. It will not even be measurable.

    I am moving out of State for health reasons but I will leave this message for Alaskan. Stop fighting each other over allocation and put pressure on ADFG to do scientific peer reviewed work. Because right now they are making political decisions and letting an outdated Board of Fish process and membership destroy habitat and resources because of ignorance and in some cases stupidity. Alaska fisheries are way beyond the Board of Fish in terms of complexity and decision making.. In the 70's and 80's the Board had a common goals of building returns and little allocation. Today it is all about allocation and the goal setting is about allocation. KRSA has figured out the higher the goals the in-river fisheries still function with catch and release or in the case of sockeye better catch rates and even if yields are reduced due to high escapements the sport and PU fisheries still function. That will not last for the PU fishery in the long run. Anyway burden of higher goals is on the commercial fishery and loss of economic viability. When KRSA lost the set net ban approach they took this new tack. It is working with Commissioners and Gov who appoint Board members based on allocation. Board member Wood in Kodiak said he was appointed to put more fish in the Mat/su. That is not the criteria the Legislature had for Board members. So it is time the Board gets an update and facelift.
    Nerka - Best of luck with your health issues. Iím sure it wonít be easy for you to leave the Great Land, but you are certainly welcome down here, if that is where you are headed.

    I hope you continue to participate in this forum. Although it wonít be the same since you wonít be on the Kenai Peninsula, your insight, expertise, and opinions will always enlighten those of us who follow the inís and outís of fishery management in Alaska.

    Thanks for the vigorous discussions and debates over the years!

  10. #70
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    2,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    Nerka, The last section of your post gets my vote for best post of the year. Your willingness to share your expertise on this forum with knuckleheads like me is and has always been geatly appreciated. Good luck with the move, sincerely hope your health improves, and please consider continuing to provide us here on a.o.f. your valuable insight .
    Ditto......
    "Ė Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  11. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    So now they created a dipnet fishery on the Susitna?

    https://www.adn.com/outdoors-adventu...susitna-river/
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  12. #72
    New member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Watching today's BOF discussion on youtube really proved they have wrong folks making big, costly decisions. It was very obvious when the board was asking questions of one another and of the sport/comm fish biologist, that they (the board) had absolutely no clue about anything to do with a mixed stock/mixed user fishery as complex as CI. Proposal 104 has repercussions from Anchor Point to Boulder Point with about 7 different set net sub sections within that area, different opening dates, different stocks caught etc. They had no clue about how any of them are managed. So, I have to agree with Nerka, the board process needs revamping in a bad way.

    As to the title of this forum, its hard to believe with all the concern we hear about anything in northern Cook Inlet, that they would approve a new dip net fishery. I hope they realize what they are asking for as the Kenai dip net fishery is an un-enforced cluster.....

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

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
  •