Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Status of Alaska's King Stocks

  1. #1

    Default Status of Alaska's King Stocks

    This appears to be an encouraging year for king salmon in Alaska. I know the Peninsula streams fairly well, but don't know other places all that well. A brief tour of ADFG's fish counts page shows the following:

    Kenai ER kings: Exceeded OEG (which is substantially higher than SEG)
    Little Su kings: Exceeded conservative SEG
    Deshka kings: Well inside BEG already
    Crooked creek: Inside SEG already and will likely exceed SEG
    Anchor: Well inside SEG already
    Nushagak: Kicking butt! Well inside goal and will likely exceed goal.

    All of these systems have met or exceeded their yield based or social (OEG) goals - some with days/weeks of counting left, and all with sport and commercial harvest. Given recent weak returns and escapements nearer the bottom ends of many of these goals, I am not disappointed to see these systems flush with fish.

    I'm hoping we are on the uphill side of the recent period of low abundance. Curious about king returns in other areas of the state?

  2. #2
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    This from Fish and Game's Palmer office weekly fishing report: "Surveys conducted by the department earlier this week indicate no further changes to the current set of king salmon restrictions in place along Parks Highway streams from Willow north to and including the Talkeetna River and streams of the Westside Susitna such as Lake Creek and the Talachulitna."

    My impression from two visits to the Willow is that the department is spot on with its assessment. Not enough fish present to allow retention. We'll only know for sure when spawning surveys and post spawn surveys are conducted.

    Little Su and Deshka are both solidly in goal, but did begin the season under restriction. Northern District set net caught more fish than its last 5 year average. So there definitely seems to be a rebound. Water conditions right now are great across the board. Definitely a positive outlook for this season.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    This from Fish and Game's Palmer office weekly fishing report: "Surveys conducted by the department earlier this week indicate no further changes to the current set of king salmon restrictions in place along Parks Highway streams from Willow north to and including the Talkeetna River and streams of the Westside Susitna such as Lake Creek and the Talachulitna."

    My impression from two visits to the Willow is that the department is spot on with its assessment. Not enough fish present to allow retention. We'll only know for sure when spawning surveys and post spawn surveys are conducted.

    Little Su and Deshka are both solidly in goal, but did begin the season under restriction. Northern District set net caught more fish than its last 5 year average. So there definitely seems to be a rebound. Water conditions right now are great across the board. Definitely a positive outlook for this season.
    Willphish, thanks for the report. These streams are tribs of the Susitna, correct? Is there substantial sportfishing pressure downstream or at the confluence of these tribs? I ask cause I've been watching Anchor river escapement this year, and it's down but I know for a fact that having a full fishery there and substantial salt and freshwater sportfishing pressure has affected escapement. It's still doing fine, but I'm just not confident we'll ever have an accurate account of total run strength this year as I don't put a whole lot of faith in statewide harvest surveys. Also, how are abundance surveys on Susitna tribs conducted? Just a manual count? Is there some standard to account for different people doing the survey from year to year? Is it possible that fish are holding downstream?

    I'm not suggesting that there are more fish than you or the department report, and not trying to be argumentative (for once), but I've always been pretty uninformed about Northern District management, and our conversation about the Little Su has piqued my interest.

    I heard that some Southeast King returns are not hot, but they don't always trend with Central and Western Alaska. I'd be interested to hear from some folks up on the AYK about how things are going there...

  4. #4
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    This appears to be an encouraging year for king salmon in Alaska. I know the Peninsula streams fairly well, but don't know other places all that well. A brief tour of ADFG's fish counts page shows the following:

    Kenai ER kings: Exceeded OEG (which is substantially higher than SEG)....
    You'll have to forgive me as I really don't follow the numbers much as I find if somewhat frustrating to navigate sites as a self taught pc user.....ie, very minimal skills at best. I'm thankful for those of you "in the know"....

    I have a question.... how does the set OEG for the Kenai king over the last decade compare to back in the early 80s? I ask because I either read it, or was told, that they have lowered it considerably over the years since. Is this correct?

    If it is, then do they believe that this type of management could still bring back fish like, say, back in the 80s, or has this been some kind of "newer" (lower) standard number that they just are happy with these days?

    Meaning, and of course I may be wrong, but 10k fish just doesn't sound like a whole heck of a lot to me. Am I expecting too much nowadays?

    Thanks...
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  5. #5
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Willphish, thanks for the report. These streams are tribs of the Susitna, correct? Is there substantial sportfishing pressure downstream or at the confluence of these tribs? I ask cause I've been watching Anchor river escapement this year, and it's down but I know for a fact that having a full fishery there and substantial salt and freshwater sportfishing pressure has affected escapement. It's still doing fine, but I'm just not confident we'll ever have an accurate account of total run strength this year as I don't put a whole lot of faith in statewide harvest surveys. Also, how are abundance surveys on Susitna tribs conducted? Just a manual count? Is there some standard to account for different people doing the survey from year to year? Is it possible that fish are holding downstream?

    I'm not suggesting that there are more fish than you or the department report, and not trying to be argumentative (for once), but I've always been pretty uninformed about Northern District management, and our conversation about the Little Su has piqued my interest.

    I heard that some Southeast King returns are not hot, but they don't always trend with Central and Western Alaska. I'd be interested to hear from some folks up on the AYK about how things are going there...
    The abundance surveys are conducted in several ways. On some of the streams, like Willow for instance, usually Fish and Game personnel will float the river in a raft(s), interview onstream anglers, listen to reports from anglers with a good history of fishing the stream, and fly fixed wing aircraft down the streams. Later in the season they will conduct foot surveys, carcass counts, and fixed wing surveys. The same crew will be looking at the data and conducting or leading the research year after year. So the same methods and personnel are used year after year, providing a good baseline. Water conditions do affect the accuracy of counts as the season progresses, but there is enough history that the people doing the work usually have a good idea of what the accuracy is. Harvest surveys, creel surveys, and angler interviews are a much smaller part of the process now, as angler pressure is so little now.

    The majority of fishing pressure is at the mouth of the tribs. All tribs are hook and release, single hook, no bait, weekends only after mid June, open 6am to 11pm. Willow Creek has about an hour and a half of floatable water where king fishing is legal, Little Willow several hours, with most fishing occurring at the mouth via jet boat, Sheep Creek is nearly all at the mouth, Montana Creek all fishable water is walkable, about a half to 3/4 mile's worth.

    The department here is pretty responsive to what guides and anglers are reporting, as well as their own boots on the ground. The managers vet their information well, too. I don't recall that I have ever seen a complete disconnect between what the department is seeing and what I am seeing on the river, as seems to happen often on the Kenai.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4merguide View Post
    You'll have to forgive me as I really don't follow the numbers much as I find if somewhat frustrating to navigate sites as a self taught pc user.....ie, very minimal skills at best. I'm thankful for those of you "in the know"....

    I have a question.... how does the set OEG for the Kenai king over the last decade compare to back in the early 80s? I ask because I either read it, or was told, that they have lowered it considerably over the years since. Is this correct?

    If it is, then do they believe that this type of management could still bring back fish like, say, back in the 80s, or has this been some kind of "newer" (lower) standard number that they just are happy with these days?

    Meaning, and of course I may be wrong, but 10k fish just doesn't sound like a whole heck of a lot to me. Am I expecting too much nowadays?

    Thanks...

    From FMS13-03, which was the 2012-13 report from when the developed the Didson goals:

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMS13-03.pdf

    "In 1988, the Alaska Board of Fisheries adopted management plans for the early and late runs (McBride et al. 1989). These plans defined the early run as fish entering the river prior to 1 July and the late run as fish entering the river after 30 June. In the original plan, the optimum spawning escapement for early-run Chinook salmon was set at 9,000 fish, with management directives centered around projected escapement levels of less than 5,300 fish, 5,300 to 9,000 fish, and greater than 9,000 fish (McBride et al. 1989)."


    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    The abundance surveys are conducted in several ways. On some of the streams, like Willow for instance, usually Fish and Game personnel will float the river in a raft(s), interview onstream anglers, listen to reports from anglers with a good history of fishing the stream, and fly fixed wing aircraft down the streams. Later in the season they will conduct foot surveys, carcass counts, and fixed wing surveys. The same crew will be looking at the data and conducting or leading the research year after year. So the same methods and personnel are used year after year, providing a good baseline. Water conditions do affect the accuracy of counts as the season progresses, but there is enough history that the people doing the work usually have a good idea of what the accuracy is. Harvest surveys, creel surveys, and angler interviews are a much smaller part of the process now, as angler pressure is so little now.

    The majority of fishing pressure is at the mouth of the tribs. All tribs are hook and release, single hook, no bait, weekends only after mid June, open 6am to 11pm. Willow Creek has about an hour and a half of floatable water where king fishing is legal, Little Willow several hours, with most fishing occurring at the mouth via jet boat, Sheep Creek is nearly all at the mouth, Montana Creek all fishable water is walkable, about a half to 3/4 mile's worth.

    The department here is pretty responsive to what guides and anglers are reporting, as well as their own boots on the ground. The managers vet their information well, too. I don't recall that I have ever seen a complete disconnect between what the department is seeing and what I am seeing on the river, as seems to happen often on the Kenai.
    Willphish,

    Thanks again for the information about the fisheries up there. All new info for me, although I think the bolded part of your post is way off-base. Local management on the Kenai has a lot of dependable info, including both sport and commercial fishermen, sonar data, OTF data, USFS weir data, Logbooks, etc. Sport and comm managers both talk to sport and comm fishermen and each other, getting a good idea of what is going on. OTF crews, Sonar crews, netting crews, scale/genetics crews all report back in a timely manner. The reason it seems that there is a disconnect is because we have A LOT of fishermen down here and multiple conflicting user groups, all with their share of lazy, ineffective, or inexperienced/uneducated fishermen or straight up liars. Department employees get a good idea of what is good information and what is crap. Just because you see conflicting reports on an internet forum does not mean that local management doesn't have a good idea of what is going on in our fisheries.

  7. #7
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Thank you....
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  8. #8
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Just because you see conflicting reports on an internet forum does not mean that local management doesn't have a good idea of what is going on in our fisheries.
    So you trust the counters?

    Just curious....
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  9. #9

    Default Status of Alaska's King Stocks

    Quote Originally Posted by 4merguide View Post
    So you trust the counters?

    Just curious....
    Ooooh, tricky question. In short - yes, and a hell of a lot more than I trust some areal survey or boat/foot count.

    Do I Think that the new counts are equivalent to old counting systems? Who knows. Do I trust the apportionment methods which ADFG has used on Kings? USFS weir data suggests I should be skeptical. Do I think that sometimes Humpies gum all the counters up? Yep!

    The counters suggest that there are less Kasilof Sockeye and more Kenai Sockeye than last year at this point. Also more kings. All field reports I have heard confirm the same. That includes reports of lots of jumpers off Salamatof beach the day before the Kenai Sockeye counter spiked.

    I think ADFG has a better handle on management of Peninsula watersheds than they do Valley streams.

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

    Default

    My last sentence wasn't just about people spouting off on the internet. It comes from many hours sitting in meetings, talking with a former bio who was fired for questioning the sonar count, from talking to guides and private anglers who have fished the river on days when the sonar had high king counts but who saw little or no king activity, from bites to rollers, yet the department staunchly defended the sonar counts for those days. Then at the end of season, we would see the amended counts... you can't tell me that the department has a history of very accurate counting on the Kenai. Counting anywhere can only be so accurate. What I was alluding to is the testimony given at BOF meetings by department staff, the public, and by some on this forum that basically any counting method other than weirs is flawed, and even if the Kenai sonar is flawed, its not very bad and is the gold standard next to weirs. I think its a load of bunk to try to totally discredit counting methods in non weired systems, because there are checks and balances used to come up with final count estimates.

    I can not think of any instance where fish and game said a valley stream had a certain number of fish in it and what I saw myself conflicted with that report, unlike my experience with Kenai sonar counts.

  11. #11

    Default Status of Alaska's King Stocks

    Regardless of the method, it's tough to count fish as escapement when they are being actively harvested/fished afterwards. Yes I know one or two people who always insist the counters are wrong because they are pros and didn't catch much, and I would not pay them to take me fishing. I guess we'll agree to disagree on the competence level of local management Willphish. I'll take comfort in the fact that we on the Peninsula have more salmon and less Pike to count, and are not actively seeking reductions in opportunity for people in your area to make ourselves feel better about our situation.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I can not think of any instance where fish and game said a valley stream had a certain number of fish in it and what I saw myself conflicted with that report, unlike my experience with Kenai sonar counts.
    ...but of course...all you see is that the valley streams have no fish and the Kenai fisheries take them all. Given the misguided comments you continually make here, somehow I just can't put much faith in your seat-of-the-pants experience, not to mention your understanding of UCI fisheries in general.

    Whatever you think you heard probably wasn't exactly what was said...FYI, weirs will always be the most certain and accurate counting system, and other methods will always have more flaws. Unfortunately weirs cannot always be installed due to conditions, location, labor, and costs. We have to do the best we can with what's available.

    IMO, the biggest flaw in fish counting is political pressure. Heck, just admitting there was a counting problem is a political nightmare. Yep, the Kenai sonar has been a bone of contention for quite some time. But it pales in comparison to the Valley's aerial counts. Good thing we have willphish4foods seat-of-the-pants indicator.

    Funny I don't see willphish4food concerned with the accuracy of our sport and PU harvest counts. Harvest survey?...what harvest survey?

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    My last sentence wasn't just about people spouting off on the internet. It comes from many hours sitting in meetings, talking with a former bio who was fired for questioning the sonar count, from talking to guides and private anglers who have fished the river on days when the sonar had high king counts but who saw little or no king activity, from bites to rollers, yet the department staunchly defended the sonar counts for those days. Then at the end of season, we would see the amended counts... you can't tell me that the department has a history of very accurate counting on the Kenai. Counting anywhere can only be so accurate. What I was alluding to is the testimony given at BOF meetings by department staff, the public, and by some on this forum that basically any counting method other than weirs is flawed, and even if the Kenai sonar is flawed, its not very bad and is the gold standard next to weirs. I think its a load of bunk to try to totally discredit counting methods in non weired systems, because there are checks and balances used to come up with final count estimates.

    I can not think of any instance where fish and game said a valley stream had a certain number of fish in it and what I saw myself conflicted with that report, unlike my experience with Kenai sonar counts.
    Are you talking king counter or sockeye counters on the Kenai. Frankly I do not think you have any knowledge to make an evaluation of counting methods. Do you understand hydroacoustic principles and assumptions? Do you understand net apportionment statistics? Do you have any idea of how ADF&G checks the counts for either sockeye or chinook over the years? I doubt you have any answers to these questions and just speak off the top of your head.

    Now from one who can answer the questions the chinook counter on the Kenai has had significant issues over the last 30 years. It is a difficult job to try and count chinook when a million sockeye or pinks are going past. That problem does not apply to the sockeye counter. So I have been critical of the chinook counter since 1985 and asked for a total review of the counting program. However, the major issue with chinook management to the Kenai has to do with harvest policies that have resulted in differential exploitation rates on components of the stock, the selectivity of the fisheries, the distribution of spawners in the system, and the need for a better apportionment system. The sonar actually sees targets and so when you say the sonar does not count you have no concept of targets vs species apportionment issues.

    Next, no biologist in ADF&G was ever fired for questioning the counters anywhere - I questioned the counters chinook counters and Susitna counters and was not fired - just over ruled. However, one biologist who worked for ADF&G was released from work over ethic violations (there is a full report on this outlining the charges and findings). If I remember correctly there were I believe around 22 charges and this person was working in sonar at a high level in the Department. The individual was not fired over objecting to the Susitna or any other sonar program. Also, the individual claimed the Kenai chinook counter could separate targets on target strength which was false but again this was not part of the 22 ethic violations. Human resources and State personnel rules are fairly clear that professionals really can only be fired for ethical violations of State laws and insubordination. Having supervised hundreds of seasonal employees and permanent employees your comments are just wrong again and you should not state this as it puts ADF&G in a bad light when they did the right thing in dealing with this individual. In fact, it may not have been a termination but a mutual agreement of all the parties. I know part of the agreement was this individual could not work for the Department again until some period of time had passed. I was very familiar with this individual and case as I was contacted by one firm that asked what to do with a request from this individual that they thought was inappropriate. I referred them to Headquarters staff for resolution and that started the investigation.

  14. #14
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post

    Now from one who can answer the questions the chinook counter on the Kenai has had significant issues over the last 30 years. It is a difficult job to try and count chinook when a million sockeye or pinks are going past. .
    Do you happen to know of a link that explains how the sonar (counters) actually work? I know I've certainly had plenty of questions over the years...
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  15. #15
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Are you talking king counter or sockeye counters on the Kenai. Frankly I do not think you have any knowledge to make an evaluation of counting methods. Do you understand hydroacoustic principles and assumptions? Do you understand net apportionment statistics? Do you have any idea of how ADF&G checks the counts for either sockeye or chinook over the years? I doubt you have any answers to these questions and just speak off the top of your head.

    Now from one who can answer the questions the chinook counter on the Kenai has had significant issues over the last 30 years. It is a difficult job to try and count chinook when a million sockeye or pinks are going past. That problem does not apply to the sockeye counter. So I have been critical of the chinook counter since 1985 and asked for a total review of the counting program. However, the major issue with chinook management to the Kenai has to do with harvest policies that have resulted in differential exploitation rates on components of the stock, the selectivity of the fisheries, the distribution of spawners in the system, and the need for a better apportionment system. The sonar actually sees targets and so when you say the sonar does not count you have no concept of targets vs species apportionment issues.

    Next, no biologist in ADF&G was ever fired for questioning the counters anywhere - I questioned the counters chinook counters and Susitna counters and was not fired - just over ruled. However, one biologist who worked for ADF&G was released from work over ethic violations (there is a full report on this outlining the charges and findings). If I remember correctly there were I believe around 22 charges and this person was working in sonar at a high level in the Department. The individual was not fired over objecting to the Susitna or any other sonar program. Also, the individual claimed the Kenai chinook counter could separate targets on target strength which was false but again this was not part of the 22 ethic violations. Human resources and State personnel rules are fairly clear that professionals really can only be fired for ethical violations of State laws and insubordination. Having supervised hundreds of seasonal employees and permanent employees your comments are just wrong again and you should not state this as it puts ADF&G in a bad light when they did the right thing in dealing with this individual. In fact, it may not have been a termination but a mutual agreement of all the parties. I know part of the agreement was this individual could not work for the Department again until some period of time had passed. I was very familiar with this individual and case as I was contacted by one firm that asked what to do with a request from this individual that they thought was inappropriate. I referred them to Headquarters staff for resolution and that started the investigation.
    Nerka, can't let your disdain for me rest, can you? I say the sonar on the Kenai has problems counting chinook, and you blast me for it, assuming that I don't understand what goes into counting fish on the Kenai. Then you go on to say that you've been questioning the counts since '85, meaning you completely agree with my assertion that there are problems with the accuracy of the counts. Seems kind of foolish to blast my assertion that the counts on the Kenai have issues, then come back and say that they do have issues.

    The fact of the matter is, all counting methods have issues, and in the Cook Inlet fish wars, people on all sides have at one time or another claimed the other sides' methodology is all wrong, accuracy is not high enough, etc. And on the other hand they usually staunchly defend the counting method for the fishery that they are championing.

    My initial response to Smith reflects this reality; I listened to the head of comfish in upper cook inlet blast his sport fish colleague's method of counting salmon in the valley, in front of the BOF, while making management decisions based on inaccurate forecasts and questionable sonar counts. The lack of professionalism and courtesy to another member of the Department was astounding; but it exists at all levels, and is seen in conversations like this, between laypersons and professionals, it doesn't seem to matter. Conflicting testimony at the Board meetings, in the bar, at tackle shops, in the print and internet media, people disagree. Often quite viciously. No matter what a person's credentials, in the fish wars, if someone has a beef, they will attempt to discredit the other person. Nerka's response to me is a perfect example of how this happens. Funtastic is the same way, but not even worth responding to.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Nerka, can't let your disdain for me rest, can you? I say the sonar on the Kenai has problems counting chinook, and you blast me for it, assuming that I don't understand what goes into counting fish on the Kenai. Then you go on to say that you've been questioning the counts since '85, meaning you completely agree with my assertion that there are problems with the accuracy of the counts. Seems kind of foolish to blast my assertion that the counts on the Kenai have issues, then come back and say that they do have issues.

    The fact of the matter is, all counting methods have issues, and in the Cook Inlet fish wars, people on all sides have at one time or another claimed the other sides' methodology is all wrong, accuracy is not high enough, etc. And on the other hand they usually staunchly defend the counting method for the fishery that they are championing.

    My initial response to Smith reflects this reality; I listened to the head of comfish in upper cook inlet blast his sport fish colleague's method of counting salmon in the valley, in front of the BOF, while making management decisions based on inaccurate forecasts and questionable sonar counts. The lack of professionalism and courtesy to another member of the Department was astounding; but it exists at all levels, and is seen in conversations like this, between laypersons and professionals, it doesn't seem to matter. Conflicting testimony at the Board meetings, in the bar, at tackle shops, in the print and internet media, people disagree. Often quite viciously. No matter what a person's credentials, in the fish wars, if someone has a beef, they will attempt to discredit the other person. Nerka's response to me is a perfect example of how this happens. Funtastic is the same way, but not even worth responding to.
    I am not attempting to discredit you Willphish, but I think you are hypocritical and wrong. You likely type this while making plans to participate in harvesting some of the 7 million sockeye headed for Cook Inlet - primarily the Kenai - a commfish forecast which you no doubt put some stock into because the margin of error is pretty dang good.

    It's not that you pointed to flaws in the counting systems on the Peninsula, it's that you tried to say that ADFG in the valley somehow has a better handle on their region. Given current fisheries management successes/failures - from productivity to opportunity to invasive species to fish passage to dealing with access (or over access) issues, I'm just not seeing it. I see the valley as ground zero for what NOT to do relative to fish management - heck, look what a big deal the 4 stroke restriction was to get passed on the Little Su, which practically had a hydrocarbon sheen on top of it. You guys could do better.

    My experience at the BOF was not the same as yours. My recollection is that the then commfish director gagged his staff from saying much of anything substantive or contrary to KRSA/Matsu reps' agenda. Sportfish management was much more active than commfish by design at that meeting. They had twice the staff and twice the budget.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Willphish4food, no personal disdain for you at all. Heck I do not know you well enough for any assessment. What I disdain is using bad information in these discussions. I keep pointing out factual errors and that leads to people taking it personally. I will give you this promise. If you ask a question I will try to answer it to the best of my abilities, if you make a factually correct statement I will support it, and if you make a statement that is factually incorrect I will try to provide the correct answer with data to support it. Your part is when I say something is not factually correct you must check it out and provide contrary data or if opinion base that opinion on a rationale one can understand. You also need to stop trying to blame all the ills of the valley on commercial harvest and take responsibility for those things that can be done in the valley to improve the resource base. I will not dismiss commercial impacts on allocation issues but will challenge any allocation bias using conservation. Fair enough?

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I am not attempting to discredit you Willphish, but I think you are hypocritical and wrong. You likely type this while making plans to participate in harvesting some of the 7 million sockeye headed for Cook Inlet - primarily the Kenai - a commfish forecast which you no doubt put some stock into because the margin of error is pretty dang good.

    It's not that you pointed to flaws in the counting systems on the Peninsula, it's that you tried to say that ADFG in the valley somehow has a better handle on their region. Given current fisheries management successes/failures - from productivity to opportunity to invasive species to fish passage to dealing with access (or over access) issues, I'm just not seeing it. I see the valley as ground zero for what NOT to do relative to fish management - heck, look what a big deal the 4 stroke restriction was to get passed on the Little Su, which practically had a hydrocarbon sheen on top of it. You guys could do better.

    My experience at the BOF was not the same as yours. My recollection is that the then commfish director gagged his staff from saying much of anything substantive or contrary to KRSA/Matsu reps' agenda. Sportfish management was much more active than commfish by design at that meeting. They had twice the staff and twice the budget.
    The Kasilof and kenai have way more developed shoreline and roads then the Deshka, lake creek and other good fishing rivers in valley all put together if you knew anything about the area you would understand what you are saying doesn't add up. We have a couple rivers that kill way more kings than kenai. I will throw in we have we have a lot more moose than you too hands down so please if you want to talk habitat you've already almost runout, too many people, thank the lord in church tomorrow for your refuge or you'd have zero. Please stop with the degraded habitat stuff. We also have a lot less people fishing up here, we don't have what are you up to now 300-400 guides on one river? Is that a ground zero for great management? so before you talk ground zero for how not to manage, please lift your arms off your chair and go educate yourself, like we planted invasive species here on purpose just like you did on the peninsula. Right? Keep your dip net and personal use netting fishing and all the sockeye you want it is going to smother you anyway, is that one of your examples for ground zero of great resource management? What a joke, plenty of ruin right in your backyard. Oh and there wasn't a sheen of oil on the Kenai before regulations made everyone change, either right?

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
    The Kasilof and kenai have way more developed shoreline and roads then the Deshka, lake creek and other good fishing rivers in valley all put together if you knew anything about the area you would understand what you are saying doesn't add up. We have a couple rivers that kill way more kings than kenai. I will throw in we have we have a lot more moose than you too hands down so please if you want to talk habitat you've already almost runout, too many people, thank the lord in church tomorrow for your refuge or you'd have zero. Please stop with the degraded habitat stuff. We also have a lot less people fishing up here, we don't have what are you up to now 300-400 guides on one river? Is that a ground zero for great management? so before you talk ground zero for how not to manage, please lift your arms off your chair and go educate yourself, like we planted invasive species here on purpose just like you did on the peninsula. Right? Keep your dip net and personal use netting fishing and all the sockeye you want it is going to smother you anyway, is that one of your examples for ground zero of great resource management? What a joke, plenty of ruin right in your backyard. Oh and there wasn't a sheen of oil on the Kenai before regulations made everyone change, either right?
    kidfromgarcia - not sure if you read your own posts but they are a mess of run on sentences, jumbled thoughts, and impossible to understand. I get it if you have trouble with the English language but please take the time to edit your posts so we can follow your logic.

    Just for the record invasive pike were planted in the valley by some misguided sport fisherman.

    Next, sockeye production has gone from 800,000 fish down to 300,000 while Kenai and Kasilof sockeye continue at historical levels. This is due to habitat issues in-river.

    Little Susitna River is in violation of hydrocarbon and turbidity standards just like the Kenai.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
    The Kasilof and kenai have way more developed shoreline and roads then the Deshka, lake creek and other good fishing rivers in valley all put together if you knew anything about the area you would understand what you are saying doesn't add up. We have a couple rivers that kill way more kings than kenai. I will throw in we have we have a lot more moose than you too hands down so please if you want to talk habitat you've already almost runout, too many people, thank the lord in church tomorrow for your refuge or you'd have zero. Please stop with the degraded habitat stuff. We also have a lot less people fishing up here, we don't have what are you up to now 300-400 guides on one river? Is that a ground zero for great management? so before you talk ground zero for how not to manage, please lift your arms off your chair and go educate yourself, like we planted invasive species here on purpose just like you did on the peninsula. Right? Keep your dip net and personal use netting fishing and all the sockeye you want it is going to smother you anyway, is that one of your examples for ground zero of great resource management? What a joke, plenty of ruin right in your backyard. Oh and there wasn't a sheen of oil on the Kenai before regulations made everyone change, either right?
    God bless the Matsu valley and all you fine people up there. It is my dream that one day you will have productive enough fish habitat that you can fill your freezer from your own backyard.

    Glad to hear you have lots of moose up there. How many can I kill per household? I'll be sure to bring all 6 of my ATV's and a net to scoop one up with. Can you make sure there are plenty by the highway on Saturday morning? My work schedule is rather restrictive but my family depends on having Moose in the freezer. Oh, and make sure the locals have a 36 hour no hunting window on Friday. I don't want them killing everything before I get there!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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
  •