Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: UCI 2016 commercial salmon summary

  1. #1
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,083

    Default UCI 2016 commercial salmon summary

    Its out, folks! http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ap.../747249392.pdf

    Many ideas will be held up by this report, while many will be sunk.

    Those who felt that fishing for sockeye was tough, that less fish were available to be caught in PU, sport or commercial fisheries, are supported by this report. Those who claimed the run was great and fishing effort/skill were the reason for poor results, are not supported by this report. Total run was estimated 5.2 million, 27% less than forecast.

    A couple pieces of info from the report: Peak CPUE in the cook inlet central district drift fishery on non corridor days was 3rd lowest since '85. Upper District set peak daily harvest was 2nd lowest since '81. Peak daily passage rate in the Kenai was the lowest ever in the sonar era which began in the late 70's.

  2. #2
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Its out, folks! http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ap.../747249392.pdf

    Many ideas will be held up by this report, while many will be sunk.

    Those who felt that fishing for sockeye was tough, that less fish were available to be caught in PU, sport or commercial fisheries, are supported by this report. Those who claimed the run was great and fishing effort/skill were the reason for poor results, are not supported by this report. Total run was estimated 5.2 million, 27% less than forecast.

    A couple pieces of info from the report: Peak CPUE in the cook inlet central district drift fishery on non corridor days was 3rd lowest since '85. Upper District set peak daily harvest was 2nd lowest since '81. Peak daily passage rate in the Kenai was the lowest ever in the sonar era which began in the late 70's.
    Also proved false by the report are the many claims that the drifters were catching all the fish and bringing in boat load after boat load

    Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Its out, folks! http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ap.../747249392.pdf

    Many ideas will be held up by this report, while many will be sunk.

    Those who felt that fishing for sockeye was tough, that less fish were available to be caught in PU, sport or commercial fisheries, are supported by this report. Those who claimed the run was great and fishing effort/skill were the reason for poor results, are not supported by this report. Total run was estimated 5.2 million, 27% less than forecast.

    A couple pieces of info from the report: Peak CPUE in the cook inlet central district drift fishery on non corridor days was 3rd lowest since '85. Upper District set peak daily harvest was 2nd lowest since '81. Peak daily passage rate in the Kenai was the lowest ever in the sonar era which began in the late 70's.
    Yes, there were less peaks. Yes, it was a below average harvest for most user groups. I have been waiting for this report, and truly thought it would be a little more positive than this. Oh well that's fishing. Yes, fishing was tough this year and fish behavior was different than we are used to. I don't know many people who debated these facts. I still don't think fishing was as disastrous as some made it seem. There is a difference between below average and worst year ever...

    This report also states that 1.38 million Sockeye escaped into the Kenai River.

    Thanks for linking to the report Willphish. It is very good to have this info as it helps put things into perspective. Worst Kasilof return since 1995. Bummer. I can't help but wonder if the cessation of Sockeye stocking in the Kasilof several years ago is a contributing factor. Or repeated years of overescapement. Hard to say, but one can always hope for a better year next!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Its out, folks! http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ap.../747249392.pdf

    Many ideas will be held up by this report, while many will be sunk.

    Those who felt that fishing for sockeye was tough, that less fish were available to be caught in PU, sport or commercial fisheries, are supported by this report. Those who claimed the run was great and fishing effort/skill were the reason for poor results, are not supported by this report. Total run was estimated 5.2 million, 27% less than forecast.

    A couple pieces of info from the report: Peak CPUE in the cook inlet central district drift fishery on non corridor days was 3rd lowest since '85. Upper District set peak daily harvest was 2nd lowest since '81. Peak daily passage rate in the Kenai was the lowest ever in the sonar era which began in the late 70's.
    You really have no idea about UCI fisheries do you. A total return of 5.2 million sockeye is near the historical average. The forecast was for one of the better returns to UCI. Average will have about 50% of the returns below it so this is not Lake W where the children are all above average. The run was an average return. Average returns can no longer satisfy demand is what this whole discussion shows. Expectations are exceeding reality. All the harvestable surplus was taken for sockeye and the harvest reflects this as being only 10% below average. The drift fleet actually took 2% more fish than the 10 year average (I really dislike the idea of using only a 10 year average instead of the whole data set - not good science to me). What this shows is that with reduced efficiency on a per period basis ADF&G made it up with more fishing time.

    Also, not sure how one says less fish were taken in the PU and sport fisheries since the numbers are not in. Pure speculation on the part of this author. At least 1.3 million fish went up the Kenai for sport fisherman so let wait and see what the Statewide harvest survey shows. But in a way that is not relevant. Fish available for harvest was on the high end of the in-river Kenai sockeye goal.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Yes, there were less peaks. Yes, it was a below average harvest for most user groups. I have been waiting for this report, and truly thought it would be a little more positive than this. Oh well that's fishing. Yes, fishing was tough this year and fish behavior was different than we are used to. I don't know many people who debated these facts. I still don't think fishing was as disastrous as some made it seem. There is a difference between below average and worst year ever...

    This report also states that 1.38 million Sockeye escaped into the Kenai River.

    Thanks for linking to the report Willphish. It is very good to have this info as it helps put things into perspective. Worst Kasilof return since 1995. Bummer. I can't help but wonder if the cessation of Sockeye stocking in the Kasilof several years ago is a contributing factor. Or repeated years of overescapement. Hard to say, but one can always hope for a better year next!
    When you say that the report states 1.38 million escaped into the Kenai, are you suggesting that his was "escapement" or do you mean that was how any were counted? Of course harvest above the counter must be subtracted in order to get "escapement". The true numbers that escaped are way less than 1.38 million, and probably in the mid range of the OEG. And the OEG is the goal that had been set by the BOF and for which the fish should be managed. Hopefully the Board will resolve this discrepancy between the in river, SEG, and OEG goals by raising the in river goals to slightly higher than the OEGs. It is pretty confusing now and really does not make sense.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onthego View Post
    When you say that the report states 1.38 million escaped into the Kenai, are you suggesting that his was "escapement" or do you mean that was how any were counted? Of course harvest above the counter must be subtracted in order to get "escapement". The true numbers that escaped are way less than 1.38 million, and probably in the mid range of the OEG. And the OEG is the goal that had been set by the BOF and for which the fish should be managed. Hopefully the Board will resolve this discrepancy between the in river, SEG, and OEG goals by raising the in river goals to slightly higher than the OEGs. It is pretty confusing now and really does not make sense.
    Pretty sure most fish managers consider mid-range of the goal a win.

    It's all spelled out quite clearly on page 9 of the report Willphish linked. 1.38 million sockeye escaped past the gillnets and the first 19 miles of Subsistence, Sport, and PU fishermen. Yes, harvest upstream of the counter must be subtracted from that number. No limit on what that harvest can be or who or how many can participate, and we won't have those very rough estimates for months.

    Page 9 also spells out the discrepancy that you list between the SEG/OEG/Inriver Goals. I'm surprised that you don't recommend that the BOF follow ADFG's science and yield-based SEG goal since Sockeye are primarily harvested by our valuable and important commercial fisheries, and by Alaskan residents who generally consider Sockeye a freezer filler. Both of these fisheries depend on yield. Why not get rid of the OEG if it is confusing things? Then we'd have the scientific yield-based SEG (spawners) and the inriver goal (SEG+upstream harvest) which gives a reasonable allocation to upstream sport harvest. That seems "Optimum" to me.

  7. #7
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    You really have no idea about UCI fisheries do you. A total return of 5.2 million sockeye is near the historical average. The forecast was for one of the better returns to UCI. Average will have about 50% of the returns below it so this is not Lake W where the children are all above average. The run was an average return. Average returns can no longer satisfy demand is what this whole discussion shows. Expectations are exceeding reality. All the harvestable surplus was taken for sockeye and the harvest reflects this as being only 10% below average. The drift fleet actually took 2% more fish than the 10 year average (I really dislike the idea of using only a 10 year average instead of the whole data set - not good science to me). What this shows is that with reduced efficiency on a per period basis ADF&G made it up with more fishing time.

    Also, not sure how one says less fish were taken in the PU and sport fisheries since the numbers are not in. Pure speculation on the part of this author. At least 1.3 million fish went up the Kenai for sport fisherman so let wait and see what the Statewide harvest survey shows. But in a way that is not relevant. Fish available for harvest was on the high end of the in-river Kenai sockeye goal.
    Can't back off, can you Nerka? The forecast was 27% higher than the actual return. Many sport and PU fishermen suggested that the run was not as robust as forecast, which I repeated: " that less fish were available to be caught." I did not, as you claim, say they caught less. I said fewer were available to be caught. And this report bears out that claim. Live with it, address the report as written, and get off your high horse.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Those who felt that fishing for sockeye was tough, that less fish were available to be caught in PU, sport or commercial fisheries, are supported by this report. Those who claimed the run was great and fishing effort/skill were the reason for poor results, are not supported by this report.
    While you might have an opinion, I doubt you're qualified to know what this report supports or not.

    Less available to be caught? Get real. 1.39 million sockeye available was more than what's been available for 24 of the last 37 years! It ranks in the top 35%!

    https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishC...&SpeciesID=420

    In my view what this report supports is that the run had low, but consistent daily passages of fish, which obviously all added up to exceeding the in-river sonar goal. Yes, without those big peak days, and along with high water conditions, it made for "tough" fishing, but only for those who expected it to be easy. After all, tough fishing is the true test of skill and effort. Lets not forget the run was strong enough that PU fishing time was extended around the clock, and rod/reel limits were liberalized (doubled). No doubt, those with the skill and effort filled their freezers just fine.

    Oh, as for your fetish with the forecast...forecasts were high all over the state. But that doesn't really matter when 1.39 million are available in-river!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,655

    Default

    Nerka, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the objectives of goal-based management to smooth out the peaks and valleys of the run, in order to provide a more consistent, predictable opportunity for harvest? Seems I read that from ADFG somewhere.

    IMO there is no advantage to sockeye flooding the Kenai on a few big peak days...their timing is harder to predict, they are harder to count, and it's harder to manage to goals. Not to mention facilities and access can't keep pace.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Pretty sure most fish managers consider mid-range of the goal a win.

    It's all spelled out quite clearly on page 9 of the report Willphish linked. 1.38 million sockeye escaped past the gillnets and the first 19 miles of Subsistence, Sport, and PU fishermen. Yes, harvest upstream of the counter must be subtracted from that number. No limit on what that harvest can be or who or how many can participate, and we won't have those very rough estimates for months.

    Page 9 also spells out the discrepancy that you list between the SEG/OEG/Inriver Goals. I'm surprised that you don't recommend that the BOF follow ADFG's science and yield-based SEG goal since Sockeye are primarily harvested by our valuable and important commercial fisheries, and by Alaskan residents who generally consider Sockeye a freezer filler. Both of these fisheries depend on yield. Why not get rid of the OEG if it is confusing things? Then we'd have the scientific yield-based SEG (spawners) and the inriver goal (SEG+upstream harvest) which gives a reasonable allocation to upstream sport harvest. That seems "Optimum" to me.
    Reasonable minds can differ on escapement goals. I am not surprised that you would promote a lower escapemen goal given that as a commercial set net fisher you would likely benefit. And that is a reasonable position for you to take. Others may believe that it is the inriver goal that causes confusion. either way the confusion needs to be addressed at the UCI meeting. Lots of challenges are facing this fishery. Hope the Dept and the BOF are up to them.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Average will have about 50% of the returns below it so this is not Lake W where the children are all above average.
    That would be Lake Wobegon. The town in central Minnesota where all the children are indeed, above average. But since we're talking about Alaska - all the fisheries the Great Land are indeed, above average (compared to the rest of the country). So the analogy is spot on!

  12. #12
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    While you might have an opinion, I doubt you're qualified to know what this report supports or not.

    Less available to be caught? Get real. 1.39 million sockeye available was more than what's been available for 24 of the last 37 years! It ranks in the top 35%!

    https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishC...&SpeciesID=420

    In my view what this report supports is that the run had low, but consistent daily passages of fish, which obviously all added up to exceeding the in-river sonar goal. Yes, without those big peak days, and along with high water conditions, it made for "tough" fishing, but only for those who expected it to be easy. After all, tough fishing is the true test of skill and effort. Lets not forget the run was strong enough that PU fishing time was extended around the clock, and rod/reel limits were liberalized (doubled). No doubt, those with the skill and effort filled their freezers just fine.

    Oh, as for your fetish with the forecast...forecasts were high all over the state. But that doesn't really matter when 1.39 million are available in-river!
    could you say the same for the commercial fleet? Must have been lack of skill and effort that resulted in near record low cpue's.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Can't back off, can you Nerka? The forecast was 27% higher than the actual return. Many sport and PU fishermen suggested that the run was not as robust as forecast, which I repeated: " that less fish were available to be caught." I did not, as you claim, say they caught less. I said fewer were available to be caught. And this report bears out that claim. Live with it, address the report as written, and get off your high horse.
    Then post accurate statement.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    could you say the same for the commercial fleet? Must have been lack of skill and effort that resulted in near record low cpue's.

    By all means yes - the people who sucked it up and went fishing likely caught more and complained less than those for whom it was too rough, too early, too far to run, too big of tides, too much trash, etc. It's a constant amongst fishermen, regardless of gear type.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    could you say the same for the commercial fleet? Must have been lack of skill and effort that resulted in near record low cpue's.
    Again no understanding of the drift fleet. Fish cpue means nothing. They took 2% higher than average. They had skill and adapted by fishing more.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Again no understanding of the drift fleet. Fish cpue means nothing. They took 2% higher than average. They had skill and adapted by fishing more.
    But burned twice as much fuel and didn't get to sleep at home all summer...

  17. #17
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onthego View Post
    Reasonable minds can differ on escapement goals. I am not surprised that you would promote a lower escapemen goal given that as a commercial set net fisher you would likely benefit. And that is a reasonable position for you to take. Others may believe that it is the inriver goal that causes confusion. either way the confusion needs to be addressed at the UCI meeting. Lots of challenges are facing this fishery. Hope the Dept and the BOF are up to them.
    The REAL goal is to figure it how to deal with the inflated expectations. The fish are doing well, year to year, the number of users is growing, and they aren't satisfied

    Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    could you say the same for the commercial fleet? Must have been lack of skill and effort that resulted in near record low cpue's.
    CPUE is going to be low when the sockeye aren't in big, heavy, hits, all at once. But that doesn't mean fishing isn't good. It just means they have to fish better and harder. Again, in the end, they took above the average.

    Whatever your point is, it's missing a few beats.

  19. #19
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Then post accurate statement.
    Your lack of reading comprehension does not change the accuracy of my statement.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoose35 View Post
    The REAL goal is to figure it how to deal with the inflated expectations. The fish are doing well, year to year, the number of users is growing, and they aren't satisfied

    Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
    And you ain't seen nothing yet! Wait until the Council requires that non residents be given access to the PU fishery in the Kenai and Kasiloff rivers. Charge a little more, set a lower harvest limit, what ever: there will still be thousands and thousands more users asking for their fair share. And I believe that the FMP will retain escapement goal management on the basis that it serves the standard of conservation quite well. So whose pocket do the extra fish harvested in the PU fishery come out of?

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
  •