Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 86

Thread: Kodiak Sockeye Genetics Report

  1. #41
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post

    As fish managers we owe it to the public to fully understand the consequences of our decisions. Managing by ignorance, and calling it sustainable is a huge betrayal of the public trust. The public deserves better.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cohoangler again.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  2. #42

    Default

    "As fish managers we owe it to the public to fully understand the consequences of our decisions. Managing by ignorance, and calling it sustainable is a huge betrayal of the public trust. The public deserves better."

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cohoangler again.
    X2

  3. #43
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,807

    Default Context....

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Cliff Notes version...

    "So utterly inconsequential... what could it possibly hurt?"

    Does that capture it?
    Just like the impact of any one fisherman may seem inconsequential, on an aggregate basis the cumulative impact of the entire angling community can sometimes be devastating.

    On an individual basis, these fisheries may not amount to a hill of beans. But scores of seemingly "small impact" coastal fisheries picking off feeders and spawners all year long from all age-classes of kings definitely take their toll. The CWT data and expanded adult equivalent exploitation rates speak loud and clear.

    A local fish manager is tasked with getting enough fish back to the home gravel. That job is like collecting water from a distant well to bring back to a thirsty household. Only problem is (unbeknownst to the waterboy) the collecting vessel is full of 100's of hidden little leaks. None of the individual leaks amounts to much all by itself, but taken in aggregate over the length and duration of the journey, they seriously compromise the vessel's ability to contain water. There's precious little left once the waterboy arrives home.

    Folks have to think a on a more global scale. Bottom line, collective impact is what the fish are really up against.
    "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. #44
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,807

    Default

    I think data like this helps all of us to come to a fuller understanding of the marine exploitation of chinook stocks up and down the ENTIRE Pacific coastline.

    I can tell you this... the chinook technical committee of PSC/PST-managed fisheries does NOT take into account any of the exploitation happening west of SE-AK. All of the mortality and exploitation rate tables for PSC/PST-managed chinook stocks account for interceptions in SE-AK, NBC, WCVI, GS, WA/OR, PS.

    There is no accounting for chinook interceptions in the Gulf of Alaska, LCI, Kodiak, or the Bering Sea.... NONE

    Our understanding of marine interception of PSC/PST-managed stocks is therefore incomplete and under-appreciated.
    "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. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Good discussion. Frozen makes some good points, but lemme add some perspective.

    I have no problem sharing the fish we grow here in the PNW with our friends up and down the Pacific Coast. But the concern is that it's not a mark-selective fishery, and it's being done primarily within the waters of the State of Alaska.

    If the folks in and around Kodiak want to catch and keep lots of PNW hatchery salmon, that's not a real concern. But those hatchery fish are mixed in with wild fish, and there is no requirement to release wild fish. Wild salmon cannot take the level of exploitation necessary to take a lot of those hatchery fish. So either the wild stocks get hammered into extinction or we have lots of hatchery surplus. Lately, we've had more than our share of hatchery surpluses, but unfortunately the wild salmon aren't rebounding as quickly.

    Plus, as Frozen has pointed out, and is shown in FishDoc's graph, those fish are being taken in Alaska waters. The State of Alaska has no authority to manage those fish to help anyone else except the folks in the State of Alaska. So even though these fish are in State waters, they need to be under Federal management because they cross State and international lines, and many of these stocks are in real trouble, due in part to the fishing that's occurring in and around Kodiak.

    I realize FishDoc's graph doesn't reflect high numbers of fish. But I consider it a sample. And most likely it's a representative sample. Expand that sample across the entire fishery around Kodiak, and those numbers will get very big, very quickly.

    Lastly, lemme hit the issue of ocean fisheries and "sustainability". I agree that ocean fisheries have been implemented for decades but I strongly disagree that it's been sustainable. The fact is we've implemented these fisheries without really knowing the impact on local stocks. That's not being sustainable. That's being ignorant. Now that we've been getting a lot more and better data about ocean migration and fisheries in the GoA, SE AK, and elsewhere, we are becoming more aware of what has been happening for decades. A lot has changed since 1980. Indeed, that was almost 37 years ago. All this time we've been blissfully unaware of the impact we're having on returns to the Columbia River, Washington/Oregon Coast, and BC. Now that we're getting a better picture, there is no turning back. The chorus of voices demanding more enlightened fisheries management decisions at the national and international level are growing.

    As fish managers we owe it to the public to fully understand the consequences of our decisions. Managing by ignorance, and calling it sustainable is a huge betrayal of the public trust. The public deserves better.
    I also agree it has been an interesting discussion.

    Here's the total harvest of kings in the Kodiak fishery for the graph referenced down-thread:

    2014 8,382
    2015 8,087
    2016 7,482

    That's all of it recorded on ADF&G fish tickets, so there is no "hidden" number that we don't really know about for this fishery. That's the harvest. The bar graph work out slightly less because the ADF&G genetic study was for catches up to August 5, not season ending later in September.

    It seems to me there is some exaggerated idea of king harvest west of Cape Suckling in the GOA fisheries. There certainly aren't "scores" of coastal fisheries each whacking a few thousand kings that nobody keeps track of. Really, sitting here I can think of 6 in the GOA that catch west coast king stocks plus 1 in the Bering Sea. There is the "ocean" commercial salmon fisheries in Kodiak, Chignik, and the Alaska Peninsula plus two marine recreational fisheries in Homer and Kodiak. Then there is the Gulf of Alaska trawl fishery, which the feds manage already, and has a by-catch cap of 25,000/yr. Presumably, the kings caught in UCI would be predominately CI watershed origin, and the harvest on Copper River Flats in Prince William Sound would also likely have few BC/WOC stocks, but that's a guess. Trawlers in the Bering Sea catch some chinook as by-catch but west coast/BC stocks are a minor component, and they are also capped (and under Federal management).

    Even added together, harvests are a fraction of even the SE AK commercial and recreational fishery, or the BC fisheries, with harvest rates that are also a fraction of those fisheries. If someone can point to some research that shows somehow west coast wild stocks are disproportionately represented in the stock mixes subject to these fisheries, and therefore subject to higher harvest rates, then I'd like to see it.

    Happy New Year to everyone. fn

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    Frozen north,
    Was told once by a former cook inlet drifter who sold out and bought kodiak seine package in the 80's that when the big cook inlet returns of the late 80's were happening, he and others would go out in the shelikof tide rips and hold a hook in their seine targeting cook inlet sockeye. 3 bucks a pound and lots of them. Maybe b.s. but no reason for him to purposely lie to me he is out of both fisheries now
    I don't think any Kodiak fisherman is going to say they don't catch CI sockeye, or try to catch them when they are available around the Island and the fishery is open. As fishermen, that's what you do. Its been general knowledge in the fleet for probably almost 40 years that at times in July one can do pretty good on the capes for reds, if they are there. Guys were roaming all over the KMA by the late 1970's and early 1980's, fishing from Kilokak Rock to Shuyak, depending on the openings so there's nothing really new going there is my point. Some years fish aren't there, or some years there isn't much fishing time given during the right time in the summer, or there isn't much of a Cook Inlet run and therefore not many around. Its not a given, I don't believe. I guess its up to the Board of Fisheries to consider the merits of any request to change the Kodiak fishery because of the CI harvest. There were some contentious BOF meetings back in the 1980's over this already.

  7. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    I think data like this helps all of us to come to a fuller understanding of the marine exploitation of chinook stocks up and down the ENTIRE Pacific coastline.

    I can tell you this... the chinook technical committee of PSC/PST-managed fisheries does NOT take into account any of the exploitation happening west of SE-AK. All of the mortality and exploitation rate tables for PSC/PST-managed chinook stocks account for interceptions in SE-AK, NBC, WCVI, GS, WA/OR, PS.

    There is no accounting for chinook interceptions in the Gulf of Alaska, LCI, Kodiak, or the Bering Sea.... NONE

    Our understanding of marine interception of PSC/PST-managed stocks is therefore incomplete and under-appreciated.
    So you don't have a full and complete understanding or accountability of marine exploitation, and you can't answer simple questions about the graph you posted, but...drum roll...you just know it's causing your stocks to fail.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    A local fish manager is tasked with getting enough fish back to the home gravel. That job is like collecting water from a distant well to bring back to a thirsty household. Only problem is (unbeknownst to the waterboy) the collecting vessel is full of 100's of hidden little leaks. None of the individual leaks amounts to much all by itself, but taken in aggregate over the length and duration of the journey, they seriously compromise the vessel's ability to contain water. There's precious little left once the waterboy arrives home.

    Folks have to think a on a more global scale. Bottom line, collective impact is what the fish are really up against.
    I guess the waterboy can take comfort in the fact that his efforts and all of those leaks provide valuable water to other plants and people along the way. So long as his family gets the water they need everyone can feel good about the shared bounty, eh?

    Happy and safe New Year to everyone. Spearfish on the grill tonight. Draining the bucket Aloha style...






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #49
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Looking at the report the Kodiak staff is going to have a hard time on this one. For example near Black River the catch of UCI sockeye exceeded the local stock by a large margin. In SW Kodiak 244,000 sockeye headed for UCI were taken where there is an inshore fishery but it appears the fishery takes place on the capes to the north where interception is known. Also, no sampling was done in known interception areas where there are already management plans with caps but the fishery has been allowed to operate legally just inside the capes. Given large areas of the mainland and Kodiak were not sampled the actual interception is going to be much higher than reported. Given over 600,000 were taken in 2015 it is possible the actual harvest could approach 800,000 or more.

    Given the Susitna River sockeye have limited the drift fleet this level of interception could be costing UCI fisherman millions of dollars. Not only the cost of the sockeye harvested in Kodiak but the lost harvest in UCI.

    Also, these fish are being allocated to some river production in Kodiak and that could skew the whole production curves for these systems and escapement goals.

    Given no proposals are in to address this issue the Department needs to explain why the data are just coming out. The only option I see to deal with this is a petition to the Board. Wonder who will put it in?
    Given that so many sockeye of Susitna origin are being caught in this fishery, what does this do the production tables for the Susitna? Doesn't this mean that production is actually better than thought, as the commercial harvest is much higher than previously thought?

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Given that so many sockeye of Susitna origin are being caught in this fishery, what does this do the production tables for the Susitna? Doesn't this mean that production is actually better than thought, as the commercial harvest is much higher than previously thought?
    We don't know how many Susitna fish are caught in the Kodiak fishery because everything that classified as Susitna was lumped into a "Cook Inlet" reporting group along with the Kenai, Kasilof, and other CI stocks. You'd have to get the gene lab in Anchorage to break down the Cook Inlet reporting group into its component parts to get that information, provided they are all distinguishable genetically.

  11. #51
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenNorth View Post
    We don't know how many Susitna fish are caught in the Kodiak fishery because everything that classified as Susitna was lumped into a "Cook Inlet" reporting group along with the Kenai, Kasilof, and other CI stocks. You'd have to get the gene lab in Anchorage to break down the Cook Inlet reporting group into its component parts to get that information, provided they are all distinguishable genetically.
    Thank you. I think, given the stock of concern status of Susitna sockeye, this information is fairly critical.

    Nerka points out the lost revenue to the commercial industry in Cook Inlet; what about the lost subsistence fish to area residents? Also, could this mean that now the Kodiak fishery will also be managed more conservatively, costing them millions as well? Or should the reigns be lifted from the UCI drift fishermen, because since the Kodiak fleet is catching what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of stock of concern fish, they should be allowed to also?

  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Thank you. I think, given the stock of concern status of Susitna sockeye, this information is fairly critical.

    Nerka points out the lost revenue to the commercial industry in Cook Inlet; what about the lost subsistence fish to area residents? Also, could this mean that now the Kodiak fishery will also be managed more conservatively, costing them millions as well? Or should the reigns be lifted from the UCI drift fishermen, because since the Kodiak fleet is catching what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of stock of concern fish, they should be allowed to also?
    Those are all good questions. I'm sure ADF&G will be asked to break out that Cook Inlet reporting group into sub-groups by interested Cook Inlet stakeholders.

  13. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Frozen North made a point that in some years the interception of sockeye for UCI is good and other years it is not. That is true given the data set as the harvest ranged from just over 100,000 in one year to 600,000 and yet the UCI runs did not have that range at all. So the harvest is inconsistent and that actually poses a greater threat to the data set. If it was consistent then one can treat it as a bias but the forecast and brood tables would reflect escapement goals that are defendable. However, the fact it is not consistent makes for error in the data set that has more impact. For example in recent years the forecast is pretty accurate but in other years it is not. People asked where are the million sockeye that the forecast said were coming to UCI. Well if 600,000 are taken in Kodiak that answers the question. If in that year only 100,000 had been taken the forecast would have looked pretty reasonable. UCI researcher staff started to reevaluate their forecast methods because of the inconsistent nature of the forecast and maybe it is just what the interception rate was in Kodiak that was driving most of the error. So at a minimum if one is going to have an interception fishery one should know what fish are being harvested by management stock.

  14. #54
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    260

    Default

    The info from the Dept comes too late for anything meaningful to occur during this BOF cycle. The info is too incomplete with lots of important questions still to be answered. Hopefully some BOF members will ask some pointed questions that might lead to giving the Dept some direction. But I will not be surprised if nothing comes from this recent disclosure during this cycle. And I cannot see a petition getting passed as there is little info available to meet the criteria of an emergency. IMO. But the Board could put some pressure on the Dept. I would expect to hear that they do not have the funds to flesh out needed answers on origin and numbers.

  15. #55
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onthego View Post
    The info from the Dept comes too late for anything meaningful to occur during this BOF cycle. The info is too incomplete with lots of important questions still to be answered. Hopefully some BOF members will ask some pointed questions that might lead to giving the Dept some direction. But I will not be surprised if nothing comes from this recent disclosure during this cycle. And I cannot see a petition getting passed as there is little info available to meet the criteria of an emergency. IMO. But the Board could put some pressure on the Dept. I would expect to hear that they do not have the funds to flesh out needed answers on origin and numbers.
    An ACR for next year's BOF meeting would meet the criteria, as this is new information that can have profound management impact.

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    ...this is new information that can have profound management impact.
    I'm curious what "profound management impact" you are referring to?

    UCI sockeye stocks are very healthy, particularly 2014-2016 (this study), with all UCI enumeration sites either meeting or exceeding in-river goals. The only exception are a few streams documented with their own unique production problems. Also, while the new data does help us understand impacts on UCI sockeye, it is also very inconsistent with wide fluctuations, and it lacks genetic specificity within UCI.

    I can only assume you are referring to a profound management impact in regards to allocation?

  17. #57

    Default Kodiak Sockeye Genetics Report

    Perhaps it's been mentioned already, but I can't help but wonder if the late run timing of Kenai Sockeye the last two years is partly responsible for the higher interception rate...?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    I'm curious what "profound management impact" you are referring to?

    UCI sockeye stocks are very healthy, particularly 2014-2016 (this study), with all UCI enumeration sites either meeting or exceeding in-river goals. The only exception are a few streams documented with their own unique production problems. Also, while the new data does help us understand impacts on UCI sockeye, it is also very inconsistent with wide fluctuations, and it lacks genetic specificity within UCI.

    I can only assume you are referring to a profound management impact in regards to allocation?
    It is more than allocation Fun. First, in looking at the data it is obvious that more than 600,000 fish are being harvested in Kodiak in some years. For example in areas not sampled to the north of the Mainland District which was sampled one can assume the over 100,000 fish harvested were probably Cook Inlet. The July component sampled was 95% UCI. So if 1 million fish are not being accounted for in the UCI production tables that is a biological/research issue. It is not just allocation.

    Also, the Susitna escapement goals are based on the percentile method and that method assumes a sustainable harvest from those escapements. If the harvest is not being accounted for one cannot define if the harvest is sustainable or not. So your premise is just not correct given the information we have. Also, small systems not monitored in UCI may be impacted more than the major systems we monitor. For example, Crescent River sockeye on the west side. Are those fish being intercepted at a higher rate in the westside Mainland fisheries in Kodiak and without escapement goal monitoring on the Crescent anymore we have no idea with the impact is on escapements - a number of UCI sockeye systems assume proper escapements if the large systems get their escapements but that is based on data from UCI genetics. Kodiak is a different story or could be and the samples need to be run to define what the harvest is on the UCI subsystems.

    At this point the best thing that could happen is ADF&G be forthcoming with a full analysis of what this all means for the three major management areas impacted. They need to define how the fisheries are prosecuted, why they fish on stocks that are not local given their own management plans, how the harvest impacts biological data and forecast methods, how the harvest impacts the economics of all regions, and what options are available to reduce interception if found to be unacceptable. As a biologist in UCI I knew Kodiak was taking UCI fish but not how many and that was troubling. Our understanding of lake production and fry survival to adult was being impacted to some unknown degree. I can tell you 600,000 fish or more to Kenai, Kasilof, and Susitna would have impacted our thinking and we would have loved to have these data.

  19. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,330

    Default

    With Cook Inlet sockeye goals being met or exceeded these additional 1 million fish would just be harvested in Cook Inlet, or an over-escapement scenario would be created (missed goals).

    The Kodiak fishery has been going on a long time. During that time Cook Inlet stocks have been sustained. The fact we are gaining genetic data in itself does not mean all of a sudden Cook Inlet stocks should be seen as not sustainable. Again, these Cook Inlet sockeye have been harvested in this fishery for years. The only thing new is now we know that.

    I agree this recent genetic accountability may change biological issues like production tables and forecasts, for example. This could change goals and allowable harvest, but really it all goes full circle back to allocation - who gives and takes, where. But I don't think speculating about the impact on certain systems and subsystems is a good approach - we really need more specific genetic data to do that. Once that's in hand, managers could allocate fish much more precisely according to area fished, avoiding harvest of any Cook Inlet stocks of concern.

  20. #60
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    I'm curious what "profound management impact" you are referring to?

    UCI sockeye stocks are very healthy, particularly 2014-2016 (this study), with all UCI enumeration sites either meeting or exceeding in-river goals. The only exception are a few streams documented with their own unique production problems. Also, while the new data does help us understand impacts on UCI sockeye, it is also very inconsistent with wide fluctuations, and it lacks genetic specificity within UCI.

    I can only assume you are referring to a profound management impact in regards to allocation?
    Sure, attempt to avoid engaging in important management discussion by claiming I'm only concerned with allotment. Management changes affect allotment; so what? Do we quit managing fisheries with conservation goals and concerns in mind, because managing the fishery effects allotment? How ridiculous would that be! Allotments are an integral part of Alaska fisheries management. You can't have one without the other. And with this information that a fishery with no regulatory allotment of cook inlet fish is catching up to a million fish a year from the Cook Inlet, whose sockeye are fully allocated, management of the fishery needs a close assessment.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •