Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 86 of 86

Thread: Kodiak Sockeye Genetics Report

  1. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    with that low return forecast for cook inlet I would think f&g would show some concern to pass more CI fish. From what i hear the kodiak guys knew they were catching CI fish and didn't want that genetic data to prove it.
    Yeah - I highly doubt the fishermen care where the fish are headed. I don't blame them. ADFG could take a few steps to mitigate interception, IMO, rather than putting it all on the BOF to figure out. They could also continue sampling the catch. Maybe those things are happening, but yesterday's conversation with ADFG made me wonder.

  2. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,212

    Default

    As is often said, "mixed stock" fishery. You know better than i, but from what i hear they can move those kodiak guys off the points and capes and have less interception. Be tough for the CI guys to get restriction and sit on the beach in low run years while their fish were caught in kodiak.

  3. #83
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Human kind has become incredibly efficient at exploiting the ocean's bounty.

    Somehow...

    Somewhere...

    Someone....

    .... is gettin' low holed.
    http://kmxt.org/2020/01/breaking-boa...-in-two-areas/
    "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. #84
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    "And itís absurd to place the burden three or 400 miles away from the Susitna River on Kodiak fishermen by closing the Mainland Area. Itís likely that because their inability or their unwillingness to accommodate the geography and the Katmai Alinchak Section that most of those chums and pinks will not go harvest it. So itís a waste of public resource because of their failure to understand or appreciate the geography and their unwillingness to take that into account for these management places."

    Actually, that is the essence of good management: taking into account the effect of a fishery on all stocks within that fishery. The management of the past, which said we only need to worry about and manage salmon once they get into or near the streams they spawn in, does not work. We have the technology to better analyze any fishery; we just need to pop our heads out of the sand and use the tec. Also, the Magnuson Stevens act requires managers to look at returns throughout their range, not just at the end point of their returns. This person quoted in the article "
    http://kmxt.org/2020/01/breaking-boa...-in-two-areas/" was completely wrong in his assertion.

  5. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,330

    Default

    How many Susitna-bound sockeye are caught in the Alinchak fishery?

    How many will the Susitna see if that fishery is closed, and how many of those will be bound for streams of concern within the Susitna drainage?

    Will UCI commercial fisheries be harvesting this increased number of sockeye now entering the UCI? Will Susitna-bound sockeye be among those?

    How will the other stocks previously harvested in this fishery now be harvested? How will already healthy systems already meeting their goals be effected by this influx of fish?

  6. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    How many Susitna-bound sockeye are caught in the Alinchak fishery?

    How many will the Susitna see if that fishery is closed, and how many of those will be bound for streams of concern within the Susitna drainage?

    Will UCI commercial fisheries be harvesting this increased number of sockeye now entering the UCI? Will Susitna-bound sockeye be among those?

    How will the other stocks previously harvested in this fishery now be harvested? How will already healthy systems already meeting their goals be effected by this influx of fish?
    Fun - Welcome back! Nice to know you're still with us..... I was gettin' worried. This place isn't the same without you.

    Those are really good questions. And unfortunately, having the answers is an unusual luxury when making fish management decisions in real-time. Indeed, if we had the answers, fish management would be child's play. But we don't, so it's hard. Really hard. Particularly when the decisions effect lots of folks in varying parts of the Great Land - from Kodiak to the Mat-Su Valley, and everywhere in between.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

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
  •