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

Thread: Cook Inlet Chinook collapse.

  1. #81
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    He may spend 7 years at sea but over 90% of the mortality of salmon will occur in freshwater from egg to smolt.
    That would be correct, even under pristine conditions.

    So if 90% of the mortality occurs in freshwater, under the best of circumstances, that only leaves 10% to carry out the life history of the species. So the 10% who actually make into saltwater are that much more important.

    Conversely, if more smolts made it to the salt, ocean mortality would be LESS important since there would be more to start with. But since freshwater mortality is fairly high, even minor amounts of additional saltwater mortality gets magnified.

    I think that's Willfish's point.

    I'm not disagreeing with Nerka, I'm just looking at the same information differently.......

  2. #82
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    He may spend 7 years at sea but over 90% of the mortality of salmon will occur in freshwater from egg to smolt. So the concentration on freshwater is justified. Also the State has control on what can be done in freshwater. The marine environment is more federal management. Also 30 million dollars on chinook research is being spent by the State and Federal Gov on marine studies of chinook. So your claim is a little shallow.
    Nerka, don't keep making this about my concerns. I am very concerned with freshwater, and do more than my share on that front. If you want to win a war, you can't do it by ignoring your flanks and defending one front. While we may not be able to control federal fisheries, we can provide better science to help them make their decisions. We can find out if our hatcheries are disrupting natural cycles or not. We can find out if changing ocean environments require different management and whether or not the current environment can handle what the environment 30 years ago could handle. "your claim is a little shallow." How do statements like that advance the cause of science? That does nothing for conservation, and will do nothing to bring back chinook runs. The state can control fishing in freshwater, but cannot control floods. It can control fishing after floods, if it is known that the event will lower production drastically, but to date, has never proactively managed in response to a major event with down the road implications; it manages year to year, until lower production shows up in lower returns, then management actions take many years to produce visible results.

  3. #83
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Pike is certainly a factor, but many chinook systems in the Su have zero documented pike.
    Which means little because newly hatched Chinooks leave their spawning area shortly after the alevin stage, migrating to other (Pike infested) waters of the Su as fry and parr in search of food and habitat protection, and eventually further downstream to (Pike infested) sloughs and estuaries as smolts. Along the way they are almost sure to encounter one of more than 100 water bodies on the Su that ADFG has identified with invasive Pike.

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    It aggravates the crap out of me to see everyone keep circling back to known boogeymen in fresh water, and not even seeking answers from the marine environment.
    It's probably frustrating because you choose to view the mountain of studies, reports, and documented freshwater problems as "boogeymen". When really, there is nothing "boogeymen" about disease, pike predation, culvert and beaver dam blockage, habitat loss, urbanization, pollution, parasites, overfishing by guides and lodges, etc. Your "boogeymen" are real, and tangible.

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    If you want to win a war, you can't do it by ignoring your flanks and defending one front.
    No one ever won a war by defending the flanks with conjecture and whims, and ignoring the front.

  4. #84
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    Which means little because newly hatched Chinooks leave their spawning area shortly after the alevin stage, migrating to other (Pike infested) waters of the Su as fry and parr in search of food and habitat protection, and eventually further downstream to (Pike infested) sloughs and estuaries as smolts. Along the way they are almost sure to encounter one of more than 100 water bodies on the Su that ADFG has identified with invasive Pike.

    It's probably frustrating because you choose to view the mountain of studies, reports, and documented freshwater problems as "boogeymen". When really, there is nothing "boogeymen" about disease, pike predation, culvert and beaver dam blockage, habitat loss, urbanization, pollution, parasites, overfishing by guides and lodges, etc. Your "boogeymen" are real, and tangible.

    No one ever won a war by defending the flanks with conjecture and whims, and ignoring the front.
    Funtastic, everything you mention in fresh water is being addressed. There has been little to no fishing in many waters of the Big Su for many years now. The reason I call them boogeymen, is that you and many others keep pointing all attention to those issues, and continue to pretend that nothing has been nor is being done to address these issues, while refusing to look at salt water for possible answers to this crash. There are still people who deny there really is a collapse. The fact of the matter is that freshwater issues in the valley have been identified, and are being dealt with, to varying levels, and returns have not responded much, if at all.

  5. #85
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,737

    Default

    ADFG has recommended new escapement goals for UCI with signif changes for Susitna drainages. I'm a bit concerned that individual trib goals are being abandoned for the road accessible east-side tribs in favor of an aggregate goal that can mask signif shortfalls in any any single trib.

    https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f...CI_EG_memo.pdf
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  6. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Funtastic, everything you mention in fresh water is being addressed. There has been little to no fishing in many waters of the Big Su for many years now. The reason I call them boogeymen, is that you and many others keep pointing all attention to those issues, and continue to pretend that nothing has been nor is being done to address these issues, while refusing to look at salt water for possible answers to this crash. There are still people who deny there really is a collapse. The fact of the matter is that freshwater issues in the valley have been identified, and are being dealt with, to varying levels, and returns have not responded much, if at all.
    Your post exemplifies exactly why returns are not responding well. As usual, you not only make false statements and rely on erroneous assumptions, but you convey contentment and satisfaction with current fresh water management efforts - all so you can conjecture about marine issues.

    For the record, the issues I mentioned in fresh water are NOT being addressed. In the Pike example alone, only a small fraction of the more than 100 water bodies infested with Pike are being dealt with - and no plan to deal with them all. ADFG funding and enforcement can't begin to scrape the surface of what needs to be done, from habitat loss due to ATV's, beaver dam blockage, a solution to disease and parasites, to overfishing, etc. I bet you can't even give us an accurate number of how many fish are supposed to return to that system, what tribs they are dedicated to go, and what the carrying capacity of sportfishing, if any, they can support.

    willphish4food, it is unfortunate you shortsightedly stop at what little has been done in fresh water, and call it "addressed". It is also unfortunate you must accuse those pointing out tangible fresh water issues of pretending nothing is being done and refusing to look at salt water issues. We know that is absolutely wrong.

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
  •