Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Is Deshka Chinook SEG too low?

  1. #21
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Please define where on the production curves this is located? Are you talking about Maximum Abundance? If so if runs decrease Max Abundance will also decrease. Not sure how you define what you are promoting. Are you using something other than a production curve?.
    To keep it in terms of the entrenched paradigm, Ricker curve at R-max.... top of the roller coaster.... to the right of R-msy and to the left of equilibrium.
    "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. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,282

    Default

    As I recall, the peak of the curve represents the number of adults needed to maximize the number of recruits. On either side of that point, the number of recruits decreases, perhaps precipitously depending on the shape of the curve. That would be max abundance.

    It might not be max sustained abundance, but I'm not sure anything about a Ricker curve can be considered 'sustained". It's been shown that MSY can produce maximum yield but it is certainly not sustainable (largely due to external factors that limit productivity).

  3. #23
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,808

    Default

    Any stock purportedly managed for a rec priority needs be managed for MSA.
    "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. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Any stock purportedly managed for a rec priority needs be managed for MSA.
    OK, Please tell us what the MSA is for the Deshka. The truth is, you can't. Because there is no such critter. It changes from year to year due to the variety of external factors that Cohoangler mentioned. But go ahead, take a stab at it and tell us what you think that number is. And while you are at it, maybe explain why, if it works, it shouldn't be used for fisheries that are purportedly managed for commercial priority also or even a variety of priorities? It sounds like a panacea for all that ails salmon stocks.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  5. #25
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    OK, Please tell us what the MSA is for the Deshka. The truth is, you can't. Because there is no such critter. It changes from year to year due to the variety of external factors that Cohoangler mentioned. But go ahead, take a stab at it and tell us what you think that number is. And while you are at it, maybe explain why, if it works, it shouldn't be used for fisheries that are purportedly managed for commercial priority also or even a variety of priorities? It sounds like a panacea for all that ails salmon stocks.
    See post #21.... for a harvested population, the MSA escapement occurs at the apex of the Ricker curve.

    The historic bias of fishery managers clinging to the MSY-mantra is because that is theoretically where the difference between escapement and recruitment is greatest.... allowing that difference to be "sustainably" removed from the pool of adult recruits. This is the essence of the "yield" concept.... the amount that can theoretically be removed (exploited/harvested) from the adult return... and managing to maximize that yield.

    MSA occurs at a higher spawner escapement where recruitment is greatest. This works better for a rec fishery dependent on opportunity. For an angler, opportunity starts with a bite. And since we know they all ain't biters, maximizing opportunity is predicated on maximizing abundance. In a rec fishery, more fish means more bites which means more opportunity. The theoretic "yield" in that scenario is admittedly less than at the MSY escapement.... but for someone fishing for recreation, the importance of dead fish in the box is not as great as in a commercial fishery where it is 100% all about the dead fish in the box.
    "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. #26

    Default

    This is a good thread to stimulate conversation-
    You use the term MSA but I believe the correct term is MSR or more recently MSP.
    The term MSR has traditionally been called “maximum recruitment” (Rm; Ricker 1975, pgs 283-285), more recently “maximum sustained production” (Fleischman et al. 2012). One way to define it is the maximum point of the stock-recruit model where average recruitment over time is at the peak.

    The state policy for escapement goal states- "maximum sustained yield" or "(MSY)" means the greatest average annual yield from a salmon stock; in practice, MSY is achieved when a level of escapement is maintained within a specific range on an annual basis, regardless of annual run strength; the achievement of MSY requires a high degree of management precision and scientific information regarding the relationship between salmon escapement and subsequent return; the concept of MSY should be interpreted in a broad ecosystem context to take into account species interactions, environmental changes, an array of ecosystem goods and services, and scientific uncertainty;"

    One of the key elements to MSY is maintaining harvest regardless of run strength to stay within the range.
    So should a sport fishery on Lake Creek or other streams with the only enumeration is after the season aerial index counts have a goal that requires the the precision that MSY states be the appropriate goal, in other words should be have a goal that we can't manage for? On a river like the Deshka we do have some real time counting( weir) but does the sport fishery have the harvest power to stay within the goal on large returns?

    I would love to hear thoughts on this.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    See post #21.... for a harvested population, the MSA escapement occurs at the apex of the Ricker curve.

    The historic bias of fishery managers clinging to the MSY-mantra is because that is theoretically where the difference between escapement and recruitment is greatest.... allowing that difference to be "sustainably" removed from the pool of adult recruits. This is the essence of the "yield" concept.... the amount that can theoretically be removed (exploited/harvested) from the adult return... and managing to maximize that yield.

    MSA occurs at a higher spawner escapement where recruitment is greatest. This works better for a rec fishery dependent on opportunity. For an angler, opportunity starts with a bite. And since we know they all ain't biters, maximizing opportunity is predicated on maximizing abundance. In a rec fishery, more fish means more bites which means more opportunity. The theoretic "yield" in that scenario is admittedly less than at the MSY escapement.... but for someone fishing for recreation, the importance of dead fish in the box is not as great as in a commercial fishery where it is 100% all about the dead fish in the box.
    It only works for recreational fisheries that do not want to have a yield priority. It is dangerous to take this route because the number of spawners is greater and the ability to reach that number is a probability. Sometimes one should beware of what they ask for. Also saying MSY does not work or is not achievable is not true. It works as a policy to put escapement first relative to harvester demands. It works because people should understand it is based on average returns not what happens in a given year. It has worked in Alaska because users and founders of the State at the time of statehood understood policy, expectations, and actions needed to come back from federal overharvest.

  8. #28
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SkwentnaMan View Post
    This is a good thread to stimulate conversation-
    You use the term MSA but I believe the correct term is MSR or more recently MSP.
    The term MSR has traditionally been called “maximum recruitment” (Rm; Ricker 1975, pgs 283-285), more recently “maximum sustained production” (Fleischman et al. 2012). One way to define it is the maximum point of the stock-recruit model where average recruitment over time is at the peak.

    The state policy for escapement goal states- "maximum sustained yield" or "(MSY)" means the greatest average annual yield from a salmon stock; in practice, MSY is achieved when a level of escapement is maintained within a specific range on an annual basis, regardless of annual run strength; the achievement of MSY requires a high degree of management precision and scientific information regarding the relationship between salmon escapement and subsequent return; the concept of MSY should be interpreted in a broad ecosystem context to take into account species interactions, environmental changes, an array of ecosystem goods and services, and scientific uncertainty;"

    One of the key elements to MSY is maintaining harvest regardless of run strength to stay within the range.
    So should a sport fishery on Lake Creek or other streams with the only enumeration is after the season aerial index counts have a goal that requires the the precision that MSY states be the appropriate goal, in other words should be have a goal that we can't manage for? On a river like the Deshka we do have some real time counting( weir) but does the sport fishery have the harvest power to stay within the goal on large returns?

    I would love to hear thoughts on this.
    Correct... I am using MSA (maximum sustained abundance) and MSR (maximum sustained recruitment) synonymously. The Holy Grail objective in the MSA/MSR paradigm is to consistently produce the greatest abundance of adult recruits in perpetuity. This is the management objective that that works best in a rec fishery dependent on sustainable abundance to optimize opportunity.

    By definition, it is sustainable and still produces a generous harvestable yield... only with fewer fish available for exploitation and allowing a greater spawning escapement than when we manage for an MSY objective.

    Inability to enumerate escapement in-season doesn't necessarily preclude an MSY goal... it just makes it hella'tougher to achieve without a more precautionary approach.

    The other problem with an MSY range for escapement is that it automatically skews the management toward the lower bound of the MSY goal. That's just the unavoidable reality of human nature. At least that's what history show us.
    "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

  9. #29
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    d
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    It works because people should understand it is based on average returns not what happens in a given year. It has worked in Alaska because users and founders of the State at the time of statehood understood policy, expectations, and actions needed to come back from federal overharvest.
    Nerka, I respectfully disagree. Saying management of our fisheries works, and has worked as it is, ignores the fact of the Susitna River chinook returns. If the model and its practice worked, chinook returns to the Susitna would still sustain sport fishing. The Parks Highway streams, which each sustained 10's of thousands of angler hours for 2 decades, are decimated to the point there is zero retention allowed, for many years now. Last year saw no fishing of any kind targeting kings on the Parks Hwy streams. That closure extended into all other Susitna Rivers and also the Yentna. Management has been far too slow to recognize change and adjust the way things are done, and this is the result of the management "that works." As to Federal regulations and fisheries wrecking our state fisheries, and Alaska solving that problem after statehood, I present to you the Federally run pollock fishery. Halibut quotas. And the marine mammal protection act. Its way past time to quit saying "our management is great, and works well, is the best managed fishery in the nation, etc," and look at why it no longer works, and what changes need to be made.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    dNerka, I respectfully disagree. Saying management of our fisheries works, and has worked as it is, ignores the fact of the Susitna River chinook returns. If the model and its practice worked, chinook returns to the Susitna would still sustain sport fishing. The Parks Highway streams, which each sustained 10's of thousands of angler hours for 2 decades, are decimated to the point there is zero retention allowed, for many years now. Last year saw no fishing of any kind targeting kings on the Parks Hwy streams. That closure extended into all other Susitna Rivers and also the Yentna. Management has been far too slow to recognize change and adjust the way things are done, and this is the result of the management "that works." As to Federal regulations and fisheries wrecking our state fisheries, and Alaska solving that problem after statehood, I present to you the Federally run pollock fishery. Halibut quotas. And the marine mammal protection act. Its way past time to quit saying "our management is great, and works well, is the best managed fishery in the nation, etc," and look at why it no longer works, and what changes need to be made.
    Will you are just so wrong and failed your history test. The federal fisheries you referenced are a direct result of the MSA which I think was passed in 1976. The White Act governed salmon management in the 1950's in Alaska. That required 50% harvest of all returns. Unfortunately there was no assessment and the Federal Gov overharvested UCI fish. The State management brought back the Susitna chinook salmon. You cannot blame the lower chinook returns if the lower returns are due to a change in overall productivity. Sorry but your just wrong. Management has closed fisheries to meet goals. If those goals are wrong so be it. But you cannot blame the State. Are you saying they overharvested those streams.

  11. #31
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Will you are just so wrong and failed your history test. The federal fisheries you referenced are a direct result of the MSA which I think was passed in 1976. The White Act governed salmon management in the 1950's in Alaska. That required 50% harvest of all returns. Unfortunately there was no assessment and the Federal Gov overharvested UCI fish. The State management brought back the Susitna chinook salmon. You cannot blame the lower chinook returns if the lower returns are due to a change in overall productivity. Sorry but your just wrong. Management has closed fisheries to meet goals. If those goals are wrong so be it. But you cannot blame the State. Are you saying they overharvested those streams.
    The Federally managed fisheries are still over harvesting across the board. Alaska may have solved some federal problems at statehood, but are the loser now to federal management. And you just keep convincing yourself that Alaska is managing its fisheries so well. Your metric and mine are worlds apart.

  12. #32
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    The Federally managed fisheries are still over harvesting across the board. Alaska may have solved some federal problems at statehood, but are the loser now to federal management. And you just keep convincing yourself that Alaska is managing its fisheries so well. Your metric and mine are worlds apart.
    willphish, I'm curious what goes into your statement that the Federal fisheries are "still over harvesting across the board."

    Since we're talking about salmon here, most of the the Chinook salmon taken as bycatch in the federally-managed fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are non-Alaskan stocks (Canadian and PNW stocks prevail). And very little of the Chinook bycatch in the Bering Sea is from GOA stocks either (most is from the rivers that drain into thge Bering Sea). And, about 95% or more of the non-Chinook salmon bycatch is chum salmon and I presume you're not talking about chums here.

    That doesn't make the Chinook salmon bycatch okay just beacuse they're not "our" fish, but how do you justify your statement?
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  13. #33
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    willphish, I'm curious what goes into your statement that the Federal fisheries are "still over harvesting across the board."

    Since we're talking about salmon here, most of the the Chinook salmon taken as bycatch in the federally-managed fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are non-Alaskan stocks (Canadian and PNW stocks prevail). And very little of the Chinook bycatch in the Bering Sea is from GOA stocks either (most is from the rivers that drain into thge Bering Sea). And, about 95% or more of the non-Chinook salmon bycatch is chum salmon and I presume you're not talking about chums here.

    That doesn't make the Chinook salmon bycatch okay just beacuse they're not "our" fish, but how do you justify your statement?
    I apologize. My statement didn't read too well. The worst fishery is the federally managed pollock fishery, which overharvests as bycatch many species, most notably halibut and chinook salmon. Directed halibut fisheries are suffering, and this overharvest is largely to blame, as you know. As to stock comp of the chinook bycatch; we don't have good numbers from the peak years. Now that the statewide numbers of chinook have plummeted so far, it makes sense that there are few Alaska fish, proportionately, in the catch samples.

  14. #34
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    As to stock comp of the chinook bycatch; we don't have good numbers from the peak years. Now that the statewide numbers of chinook have plummeted so far, it makes sense that there are few Alaska fish, proportionately, in the catch samples.
    Alaska-origin chinook can't possibly be proportionately represented in the CWT recovery database because the lion's share of the CWT's are implanted into hatchery-origin fish. Most of Alaska's chinook are still wild-borne while 80-90% of those from the PNW are hatchery fish.

    Virtually everything we know about chinook distribution and migration patterns comes from these CWT's. But our understanding is muddled by the inconsistent application of CWT's across stocks.

    GSI (genetic stock identification) is a much more powerful tool that could be sampled more thoroughly and proportionately, but it's very expensive. I know that Bristol Bay sockeye are managed in real-time with in-season GSI. This could be done systematically with chinook bycatch as well... but it needs to be prioritized by the policy folks and adequately funded to be effective.
    "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

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I apologize. My statement didn't read too well. The worst fishery is the federally managed pollock fishery, which overharvests as bycatch many species, most notably halibut and chinook salmon. Directed halibut fisheries are suffering, and this overharvest is largely to blame, as you know. As to stock comp of the chinook bycatch; we don't have good numbers from the peak years. Now that the statewide numbers of chinook have plummeted so far, it makes sense that there are few Alaska fish, proportionately, in the catch samples.
    You are making a mis-statement here willphish..... The federally managed pollack fishery is responsible for a huge bycatch of kings but it has nothing to do with halibut bycatch. It's a midwater fishery, the nets rarely get close to the bottom and even when they do it's by accident,they run into a pinnacle or some such. Besides Kings, the biggest bycatch is usually sleeper sharks which feed on pollack and squid which are often in the area of pollack. What gets the halibut is the winter cod drag fishery which is hard on the bottom. It's also hard on crab populations in the area.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •