Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: Cook Inlet Has Been the Center of Disputes

  1. #1

    Default Cook Inlet Has Been the Center of Disputes

    Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Fisheries Are Divided Into Two Districts:

    The Central District extends from near the Anchor River to the forelands north of the Kenai River. The Northern District is made up of everything north of the forelands Cook Inlet Has Been the Center of Salmon Disputes Between Consumptive Users and Commercial Fishers For Years:

    Cook Inlet commercial fishers have seen nearly record harvests the last three years, and these near record harvests in Cook Inlet equate only to 3% of the total of all salmon harvested and sold state wide. In comparison, more than 65% of state wide consumptive use and sport fishing occurs in Cook Inlet as does the majority of the personal use dip netting

    Current Cook Inlet Salmon Harvest Shares from 2000-2006:

    Commical Fishing harvest
    25,663,571 82%

    Consumptive user harvast (folks that take salmon to home eat) 5,691,224 18%

    What does the Northern District of Cook Inlet Require?
    First and foremost is to recognize that the Northern District salmon resources are as important as other areas in Cook Inlet.

    Management strategies for all five salmon species must be developed in Cook Inlet which should includes:
    Conducting genetic studies of each species from the harvest
    data to determine migration routes through Cook Inlet.

    Studies to determine true wild stock escapements.

    Studies to determine extent of spawning areas.

    Any other type of study needed to reestablish traditionallevels of wild salmon stocks in the Northern District

    Problem Areas Northern District:

    Division of Commercial Fishing does not have enough
    up-front data to make preseason and in-season
    forecasts with the accuracyneeded to protect Northern

    District stocks.

    Escapement goals have been reduced in the northern
    district streams to make it easier to manage the ones in
    the central district.

    The Yentna River and Fish Creek in the Northern
    District have repeatedly missed their escapement goals.
    Why are these fisheries considered secondary to Central
    District stocks?

    Current management plans do not protect stocks
    moving through the inlet in July before the 20
    th or 25th .


    Fish Creek Escapement Goal Has been Manipulated
    The Division of Commercial Fishing subtracted
    all of the hatchery sockeye salmon from the
    return that had included them in the 50,000 fish
    escapement goal. Then they recommended to
    the Board of Fisheries to reduce the escapement
    by 30,000 to 20,000 native sockeye salmon
    stocks
    .

    The Department has arbitrarily made the
    decision to count both native and hatchery fish in
    their return counts which is contrary to policy.

    Fish Creek has repeatedly missed its escapement goals over the last ten years.


    Major issues facing the Northern District and
    requires Immediate Action:
    Cook Inlet is managed like no other fishery in Alaska. Set nets are allowed out to nearly a mile, virtually unrestricted commercial fishing is allowed before accurate in season forecast can be made.

    The Northern District is a desert of knowledge, there have been no in depthstudies (except for the current sockeye salmon genetic studies underway). Since the Subsistence user Hydro Programs.

    Alaska Department of Fish and Game has not established biological escapement goals for the majority of the salmon returns in Upper Cook Inlet. Because they do not have th need data. The only escapement goals are for sockeye salmon.

    The Deshka River is the only in season coho data point that is days up Susitna River from tide water.
    The Little Susitna River has a weir that is located above Houstion.

    What Is Needed For Cook Inlet In 2007 and 2008?

    Individuals and groups need to support the scientific
    management of all species of salmon equally.

    Insure that the department protects Northern
    District stocks as they migrate through the
    Central District.

    Support the proposals that have been submitted
    to reestablish sound, conservative salmon
    management plans.


    Chum Salmon harvest has dropped from 1.1 million in 1988 to less than 100,000 over the last three years.


    Cook Inlet 2005 Commercial Fishing Income

    Set Net Permits Total 737

    Resident 613, Nonresident 122

    Value of permits in 1990 $98,514, Value 2005 $10,000

    Drift Permits Total 571 Resident 404, Nonresident 166

    Value of permits in 1990 $202,058, Value in 2005 $39,300

    2005 was a record harvest for Cook Inlet commercial fishers. The over all average price paid for Cook Inlet
    salmon was 89.5 cents apound

    The total Cook Inlet salmon harvest is approximately 3% of the total state wide salmon harvest.



    Cook Inlet Commercial Fishing Economic Effects 1990-2005

    Set Net: Average permits fished annually 567
    Set Net: Average Price per pound $0.95
    Set Net: Average Value of a Drift permit $27,806.00

    Drift Fleet: Average permits fished annually 518
    Drift Fleet: Average price per pound $1.05

    Drift Fleet: Average Value of a Drift permit $69,883.00


    Limited Entry Permit Holders and Crew Members

    MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH
    Note these are state wide permits not just Cook Inlet

    Permits holders 256
    Crew members 279
    Municipality of Anchorage
    Note these are state wide permits not just Cook Inlet

    Permits holders 873
    Crew members 1,015


    Who pays for Conservation?

    “In a civilized and cultivated country, wild
    animals only continue to exist when preserved
    by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest
    against all hunting and consider sportsmen as
    enemies of wildlife do not understand the fact
    that in reality the genuine sportsman is, by all
    odds, the most important factor in keeping the
    larger and more valuable wild creatures from
    total extermination.”

    President Theodore Roosevelt

    Anglers Pay for Conservation in Alaska
    In 2003, 483,595 licenses were sold, generating $13 million in revenue to the
    State.

    In 2003, 292,844 were non-resident licenses, generating $9.6 million.

    In 2006, 499,214 licenses were sold, generating $21 million, of which $6.8 million was facility bond revenue to
    support hatcheries.


    Important Source of Funding for Resource Management

    Taxes on fishing equipment pay for many of the conservation efforts in Alaska and the country.

    • Anglers are among the Nation’s most ardent conservationists and spend time and effort to introduce children and other newcomers to the enjoyment of the
    outdoors.
    Access, Infrastructure and Allocation Is Important

    Public access and allocation for anglers to utilize state and federal fish resources iscritical for the recreational economy.

    Basic infrastructure, such as boardwalks, trails and boat launches, must be developed and maintained to provide reasonable access while protectinghabitat.

    Alaska Department of Fish and Game has Studies In Progress.
    Genetics studies on Sockeye Salmon are being taken at several points from Lower Cook Inlet up to their spawning grounds.

    This data will not be available for the February 2008 Board of Fishery hearings when new salmon management plans and regulations will be considered and implemented

    Economic Study of Sport fishing spending in south central Alaska which is needed to give consumptive users information to reallocate salmon between user groups.

    .

    Need For Economic Information
    • Fishing is a major economic driver for the tourism industry.
    • Many Alaskans rely on fishing for recreational and consumptive uses.
    • Outdoor recreation is a major component of the quality of life for residents.
    • Up to date, comprehensive economic
    information on this $1 billion dollar industry
    is scarce.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default bull and more bull

    There is so much misinformation in this post that it is hard to respond.

    I would suggest big fisherman tell us his point with this post. He/she trying to mislead for a reason?

  3. #3
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Alright, I'll bite. Care to support this statement with some factual data?

    virtually unrestricted commercial fishing is allowed before accurate in season forecast can be made.
    Virtually unrestricted? Hmmm... I don't think I would classify two 12-hour openings per week as virtually unrestricted. Yes, they're often given more fishing time via EOs, but that takes place once in-season forecasts are made. Thus, the above statement seems patently false.

    Care to comment, Bigfisherman?

  4. #4

    Default Something doesn't add up

    Since we're shifting over to beating up on the northern district now, there seems like a fundamental discrepancy in the sockeye numbers that just doesn't make any sense.

    On the one hand we've got the Kenai and Kasilof sockeye continuing to return massive numbers despite annual harvest rates pushing 70 or 80%. These rates far exceed the average sustainable harvest rates for sockeye throughout Alaska. Yet these massive harvest rates still seem incapable of limiting Kenai and Kasilof sockeye escapements to desired levels.

    On the other hand, we've got the Susitna virtually never making even the minimum sockeye escapement goals despite purportedly being fished at a much lower rate than the Kenai and Kasilof fish. Yet these fish are going into the same inlet and ocean as the Kenai/Kasilof fish and there are numerous studies showing marine survival patterns tend to be very highly correlated among nearby stocks. Further the Kenai sockeye juvenile and adult data lead to fundamentally different conclusions regarding the effects of large escapements - the juvenile data (smaller fish) suggests strong density dependence but the adults numbers continue to hold up.

    Something fundamentally doesn't add up here.

    One possibility as Nerka champions is that the Kenai and Kasilof are tremendously productive, the Susitna is not (beavers and pike), the Yentna sockeye sonar is wrong, the Kenai sockeye sonar is perfect, and the estimates of what stocks get caught in which fisheries is accurate.

    Other possible explanations are that the catch composition estimates are wrong and many more susitna sockeye are being caught in the eastside setnet fishery than previously believed or that the Kenai sonar significantly undercounts numbers in big years. If more Susitna fish are being harvested in the inlet than previously believed, then that would explain why it is consistently underescaped and why the Kenai & Kasilof harvest rates are estimated to be so high. If the Kenai sockeye sonar is biased, then that also means that all the stock-recruitment data estimates used to estimate escapement goals may also be wrong.

    But of course I'm wrong, stupid, biased, inexperienced and this is none of my business anyway. So on this issue I'll defer to the chief ADFG scientists with over a collective century of experience and both Cook Inlet and statewide perspectives (wise old birds like John Clark, Doug Eggers, Dave Bernard, Bob Clark). These questions were raised by them not me.

    Because the existing scientific data are inadequate to sort out these alternative hypotheses, ADFG has implemented a series of research studies on Yentna sockeye status, sockeye stock composition in Cook Inlet commercial fisheries, and the accuracy of the Kenai sockeye sonar. (Studies by the way that have been challenged, blocked, and attacked by some posters on this board as well as others with a vested interest in the status quo.)

    I'm looking forward to the results of this scientific research. In the who-gets-the-fish food fight at the heart of these discussions, these numbers could cut either way. I say let's get the real skinny and let the chips fall where they may. Either we're managing based on sound science or we're not.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6

    Default

    The Northern stocks are down because of beaver dams and pike, not commercial fishermen. Haven't you seen the studies that indicate the drift nets don't catch a significant number northern run fish.
    As far as the out of state commercial fishermen, those must be bad numbers as commericial fishermen, I have been told, are Alaskans, not out of staters like the sportfishing guides.
    I do look forward to Nerka blowing that this thread appart, he is on the ball and is a virtual endless suppy of data and knowledge when it comes to Cook Inlet fisheries and politics.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default Bfish - cannot believe your comments

    One possibility as Nerka champions is that the Kenai and Kasilof are tremendously productive, the Susitna is not (beavers and pike), the Yentna sockeye sonar is wrong, the Kenai sockeye sonar is perfect, and the estimates of what stocks get caught in which fisheries is accurate.

    Bfish if your going to make statements like the above you should back them up with something other than your biased opinion. First, I and the actual people who work on the grounds have never said that Kenai sonar is perfect or the estimates of what get caught in the fisheries is without uncertainity. That is hype on your part. Uncertainity is discussed on our reports and models that have been used in the past.

    Relative to Sustina production look at Cook Inlet Aquaculturals smolt counts from know escapements. There is little production coming out of some rearing lakes in the Susitna drainage. In addition, pike have eliminated sockeye from some systems - red shirt lake for sure. So production has decreased in the freshwater environs.

    In addition, the studies you mention about Susitna and Kenai sonar were questioned because the techniques used could not provide the precision necessary to answer the questions.

    In fact, the present Susitna sockeye estimates (total of 8) from the mark/recapture studies range for about 200,000 to over 600,000. The assumptions of the mark/recapture studies were violated numerous times.

    For example, the pit tag portion of the study was not used prior to 28 July because of the lack of recaptures but after 28 July was used and assumed to be valid without dealing with why it did not work prior to 28 July.

    In contrast, the radio tag results are used prior to 28 July and not after 28 July. The estimate for Yentna after 28 July for the pit tag is about 400,000 fish and the radio tag estimate around 100,000 sockeye salmon. For the record, the weir counts of fish actually entering lake rearing systems is closer to the sonar count than the higher mark/recapature estimates. These numbers may not be exact as I am hearing them from ADF&G personnel and have not seen the actual report.

    The people you cite as noted scientist pushed this program of mark/recapture even when those of us who had actually done it in the past pointed out why it would fail. So you can take the list of people you cite and remove them as experts on the Susitna- they are not. In point of fact, nothing is coming out of the mark/recapture studies. The radio tags are giving some information on distribution of spawners but the tags were not put out in proportion to abundance. In addition, tag detection has been a problem of when the tag actually entered the systems pass the weirs.

    Relative to genetics we will wait and see what comes out of that. However, if one assumes that the 600,000 into the Sustina is correct (which I do not but some do) then the exploitation rate is very low on Susitna stocks - even if one uses the sonar numbers the estimate of exploitation rate is low. This makes sense since the drift gill net fleet is the major harvester of northern bound sockeye. In contrast the Kenai and Kasilof stocks are harvested in the eastside set net fishery. Some northern bound fish are also taken in this fishery but it is outside the major migration route for northern bound fish.

    Relative to Kenai the mark/recapture estimates there also failed to provide meaningful data. Assumptions were violated as tag to untag ratios varied significantly by recovery site. In addition, there appears to be a size selection issue. The primary investigator told me yesterday he does not think the program worked and has recommended not proceeding in the future. So much for your cited experts again who pushed this over the objections of the primary investigator.

    The Kenai fry data and adult data are not in the conflict you suggest. Density dependence in the lake is about freshwater production, adult returns include marine survival which can compensate for poorer freshwater production. However, the reason that ADF&G is maintaining the existing goals is that larger escapements do not increase yield as demostrated in the data set.

    I agree that the science should be open to all comments but yours were not about science and that was obvious.

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default Waiting for the over-escapement example to justify EOs

    Guys, this is important. I asked asked this question last night but you've gotten bogged down in stuff that's removed from the original thread. Let's get back to KRSA's proposal and EOs.

    Can someone please provide a real example of salmon 'over-escapement', not a computer model example, so the EOs can be justified from at least the biological or habitat perspective?

  8. #8

    Default Heavy sigh

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Bfish if your going to make statements like the above you should back them up with something other than your biased opinion.
    Good gravy, must everyone who ever disagrees with you be biased? Have you ever considered the fact that everyone including you is subject to their own biases and that you might sometimes actually be wrong? And by the way since you yourself have worked as a consultant for Cook Inlet commercial fishing interests aren't you concerned that people might consider you to be similarly biased?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The people you cite as noted scientist pushed this program of mark/recapture even when those of us who had actually done it in the past pointed out why it would fail.
    I'm not actually looking for evidence in these studies to support my preconceived notions. I guess I'll wait for the actual data, reports and methods to be published before attempting to draw conclusions. But if you're going to start running down the Department's scientific braintrust then I guess I'd count myself in some pretty good company.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default get it right

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Good gravy, must everyone who ever disagrees with you be biased? Have you ever considered the fact that everyone including you is subject to their own biases and that you might sometimes actually be wrong? And by the way since you yourself have worked as a consultant for Cook Inlet commercial fishing interests aren't you concerned that people might consider you to be similarly biased?



    I'm not actually looking for evidence in these studies to support my preconceived notions. I guess I'll wait for the actual data, reports and methods to be published before attempting to draw conclusions. But if you're going to start running down the Department's scientific braintrust then I guess I'd count myself in some pretty good company.
    First to answer Charholio there is an example right in the Kasilof River. Glacier Flats Creek had over 100,000 spawners in it and the return was significantly less than the number of spawners. Hydrogen sulfide killed lots of eggs in the gravel and fish spawned on top of one another. I walked the stream and observed first hand what a large number of fish in a small stream can do. I would suggest you rethink your position on escapement goals and why we have them. We have them to try and get sustainable yields for all users. Without them we may go the way of federal management in Alaska in the 50's -

    Bfish, I consulted to the commercial fishing groups as a technical consultant in 2005. Have not worked for them since and never took their position on allocative proposals. They argued those for themselves. Also, I made less than 1000 dollars - want to reveal your income from KRSA. I have nothing to hide -

    I never said you were biased - reread the posts. I just said you are flat wrong on some of your positions.

    I have been wrong before and to imply that I do not consider that is insulting. I understand science is wrong most of the time. However, what I do is try to put risk analysis in the decision making process. You have consistently advocated a position that increases risks to the future yields of sockeye salmon in UCI - I disagree with your position as do a number of research biologist. Again, I left the ADF&G 8 years ago and they have maintained the escapement goals for Kenai, including those you name on your braintrust list. Again this year ADF&G, including some of those you name, are recommending that the goals stay the same.

    Relative to braintrust that is a fools game to argue they know better. These individuals you cite never worked in the Susitna drainage, never ran a fishwheel in that system, were unwilling to accept comments about why the program would fail, and spent almost 2 million dollars on a fail project.

    Those of us who had actually done this type of study in the Susitna drainage and who recommended using the money to run weirs and radio tag fish for spawner distribution data were ignored and dismissed.

    For example, not only myself and other ADF&G researchers who worked in the Sustina but residents who actually fished subsistence fishwheels in the river told your braintrust that fishing at Flathorn Station would not work. It did not and was stopped in the second year.

    We told them that fish separate by bank at Flathorn and that mixing of tag and untagged fish was not going to happen - it did not for the middle river wheels and the fish were separated by bank. We told them that fish migratory rates varied so that estimates by strata from the weirs was questionable - it is. I could go on but having a degree does not make one wise or knowledgeable on all things. However, with your braintrust it made them arrogant - if you want to be in that group fine with me. However, millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted and I suspect someone will ask why?

  10. #10

    Default Ah Nerka, I should pay you for the entertainment value

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Bfish if your going to make statements like the above you should back them up with something other than your biased opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I never said you were biased

    OK if you say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Bfish, I consulted to the commercial fishing groups as a technical consultant in 2005. Have not worked for them since and never took their position on allocative proposals. They argued those for themselves. Also, I made less than 1000 dollars - want to reveal your income from KRSA.


    Well, I guess you get what you pay for. (Kidding Nerka, Kidding)

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default apology

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post

    OK if you say so.



    Well, I guess you get what you pay for. (Kidding Nerka, Kidding)
    Bfish, sorry about the bias comment - my fingers got in front of my head.

    Also, I think you know that our disagreements should remain professional and not personal. So if I offended you I am sorry. No offense taken on the you get what you paid for - I thought it was a pretty good response.

    I just wish that you could talk to some of us without the agenda of KRSA coming into play. When we cannot see reports until just before Board of Fish meetings that are critical of past work I think we deserve the respect to respond. To date that has not happened -

    I also think that KRSA is your boss and that limits free discussion. Also I do not know if you are part of the reason we are excluded from discussions or that is soley the rules from KRSA. I know the local ADF&G staff has the same concerns that I have relative to the free exchange of information. The recent presentation to the Board of Fish about your model is a good example. No one in the local area has seen it and yet you are making claims to the Board of Fish members how it will give outcomes on allocations and escapements from various management plans. Has anyone at the regional or headquarters level of ADF&G seen it or help you in preparing it?

    A number of us are very leery of that approach for a variety of reasons. However, I doubt that we will ever get to discuss it as scientists without KRSA influence.

    That is one of the problem I have with KRSA and how they do business. I am not alone in those feelings.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karver View Post
    As far as the out of state commercial fishermen, those must be bad numbers as commericial fishermen, I have been told, are Alaskans, not out of staters like the sportfishing guides.
    Karver, my ex-father in law was a WA resident but he came up here year after year to participate in the UCI gillnet fishery. Not as an employee of someone else; he had his own boat. in the 90's he sold out to his neighbor, another WA resident, who was still actively fishing in the late 90s and might still be today. Did they pass some law in the past few years that prevents that from happening today?

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    First to answer Charholio there is an example right in the Kasilof River. Glacier Flats Creek had over 100,000 spawners in it and the return was significantly less than the number of spawners. Hydrogen sulfide killed lots of eggs in the gravel and fish spawned on top of one another. I walked the stream and observed first hand what a large number of fish in a small stream can do. I would suggest you rethink your position on escapement goals and why we have them. We have them to try and get sustainable yields for all users. Without them we may go the way of federal management in Alaska in the 50's - ?
    An example. Good. Sorry to belabor this but, how heavily enhanced is the Kasilof for sockeye, and is it possible that Glacier Flats Creek, either through straying or direct stocking, was affected by that stocking for that one year?

    What year was it, and were there any other years where this happened on Glacier Flats Creek?

    Is it possible it was a natural cycle of an unusually large run that simply corrected itself?

    Have they considered fin clipping the stocked fish to help determine origin?

    Those answers would be helpul, but I'm not ready to change my position based on one example, especially without the answers to the questions above. Thanks Nerka.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charholio View Post
    An example. Good. Sorry to belabor this but, how heavily enhanced is the Kasilof for sockeye, and is it possible that Glacier Flats Creek, either through straying or direct stocking, was affected by that stocking for that one year?

    What year was it, and were there any other years where this happened on Glacier Flats Creek?

    Is it possible it was a natural cycle of an unusually large run that simply corrected itself?

    Have they considered fin clipping the stocked fish to help determine origin?

    Those answers would be helpul, but I'm not ready to change my position based on one example, especially without the answers to the questions above. Thanks Nerka.
    The Kasilof drainage was stocked and Glacier Flat was impacted. However, the point is that 100,000 did not return any number of fish of significance. In addition, other streams in the Kasilof drainage did not return a harvestable surplus - the year was 1985 and 500,000 spawners returned less than 500,000 fish. Following years were managed to keep the number of spawners significantly below 500,000 spawners - in addition the stocking levels were reduced significantly.

    There are other examples but common sense will tell you that systems can be pushed naturally to bring back lower yields from a given number of spawners (Brian is right on).

    The Kenai sockeye are a good example. Spawner numbers in the 400000-600000 range produce the same yield as 1 million or more on average. However, the yield from the 1 million is driven by one large year and a number of smaller years. In contrast, the lower escapements tend to be more consistent in their returns. ADF&G has maintained the lower goals than suggested by some because of this pattern and risk analysis relative to large escapements.

    What I find interesting is people want to question escapement goal management for sockeye but the goals for Kenai chinook - both early and late run are MSY goals. No questions or comments?

    I do not think one person in ADF&G does not belive in escapement goal management - they may disagree on the level of escapement but the concept is sound. There are fisheries were escapements are not measured and these are managed on fixed exploitation rates but that is not the preferred approach.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default thanks, but

    Thanks for the answer, Nerka. But I don't see this example as very supportive of 'over-escapement.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The Kasilof drainage was stocked and Glacier Flat was impacted. However, the point is that 100,000 did not return any number of fish of significance. In addition, other streams in the Kasilof drainage did not return a harvestable surplus - the year was 1985 and 500,000 spawners returned less than 500,000 fish. Following years were managed to keep the number of spawners significantly below 500,000 spawners - in addition the stocking levels were reduced significantly.
    Rather, it seems like Glacier Flats Creek could support a theory of over-enhancement or unnecessary enhancement and management. It looks like mankind created the problem in an attempt at MSY, or thoughts along those lines if MSY wasn't in effect yet. Is it possible the stocking caused or contributed significantly to the unnatural return? Were there any years in that creek prior to enhancement where there was a similar problem?

    There are other examples but common sense will tell you that systems can be pushed naturally to bring back lower yields from a given number of spawners (Brian is right on).
    I don't think Brian was right on and I think your claim above is unsubstantiated as your example is tainted by the artificial enhancement. Maybe we need to look at some other examples that are untainted by enhancement. I looks to me like Gold Flats Creek was pushed UNnaturally to bring back lower returns. Do you have any examples of un-enhanced streams that support the theory of 'over-escapement?'

    The Kenai sockeye are a good example. Spawner numbers in the 400000-600000 range produce the same yield as 1 million or more on average. However, the yield from the 1 million is driven by one large year and a number of smaller years. In contrast, the lower escapements tend to be more consistent in their returns. ADF&G has maintained the lower goals than suggested by some because of this pattern and risk analysis relative to large escapements.

    What I find interesting is people want to question escapement goal management for sockeye but the goals for Kenai chinook - both early and late run are MSY goals. No questions or comments?.
    The Kenai is NOT a good example to support the theory of 'over-escapment.' It hasn't happened, maybe due to the management, but maybe not. What I asked for was not claims of success for managing for 'over-escapement,' but actual examples of streams that support the theory. Natural run streams, not enhanced.

    Sockeye MSY is the priority right now. I believe the entire management priority needs to be changed as I've been saying alot lately. I won't be surprised if Doc weighs in on your statement regarding MSY and Kings. I will have to think about that and I don't have enough time right now to put down any logical, concise comment.

    I do not think one person in ADF&G does not belive in escapement goal management - they may disagree on the level of escapement but the concept is sound. There are fisheries were escapements are not measured and these are managed on fixed exploitation rates but that is not the preferred approach.
    I'm not surprised they are all on board with escapement goal management. They are brought in and brought along to manage 'the way it's always been.' Heck, they're probably afraid to rock the boat. Their own security would be threatened.

  16. #16
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charholio View Post
    Sockeye MSY is the priority right now. I believe the entire management priority needs to be changed as I've been saying alot lately.
    Even apart from commercial use, I can't see a reason that sockeye should not be the priority. Even if the commercial fishery were eradicated, there are still many times more residents who depend on the sockeye runs to fill their freezers. Yes, kings sell valuable space on guide boats. They are not, however, an important food source for residents. At a 2/year limitation, they're a nice meal now and then, but aren't important as a subsistence food source. I think we need to manage for food harvest first and recreational opportunities second. As such, the preference placed on sockeye escapement seems well justified.

    Just one man's opinion, of course.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default enhancement not the issue

    Charholio, you asked for an example and then rejected it - however, without a fishery as you proposed Glacier Flats Creek would be getting escapements that would push it over the top and the loss of production would take place. The 1985 escapement of 500,000 into the total drainage was because fish were not harvested. These fish spawned and the production from them was less than 500,000. The Kasilof natural return has been as high as 1.5 million so without a fishery that many fish would enter the drainage - average production is probably in the 800,000-1 million range. There is no doubt in my mind that huge swings in production would result if this level of escapement entered the drainage. I just do not see why you cannot see that as a problem.

    Not sure why you reject the Kenai. Over-escapement is about loss of yields and the Kenai certainly fits that criteria. The largest returns to the Kenai are in the 9 million range. I do not think anyone would argue that this level of escapement would replace itself.

    The Canadian paper on over-escapement cites the loss of yield for systems reviewed and there are other Alaska examples.

    There are a number of additional production curves that show a loss of yield with large escapements. If you want a text to refer to with examples get Hilborn and Walters - Quantitiative Fisheries Stock Assessment -Chapman and Hall publishers New York.

  18. #18

    Default Kasilof enhancement

    Nerka, What do we know about the hatchery practices In Kasilof in the years when that 500,000 escapement came in? Seems like that was in the 11 million release years? Where were those broodstock collected - river run or tributary? Where were the smolts released? Were those tributary or lake release years? Do those hatchery fish come back at the same time as the rest of the run or where they earlier or later? What were the hatchery fractions in the returns in those days and do we know the hatchery fraction in that 500,000 year? (No statements or implications here, just picking your brain.)

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default Reinventing the wheel

    Charholio, do you have an example of "over-escapements" working in the Kenai fishery?

    Is any fishery, including the sports fishery, being denied opportunities to catch fish?

    Is there a shortage of fish that requires such drastic change as throwing all fisheries biology out the window and experimentation with over-escapements?

    Charholio, discussing over-escapement brings us back to re-inventing the wheel. Alaska's laws of fishery management dictate escapement goal management based on scientific studies and solid fisheries biology. As a result, Alaska has maintained sustained fisheries since statehood. I fail to see what you find wrong with that.

    I'm sure there are more examples that show the detrements of over-escapements. But really, the best example is how UCI's complex conglomeration of fisheries and users has been sustained and viable for years under current escapement goals and sustained yield management.

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default enhancement might be the issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Charholio, you asked for an example and then rejected it - however, without a fishery as you proposed Glacier Flats Creek would be getting escapements that would push it over the top and the loss of production would take place. The 1985 escapement of 500,000 into the total drainage was because fish were not harvested. These fish spawned and the production from them was less than 500,000. The Kasilof natural return has been as high as 1.5 million so without a fishery that many fish would enter the drainage - average production is probably in the 800,000-1 million range. There is no doubt in my mind that huge swings in production would result if this level of escapement entered the drainage. I just do not see why you cannot see that as a problem.
    Nerka, I rejected your example with good reason. Your example is not valid in my opinion because that system and unnaturally large run was possibly affected through enhancement activites.

    Not sure why you reject the Kenai. Over-escapement is about loss of yields and the Kenai certainly fits that criteria. The largest returns to the Kenai are in the 9 million range. I do not think anyone would argue that this level of escapement would replace itself.

    The Canadian paper on over-escapement cites the loss of yield for systems reviewed and there are other Alaska examples.
    Let's see some. So far I've not seen any that show the theory of 'over-escapement' as a problem. You defend it, and I respect you and your experience, but I need to see a concrete example and you haven't given any that don't have variables in them (ie enhancement efforts) that may be affecting the runs.

    There are a number of additional production curves that show a loss of yield with large escapements. If you want a text to refer to with examples get Hilborn and Walters - Quantitiative Fisheries Stock Assessment -Chapman and Hall publishers New York.
    As I said before, I want an example of a natural run that over-escaped, not theoretical computer models built by humans with human assumptions that influence the model's results. If there are some natural examples of the effects of 'over-escapement' that are unaffected by the kind of variables I describe, then I'll look it up and read it. Let me know on that, please.

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
  •