Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80

Thread: Brown decison and windows

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,528

    Default Brown decison and windows

    Bfish posted that the Brown decision was a split judgement and implied (not out of malice) that the question was still open. I said I would look up the decision and post it. I thought a new thread would be better at this point.

    The decision on case 3KN-02-524 CI was signed by Harold M. Brown on 28 May 2003. Here are some quotes from that decision.

    Here, the issue is whether the Board's regualtion should be read as further limiting the power of the Commissioner to issue Emergency Orders to particular times and places of the Board's choosing. The court holds that is should not. Although the Board of Fisheries is granted wide ranging power to regulate the fishery under AS 16.05.251, the Board cannot place limits on the Legislature's delegation of authority to the Commissioner...... the court can say that to the extent that 5AAC 21.360 can be read to prohibit the commissioner from entering an Emergency Order affecting the time limits set ut in the regulation no matter the circumstances , it is invalid..

    Summary judgement is therefore granted ... in favor of the Plaintiffs regarding the effect of the Board's regulation on the Commissioner's Emergency Order authority.

    The court did grant the state summary judgement on a second part of the case regarding the issue of a need for a yeild analysis on the Kasilof River sockeye OEG.

    Therefore, there was a split decision. The State won on the Kasilof yeild analysis and the fisherman won on the emergency order authority issue.

    Further. Brown in a denial of a request of a temporary restraining order noted case law and wrote " the Board cannot place limits on the legislature's delegation of authority to the Commissioner. In other words, the language in the regulations purporting to limit the Commissioner's EO authority should be ignored as unenforceable.

    I hope this makes it very clear that the windows are not enforceable or legal relative to limitations on the emergency order authority of the Commissioner. Therefore, why have that language in regulation - it only confuses the public and puts ADF&G in a no win situation.

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

    Default Very clear

    That makes it very clear.

    I would like to see KRSA withdraw their proposal 132. I see no reason to waste time, money, and effort on a proposal that spits in the face of the Brown ruling and State law.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default Question.

    Nerka is there any reason legal or otherwise that EOs be managed to in effect include a window? I know sometimes all it would take to keep me happy (as a recreational angler) is say 2 hours a day of fish getting in-river. I would be even happier if that 2 hours was somewhat regular.
    I agree that EOs are needed and for one I am a believer in the problems of overescapement. Still as a rec guy there is little worse than going down the pennisula, getting there on a day without a comm opener (I do look for them and plan on them), and then find out the nets are in the water as there was an EO. I even would agree that fish get in the river no matter what. I fish reds though mainly, and on the lower river you need around 20,000 fish to be succesful, and on the upper less. And as a fisherman I see how the fishing shuts down on most days when the EO starts. Still given we could all look up how fast a salmon swims up river and if we know that from say 5-8am that fish were possibly getting in-river we would have more success as I would find them.
    just a thought.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,528

    Default natural management windows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    Nerka is there any reason legal or otherwise that EOs be managed to in effect include a window? I know sometimes all it would take to keep me happy (as a recreational angler) is say 2 hours a day of fish getting in-river. I would be even happier if that 2 hours was somewhat regular.
    I agree that EOs are needed and for one I am a believer in the problems of overescapement. Still as a rec guy there is little worse than going down the pennisula, getting there on a day without a comm opener (I do look for them and plan on them), and then find out the nets are in the water as there was an EO. I even would agree that fish get in the river no matter what. I fish reds though mainly, and on the lower river you need around 20,000 fish to be succesful, and on the upper less. And as a fisherman I see how the fishing shuts down on most days when the EO starts. Still given we could all look up how fast a salmon swims up river and if we know that from say 5-8am that fish were possibly getting in-river we would have more success as I would find them.
    just a thought.
    If you call pat shields at ADF&G soldotna and ask him to send you the eastside set net fishing hours file (excel) you can see that ADF&G there are times when ADF&G does not fish. One hypothesis I have is that there is more fishing time today than when windows did not take place by regulation. With restricted fishing times ADF&G is fishing every hour available to them regardless if fish are on the beach or not. They have to in order to protect themselves from the window closures (yes they can override the windows but as I mentioned it is politically tough).

    Relative to two hours approach fish tend to enter on high tide and two hours does not buy you much since when fish come to the beach is not predictable.

    Relative to the 20,000 fish per day I just looked at 2007 and there were 15 days when over 20,000 sockeye went pass the counters between 17 July (when the fish really hit the beach) and 12 August when things started to tail out. On the other days there were some near 20000 which I did not count. Of course these fish are available upstream of the sonar counter for longer periods but I thought this data might help put things in perspective.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Yah that was pretty much what I thought. I know for a fact that I don't "deserve" fish every time I go south. Some predictibility sure would help. (but try telling that to the fish). It would be nice if some easy scheduled non-net times were alway there, but still usually there is very good fishing.
    With this year I think lots of folks might just be down. I heard the King fishing was down, but don't really know. I know the reds were tough to catch on the Kenai this year. (at least for me). They seemed to be further off the bank in deeper siltier water than normal. I am sure that has put wood on this fire so to speak. Year before this the run was weak then bam. This year the numbers were there they just didn't seem to be catchable.
    Tough fishing years leave everyone looking for different solutions when maybe it was just a tough fishing year.

  6. #6

    Default AKBrownsFan

    Have you ever attended a board of fish meeting? If not it is a well known fact that once they have had a commerical openings it takes more than a day for the river to start getting anynumbers of fish back in the river. That is why the BOF moved the scheduled opening from Friday to Thursday. To give the weekend comsumptive users a chance to haverst fish. The windows plans that was developed by the BOF using the time line that the department gave them by the deartment. This time line was ajusted according to the time needed to allow fishing the central district and to pass fish through to the northern distract.
    The board also identified the coho and king salmon as a consumptive user resource and the others as a com. fishiers resource. The only personal use fishery is the northern district hasn't been open in more than ten years.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    Have you ever attended a board of fish meeting? If not it is a well known fact that once they have had a commerical openings it takes more than a day for the river to start getting anynumbers of fish back in the river. .
    Bigfisherman you continue to mislead the public. There are numerous days in the records that the commercial fishery was fishing and lots of fish entered the river. You can look at 2007 there were 10 straight days starting on 22 July that put between 15k (one day) and 60K in the Kenai River. In addition the commercial fishery fished a number of those days and if you lagged the sonar count a couple of days to the river mouth the commercial fishery fished 8 of those 10 days. Other years will show the same pattern.

    So if you want to continue to mislead this group go ahead but I think the data will show that you are mistaken and your credability is suffering.

    Also, ADF&G has done estimates of the exploitaiton rates of sockeye in the fishery and entry pattern into the Kenai River. They fish many days in July and yet they still put hundreds of thousands of fish into the river. They do not come on just non-fishing days as you claim.

    You can look at the chinook sonar data and show that fish enter in July when the nets are out. After all the eastside sets nets only exploit chinook at about 20% with all the fishing. So again you are mistaken for this species as well.

  8. #8
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    Have you ever attended a board of fish meeting? If not it is a well known fact that once they have had a commerical openings it takes more than a day for the river to start getting anynumbers of fish back in the river. That is why the BOF moved the scheduled opening from Friday to Thursday. To give the weekend comsumptive users a chance to haverst fish. The windows plans that was developed by the BOF using the time line that the department gave them by the deartment. This time line was ajusted according to the time needed to allow fishing the central district and to pass fish through to the northern distract.
    The board also identified the coho and king salmon as a consumptive user resource and the others as a com. fishiers resource. The only personal use fishery is the northern district hasn't been open in more than ten years.

    Just because you can't catch fish doesn't mean they are not there
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,528

    Default Question for Bfish

    I heard that you are backing off that windows put fish into the river. Not sure what is true so thought I would check with the author. I heard you said this at the AFS meeting that KRSA and you are rethinking this issue. Any truth to that rumor?

  10. #10

    Default Windows?

    No truth to that rumor.

    Windows have both solid biological and allocation benefits.

    On the biological side, they provide for escapement of stocks that are not monitored (e.g. late Kasilof kings) and ensure that escapement is distributed throughout the run.

    On the allocation side, they deliver fish a regular supply of fish to inriver fisheries which sustains opportunities in both the sport and PU fisheries, share fish among the fisheries, and protects the commercial fishery manager from having to make de facto allocation decisions during inseason management.

    At the Alaska AFS I discussed the theory behind windows, their effects over the last three years (benefits vary depending on run timing) and the use of a fishery model to evaluate benefits and risks. I just presented the info and left it to others to draw their own conclusions. Me, I think they are a very effective management tool in the face of sockeye exploitation rates that the recent sockeye escapement review by Bob Clark et al. found to be the largest of any sockeye fishery in Alaska.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,528

    Default thanks for the answer

    Thanks for the answer. We will agree to disagree on your conclusions about windows. As a past fishery manager I really do not need any protection in-season. That is what we get paid to do.

    Relative to exploitation rates we are meeting or exceeding goals and one would want higher exploitation rates on good returns. Have not read Clark et al. yet but I understand that ADF&G is making no recommendation on changing escapement goals for the Kenai or Kasilof so I am assuming they are feeling comfortable with the goals and exploitation rates.

    When will your model be available to the public for review?

  12. #12

    Thumbs up Genetics Study Results are out

    Have any of you seen the results of the long awaited gentics study? The result are out and posted on the commercial fishing web site. It tells a lot of new informations on Sockeye harvest. Who is catching whos fish and when and where! This should go a long way in helping get Northern District stocks through the central district!

  13. #13
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    This should go a long way in helping get Northern District stocks through the central district!
    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fms07-07.pdf

    WOW!

    Catches of Susitna/Yentna stock in the drift gillnet fishery were:

    2005 = 20154

    2006 = 10418

    2007 = 159793

    Ya think maybe that back-to-back-to-back-to-frickin-back orgy of EO's might have had anything to do with that obscene interception of Susitna/Yentna fish in 2007?

    37: 08/08 02:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 37 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Opening and Drift Corridor Opening

    36: 08/07 03:15 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 36 - Set Gillnet Fishery Targeting Crescent River Sockeye Salmon Returns to Regular Schedule

    35: 08/06 04:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 35 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Extension and Drift Corridor Opening

    34: 08/05 11:00 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 34 - Northern District Set Gillnet Closure and Central District Drift Gillnet Restriction

    33: 08/05 09:45 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 33 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Opening and Drift Corridor Opening

    32: 08/04 09:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 32 - Kasilof River Special Harvest Area Set Gillnet Extension and Drift Gillnet Opening

    31: 08/04 11:00 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 31 - Kasilof River Special Harvest Area Set and Drift Gillnet Opening

    30: 08/02 02:15 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 30 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Extension; CD Drift corridor opening; and KRSHA opening

    29: 08/01 04:45 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 29 - Northern District Set Gillnet Closure and Central District Drift Gillnet Restriction

    28: 07/31 05:45 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 28 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Opening and Drift Corridor Opening

    27: 07/30 05:15 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 27 - Upper Subdistrict Set and Drift Gillnet Opening and Kalgin Island Subdistrict Opening

    26: 07/30 05:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 26 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Extension and Drift Corridor Opening

    25: 07/29 02:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 25 - N. District Closure; Central District Drift Gillnet Restriction; and Kalgin Island Subdistrict Closure

    24: 07/29 11:15 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 24 - Kasilof River Terminal Harvest Area Drift and Set Gillnet Opening

    23: 07/28 10:45 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 23 - Kalgin Island Subdistrict Fishing Period

    22: 07/27 05:45 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 22 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Opening and Drift Gillnet Full Corridor Opening

    21: 07/26 07:45 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 21- Kasilof Section 1/2 Mile Set Gillnet Opening and KRSHA Opening

    20: 07/25 03:15 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 20 - Drift Gillnet Fishing Period Restriction and Northern District Set Gillnet Closure

    19: 07/25 08:45 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 19 - Kasilof Section Set Gillnet 1/2 Mile Opening *

    18: 07/22 08:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 18 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Extension and Drift Corridor Opening

    17: 07/22 02:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 17 - Drift Gillnet Restricted Fishing Waters and Northern District Gear Restriction

    16: 07/22 12:15 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 16 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet and Full Corridor Drift Gillnet Opening

    15: 07/21 08:45 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 15 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet and Full Corridor Drift Gillnet Opening

    14: 07/20 12:30 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 14 - Kasilof Section Set Gillnet 1/2 Mile Fishing Period

    13: 07/19 01:45 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 13 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Extension and Drift Corridor Extension

    12: 07/18 03:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 12 - Drift Gillnet Restricted Fishing Period

    11: 07/18 09:45 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 11 - Kasilof Section 1/2 Mile Set Gillnet Opening

    10: 07/16 11:15 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 10 - Upper Subdistrict Set Gillnet Extension and Drift Corridor Extension

    09: 07/15 11:45 am - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 9 - Drift Gillnet Restricted Period for July 16

    08: 07/13 05:30 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 8 - Kasilof Section Set and Drift Gillnet Opening

    07: 07/10 03:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 7 - Kasilof Section Set and Drift Gillnet Opening *

    06: 07/05 01:45 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 6 - Kasilof Section Set Gillnet Extension and Drift Gillnet Opener

    05: 07/03 07:30 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 5 - Kasilof Section Set and Drift Gillnet Opener *

    04: 07/02 02:00 pm - UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 4 - Kasilof Section Set Gillnet Extension and Drift Gillnet Opener


    Oh..... and in case anyone forgot,

    The Yentna River sockeye salmon estimated cumulative passage through August 4 was 58,000 fish. The SEG for this system is 90,000 to 160,000.
    "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

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Thumbs down fishNphysician = critic for more sport fish

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician
    Ya think maybe that back-to-back-to-back-to-frickin-back orgy of EO's might have had anything to do with that obscene interception of Susitna/Yentna fish in 2007?
    I don't know about your "frickin orgy", but as an eye doctor you should know that hind sight is always 20-20.

    In 2007 commercial test sets showed the initial run in UCI to be a bumper. Yet it was identified early on that the Susitna/Yentna run was extremely weak, while the east side run was extremely strong. In fact UCI runs over the last three years have been classified by managers as "substantially atypical" and "odd". Obviously there's more going on with the Yentna than east side EO's.

    In fact 2007 was replete with commercial EO closures and restrictions to reduce the exploitation rate on Susitna/Yentna sockeye salmon. All while most east side runs required increased exploitation. Not an easy task to accomplish given the current confidence managers have in making decisions based on genetic stock identification (GSI) and marking. ADF&G is working on that (as evidenced by the report). But their management techniques remain the best in the world, as reflected by the robust fisheries we continue to have available.

    FishNphysician, managing mother nature isn't easy, especially with the mixed stocks and other complexities that the UCI presents. My opinion is that managers did a great job of juggling all the factors with the information, data, and techniques available to them. However, I'm sure you could do better fishNphysician...I can see it now...under exploiting the entire UCI fishery for the sake of something weird going on with the Yentna. No thanks.

    FishNphysician, as an out-of-stater who's probably never commercial fished, or who doesn't understand the importance of commercial fishing, you're obviously using the Yentna as an anti-commercial fishing campaign in a manner that boosts your opportunities to sport fish. I can see it in the tone of your post. That is sad.

  15. #15

    Default Genetics data

    Doc,

    The Yentna numbers are actually worse than that. Here are the Yentna numbers for 2007 in the recent genetics report. 2007 was the most comprehensive year of sampling - that's part of why the 2005 and 2006 numbers are much lower.

    Driftnet harvest: 141,160
    Setnet harvest: 18,056 (Kasilof area)
    41,847 (Kenai area)
    -----------
    Total comm harvest: 201,063

    (Actual total is bigger because they didn't expand genetics for the whole fishery. Also remember that Kenai setnet fisheries were very limited during early July this year so the Yentna catch may not be typical of what it might be in a more normal year.)

    Total escapement: 79,901
    Escapement Goal: 90,000

    Comm Harvest rate: >72%

    If you believe these numbers:
    Yentna sockeye were overharvested relative to maximum sustained yield, particularly if their productivity has decreased due to beavers and pike.
    Alot more Yentna sockeye are being caught in east side setnet fisheries than previously thought (although previous genetics studies showed the same thing).
    Yentna escapement goals can be achieved with more conservative central district commercial fisheries.

    If these numbers hold up they could have serious implications to commercial fishery management in Cook Inlet.

    This is of course just one year with a non typical entry pattern. I'll have a look at my UCI fishery model to see what it has to say about the 2005 and 2006 numbers.

    Over to you Nerka ...


  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,077

    Default

    AKpowdermonkey:

    I think we don't ignore yetna/susitna escapement goals, I think we should just realize that commercial fishing is NOT the problem.

    Nerka:

    I have always maintained that we should manage for escapement goals and still feel that way. But to keep things in perspective we are talking about 10-15 thousand sockeye and ADF&G has taken significant actions to reduce exploitation rates on northern bound stocks.

    I never said the commercial fishery did not have an impact on escapement levels. What I said was that the commercial fishery is not reducing production in the Susitna drainage because of lack of escapement due to harvest. The escapement goal for Yentna is 90-165 thousand fish. That is an MSY goal and therefore being a few thousand fish short does not drive production down to the level we are seeing. Moderate to low production in the drainage is coming off some good escapements.


    - just heard today they have not run all the samples and that they are presenting percentages only - not numbers of fish. Without running all the samples they cannot make an estimate of total numbers of fish. So I doubt the report will be much use to anyone.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish
    Yentna escapement goals can be achieved with more conservative central district commercial fisheries.
    ...is that spoken as the hired contractor for KRSA?

    More conservative commercial harvest in the central district will lead to under exploitation in most all other areas of the UCI. Not to mention many EO closures and restrictions were already instituded in 2007 for the sake of the Yentna run. What more do you want?

    The mixed run fishery is a conundrum. Until biologists can come up with a reliable way to mark fish (GSI, etc.) and control mother nature's unpredictable ways, we will always have these variations and unpredictable events.

  18. #18

    Default Mixed Stock Fishery Management

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    The mixed run fishery is a conundrum.
    This Grampyfishes, is the problem in a nutshell. There are a multitude of objectives in the management of this mixed stock fishery - some biological, some allocative, and some both.

    It is not reasonable to expect that every objective can be met in every year. It is a naturally dynamic and variable world. Run sizes, run timing, and migration patterns all vary with various degrees of independence or synchrony. It is reasonable however to expect to make explicit and purposeful decisions on which objectives receive priority and that is the responsibility of the Board of Fish.

    Mixed stock fishery management is an exercise in optimization that attempts to strike a balance among biological and allocation goals. There are obviously different perspectives on what constitutes and optimum balance driven by the values, perspectives, and personal interests of each perspective holder. (Value as in significance or importance, Marcus, not just solely dollars and cents.)

    One perfectly valid perspective is to assign a higher value to the yield and economic return of the central district commercial fishery (which seems to be where you are coming from Grampyfishes). I have no problem with this perspective. If this is your greatest value, then a perfectly appropriate management strategy that you would advocate is to sustainably maximize harvest of the combined upper Cook Inlet sockeye return knowing that you have the most to gain by fishing heavily on the strong driver stocks like the Kenai and Kasilof while accepting some loss of yield from the weaker stocks like the northern district that get fished beyond a level that maximizes the sustainable yield from that stock by itself. The net gain in yield from the strong stocks is more than the loss in yield from the weak stock. This essentially is how Cook Inlet was been managed for a long time and how Nerka managed it when he was in charge. If this is what you want to do just say so - I can totally respect the honesty of this point of view. (The constraint on this one is that we don't want to fish the weak stock to the point of conservation concern where its long term viability and productivity are damaged for the long term.)

    Another perfectly honest perspective, perhaps represented by Bigriverfisherdude, is to value an opportunity to fish in the northern district. This value don't want to see northern district sockeye fished to below minimum escapement goals such that their fisheries are restricted. Maximum yield from the Central District commercial fishery does not constitute optimum from their point of view.

    Yet another perfectly honest perspective is held by the Kenai/Kasilof fishers. Actually, there are at least a couple here. One I would call the river-as-it-is view. This is the present configuration and amalgamation of resident and nonresident, unguided and guided, bank and boat, powerboat and drifter, PU and sport, sockeye and king fishers. This group generally benefits from significant regular escapements into the rivers which as we've discussed before requires a fundamentally different approach to commercial fishery management focused on maximum yield.

    Another perspective from a portion of the users, generally advanced by KAFC and also favorable to the commercial fishers, I'll call the river-as-it was-or-might-be. This view is that the huge influx of visitors and crowds are not compatable with the desirable fishing experience that this portion of the fishing community seeks. Their optimum would be reduced inriver fishing pressure to provide a more peaceful and pleasurable experience consistent with their values and they would be willing to accept fewer fish in the river if there was less competition for them too. Again, this is a perfectly valid perspective. If this is one you hold, just say so.

    So there are alot of different perspectives and values at work here and all of them are valid. That's what makes these mixed stock fishery problems so difficult. It is a push-me pull-you world and absolutely every decision regarding this fishery has some allocation implication. The Board of Fisheries has been charged with making these difficult decisions and that's why they get paid the big bucks and why they have been provided with the authority to provide allocation guidance in the form of the management plans.

    The particularly entertaining part of the Cook Inlet fishery management process is that it is often hard to distill the facts from the furor. Battles over the facts often substitute as proxies for value-driven allocation arguments. It can be really difficult to separate the science wheat from the chaff. (Incidentally, this is why guys like me are brought into the fray - to call BS on allocation arguments masquerading as scientific facts - and believe me there has no shortage of low hanging fruit here.)

    There is alot of really good new research now going on in Cook Inlet and the near future holds great promise for improvements in the factual scientific basis for management of this tremondous fishery. We are seeing solid new information on things like stock composition in the fisheries, accuracy of escapement monitoring, and effects of overescapement. We are just seeing some bits and pieces now and there will be alot more to come. I for one welcome every bit of new scientific information that can be brought to bear on this problem. These fisheries are entirely too important and too valuable to accept anything less than management based on the best available science at our disposal.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Doc,

    The Yentna numbers are actually worse than that. Here are the Yentna numbers for 2007 in the recent genetics report. 2007 was the most comprehensive year of sampling - that's part of why the 2005 and 2006 numbers are much lower.

    Driftnet harvest: 141,160
    Setnet harvest: 18,056 (Kasilof area)
    41,847 (Kenai area)
    -----------
    Total comm harvest: 201,063

    (Actual total is bigger because they didn't expand genetics for the whole fishery. Also remember that Kenai setnet fisheries were very limited during early July this year so the Yentna catch may not be typical of what it might be in a more normal year.)

    Total escapement: 79,901
    Escapement Goal: 90,000

    Comm Harvest rate: >72%

    If you believe these numbers:
    Yentna sockeye were overharvested relative to maximum sustained yield, particularly if their productivity has decreased due to beavers and pike.
    Alot more Yentna sockeye are being caught in east side setnet fisheries than previously thought (although previous genetics studies showed the same thing).
    Yentna escapement goals can be achieved with more conservative central district commercial fisheries.

    If these numbers hold up they could have serious implications to commercial fishery management in Cook Inlet.

    This is of course just one year with a non typical entry pattern. I'll have a look at my UCI fishery model to see what it has to say about the 2005 and 2006 numbers.

    Over to you Nerka ...
    Bfish, you should be more honest in your reporting of the data. First, ignoring 2005 and 2006 data is not correct. The fishery was sampled during the primary periods and even if the catch is doubled the catch is relatively small.

    But lets get to the meat of the issue. It is not the number of fish harvested it is the escapement that is the issue. The studies by ADF&G which Bfish has not stated (they are not out officially so that may be the case) show the escapement in the Yentna running anywhere from 200,000 and upward to very high levels - not the sonar count Bfish reported. Even if you use the low end in 2007 the exploitation rate is about 50% - well within the bounds of acceptable fishery management and escapement goal management. So lets be honest Bfish about the data - one needs to use all the data - if the high end of the escapement estimates are used the exploitation rate is much lower in 2007.

    This also can be said for 2006 - the Yentna escapements are estimated at again nearly 200,000 to over 600,000. So harvest of 20-40 thousand fish is hardly a harvest issue.

    Second, the sampling in the genetic report was to define the percentage plus or minus 5% 90% of the time. This sampling was not always met and there are significant issues about the confidence in some of these data. Even the authors recognized this and stated Both inter and intra annual variation of stock compositions of fisheries will need to be examined before clear relationships between managment actions and stock compositions of the harvest are realized. ...Specific experimental design will be necessary to investigate each potential management action separately while controling the other variables under management control.... Evaluation of multiple years will be required because of inter annual variability of stock specific run strengths, run timings, and residence times of sockeye salmon in district..

    Further if you look at the weir data in the Yentna the counts for the lakes monitored are some of the highest on record. Hardly an indication of overharvest - even in 2007.

    This is a prime example of the posts by doc and bfish on how to misrepresent the data and create conflict in the user groups when in point of fact the data to date in this report and the mark/recpature/weir studies point out that the harvest rates are not excessive, even in 2007. In fact, it looks like ADF&G could have harvested thousands of more fish in 2005 and 2006 and still met the escapement objectives.

    Bfish - you cannot use the sonar counts in the calculations when you should know that the weir counts and Didson counts exceeded the Bendix numbers by a considerable amount. Maybe you should call the local office of ADF&G and talk with Mark or Jeff before positng the high exploitation rate hypothesis - which is refuted by the weir counts alone. The weir counts are posted on CIAA site and have been for months.

  20. #20

    Default Wait a minute

    Nerka, I thought you said the Yentna sockeye escapement estimates were fatally flawed by experimental design problems?

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
  •