Question for Bfish
Bfish, what is your take at the Board of Fish meeting. We did not have time to talk. Maybe we can before the next BOF meeting. I would like to discuss your model in a scientific discussion. I was an author of the paper you referenced - there may be obstacles that cannot be overcome for an inseason management approach but it may be worth the try.
Anyway, I assume KRSA is not happy with this Board meeting results but from my perspective they just brought the groups back to the middle ground and reestablished that escapement goals are more important than windows but they did outline how they see windows working. I think that was a positive for all user groups.
A reply to two questions
I am still working to reslove the problems that were generated by the most recent BOF. Buy the time the next one comes around this will have changed one way or the other. Commercial interest has to realize that their hayday is over. There are to many chamceing to few fish. The originators of the limited entry program new that this day would come, that why they set up the review process for determining how many can make a living in a given fishery. But this is just like everything elese in Cook Inlet those involved and anyone in a position of authority is not concerned about doing what is right or this problem would of been resolved years ago. I wrote this the other evening and apparently didn't get it posted.
Yes I mean to say a Consumptive user Priority, that is were people with sporting fishing licenses take salmon home to eat. Their priory would come after escapement requirements and subsistence needs and before commercial fishing. This can be done by using an initiative using methods by the means of limits/restricts on typeís gear that can be used in commercial fishing nets used in an area or requiring an allocation of xxxx number different types of salmon to meet the needs of consumptive user in fisheries management units that exceed xxxx angler days. This was proven when they got the bear baiting restrictions on the ballot.
What I mean by real management is management that looks out for the welfare of the resources first and foremost. Not management that has become so entrenched in its work that it canít see the forest for the trees to look for another trail through the forest. When a when a fisheries manager admits that he has been doing his job for over 15 years and he still canít get it right or that he has to punt.
I am like many others after the inactions and the bias of the department managers and some of staff of the commercial and sport fishing divisions. It time for a major review of the department by the legislature.
Doesn't sound like science at all, Bfish. Pure politics and political opinion.
" I am like many others after the inactions and the bias of the department managers and some of staff of the commercial and sport fishing divisions. It time for a major review of the department by the legislature."
Methinks you speak politics because you don't have science behind you.
Politics is the absolute worst method of resource management.
You can do better.
I am sorry bigfisherman- when I referenced bfish it is another person on this web who has a sicientific background and has prepared a model for UCI salmon migration. I can see how you thought it was you. Sorry.
How can you have Science when there isn't any!
The Gentics studies that have been going on for the last three years, were the first studies in this area in over 30 years. Most studies have been in river in the cenral district. Most saltwater studies have been of very short duration not long (four-five years) to established a sound
scientific base. Yet the department contihnues to try and use it. This is what they are doing with the sockeye studies in the Yentne River. They have two years of data showing what went through their weirs. It has been department policy for decades to have at least 12-15 years to certify new by new measuring methods, according to the director of Sports Fishing Divison. Yet in Cook Inlet Commercial fish managers are ready to throw 25 plus years of data they new was inaccurate, but it was the best they had! I will go with having an additional five or six years of weir and the new sonar data to estasblish a correlation with the old data. The old data was used to establish the past four or five escapement goals. If 70,000 plus sockeye equates to 200,000 at the weirs. What was when you have a 100,000 or a 150,000 at thye counter? You are correct I do not have a scientfic back ground, I only have 63 years of living and watch people who work with numbers. They can do amasing thing with them!
Sorry about the name thing too, Mr. Biggie Fish!
Originally Posted by bigfisherman
The genetic studies will only answer some questions, not all. To represent them as the only science that's happening with UCI sockeye is a little off the mark, don't you think?
It's not like biologists have to start from scratch every time they ask a question, there are a lot of other metrics that intersect the line(s) of the genetic information (ie historic counts, return/spawner, covariances, etc.). These can serve to ostensibly validate a lot of preliminary assumptions before studies are even concluded. In other words, there are lots of good ways to make sound predictions with multivariate data, and it's an everyday part of what fisheries managers do.
Given the current atmosphere, I think it's a safe bet that biologists are highly motivated to use whatever sound information is available to do good science and resolve the issues in UCI (if possible).
I don't want to provide a cop out for anyone here, but funding is a big factor in what studies the managers are able to do. Compromise is often not the best way of getting reliable results that benefit the fisheries.
Who wouldn't want all the gas and boats and planes and scientific gear and manpower they needed to evaluate every watershed in UCI to arrive at a definitive, finely mosaicked picture of exactly what is happening?
But to your main point, there's lots of good data already there that they don't need to waste. It's not like they have to reinvent the wheel.
just wrong bigfisherman
Bigfisherman, you are just plain incorrect on some things. First, the genetic baseline was started with Exxon money in the early 90's. The reason you have new genetic analysis is because those samples were used with the new techniques.
Buts lets look at the history of investigations in the Susitna drainage. Over 3 million dollars was spent on the Susitna Hydro studies (early 80's) and that provided some good information on salmon populations in the drainage. The larson Lake weir has a long term data set for sockeye salmon, in the mid 80's ADF&G looked at how fish migrated at Susitna Station with a contract to BioSonics, in the late 80's and 90's ADF&G looked at the Yentna sonar counter bias with dual bean hydroacoutic gear, with neeting offshore of the counter and with marked fish from some stocking programs: In the 80's and 90's ADF&G spent millions on radio tagging fish and looking at distribution - they ran weirs on chinook and coho systems in the northern district, they ran mark/recapture programs that failed but they tried, the investigated pike distribution; CIAA has run weirs on the systems and removed beaver dams on a regular basis, and there has been limnological data collected.
In 1988 in a five year plan for the Susitna pointed out the issues of the soanr counter and asked that weirs be installed. That request was not funded.
You asked if 70k means 200k what does 100k to 150k mean - that is a question that will be answered with a long term weir program. No one is sure right now on the consistent nature of the error.
So bigfisherman - what is your point. That your 63 years gives you some special knowledge of the system? I doubt that - that ADF&G has negelected the Susitna - not true - more general fund money has been spent on the Susitna drainage than any other system in UCI. Remember the Kenai River sockeye studies were funded by Exxon and done on a volunteer bases by local staff for most years. Can more be done and should it be more consistent - yes. However, to play the poor me card aand try to dismiss the work done in the Susitna is not correct. I doubt that you have read most of the reports on the Susitna River because some of the things you claim in these posts are refuted in those studies.
Back to the issue. I was trying to get Bfish to answer about his model and got into this discussion because of a mistake by bigfisherman who thought bfish was his title. I can see how the mistake was made - I just wanted to hear from the real bfish.