Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Yentna sockeye on the radar screen.

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Yentna sockeye on the radar screen.

    The first EO of the year has been decreed to conserve what appears to be another poor return of Susitna sockeye. Yentna sockeye counts are off to another less-than-stellar start.

    http://csfish.adfg.state.ak.us/mariner/uci/uciesc.php

    ***

    2008 Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Fishery News Release #12
    UCI Commercial Fishery Announcement No. 12 - Drift Gillnet Restricted Fishing Period

    Districts Affected: Kasilof Section Drift, Kenai Section Drift


    This Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fishing Announcement closes drift gillnetting in all areas of the Central District of Upper Cook Inlet, except in the Kenai and Kasilof Sections of the Upper Subdistrict, from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 10, 2008.

    ADF&G treats the persistently low escapements of sockeye salmon to the Yentna River as a serious issue. This drift gillnet fishing restriction is being implemented at this time in July in order to hopefully increase sockeye salmon passage into the Yentna River.
    "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. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Sounds like the dept is doing just what they are supposed to. Or is this going to be some anti-commercial thread again?

    Runs seem to be late. They let people fish for a little while, and now seem to be acting pro-actively. I think they are doing the right thing.

    Thanks for the update doc.

  3. #3

    Default Is the OOPs factor mangament theory being used again this year

    The BOF made the escaspement goal for the Yentna River sockeyethe HIGHEST PRIORITY when it comes to meeting escapement goals. They said the Yentna iver Ecapement Goal Must be Meet even if it means over excaping the the Kenai River!!!! As of today the Yentna escapement is less than 400 sockeye. Yet the drift fleet has harvested more than 300,000 sockeye on their last two regular opening and there has been more than 700,000 harvested so far this year in Cook Inlet. I wonder what the gentics would show this year compare to the earlier testing. I think we have another year with the oops factor working GREAT in Cook INlet Salmon Management. I talk tonight with some subsistance user from up the Yentna River a long forgotten group, if they don't get their fish this year there could be major problems. Subsistance comes first according to the laws of Alaska. They are a sleeping gaint about to wake up!
    The director of sports fishing for Alaska was wonder ing why Alaskans are not buying fishing licences and he was going to send caeds to thousands of Alaskans that had stoping buying licences to encourage them to buy new one. Because the sport fish division needs that money to operate. New for him, until they stand up for sports fishers rights there are goingto be fewer sold each year. They rolled over at thye BOF and said yes sir yes sir two buckets full. Didn't even support their own reports forecasting the king and coho problems in the Susitna Drainage, or say any thing about the need to protect the returning Susitna sockeye that was forecasted to be lower than the 20 year average. We need new management in the Fisheries Division of Fish and Game.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default so much bull

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    The BOF made the escaspement goal for the Yentna River sockeyethe HIGHEST PRIORITY when it comes to meeting escapement goals. They said the Yentna iver Ecapement Goal Must be Meet even if it means over excaping the the Kenai River!!!! As of today the Yentna escapement is less than 400 sockeye. Yet the drift fleet has harvested more than 300,000 sockeye on their last two regular opening and there has been more than 700,000 harvested so far this year in Cook Inlet. I wonder what the gentics would show this year compare to the earlier testing. I think we have another year with the oops factor working GREAT in Cook INlet Salmon Management. I talk tonight with some subsistance user from up the Yentna River a long forgotten group, if they don't get their fish this year there could be major problems. Subsistance comes first according to the laws of Alaska. They are a sleeping gaint about to wake up!
    The director of sports fishing for Alaska was wonder ing why Alaskans are not buying fishing licences and he was going to send caeds to thousands of Alaskans that had stoping buying licences to encourage them to buy new one. Because the sport fish division needs that money to operate. New for him, until they stand up for sports fishers rights there are goingto be fewer sold each year. They rolled over at thye BOF and said yes sir yes sir two buckets full. Didn't even support their own reports forecasting the king and coho problems in the Susitna Drainage, or say any thing about the need to protect the returning Susitna sockeye that was forecasted to be lower than the 20 year average. We need new management in the Fisheries Division of Fish and Game.
    This is just another misrepresentation. No one in their right mind would call Susitna in trouble at this point. The e.o is precautionary based on no, I repeat, no inseason data. In addition, the Department is maintaining the Bendix sonar counter which is the poorest counting tool in the river by their own admission. So bigfisherman and the valley folks claim the Bendix counts are not meeting the goal when in fact the true escapement is meeting the goal in most years. So here we go again with bull and more bull from the valley. If bigfisherman cannot speak the truth about the goals or the counting method or the timing of the run he should not say anything. He knows this but refuses to tell state the obvious because it detracts from the hype of the valley sport fishing industry. I for one am sick and tired of the bull coming out of the mouths of Mat/Su fisherman who know better but continue to misrepresent the facts.

    For the record the board of fish said to manage to the escapment goals for all stocks and in the event one has to make a tradeoff the Yentna goal takes priority on meeting the low end over going over the top on Kenai. That is different that saying the Yentna goal is the highest priority. If that was the case there would be no commercial fishery at all. ADF&G would just close the fisheries and let Susitna swim upstream until the goal is met and then start fishing. That is not what good fisheries management would be for UCI or the State. What we need is some sport fisherman in the valley who are honest, not a new management in ADF&G.

  5. #5

    Talking Nerka missed the point again

    The Bendix counter he is talking about is the same would that was in use while he was with the the dpartment and was good eoungh to lower the Yentna River Escapement 2,3, or how mnay times. He ussed it to make up his super management program to manage the Kenai and said that the Yentna was getting to many fish. It is strange how things change as we get older. I wounder if the little blue pill will help this too. I have to close I am coming to the Kenai to get a King.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    I agree Nerka. It's one thing coming from those who don't understand the fishery, etc. But when it comes from those who know better, it truly makes me sick to my stomach. And then when they use personal jabs instead of justifying their comments...well, it's just pathetic.

    I've been here a long, long time observing the ongoings of our fisheries. I've been right about most things so far, and I like to think I've developed some good conservation foresight. Mark my word, it will be the like attitudes and views that bigfishermen represents that will be the demise of our fisheries.

  7. #7
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    I realize it's still a bit early, but the initial Yentna counts are HORRIBLE! Five days passage and only 641 fish. That's little more than 100 fish a day.

    Even 2005, one of the WORST returns in recent memory had a better start than that! Check it out here:

    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Regio...-247-41-2053-1

    Hoping they're just late like everything else.
    "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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    DOC it's 5 days!!! Would you give a conclusive diagnosis after talking to someone 5 minutes? Please apply the same diligence you our management issue you undoubtably do with patients. While the issue isn't the same as a patient health it's that important to most of us.

    I mean lets wait a little bit. so far King numbers are picking up statewide. Kenai is looking like it will be average in the end. Even the Deska is picking up somewhat and who knows how long Kings will trickle in?
    Why make the same chicken little mistake with Reds? Didn't we do that last year? All cry and moan, restrictions and they BOOM they come in like gangbusters. Take a while for reds to get that far north. (yetna).

    I think everyone should relax a little and see what develops. I am not saying there are not problems or that we might be looking at a bad year on total numbers and that it may be multi-species as well. I'm just saying it's still to early to say.

    Have a great day!!! I might be back today, but I'm going to play in the mud at ship creek, and maybe some rainbow fishing. (then golf! full day!)
    Hope all of your's is better than mine!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default Again more misinformation.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    The Bendix counter he is talking about is the same would that was in use while he was with the the dpartment and was good eoungh to lower the Yentna River Escapement 2,3, or how mnay times. He ussed it to make up his super management program to manage the Kenai and said that the Yentna was getting to many fish. It is strange how things change as we get older. I wounder if the little blue pill will help this too. I have to close I am coming to the Kenai to get a King.
    O.K. here we go again. In 1985 and again in 1989 I wrote a research plan that would eliminate the Bendix counter and use weirs on sockeye systems in the valley. That report is in the public record and referenced at the recent Board of Fish meeting. I expressed concerns about the Bendix counter undercounting. Following that I and the staff tried to estimated the error associated with the counter and we came up with 40% undercounting but because of some uncertainity in the data set we could not say with confidence. Again, a weir program was recommended and again headquarters staff said no. They went with fishwheel and makr/recapture - four times now and four times it has failed.

    The goal for the Yentna was established, not on the Bendix counts, as bigfisherman would imply, but on what the lake systems could produce and what some thought was a reasonable production estimate for the Susitna based on Su-Hydro studies.

    I and others knew the counter was probably undercounting so when the counter said 90,000 fish and the goal was 100,000 to 150,000 we did not jump off the bridge. We assumed that the goal was being met. Little did we realize that people like big fisherman would distort the data to try to make a conservation concern on Yentna sockeye.

    Concurrent with this was the denail by a number of people in the valley and today some of those remain that pike predation was becoming a major problem. The article in the recent Anchorage Daily News kind of sums it up - salmon systems are losing production and some stocks may have been eliminated by pike predation. Yet we still hear bigfisherman and others focus on the commercial fishery.

    Following all of this is the rapid expansion of urban areas and the total lack of effective fish habitat protection measures in the valley.

    Comparing the Bendix counter in the Yentna to the Kenai again shows a total lack of knowledge on how the counters work. The counters in the Kenai were designed for the Kenai and focus at a time when there is really only one stock to count nearshore (chinook are further offshore and out of the counting range). In contrast, in the Yentna all species are coming close to shore and sockeye is the minor one. Again, if bigfisherman has done his homework he would read reports authored by me that point out how the fishwheel allocation of sonar targets could cause significant error. In addition, a second report points out how pink salmon would be caught in the fishwheel and not recorded on the sonar because of size.

    Bigfisherman - my hands are clean on this one as the decisions to not put in weirs was not mine, the problems with the Yentna counting system (fishwheel and sonar) were identified, and I and other knew that more fish were going up the system than counted - yet we still restricted the fisheries to try to make the minimum goal - just to be conservative.

    I guess I am looking at what you have done in the valley other than complain about the commercial fisherman to protect habitat and reduce pike predation or remove beaver dams or something. I look forward to your answer.

  10. #10
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,355

    Default urbanization

    Nerka, can you list sockeye rearing systems in the Susitna that are being negatively impacted by Urbanization? I would list the Fish/Meadow Creeks system, but do you have any others you can list?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default right off the bat

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Nerka, can you list sockeye rearing systems in the Susitna that are being negatively impacted by Urbanization? I would list the Fish/Meadow Creeks system, but do you have any others you can list?
    Look at the recent Mat/Su Salmon Conservation Partnership report on the valley. The issue is habitat loss and they state : Not surprislingly, the current health of the Mat-Su Basin salmon habitat is linked to the level and location of human activity in the basin. Ecosystems that coincide with the more developed areas may become seriously degraded without human intervention. Reduced health of these ecosystems is linked to alteration of native riparian vegetation, degraded water quality, and water flow changes, all of which have reached levels that may impair the ecosystem in the long term.

    They further note that 50 high priority culverts that currently block fish passage be replaced by 2012. In fact, they list the following as threats - alternation of riparian areas, filling of wetlands, impervious surfaces, culverts that block fish passage, invasive northern pike, stormwater runoff management, loss of estuary and nearshore habitats, septic systems, and loss of instream flow as all going on due to urbanization of the valley.

    Mark, the fact you do are not aware of this report or actions by federal and state agencies with private partners makes my point. Asking what systems have been impacted is not the right question. Most systems are not monitored as we have found out. Cottonwood Creek sockeye and coho salmon is just one system that is stressed by urbanization but not monitored. There are thosands of miles of spawning streams in the valley and numerous lake systems. So for you to ask which ones are losing production is not the correct question. The question should be what is the Mat/Su doing to protect salmon and what is your role in it? The partnership idea came from the federal government not local interests.

  12. #12

    Default WHat happen to real salmon mamagement were salmon come first

    I have heard numerous different stories on how the Yentna River escapement goal was set. It was not on a lot of hard data either. When the department decided to use the current system and the current goals, they established a standard that is suppose o be followed and achieved. Just because some folks within the department decides on their on calculated that the sonar is wrong and is counting low by tens of thousands of sockeyes. What right do supposedly educated professionals have in making such a decision? You said yourself the department turned down your request for weir, I suppose to confirm beliefs (acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty)
    As an old retire non commission officer learn that when regulation and policies were written that it was my job to follow them, if I found a problem I brought it up like you did. . But your superiors told you on at least four occasions they didnít want make the changes you recommended. The Board of Fisheries on numerous occasions gave very explicit direction to the department and the Soldotna office in particular what they expected in the way of sockeye salmon management to insure that the Yentna River escapement was made. The staff is being paid to work with facts and follow directions of those appointed above them. I can find no records of were funds were requested to study Northern District salmon stocks prior to the request that Commissioner Campbell made for the money that is being used for the current sockeye salmon studies. That you have said have major problems and are of little good!
    You asked me what I have done. I worked extremely hard to have these and other funds approved for studies in Cook Inlet, for the current sockeye salmon studies, the current sporting economical study that is do to be completed by this fall, and I worked to get the funds approved for the coho and chums studies that are due to start next summer. Some of the money has got to Cook Inlet Aqua Culture to help in removing beaver dams in the upper Yentna River. I will be submitting a request to the Board of Game to allow more liberal means of taking beaver like shooting them. This could have been done with in the department too. I am very proud to say that I have served for more than 12 years on the fish and game advisory committee and have worked extremely hard to raise the public awareness of the problems with our salmon in the Northern District. I still have a few tricks up by sleeve to be played. The reason I started this was to insure that my grandkids would have salmon to fish for and there are fewer salmon today than 15 years ago. Itís time that Alaska Department of Fish and Game start managing our salmon resources first and the between users groups secondly.
    There is a sleeping giant that is about to get up set if they do not get enough fish for their subsistence need. They have kept quiet so far.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    I have heard numerous different stories on how the Yentna River escapement goal was set. It was not on a lot of hard data either. When the department decided to use the current system and the current goals, they established a standard that is suppose o be followed and achieved. Just because some folks within the department decides on their on calculated that the sonar is wrong and is counting low by tens of thousands of sockeyes. What right do supposedly educated professionals have in making such a decision? You said yourself the department turned down your request for weir, I suppose to confirm beliefs (acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty)
    As an old retire non commission officer learn that when regulation and policies were written that it was my job to follow them, if I found a problem I brought it up like you did. . But your superiors told you on at least four occasions they didnít want make the changes you recommended. The Board of Fisheries on numerous occasions gave very explicit direction to the department and the Soldotna office in particular what they expected in the way of sockeye salmon management to insure that the Yentna River escapement was made. The staff is being paid to work with facts and follow directions of those appointed above them. I can find no records of were funds were requested to study Northern District salmon stocks prior to the request that Commissioner Campbell made for the money that is being used for the current sockeye salmon studies. That you have said have major problems and are of little good!
    You asked me what I have done. I worked extremely hard to have these and other funds approved for studies in Cook Inlet, for the current sockeye salmon studies, the current sporting economical study that is do to be completed by this fall, and I worked to get the funds approved for the coho and chums studies that are due to start next summer. Some of the money has got to Cook Inlet Aqua Culture to help in removing beaver dams in the upper Yentna River. I will be submitting a request to the Board of Game to allow more liberal means of taking beaver like shooting them. This could have been done with in the department too. I am very proud to say that I have served for more than 12 years on the fish and game advisory committee and have worked extremely hard to raise the public awareness of the problems with our salmon in the Northern District. I still have a few tricks up by sleeve to be played. The reason I started this was to insure that my grandkids would have salmon to fish for and there are fewer salmon today than 15 years ago. Itís time that Alaska Department of Fish and Game start managing our salmon resources first and the between users groups secondly.
    There is a sleeping giant that is about to get up set if they do not get enough fish for their subsistence need. They have kept quiet so far.
    Your efforts are misdirected. As far as the funding request for Susitna studies and McKie Campbell reference that is just not true. I and others put in requests and of course there have been three mark/recapture studies before this last one by McKie's think tank - which failed I might add again.

    You funding for chum and coho is fine but the studies are misdirected as usual. They will not give you an estimate of abundance.

    Glad you worked on the advisory committee but that committee had in the past under your membership pushed allocation - not salmon conservation. Just read these posts and you can see that. I believe you want salmon for the future but your efforts are not pointed in the right direction.

  14. #14

    Post Dream on

    I would like to know how you know what convesions the McKie and I had and what work I did with the legislators. You guy may have gotten ivolved down the road put it started up here. If I tell youi that chickens give milk, you can go get a bucket! I don't have to lie, i leave that up to the other side. As far as the chum and coho studies go, the department has a free hand at writing the studies to get the information they need. If they don't it is their own problem they are professionals if they fail it will be just like the sockeye study you failures you reference. They have a free hand to write the study plan the way they want, they have $2.2 million to do it with! I keep saying until we manage salmon first we are not following the state Alaska State Constitution. That is what I am working towards salmon first.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default they do not have a free hand

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    I would like to know how you know what convesions the McKie and I had and what work I did with the legislators. You guy may have gotten ivolved down the road put it started up here. If I tell youi that chickens give milk, you can go get a bucket! I don't have to lie, i leave that up to the other side. As far as the chum and coho studies go, the department has a free hand at writing the studies to get the information they need. If they don't it is their own problem they are professionals if they fail it will be just like the sockeye study you failures you reference. They have a free hand to write the study plan the way they want, they have $2.2 million to do it with! I keep saying until we manage salmon first we are not following the state Alaska State Constitution. That is what I am working towards salmon first.
    Unless ADF&G decides to ignore what they told the legislature and what was written in the funding request they do not have a free hand. There are no studies proposed to look at abundance.

    Also, you imply the professionals in ADF&G do not put salmon first - what arrogance on your part. Do you think biologist go into this field to make users happy? They go into it to study fish and work for the long term health of the resource. We may internally disagree on how to do that but for you to suggest otherwise is insulting to all professionals in ADF&G.

    The issues of the Susitna did not start in the valley. They were in year after year proposals to Commissioners. Yes, you brought political pressure to bear and McKie trying to survive went with your funding request for a study that would fail and did. He was a political hack.

    I respect your concern for the resource so please understand I disagree with your assessment of what to do and what the issues are.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Yetna saw over 4000 reds yesterday, things may be looking up.

  17. #17

    Default We are discussing the Yentna

    Thanks for the imput, I have been watching the The Kenai returns.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default Huh?

    What are YOU talking about .....he referenced the Yetna. It DID jump up to 4,00 fish, and maybe in the following days we'll see it triple. To early to say, but it's a good sign........that's all he was saying.

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
  •