Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Overescapement

  1. #1
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Overescapement

    Does anyone have a link that explains how escapement goals are determined?

    I don't understand how the goals are set and I often find myself asking me - what are the effects of overescapement - and how in the world did salmon ever make it live today when way back when the white man wasn't there to kill all of the fish that were overescaped.

    I am sure that there is some science being applied to the goals and more than likely lots of dollars, and research, and politiking....I just don't know what they are.

  2. #2
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Well, this is guaranteed to get some discussion going. Your question seemed to be general in nature, but are you curious about a particular river or escapement goal?

    Here are two reports from last year's BOF meeting for UCI.

    This one is a review of the escapement goals to upper Cook Inlet
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/f...scapgoalre.pdf

    This one is a paper discussing "overescapement" for Alaska sockeye
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/f...ioverescap.pdf

    Overescapement means different things to different people. In the overescapement paper linked above, it's discussed in the contexts of carrying capacity, MSY/sustained yield, foregone harvest, and others. It's an interesting paper.

    Your question about "how in the world did salmon ever make it live today when way back when the white man wasn't there to kill all of the fish that were overescaped" doesn't really get at it. I don't think anyone argues that overescapement will lead to the extinction of any run of fish...but it's certainly argued that overescapement can lead to lower returns in future years.

    Escapement goals (in general) are established to attempt to provide for consistent and high returns of salmon. The goals are usually espressed as a range. What most likely occurred in the past (well before any real human harvest effort) was that runs fluctuated significantly....big years followed by low years. I believe that some lake bed core samples taken from Bristol Bay have documented big swings in abundance. Most certainly, a number of factors caused those fluctuations.

    Nerka, I'm sure, can answer your questions better than I can regarding specific goals within UCI. But, I'd highly recommend everyone read the "overescapement" paper.

    Happy reading, Art.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default you did fine.

    Those two references are good ones to start with. Any good college fishery test should also have how goals are establihed for other fisheries.

  4. #4

    Default Another point of veiw on over esacpement

    A White for thwe Wild Salmon Center in Portland OR. by Thomas M Dunklin, I have the entire paper. I have attached it to this thread. There are some very interesting points in the article. What it could boil down to is who or what benifits the most from have more than the desired number of salmon return than managers wanted. They refer to a study done in Canada by Dr. Carl Walters on 21 streams that says that ovr escapement will not cause run collaspe or a near run collapse. They used 50 yearss worth of data confirmed it using the Ricker Stock Recutment Model.


    Big Fishererman

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default not the whole story

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    A White for thwe Wild Salmon Center in Portland OR. by Thomas M Dunklin, I have the entire paper. I have attached it to this thread. There are some very interesting points in the article. What it could boil down to is who or what benifits the most from have more than the desired number of salmon return than managers wanted. They refer to a study done in Canada by Dr. Carl Walters on 21 streams that says that ovr escapement will not cause run collaspe or a near run collapse. They used 50 yearss worth of data confirmed it using the Ricker Stock Recutment Model.


    Big Fishererman

    Big Fisherman - no one on this forum or in ADF&G as far as I know has ever said overescapement can cause a stock collaspe to the point of no recovery. However, reduced yields is recognized in Walter's paper and ADF&G paper on this subject. Lets keep the issue of overescapement to the yield from a stock, not a conservation issue (however, there is some evidence that recovery can take a long time from the barren lake studies the ADF&G did).

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default "Overescapement"

    The overescapement thing sounds kinda like global warming - a lot of hysteria based on insignificant data over too short of a time period combined with a failure to recognize the long term benefical effects.

    Again like global warming you need to follow the money trail - who is making the $$ by hyping up the over-escapement theory?

    The salmon did quite well for a long time with no management at all and from all accounts I've read the streams were flooded with fish year after year.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  7. #7

    Wink When did the story Change?

    I can remeber seating in several BOF meetings and hearing how if we continue to put o many fish up the rivers we were going to cause the coplse of the sockeye returns my department staff, a lot of commercial fishermen were saying the same thing this year. Selective memory isn't going to work.
    When the BOF started to increase the Kenai sockeye escapement goal over escapement was the battle cry from commercial fishermen.

    Big Fisherman

  8. #8

    Default

    And....then there is ADF&G's own data that you will never hear or read in public. The numbers of years that the Kenai experienced/exceeded "overescapement goals", led the the oft years being the highest returns of Sockeye. The years the goals were met, by the commercial fleet catching the "surplus", led to mediocre returns. "Overescapement" is a ploy, plain and simple. Just like "Surplus", "Spawners", etc, buzz words to make you think they know what they are talking about. Don't be fooled by the buzz words or wordy individuals with an agenda. Money is the driving force, you need to keep that in the front of your mind at all times. Allocation to the loudest and whiniest is what I have been watching for many decades.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default More "overescapement" in the past

    Don't forget that the weir counts in the past missed many fish that are now counted.

    I'll start a seperate thread on that soon.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  10. #10
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default info please

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The salmon did quite well for a long time with no management at all and from all accounts I've read the streams were flooded with fish year after year.
    Please post these accounts you speak of...

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default nice think about misrepresentations is you get caught

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    I can remeber seating in several BOF meetings and hearing how if we continue to put o many fish up the rivers we were going to cause the coplse of the sockeye returns my department staff, a lot of commercial fishermen were saying the same thing this year. Selective memory isn't going to work.
    When the BOF started to increase the Kenai sockeye escapement goal over escapement was the battle cry from commercial fishermen.

    Big Fisherman
    Bigfisherman - you are misrepresenting the facts and reports which tends to be the case with you. First, ADF&G has published reports on the Kenai escapment issue and presented models that project potential yields for a risk analysis. Those models were first presented in 1999 and updated every year. The results are published and I was a co-author on those reports. No where in those publications does it say anything about a stock collaspe that has no recovery potential. They do point out that going above 1 million sockeye spawners in the Kenai increases the likelyhood of harvest less than 1 million fish. So please do not report your selective hearing here as fact. The reports speak for themselves.

    Relative to TV and Akres - you are posting bull. Lets see your analysis Akres - there is none. You post this garbage and hope people will take it to heart - no facts, no reports, nothing but pure made up stuff.

    Relative to undercounting of escapement in the Kenai we have covered that in other threads. Your comments are not even close to the truth.

    TV - you keep talking about nutrients and again you are off base. Nutrients are not the problem in the Kenai - light is the issue.

    Also, relative to nutrients for streamside vegetation if one looks at the studies from the Pacific Northwest we are exceeding salmon per unit area levels by orders of magitude. Again, more hype without fact.

  12. #12

    Default

    "who is making the $$ by hyping up the over-escapement theory?"- Tvfinak

    Al Gore? I don't know, why don't you answer the question with some facts instead of using innuendos and misinformation?

    "The salmon did quite well for a long time with no management at all and from all accounts I've read the streams were flooded with fish year after year."- Tvfinak

    I'll second the request that you post these accounts... The Kenai "stream" is now flooded with dipnetting boats that at times resembles a dangerous three-ring circus; that's my first-hand account. I've been around boats and fishing my entire life and have never witnessed such madness as the boats dipnetting on the Kenai. Eerily familiar to Bristol Bay commercial fishing.

  13. #13
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default a bit more...

    Well, since everyone wants to focus on Kenai LR sockeye (what a shocker!), we can go there...but, first let's keep it general...

    As I recommended in my first post on this thread, everyone should read the "overescapement" paper from last winter's BOF meeting. Please don’t try to wade into all of this without having read it.

    And, here’s the link one more time, in case you don’t want to scroll back up the page:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/f...ioverescap.pdf

    In my initial post, I said that overescapement means different things to different people …but in no way did I mean to imply that it isn’t an issue for managers to keep in mind. This report may leave a few additional questions hanging out there, but it leaves little doubt that overescapement, in the context of AK sockeye, isn’t something to be mindful of.

    When I mentioned that overescapement means different things to different people, I meant that the different (and competing) user groups have different takes on when you reach “overescapement”. The report defines that point as simply exceeding the upper end of the established goal….but there’s more to it than that (as years of discussion on this forum have proven…over and over again).

    From a (strictly) commercial fishing point of view, you want to manage for MSY…and that means shooting for the top of the spawner:recruit curve (MSY-based management)…so you get the maximum return per spawner put on the beds. This perspective is much more straightforward, but I’m not necessarily implying that it’s right or wrong because of its simplicity.

    From an in-river user’s perspective…you want the river loaded with more fish than will probably be caught (or needed for MSY-based escapement), so that an individual angler’s catch/success rates are as high as possible. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, either. From this perspective, overescapement is obviously above an MSY-based goal…but hopefully below than when the run fails to replace itself (less than 1:1 return per spawner).

    And if you fall below replacement, I think few would argue that you haven’t reached “overescapement”. (Although, if you want to argue it here, I’d love to hear it)

    So now, back to the Kenai LR sockeye…where recent history hasn’t yet provided us the worst-case-scenario of falling below replacement. And, I think we’re fortunate that this hasn’t occurred, yet. It has certainly happened in a number of other places…even right next door on the Kasilof. Why hasn’t it happened on the Kenai, yet? I dunno. There are probably a lot of factors involved. Perhaps the dual-lake nature of the system can buffer things a bit more than in other systems. However, I have NO doubt that the upper limit is out there somewhere…and, we DON’T want to go there…it get’s ugly (or uglier) for everyone, at that point.

  14. #14

    Talking House of Cards


    Why is it that the department is the only one that can do a validated escapement study? Any other work done on the subject is not valid. Ever since the escapement goals on the Kenai River were increased the commercial fishermen are having larger and larger harvest, with without a return failure. My question is who review your studies was it all interdepartmental or was it sent to out side agency? When peer reviews are performed an outside agency, another set of valves are use to determine accuracy of the study. I know that some of the published studies were done with the minimum amount of data and a lot discussion within the department. I believe this is how the good ole boys club in management originally established the Yentna River escapement goal, which the department has down graded how many times?
    Is it getting harder to put down my comment and facts, that now you are since attack me personally? You must realize that the long term effect of the department’s single mindedness in Cook Inlet management is becoming apparent. When we talk about what is good for all species of salmon in Cook Inlet instead, what is good for one that the department decided to stressed the management of the Kenai River sockeye salmon for decades. They have managed to nearly destroy the early run of coho salmon ( I know the department and you will say there was never an early run of cohos in the Kenai River and old time Alaskans won’t agree ) and the late run has been under reduced harvest levels and season restricts until this last Board of Fisheries meeting. This year we have one of the lowest harvests of chum salmon in the states history.
    The Department is just finishing up the first major studies in the Northern District since the late 70’and is trying to down play the result of their own studies. They are trying to lay the blame on the legislators. That won’t work the Legislative Task Force has listen to data provided by the department and realize that it is flawed and has a lot of smoke to cover their errors or mismanagement. They are asking too many direct questions that will have to be answered. The old style of single species management in Cook Inlet is on the way out! It is hard to see a house of card fall

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default a little homework would help bigfisheman


    The peer review of the studies were experts from outside the Department including Carl Walters (the author of the reference you gave on overescapment) and Ray Hilborn who is head of FRI at the University of Washington and a number of other well know biologist. Ray actually helped prepare the risk analysis model for the Kenai. I think you know this bigfisherman but for those who do not I decided to post a response.

    Single species management - not even close to the truth. ADF&G managers have made closures for coho, chinook, and chum salmon in the commercial fleet. In addition, ADF&G has worked hard to set up inseason forecast tools for predicting stock strength - coho is a good example - do not believe me call the Soldotna area research staff (Commervial fish) and ask about the model.

    Increased goals and increased harvest is true since the first goal on the Kenai was 150,000 and during my time it was raised to 500,000 to 800,000 for a BEG. In addition, with the risk analysis I was the one who helped define the Kenai OEG at 1 million maximum. While I do not support the concept of OEG's without some criteria for setting them the model we used in 1999 was an example of how a goal should be evaluated.

    Actually the Yentna goal came from the Susitna River goal which was an outgrowth of the combined efforts of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries Divison and members of the public via the Regional Planning Team. The Yentna goal was also presented to the Board of Fisheries and the public had an opportunity to comment at that time and every Board of Fisheries meeting since. What good old boys are you speaking?

    Relative to the studies I was opposed to the mark/recapture from the start if you remember so not sure what you are saying. I did think ADF&G performed poorly at the task force hearings but so did the task force for not doing their homework.

    Bigfisherman - I am sure you are a fine person but I take exception when you attack my professionalism and those within the Department with your comments. When they are flat out wrong I am going to point that out with data to support the position. You have been posting lots of misinformation and I know for a fact that your history in UCI you should have the data down pat. I also know in your heart you feel that chum stocks are in trouble - again the comment about low chum catches - but you will not see that regulations and fishing pattern have contributed significantly to those patterns. I tend to agree with you that more information is needed on chum escapment - that is why I oppose the present fishwheel oriented chum studies. We should be developing a Didson counting system in the major chum producing streams of the Susitna.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Thank you for the clarification Nerka.

    bigfisherman, do you have any evidence that Yentna goals were established using the "good ole boys club", or is this just more of your typical trash talk?

    Also, where's the evidence that managment is the result of what you call a nearly destroyed run of Coho, and the lowest harvest of Chum? Is management completely responsible, or does Mother Nature have a say?

    As for your legislative task force...they're not biologists, scientists, or fisheries professionals. They're politicians. They wouldn't know flawed data if it hit them in the face.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    690

    Default Are you serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The overescapement thing sounds kinda like global warming - a lot of hysteria based on insignificant data over too short of a time period combined with a failure to recognize the long term benefical effects.

    Again like global warming you need to follow the money trail - who is making the $$ by hyping up the over-escapement theory?

    The salmon did quite well for a long time with no management at all and from all accounts I've read the streams were flooded with fish year after year.
    Comparing Run Data (20 years worth) to Global Warming? C'mon now...

    The salmon did not do quite well for a long time and although I have my bones about management, they are on the right track: This is the run data for the Kenai Sockeye since the inception of the management/sonar counting for it... does anyone else see the increase in escapement?
    file:///Users/robert/Desktop/Snapsho...016-56-49.tiff

    1978 398,900
    1979 285020
    1980 464038
    1981 407639
    1982 619831
    1983 630340
    1984 344571
    1985 502820
    1986 501157
    1987 1596871
    1988 1021469
    1989 1599959
    1990 659520
    1991 647597
    1992 994798
    1993 813617
    1994 1003446
    1995 630447
    1996 797847
    1997 1064818
    1998 767558
    1999 803379
    2000 625536
    2001 650036
    2002 957924
    2003 1181309
    2004 1384586
    2005 1376452
    2006 1499692
    2007 867572
    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32

  18. #18

    Default

    Back Country- Do you have the commercial harvest for those years or is there a website that gives those numbers? For each year I would like to see the total run, setnet harvest, drift harvest, and compare those with escapement numbers.

    Brian

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default call ADFG after season

    Quote Originally Posted by Powderpro View Post
    Back Country- Do you have the commercial harvest for those years or is there a website that gives those numbers? For each year I would like to see the total run, setnet harvest, drift harvest, and compare those with escapement numbers.

    Brian
    There is published data in electronic format that allocates the total return by brood year to the Kenai.

    However, you should be prepared to do a brood year interaction model on this data set as that is the best fit for determining escapement goals. This has been done by ADFG and is also in written reports. Ask Mark Willette for the data in Soldotna.

    Wait until after the season. They are swamped right now with programs.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Bad data

    20 years is not even a blink in time- less than 10 life cycles. It reminds me of the the ignorant statement made by some one that "Some data is better than no data".

    Remember the data is not even that accurate anyway. The older counts were generally low by an unknown factor - the numbers until recently should be multiplied by some unknown number - you can not compare a million fish 10 years ago to a count of a million today.


    Quote Originally Posted by Back Country Robb View Post
    Comparing Run Data (20 years worth) to Global Warming? C'mon now...

    The salmon did not do quite well for a long time and although I have my bones about management, they are on the right track: This is the run data for the Kenai Sockeye since the inception of the management/sonar counting for it... does anyone else see the increase in escapement?
    file:///Users/robert/Desktop/Snapsho...016-56-49.tiff

    1978 398,900
    .
    .
    867572
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •