Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Question about ADF&G Kenai management

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    230

    Default Question about ADF&G Kenai management

    Maybe I'm going to sound a bit naive, but I'll take that chance.

    Is there something wrong with the idea that perhaps ADF&G's management of the late run sockeye could be better if they closed the commercial and sport and subsistence fisheries entirely until, say, 75% of the in-river goal is met, and then manage it to try to at least hit the minimum goal from that point on?

    It seems to me that if you remove all obstacles to the reds entering the river and making it at least to mile 19, in a normal year the minimum escapement goal might be met as early as July 15. The sonar counts they post are estimates of fish that have avoided capture by commercial and personal use fishermen.

    If you look at historic escapement numbers, there's usually a huge number of fish up the river after dipnetting closes on August 1. It seems that if they shut the entire fishery down until mid-July or either the 75% or 100% of escapement goal is met, there are still tons of fish ready to enter the river after that.

    Otherwise, unless a miracle occurs and a massive number of fish show up this year, you're looking at an even worse return a few years from now when this poor escapement's offspring return from the sea. Right now it looks like they'll be lucky to hit 750,000 reds entering the river on the late run.

    Just wondering. I know the commercial guys would scream like crazy if they were held off until the escapement goal was met, but I kind of get the impression that's how it's done in Bristol Bay. And this year they had record numbers of fish, although I realize escapement is no guarantee of later strong runs.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Check out the fisheries management threads

    Bibico-

    Check ou the various threads under Fisheries Managment.

    I started one thread under "Kenai Reds Managed for Commercial Harvest" that will have the answers to most of your questions. In summary the late run sockeye run is managed for primarily for commercial harvest with some consideration given to reducing the impact on kings and silvers. No consideration is given for sport fishermen; a small concession is given to dipnetters in a couple of short no net periods during the two weekends of the dip netting.

    Any suggestion of changing the plan gets one labeled as "ignorant", only the biologist know anything about fish managment. Even with all there knowledge they can not even predict the runs with any degree of accurancy or even tell us why the fish "bite".

    In practice, any fish above the minimum escapment goal is considered a "wasted resource" so be happy with the few scraps of fish we are allowed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bibico View Post
    Maybe I'm going to sound a bit naive, but I'll take that chance.

    Just wondering. I know the commercial guys would scream like crazy if they were held off until the escapement goal was met, but I kind of get the impression that's how it's done in Bristol Bay. And this year they had record numbers of fish, although I realize escapement is no guarantee of later strong runs.
    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

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

    Default

    TV you just kill me. I mean really, how bitter are you?

    Also the thread you referenced does not have "answers" it has opinions. Some you seem to ignore.

    You are one funny guy.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    The Kenai River Late Run Sockeye Management Plan does consider the sport and personal use fisheries. Not to mention that Plan is a step down Plan from the main foundational UCI Plan which greatly considers both the sport and personal use fisheries. We have proved that to tvfinak over and over, yet he continues to make a fool of himself with ignorance, over and over.

    tvfinak has not presented a "plan" over at the Fisheries Management Forum. He has none. He has simply and wrecklessly proposed closing commercial fishing, and criticized the managment...the same management that provides him the best sport fishery and personal use fishery in the world. All because he expects the fish to wait at the mouth of the River for his day off work, and be there in great numbers when he is. While the rest of us were filling our freezers, tvfinak spent the best fishing days complaining on his computer that there were "no fish". Handout rings a bell. Even with his hind-sight, tvfinak has yet to explain how management could more accurately predict the runs.

    ADFG manages, by law, to maximum sustained yield. They do not consider anything above he minimum escapement goal a "wasted resource", and a half-million sockeye (and 300,000 more in the Kasilof) is hardly "scraps". But it does make for good intertainment.

  5. #5
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    ....You are one funny guy.
    Laugh away, fisheries biologist.

    Aren't you just a bit moved by the fact that these type of threads/questions continue to come forth from the masses?

    Has the possibility occurred to you that the commercial industry might have a PR problem?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default not good management

    Quote Originally Posted by Bibico View Post
    Maybe I'm going to sound a bit naive, but I'll take that chance.

    Is there something wrong with the idea that perhaps ADF&G's management of the late run sockeye could be better if they closed the commercial and sport and subsistence fisheries entirely until, say, 75% of the in-river goal is met, and then manage it to try to at least hit the minimum goal from that point on?

    It seems to me that if you remove all obstacles to the reds entering the river and making it at least to mile 19, in a normal year the minimum escapement goal might be met as early as July 15. The sonar counts they post are estimates of fish that have avoided capture by commercial and personal use fishermen.

    If you look at historic escapement numbers, there's usually a huge number of fish up the river after dipnetting closes on August 1. It seems that if they shut the entire fishery down until mid-July or either the 75% or 100% of escapement goal is met, there are still tons of fish ready to enter the river after that.

    Otherwise, unless a miracle occurs and a massive number of fish show up this year, you're looking at an even worse return a few years from now when this poor escapement's offspring return from the sea. Right now it looks like they'll be lucky to hit 750,000 reds entering the river on the late run.

    Just wondering. I know the commercial guys would scream like crazy if they were held off until the escapement goal was met, but I kind of get the impression that's how it's done in Bristol Bay. And this year they had record numbers of fish, although I realize escapement is no guarantee of later strong runs.
    There are a number of reasons that this will not work. Here are a few.

    1. It front loads the escapementy instead of harvesting across the run in proportion to abundance

    2. It reduces quality of product since fish quality decreases as the season goes on.

    3. It does not allow for escapment goals to be reached but to be exceeded. One cannot harvest all the fish after the goal has been reached.

    4. It focuses just on Kenai but there are other stocks in UCI that need to be harvested - Kasilof, Susitna, and other systems.

    5. There are other species to be harvested - chum and pink

    I could go on but you get the idea.

    Also, TVfinak keeps making statements that are not true. The goals are to maximize the yield and thus the goal range is what ADF&G manages the runs for. In the Kenai the goal has been exceeded many more times that being under the goal. For TVfinak to say anything above the minimum is considered a waste just shows his lack of knowledge.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Aren't you just a bit moved by the fact that these type of threads/questions continue to come forth from the masses?
    I'm not. Our mixed-stock fisheries are extremely complex. Very few people understand them, have the capability to understand them, or are willing to understand them with foresight and in their entirety. The problem comes when people like yourself and tvfinak, who have never even participated in all the different fisheries, think they understand the management and biology of them better than the professionals.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Has the possibility occurred to you that the commercial industry might have a PR problem?
    What "PR problem" would that be?....guiding?...in-river destruction?...habitat degradation?...pollution?...bank erosion?...over-crowding?...over-development? Come on Mark. Your relentless attack on the commercial fishery makes the rest of us sportsfishermen look contentious and misinformed.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default don't forget about. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    What "PR problem" would that be?....guiding?...in-river destruction?...habitat degradation?...pollution?...bank erosion?...over-crowding?...over-development? Come on Mark. Your relentless attack on the commercial fishery makes the rest of us sportsfishermen look contentious and misinformed.
    Grampy, you're not much like any 'sportfisherman' I know, granted I only know you from what you write here. I think your views are not anywhere near the middle of the bell curve in the sportsfishing population, and your nonchalant claim of being part of "us sportsfisherman" is disingenuous or inaccurate. Maybe it's just that your on one of the extreme edges of the bell curve.

    Aside from that, with regard to PR, let's not leave out the indiscriminant nature of unintended bycatch due to mixed-stock, open water gillnetting. We don't even know for sure how much damage they do, and to which stocks they're doing it.

  9. #9
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Gramps a Sportfisherman....NOT!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Charholio View Post
    Grampy, you're not much like any 'sportfisherman' I know, granted I only know you from what you write here. I think your views are not anywhere near the middle of the bell curve in the sportsfishing population, and your nonchalant claim of being part of "us sportsfisherman" is disingenuous or inaccurate. Maybe it's just that your on one of the extreme edges of the bell curve.

    Aside from that, with regard to PR, let's not leave out the indiscriminant nature of unintended bycatch due to mixed-stock, open water gillnetting. We don't even know for sure how much damage they do, and to which stocks they're doing it.
    Many things you may be Gramps, but to say you represent sport fisherman, that is a laugh....

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    TYNMON, I never said I represented anyone. I am a sportfisherman. Hopefully someday you'll understand that you don't have to be anti-commercial fishing to represent a sportfisherman.

    Charholio, I don't know about your bell curve, but my views are in line with our State's fishery laws and current managment practices that are proven to work.

    But really, these issues aren't about me, are they guys.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    Many things you may be Gramps, but to say you represent sport fisherman, that is a laugh....

    You just do not get it Tynmon. Gramps represents a number of sport fisherman and his posts just reflects a different view that yours. I would say Gramps is closer to KAFC position on issues and KAFC has almost 200 members. So lets cut the bull and get back on topic.

  12. #12
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    TYNMON, I never said I represented anyone.......
    No, you sure didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    You just do not get it Tynmon. Gramps represents a number of sport fisherman and his posts just reflects a different view that yours........
    Which "number of sport fisherman" does he represent?

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

    Default this is getting old...

    man, you guys are hell-bent on closing down this thread aren't you? How do any of the recent posts advance the discussion? Answer: they don't.

  14. #14
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Which "number of sport fisherman" does he represent?
    The number that feel that our salmon fisheries are managed extremely well, that appreciate the nearly unfettered opportunity that we have to fill our freezers, and that realize what we have is the envy of the world.

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

    Default some suggestions.

    One thought I have had for years is why close the personal use fishery at the end of July? On even years there are hundreds of thousands of pink salmon entering the sytem and in some years surplus sockeye salmon.

    The reason this has not happened is the perception that coho would be harvested and of course sport fisherman want them - so we have a surplus of fish that is going unharvested.

    I know a number of people, myself being one, that likes fresh in pink salmon to eat and can. My daughter wanted some and the only route to get them is via rod and reel and a limit of 6 per day.

    Why the restriction? In my opinion it has to do with the dip net gear. The use of gill net web in a number of nets makes releasing coho a high mortality task. However, if the dip net mesh was changed for August to a real dip net mesh, not a gill net, then the fishery may be able to proceed. I am sure that people who fail to get sockeye may welcome some pink salmon.

    I have friends that dip net from a boat and gave up the gill net web and use just a plain old landing net in a stronger frame. They claim they do very well with it.

    So for some of these allocation issues the regulations are limiting options for expanded use by the general public on resources that are not being fully harvested.

    I must put in the qualification that expansion into August would have to be done on more than the Kenai as the Susitna is available and would have to managed in a habitat friendly manner - which the present fishery is not at Kasilof or Kenai.

  16. #16

    Default Why so much concern for the Coho

    Nerka, why the concern for the Coho, people routinely catch Kings in July on both the Kenai and Kasilof and this seems to have little effect on that respective run size. (Yes I no it's illegal to keep Kasilof kings but we all no it still happens on occasion) It's not a terrible idea to make minor changes in the legal netting for dipnets. I started using a smaller mesh on my nets which nearly eliminates the "gilling" of the fish. In fact, I was able to successfully release at least a dozen uninjured pinks this year as I was targeting reds

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default coho issue

    The sport fishery on coho salmon is very intense and for Kenai coho the exploitation rate is approaching an upper limit. So the additional harvest from a full open dip net fishery on coho would push the exploitation rate higher than allowed. So some reallocation of fish would take place and catching and releasing coho in the lower river would result in a high mortality on these fish - they are very sensitive to handling in the lower river.

    However, I still think that some type of fishery could take place to harvest pink salmon. It is a shame that hundreds of thousands of pinks are not being harvested.

  18. #18
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default What a waste???

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The sport fishery on coho salmon is very intense and for Kenai coho the exploitation rate is approaching an upper limit. So the additional harvest from a full open dip net fishery on coho would push the exploitation rate higher than allowed. So some reallocation of fish would take place and catching and releasing coho in the lower river would result in a high mortality on these fish - they are very sensitive to handling in the lower river.

    However, I still think that some type of fishery could take place to harvest pink salmon. It is a shame that hundreds of thousands of pinks are not being harvested.
    Nerka,
    A horrible waste to not over-exploite another spp of Kenai Salmon right?? Please find some more of your twisted evidence that so many pinks is hurting all the other salmon, eagles, bears, rainbows, dollies, ect that they feed along the entire lower river.

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

    Default

    TYNMON...over-exploit?...twisted evidence?...what the heck are you trying to start now?

    Nerka didn't say anything about so many Pinks hurting anything. Only that so many go unharvested, when they could be utilized. We all know the huge pink runs in the Kenai go virtually untapped. This is because of concern for other stocks (coho) and the fact they don't provide a viable commercial fishery (low price).

    Sometimes I just have to laugh at the level of thinking that goes on here.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default man you are out there

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    Nerka,
    A horrible waste to not over-exploite another spp of Kenai Salmon right?? Please find some more of your twisted evidence that so many pinks is hurting all the other salmon, eagles, bears, rainbows, dollies, ect that they feed along the entire lower river.
    Tynmon, what is this nonsense? The pink runs to the Kenai and Susitna are not even close to being harvested at any signficant level. In the case of Kenai the pink run goes into the river virtually untouched. Are you implying that they should not be harvested? I find this interesting since as a guide you take every available coho and chinook without any concern.

    Also, the nonsense about bears and eagles and dollies is just that nonsense relative to pink salmon and mainstem sockeye salmon. If you had read any literature on this topic you would see that the hundreds of thousands of salmon that enter the Kenai River far exceed the values reported for taking care of this portion of the ecosystem. Also, to imply that this is limiting production of trout or dollies is just unfounded for the mainstem.

    However, there is some concern about coho and chinook that spawn in some tribs that only get these species. How about Slikok Creek for example? There are other small streams where you concern may apply but those systems tend to get coho and chinook. Are you willing to change the goals for those systems - funny I never hear you mention that.

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
  •