Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Meeting planned

  1. #1

    Thumbs up Meeting planned

    Maybe a good idea, if you want to find out what is going on.
    It is an excerpt of an email I received today.

    "Upper level staff with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have agreed to a public meeting at 6:00 pm Monday May 18, 2009 at the Public Safety Building on the corner of Swanson and Lucille in Wasilla. The Purpose of this meeting is to discuss how ADF&G plans to manage Upper Cook Inlet salmon fisheries during the 2009 season (both commercial and sport fisheries) in regard to poor king salmon returns to the Deshka River and Alexander Creek, and poor sockeye salmon escapements in recent years to the Yentna/Susitna River system and Fish Creek. There will be an opportunity for the public to ask questions. We would like to see you at this meeting supporting management aimed at allowing more salmon to return to Northern Cook Inlet area streams, but in the event that you can not attend, it would be appreciated if you passed this notice on to other people concerned about achieving adequate numbers of salmon passing into Northern Cook Inlet streams for both spawning escapements and to allow viable subsistence, personal use, and sport fisheries."
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  2. #2

    Default Department reverts back to pre-statehood managment

    Please attend the meeting Monday night an hear what they have to say. Please contact your legidslators, Governor and the Board of Fisheries members asking them to prevent this plan from being implemenmted. This could distroy the Susitna River sockeye returns.



    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 14 May, 2009 No. 09-13

    Contact: John Hilsinger at (907) 267-2324
    or Charlie Swanton at (907) 465-6184

    YENTNA/SUSITNA SOCKEYE SALMON ESCAPEMENT GOALS
    The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) today released revised escapement goals for Susitna River sockeye salmon and an accompanying Fisheries Technical Manuscript report. Based on extensive research by the Department, it became evident that a revision was needed for the existing escapement goal for Yentna River sockeye salmon because the Bendix sonar was substantially undercounting sockeye salmon. For several years, ADF&G has been operating two types of sonar as well as doing weir counts and mark-recapture experimentsto enumerate sockeye salmonreturns. Data analysis showed that the older model Bendix sonar was significantly undercounting fish relative to the newer Dual-frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON) style counter, weirs at major spawning lakes, and the mark-recapture population estimates. Since the escapement goal for the Yentna was based on these Bendix sonar counts, an ADF&G interdivisional team of biologists completed an exhaustive analysis of historical data including weir, sonar, and mark-recapture programs conducted over 25-30 years incorporating various sockeye salmon production models to develop an updated escapement goal. The results of these analyses affirm that replacing the existing Yentna River sustainable escapement goal of 90,000-160,000 sockeye salmon with weir count based escapement goals will provide a more accurate and reliable management target that incorporates escapement into the mainstem Susitna River as well as the Yentna River. For the Yentna River drainage, weir count based escapement goals of 20,000-65,000 fish for Chelatna Lake and 25,000 to 55,000 spawners for Judd Lake will be used. An escapement goal of 15,000-50,000 fish for Larson Lake will be used as a proxy for the Susitna River mainstem. These goals will be reviewed every three years coinciding with the Alaska Board of Fisheries management cycle. The DIDSON sonar counter (located on the Yentna River six miles upstream from the confluence with the Susitna River) will continue operation, providing indices of sockeye salmon passagethroughout the run.

    Inseason salmon fisheries management actions will rely on data from the offshore test fishery and catch per unit of effort indices from the drift gillnet and set gillnet fisheries under guidance of the Yentna River sockeye salmon stock of concern action plan. Research activities will be conducted over the next 4-5 years to allow for increased understanding of sockeye salmon production, species apportionment, and total abundance.


    ###


    Jennifer Yuhas
    Communications & Legislative Director,
    Alaska Department of Fish & Game
    (907) 465-6137 Juneau
    (907) 388-7951 Mobile

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default just plain wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by bigfisherman View Post
    Please attend the meeting Monday night an hear what they have to say. Please contact your legidslators, Governor and the Board of Fisheries members asking them to prevent this plan from being implemenmted. This could distroy the Susitna River sockeye returns.
    Bigfisherman, you are just plain wrong on this. I have read the escapement goal report and it is well done and correct in its approach. Calling for a flood of ill advised letters to the govenor is irresponsible. First you say come and hear what they have to say and then you ignore that and ask that the public reject what they are saying before they hear the discussion.

    Please tell us how this escapement goal plan can destroy the Susitna sockeye salmon returns? The plan says that they are using these three systems while they gather data on other systems to set goals (weir counts) and look at fish wheel selectivity issues to see if they can overcome that issue in apportionment of the fish targets. That is a reasonable approach.

    What is not reasonable is to continue to use a counting system (sonar/fish wheel) that is not performing at expected levels. I know you do not like the statement in the news release that says escapements have been higher than counted in the Susitna and that concerns for sockeye from overharvest have been overstated. However, the real threat to salmon in the system is pike and yet we hear knowing from the valley folks on that.

  4. #4
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,355

    Default about the pike...

    Pike are a problem in the Susitna and Yentna. They are not the only problem. They are a Big problem, bigger on some systems than others. So far all fish and game has released for stock of concern management is adjusting goals so that recent escapements actually fall within the new goal range. How does this actually help restore weakened fisheries? Is the problem in poor counting methods, or is there actually a run strength issue? I feel there is a huge run strength issue. Adjusting the counting method to mask the magnitude of the run decline does nothing to improve fishing or protect the stocks.

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

    Default they have not done this

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Pike are a problem in the Susitna and Yentna. They are not the only problem. They are a Big problem, bigger on some systems than others. So far all fish and game has released for stock of concern management is adjusting goals so that recent escapements actually fall within the new goal range. How does this actually help restore weakened fisheries? Is the problem in poor counting methods, or is there actually a run strength issue? I feel there is a huge run strength issue. Adjusting the counting method to mask the magnitude of the run decline does nothing to improve fishing or protect the stocks.
    Read the report. They are not masking anything.

    The decline in production for some systems is directly related to pike and beaver dams. Other systems without these stresses are doing fine. So do we get off the interception issue and deal with the problem or not.

  6. #6
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,355

    Default whom do you believe?

    Again; do we place more credence in reports from political appointees, bean counters, and those with financial gain from projecting rosy numbers, or those from the ground pounders who have seen what our salmon runs are really doing?

    Nerka, if you saw a report that showed run strength to Shell Lake was fine, but you were standing in a smaller stream fishing all season and only saw a dozen reds where historically there would be several hundred, would you believe your personal experience or the report saying that the entire system was healthy based on Shell Lake counts? Would you still say pike were the only problem if the theoretical stream has no pike?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Again; do we place more credence in reports from political appointees, bean counters, and those with financial gain from projecting rosy numbers, or those from the ground pounders who have seen what our salmon runs are really doing?

    Nerka, if you saw a report that showed run strength to Shell Lake was fine, but you were standing in a smaller stream fishing all season and only saw a dozen reds where historically there would be several hundred, would you believe your personal experience or the report saying that the entire system was healthy based on Shell Lake counts? Would you still say pike were the only problem if the theoretical stream has no pike?
    I would say if the weir counts were much higher than I observed that the fish were migrating when I was not there. Willphish4food, your posts proves my point - you are running on emotion not science. The people doing the counting are ADF&G and CIAA under ADF&G supervision - so who are the political appointments and bean counters that are masking data as you claim. If you make this claim you should back it up.

    Frankly, personal observation on fish abundance in a stream like Shell Lake is a poor example. Let me give you an example from real life. If you look at Shell Lake weir counts they go for days some years without any fish. Then in one day thousnads can pass the wier. Why? Because CIAA crews go dwonstream and remove beaver dams and the fish flood into the lake with the clear passage. If you are standing on the bank during the non-fish days you are seeing the impact of the beaver dams you just do not know it. If you are there on the day they remove the dams everything looks good to you. So personal observation while having a place is not very useful without the big picture view.

    That is the problem with the valley folks like yourself. You still refuse to deal with the issues and istead want to play the victim of some other user groups.

    Willsphis4food - answer this question - with millions of salmon entering the Susitna the harvest by sport fisherman is less than 100,000. Why is that - for the record 10,000 sockeye total harvest, less than 10,000 chums, less than 10,000 pinks, and 30-40k coho. Yet by ADF&G estimates the total number of salmon entering the system is easily 3 million or more. You need to get off the commercial interception issue and deal with the real issues in the valley.

  8. #8
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,355

    Default

    My issue is this: As I have stated many times, and will state again on Monday, is that my observations and those of the people fishing valley streams do not always match the numbers given by fish and game. Nerka, you have said many times that the counting method for sockeye on the yentna is inaccurate- yet you use that same method to claim that my claims of low abundance are baloney. Is that objective science?

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,355

    Default sacrifice

    I will be giving up a day of fishing or bear hunting to attend meetings on monday, culminating in the biggie with fish and feathers. I encourage anyone else with a stake or interest in valley sport fishing, personal use, or cook inlet commercial fishing to sacrifice a few hours on a Monday night to attend the meeting. 6 pm at the firehouse on Lucille.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default how can you say that

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    My issue is this: As I have stated many times, and will state again on Monday, is that my observations and those of the people fishing valley streams do not always match the numbers given by fish and game. Nerka, you have said many times that the counting method for sockeye on the yentna is inaccurate- yet you use that same method to claim that my claims of low abundance are baloney. Is that objective science?
    Willphish4food - I am not using the sonar which I have indicated is not accurate. I am using the weir counts and tagging studies from UCI, not in river. Two different methods. I just wish you would recognize that your observations could be wrong but you are so sure that your individual observations and a few others are correct - I feel we are going back into the dark ages when you state this type of stuff.

  11. #11

    Exclamation Back to the good/bad ole days of salmon management?

    Again the department is trying to do what they started back in the late 80ís when the chief fisheries biologist wrote a paper saying that the department should drop all escapement goals in the Northern District, so that the department could better manage the Kenai and the Kasilof Rivers. The escapement goals was a common topic for several board cycles prior to the Sustainable Salmon Management Policy, after the Sustainable Salmon Management Policy was written and in placed, this topic took a back seat. Now they have drag up this old concept and gave it a new name. The junior staffs in the 80ís are now senior staff or higher today. They figure that our memory is just too short to remember this concept of management. The Frontiersman news paper has ran quotes from now retired fishery biologist have that stated the department couldnít worry about missing Northern District escapement goals by a few thousand fish, when it comes to protecting other goals in the central district.
    It appears to me that all of the sockeye salmon that spawn in small streams, sloughs and other areas do not count, because their numbers are not used in this new or better yet old style of management. This equates to what was done down in the Northwest coastal rivers of our country. They have closed all salmon fishing in some areas and states. A retired department biologist has stated that this plan takes us back more than 50 years to pre-statehood tactics used by the federal manager.
    I know I am not a trained fisheries manager, but when you go through the 30 some odd pages of exploration of how they came to these decisions. Too many questions were left unanswered or not even addressed. I understand that this study had peer review by folks in the department was there out outside source used? How much public input was request or given from groups such Advisory Committees, subsistence users on the Yentna River or the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The borough has had meeting with staff and had requested information from senior staff and the commissioner, on several occasion with out response.
    Since when has something these important not been passed out to Alaskans for review to see the impact that it would have. I go back and paraphase comment that a senior staff made to a legislator. That the department didnít need to consult the public on the actions of the department, legislator was quick to inform him that he and all the folks working for the State of Alaska owed answers to the public!
    I know you will find a thousand things wrong with this; the real truth is the public must have an input on what happens to their natural resources. When the changes being made adversely affects their livelihood!


    Big Fisherman

  12. #12
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,355

    Default

    Nerka, does historical data exist comparing weir counts to Bendix sonar in the Yentna?

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

    Default read the report

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Nerka, does historical data exist comparing weir counts to Bendix sonar in the Yentna?
    The ADF&G has put the weir counts in their report and the sonar counts are available. However, this is a meaningless question - the Bendix sonar counts are not useful in any relationship at this point.

    Bigfisherman is flat out misleading this forum again. The ADF&G is not trying to do anything like he says. They are proposing a management plan while they collect data to improve overall counting and management in the Susitna. The weirs were suggested back in the 1980's because of the same concerns as now - not that anyone wanted to not manage the ND sockeye or other salmon stocks. More state monies have been spent on trying to count fish in the Susitna than any other system in UCI. So to imply that ADF&G does not care about the ND is just a flat lie.

    Also, when one is close to a goal of maximum sustained yield ( in this case a couple of thousand fish below 100,000) and other sytems are going well over the goal with the potential for significant loss of future production (Kenai) then a trade off is made in a mixed stock fishery management plan. That is not irresponsibile but jsut the opposite. One system is right at the MSY point and the other far from it - trying to meet both goals is good management.

    The public is not allowed to enter into technical debates unless they have something technical to offer. So far Willphish4food and bigfisherman have spoken against ADF&G but have offered nothing in return that is technically sound - the ADF&G report points out the flaw in their thinking about sonar.

    The truth is that bigfisherman let the truth out - they want the whole return to go to the ND for their personal gain and will use every political method to get it accomplished.

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
  •