Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: In River fishing causing decline???

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default In River fishing causing decline???

    Someone recently ADAMANTLY stated that the cause of King Salmon crash was IN RIVER over fishing, not pollock bycatch, not El-Nino of '98 etc. etc. but Commercial & subsistence IN RIVER fishing, but how does that explain that recently King Salmon returns have been dropping statewide?

    Well here's a well written report from the "Daily Worker"...enjoy:

    http://www.adn.com/outdoors/fishing/story/838015.html

    I'd like to say that there are MANY factors into the King decline, & not just ONE single reason to the decline. All of these factors, do indeed contribute to the decline of King salmon...overharvest (by all users), by catch, weather conditions, & much more we just don't know about.

  2. #2
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Exclamation Very doubtful...........

    Quote Originally Posted by gogoalie View Post
    Someone recently ADAMANTLY stated that the cause of King Salmon crash was IN RIVER over fishing, not pollock bycatch, not El-Nino of '98 etc. etc. but Commercial & subsistence IN RIVER fishing, but how does that explain that recently King Salmon returns have been dropping statewide?

    Well here's a well written report from the "Daily Worker"...enjoy:

    http://www.adn.com/outdoors/fishing/story/838015.html

    I'd like to say that there are MANY factors into the King decline, & not just ONE single reason to the decline. All of these factors, do indeed contribute to the decline of King salmon...overharvest (by all users), by catch, weather conditions, & much more we just don't know about.
    Widespread declines in King Salmon abundance from California to the Yukon, many returns where completely independent of Inriver escapements.... While bigger escapements may increase genetic varibility that could potentially increase returns for years like this.... What is so suprising about these very poor escapements isn't that the returns are soo low, it is that the returns are so low for so many age class's spanning multiple years and covering a geographic region from California to the Bering Sea!!!

    While it is easy to point fingers at low inriver goals, ocean bycatch, ect.. The real problems facing these fish are like fisheries biologist have not faced in recent memory.... In the past when there where poor ocean survivals there was an switch... North Pacific Production Good, Northwest Poor and vice versa.... This appears to be poor ocean conditions accross the board for chinook from California to the Yukon?????

    While condidtions appear that already turned favorable in the Northwest... Who knows what the current conditions are for fish off the coast of Canada to the Bering Sea....

    Bottom line is chinook are benthic in the ocean unlike all the other salmon spp and fisheries scientist really don't know much about ocean life historys for these fish.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default becareful of words tynmon

    Tynmon it would be good to give references to the broad statements you are making. If one looks even at the Deshka it was doing fine in recent years while the Yukon was not doing well. Kenai late run appear healthy and so does early run except for one year. Copper River is the same way - one year. So when I read articles like the one in the daily news it makes good copy but factually it was full of holes.

    You also referenced chinook as benthic in the ocean. I really do not thing you meant to imply that they are on the bottom - at thousands of feet deep. A reference to where you got this information may help put it in perspective as to the relative depth used by different salmon species.

    Also, the idea bigger escapement can help ocean survival is misleading. That assumes larger escapements produce more smolt and therefore lower marine survival is compensated by increased freshwater production. There is no evidence to support this thoery with Deshka chinook or Kenai River chinook. In fact, the data would imply large escapements decrease freshwater production. See escapement goal reports on these systems by ADF&G.

  4. #4
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Do you really want to hash this out here... Well ok here we go...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Tynmon it would be good to give references to the broad statements you are making. If one looks even at the Deshka it was doing fine in recent years while the Yukon was not doing well. Kenai late run appear healthy and so does early run except for one year. Copper River is the same way - one year. So when I read articles like the one in the daily news it makes good copy but factually it was full of holes.

    You also referenced chinook as benthic in the ocean. I really do not thing you meant to imply that they are on the bottom - at thousands of feet deep. A reference to where you got this information may help put it in perspective as to the relative depth used by different salmon species.

    Also, the idea bigger escapement can help ocean survival is misleading. That assumes larger escapements produce more smolt and therefore lower marine survival is compensated by increased freshwater production. There is no evidence to support this thoery with Deshka chinook or Kenai River chinook. In fact, the data would imply large escapements decrease freshwater production. See escapement goal reports on these systems by ADF&G.
    Nerka,
    Thought your expertise was in sockeye??? Apparently your idea of healthy stocks are meeting minimium escapements? Kenai late run last year just met minimium escapement.... There are entire lists of rivers in the state of AK that have faily low harvest that have been doing poorly the last three years... Do I need to name them? These are normally very proliphic streams... What is more interesting is that 2006 and 2007 where very high numbers of 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 for the Kenai early run.... These where strong age class's so where are the 1.4 and 1.5 last year and this year?? Why is this same jack phenomenom occuring on the Columbia River for their spring and summer chinook? How about fall chinook in CA, OR, and WA??? This will be the third year in a row these fish have had rock bottom numbers that are very unprecedented?


    The bigger point is multiple age class's accross the board for chinook are not doing well through out the Pacific Rim. While yes your contention that there has been some average years... This is also in lue of very large ocean and inriver harvest cut backs... Production is limited in the ocean for chinook that is independent from other spp that appear to be less affected by these conditions...

    You also referenced chinook as benthic in the ocean. I really do not thing you meant to imply that they are on the bottom - at thousands of feet deep. A reference to where you got this information may help put it in perspective as to the relative depth used by different salmon species.
    Absolutly I do want to make the point that chinook are benthic oriented, I don;t that any of the other four salmon spp are benthic oriented at all.... While I doubt they inhabit much greater depths then >350ft.... The a frequently found in depths of 60-350ft orientated to the bottom. Of course they come up to chase bait and other food, esp in the summer and when available... Haven't you ever wondered why such a high percentage of the gill plates of ocean chinook are scraped up??? You got it from feeding off the ocean floor!! (edited)

    Also, the idea bigger escapement can help ocean survival is misleading. That assumes larger escapements produce more smolt and therefore lower marine survival is compensated by increased freshwater production.
    (edited).... Did I every say that more smolts mean more returning adults... What I am implying and that many researchers believe is that higher numember of adults while may equal smaller recrutiement curves the actual survival of the fish under more variable environmental conditions both inriver and in the ocean will equal greater survivals in the long run..... Carol Ann Woody proved this with Illiamna Sockeye runs... She found more genetic variability from the beginning of the run to the end of the run then between specific tributaries stocks. So yes a huge run is bad... But nice even flow of spawners from the beginning to end with out jagged peaks and valleys due to harvest is much better..... Basically, you don't want all you eggs in one basket so to speak, but fewer eggs and whole lot more baskets equals same amount of smolts surviving to the ocean with much more greater genetic variability.

    How can you site escapement reports that are based on unfactual numbers from sonar... While these numbers give a relative abundace for the same season, they are not very good to compare from one year to the next.

    One last question Nerka..... Why are chinook so large in some rivers and not others? Of course, mainstem spawning and large migrations tends to favor large size.... But what about competition... NOAA reports have a great point in that some of the worlds largest chinook runs also have some of the largest returning adults (many are extinct now).... Rivers Inlet, Kenai, Columbia, and Sacromento to name a few... They believe that competiion in large populations heavily favors large size! So again, mabye we can get more recriuts per spawner from a small escapement, but the genetic's from the fish are likely much lower fitness survival then from large escapments that have less recruits per spawner... So do the report you speak of take these factors into consideration?

    So to sum it up (edited)... Chinook are generally doing very poorly from the very Southern tip of their range to the Northern most reaches of their range... Of course there are a few bright spot here and there, but in general multiple age class's are performing far below average and some are rock bottom and many are independent of heavy exploitation. Chinook due in fact orientate themselves to bottom, esp when compared to the other four spp of salmon.
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 10:32. Reason: personal comment

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    Bottom line is chinook are benthic in the ocean
    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    chinook are benthic oriented
    Because Chinook can be benthic ocean feeders does not mean they live on the ocean bottom, or are benthic-oriented. Studies have shown that Chinook persistently occupy thermal sensitive areas of the ocean column, with a narrow range of thermal habitats (8-12*C). Depths they occupy are related to annual cycles of surface temperatures and feeding opportunity, going deeper when surface temperatures are higher and food sources are more scarce. Other salmon species are bethic feeders as well...example: coho and sockeye.

    An example of a fish that is "benthic in the ocean" or "benthic oriented", would be a Halibut or Turbot.

    (edited) Nerka has a formal educational degree, 25+ years of salmon fisheries biology experience, performed and published many studies and research, and the list goes on. (edited) His information here is invaluable whether you agree with it or not. (edited)
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 10:34. Reason: personal comment

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default Thanks Gramps

    I was just rrying to let Tynmon clear up his statements without pointing out he is misreading the papers. Your clarification is what I hoped he would post -- oh well.

    Relative to genetic fitness this is another area that has been incomplete in the discussion. Rather than take it here people should read some of the research reports on maintaining genetic fitness in a population - goggle genetic fitness salmon. You do not need many fish to maintain genetic variability in a population - 300 or so is the minimum number regardless of population size - so a small stream like Slikok Creek with chinook would need 300 fish from a brood year to maintain genetic diversity. Fitness is a slightly different issue so read the reoorts and that is why I asked Tynmon to provide them rather than his take on them -

    Tynmon wants to reference last years Kenai chinook runs as meeting goals and then takes me to task for using the sonar. Is this not the same thing? So lets take Kenai out of the discussion. What is required is brood tables for a discussion of ocean survival and production from an individual spawning escapement.

  7. #7
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Because Chinook can be benthic ocean feeders does not mean they live on the ocean bottom, or are benthic-oriented. Studies have shown that Chinook persistently occupy thermal sensitive areas of the ocean column, with a narrow range of thermal habitats (8-12*C). Depths they occupy are related to annual cycles of surface temperatures and feeding opportunity, going deeper when surface temperatures are higher and food sources are more scarce. Other salmon species are bethic feeders as well...example: coho and sockeye.

    An example of a fish that is "benthic in the ocean" or "benthic oriented", would be a Halibut or Turbot.

    (edited) Nerka has a formal educational degree, 25+ years of salmon fisheries biology experience, performed and published many studies and research, and the list goes on. (edited)
    (edited)

    Vertical distribution of chinook during day light hours...
    "Chinook where captured in trawls deeper then 60fm (110m), but most fish where caught above 40 fm (73m). Chinook were not distributed near the surface, but most abundant in the 30-40fm (57-73m) range.” Vancover Is.

    “Both young and maturing chinook where captured more frequently at shallower depths then immature chinook.”

    “Samples only extended to 55m and chinook where the most abundant 48-55m. Possibly, catch’s would have been even greater at increased depth.”

    “Appears to be a season change in depth distribution, with average depth in June from 33m in June and July to 41m in August-October.”
    http://books.google.com/books?id=I_S...esult&resnum=6


    Gramps please site your references that show sockeye and coho orientation to tbe bottom. To clearify my quote, I siad benthic oreintated, not benthic... (edited)
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 11:00. Reason: personal comment

  8. #8
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I was just rrying to let Tynmon clear up his statements without pointing out he is misreading the papers. Your clarification is what I hoped he would post -- oh well.

    Relative to genetic fitness this is another area that has been incomplete in the discussion. Rather than take it here people should read some of the research reports on maintaining genetic fitness in a population - goggle genetic fitness salmon. You do not need many fish to maintain genetic variability in a population - 300 or so is the minimum number regardless of population size - so a small stream like Slikok Creek with chinook would need 300 fish from a brood year to maintain genetic diversity. Fitness is a slightly different issue so read the reoorts and that is why I asked Tynmon to provide them rather than his take on them -

    Tynmon wants to reference last years Kenai chinook runs as meeting goals and then takes me to task for using the sonar. Is this not the same thing? So lets take Kenai out of the discussion. What is required is brood tables for a discussion of ocean survival and production from an individual spawning escapement.
    Nerka,
    I never stated that these populations where not geneticly fit, did I? I stated quite clearly that increasing the size of the population increases the genetic fitness... Are you arguing this??? Are you stating that smaller populations have more genetic variability then larger ones???

    Oh an about your 300 number... That is anyones best guess.... They really don't know that much about genetic fitness of salmonids in general.... To simplify obviously populations that have multiple age class could be fit w/ numbers less then 300.... Need I site this??? Take Kenai Pennisula steelhead... There seem to be a number of populations that are self sustaining and have high rates of varibility and their number from 100-1000 for each population.

    Since you retracted you Kenai Sonar example.... How about the Funny R weir data, very solid.... This population have been estimated at roughly 1000-2700 the last three years... Don't you think this is really close to the low 300 number???

    Now Kenai late run genetics. Why so you suppose that Kenai kings are getting smaller over time??? Lower escapements are likely the number one cause.... Assuming that the population is harvested equally by size for both the sport and commercial fishery.
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 10:39.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    TYNMON, unfortunately nothing you've posted there supports your idea that Chinook are "benthic-oriented" or "benthic in the ocean". And nothing there disproves what I have posted. (edited)

    In fact, the literature you referenced (which included studies by Taylor and Argue) makes absolutely no reference to Chinook being benthic-oriented. On the contrary, it clearly describes how Chinook inhabit a variety of depths, from the surface to the deep. In fact they even use the term "stratum". There is no doubt that some Chinook can inhabit deep water, especially when feeding or occupying optimal thermoclines. However, that does not make them benthic-oriented. In marine fisheries science, a "benthic" fish typically defines a bottom fish. Again, a Halibut, Turbot, or Rockfish might be a better description of a "benthic-oriented" fish. Not a Chinook.

    To make it worse, you have not only cherry-picked certain comments from your reference, but you've purposely misquoted them, adding in your own words and leaving other important ones out. Folks can read the reference in its entirety and proper context. The following are comments you referenced with the correct wording. The correct words are in red, and your manipulated words are in (bold parenthesis). Read it with the red words and remove the bold words in parenthesis, and you have the correct quote.

    "Chinook where captured in trawls fishing deeper (then) than 60fm (110m), but most fish where (caught) captured above 40 fm (73 m) (Table 6). Chinook were not (distributed) concentrated near the surface, but were most abundant in the 30-40fm (57-73m) (range) stratum.”

    “Both young chinook (younger than .2) and maturing chinook (older than .2) where captured more frequently at shallower depths (then) than were older immature chinook (Table 6).”

    "(Samples) Argue's (1970) samples only extended to 55m and most chinook (54&#37 where captured (the most abundant) in the 48-55m) stratum (Table 6). Possibly, (catch’s) catches would have been as large at even greater (at increased) depth.”

    "(Appears) There appears to be a (season) seasonal change in depth distribution, with the average depth of capture dropping from 33 m in June (from 33m in June) and July to 41m in August-October (Figure 21).”


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    Gramps please site your references that show sockeye and coho orientation to tbe bottom.
    Unfortunately, as exemplified by the above, you have again misinterpreted, and misrepresented. I did not say sockeye and coho were bottom oriented. I said they can be benthic feeders...

    "Chinook can be benthic ocean feeders...Other salmon species are bethic feeders as well...example: coho and sockeye." - Grampyfishes

    (edited) The object of these discussions is to disseminate accurate, truthful, comprehensive information in a rational manner. That is in the best interest of our fisheries. (edited)
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 10:41. Reason: personal comment

  10. #10
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Unfortunatly I could not copy and paste...

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    TYNMON, unfortunately nothing you've posted there supports your idea that Chinook are "benthic-oriented" or "benthic in the ocean". And nothing there disproves what I have posted. I'm sorry you chose to waste your day trying to build a futile argument.

    In fact, the literature you referenced (which included studies by Taylor and Argue) makes absolutely no reference to Chinook being benthic-oriented. On the contrary, it clearly describes how Chinook inhabit a variety of depths, from the surface to the deep. In fact they even use the term "stratum". There is no doubt that some Chinook can inhabit deep water, especially when feeding or occupying optimal thermoclines. However, that does not make them benthic-oriented. In marine fisheries science, a "benthic" fish typically defines a bottom fish. Again, a Halibut, Turbot, or Rockfish might be a better description of a "benthic-oriented" fish. Not a Chinook.

    To make it worse, you have not only cherry-picked certain comments from your reference, but you've purposely misquoted them, adding in your own words and leaving other important ones out. Folks can read the reference in its entirety and proper context. The following are comments you referenced with the correct wording. The correct words are in red, and your manipulated words are in (bold parenthesis). Read it with the red words and remove the bold words in parenthesis, and you have the correct quote.

    "Chinook where captured in trawls fishing deeper (then) than 60fm (110m), but most fish where (caught) captured above 40 fm (73 m) (Table 6). Chinook were not (distributed) concentrated near the surface, but were most abundant in the 30-40fm (57-73m) (range) stratum.”

    “Both young chinook (younger than .2) and maturing chinook (older than .2) where captured more frequently at shallower depths (then) than were older immature chinook (Table 6).”

    "(Samples) Argue's (1970) samples only extended to 55m and most chinook (54&#37 where captured (the most abundant) in the 48-55m) stratum (Table 6). Possibly, (catch’s) catches would have been as large at even greater (at increased) depth.”

    "(Appears) There appears to be a (season) seasonal change in depth distribution, with the average depth of capture dropping from 33 m in June (from 33m in June) and July to 41m in August-October (Figure 21).”


    Unfortunately, as exemplified by the above, you have again misinterpreted, and misrepresented. I did not say sockeye and coho were bottom oriented. I said they can be benthic feeders...

    "Chinook can be benthic ocean feeders...Other salmon species are bethic feeders as well...example: coho and sockeye." - Grampyfishes

    (edited) The object of these discussions is to disseminate accurate, truthful, comprehensive information in a rational manner. That is in the best interest of our fisheries. (edited)
    (edited)
    There where multiple studies that where sited in the refference that I used and I will reiterate....
    "(Samples) Argue's (1970) samples only extended to 55m and most chinook (54%) where captured (the most abundant) in the 48-55m) stratum (Table 6). Possibly, (catch’s) catches would have been as large at even greater (at increased) depth.”

    “Both young chinook (younger than .2) and maturing chinook (older than .2) where captured more frequently at shallower depths (then) than were older immature chinook (Table 6).”

    (edited) That is right a high percentage near the bottom at the 60-90 ft range. That's right mostly close to the bottom. Of course these fish come up off the bottom chasing bait and during tide changes.

    It appears that you also left off that chinook life histories are very mixed w/ both nearshore and offshore rearing... Did I ever suggest that they live down 1000 of feet??? Nope...
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 10:45. Reason: personal comment

  11. #11
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default So according to you...

    (edited)
    I am sure that sockeye very rarely feed on the bottom, and coho might on a very once in a great while.... Obviously, sockeye and coho primary food sources are also oieintated to the upper 20 m of the water column...

    You have (edited) fish(ed) out of Homer for winter kings... Where do you catch then primarily in the water column Gramps? Ever cut their bellies open to see what they are eating? Every notice that a very very high percentage of them have scaped you gill plates from feeding on the bottom?....

    Did I say benthic?? Nope... Benthic oreintated, meaning they spend a high percentage of their time near the bottom.... Considering a high percentage (50/50) chinook rear in nearshore waters that may be water <30 fm.... In the trawling research that showed extensively that these fish where in 44-55m, do you duppose they where just suspended in space, w/ another 100 feet of ocean below them?? Very unlikely, they where most likely "orientated" to some kind of "bottom" structure."
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 10:50.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default Tynmon - this is what you said

    Tynmon - here are your quotes that started this and continues it.

    Did I say benthic?? Nope... Benthic oreintated, meaning they spend a high percentage of their time near the bottom.... Considering a high percentage (50/50) chinook rear in nearshore waters that may be water <30 fm.... In the trawling research that showed extensively that these fish where in 44-55m,

    However, your first post said:

    Bottom line is chinook are benthic in the ocean unlike all the other salmon spp and fisheries scientist really don't know much about ocean life historys for these fish

    I took exception to the benthic comment relative to ocean life history. I think the posts by Grampyfishes show the behavior of chinook in deep waters varies significantly. Also, you did not cite water depths that these fish were found in - much deeper than the depth or stratum they were using. To imply they are sensing the bottom at 100's of feet below them would require some sensory mechanism to do so. Want to comment on what that would be? I would suggest they are not oriented to the bottom but to a temperature or current pattern that is favorable to feeding, migration, or predatory avoidance. I believe the hypothesis on this depth selection deals with these probabilities, not following some depth structure that is 100 or more feet below them.

    Relative to the 300 fish for genetic variability to be maintained that number is not made up. It is based on a statistical analysis of diverisity and is a published figure that is used by ADF&G and other agencies to make decisions. There is also a significant body of work on what constitues a viable salmon population which is used in the ESA process.
    Bottom line is chinook are benthic in the ocean unlike all the other salmon spp and fisheries scientist really don't know much about ocean life historys for these fish. 1 Day Ago 15:27
    Bottom line is chinook are benthic in the ocean unlike all the other salmon spp and fisheries scientist really don't know much about ocean life historys for these fish. 1 Day Ago 15:27

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    TYNMON, sockeye and coho are known to feed on benthic ocean creatures such as benthic amphipods, copepods, euphausids, ostracods, crustacean larvae, zooplankton, and even benthic fish species such as Sand Lance.

    So yes, sockeye and coho do feed on the bottom, and countless studies prove that. However, like Chinook, that does not mean they are benthic. It appears you have taken the fact that Chinook sometimes feed on the bottom and occupy deeper ocean stratums than other salmon, to classify them as benthic. That is incorrect.

    Again, Chinook occupy a variety of depths in the ocean stratum, from the surface to the bottom and everything in-between. As I said in my first post, Chinook persistently occupy thermal sensitive areas of the ocean column, with a narrow range of thermal habitats. Depths they occupy are related to annual cycles of surface temperatures and feeding opportunity.

    I would appreciate you not misrepresenting my posts. I did not say halibut or other benthic fish never come off the bottom to feed. I said...

    "Again, a Halibut, Turbot, or Rockfish might be a better description of a "benthic-oriented" fish. Not a Chinook." - Grampyfishes

    "An example of a fish that is "benthic in the ocean" or "benthic oriented", would be a Halibut or Turbot." - Grampyfishes


    I am sorry if you took my comments (from another thread) about fishing for winter Kings out of Homer as "bragging". (edited) My intention was to show that there is more to the King fishery than the traditional season that so many seem to depend on...

    "I've already filled my freezer with bright, chrome, winter Kings, including one last weekend that went about 35 lbs. In my opinion there is no finer-eating salmon, and no other place that offers such opportunity to get them." - Grampyfishes

    To answer your questions, most of the winter Kings I catch are suspended in the water column, off bottom, usually between 20 and 90 feet. I have even seen jumpers. The bottom can range from 50 to 300 feet. 55 feet (with a 90 foot bottom) is my lucky number in Feb-March. Their stomachs range from empty, to benthic creatures and sand lance, to other tiny minnows and bait fish. They love my brined plug-cut herring. Yes, it is common for these fish to have scraped gill plates from feeding on benthic creatures, much like the cohos in Seward and PWS that I mooch for on the bottom. Hope that helps.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    Did I say benthic?? Nope...
    "Bottom line is chinook are benthic in the ocean..." - TYNMON
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 10:53. Reason: personal comment

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Why do these always turn into a pi$$ing match?

  15. #15
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Be forewarned....

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    Why do these always turn into a pi$$ing match?
    Human nature?

    The one thing folks posting on this sub-forum must be cautious about is the fact that you ain't got much time to edit a post... especially a long technical post. By the time you may discover your typo/misrepresentation/honest/not-so-honest mistake, it's too late to change it.

    Post an error or outright BS and you will be held accountable by the many sharp minds and watchful eyes that read virtually every detail posted on this sub-forum. Don't post anything you really don't mean or can't back up with a good argument or good data. And heaven forbid posting something that contradicts one of your previous posts. No doubt, you WILL get called out.... and unfortunately, there's no way to take it back!

    Kinda scary.
    "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

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default doc

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post

    Kinda scary.
    Only to those who try to mislead or misdirect other forum readers.

    This is one of the positives of this forum. If someone, anyone, tries to present misleading statements or outright deception then I would hope other forum members would speak out and question the data. In this case some statements were made that were not really correct. I might point out that science works this way - people question other scientists all the time about conclusions or data. If one is going to enter into a scientific discussion one should be able to stand the pressure of defending their position. This should be done without personal attack.

    However, lay people posting bad information shoudl be treated with some latitude. The first post by me asked that references be supplied by the individual and questioned if he really meant to say what he said. I would hope that others would ask the same questions of me if they feel something posted is not correct. There is no disrespect to ask for references or question positions. Tynmon did it with my reference to pit tags vs CWT. I agreed and said so.

    I do not think anyone should be afraid to post if they ask questions and present data that people can check out or follow up on. Personal opinion will always be questioned but does not need to be done with personal comments like wasting my time or implying one is a know it all.

  17. #17
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default is there still a thread here?

    Let's not lose a good thread to trivia and schoolyard bickering. Back to original topic- what is causing the decline in kings? 1st off, is there a decline in king numbers? Yukon, Ayakulik, Karluk, Anchor, Theodore, Lewis, all Susitna drainages, west coast... how high an impact are the different variables in the life and death of a chinook having? In what ways are we quantifying the factors other than human caused mortality? Can we BETTER quantify those human sources? I suspect this year and last year's runs in the Valley, and possibly the Anchor's, were affected by adverse weather in '04, '05 and '06. The returns thus far this year support the supposition that those three years may have seen low production. That doesn't answer the why's and wherefores of the other systems in Alaska and along the west coast that are also so much lower now.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Only to those who try to mislead or misdirect other forum readers.

    This is one of the positives of this forum. If someone, anyone, tries to present misleading statements or outright deception then I would hope other forum members would speak out and question the data. In this case some statements were made that were not really correct. I might point out that science works this way - people question other scientists all the time about conclusions or data. If one is going to enter into a scientific discussion one should be able to stand the pressure of defending their position. This should be done without personal attack.

    However, lay people posting bad information shoudl be treated with some latitude. The first post by me asked that references be supplied by the individual and questioned if he really meant to say what he said. I would hope that others would ask the same questions of me if they feel something posted is not correct. There is no disrespect to ask for references or question positions. Tynmon did it with my reference to pit tags vs CWT. I agreed and said so.

    I do not think anyone should be afraid to post if they ask questions and present data that people can check out or follow up on. Personal opinion will always be questioned but does not need to be done with personal comments like wasting my time or implying one is a know it all.
    (edited)
    We both know that there is alot more info about ocean chinook and much of it is not available to those that do not have subsciptions to published science.

    I think is was very clear in my post that my I was intention was to demonstrate that chinook often are found on the bottom... Not nessisarily at depth greater then 200m, but many ppl fail to relize that these fish often hang out on the bottom that is definitly different from the other four spp of salmon...... It is clear that I understand that they are not always on the bottom just as clear as it is that some halibuit just do not hang out on the bottom too.

    (edited) Clearly you represent a different interest group then I and Gramps and you share many ideals in fisheries management. (edited) Many ppl that I have worked for recognize that unique and very detailed observations.... There is something to be said for those that are out collecting and conducting fishries research and many many projects through out the NW and AK that I have observed are conducted at times w/ a very limited scope and very poor field techniques... That is not a slam on
    biologists, managers, and reserachers... (edited)
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 06-24-2009 at 10:58. Reason: personal comment

  19. #19
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default A quick comment-

    I think the OP had a great question, and I'd like to hear more ideas on why our king numbers are down in some areas.

    Just a reminder to everyone though. Please keep negative comments that are directed at individuals out of the discussion. Disagreement is no problem; it would be a boring discussion if we all agreed. But if you must, express your disagreement in ways that don't insult someone. I'm not asking everyone to like each other. I'm asking everyone to keep the climate friendly and welcoming, and to focus on the topic.

    Thanks for your help!

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

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

    Default too many variables, not enough knowledge, time, and money

    After over 40 years of real word experience after receiving my BS technical degree I've become a real skeptic on almost any technical study or observation that has more than one or two simple variables. Science is so complex that attempting to draw conclusions over something as complex as the life cycle of a salmon is just too risky.

    We have yet to begin to scratch the surface of how a lot of things are accomplished in life - for example how is the knowledge of how the salmon is programmed to live and complete its life cycle is unknow. It may get a bit of knowledge from its peers but the parents don't pass on any behavior learning. Could the knowledge of how to live and adapt be somehow distorted and causing the decline? How do we study something we know so little about?

    Funding and staffing are always a big issue on any project. There are many excellent hard working people but they can only do so much with the time, money, staff, and other resources they are allocated. And some technicial and non-technical people are just flat imcompetent - witness all the screw-ups in the medical field for example. Sorting the good from the bad is very difficult or impossible.

    Then there is the issue of publishing scientific papers for the sole sake of publishing. Writers are generally rewarded for the number of publications - not the quality or accuracy of the papers. I've seen a lot of examples of data that turned out to be incorrect for one reason or another - I'm sure fishery resoruces studies aren't much different.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    (edited)
    We both know that there is alot more info about ocean chinook and much of it is not available to those that do not have subsciptions to published science.

    editied

    Many ppl that I have worked for recognize that unique and very detailed observations.... There is something to be said for those that are out collecting and conducting fishries research and many many projects through out the NW and AK that I have observed are conducted at times w/ a very limited scope and very poor field techniques... That is not a slam on
    biologists, managers, and reserachers... (edited)
    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

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
  •