Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: interesting figures?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default interesting figures?

    I was looking at angler days and harvest of salmon in the Northern Cook Inlet Management Area vs. the Kenai River. Here are some rough figures for 2006. The NCIMA has a catch rate of salmon of .47 salmon per angler day which is mostly chinook and coho (I assumed 300,000 angler days which was published for 2007). The Kenai River had a catch rate of .73 salmon per angler day with most fish being sockeye. I know mixing years and the assumption of 2007 being equal with 2006 is not really valid but I suspect the angler days are fairly constant. I plan to check this out and if someone has the report with angler days for 2006 that would be great.

    Just for the record the Kenai River had 329,000 angler days in 2006(2007 was not available in the report) and the Mat/Su had 300,000 angler days in 2007 . So the idea people are not fishing in the valley is not supported by the angler day data.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post

    Just for the record the Kenai River had 329,000 angler days in 2006(2007 was not available in the report) and the Mat/Su had 300,000 angler days in 2007 . So the idea people are not fishing in the valley is not supported by the angler day data.

    I am not sure what the purpose of your data is, I wasn't aware that people are saying that people aren't fishing the valley anymore. I guess you would have to show whay the trends are to prove or disprove anything, how does your data mesh with historic data?

    Also, on the quote above, how many fisheries/rivers are taken into account as "Mat/Su" fisheries? It looks like to me you are comparing apples and oranges and trying to draw conclusions about valley streams based on Kenai effort?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    I would think that a study of the Northern Cook Inlet Management Area would include Bird Creek and Ship Creek, two very heavily fished Anchorage municipality streams.....and they could be as much as 1/3 of the total effort if what I saw in the Anchorage Daily Fish Wrapper and Bird Cage Liner was an accurate indicator of the number of people fishing. Also, wouldn't it be more accurate to compare total effort on the Peninsula rather than just that on the Kenai?? As Yukon pointed out, the numbers don't enable us to reach any sort of conclusion. Without a context....like prior years, we can't tell if effort is up or down.

  4. #4

    Default 2001-2008

    Here is a chart of the angler-days from Matsu/Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula from 2001-2008, salt and fresh water fishing included.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails SWHS06-08.jpg  

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    I am not sure what the purpose of your data is, I wasn't aware that people are saying that people aren't fishing the valley anymore.

    That being said I would bet someone on this board will look through year + old posts and find someone who claimed people aren't fishing in the valley like they used to. Eitherway, I am still not sure if the data is relevant for any conclusions to be drawn or inferred.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka
    So the idea people are not fishing in the valley is not supported by the angler day data.
    I am not sure what the purpose of your data is, I wasn't aware that people are saying that people aren't fishing the valley anymore....That being said I would bet someone on this board will look through year + old posts and find someone who claimed people aren't fishing in the valley like they used to.
    This forum is replete with the idea people aren't fishing the valley...whether it be in discussions about closures/restrictions, economics, escapements, allocations, management, commercial fishing, or whatever else. Frequently we hear the idea that valley fishermen are getting cut-off, and must go to the Kenai to get their fish. I believe it has been one of the Valley's arguing points for getting more fish.


    I take Nerka's post for what it is..."interesting figures". It appears angler days have held fairly level in the Valley, regardless of the catestrophic information we often hear about the fisheries. And that is interesting.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    What these figures fail to take into consideration is the explosive growth of the urban fisheries at Ship and Bird creeks.....these help off set the drop in fishing at places like Alexander Creek where there has not been a King run for three years.

  8. #8
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    interesting indeed. It begs the following question: Though Northern Cook Inlet receives almost identical fishing hours to the Kenai, Cook Inlet management is centered around Kenai/Kasilof fisheries, with all other fisheries playing second fiddle. Why?

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default this is not true

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    interesting indeed. It begs the following question: Though Northern Cook Inlet receives almost identical fishing hours to the Kenai, Cook Inlet management is centered around Kenai/Kasilof fisheries, with all other fisheries playing second fiddle. Why?
    Again, willphish4food you have made a false statement. You have no proof of this is actions by ADF&F or the BOF. Increased restrictions in the commercial fisheries have taken place over time, escapement goals have been met in the Susitna at a higher rate than in the Kenai, and staff meetings in the Soldotna office during the season focus on how to get Northern District fish out of the Central District and into the Northern District. The State has spent millions of general fund research dollars on the Susitna drainage which is far greater than what has been spent on the Kenai and most of this money has gone to Sportfish Division in recent years.

    I wish you would stop making these false statements. If you want to provide a metric that makes your point I would like to see it. It is an insult to those who in ADF&G have worked hard to meet the Susitna goals and understand Susitna River salmon production. You are not going to get away with these reckless statements as long as I can post on this forum.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44
    What these figures fail to take into consideration is the explosive growth of the urban fisheries at Ship and Bird creeks.....these help off set the drop in fishing at places like Alexander Creek...
    Angler days are certainly associated with opportunity and access. And one could just as easily consider that the Kenai/Kasilof also help off-set the (supposed) drop in fishing in Northern Cook Inlet. Much, if not the majority of the effort on the Kenai/Kasilof systems, come from the North.


    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44
    ...Alexander Creek where there has not been a King run for three years.
    Alexander Creek continues to have a run, although it is extremely dismal. It was closed to King fishing last year (2008). Loss of production is thought to be directly attributed to Northern Pike predation on juvenile King salmon.


    Almost two decades ago, angler days on Alexander Creek rose above 26,000. That steadily dwindled to about 2,700 in 2007.


    Alexander Creek Info

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food
    ...Cook Inlet management is centered around Kenai/Kasilof fisheries, with all other fisheries playing second fiddle.
    That idea, which you continually post here, is not supported by the facts, actions taken by ADF&G and the BOF, active Management Plans, evidentiary history of UCI management, and management requirements set forth in our fishery laws.


    For example 5 AAC 21.358, Northern District Salmon Management Plan, specifically prioritizes the lower end of the Yentna escapement goal over not exceeding the upper end of the Kenai escapement goal. 5 AAC 21.360, Kenai River Late Run Sockeye Management Plan, is another example. It specifically sets out to minimize Northern District Coho harvest. These are just some examples of the step-down managment plans generated by 5 AAC 21.363, the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan which must consider Northern Cook Inlet. Additionally, these Plans are backed by a history of action implemented by ADF&G in the form of authorized mid-season restrictions, liberalizations, and adjustments, all on behalf of the Northern Cook Inlet fisheries. The Northern Cook Inlet consistently receives as much, or more, management attention than the Kenai/Kasilof fisheries, regardless of the fact Kenai/Kasilof has stocks and species are of greatest abundance.


    I hope fishery managers do not succumb to these emotional, Kenai-centric suppositions, and continue to stick to the facts, proven practices, and requirements dictated by our fishery laws. Then they may better concentrate their efforts on the real issues in the Valley, and address their concerns of poor production, habitat, rearing, climate, and invasive predators.


    As Nerka pointed out, if statements attacking management (basically accusing them of violating our fishery laws) are going to be made, then evidence of those accusations should be presented. I see no reason to agitate these discussions further until they are.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default Anchorage not included

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    What these figures fail to take into consideration is the explosive growth of the urban fisheries at Ship and Bird creeks.....these help off set the drop in fishing at places like Alexander Creek where there has not been a King run for three years.
    Guddog44 the figures I quoted were just for the Mat/Su valley, not Anchorage area fisheries like Ship and Bird Creek. Just wanted to clear that up.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Nerka - thanks for the clarification. Do you have the Anchorage figures? Might be interesting to see what has happened in those fisheries just for fun.

  14. #14
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default alexander

    Pike weren't the only thing killing kings in Alexander - a watchful on the creek sure showed me what people were doing to the big fish. Pike can't eat what isn't there if you kill it before it spawns. I saw many people that paid no mind to the daily or seasonal limit in the short time that I fished the creek.

    From my very short period here in Alaska - fishing mostly the roadways it seems very crowded to me compared to fishing in Colorado, Wyoming, or Montana. If there's fish in a roadway accessible place in Alaska - there will be sport fisherman fishing it. When the fish are in - or even thought to be in - the pressure these rivers and creeks see is, in my experience, unmatched.

    This year was my second summer living and fishing here and I had a pretty difficult time putting fish in the freezer....even though I had learned a lot the first year and just knew that I had it all figured out.

    I don't have a dog in this hunt right now - but I keep mentioning, a bit in jest, to my friends and family that it just goes to figure that the year I move to Alaska the Salmon Species went extinct.

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
  •