Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: UCI Sockeye run down 40%

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default UCI Sockeye run down 40%

    I read in the ADN that the Kenai run is forcasted to be down 40% over the 20yr avg. If that comes true how would that compare to last years run? I have a hard time opening files from the DK G&F site. what was the prediction for last year and how close were they. Thanks for all your help!

  2. #2

    Default 2010 Cook Inlet Forecast web address

    http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/regio...i/uciout10.pdf

    The website for the 2010 Cook Inlet Forecast, this forecast is lower than 2009. There could be major restriction place on king salmon in the Susitna Drainage, and sockeye restriction until the health of the run can be determined. THere is an emergency petitons waiting to be heard by the BOF at their MARCH hearing to review the petition and rule if additional action are needed.

    Big Fisherman

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Climate change?

    Bet the forecast smaller run will be somehow be blamed on global warming - oops -it is now changed to "climate change" since the current cold winter and recent record snow falls! It is really nice to have something to blame all failures on instead of digging into the real causes.


    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    I read in the ADN that the Kenai run is forcasted to be down 40% over the 20yr avg. If that comes true how would that compare to last years run? I have a hard time opening files from the DK G&F site. what was the prediction for last year and how close were they. Thanks for all your help!
    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

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Warmest winter that I can ever remember here on the Kenai Peninsula with the high temps of the day coming in around the plus 30 ish range for the last couple of weeks. Kind of strange to witness the lack of snow around the area.

    No, from what I have heard the low forecast is being blamed on "over escapement".

    Forecast has been wrong more often than not so how the run actually comes in remains to be seen. All we know for sure is that the lower than normal forecast means that ADF&G Comm Fish will be mandated to manage the comm fishery in Cook Inlet a little more conservatively in the beginning as we all watch the numbers to see what comes next.

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

    Default Over escapement?

    One must wonder how the fish ever managed to bountfully survive for milleniums of time with "over escapement" always occuring and without those wonderfull commecial guys helping them out!

    Amazing how it seems the commercial guys avoid getting blamed for anything and us individual sport guys cause all the ills. Seems like there is quite a commercial bias in the way things are run - but that is no suprise.


    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post

    No, from what I have heard the low forecast is being blamed on "over escapement".
    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

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    If your recall, the commercial guys were not allowed to fish UCI after the Exxon Valdez spill. The returns from that massive "overescapement" were huge. Just another theory that doesn't hold water.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Theories abound

    Was the "overescapement theory" dreamed up by the same type of guys that first gave us the "global cooling theory", then "global warming theory", and now "climate change theory"?

    At least some of the same people that push the "over-escapement" theory seem to subscribe to those weather agenda hoaxes. They also believe that big government knows best - perhaps that is why there is a bias against the individual fishermen - we are just not as "good for society" as all those nice guys catching the fish for all those poor people in the lower 48 that don't get to eat salmon otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    If your recall, the commercial guys were not allowed to fish UCI after the Exxon Valdez spill. The returns from that massive "overescapement" were huge. Just another theory that doesn't hold water.
    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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default correction gusdog44

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    If your recall, the commercial guys were not allowed to fish UCI after the Exxon Valdez spill. The returns from that massive "overescapement" were huge. Just another theory that doesn't hold water.
    Actually gusdog44 the returns from the Exxon Valdez year was near not very good - not massive at all. I think you are mixing up 1987 with 1989 escapements. However, you and TVfinak need to read the reports and research that has been done on Kenai sockeye. You both show a lack of understanding of this issue and we have beat it to death on this forum. Lets just say the models predicted these past two years and the next and have held up for 11 years now.

    Also for iceblue the forecast to UCI have been fairly good - within 20 percent most of the time with a few years that were way off. However, that usually takes place in big years not forecasted low years.

  9. #9
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post

    Amazing how it seems the commercial guys avoid getting blamed for anything and us individual sport guys cause all the ills. Seems like there is quite a commercial bias in the way things are run - but that is no suprise.
    The brood year for this coming run was a very large escapement that was not highly exploited by the commercial fleet. So, if this forecast is correct and the run comes in 40% below average, just how is the commercial fleet to blame?

  10. #10
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Bet the forecast smaller run will be somehow be blamed on global warming - oops -it is now changed to "climate change" since the current cold winter and recent record snow falls! It is really nice to have something to blame all failures on instead of digging into the real causes.
    Likewise, it is nice to guess the explanations and then attack them before they're actually made instead of waiting for the actual reports and digging into the real answers.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Blame

    I didn't place the blame - if there is any to be placed - on anything, commercial or otherwise!


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    The brood year for this coming run was a very large escapement that was not highly exploited by the commercial fleet. So, if this forecast is correct and the run comes in 40% below average, just how is the commercial fleet to blame?
    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

  12. #12
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I didn't place the blame - if there is any to be placed - on anything, commercial or otherwise!
    No, I suppose you didn't...but you mentioned that it is amazing that the commercial fleet avoids the blame in cases like these. When a small return is predicted as a result of a huge escapement which was not heavily exploited by commercial fishermen, of course they don't get blamed. If the point of your post wasn't to cast blame on the commercial fleet in some form, then I'm not clear on why you pointed that out. Just figured you'd throw in yet another barb about perceived commercial bias in a thread that has nothing to do with it?

  13. #13
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    To be clear on overescapement. There are two types; biological and economic. Biological is very difficult to prove, economic not so much. Basically, if more fish make it into a river than are needed to provide for future returns, that is overescapement. Because economically, the commercial fleet lost opportunity to make money by exploiting the "extra" fish. The economic benefits of "overescapement" to sport fisheries and the businesses and communities that benefit from them is largely lost in the management discussions.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Long term effects

    As others and myself have pointed out we still don't have much data on the long term overall effects of maximum harvest i.e. minimum economic overescapement. I recently pointed out one article I found; it was not well received by the critics but I didn't get directed to any later ones either.

    From a logical standpoint it is hard to believe that natural evolution evolved to a point where all the fish needlessly returned upstream to die and not provide needed nourishment to the whole complex ecosystem. One can not deny that the fish fared quite well for milleniums of time with bilological overescapement. All the accounts I can find of early settlers document that the streams and rivers were literally clogged with salmon trying to swim upstream. These accounts certainly make one wonder about the whole theory of bilogical overescapement harming the runs.

    The bias toward commercial fishing in management is very evident even though the past history of commercial fishing is probably even worse than that of the mining industry.


    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    To be clear on overescapement. There are two types; biological and economic. Biological is very difficult to prove, economic not so much. Basically, if more fish make it into a river than are needed to provide for future returns, that is overescapement. Because economically, the commercial fleet lost opportunity to make money by exploiting the "extra" fish. The economic benefits of "overescapement" to sport fisheries and the businesses and communities that benefit from them is largely lost in the management discussions.
    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

  15. #15
    Member anonymous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak Is.
    Posts
    304

    Exclamation Highs and lows

    Hummm there are some interesting studies that suggest things were even more extreme before man stepped in.


    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...nt&btnG=Search

    Irene Gregory-Eaves1, 2 , John P. Smol1, Marianne S.V. Douglas3 and Bruce P. Finney4

    (1) Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory (P.E.A.R.L.), Department of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, K7L 3N6, Canada
    (2) Dept. of Biology, University of Ottawa, 150 Louis Pasteur St., Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada
    (3) Paleoenvironmental Assessment Laboratory (P.A.L.), Department of Geology, University of Toronto, 22 Russell St., Toronto, M5S 3B1, Canada
    (4) Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, 99775-7220, U.S.A


    Abstract The return of hundreds to millions of adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), which have returned from the ocean to their natal nursery lake environment to spawn, can result in significant nutrient loading. By analyzing sedimentary diatom assemblages from nursery lakes, we demonstrated that a salmon-derived nutrient signal could be traced over time and be used to infer past sockeye salmon population dynamics. We conducted a 2,200 year paleolimnological study of two Alaskan sockeye salmon nursery lakes, Karluk and Frazer lakes. The two lakes are very similar, except that sockeye salmon were only introduced into Frazer Lake in 1951 (first spawners returned in 1956). In both lakes we found a strong correspondence between diatom assemblages and the number of adult salmon spawners recorded in the historical data (40 and 70 years for Frazer and Karluk lakes, respectively). Given this robust relationship, we then used our analyses of diatoms from Karluk Lake over the past 2,200 years to gain insight into salmon-derived nutrient loading changes (which are directly related to the number of sockeye salmon spawners). The diatom record from Karluk Lake recorded dramatic species changes on both decadal and century timescales, and was strongly correlated with an independent indicator of sockeye salmon abundances, 15N. Together, these data suggest pronounced variability in sockeye salmon abundances at Karluk Lake over the past 2,200 years. The direct impacts of regional environmental variability were not likely responsible for the patterns apparent in Karluk Lake, as the diatom and 15N profiles from Frazer Lake were relatively stable prior to the introduction of sockeye salmon. Application of total phosphorus transfer functions to the Karluk and Frazer lakes' diatom records revealed that sockeye salmon carcasses substantially increased the trophic status in these lakes, which has important implications for the health of juvenile salmon that rear in nursery lakes. Overall, this paper illustrates the potential use of diatoms in reconstructing past sockeye salmon population dynamics, which in turn can lead to a greater understanding of the mechanisms influencing abundances of sockeye salmon.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food
    The economic benefits of "overescapement" to sport fisheries and the businesses and communities that benefit from them is largely lost in the management discussions.
    I'm not sure how you can correlate "overescapement" to lost economic sport fishing benefits? Half of the last 20 years have produced gross sockeye "overescapements" in the Kenai River. The mere fact those "overescapements" exist is evidence itself that the sport fishery was unable to fully capitalize on any economic benefits they offered. Some could even say ADF&G did a poor job, since escapement goals were exceeded and economic yields were lost to the commercial fishery.

    Also keep in mind that these Kenai River sockeye "overescapements" are enumerated at river mile 19 after most of the sport and personal use exploitation and economic benefit has already taken place (the goal considers up-river exploitation).


    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food
    To be clear on overescapement. There are two types; biological and economic. Biological is very difficult to prove, economic not so much.
    Kenai sockeye escapements are managed to OEG's (Optimum Escapement Goals) per 5 AAC 21.360. Unlike BEG's (Biological Escapement Goals), OEG's are based on both biological needs of the stock and social, allocative, and economic needs, including those of sport fishing.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    One must wonder how the fish ever managed to bountfully survive for milleniums of time with "over escapement" always occuring and without those wonderfull commecial guys helping them out!
    Reading your posts (past and present) one can easily conclude you have an anti-commercial fishing sentiment. Regardless, one would have to totally misunderstand what "overescapement" is to make the conclusion that sockeye "overescaped" milleniums ago.

    "Overescapement" is only something that occurs when an escapement goal is set in order to achieve a sustainable yield. I don't believe that was happening milleniums ago. Escapement-based management for sustainable yield is the icon for proven fishery management, particularly where commercial and sport fishing are concerned.

    Sockeye survived naturally milleniums ago, by the whims of nature. So unless you believe man should not fish, your ideology is bizzarre (even Jesus told Peter and James to fill their nets to feed the many). And if you believe man should fish then your ideologies obviously reject sustained yield fishery management. Not sure what that leaves.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    Was the "overescapement theory" dreamed up by the same type of guys that first gave us the "global cooling theory", then "global warming theory", and now "climate change theory"?

    At least some of the same people that push the "over-escapement" theory seem to subscribe to those weather agenda hoaxes.
    You might want to familiarize yourself with that "theory". It's called the generic theory of compensatory production. It evidences that spawning efficiency decreases with increasing escapement levels, and that in general, overescapement is not sustainable as it causes returns and yields to decrease in the next generation. Basic stuff. There are even limnological studies that show a decrease in copepod biomass following overescapements.

    And while your climate comments are intertaining and emotional, you obviously don't realize there are studies showing how changes in environmental conditions have effected sockeye production. For example studies show exacerbated glacial melting and silt loading have a decline in euphotic zone depths and a reduction in zooplankton biomass.

    In my opinion, there will be plenty of sockeye for us sportfishermen...just like there always is.

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

    Default Do not waste your time Gramps

    Gramps - we have beat this one to death and will and Tv refuse to read or try to understand the issue. However, I cannot be too hard on them there are those in ADF&G who have ignored the science of this subject. It is a sad commentary on our society that has people rejecting science based on emotion or agenda.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Thanks!

    As I have always said there is a lot more to be learned - we sometime fool ourselves with what we think we know! The real experts on a subject this complex seem to convey the same message: How little we know

    One article that popped out in the search can be found at: http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.15...C%3E2.0.CO%3B2 (Text placed in bold by me)

    "Pacific Salmon Carcasses: Essential Contributions of Nutrients and Energy for Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems

    Abstract
    Pacific salmon and other anadromous salmonids represent a major vector for transporting marine nutrients across ecosystem boundaries (i.e., from marine to freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems). Salmon carcasses provide nutrients and energy to biota within aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through various pathways. In this paper we review and synthesize the growing number of studies documenting this process in different localities. We also discuss the implications for maintaining the nutrient feedback system. Our findings show that future management will need to view spawning salmon and their carcasses as important habitat components for sustaining the production of fish as well as other salmon-dependent species within watersheds."

    I would not doubt that there were wild swings in salmon returns before the white man arrived. Nature bounds between extremes and many wild populations show cycles of varing time periods. The question remains: what damage may we be doing by eliminating the wild swings? Remember that until recently we thought we were doing the forest a favor by fighting natural forest fires.

    For the early inhabitants the wild swings could mean prosperity or famine and starvation. The white man has pretty much eliminated the starvation periods although we brough a bunch of other curses.


    Quote Originally Posted by anonymous1 View Post

    Hummm there are some interesting studies that suggest things were even more extreme before man stepped in.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...nt&btnG=Search
    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

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    All the accounts I can find of early settlers document that the streams and rivers were literally clogged with salmon trying to swim upstream. These accounts certainly make one wonder about the whole theory of bilogical overescapement harming the runs.
    What theory says biological overescapement harms the runs? Reference?

    While "overescapement" might effect biological production and fishery yields, I have never heard of a theory that claims it harms the runs. And a system "clogged with salmon" is unlikely to provide optimal biological or fishery conditions due to the generic theory of compensatory production.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    The bias toward commercial fishing in management is very evident even though the past history of commercial fishing is probably even worse than that of the mining industry.
    Alaska law dictates that the massive Kenai sockeye fishery must be managed for sustained yields. That can not be done without managing the fishery primarily for commercial fishing, as it would be ridiculous, wasteful, and virtually impossible to obtain goals via sport fishing. The past history of commercial fishing you refer to is deceiving. It was not the same responsible sustained yield management that Alaska incorporates today. Overall, UCI sockeye fisheries are healthy, and the handful of systems of concern have their own productivity problems.

    tvfinak, there is no question that escapements play a role in nourishing the ecosystem. However nothing indicates that current escapement levels are not providing that. The systems are currently healthy. You can rub your crystal ball, make assumptions, speculations, and create conspiracy theories, but that does little to prove the ecosystem is not being nourished adequately. We have discussed this with you over and over, and I'm not sure what your point is, or why you insist on repeating yourself at every chance.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Gramps - we have beat this one to death and will and Tv refuse to read or try to understand the issue. However, I cannot be too hard on them there are those in ADF&G who have ignored the science of this subject. It is a sad commentary on our society that has people rejecting science based on emotion or agenda.
    I know, I know. Rather than respond I should just go out and look at all the sockeye bounty still in my freezer...We've got more sockeye than we could ever wish for. However, our proven fishery laws, fishery science, and management principles are being underminded by those like tv and will as we speak. Undermining and influencing the very management that provides the most abundent and opportunistic sockeye fishery in the world just doesn't make sense. It's no wonder ADF&G is succumbing. It's the same old ideology from the same old people, over and over and over.

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
  •