Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: UAF studies King decline...

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

    Default UAF studies King decline...

    FINALLY! with grant monies comin' from the Pollock fisheries...one wonders if the final conclusion won't point a heafty finger at the pollock bycatch as the a substantial reason for the king decline...I ain't holdin' my breath though...

    http://www.adn.com/2010/05/08/126960...ng-salmon.html

  2. #2
    Moderator kingfisherktn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ketchikan, AK
    Posts
    4,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gogoalie View Post
    FINALLY! with grant monies comin' from the Pollock fisheries...one wonders if the final conclusion won't point a heafty finger at the pollock bycatch as the a substantial reason for the king decline...I ain't holdin' my breath though...

    http://www.adn.com/2010/05/08/126960...ng-salmon.html
    I was a little upset with the title Marvin, thought you were talking about me.

  3. #3
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gogoalie View Post
    FINALLY! with grant monies comin' from the Pollock fisheries...one wonders if the final conclusion won't point a heafty finger at the pollock bycatch as the a substantial reason for the king decline.
    http://www.adn.com/2010/05/08/126960...ng-salmon.html
    Private industries who pay for such research are rarely found (by their own studies) to be culpable for the depletion of the resource.
    "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

  4. #4

    Default

    I have hope that the UAF guys won't be swayed by who is funding them..

  5. #5
    Member pike_palace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the 907
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    I have hope that the UAF guys won't be swayed by who is funding them..
    I agree, but money has it's own funny way of persuasion.
    "Ya can't stop a bad guy with a middle finger and a bag of quarters!!!!"- Ted Nugent.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    You guys fit the mold. You have a predetermined expectation that it must be somebody else's fault and not yours.

  7. #7
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Yeah this thread is pretty offensive. UAF SFOS is one of the top fisheries research programs in the world. They do good science.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default I know Kingfisherktn is...

    pretty smelly, but he does use powder & perfume...

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    To date, no genetic stock assessment has been done on chinook bycatch in the pollock fishery. The study is looking for factors other than bycatch to explain the decline, without even looking to see how big a factor the bycatch may be. Deflect attention... will it work?

    I found this jem by D. Bailey:
    “It is often necessary for us to adopt some advanced techniques in
    order to deflect attention from possibly unfavorable facts.”

    (D. Bailey, “Twelve Ways to Fool the Masses When Giving Performance Results on Parallel
    Computers,” Supercomputer Review, Vol. 4, No. 8, Aug. 1991, pp. 54-55.)

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,527

    Default where is your justification for these statements

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    To date, no genetic stock assessment has been done on chinook bycatch in the pollock fishery. The study is looking for factors other than bycatch to explain the decline, without even looking to see how big a factor the bycatch may be. Deflect attention... will it work?

    I found this jem by D. Bailey:
    “It is often necessary for us to adopt some advanced techniques in

    order to deflect attention from possibly unfavorable facts.”

    (D. Bailey, “Twelve Ways to Fool the Masses When Giving Performance Results on Parallel
    Computers,” Supercomputer Review, Vol. 4, No. 8, Aug. 1991, pp. 54-55.)
    Willphish4food, where are your data to support the claims you make? Maybe others are looking at bycatch and this study is to focus on those other issues. Science should not prejudge like you are doing.

    Also, genetic sampling is being sold way beyound its abilities. You just have to look at the UCI sockeye genetic results to see that. So again, maybe you should look before you leap.

  11. #11
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    To date, no genetic stock assessment has been done on chinook bycatch in the pollock fishery. The study is looking for factors other than bycatch to explain the decline, without even looking to see how big a factor the bycatch may be. Deflect attention... will it work?
    Yes there is genetic information...it's right there in the 650-page EIS ;-). I posted some of it in the bycatch threads last year before the Council took final action on Chinook bycatch. I'll re-post it if I can find it easily.

  12. #12
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    In this older thread, http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=47110 I posted (post#28) a table from the draft EIS that summarizes the studies of stock composition in the bycatch...for a chuckle, also take a look at post 29.

    The final EIS is also available but I didn't feel like downloading it. That same table (3-12) is on page 171 of the final EIS. This simplifies a lot of information...all of section 3.2.2 (starting on page 161 of the final EIS) discusses estimating the genetic composition of the bycatch.

    the full, final EIS can be found here (warning, 9MB file):
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainable...s/eis_1209.pdf

  13. #13
    Member pike_palace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the 907
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    You guys fit the mold. You have a predetermined expectation that it must be somebody else's fault and not yours.
    Seeing as these trawlers bycatch more kings in one cod season than all the members on this board do in a sport season then yes, it is a predetermined expectation.
    "Ya can't stop a bad guy with a middle finger and a bag of quarters!!!!"- Ted Nugent.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Sport fishing pressure in Alaska has increased so dramatically in my lifetime I can't begin to put a percentage value on the increase. More people, better access, more effective techniques, it all takes a toll.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Pike they catch Kings during Pollock season, not cod. Just an FYI.

  16. #16
    Member pike_palace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the 907
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    Pike they catch Kings during Pollock season, not cod. Just an FYI.
    Pollock and Cod are very similar fish.
    "Ya can't stop a bad guy with a middle finger and a bag of quarters!!!!"- Ted Nugent.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    In many ways you are correct Pike. They are fished for differently though (pollock is pelagic in the Bering by rule, and cod is a bottom trawl.) I'm sure some kings are caught during Cod fishing, but not very many.

    Here is a neat audio link about an excluder device. Only two minutes long or so. So the pollock fleet is taking it seriously enough (the hard cap) to work on it. I think it will result in an overall decrease in Chinook bycatch because of it, and that's a good thing.

    http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ki...r.device.works

  18. #18
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    Yes there is genetic information...it's right there in the 650-page EIS ;-). I posted some of it in the bycatch threads last year before the Council took final action on Chinook bycatch. I'll re-post it if I can find it easily.
    Thank you for the links, Mrfish. Has the Seeb report been published yet? In the referenced thread it had not been released or peer reviewed yet.

  19. #19
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Thank you for the links, Mrfish. Has the Seeb report been published yet? In the referenced thread it had not been released or peer reviewed yet.
    I don't think so, but I can't say that definitively. I know it hadn't yet when it was included in the draft EIS, and that was one of the points I made during the public comment period.

  20. #20
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    So I'm not totally wrong= genetic information has been gathered, but it is not fully available to the public. Unless I'm missing something else? From looking at the information in the EIS from the 3 different studies, 2 scale and 1 genetic, and not the studies themselves (just a quick scan- its a lot to process) it seems like there really is nothing definitive about stock composition in the bycatch, as the numbers vary so greatly between studies.

    Without seeing the actual genetic study it is very difficult to draw any conclusions about its methodology and results.

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
  •