Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Is this true?.....

  1. #1
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default Is this true?.....

    I read on the comments on the ADN under the
    Salmon harvest is best-paying in 18 years, Alaska officials say
    and Steve Runyan, from 3 rivers (I think), commented this..
    Steve Runyan 11/09/2010 09:42 PM

    Also in the news... Susitna drainage rivers to expect pre-season closures for king fishing due to failed returns the past 4 years. Sockeye returns to Yentna and Susitna Rivers still below minimum thresholds. Coho returns still not high enough to return to 3 fish a day limit in Mat-Su Valley.


    Has anyone else heard about this



  2. #2

    Default

    Lies all Lies
    Read some of Nerkas comments in the other theads, if you want to get the real lowdown. There is more fish than we know what do with. jk

    Of course it is true. The few rivers/streams that will open, are going to be Catch and Release for Kings. No Retention throughout the Susitna/Yentna/Talkeetna/Chulitna Drainages is what we are being told. Most of the easily accessible fisheries are to be CLOSED. Only where remote lodges have booked fishers will it remain open for C&R.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  3. #3
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    so if they do a pre season closure, to sport fishing, will they still allow the commercial fisheries?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by salmon_bone View Post
    so if they do a pre season closure, to sport fishing, will they still allow the commercial fisheries?
    TBD......That's Been Determined....in Com Fish speak.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  5. #5
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Lies all Lies
    Read some of Nerkas comments in the other theads, if you want to get the real lowdown. There is more fish than we know what do with. jk

    Of course it is true. The few rivers/streams that will open, are going to be Catch and Release for Kings. No Retention throughout the Susitna/Yentna/Talkeetna/Chulitna Drainages is what we are being told. Most of the easily accessible fisheries are to be CLOSED. Only where remote lodges have booked fishers will it remain open for C&R.
    jealous much?

  6. #6
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    True? Sadly enough, yes. This is the department recommendation to the BOF for stock of concern on 6 Susitna Chinook runs. We do have very real concerns in the Mat-Su for our fisheries.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullbush View Post
    jealous much?
    Not a jealous bone in my body. Honest though, through and through.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Lies all Lies
    Read some of Nerkas comments in the other theads, if you want to get the real lowdown. There is more fish than we know what do with. jk

    Of course it is true. The few rivers/streams that will open, are going to be Catch and Release for Kings. No Retention throughout the Susitna/Yentna/Talkeetna/Chulitna Drainages is what we are being told. Most of the easily accessible fisheries are to be CLOSED. Only where remote lodges have booked fishers will it remain open for C&R.
    Salmon bone - here are the facts. Akres and Willphis4food keep telling half truths and outright lies.

    A total of 6 chinook streams out of 25 streams ADF&G monitors are listed as stocks of concern. Only three are in the Susitna drainage and one Alexander creek we know is from pike predation issues. The other three are Chuitna, Theodore, and Lewis. Two streams in the Susitna are Yield concerns - Willow and Goose which means yields are decreasing but goals are met relative to the criteria. The other four streams are management concerns meaning meeeting goals is hard to do even with actions in the fisheries. Note that the Deshka is not on the list and this is a major contributor.

    Next, the two fish bag limit on coho is a hold over from a 1999 or 1996 action when ADF&G felt that coho populations may be decreasing. That proved not to be the case but the regulation stayed in place for a variety of reasons. One reason is that pressure on road based streams in the Susitna cannot handle three fish but other streams can - however, with differential bag limits enforcement becomes an issue. The BOF meeting in Feb has a number of proposals by sport fishing groups to increase the bag limit back to three fish. The BOF may very well do this.

    In contrast, on the Kenai River some guides testified they did not want 3 fish as getting 2 fish limits made two trips a day easier to book and clients were happy with 2. There was no stock issues at all - it was a social issue - if fact the BOF increased opportunity in the commercial fishery as the sport guided fishery won that debate and so the BOF said if they do not want them the commercial fishery can have them.

    Relative to sockeye salmon there is no closures anticipated in the sport fisheries in the Susitna - in fact ADF&G has testified that they do not plan to close the sockeye salmon sport fisheries given the present management approach.

    Pink and chum salmon have no closures planned at all and have not been closed for 30 years or more.

    So I guess you have to make up your own mind but Akres and Willphish4food are not the people you want to go to for accurate and honest discussions of this issue.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Salmon bone - here are the facts. Akres and Willphis4food keep telling half truths and outright lies.

    A total of 6 chinook streams out of 25 streams ADF&G monitors are listed as stocks of concern. Only three are in the Susitna drainage and one Alexander creek we know is from pike predation issues. The other three are Chuitna, Theodore, and Lewis. Two streams in the Susitna are Yield concerns - Willow and Goose which means yields are decreasing but goals are met relative to the criteria. The other four streams are management concerns meaning meeeting goals is hard to do even with actions in the fisheries. Note that the Deshka is not on the list and this is a major contributor.
    Relative to sockeye salmon there is no closures anticipated in the sport fisheries in the Susitna - in fact ADF&G has testified that they do not plan to close the sockeye salmon sport fisheries given the present management approach.

    Pink and chum salmon have no closures planned at all and have not been closed for 30 years or more.

    So I guess you have to make up your own mind but Akres and Willphish4food are not the people you want to go to for accurate and honest discussions of this issue.
    The ADFG doesn't think there is any problems Talachulitna, Skwentna, or Yentna? The Tal kings have been in the sewer for the last 2 or 3 years with the silvers & reds only slightly better. I would think the Skentna and Yentna would be in about the same shape.
    Chuck

  10. #10
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    It is what it is. I've been called worse. Being called a liar doesn't make what I said false, nor does it make the "liarcaller" truthful. Read the report I cited from Fish and Game. 6 Northern District Rivers (I mistakenly called them Susitna drainages) have failed to meet escapement goals for chinook long enough that they are recommended for stock of concern status. Despite what the dude on the Kenai claims, we have some real serious escapement issues in the Northern District and on the Parks Highway streams. Willow and Goose will be listed, as they have failed to make thresholds, despite Nerka's claims that I lied about that. Sheep and Montana also have missed threshold several times in the last 5 years. Expect sport fish restrictions.

    Despite listing Yentna as stock of yield concern, management actions have failed to bring all 3 of the monitored lakes above minimums for sockeye escapement. The coho limit for most Northern District streams is still 2. No lies there.

    Does anything I have to say run counter to what you see on the ground? Your friends? Have the last 2 seasons fishing for kings on the Parks Highway been the best of your life? So who do you believe? The reports from Fish and Game, the reports from fellow anglers, your own streamside obserations, the local advisory committees, or some guy on the Kenai who used to help manage the commercial fishing fleet?

  11. #11
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    There is no reason for sportsmen to doubt the evidence of their own eyes.

    Anybody who fished kings last year knows it was one of the all-time worst seasons for Cook Inlet, at least in my recollective lifetime.

    I can unequivocally state beyond the shadow of a doubt that the king season on the Kenai was the absolute worst in 37 seasons.

    The undisputed master (well at least in my mind) of the Little Susitna River has never seen his home drainage fish so badly for kings in nearly 30 years.
    "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

  12. #12
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    I can't be the only one that thinks back to when Willow was a brutal slog through the marsh to fish. No one carried in a whole case of beer because a 6 pack was about all you would ever want to haul. I remember the river cheering me on when I drug a 65lb king out of there at 12 or 13 years old. How awesome of the state to punch in that fairground sized parking lot and "fix" the access for all! Now we can all drive right up to the waters edge to skip rocks this fishing season!

    So Nerka, 1/4 of the "monitored" streams are in trouble, what about the non-monitored? How many of those are also not meeting a safe escapement? How widespread is the problem? I honestly don't know what creeks ARE monitored. Is Sheep, Montana, Caswell, L. Willow, Deception.... Others? From taking with people I have not heard anything but negative findings from anglers on all of those streams.

  13. #13
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Alaska Sport Fishing Survey

    Regional Summary Estimates

    here are the estimated catch of Chinook from 2000-2009

    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/state...region.results

    seems the Susitna River drainage was the place to be when fishing for Kings 7-10 years ago.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    As a biologist I tend to look for rationale reasons that streams are not meeting goals - I remember in the 70's for example that chinook populations were very low in the Northern District (due to overharvest and very cold rearing environs in freshwater and the marine) but not down in the Kenai or Kasilof based on catches in the commercial fisheries. Starting in the 80's salmon production in Alaska just started to increase due to increased escapement goals but also very good marine rearing conditions. The PDO had switched to the warm period and Alaska salmon loved it. Now we find that chinook populations are down from the highs - the PDO has switched again, the river environs have changed due to warming (remember the Deshka from a few years ago) and drought and invasive species like pike (Alexander Creek), and user pressure in river has increased. Put on top of this the natural fluctuation in the freshwater environment I tend not to jump to conclusions on causes or that a system is in some type of long term decline that is not sustainable.

    Will user groups have to adjust if natural conditions are causing a downturn - you bet and so the expectations of the user group for high production forever is just not realistic. Doc indicated that he has not seen poor fishing like this year in 37 years. I have a little trouble with that on the Kenai since in the 70's there were not 300-500 boats on the river on any given day but the population was probably much lower than today. Also, I know of a number of years on the Kenai where the average time to catch a chinook was greater than last year.

    What is needed is a comprehensive research program in UCI and around the State on our salmon species. ADF&G is not really doing research on life history factors and how the variables that impact the size of a return are interacting. For sockeye salmon in the Kenai River we have a good 30 year data set and it is one of the best in the state and yet it is still lacking answers to a number of questions. For chinook, coho, chum, pink, and some resident species there are few programs and they are not long term. My suggestion is a total reorganization of ADF&G into a Management Division and Research Division. They are separate and are funded as separate groups. There is no sport, commercial, or subsistence divisions. The ADF&G would be organized around species and freshwater or marine environs. That would allow for long term research, less conflict between Divisions, and less user oriented studies and more fish related studies.

    Of course this will never happen as user groups will not think outside the box as one group always fears that they will lose power.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down Same ol' "Us Against Them" . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    . . Of course this will never happen as user groups will not think outside the box as one group always fears that they will lose power.
    Bingo . . .

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Despite listing Yentna as stock of yield concern, management actions have failed to bring all 3 of the monitored lakes above minimums for sockeye escapement.

    or some guy on the Kenai who used to help manage the commercial fishing fleet?
    Willphish4food, more nonsense. Lets take your sockeye salmon issue. First in 2009 the ADF&G estimated that 670,000 was produced in the Susitna drainage, in 2010 the number is 669,000. This is about 150,000 fish below what liminological studies indicate the system can produce on average.

    Escapements to the three systems were set with the understanding that not every system would achieve the goal every year. For example Chelatna Lake has a history of significant flucuations due to the high glacial nature of that system. Even with that the systems that did not meet the goal (one system, and a different one each year, in the last two years) only missed by no more than 2000 fish on a 20,000 fish goal. Here are some numbers - the goal for Chelatna is 20-65k, Judd 20-55k, and Larson 15-50k. Now the actual escapements--- Chelatna starting in 2010 and going backward - 37784, 17865,73469,41290,18433: Judd Lake -18361,43153,54304,58133,40633 and finally Larson Lake -20324,41929,35040,47736,57411. If you want to make an issue with these escapement numbers you are howling in the wind. No one is saying that these systems are not showing good escapements and normal flucuations in production. There is no trend of decreasing escapements.

    Next, the sockeye stock of concern is based on yield. As noted above the over 600,000 fish produced has lots of fish for escapement. The harvest has decreased and we know that the decrease is due to a variety of factors - mostly pike and beaver dams and poorer marine survival. However, you continue to try and make it a conservation concern by implying goals are not met. For the record the escapement in 2009 to the Susitna was estimated at 275,000 fish. No estimate is available for 2010.

    Finally, you question whether people should believe me or not. They should not based on what I say just like they should not based on what you say. They should base their view on the data and not emotion or agenda. You imply I have an agenda. Not sure what that is - I am a research biologist who worked in ADF&G commercial fisheries division. I never have commercial fished or plan in the future to commercial fish. However, I believe you have a vested financial interest.

    The reason I am questioning your character is that as a member of the advisory committee and having been presented the data above you continue to misrepresent the issues and not present the data in a manner that allows for independent review. Instead, you revert to the option of keep saying it is true and maybe someone will believe it. Typical of political posture but not science which is what is needed for making these decisions. You refuse to accept data that is contrary to your position and then try to dismiss the individual who challenges you as being biased based on who they worked for 11 years ago. Pretty sad.

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
  •