Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UCI Northern District EO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Nerka: "Willphish4food, if managers only managed to the lower end of an escapement goal there would be no sport fisheries in the major drainages as some subsystem would always drive the management action. That is why systems are managed to meet goals but in some years a goal or more will not be met."

    Correction to Nerka: the Parks Hwy streams with missed escapements are not "some subsystem." We're not talking Slikok Creek. They are the Willow, Little Willow, Montana, and Sheep Creek, responsible for 10's of thousands of angler hours during king season at their peak. Lake Creek, Talachulitna, Clear Creek in the Yentna and Talkeetna. These ARE the major drainages of the Big Su and Yentna. As to some streams missing escapement: in 2012 over 80% of index streams did not meet their minimum escapement goal. This was the 4th year of 5 for many of the streams, 6th year out of 8 for some; a complete life cycle for Chinook. These numbers prompted emergency action, and one year of better returns (2013) isn't enough to justify unrestricted fishing in 2014.

    Comment


    • #17
      How are most of the systems you mention counted Willphish? Single areal survey?

      Comment


      • #18
        With all this hullaballoo about closing a period, and unjustified restrictions, one wouldn't know that ND still gets to fish 4 periods. Prior to liberalization in 2008, they could only fish 3 12 hour periods. Prior to 2005, they could only fish 3 6 hour periods. So the restriction is still a net gain of 33% over 10 years ago. I wish I could get that kind of restriction to my paycheck!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by smithtb View Post
          How are most of the systems you mention counted Willphish? Single areal survey?
          Doesn't matter: its the best available science. That is what the department must manage by.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
            Nerka: "Willphish4food, if managers only managed to the lower end of an escapement goal there would be no sport fisheries in the major drainages as some subsystem would always drive the management action. That is why systems are managed to meet goals but in some years a goal or more will not be met."

            Correction to Nerka: the Parks Hwy streams with missed escapements are not "some subsystem." We're not talking Slikok Creek. They are the Willow, Little Willow, Montana, and Sheep Creek, responsible for 10's of thousands of angler hours during king season at their peak. Lake Creek, Talachulitna, Clear Creek in the Yentna and Talkeetna. These ARE the major drainages of the Big Su and Yentna. As to some streams missing escapement: in 2012 over 80% of index streams did not meet their minimum escapement goal. This was the 4th year of 5 for many of the streams, 6th year out of 8 for some; a complete life cycle for Chinook. These numbers prompted emergency action, and one year of better returns (2013) isn't enough to justify unrestricted fishing in 2014.
            Excuse me. The systems you mention by your own words are subsystems of the Susitna River. Also, I never said that unrestricted fishing was required. Your words not mine. I stated that e.o's should be issued just not pre-season and that the Board if they thought things were as dire as you make out would have closed the whole ND and all the sport fisheries in the main drainage of the Susitna. They did not do that - why? Because they knew that if they started down that road the confluence fisheries, like at the Deska,would need to close. They take more than Deska bound fish. They also take fish headed upstream. Also, small systems would be driving major system harvest. So a system with a few hundred fish would keep thousands of angler days from happening.

            Relative to your comment on hours fished in the ND you again fabricate a story to meet your bias. If you want to look at the fishery management plans it gave the ND a quota of 12,500 which they have never taken. They took 1000 fish last year out of a ND chinook return of over 100,000 fish probably closer to 150,000 fish - hardly the dire return you portray. So 99% of the fish went into the systems in the valley.

            Finally, not meeting an MSY or SEG does not mean doom and gloom. These are all set to have high sustained yields. They are not SET or Sustainable Escapement Thresholds which would be much lower.

            Relative to tbsmith comment on single aerial surveys he is correct for a number of systems and years. That is not even good science at any level. If the systems are in such poor shape then more surveys and better data is required. I challenge anyone to find a paper supporting single aerial surveys as an acceptable method of defining escapement levels for a system.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nerka View Post
              Relative to tbsmith comment on single aerial surveys he is correct for a number of systems and years. That is not even good science at any level. If the systems are in such poor shape then more surveys and better data is required. I challenge anyone to find a paper supporting single aerial surveys as an acceptable method of defining escapement levels for a system.
              Nerka - The question you raise is a good one, but it is also a point that is constantly being debated. That is: "Is inadequate information better than none?". I agree that aerial surveys have notoriously high variability, and can lead to inaccurate counts, which lead to poor management decisions. But if that's all you got, then that's all you got......

              A fish manager can discard the information, but then they are relying on zero information. Is that better? Not in my book. We can all agree that many tribs need more and better surveys (in Alaska and the PNW) to allow for better fishery management decisions. But you're the last person I need to remind that research costs $$'s, and that is always in short supply. So if aerial surveys are the best information you have, and that's all you have, ya gotta use it.

              On this point, Willfish is correct.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cohoangler View Post
                Nerka - The question you raise is a good one, but it is also a point that is constantly being debated. That is: "Is inadequate information better than none?". I agree that aerial surveys have notoriously high variability, and can lead to inaccurate counts, which lead to poor management decisions. But if that's all you got, then that's all you got......

                A fish manager can discard the information, but then they are relying on zero information. Is that better? Not in my book. We can all agree that many tribs need more and better surveys (in Alaska and the PNW) to allow for better fishery management decisions. But you're the last person I need to remind that research costs $$'s, and that is always in short supply. So if aerial surveys are the best information you have, and that's all you have, ya gotta use it.

                On this point, Willfish is correct.
                Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                Doesn't matter: its the best available science. That is what the department must manage by.
                No, he's not correct. It is not the best available science. Some of the methods used by ADFG to enumerate UCI Kings over the past several decades have actually been shown to be quite poor science. Best information available and best science available are two different things.

                We pulled the Crescent Sockeye counter due to "lack of funding". Is that the best available science?

                Which leads me to the bigger picture: Guys like Willphish, who are focused on nothing more than how we can slice the ever-decreasing pie (while sticking it to commercial fishermen) are exactly who elected representatives are appeasing when they spend money on things like suggestive acoustical tagging studies, and more enforcement funding for the oldest fishery in Cook Inlet to make sure they aren't selling kings on the "Commie Black Market". The hundreds of thousands of $ spent last year on the Kintama junk, the $170,000 for increased enforcement, the $15,000,000 tagging study that they are trying to push - all this plays to Willphish's mindset.

                If we put less emphasis on the fish fight and on slicing the pie, and more on better science, enumeration techniques, and habitat/productivity studies, we would all benefit more. If Ricky-Bobbie's friends within ADFG knew that the best way to secure that cush retirement job as a "consultant" was to show up at their day job and perform with sound science rather than whatever will screw the "commies" the most, perhaps we would have made more progress over the last 3 decades with respect to counting kings and understanding their freshwater life cycle.

                Perhaps, if guys like Willphish actually cared that the single aerial surveys aren't very accurate, ADFG would be using something else by now. After all, Billy likes throwing money at things - just ask the setnetters

                Just sayin'.

                Comment


                • #23
                  TB- I disagree. You stated "Best information available and best science available are two different things." Perhaps, but they both have the word "available" in it. If the information is available, then it's available. In other words, you can use the best information you have "on-hand". But if you need to collect it, it's not available since you don't have it yet.

                  There are two specific points that need to be emphasized:

                  1) If you have several sets of data, a fish manager must use whichever set best represents the actual run-size (using their professional judgement); and

                  2) If you only have one set of data (e.g., aerial surveys), you can either discard the data or use it.

                  In my view, insufficient data is better than none. And, we can all agree that if you have the time and the $$'s to collect better data, then do so.

                  But if you can't, what would YOU do?

                  You know my answer - Use what ya got.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Cohoangler, I think this whole discussion is pointing to what I have suggested in other threads. A complete independent evaluation of the management approach and programs in UCI. For example, on this question lets assume money is allocated correctly for aerial surveys given budget issues. Is it better to monitor 3 streams well or 9 streams poorly? Is it better to have two weirs rather than 9 streams monitored by air only once per year?

                    Of course there is the bigger picture. I have seen millions of dollars wasted on political mandated studies that provide nothing of use. Yet, it continues even after failure and more failure. The Mat/Su valley representatives are leading the charge on wasted studies.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Deshka weir, Montana Cr. weir, Lake Creek Weir, and East Fork Chulitna sonar.
                      Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by FishGod View Post
                        Deshka weir, Montana Cr. weir, Lake Creek Weir, and East Fork Chulitna sonar.
                        Not a bad idea FishGod thanks for sharing your thoughts

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          King escapement is enumerated in the Deshka by weir. It is enumerated in the Little Su by weir. It is enumerated in Deception Creek by weir. Foot counts are made in conjunction with aerial surveys in at least some of the streams. The aerial counts are done by helicopter, and are mostly done on very clear streams where spawning fish are easy to spot. Counts are collaborated by angler reports, and streamside surveys by Fish and Game employees. Fish and Game is not using a single data set to establish their escapement counts on most of the systems.

                          Smith, great miscarracterization. "Guys like Willphish, who are focused on nothing more than how we can slice the ever-decreasing pie (while sticking it to commercial fishermen)." The smaller remaining pie has already been sliced away from sport fish, while being left the same for comfish. I'm asking for more equal distribution of the conservation burden.

                          Nerka, call me a liar for stating facts. That's terrific. Northern District comfish WAS granted additional fishing time in 2 consecutive Board meetings. First, expanded from 6 hours in 3 periods to 12 hours in 3 periods. Then, expanded from 3 periods to 4 or 5 periods. This is fact. Pure and simple. With the emergency order closing their first fishing period this year, they are still left with 4 6 hour periods.

                          Simple words: king runs are in trouble. They are nowhere near as robust as they were in the late 90's and early 2000. This is the reality we deal with today. Sport fishing restrictions reflect that reality. In 2014: 2 fish season limit per angler. Mostly hook and release or no fishing in roadside fisheries. No fishing at night in most Susitna drainages. In 2000: it was a 5 fish per season angler limit. No hook and release only king fisheries anywhere. Fishing allowed through the night.

                          Commfish restrictions do not reflect that reality. In 2014: Four 6 hour fishing periods. In 2000: Three 6 hour periods.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                            Smith, great miscarracterization. "Guys like Willphish, who are focused on nothing more than how we can slice the ever-decreasing pie (while sticking it to commercial fishermen)." The smaller remaining pie has already been sliced away from sport fish, while being left the same for comfish. I'm asking for more equal distribution of the conservation burden.

                            Nerka, call me a liar for stating facts. That's terrific. Northern District comfish WAS granted additional fishing time in 2 consecutive Board meetings. First, expanded from 6 hours in 3 periods to 12 hours in 3 periods. Then, expanded from 3 periods to 4 or 5 periods. This is fact. Pure and simple. With the emergency order closing their first fishing period this year, they are still left with 4 6 hour periods.
                            What do you want me to say Willphish? Your local government has even hired "consultants" who have teamed up with the anti-setnet, anti-commercial fishing ringleaders of this fight, ignoring anything related to increasing production and instead finding ways to cut commercial harvest.

                            It's like the boat is leaking and you just want to find a bigger bailer rather than fix the darn leak.

                            As for you 6 periods to 3 periods to 4 or 5 periods, 12 hours to 6 hours, give it a rest man. We've had this exact same discussion before, and you misrepresented the facts. Even your above paragraph doesn't go full circle. So they went from 3 six hour periods to 3 twelve hour periods. Then expanded to 4 or 5 periods. Maybe that is fact. Aren't those periods now six hour periods? Did you forget to mention that? Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not gonna take the time to fact check you any longer, I will just be skeptical every time you throw out a bunch of numbers cause they're usually incorrect.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by smithtb View Post
                              What do you want me to say Willphish? Your local government has even hired "consultants" who have teamed up with the anti-setnet, anti-commercial fishing ringleaders of this fight, ignoring anything related to increasing production and instead finding ways to cut commercial harvest.

                              It's like the boat is leaking and you just want to find a bigger bailer rather than fix the darn leak.

                              As for you 6 periods to 3 periods to 4 or 5 periods, 12 hours to 6 hours, give it a rest man. We've had this exact same discussion before, and you misrepresented the facts. Even your above paragraph doesn't go full circle. So they went from 3 six hour periods to 3 twelve hour periods. Then expanded to 4 or 5 periods. Maybe that is fact. Aren't those periods now six hour periods? Did you forget to mention that? Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not gonna take the time to fact check you any longer, I will just be skeptical every time you throw out a bunch of numbers cause they're usually incorrect.
                              Reading comprehension, my lad. You quoted me, but did not read it... look again at the very last sentence I wrote in your quote; "left with 4 6 hour periods." I also concluded my post by stating 4 6 hour periods now, 3 6 hour periods in 2000.

                              Maybe you'd like to believe that commercial fishing just gets pounded with restrictions, and is always getting reduced year after year, while sport fishing grows unchecked. Maybe in your district. And that may be very true down there. But not in my neck of the woods, which is the Northern District of Cook Inlet, as the numbers I listed show.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Dude, you're trying to make it sound like the ND is fishing more when I'm nearly certain that is not true. Going from 3 - 12 hour periods to 4 - 6 hour periods is not an increase in fishing time, it is a decrease. If that is actually what happened. Moving on...

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X