Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UCI Northern District EO

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

  • #31
    Willphish4food problem is that he keeps thinking overall ND chinooks and other salmon stocks are in trouble. However the data on Susitna River and ND numbers from last year show just the opposite. In 1980 Larry Engel, sport fish biologist Palmer, and now consultant to the Mat/Su stated that a healthy run of chinook to the Susitna would be 100,000-150,000. That is the run strength last year. Also, based on a return of 100,000-150,000 fish the Board allocated 12,500 chinook to the commercial fishery. They have never taken that since the quota was put into regulation. So using fishiing time is meaningless relative to allocation - it is about how many fish are harvested. Last year they took a 1000 fish out of 100,000. So Willsphish4food, I am saying you are misrepresenting the facts and have done so consistently on this forum.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Nerka View Post
      Willphish4food problem is that he keeps thinking overall ND chinooks and other salmon stocks are in trouble. However the data on Susitna River and ND numbers from last year show just the opposite. In 1980 Larry Engel, sport fish biologist Palmer, and now consultant to the Mat/Su stated that a healthy run of chinook to the Susitna would be 100,000-150,000. That is the run strength last year. Also, based on a return of 100,000-150,000 fish the Board allocated 12,500 chinook to the commercial fishery. They have never taken that since the quota was put into regulation. So using fishiing time is meaningless relative to allocation - it is about how many fish are harvested. Last year they took a 1000 fish out of 100,000. So Willsphish4food, I am saying you are misrepresenting the facts and have done so consistently on this forum.
      Folks, this person used to work for comfish division of ADF&G. So I think he really knows better. Yet he is saying that because of one year of healthy runs there is no problem with kings in the Northern District. Funny, I can't find that anywhere in management plans or statute. Here's what is said, though: "A stock of yield concern is defined as "a concern arising from a chronic inability, despite the use of specific management measures, to maintain specific yields, or harvestable surpluses, above a stock's escapement needs; a yield concern is less severe than a management concern" (5 AAC 39.222(f)(42)).
      The SSFP defines chronic inability as "the continuing or anticipated inability to meet expected yields over a 4 to 5 year period."

      Surely he realizes this, yet continues to state there is no trouble, and I'm deluded for thinking so. All because in one of the last 5 years the Susitna had a semi decent run of Chinook. Even though many streams in the system did not even meet the minimum threshold for escapement in 4 of the last 4 years.

      And even with what he was calling a "healthy return," a majority of streams in the system did not have a harvestable surplus, as harvest of king salmon was prohibited. So still not "healthy' by the regulatory definition.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
        Folks, this person used to work for comfish division of ADF&G. So I think he really knows better. Yet he is saying that because of one year of healthy runs there is no problem with kings in the Northern District. Funny, I can't find that anywhere in management plans or statute. Here's what is said, though: "A stock of yield concern is defined as "a concern arising from a chronic inability, despite the use of specific management measures, to maintain specific yields, or harvestable surpluses, above a stock's escapement needs; a yield concern is less severe than a management concern" (5 AAC 39.222(f)(42)).
        The SSFP defines chronic inability as "the continuing or anticipated inability to meet expected yields over a 4 to 5 year period."

        Surely he realizes this, yet continues to state there is no trouble, and I'm deluded for thinking so. All because in one of the last 5 years the Susitna had a semi decent run of Chinook. Even though many streams in the system did not even meet the minimum threshold for escapement in 4 of the last 4 years.

        And even with what he was calling a "healthy return," a majority of streams in the system did not have a harvestable surplus, as harvest of king salmon was prohibited. So still not "healthy' by the regulatory definition.
        There is a big difference between a conservation concern which you implied by saying ND chinook were in trouble. They are not in any conservation concern per the regulation. A stock of yield concern above has to do with yields above an MSY or SEG. Big difference between the two.

        Also, a system that has a weir the Deshka had escapements of 18.5, 14, 19,18.6 for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 The goal is 13 -28k. So Willphish4food you use aerial surveys and ignore the weir data? If the Deshka had 18.5 and over 100,000 fish went into the system in 2013 what really went into the system in the other years. LGL only has completed one year of estimates.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
          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.

          That weir is specifically for brood stock colection. No kings are passed or counted , heck there isn't even a y-trap for passing. Immediately after brood stock collection is completed, the weir is pulled.
          Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by FishGod View Post
            That weir is specifically for brood stock colection. No kings are passed or counted , heck there isn't even a y-trap for passing. Immediately after brood stock collection is completed, the weir is pulled.
            It gives a good index of what fish are coming in, though. I'm sorry I lumped it in with the other two weirs that keep numbers each season. Didn't mean to upset your world so much. The tecs manning the weir have a pretty good idea year to year how the runs compare. What I was trying to say is that arial counts are not the sole method for counting fish in streams in the Valley. Some would like to think and claim that, but its just not true. Willow Creek has at least four measurements of king abundance; creel surveys, visual surveys by fish and game employees at the mouth of the creek, angler reports, upriver carcass counts, boat counts from floating the river, and the Deception Creek weir.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
              It gives a good index of what fish are coming in, though. I'm sorry I lumped it in with the other two weirs that keep numbers each season. Didn't mean to upset your world so much. The tecs manning the weir have a pretty good idea year to year how the runs compare. What I was trying to say is that arial counts are not the sole method for counting fish in streams in the Valley. Some would like to think and claim that, but its just not true. Willow Creek has at least four measurements of king abundance; creel surveys, visual surveys by fish and game employees at the mouth of the creek, angler reports, upriver carcass counts, boat counts from floating the river, and the Deception Creek weir.
              Just trying to keep your disinformation to a minimal :topjob:
              Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                It gives a good index of what fish are coming in, though. I'm sorry I lumped it in with the other two weirs that keep numbers each season. Didn't mean to upset your world so much. The tecs manning the weir have a pretty good idea year to year how the runs compare. What I was trying to say is that arial counts are not the sole method for counting fish in streams in the Valley. Some would like to think and claim that, but its just not true. Willow Creek has at least four measurements of king abundance; creel surveys, visual surveys by fish and game employees at the mouth of the creek, angler reports, upriver carcass counts, boat counts from floating the river, and the Deception Creek weir.
                But these are not used to determine a stock of yield concern. The regulations reference harvest levels for yield concerns and escapement levels for conservation concerns. These are just in-season management data and creel surveys are not measures of abundance, visual surveys at the mouth of the creeks is not a measure of escapement, angler reports are not measures of abundance, boat counts are boat counts, and carcass counts are a measure of abundance but not precise for determining conservation concerns.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Not trying to pick at you Willphish, and not necessarily trying to make an argument, but Willphish's stance is quite interesting.

                  In his river, the overall King escapement was something more than dismal (as Nerka pointed out), however he is worried about the popular tributaries that didn't make their relatively small escapement goals. In his mind, if these small systems can't make their escapements, no one (especially the commiercial fishermen) should be fishing.

                  Meanwhile, down on the Kenai, the king runs in our small tributaries like Slikok and others have completely collapsed. This is not a new thing - they have been in trouble for many years. Interestingly, his counterparts down here have not been making noise about it. Sure, they have been trying to "Kill the commies", but have given little attention to these failing tribs. Efforts to provide these streams with more protection have, until recently, fallen on deaf ears. Even at the recent BOF meeting I heard the ADFG leadership testify that they were confident these tribs have adequate protection, and that we are getting adequate numbers of eggs in the gravel.

                  Willphish, you're right to be concerned about the small streams too. You just need to remember that while the ND setnets may catch Kings, they are not part of any ocean issues which are causing production problems, nor are they part of any freshwater issues which are no doubt also contributing. You should lighten up on those guys a little. Getting rid of them won't get you any more fish days.

                  The Kenai is proof that even with ZERO UCI gillnet interception (Early Run), small tribs popular for their dynamite King fishing can still be wiped out...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by smithtb View Post
                    Not trying to pick at you Willphish, and not necessarily trying to make an argument, but Willphish's stance is quite interesting.

                    In his river, the overall King escapement was something more than dismal (as Nerka pointed out), however he is worried about the popular tributaries that didn't make their relatively small escapement goals. In his mind, if these small systems can't make their escapements, no one (especially the commiercial fishermen) should be fishing.

                    Meanwhile, down on the Kenai, the king runs in our small tributaries like Slikok and others have completely collapsed. This is not a new thing - they have been in trouble for many years. Interestingly, his counterparts down here have not been making noise about it. Sure, they have been trying to "Kill the commies", but have given little attention to these failing tribs. Efforts to provide these streams with more protection have, until recently, fallen on deaf ears. Even at the recent BOF meeting I heard the ADFG leadership testify that they were confident these tribs have adequate protection, and that we are getting adequate numbers of eggs in the gravel.

                    Willphish, you're right to be concerned about the small streams too. You just need to remember that while the ND setnets may catch Kings, they are not part of any ocean issues which are causing production problems, nor are they part of any freshwater issues which are no doubt also contributing. You should lighten up on those guys a little. Getting rid of them won't get you any more fish days.

                    The Kenai is proof that even with ZERO UCI gillnet interception (Early Run), small tribs popular for their dynamite King fishing can still be wiped out...
                    Smith, good ideas here. But small correction. All the Susitna and Yentna tributaries are "small tribs." There is no mainstem spawning in either system like the Kenai. Therefore, our "small tribs" make up 100% of the fishing effort in the Susitna/Yentna drainages. Concern over what's happening in "small tribs" is concern for the entire run, as that is what it is made up of... tributary spawners.
                    There's enough voices taking up the various causes on the Kenai; therefore I speak up for Valley fisheries instead... attempting to educate people on what's happening in my neck of the woods.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                      Smith, good ideas here. But small correction. All the Susitna and Yentna tributaries are "small tribs." There is no mainstem spawning in either system like the Kenai. Therefore, our "small tribs" make up 100% of the fishing effort in the Susitna/Yentna drainages. Concern over what's happening in "small tribs" is concern for the entire run, as that is what it is made up of... tributary spawners.
                      There's enough voices taking up the various causes on the Kenai; therefore I speak up for Valley fisheries instead... attempting to educate people on what's happening in my neck of the woods.
                      Willphish, most of the tribs you are concerned about have quite small escapements relative to the total ND king run - as Nerka pointed out. Their numbers are a drop in the bucket compared to a river like the Deshka which has an escapement goal similar to the Kenai - which it comfortably met last year. Yes, they're still important, but let's not overemphasize the importance of a small stream with an escapement of a couple hundred kings when the nearby rivers like the Deshka are making their escapement goals which are in the tens of thousands. Especially when those tribs have known habitat issues like hydrocarbons, culverts, and pike, all of which have very known effects on salmon production.

                      If you want to help educate people about whats happening in you neck of the woods, either push ADFG to post escapement goals and numbers for the streams you reference, or post the info for us. Perhaps I missed something but I can't find escapement info on the streams you're concerned about.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        And I quote - "Why the big fuss over a handful of kings, when the benefits of the fishery are so great?"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Last two openers will be restored to 12 hours for Northern District, due to good escapements through Deshka weir.
                          Weekend only sport fisheries on the Susitna remain restricted to hook and release only, single hook, no bait, open 6 am to 11 pm.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                            Last two openers will be restored to 12 hours for Northern District, due to good escapements through Deshka weir.
                            Weekend only sport fisheries on the Susitna remain restricted to hook and release only, single hook, no bait, open 6 am to 11 pm.
                            Pat Shields (area management biologist) thinks the Deshka is a mirror for the whole Susitna drainage. Wish he could have been with me this morning at Sheep to see how empty the river was. Scary that F&G management is so narrow minded.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Wow! Using one river to predict an entire drainage?? What is wrong with these people???

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by AaronP View Post
                                Wow! Using one river to predict an entire drainage?? What is wrong with these people???
                                Not THESE people, it's people in general, you, me, them. Everyone has their own agenda, it's impossible to satisfy everyone

                                Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
                                Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X