Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UCI Northern District EO

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
    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.
    First off it is not Pat Shields, cheap shot at someone who is just doing what the BOF and ADF&G leadership has defined. In fact, it is ADF&G sport fish biologists who are allowing increased harvest at the mouth of the Deshka and we know they take other stocks headed up river. Everything is a mixed stock fishery and as such specific streams have additional protections as the fish get there if needed. Also, harvest/mortality is going on downstream by the sport fishery and the BOF has defined in the plans what actions should happen.

    Willphish4food in his post about restrictions still in place for the other streams failed to mention that the commercial fishery is still closed for some areas for ND streams per BOF regulations. Wish Wilphish4food would be more forthcoming about what fisheries were open and when- here is the e.o language.

    Harvest is allowed on the Deshka River (Unit 1), and on specific days within the Yentna River drainage (Unit 4), except for the Talachulitna River. Harvest within Unit 4 is restricted to Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays only; catch-and-release fishing is allowed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Harvest is allowed on the Deshka River seven days per week.
    King salmon harvest (of any size) is prohibited within Unit 1 (except on Deshka River), on the Parks Highway streams within Unit 2, the upper Susitna (Unit 3), Talachulitna River (Unit 4), Talkeetna River (Unit 5), and Chulitna River (Unit 6). Catch-and-release fishing will be allowed during days and times normally open to king salmon fishing within these management units. King salmon may not be removed from the water and must be released immediately. In the waters of Unit 2 open to catch-and-release fishing for king salmon, fishing for trout and other species will not be affected by these emergency regulations for king salmon and will continue as written in current regulation.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by hoose35 View Post
      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
      How about for once they do what is best for the fish?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by AaronP View Post
        How about for once they do what is best for the fish?
        What is best for the first certainly isn't good for people. Best thing for fish would be zero harvest, EVER. Don't think that will please mankind

        Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
        Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Nerka View Post
          First off it is not Pat Shields, cheap shot at someone who is just doing what the BOF and ADF&G leadership has defined. In fact, it is ADF&G sport fish biologists who are allowing increased harvest at the mouth of the Deshka and we know they take other stocks headed up river. Everything is a mixed stock fishery and as such specific streams have additional protections as the fish get there if needed. Also, harvest/mortality is going on downstream by the sport fishery and the BOF has defined in the plans what actions should happen.

          Willphish4food in his post about restrictions still in place for the other streams failed to mention that the commercial fishery is still closed for some areas for ND streams per BOF regulations. Wish Wilphish4food would be more forthcoming about what fisheries were open and when- here is the e.o language.

          Harvest is allowed on the Deshka River (Unit 1), and on specific days within the Yentna River drainage (Unit 4), except for the Talachulitna River. Harvest within Unit 4 is restricted to Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays only; catch-and-release fishing is allowed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Harvest is allowed on the Deshka River seven days per week.
          King salmon harvest (of any size) is prohibited within Unit 1 (except on Deshka River), on the Parks Highway streams within Unit 2, the upper Susitna (Unit 3), Talachulitna River (Unit 4), Talkeetna River (Unit 5), and Chulitna River (Unit 6). Catch-and-release fishing will be allowed during days and times normally open to king salmon fishing within these management units. King salmon may not be removed from the water and must be released immediately. In the waters of Unit 2 open to catch-and-release fishing for king salmon, fishing for trout and other species will not be affected by these emergency regulations for king salmon and will continue as written in current regulation.
          How is it a cheap shot? He is the one who made the call even when the local biologist voiced his disagreement about it. What a biologist says should take precedence over anything else or why even bother having them?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by hoose35 View Post
            What is best for the first certainly isn't good for people. Best thing for fish would be zero harvest, EVER. Don't think that will please mankind

            Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
            Of course the best thing would be no harvest, but that will never happen. How about sticking with the original openers? Why lengthen them just because one small system out of a huge drainage is doing ok? EVERY fish that dies in those nets is one that won't make it back to spawn, that is fact. Seems to me like those guys out in the inlet will fight each other about who gets to kill the last fish.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by AaronP View Post
              Of course the best thing would be no harvest, but that will never happen. How about sticking with the original openers? Why lengthen them just because one small system out of a huge drainage is doing ok? EVERY fish that dies in those nets is one that won't make it back to spawn, that is fact. Seems to me like those guys out in the inlet will fight each other about who gets to kill the last fish.
              You obviously have it figured out, I think you should be in charge of fisheries management. The fish would thrive and every user group would be totally satisfied

              Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
              Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                How is it a cheap shot? He is the one who made the call even when the local biologist voiced his disagreement about it. What a biologist says should take precedence over anything else or why even bother having them?
                It is a cheap shot because the major decisions like this are not made by an individual but ADF&G. Calling his name out in a forum and trying to tie everything to him shows a complete lack of understanding how decisions are made. The Directors of both Sport and Commercial Fisheries would be the ones to approve any increased fishing time. Also, just for the record Aaron P the original openers would be 12 hours as the 6 hours were a reduction.

                Also, we are talking about maybe in the next couple of openers less than a 1000 fish and most of them will be going to systems that include the Susitna but also other systems. As I mentioned in an earlier post - over 100,000 fish went into the ND last year.

                Also, just to stop the bull the commercial fishing industry has been an advocate for conservation long before there were significant sport fisheries. They know healthy runs mean more fish and more economic gain for them. Simple logic.

                Comment


                • #53
                  One more thing before everyone jumps on the Comm Fish manager. First, the area between Wood Chip dock at Tyonek and the mouth of the Susitna River is still closed to all commercial fishing per the plans. This was in the action plan set up by the Board of Fish. So the hour increase only applies to Trading Bay and the eastside of the ND, not the whole ND as Willphish4food implies. Next, this area has been closed for the last few years as a conservation measure.

                  The Board further said in the management plans that if the Deshka is closed the whole ND is closed- they made the connection to the ND.

                  There is so much misinformation being given out by the ND representatives which it totally irresponsible.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Meanwhile, the Deshka is a mere 2-3 days away from making its goal, with another month of counting left.

                    Would someone please outline the streams which are lacking kings, and provide links to the wherever the counts for these streams are posted?

                    Oh, that's right, there are no counters, just flyovers. There are no posted escapements, just what Willphish says he saw. Is that Pat's fault? Should we be blaming a mid-level Soldotna commfish manager for lack of action in ND streams? No, we should not. These streams, their counters, their habitat, and any sportfishing closures (which would by management plan close the ND setnets) fall under the purview of the MatSu sportfish division, if I'm not mistaken.

                    Enough with the cheap shots already. There's a bunch of kings funneling into the ND right now. Maybe they're early but either way the goal will be made. If the other streams are so important, leave Pat alone and go into your local office and demand that they start spending money on things like habitat protection and better counting systems rather than wasteful nonsense like Kintama.

                    I've been in these guy's offices, both sport and commfish, and trust me, the ones taking the heat for the decisions are not the ones making the decisions. They're often as frustrated as me and you.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by smithtb View Post
                      Oh, that's right, there are no counters, just flyovers.
                      I used to count fish in that system from helicopters - Wilber Air and Kenai Air - Jetrangers and Bells. Sometimes I wonder why I'm alive. On a scale of 1-10 for accuracy, I give it a 2. We were almost always underestimating because we knew how inaccurate it was, and we wanted to be conservative. Realize you're flying at 50-100 mph going up, down, left, right, quick circles, swiveling your head the whole time trying to see out the window as your stomach does flip-flops. Weather is a big factor, and disorientation is an understatement. Sometimes I didn't even count a school because I thought I already counted it. Seeing is more difficult than you can imagine...brush along the bank, deep holes near beaver dams where large number congregate, sharp corners, and the fish are darting and dispersing all over the place. You basically see color, figure in the size of a fish in relation to your altitude, and make an estimate.

                      Between two or three of us counts would typically be off 50-100% between us - so we found an average, or agreed to a number. I remember counting what I thought were 100 Kings, when the number we gave was 25. Sometimes we did foot counts too, but they were near impossible in some of the tribs due to swampy/flooded terrain, thick brush, bears feeding, beaver dam obstacles, and exhaustion.

                      Manned weirs are the answer for accuracy.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        How much does a weir cost to run? I'm guessing the man hour costs make them cost prohibitive? I don't think there is a shortage in material because I can remember a lot of streams having weirs in years past that don't have them now.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Good question...I googled "how much does a weir cost to run in Alaska?" and got this link
                          http://www.stateofthesalmon.org/fiel...s/SFPH_p13.pdf

                          Not sure when it was published? Interesting read and short!! I didn't know much about weirs, and that link helped.

                          Here is a cost of materials. in the recent past, 2005..


                          Estimated costs
                          Generally there is a positive correlation between project cost and remoteness of
                          the site. Approximate amounts for two differing kinds of weirs (a picket weir and
                          a floating weir) are shown in the following budget breakdown; costs are in U.S.
                          dollars as of 2005.
                          Item Quantity Cost per weir (USD)
                          Picket weir with one trap 30 m length $ 65,000
                          Floating weir with one trap 60 m length $100,000
                          Lighting system for river and camp Varies by project design $1002,000
                          Field gear for remote site (e.g., tents,
                          sleeping bags, stove, water system)
                          Per person

                          Then like you Arctic I bet labor costs are somewhat high................. but manageable..........if we all really wanted to know. If we demanded that the state, and us as citizens, paid for better data.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
                            Good question...I googled "how much does a weir cost to run in Alaska?" and got this link
                            http://www.stateofthesalmon.org/fiel...s/SFPH_p13.pdf

                            Not sure when it was published? Interesting read and short!! I didn't know much about weirs, and that link helped.

                            Here is a cost of materials. in the recent past, 2005..


                            Estimated costs
                            Generally there is a positive correlation between project cost and remoteness of
                            the site. Approximate amounts for two differing kinds of weirs (a picket weir and
                            a floating weir) are shown in the following budget breakdown; costs are in U.S.
                            dollars as of 2005.
                            Item Quantity Cost per weir (USD)
                            Picket weir with one trap 30 m length $ 65,000
                            Floating weir with one trap 60 m length $100,000
                            Lighting system for river and camp Varies by project design $1002,000
                            Field gear for remote site (e.g., tents,
                            sleeping bags, stove, water system)
                            Per person

                            Then like you Arctic I bet labor costs are somewhat high................. but manageable..........if we all really wanted to know. If we demanded that the state, and us as citizens, paid for better data.
                            Great link! Like you, I don't know much about them and that answered a lot of questions.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
                              Then like you Arctic I bet labor costs are somewhat high................. but manageable..........if we all really wanted to know. If we demanded that the state, and us as citizens, paid for better data.
                              Obviously we don't all want to know. Crescent River counting program was shut down due to lack of funding. The commercial user group had to fight tooth and nail to ensure smolt-out studies were performed at all on the Kenai/Kasilof. All this while a 15 million dollar Kintama proposal was put together by our friends in the north - they also threw an additional $170,000 towards busting the ESSN's despite the fact that our local communities are reaching out for federal help enforcing the PU fishery due to lack of state action.

                              Sure wish we had more to go off of in these CRITICAL ND streams other than Willphish's field reports. As if those reports would ever be positive while the ND setnets were fishing...

                              Thanks for the link.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by smithtb View Post
                                Meanwhile, the Deshka is a mere 2-3 days away from making its goal, with another month of counting left.

                                Would someone please outline the streams which are lacking kings, and provide links to the wherever the counts for these streams are posted?

                                Oh, that's right, there are no counters, just flyovers. There are no posted escapements, just what Willphish says he saw. Is that Pat's fault? Should we be blaming a mid-level Soldotna commfish manager for lack of action in ND streams? No, we should not. These streams, their counters, their habitat, and any sportfishing closures (which would by management plan close the ND setnets) fall under the purview of the MatSu sportfish division, if I'm not mistaken.

                                Enough with the cheap shots already. There's a bunch of kings funneling into the ND right now. Maybe they're early but either way the goal will be made. If the other streams are so important, leave Pat alone and go into your local office and demand that they start spending money on things like habitat protection and better counting systems rather than wasteful nonsense like Kintama.

                                I've been in these guy's offices, both sport and commfish, and trust me, the ones taking the heat for the decisions are not the ones making the decisions. They're often as frustrated as me and you.
                                Here ya go. And it is a counter; a weir. 19 fish. 900 minimum required. Just out of tidewater. But since another stream in the ND, Deshka, also has a weir, and is having a good return, making its threshold escapement, better grant the setnets full hours again.
                                Coincidentally, because of the stock of concern status of Alexander Creek, Lewis, and Theodore, the net sites below the Big Su have been closed, and the only sites open are between the Little Su and Big Su to protect these stocks of concern. This move has caused fishing pressure to be concentrated closer to the mouth of the Little Su... which has 19 fish through the weir...

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X