Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UCI Northern District EO

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
    The problem with comm fishing is that it is too efficient. Catch the run with the right tide and you could catch thousands in one opening and potentially wipe out a smaller creek's run. That is an unacceptable risk.
    Except the harvest numbers don't reflect that. And the only thing we can put a finger on is production problems in-river.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Nerka View Post
      Interesting computer issues. I posted what you referenced with the silly comment, thought it was not appropriate and edited it out. Must have posted it and edited it while it when out on the thread. So my post above is the one that I should have written first.

      But lets deal with your issues. The estimate of the number of chinook in the river is from techniques used by ADF&G and LGL and a valid method of estimating the numbers. There can be error but you cannot say it is smoke and mirrors. That is not technically correct.

      Second, not sure who quoted you the number of 1000 in ADF&G but they do not know what they are talking about. The total catch for the ND is 1100 fish with one opener to go. I must say there is more misinformation in the ND that anywhere else in the inlet. The anticipated catch for the next opener is 100 fish, not 1000. So the 1% harvest rate is good again for this year from all indications.

      I can tell from your post that you have not read the LGL report or any of the reports ADF&G have done on estimating salmon abundance in the Susitna River from the fishwheel program. You are way off base on how the estimates are made.

      Next, the management plans I guess are good for you when the Deshka is weak and the whole ND closes but not when the Deshka is strong and only part of the ND opens. Remember, the area from Wood chip dock to the Susitna has been closed the whole season.

      So if one stream is not making its goal in the Susitna then the commercial fishery should be restricted or closed. Does that apply to the sport fisheries at the mouth of the streams which are catching chinook headed upstream, even if it is only 1% of the run?
      1100 fish that WON'T spawn.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
        Except the harvest numbers don't reflect that. And the only thing we can put a finger on is production problems in-river.
        You are dead wrong there. Every single biologist I've spoken with has said it is NOT an in river production issue, with possibly the exception of Alexander Cr and it's pike problem, but even that river is showing signs of bouncing back per F&G. "In river" production problems are a problem in the L48, not up here as told to me by three different biologists.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
          Couple of points...

          Even if you used the accurate weir numbers from the Deshka alone, and assumed they were the only Kings in the system, the commercial harvest would still be only be 8.5% of the run (1200 of 14,000)...not exactly the end of the world. Of course, in reality there are 300-some more streams and potentially 100,000-150,000 Kings in all, and the commercial harvest is not just Deshka fish.

          You say the Deshka is not representative of the other streams. In general I agree. However, the same can be said for the commercial fishery...it's harvest numbers do not represent those of any one stream, and that expanding commercial fishing time does not necessarily mean harvest will affect a stream with a missed escapement goal. So closing an entire downstream fishery in the salt water in order to conserve fish in one of 300 streams (or maybe a small group of streams), does not make as much sense as closing the sport fishery which is targeting just that stream's easily vulnerable fish.

          "Expanding" fishing time is a brainwash term. You can't call it expanding when it was reduced in the first place. In fact fishing time is far from being restored to what it was.

          Cheers.

          300 streams and only about 15-20 have a significant amount of fish to even be measured. The rest have such low numbers that they could very easily be wiped out. Case in point...there is a stream by my cabin up the Yentna. It's a clear water stream that is fed by lakes and swamps up above the cabin. I used to see a few kings spawning in it every year and we would find them washed up on shore after they spawned out. We haven't seen a single king in that stream in over 5 years. So what happened to them? Does it affect the big picture as far as king runs are concerned...no, but it is one less stream now without kings. When does it matter? When only the Deshka, Lake Creek, talkeetna, and the Tal are the only ones left with fish?

          Comment


          • #80
            Well, this is getting interesting. I know the Yentna and I know some of the players along that stream. You could in small streams with a few numbers over-harvest them in-river with legal or illegal operations. I know a number of individuals who fished illegally in the Susitna and Yentna and it is hard to catch them in the act.

            But the commercial fishery is not efficient as you say. They took 1% of the total run over a number of periods fishing. That old myth of a commercial fishery in UCI can wipe out a small stock is just that a myth. Fish do not run that way and there is no evidence it ever happened when the commercial fishery was fishing 5 days a week. Even when this system was over fished by the drift fleet in the 50's the very streams you mention were not wiped out. So let stop the hyperbole and get back to real issues on what is happening and what needs to happen.

            Your three biologists up there are full of it. In river issues cannot be dismissed without data and as you and others have pointed out the counts are not even that good let alone any understanding of what is driving production. Heck, floods, human activities, invasive species, and the list goes on all can combine to reduce production in-river. Anyone who says this is just an ocean issue is blowing smoke. I am not dismissing ocean issues but that in reality with the number of streams involved it is likely each has is own issues. One cannot explain the systems that are doing well as being exempt from the ocean discussion. If the 100,000 to 150,000 returning north is true then some systems are doing well in the ocean.

            AaronP - what does 1100 fish that won't spawn mean? If I was to take that seriously then no fishery- sport, PU, or commercial would happen ever. We manage salmon so we can harvest them - pure and simple.

            Comment


            • #81
              Where are you getting 100,000 to 150,000 for a return? Even in 1985 when the King runs were near record levels they conducted a survey and it was estimated at 113,931 fish. The study done in 2013 produced the following: The Chinook salmon escapement in the Susitna River mainstem was estimated at 89,463 fish, with 18,469 (21%) going to the Deshka River.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Nerka View Post

                Your three biologists up there are full of it. In river issues cannot be dismissed without data and as you and others have pointed out the counts are not even that good let alone any understanding of what is driving production. Heck, floods, human activities, invasive species, and the list goes on all can combine to reduce production in-river. Anyone who says this is just an ocean issue is blowing smoke. I am not dismissing ocean issues but that in reality with the number of streams involved it is likely each has is own issues. One cannot explain the systems that are doing well as being exempt from the ocean discussion. If the 100,000 to 150,000 returning north is true then some systems are doing well in the ocean.
                Why don't you call them and discuss it with them? They know who you are and how biased you are towards the commercial side of the house.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                  Why don't you call them and discuss it with them? They know who you are and how biased you are towards the commercial side of the house.
                  They do not know me at all. They have heard the bias claim and want to believe it but my position on issues has been clear. There are fish for everyone and the false claims to get more allocation will be challenged by me and I hope others. When UCIDA made the claim on the Little Susitna River that mine waste wiped out all the salmon runs I showed that to be false in less than 30 mins. or research. When the commercial industry claims ADF&G miss counted sockeye by millions during the oil spill I testified against that position and showed that was not correct. However, lately it is the sport fish side of things that have misrepresented the data and taken positions that cannot be defended - like over escapement is myth. That needs to be challenged. Consultants to the valley have made wild claims on how the commercial fishery is taking lots of coho salmon yet the data does not support that claim. Exploitation rates are low for the fishery based on data. So Arcticwildman my position is based on what the data indicates or does not indicate - not on supposed bias.


                  The ND folks do not want to hear that their positions cannot be defended with data. Other scientists who looked at the situation have come the same conclusion on ocean issues as I have on the ocean not being the only driving force. Just look at the comments on the ADF&G research plan or the AYK independent report on the Yukon.

                  One thing you should remember Arcticwildman is that making claims against someone because you cannot win the debate on merit is not a logical position. What it is saying is you are wrong because you are bias. No, one must present data to back up a position and whether someone is or is not bias is not relevant. Everyone has a bias but science demands that facts and figures be used in the debate, not personal opinion.

                  So when someone says freshwater issues are not a problem they need to back that up with data, just stating it does not make it true. It drives me nuts when I hear that as there are numerous examples to counter that position.

                  I also challenge ADF&G managers who make calls and try to justify them with false claims. However, I know that most significant management calls are not made by an individual but a group of mid-level or higher personnel. At the director level and higher the rationale includes political considerations which I also challenge as should everyone else. We will never get ADF&G back to being sound management organization without a change in the culture of the leadership to a more scientific and less political organization (politics will always be there but not at the level it is today).

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    Where are you getting 100,000 to 150,000 for a return? Even in 1985 when the King runs were near record levels they conducted a survey and it was estimated at 113,931 fish. The study done in 2013 produced the following: The Chinook salmon escapement in the Susitna River mainstem was estimated at 89,463 fish, with 18,469 (21%) going to the Deshka River.
                    The 89,000 fish is above the Yentna and does not include it. Also, the 100,000 to 150,000 was for the ND when I said that the commercial fishery took less than 1%. So a record return was 114,000 fish and when you add in the Yentna count in 2013 you would be close to that number which was a record. Do you not see the fallacy of the position that the return is at an all time low or near it.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Nerka View Post

                      I also challenge ADF&G managers who make calls and try to justify them with false claims. However, I know that most significant management calls are not made by an individual but a group of mid-level or higher personnel. At the director level and higher the rationale includes political considerations which I also challenge as should everyone else. We will never get ADF&G back to being sound management organization without a change in the culture of the leadership to a more scientific and less political organization (politics will always be there but not at the level it is today).
                      I don't agree with a lot of what you say (or maybe it's just the way you say it) but I will agree 100% with this. Management decisions need to be made without political influence. Will that trend change? I have no idea (but I am not going to hold my breath waiting).

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                        ...I know a number of individuals who fished illegally in the Susitna and Yentna and it is hard to catch them in the act.
                        Well there are bad users in every group...I know that a number of commercial fishermen also get caught fishing illegally in closed waters, etc. and it's probably hard to catch them in the act too...do you think the ones that get away with it record those fish in their log book? How bout the ones that fish legally, yet fail to log the amount of fish they catch? How can there be a correct number of fish that are taken, when captains fail to log their fish?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                          You are dead wrong there. Every single biologist I've spoken with has said it is NOT an in river production issue, with possibly the exception of Alexander Cr and it's pike problem..."In river" production problems are a problem in the L48, not up here as told to me by three different biologists.
                          OMG. If that is true, then you've exposed the source of the problem...incompetency of your biologists to read and acknowledge a mountain of their own ADFG studies, reports, data, and conclusions, and the Northern District's unwillingness to recognize the production problems in their own back yard...

                          You say not an in-river production issue?...

                          In 2010 ADFG identified 135 lakes, rivers, and streams in the Mat-Su Basin as pike infested. - and those are just the ones they had funding to look at. Even back in 1996 ADFG published a study saying it is probable that northern pike predation may result in severe loss of salmon production within individual tributaries. Go figure. It wasn't until 10 years later, all while ADFG continued to treat Pike as a sport fish with limits rather than an invasive species, that a pike eradication program was finally launched. Just because the new pike program targets Alexander Creek does not mean that it's the only infested trib - it means it is the worst and foremost infested area. There is still no long-term, comprehensive pike irradiation program for the ND - all while efforts are instead focused on eradicating commercial fishing.


                          Beaver dams represent impasse for adult salmon, and these Northern District tribs are infested with them. According to ADFG a single trib could have 20 or more dams inhibiting spawning. Believe it or not, the Northern District has yet to establish a beaver dam eradication program...too busy focusing on eradicating commercial fishing, I guess. But get this, it is the commercial fishermen who fund beaver dam work in the Northern District, through the Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association and their voluntary tax. Keep in mind beaver dams are a sure thing for bears...populations of them that have been allowed to increase unfettered. I've witnessed a group of brown bears terrorizing hundreds of Kings below a dam. Talk about wiping out a run.

                          Parasites kill spawning salmon, and the Northern District has plenty of them. Speaking of the commercial fishery funded Cook Inlet Aquaculture - it was their work that discovered the problem and identified it's devastating impacts.

                          These systems are famous for difficult topography and hydrology...floods, droughts, turbidity, etc. Since most of the watersheds supplying these tribs are shallow lakes, water temperature is susceptible to huge fluxuations resulting in poor production.

                          That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to your in-river problems, which you claim don't exist. Urbanization has had a huge effect. ADFG identified 430 improperly constructed culverts blocking passage of juvenile salmon in Mat Su waters. Big Lake, Little Su, Matanuska River, etc, etc. polluted with everything from fecal coliform sewage to cyanide to hydrocarbons. Illegal ATV trails crossing spawning beds. Loss of riparian and wetland habitat. Unlimited in-river sport fisheries that couldn't support population growth. And it goes on and on.

                          See Arcticwildman, it doesn't matter how many Kings return to the Northern District and Mat-Su rivers if they can't spawn or the young salmon can't survive long enough to migrate out to sea.

                          With that said, lets look at the numbers. 1200 Kings harvested in the commercial fishery that you blame. 280 ND streams that you say don't have enough fish to count (300- 20 = 280). So on average, that's only 4.2 Kings per stream. Or better yet, using your 21% number for the Deshka, only about 3.2 Kings per stream. Think about that as you read the ADFG report with pictures of just one Pike that had recently consumed 50 salmon smolt.

                          So no in-river problems according to you. Yeah right. I think I know who's "biased." I think I know who needs to "call and discuss" the studies, reports, and data with ADFG. And I think I know who is "dead wrong."

                          Arcticwildman, like I tell willphish4food, the solutions aren't with eliminating the commercial fishery. They are with addressing your own production problems. And until you recognize that, shift your myopic focus away from commercial fishing, and show some leadership to do something about your own problems, nothing will get better - only worse. Mark my word.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Oh good grief, you find every way possible to shift blame to everything else except commercial fishing.

                            Rather than argue with you, I'm going to pretend I'm from Missouri...

                            List the Susitna drainage streams that have been identified with beaver dams affecting King Salmon spawning areas.

                            List the Susitna drainage streams (other than the obvious issue in Alexander Creek) that are infested with Northern Pike.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                              Oh good grief, you find every way possible to shift blame to everything else except commercial fishing.

                              Rather than argue with you, I'm going to pretend I'm from Missouri...

                              List the Susitna drainage streams that have been identified with beaver dams affecting King Salmon spawning areas.

                              List the Susitna drainage streams (other than the obvious issue in Alexander Creek) that are infested with Northern Pike.
                              Could you list any evidence you have that indicates commercial harvest pressure has caused any of the abundance issues in the Susitna drainage?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                                Oh good grief, you find every way possible to shift blame to everything else except commercial fishing.

                                Rather than argue with you, I'm going to pretend I'm from Missouri...

                                List the Susitna drainage streams that have been identified with beaver dams affecting King Salmon spawning areas.

                                List the Susitna drainage streams (other than the obvious issue in Alexander Creek) that are infested with Northern Pike.
                                Of course you don't want to justify your argument...it has no merit. Anyone who is remotely familiar with this area would not be asking for proof about beaver dams and pike infestation.

                                All I've done is post the truth and facts, which are published and available for you to comprehend (or even someone from Missouri). Although I doubt you will take the time or effort, or acknowledge those facts. It is easier to drink the Kool-Aid and ignorantly blame commercial fishing.

                                Rutz, D. S., 1999. Movements, food availability and stomach contents of northern pike in selected Susitna River drainages.

                                Yanusv, R. & D.S. Rutz, 2009. Alexander Creek/Lake White Paper. ADF&G, Fishery Data Series 1-6.
                                1996-1997. ADF&G, Fishery Data Series 99-5.

                                ADF&G, 2012. UCI commercial sockeye salmon harvest by fishery and stock in 2005-2011 estimated using genetic methods.

                                ADF&G, 1960. Annual Report 1960 Cook Inlet Area.

                                Barclay, A.W., W.D. Templin, H.A. Hoyt. T. Tobias, and T.M. Willette. 2010. Genetic stock identification of Upper Cook Inlet sockeye salmon harvest, 2005-2008.

                                Sepulveda, A.J., D.S. Rutz, S.S. Ivey, K.J. Dunker and J.A. Gross, 2013. USGS. Introduced pike predation on salmonids in
                                southcentral Alaska. Ecology of Freshwater Fish Vol. 22 issue 2

                                ADFG, Fishery Manuscript No.10-10, Anchorage.

                                CIAA, 2012. Trapper Lake Adult Sockeye Salmon Data Report 2009.
                                Shell Lake Sockeye Salmon Data Report 2009-2011.

                                Clarke, W.C., and T. Hirano. 1995. Osmoregulation. In Physiological Ecology of Pacific Salmon, C. Groot, L. Margolis,
                                and W.C. Clarke (eds.). University of British Columbia Press Vancouver, BC.

                                UCIDA, 2013. A Water Shed Perspective on Salmon Production in the Mat-Su Basin.

                                Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives, 2013. Scoping Comments for Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project No.14241-000
                                to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

                                Davis, J.C. and G.A. Davis. 2011. Hydrocarbons and turbidity in the Lower Little Susitna River. Final Report for the Alaska
                                Department of Environmental Conservation. Aquatic Restoration and Research Institute. Talketna, AK.

                                Lawrence, F.F. 1949. Preliminary Report on Water-Power Resources of Little Susitna River and Cottonwood Creek, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey.

                                Mat-Su Borough, 2012. Planning and Land Use Department. June 1, 2012. Differences Between Title 43 and Former
                                Title 27.

                                Maule, A.G., C.B Schreck & S.L. Kaattari, 1987. Changes in the Immune System of Coho Salmon During the Parr-to-Smolt Transformation and After Implantation of Cortisol.

                                Ourso, R.T. and S.A. Frenzel, 2003. Identification of linear and threshold responses in streams along a gradient of
                                urbanization in Anchorage, Alaska. Hydrobiologia 501: 117-131.

                                Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44,161-6.

                                Mazeaud, M.M. Mazeaud, F. & Donaldson, E.M.. 1977. Primary and Secondary Effects of Stress in Fish: Some New Data with a General Review.


                                Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 106. 201-12.

                                National Research Council and Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest AnadromousSalmonids, 1996.

                                Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest, National Academy of Sciences.

                                Nilsson, Stefan. 2000. Cardiovascular Control Systems in Fishes: An Overview. The Journal of Physiology, 523P, pp. 86S.

                                Northern Economics, Inc, 2013. Cook Inlet Gillnet Salmon Fisheries. Anchorage, AK.

                                Pinsky, et al, 2009. Range-wide selection of catchments for Pacific salmon conservation. Conservation Biology (23)681-691.

                                Ruggerone, et al, 2010. Abundance of adult hatchery and wild salmon by region of the North Pacific. Univ. of Washington,
                                School of Aquatic and Fishery, Report SAFS- UW 1001, Seattle, WA.

                                Tarbox, K.E. & G.B. Kyle, 1989. An estimate of adult sockeye salmon production, based on euphotic volume, for the
                                Susitna River drainage, Alaska. ADF&G Regional Information Report No. 2S89-01

                                Tarbox, K.E., and T. Bendock, 1996. Can Alaska Balance Economic Growth with Fish Habitat Protection? A Biologist’s
                                Perspective. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 3(1):49-53. ADF&G.

                                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Inventory of Fish Distribution in the Matanuska-Susitna Basin, Southcentral Alaska,
                                2010. Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2011–10. Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office.
                                Anchorage, Alaska.

                                Vincent-Lang, D., M. Alexandersdottir & D. McBride, 1993. Mortality of coho salmon caught and released with sport
                                tackle in the Little Susitna River, Alaska. Fisheries Research.15:339-356.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X