Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UCI Northern District EO

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

  • #91
    Interesting facts; the river in the valley that is still producing good numbers of wild kings is the Deshka. It has tremendous sport fish pressure. It is infested with pike. It is full of beavers and the dams they make. How can it still be achieving goals and reaching mid point objectives if all these are the major players causing the declines in the rest of the Northern District?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
      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.

      Believe it or not, I've read some of those studies. Good reading but none really address your claims of pike INFESTATION on the entire Susitna drainage. Pike prefer slow moving aquatic laden water...not a characteristic of king salmon spawning areas. Yes pike are present but you are the first to call it an infestation. Also of interest is the study done by Dave Rutz that showed king salmon smolt only encompassed 3% of the stomach contents of pike that he examined. Also of interest is his statement: Overall chinook salmon production is expected to be little affected by northern pike predation because juvenile chinook salmon generally rear in different habitat types than northern pike.

      A lot of your references have nothing to do with this discussion or address species that aren't part of this discussion. Case in point...what does C&R of coho in the little su have to do with Kings in the Susitna drainage? Or how about Identification of linear and threshold responses in streams along a gradient of urbanization in Anchorage, Alaska. What did that study have to do with Susitna drainage king salmon runs?

      I'm still looking for any references to beaver dams causing spawning issues for Kings.


      Don't try to obscure the issue we are discussing by posting research that is not relevant to this discussion or is so generic as to be of questionable value to this drainage issues.


      And just for clarification, I have never blamed the commercial fleet on the decline of King Salmon like we have experienced. I have questioned the timing and allowance of some of the commercial fisheries when we have such restrictive measures in place. I don't think it is appropriate to have commercial fishing when other user groups are completely shut down or restricted to C&R. If we are trying to restore fish counts then it needs to be done across the board not on the backs of one user group.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
        Interesting facts; the river in the valley that is still producing good numbers of wild kings is the Deshka. It has tremendous sport fish pressure. It is infested with pike. It is full of beavers and the dams they make. How can it still be achieving goals and reaching mid point objectives if all these are the major players causing the declines in the rest of the Northern District?

        DING! We have a winner!!! Rep coming your way!!!!

        Comment


        • #94
          Anyone know what the results of the aerial survey for Kings on the Little Su was last year? Wonder how it compared to the weir count.

          Willphish, you're right. The Deshka has a lot of sport pressure. And like the Kenai, it has decent numbers of small Kings returning. Some of it's natural, but.. well, you know - whack everyone over 6' tall and...

          We know that the sky is not falling for the Little Su either despite sport pressure-related restrictions - last year exceeded goals and there are fish holding at the mouth, according to ADFG.

          Ok, Deshka and Little Su. Check and check. Both appear to be seeing kings.

          Moving on to the rest of the ND streams... Com'on let's not get distracted....

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by smithtb View Post
            Anyone know what the results of the aerial survey for Kings on the Little Su was last year? Wonder how it compared to the weir count.

            Willphish, you're right. The Deshka has a lot of sport pressure. And like the Kenai, it has decent numbers of small Kings returning. Some of it's natural, but.. well, you know - whack everyone over 6' tall and...

            We know that the sky is not falling for the Little Su either despite sport pressure-related restrictions - last year exceeded goals and there are fish holding at the mouth, according to ADFG.

            Ok, Deshka and Little Su. Check and check. Both appear to be seeing kings.

            Moving on to the rest of the ND streams... Com'on let's not get distracted....
            This weekend should start to give a good indication if the East side Susitna streams are seeing numbers. I'm going to start at Montana and work my way down to Willow tomorrow to see if there are fish there.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
              Interesting facts; the river in the valley that is still producing good numbers of wild kings is the Deshka. It has tremendous sport fish pressure. It is infested with pike. It is full of beavers and the dams they make. How can it still be achieving goals and reaching mid point objectives if all these are the major players causing the declines in the rest of the Northern District?
              Come on willphish4food. Your post is half-baked again. You know the record shows the Deshka has always had good production and good returns...missing escapements only 3 times in 20 years! Not to mention it has strength in numbers as the stream with the largest return in the entire system. You know darn well the Deshka is unique to itself when it comes to productivity, and it's pike and beaver issues effect it differently than other streams. Exactly why ADFG's new pike irradiation program didn't start with it. If the Deshka is the icon for your argument then it should be your icon for commercial fishing as well.

              The denial of your own production problems; problems that are clearly documented, are hurting your fishery. It is only when you stop misdirecting and focusing on 1200 Kings the commercial fishery harvests, and start leading based on the facts, that your fishery will revive. Mark my word.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                Interesting facts; the river in the valley that is still producing good numbers of wild kings is the Deshka. It has tremendous sport fish pressure. It is infested with pike. It is full of beavers and the dams they make. How can it still be achieving goals and reaching mid point objectives if all these are the major players causing the declines in the rest of the Northern District?
                Wow, willphish4food you just keep digging holes. So if the in-river production is not impacting kings and they are returning as you say then it is not the ocean or interception. Then just what caused the Deshka to have poor returns in the past. I know a few years back it was water temperatures in the freshwater environment that was the leading hypothesis. Did you forget to mention that?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                  Wow, willphish4food you just keep digging holes. So if the in-river production is not impacting kings and they are returning as you say then it is not the ocean or interception. Then just what caused the Deshka to have poor returns in the past. I know a few years back it was water temperatures in the freshwater environment that was the leading hypothesis. Did you forget to mention that?
                  Another hypothesis that F&G has is that the poor runs were caused by over escapement. Look at the runs with 30,000 + fish and the correlating returns. I've always thought over escapement was a myth but when the guys in Palmer showed me the numbers it was hard to deny.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    Good reading but none really address your claims of pike INFESTATION on the entire Susitna drainage.
                    You're mistaken. Not my claims. ADFG's claims. 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. Additionally...

                    ADF&G’s Division of Sport Fish conducted a study in 1996 and 1997 in four Susitna River tributaries on pike movement and stomach contents. The report, published in 1999, stated:

                    “Given the immense size of the Susitna River drainage and the vast range of northern pike expansion, it is probable that northern pike predation may result in a severe, yet unquantifiable, loss of salmonid production within individual tributaries. However, if we focus our effort on major problems areas identified below, we believe a successful northern pike removal program will be effective in reducing predation on selected salmonid populations…. Eradication efforts have been inadequate given the magnitude and the consequences of the proliferation of pike” (Rutz, 1999)


                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    Yes pike are present but you are the first to call it an infestation.
                    No. "Infestation" is an ADFG term, used extensively in their studies, reports, and even the Alexander Creek white paper report that helped initiate the new pike removal program.


                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    Also of interest is the study done by Dave Rutz that showed king salmon smolt only encompassed 3% of the stomach contents of pike that he examined.
                    Well of course. King salmon smolt exist in smaller numbers than other salmon smolt present, like sockeye or coho. Thus it takes much fewer of them to have an impact on the run.


                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    Also of interest is his statement: Overall chinook salmon production is expected to be little affected by northern pike predation because juvenile chinook salmon generally rear in different habitat types than northern pike.
                    If that were the case, King smolt would not make up 3% of the pike's stomach.


                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    A lot of your references have nothing to do with this discussion or address species that aren't part of this discussion.
                    In mixed-stock fisheries where studies, data, and research for each species have not been funded, it is common to use a system's information gathered from other studies. Also references can be context related, or contain references within them that pertain


                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    Case in point...what does C&R of coho in the little su have to do with Kings in the Susitna drainage?
                    It can shed some light as to the obstacles and potential effects of C&R on other salmon in the same system, like Kings.


                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    I'm still looking for any references to beaver dams causing spawning issues for Kings.
                    Those references are available from both ADFG and Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (who uses a voluntary commercial fishing tax to implement extensive beaver dam projects in the ND). Or, I can help you out since I worked for years doing beaver dam removal throughout the ND.

                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    Don't try to obscure the issue we are discussing by posting research that is not relevant to this discussion or is so generic as to be of questionable value to this drainage issues.
                    What's relevant to you in this discussion is your opinion, and what context or relation you put it in with this discussion is your own choice.

                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    I have questioned the timing and allowance of some of the commercial fisheries when we have such restrictive measures in place.
                    Fine, but your argument holds no merit, no facts

                    Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                    I don't think it is appropriate to have commercial fishing when other user groups are completely shut down or restricted to C&R. If we are trying to restore fish counts then it needs to be done across the board not on the backs of one user group.
                    If allocation is your beef, then start another thread...there are hundreds already like it.

                    I have wasted far too much time on you and willphish4food...too myopic, too far gone. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. It will never work, but good luck restoring your ND systems by blaming the commercial guys.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
                      You're mistaken. Not my claims. ADFG's claims. 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.


                      No. "Infestation" is an ADFG term, used extensively in their studies, reports, and even the Alexander Creek white paper report that helped initiate the new pike removal program.


                      Well of course. King salmon smolt exist in smaller numbers than other salmon smolt present, like sockeye or coho. Thus it takes much fewer of them to have an impact on the run.


                      If that were the case, King smolt would not make up 3% of the pike's stomach.


                      In mixed-stock fisheries where studies, data, and research for each species have not been funded, it is common to use a system's information gathered from other studies. Also references can be context related, or contain references within them that pertain


                      It can shed some light as to the obstacles and potential effects of C&R on other salmon in the same system, like Kings.


                      Those references are available from both ADFG and Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association (who uses a voluntary commercial fishing tax to implement extensive beaver dam projects in the ND). Or, I can help you out since I worked for years doing beaver dam removal throughout the ND.

                      What's relevant to you in this discussion is your opinion, and what context or relation you put it in with this discussion is your own choice.

                      Fine, but your argument holds no merit, no facts

                      If allocation is your beef, then start another thread...there are hundreds already like it.

                      I have wasted far too much time on you and willphish4food...too myopic, too far gone. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. It will never work, but good luck restoring your ND systems by blaming the commercial guys.
                      Just because I don't drink your kool-aid I'm myopic? I think you can't stand the fact that somebody calls you on your self proclaimed expertise. I'm just quoting studies by F&G. You can spin it anyway you want. When a biologist says that King Salmon will not be affected by pike, I'll take his word over yours any day.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                        Just because I don't drink your kool-aid I'm myopic? I think you can't stand the fact that somebody calls you on your self proclaimed expertise. I'm just quoting studies by F&G. You can spin it anyway you want. When a biologist says that King Salmon will not be affected by pike, I'll take his word over yours any day.
                        The data shows King Salmon are effected by pike. You can deny the facts and call them Kool-aid if it makes you feel better. I have never proclaimed myself as an expert, but thank you. I just try to be honest and present the facts...facts that your argument is lacking.

                        Again, good luck.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
                          The data shows King Salmon are effected by pike. You can deny the facts and call them Kool-aid if it makes you feel better. I have never proclaimed myself as an expert, but thank you. I just try to be honest and present the facts...facts that your argument is lacking.

                          Again, good luck.

                          The only "data" out there states that King Salmon smolt are not at risk by pike. Unless you have a degree in biology and want to contradict what F&G has published via your own studies, your claims mean nothing.

                          Comment


                          • Whether pike, sport fishing, commercial fishing, floods, warm water, shallow water, whatever, are the leading cause of poor king salmon returns, is not the relevant point. The point is that all these things can and may be causing issues with king returns. Many of them, we cannot control, some of them we can control easily, and others we can work on. Fishing pressure by sport and commercial are two causes of mortality that are very easy to control. Denying that there is a problem, then using that denial to justify continuing exploitation of the stocks is utter foolishness. We do have a problem. If Little Su had no problem, it would not have been completely shut down to all inriver exploitation of kings. The only way to justify continued fishing of these stocks by the commercial side is to deny that there is a problem, and deny that they are a part of that problem.

                            Saying that not enough is being done to control pike, urban sprawl, and beaver dams may be true. But it does not negate the fact that people are still directly killing kings in sport and commercial fisheries. When they need to be shut, shut them! The sport fishing has already been closed. Commercial is NOT a sacred cow; its killing kings too, that are critical for the rebuilding of the depleted runs.

                            Comment


                            • According the ADFG, the little Su's problem is that, do to water conditions causing fish to hold below the weir, there were too many sport fishermen harvesting too many Little Su kings before enough escaped the weir. So they closed fishing for a while.

                              They were pretty specific about the problem, and there are other streams nearby you can still king fish on. But I guess if you can't fish wherever you want whenever you want, no one should be able to fish, right? Kinda childish Willphish...

                              It makes total sense to close the terminal fisheries first when runs are questionable. Not only do we know that they have the highest likelihood of catching that specific stock, but we also know their harvest is highly selective towards the larger, more fecund fish. But you already stopped paying attention didn't you. Like my 5 year old, the fact that life is unfair is just too much to grasp... Better go pound your fists on the ground... Or go fishing... There is still plenty of sport fishing opportunity...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
                                Another hypothesis that F&G has is that the poor runs were caused by over escapement. Look at the runs with 30,000 + fish and the correlating returns. I've always thought over escapement was a myth but when the guys in Palmer showed me the numbers it was hard to deny.
                                Arcticwildman, we may disagree on stuff but at least I hope both of us are open to new data and this post shows it. If we stick to data and where we can improve our knowledge it will lead to the correct solution in most cases. I just think that we have little chance of changing ocean conditions but we have a great opportunity to protect and correct problems in freshwater.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X