Question on escapement

[kgpcr]

OK here is my question. Too many Reds in the Kenai is not good so what about all the pinks flooding in? Why dont they create any problems when they come in by the thousands with over escapement but too many reds is a bad thing. Why do the pinks not cause any problems but too many reds do?

[smithtb]

They spawn in different areas of the drainage.

[Nerka]

They spawn in different areas of the drainage.

They have limits also but they also do not rear in freshwater. They go out to sea immediately after emerging from the gravel so they have less competition in river. However, spawning over each other and all the other stuff still applies. There are also limits in the ocean. But overall the lack of freshwater rearing is a big difference.

[kgpcr]

It makes sense if the dont rear in fresh water. Hatch and out to the ocean for pinks so they dont spend time in the lakes competing for food. Now it makes sense. Thanks!! Rep to both of you!

[FishGod]

They have limits also but they also do not rear in freshwater. They go out to sea immediately after emerging from the gravel so they have less competition in river. However, spawning over each other and all the other stuff still applies. There are also limits in the ocean. But overall the lack of freshwater rearing is a big difference.

You beat me to the punch. :topjob:

[Cohoangler]

I don't necessarily want to provoke a fight but....

As I have said in the past, lots of spawning sockeye aren't a problem. And neither are lots of spawning pinks. The short-term loss of productivity from density dependent mortality is more than offset by the long-term benefit to the Kenai River watershed from marine-derived nutrients. Lots of salmon is good for the ecosystem.

Lots of salmon don't always show up, but when they do, it's a good thing, even if the total number exceeds the capacity of the watershed to sustain the resulting juveniles.

I realize not many folks on this BB agree with me, but I couldn't resist the bait.......

[Nerka]

I don't necessarily want to provoke a fight but....

As I have said in the past, lots of spawning sockeye aren't a problem. And neither are lots of spawning pinks. The short-term loss of productivity from density dependent mortality is more than offset by the long-term benefit to the Kenai River watershed from marine-derived nutrients. Lots of salmon is good for the ecosystem.

Lots of salmon don't always show up, but when they do, it's a good thing, even if the total number exceeds the capacity of the watershed to sustain the resulting juveniles.

I realize not many folks on this BB agree with me, but I couldn't resist the bait.......

Well, cohoangler when you say are not a problem - define the problem. If it is yield then you statement is incorrect. If it is marine nutrients for rearing glacial sockeye salmon lakes then you are wrong. If you define the good as long term benefits to the ecosystem you must provide some data on that claim. With millions of fish going into the Kenai River system the good to fish ratio has to flatten at some point so saying unlimited amounts is not correct either. I have seen a 100,000 fish in a small stream that created hydrogen sulfide environment that was not good in my opinion. I think people should be careful of blanket claims without data. Also, millions of pink salmon in the Kenai lower section probably provide positive outcomes as the system developed with those numbers but again a threshold is probably somewhere along the density curve.

One thing that always bugs me about the ecosystem debate is that it is a value judgement by humans. We are part of the ecosystem and have shown we can alter it by huge amounts. But the real question when someone says ecosystem impacts or positive or negative is that it assumes some condition that is wanted for humans. In the Columbia humans choose to have cheap power and water for crops and the resultant ecosystem impacts. Now we want to change or reverse that based on some other values. That is fine but lets be honest about it. We want to change because we now value salmon and want to have both. So ecosystem impacts need to be discussed and considered in management but they usually are always discussed in human impact terms which is just as valid as discussing yield or loss of it. The trick is just defining what one means when they say ecosystem impacts.

[MaximumPenetration]

Nerka, it's a fact that the nitrogen fertilizer provided by dead salmon carcasses is a natural part of the ecosystem, including preventing bank erosion by promoting plant growth. I read a biological report years ago from a west coast stream that provided evidence of this. It's all about maximum sustained yield instead of letting natural selection take it's course. I believe the more spawners, the better. Except people would rather have the maximum fish available. It's become all about the best thing for humans, not the best thing for the species and the ecosystems.

[hoose35]

I don't believe too many salmon is bad for the Eco system, but I do believe too many salmon is bad for the salmon. They are like a lot of other species on this earth. When there is too much competition for food and room to live, species are not as healthy as they are when they have more abundant food and room to grow

[MaximumPenetration]

Somehow the salmon managed to get along fine before we ever started controlling their numbers. Like everything else left alone in nature, they went in cycles. But I bet there were much fewer small fish. And controlling their numbers isn't a natural progression of the species.

[hoose35]

And I also bet there were a less people trying to harvest them also. That is the whole point of managing escapement, to provide decent to good, consistent runs year in and year out. This year is an above average run if reds and look at all the whining, just think what it would be like with bust cycle years

[MaximumPenetration]

Like I said, it's become all about what's best for humans, not the species.

[smithtb]

Nerka, it's a fact that the nitrogen fertilizer provided by dead salmon carcasses is a natural part of the ecosystem, including preventing bank erosion by promoting plant growth. I read a biological report years ago from a west coast stream that provided evidence of this. It's all about maximum sustained yield instead of letting natural selection take it's course. I believe the more spawners, the better. Except people would rather have the maximum fish available. It's become all about the best thing for humans, not the best thing for the species and the ecosystems.

Nitrogen fertilizer is great for my lawn too, but only when applied in moderation. Put a dump truck load on it and that's all she wrote.

[hoose35]

Like I said, it's become all about what's best for humans, not the species.

Isn't that what being the worlds dominating species is all about?

[willphish4food]

OK here is my question. Too many Reds in the Kenai is not good so what about all the pinks flooding in? Why dont they create any problems when they come in by the thousands with over escapement but too many reds is a bad thing. Why do the pinks not cause any problems but too many reds do?

In a nutshell; Last year's Resurrection Bay sockeye $1.85/lb. Pinks: $.35/lb. Lost revenue is much higher for every extra sockeye that makes it into the river. Decomposing pinks are never the biological problem, even when numbered in the millions, that reds are, because they represent much less $$$$.