Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Susitna Sockeye

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

  • Susitna Sockeye

    From the Ak Journal of Commerce http://www.alaskajournal.com/2016-01...s#.VpcYqIYvlng

  • #2
    Originally posted by Tee Jay View Post
    Thats one opinion.

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting article with some cited opinion, and lots of good facts. Thanks for the link. DJ's articles seem informative and level-headed. Counting fish is no easy task, and this is an issue that affects both sport and commercial fishermen. Hopefully it is being worked on collaboratively by both ADFG divisions.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by smithtb View Post
        Interesting article with some cited opinion, and lots of good facts. Thanks for the link. DJ's articles seem informative and level-headed. Counting fish is no easy task, and this is an issue that affects both sport and commercial fishermen. Hopefully it is being worked on collaboratively by both ADFG divisions.
        Do not want to get into this too much but the article is very misleading about what happened during the Bendix years. The UCIDA comments are just flat out wrong. Today the Susitna is producing 300,000 to 400,000 fish compared to 800,000 or more in the 80's. Return per spawner is less than 2:1 and that means no harvestable surplus yet the drift fleet is still harvesting at 35-40% based on recent ADF&G studies.

        The Bendix counter was an index and yes it had error. I pointed this out in 1985 but there was little alternative as oil prices crashed and a weir program was rejected by leadership and the public. However, it was undercounting on an absolute sense but the goal was based on the counts so it was an index. In addition, the drift fleet representatives always want to use the mark/recapture estimate which everyone knows is biased high because of not meeting assumptions of the method.

        Enough said. User groups in UCI are providing more misinformation every day because of greed and competition. Sad state of affairs.

        Comment


        • #5
          Susitna Sockeye

          Interesting Nerka, thanks. And here I thought I was a cynic...

          I know a lot of the Susitna systems were/are counted with single aerial survey, which is also very inaccurate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nerka View Post
            Do not want to get into this too much but the article is very misleading about what happened during the Bendix years. The UCIDA comments are just flat out wrong. Today the Susitna is producing 300,000 to 400,000 fish compared to 800,000 or more in the 80's. Return per spawner is less than 2:1 and that means no harvestable surplus yet the drift fleet is still harvesting at 35-40% based on recent ADF&G studies.

            The Bendix counter was an index and yes it had error. I pointed this out in 1985 but there was little alternative as oil prices crashed and a weir program was rejected by leadership and the public. However, it was undercounting on an absolute sense but the goal was based on the counts so it was an index. In addition, the drift fleet representatives always want to use the mark/recapture estimate which everyone knows is biased high because of not meeting assumptions of the method....
            Who are you and what have you done with the real Nerka?

            Comment


            • #7
              Same Nerka you just never understood my positions. Relative to Susitna the system is in trouble but harvest regulations will not solve it. The lakes being monitored are doing fine but the rest of the system is not. Due in part to pike, disease, and beaver dams. But there is more going on and it will take a concentrated effort to figure it out. ADF&G has shown no desire to do that and with the budget cuts probably will continue down the path of no action. That means these resources are at further risk.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                Same Nerka you just never understood my positions.
                Click image for larger version

Name:	Cartoon 2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	39.4 KB
ID:	2495517

                We all take ourselves too seriously sometimes

                Comment


                • #9
                  true Bfish. Enjoyed the cartoon.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There are many things in ucida's article i could adress, but i will start with this. The department went from an inseason management tool with flaws to a management tool with flaws that cannot be used inseason and which only monitors 3 lakes in the system. Up to half the sockeye in the susitna and yentna river spawn in sloughs and flowing waters and are not monitored at all now. Ucida is lobbying to exploit at a higher percentage than they do now, yet they gloss over the missed escapements in these 3 lakes under the new monitoring method.

                    I agree with UCIDA that sockeye enumeration in the su/yentna is not as good as it should be. But here is a novel idea: ucida makes more money if they exploit these stocks more heavily. The inriver users of these stocks dont see increased revenue from healthier or more abundant stocks. They get more fish in their freezer. Why not increase the taxes and fees UCIDA pays to the state to fund more accurate counts, as UCIDA wants these counts in order to make more money from exploiting the resource?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                      There are many things in ucida's article i could adress, but i will start with this. The department went from an inseason management tool with flaws to a management tool with flaws that cannot be used inseason and which only monitors 3 lakes in the system. Up to half the sockeye in the susitna and yentna river spawn in sloughs and flowing waters and are not monitored at all now. Ucida is lobbying to exploit at a higher percentage than they do now, yet they gloss over the missed escapements in these 3 lakes under the new monitoring method.

                      I agree with UCIDA that sockeye enumeration in the su/yentna is not as good as it should be. But here is a novel idea: ucida makes more money if they exploit these stocks more heavily. The inriver users of these stocks dont see increased revenue from healthier or more abundant stocks. They get more fish in their freezer. Why not increase the taxes and fees UCIDA pays to the state to fund more accurate counts, as UCIDA wants these counts in order to make more money from exploiting the resource?
                      Sounds like a great plan. Why don't you buy everyone lunch so they can work this out? [emoji12]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                        There are many things in ucida's article i could adress, but i will start with this. The department went from an inseason management tool with flaws to a management tool with flaws that cannot be used inseason and which only monitors 3 lakes in the system. Up to half the sockeye in the susitna and yentna river spawn in sloughs and flowing waters and are not monitored at all now. Ucida is lobbying to exploit at a higher percentage than they do now, yet they gloss over the missed escapements in these 3 lakes under the new monitoring method.

                        I agree with UCIDA that sockeye enumeration in the su/yentna is not as good as it should be. But here is a novel idea: ucida makes more money if they exploit these stocks more heavily. The inriver users of these stocks dont see increased revenue from healthier or more abundant stocks. They get more fish in their freezer. Why not increase the taxes and fees UCIDA pays to the state to fund more accurate counts, as UCIDA wants these counts in order to make more money from exploiting the resource?
                        Anyone who knows anything about UCI drift fishery management knows that the Susitna counts were not used for critical inseason management decisions of the drift fishery. By the time the counts come in the major decisions have been made.

                        Also, willphish4food is not telling the truth again. The lake goals have been achieved but not every goal every year. This is expected and some of the goals were exceeded.

                        Finally, I think pike were stocked by sport fisherman so maybe willphish4food sport fisherman should pay for removing them from the system under your logic. They have done more damage to production than fishing every has in the valley.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                          Anyone who knows anything about UCI drift fishery management knows that the Susitna counts were not used for critical inseason management decisions of the drift fishery. By the time the counts come in the major decisions have been made.

                          Also, willphish4food is not telling the truth again. The lake goals have been achieved but not every goal every year. This is expected and some of the goals were exceeded.

                          Finally, I think pike were stocked by sport fisherman so maybe willphish4food sport fisherman should pay for removing them from the system under your logic. They have done more damage to production than fishing every has in the valley.
                          I wish you could just enjoin a debate without calling me a liar, Nerka. It gets so old. Especially when its so patently false!

                          "the Susitna counts were not used for critical inseason management decisions of the drift fishery." Now who is being mistruthful? Emergency closures of fishing periods are considered by those experiencing the closure to be "critical inseason management decisions of the drift fishery". The salmon management plan did have inseason measures in place based on the sonar count.

                          I just have to laugh when I read your accusations against me, Nerka! I said: "they gloss over the missed escapements in these 3 lakes under the new monitoring method." Which they did in the article. and there have been numerous missed escapements since they went to the 3 lake weir system.

                          So your response is that "The lake goals have been achieved but not every goal every year". Right, some goals have been achieved, some haven't. Exactly what I said. I said "missed escapements." I did not put a number to it. There have been missed escapements. Nerka, when you take a true statement from someone and use it to claim that they are lying, it makes you look rather foolish. Sorta like the doddering old mad scientist puttering around with his bubbling vials... and it really does little to promote healthy discourse on where to go with our fisheries management.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            willphish4food, you're not being honest. You did not talk about achieved goals. You talked about "numerous missed escapements." If you want to cherry-pick and base your argument on just missed escapements like you did, then fine. But don't claim to be truthful.

                            Also, closing or restricting southern fisheries based on northern counts is hardly critical in-season management. Those fish have already passed the drift fleet. As Nerka pointed out, the critical decisions for the drift fishery are made long before the fish are counted north. Yes, the MP and sonar count were used, but it's an after-the-fact management method.

                            This is just willphish4food beating his theme here like a dead horse...forego healthy southern UCI fisheries for the sake of putting more fish in his production-plagued northern systems...more tax, fees, and restrictions against the commercial guys, all for the sake of better sport fishing...just keep feeding those production-plagued systems like trying to fill a bucket with holes, all at the cost of healthy fisheries south.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Willphish: regrettably I have concluded that the fab five or six will NEVER change. There method is to insult in some way or another or to call those who oppose "not truthful" which is exactly the same as calling them liars. They are part of the problem of the inability to find solutions. Yours, mine, and a very few others cahoots post here will never change their attitudes or their antipathy for those who oppose their agenda. I have decided to simply not respond to their vitriol. What ever you post will have no impact. So I suggest that those of us who have views that favor others or believe that there still may be hope for an amicable solution just not participate. And remember that these few are outliers and do not speak for the majority of the commercial fishing fleets.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X