Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Susitna Sockeye

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

  • 35fathoms
    replied
    Watching today's BOF discussion on youtube really proved they have wrong folks making big, costly decisions. It was very obvious when the board was asking questions of one another and of the sport/comm fish biologist, that they (the board) had absolutely no clue about anything to do with a mixed stock/mixed user fishery as complex as CI. Proposal 104 has repercussions from Anchor Point to Boulder Point with about 7 different set net sub sections within that area, different opening dates, different stocks caught etc. They had no clue about how any of them are managed. So, I have to agree with Nerka, the board process needs revamping in a bad way.

    As to the title of this forum, its hard to believe with all the concern we hear about anything in northern Cook Inlet, that they would approve a new dip net fishery. I hope they realize what they are asking for as the Kenai dip net fishery is an un-enforced cluster.....

    Leave a comment:


  • twodux
    replied
    So now they created a dipnet fishery on the Susitna?

    https://www.adn.com/outdoors-adventu...susitna-river/

    Leave a comment:


  • cdubbin
    replied
    Originally posted by gunner View Post
    Nerka, The last section of your post gets my vote for best post of the year. Your willingness to share your expertise on this forum with knuckleheads like me is and has always been geatly appreciated. Good luck with the move, sincerely hope your health improves, and please consider continuing to provide us here on a.o.f. your valuable insight .
    Ditto......

    Leave a comment:


  • Cohoangler
    replied
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    Will, I agree with everything you just posted except the last sentence. First ADFG is irresponsible for removing Susitna sockeye. As you point out the Susitna use to produce 800,000 sockeye and now it is less than 400,000. The systems they now monitor do not have pike and invasive plants. So now they get to do nothing. While the MatSu attacks the commercial fishery they said nothing about not having any action on this for 20 years of more.

    Relative to Kodiak another example of public desire and ignorant BOF making million dollar decisions and causing lots of heartache. The actions they took at most may save 100,000 sockeye is some years. Susitna is about 7% of that which means 7,000 fish spread in the basin. It will not even be measurable.

    I am moving out of State for health reasons but I will leave this message for Alaskan. Stop fighting each other over allocation and put pressure on ADFG to do scientific peer reviewed work. Because right now they are making political decisions and letting an outdated Board of Fish process and membership destroy habitat and resources because of ignorance and in some cases stupidity. Alaska fisheries are way beyond the Board of Fish in terms of complexity and decision making.. In the 70's and 80's the Board had a common goals of building returns and little allocation. Today it is all about allocation and the goal setting is about allocation. KRSA has figured out the higher the goals the in-river fisheries still function with catch and release or in the case of sockeye better catch rates and even if yields are reduced due to high escapements the sport and PU fisheries still function. That will not last for the PU fishery in the long run. Anyway burden of higher goals is on the commercial fishery and loss of economic viability. When KRSA lost the set net ban approach they took this new tack. It is working with Commissioners and Gov who appoint Board members based on allocation. Board member Wood in Kodiak said he was appointed to put more fish in the Mat/su. That is not the criteria the Legislature had for Board members. So it is time the Board gets an update and facelift.
    Nerka - Best of luck with your health issues. Iím sure it wonít be easy for you to leave the Great Land, but you are certainly welcome down here, if that is where you are headed.

    I hope you continue to participate in this forum. Although it wonít be the same since you wonít be on the Kenai Peninsula, your insight, expertise, and opinions will always enlighten those of us who follow the inís and outís of fishery management in Alaska.

    Thanks for the vigorous discussions and debates over the years!

    Leave a comment:


  • gunner
    replied
    Nerka, The last section of your post gets my vote for best post of the year. Your willingness to share your expertise on this forum with knuckleheads like me is and has always been geatly appreciated. Good luck with the move, sincerely hope your health improves, and please consider continuing to provide us here on a.o.f. your valuable insight .

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    Seriously, Doc, this has been a name only thing. Actual management action to adress this stock of concern has been minimal at best. The big problem with Susitna sockeye is there is no huge terminal fishery. Most sockeye entering the Su quietly spawn, die, and disappear into the ecosystem. Its a thorn in the side of managers and profiteers of the stronger Cook Inlet salmon stocks. The fish and game has done very little to protect or rebuild this stock. Their management plan does nothing to address the many lakes and sloughs within the Susitna and Yentna that are now overrun by pike, that used to host returns in the tens or hundreds of thousands of sockeye annually, but now produce very few to zero sockeye annually. Fish and game completely failed the mandates within the stock of concern statutes, that require a plan with management actions designed to return a harvestable surplus to the fishery. Run strength overall is still less than half the historic return, with many sub runs within the overall return either completely or nearly gone. I do not see the justification to removing this stock. If anything, it should have been moved to a more serious concern status, rather than removed or left in the least serious status.
    On the flip side, actions taken which will lessen the take of Susitna fish by Kodiak and Cook Inlet commercial fishermen should have a big positive impact on this (former) stock of concern.
    Will, I agree with everything you just posted except the last sentence. First ADFG is irresponsible for removing Susitna sockeye. As you point out the Susitna use to produce 800,000 sockeye and now it is less than 400,000. The systems they now monitor do not have pike and invasive plants. So now they get to do nothing. While the MatSu attacks the commercial fishery they said nothing about not having any action on this for 20 years of more.

    Relative to Kodiak another example of public desire and ignorant BOF making million dollar decisions and causing lots of heartache. The actions they took at most may save 100,000 sockeye is some years. Susitna is about 7% of that which means 7,000 fish spread in the basin. It will not even be measurable.

    I am moving out of State for health reasons but I will leave this message for Alaskan. Stop fighting each other over allocation and put pressure on ADFG to do scientific peer reviewed work. Because right now they are making political decisions and letting an outdated Board of Fish process and membership destroy habitat and resources because of ignorance and in some cases stupidity. Alaska fisheries are way beyond the Board of Fish in terms of complexity and decision making.. In the 70's and 80's the Board had a common goals of building returns and little allocation. Today it is all about allocation and the goal setting is about allocation. KRSA has figured out the higher the goals the in-river fisheries still function with catch and release or in the case of sockeye better catch rates and even if yields are reduced due to high escapements the sport and PU fisheries still function. That will not last for the PU fishery in the long run. Anyway burden of higher goals is on the commercial fishery and loss of economic viability. When KRSA lost the set net ban approach they took this new tack. It is working with Commissioners and Gov who appoint Board members based on allocation. Board member Wood in Kodiak said he was appointed to put more fish in the Mat/su. That is not the criteria the Legislature had for Board members. So it is time the Board gets an update and facelift.

    Leave a comment:


  • willphish4food
    replied
    Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
    STOCK OF CONCERN? What concern? Evaporated with the stroke of a pen earlier today.
    Seriously, Doc, this has been a name only thing. Actual management action to adress this stock of concern has been minimal at best. The big problem with Susitna sockeye is there is no huge terminal fishery. Most sockeye entering the Su quietly spawn, die, and disappear into the ecosystem. Its a thorn in the side of managers and profiteers of the stronger Cook Inlet salmon stocks. The fish and game has done very little to protect or rebuild this stock. Their management plan does nothing to address the many lakes and sloughs within the Susitna and Yentna that are now overrun by pike, that used to host returns in the tens or hundreds of thousands of sockeye annually, but now produce very few to zero sockeye annually. Fish and game completely failed the mandates within the stock of concern statutes, that require a plan with management actions designed to return a harvestable surplus to the fishery. Run strength overall is still less than half the historic return, with many sub runs within the overall return either completely or nearly gone. I do not see the justification to removing this stock. If anything, it should have been moved to a more serious concern status, rather than removed or left in the least serious status.
    On the flip side, actions taken which will lessen the take of Susitna fish by Kodiak and Cook Inlet commercial fishermen should have a big positive impact on this (former) stock of concern.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishNphysician
    replied
    Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Sad state of affairs indeed.

    And staff is currently pushing REMOVAL of the stock of yield concern for Susitna sockeye at BOF 2020. YGTBFKM, right? Glad to see astute board members asking ***?
    STOCK OF CONCERN? What concern? Evaporated with the stroke of a pen earlier today.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishNphysician
    replied
    Who should shoulder the burden of conservation?

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...na_sockeye.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • fishNphysician
    replied
    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.

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

    And staff is currently pushing REMOVAL of the stock of yield concern for Susitna sockeye at BOF 2020. YGTBFKM, right? Glad to see astute board members asking ***?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tee Jay
    replied
    When the Board of Fish leaves behind a steaming pile of conflicting objectives......

    Dear ADF&G:

    We don't want to annoy the King Fishers so please make lots of them, Oh and while you are making lots of Kings please also make lots of Reds for the dippers. Also. please make sure the Reds escapement is kept within bounds and not too many make it upriver to spawn, we want lots in the future.

    Love
    BOF

    OK, manage to that by implementing the policy, not making policy.

    Oh, the radar shows one thing, the test nets show something quite a bit different, and the set net data is not available due to paired restrictions. Later arriving wier data is even goofier. Guide data is reasonably current, PU, sport, offshore catch data may be available a year from now.

    Go ahead, ADF&G, make any decision on in-season management. You will be called on it no matter the decision, and the BOF skates by with the classic What, Me Worry?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Thanks Fun for the clarification. I was the Research Project Leader not the Area Management Biologist except in 1991 when I filled in for the manager who was sick during the summer. I was just trying to point out that in-season the management biologists around the State, based on their expert knowledge of the area (the reason for Area Management Biologist) and history of Board of Fisheries allocation objectives, make trade-off decisions that have significant allocation implications. Not by choice but by circumstance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Funstastic
    replied
    Bfish, you had me all warm and fuzzy until your last paragraph about Nerka.

    I don't believe Nerka has ever served in a capacity to make policy decisions, especially those with significant allocation implications. He has served in a capacity to support said policy with defendable science. If anything I would say Nerka feels that because of his training, expertise, and knowledge it is his responsibility to see that decisions are science based. Yes, inevitably that science influences policy, and ultimately allocations. BTW, making inseason management decisions which have allocation implications is policy. Managers are tasked with following that policy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfish
    replied
    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    Using 1 lake out of 12 lakes in a river system the size of the Susitna, and not measuring returns or production of slough, stream and mainstem spawning, is equivalent to using the Russian Lake weir to monitor the entire Kenai River sockeye run. Using 2 lakes of 12 in the Yentna is about the same level of sanity. Defend the practice all you want, but thats my opinion and im sticking to it. Far too many spawning grounds are left out. Saying that counting fish in 12 % of 65% of the spawning areas in the system is sufficient is insanity.
    The key is whether the systems that are counted are representative of those that are not.
    If the counted populations are more productive than the uncounted populations, then the uncounted populations are likely being overfished relative to their maximum sustained yield.
    If productivity of the uncounted populations is damaged by pike or habitat problems, then uncounted populations may be overfished to the point of a conservation concern.

    To connect this up to the other discussion on this thread, it may well be appropriate to accept reduced yield from some Susitna sockeye populations as a tradeoff for the economic benefit of greater access to harvestable surpluses of the hugely productive Kenai and Kasilof sockeye.
    It may be inevitable that some populations are so impaired that fishing no longer contributes to their ultimate fate.
    It is also likely that fishery limits will determine the fate of some moderately impaired populations.

    Science identifies these challenges, alternatives and tradeoffs.
    Science does not tell us which alternatives should be chosen.
    Nor does science tell us how costs and benefits of alternatives should be allocated among the various fishery sectors.
    Those are policy choices informed by science but determined by social, economic and political considerations which are under the purview of the Legislature, Governor, Board of Fisheries, and to some degree the ADFG Commissioner.

    Allocation in particular has been specifically delegated in State Statute to the Board of Fisheries.
    It is true that inseason management decisions can have serious allocation implications.
    Management plans provide guidance to managers for fishery implementation consistent with the allocation decisions by the Board implicit in those plans.
    Plans do not cover every circumstance that might arise. In those cases, choices have to be made and the Commissioner has that authority.

    Some fishery managers such as Nerka feel, by virtue of their scientific training, expertise, and knowledge, that it is perfectly appropriate for them to make policy decisions with significant allocation implications.
    However, many people question whether it is objective or appropriate for managers charged with optimizing the success of specific fisheries to be making inseason management decisions with significant allocation benefits for their target stocks and fishery which come at the expense of other stocks and fisheries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    Using 1 lake out of 12 lakes in a river system the size of the Susitna, and not measuring returns or production of slough, stream and mainstem spawning, is equivalent to using the Russian Lake weir to monitor the entire Kenai River sockeye run. Using 2 lakes of 12 in the Yentna is about the same level of sanity. Defend the practice all you want, but thats my opinion and im sticking to it. Far too many spawning grounds are left out. Saying that counting fish in 12 % of 65% of the spawning areas in the system is sufficient is insanity.
    willphish4food, something we can agree on. The Department would like to have more weirs and had a mark/recapture program to evaluate total sockeye spawning numbers. But funds were cut and they were cut despite the points you point out. So get your valley legislators to put the money back in or get the Mat/Su monies from the State to fund these projects. This was not ADF&G choice but forced by budget reductions. This is one area where the valley and kenai can come together. It is in the best interests of all to increase monitoring of escapements into this drainage.

    Leave a comment:

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X