Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kodiak Sockeye Genetics Report

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

  • Kodiak Sockeye Genetics Report

    This is interesting. I wonder if it will effect management and also if this level of interception (which seems to vary widely) was factored into 2015-2016 forecasts? If my math is right and the % holds steady throughout the entire KMA harvest, that's ~500K UCI sockeye in 2016 and 900K in 2015?

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMS16-10.pdf
    Estimates for KMA
    Results from all spatiotemporalstrata for each year were combined to estimate total KMA stock composition andstock-specific harvest summaries from June 1 through August 29 for sampledareas. While these estimates represent the major sockeye harvest in KMA duringperiods of active sockeye and pink salmon management, they do not includeharvest after August 29 or spatial areas outside of the sampling plan, such asEastside Kodiak District, Afognak District, Mainland District (North of CapeIgvak Section), Alitak District gillnet areas (Alitak Bay, Moser Bay and OlgaBay sections), 5 SHAs, and 1 THA (Foster and Dann 2014a; Foster and Dann 2015).
    In 2014, the total KMAharvest in fisheries that were sampled was 1,523,042 sockeye salmon,representing 46.7% of the total KMA sockeye salmon harvest for 2014 (Jackson2014). Of this sampled sockeye salmon harvest, 87.9% was attributed to theKodiak regional reporting group and 7.5% was attributed to the Cook Inletreporting group (Table 67; Figure 20). The most prominent Kodiaksubregional reporting groups were Karluk (32.4%), Ayakulik/Frazer (26.0%), andSaltery (20.1%). The Kodiak regional reporting group harvest was 1,339,346 fish(493,692 Karluk group fish, 396,083 Ayakulik/Frazer group fish, and 305,476Saltery group fish) and the Cook Inlet group was 113,972 fish (Table 67;Figures 21 and 22).

    In 2015, the total KMAharvest in fisheries that were sampled was 1,709,784 sockeye salmon,representing 55.2% of the total KMA sockeye salmon harvest for 2015 (Jackson 2015).Of this sampled sockeye salmon harvest, 57.9% was attributed to the Kodiakregional reporting group and 36.6% was attributed to the Cook Inletreporting group (Table 68; Figure 20). The most prominent Kodiaksubregional reporting groups were Ayakulik/Frazer (19.3%), Saltery (17.4%), andKarluk (14.7%). The Kodiak regional reporting group harvest was 990,025 fish(329,848 Ayakulik/Frazer group fish, 297,204 Saltery group fish, and 252,170Karluk group fish) and the Cook Inlet group was 626,472 fish (Table 68; Figures21 and 23).

    In 2016, the total KMAharvest in fisheries that were sampled was 1,296,193 sockeye salmon,representing 62.4% of the total KMA sockeye salmon harvest for 2016 (Jackson2016). Of this sampled sockeye salmon harvest, 57.8% was attributed to theKodiak regional reporting group, 29.6% was attributed to the Cook Inletreporting group, and 9.8% was attributed to the Chignik regional reportinggroup (Table 69; Figure 20). The most prominent Kodiak subregional reportinggroups were Karluk (25.4%), Saltery (13.6%), Ayakulik/Frazer (8.2%), and Uganik(7.4%). The Chignik subregional reporting groups consisted of 8.6% Black Lakefish and 1.2% Chignik Lake fish. The Kodiak regional reporting group harvestwas 749,249 fish (328,862 Karluk group fish, 175,968 Saltery group fish,106,364 Ayakulik/Frazer group fish, and 96,205 Uganik group fish), the CookInlet group was 384,089 fish, and the Chignik regional reporting group harvestwas 127,576 fish (112,103 Black Lake group fish and 15,267 Chignik Lake groupfish; Table 69; Figures 21 and 24).

  • #2
    I did a quick read through last night and, yes, there is some interesting stuff in there. However, I would guess the sampled fisheries would constitute the majority of the CI reporting group harvest that occurred in the KMA and that one should be very careful about applying percentages across areas and temporal strata not sampled. For example, significant late harvests after August 29, or harvest out of the Telrod Cove special harvest area would likely have little CI harvest yet may contribute significantly to total sockeye harvests. That said, I suppose there's more there for an allocation food fight at some point down the road. I found the results of the Cape Igvak catch sampling particularly interesting in light of the current allocation plan with Chignik.

    Comment


    • #3
      Heck, Cook Inlet is a non-local stock and 600,000 sockeye in 2015 is only 10% of the total return so what is the problem. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. :topjob:

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by FrozenNorth View Post
        I did a quick read through last night and, yes, there is some interesting stuff in there. However, I would guess the sampled fisheries would constitute the majority of the CI reporting group harvest that occurred in the KMA and that one should be very careful about applying percentages across areas and temporal strata not sampled. For example, significant late harvests after August 29, or harvest out of the Telrod Cove special harvest area would likely have little CI harvest yet may contribute significantly to total sockeye harvests. That said, I suppose there's more there for an allocation food fight at some point down the road. I found the results of the Cape Igvak catch sampling particularly interesting in light of the current allocation plan with Chignik.
        Understood. Perhaps it was reckless of me to apply that % to the entire harvest, although I've heard (anecdotally) that many think UCI sockeye travel up both sides of the island. I have no knowledge of these fisheries.

        To Nerka's point and in general I would also add that not naming this thread "They're catching OUR fish!!!" was my conscious effort to muffle my cynicism towards what seems a common theme these days. I'm not surprised or appalled by this genetics report, but I would love to know if it is an increasing trend, or has been historically consistently high, low, or widely variable like the last few years, but perhaps there is no way of knowing. Also curious why specific streams of origin were not identified - is this more costly than simply identifying region?

        Comment


        • #5
          Human kind has become incredibly efficient at exploiting the ocean's bounty.

          Somehow...

          Somewhere...

          Someone....

          .... is gettin' low holed.
          "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
          sigpic
          The KeenEye MD

          Comment


          • #6
            Just to put this in perspective. Kodiak has been intercepting UCI sockeye for decades. Whether this is acceptable or not depends on a number of issues. First, allocation. If the interception rate is increasing or new fisheries are developing the Board of Fish will have to decide whether this is what is in the best interests of the State. But more importantly to a manager is undocumented harvest and what that does to brood tables and perceptions of what is happening to various sockeye stocks. Susitna is a stock of concern and significant actions have been taken in the UCI fisheries to deal with that situation. Kodiak has been exempt from the level of action taken in UCI. Brood tables are the basis of goals for sockeye so again if the fisheries are increasing their take then the brood tables are compromised.

            This is exactly why I do not favor intercept fisheries that are not documented or reported to all parties in the decision making process. The Board will go to Kodiak and deal with this in a local area with the politics of that area. It will not include UCI to the degree a statewide meeting on intercept fisheries would have. The mixed stock fishery policy should apply here but again local decision mask the bigger picture. Also the late release of these data was after the proposal submittal deadline so there may not be proposals to deal with this issue. Why ADF&G could not release the data from 2014 and 2015 sooner needs an explanation. Maybe they just ran the samples together after 2016 but this pattern of late data release just before a Board meeting needs to stop as the public is being denied information to submit proposals and understand the ramifications of what that data means.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yup
              They catch em but who counts em. I have wondered for years how those fish are counted in the sub sockeye management districts of Kodiak where they are Caught. Does this affect the return per spawner ratios that are used for escapements If they have been tallied as local origin?

              Comment


              • #8
                Looking at the report the Kodiak staff is going to have a hard time on this one. For example near Black River the catch of UCI sockeye exceeded the local stock by a large margin. In SW Kodiak 244,000 sockeye headed for UCI were taken where there is an inshore fishery but it appears the fishery takes place on the capes to the north where interception is known. Also, no sampling was done in known interception areas where there are already management plans with caps but the fishery has been allowed to operate legally just inside the capes. Given large areas of the mainland and Kodiak were not sampled the actual interception is going to be much higher than reported. Given over 600,000 were taken in 2015 it is possible the actual harvest could approach 800,000 or more.

                Given the Susitna River sockeye have limited the drift fleet this level of interception could be costing UCI fisherman millions of dollars. Not only the cost of the sockeye harvested in Kodiak but the lost harvest in UCI.

                Also, these fish are being allocated to some river production in Kodiak and that could skew the whole production curves for these systems and escapement goals.

                Given no proposals are in to address this issue the Department needs to explain why the data are just coming out. The only option I see to deal with this is a petition to the Board. Wonder who will put it in?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not sure anyone is getting low holed, in this case. Last I knew, Kodiak remains within the State of Alaska. So they fall under the jurisdiction of ADF&G and BoF. These folks can determine when and where those sockeye get harvested; and by whom.

                  In my book, it ain't low holin' if the fish aren't crossing jurisdictional lines. In this case, it's all within the State of Alaska. So it's a trade-off between two (or more), equally important groups of Alaskans. BoF is the entity charged with deciding which group gets to harvest those fish. Presumably they will do so with an understanding of how their decisions effect folks on the KP, or on the Mat-Su, or wherever.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cohoangler View Post
                    I'm not sure anyone is getting low holed, in this case. Last I knew, Kodiak remains within the State of Alaska. So they fall under the jurisdiction of ADF&G and BoF. These folks can determine when and where those sockeye get harvested; and by whom.

                    In my book, it ain't low holin' if the fish aren't crossing jurisdictional lines. In this case, it's all within the State of Alaska. So it's a trade-off between two (or more), equally important groups of Alaskans. BoF is the entity charged with deciding which group gets to harvest those fish. Presumably they will do so with an understanding of how their decisions effect folks on the KP, or on the Mat-Su, or wherever.
                    Correct cohoangler but again state management districts lines are crossed so in a practical sense someone wins and others lose. It is just a bad idea to have these fisheries not being monitored and allowed to take place without oversight by ADF&G or the BOF. I pointed out the Board has no way to deal with this at their Kodiak meeting and are prohibited from dealing with this at the UCI meeting. A petition has to be put in to start a process and the requirements for a petition are tough because this crosses two management units. So not as clear as you think.

                    Also, there is a precedent for taking action. A tagging study in the 80's showed that UCI sockeye were taken off Kyak Island in PWS. The Board shut that fishery down as it was not taking local stocks. They did it at a meeting on Cooper River but the data was out before that meeting. In this case the data is out after the proposal deadline and just before the meeting.

                    This data should have been known to the staff so I wonder if the escapement goal review committee factored this in or just ignored it. Lots of questions here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There is more to it than low holing. In order make informed decisions the BOF needs to be given the information and where there are stocks that are falling or stocks of concern, a more precise determination of the origin of these CI salmon that are caught in Kodiak. Reportedly, CI Chinook stocks have been harvested in large numbers in Kodiak waters but little has been done to lay off them and allow their passage. If indeed that has been occurring then considering the low abundance of Chinook in some UCI waters, this low holing has biological concerns that should be examined.
                      The Dept did a comprehensive DNA study on stocks of origin on the west side a few years back. Perhaps it picked up some data from these studies that might help identify origin of the Kodiak salmon being harvested. If funds were available a more thorough study should be considered to identify discreet stocks. It might be very challenging to protect them from harvest, however.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by onthego View Post
                        There is more to it than low holing. In order make informed decisions the BOF needs to be given the information and where there are stocks that are falling or stocks of concern, a more precise determination of the origin of these CI salmon that are caught in Kodiak. Reportedly, CI Chinook stocks have been harvested in large numbers in Kodiak waters but little has been done to lay off them and allow their passage. If indeed that has been occurring then considering the low abundance of Chinook in some UCI waters, this low holing has biological concerns that should be examined.
                        The Dept did a comprehensive DNA study on stocks of origin on the west side a few years back. Perhaps it picked up some data from these studies that might help identify origin of the Kodiak salmon being harvested. If funds were available a more thorough study should be considered to identify discreet stocks. It might be very challenging to protect them from harvest, however.
                        Alaska is just beginning to get a taste of marine mixed stock interceptions. Its a decades old problem here in the PNW where Canada and Alaska take significant chunks of the ocean harvest before a single fish makes it back to its river of origin.

                        This is what it looks like for tule kings...




                        And this is what it looks like for our prized Columbia URB's (up-river brights)....
                        "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
                        sigpic
                        The KeenEye MD

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
                          Alaska is just beginning to get a taste of marine mixed stock interceptions. Its a decades old problem here in the PNW where Canada and Alaska take significant chunks of the ocean harvest before a single fish makes it back to its river of origin.
                          Not true. Alaska has a monumental, age-old history of mixed-stock interception from Russian, Japan, Korea, and others, dating back long before Statehood. Not just on a national scale like you are talking, but internationally. In fact due to this interception issue, and its once declining stocks, Alaska became the grass-roots leader in interception management via the MSFCSA, NPMFC, INPFC, NMFS, and NPAFC.

                          Doc, understand virtually all marine salmon fisheries take place on mixed-stocks. That's a simple fact - salmon enter the vast ocean where fishing takes place. That does not automatically make mixed stock marine fisheries a "problem", as some here like you portray. Mixed-stock interception fisheries can and do occur sustainably. And the good news is that being "mixed" means that the impact to any one system or stock is very small, as the fishery may be made up of migrating salmon from hundreds of systems around the world.

                          Clearly your concern stems from allocation - who gets to catch these salmon where. Because if a salmon making it back to its river of origin was your real concern, you would not be targeting them in WA marine fisheries. You would be discussing the more tangible problems facing your returns, like hydroelectric dams, habitat loss, pollution, disease, poor production, and overfishing, to name a few.

                          I'm ok with Kodiak intercepting Cook Inlet sockeye if Cook Inlet systems can be sustained. And with the exception of a few systems with their own unique production problems, Cook Inlet sockeye stocks are healthy, and in fact frequently supply surpluses.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by onthego View Post
                            Reportedly, CI Chinook stocks have been harvested in large numbers in Kodiak waters but little has been done to lay off them and allow their passage. If indeed that has been occurring then considering the low abundance of Chinook in some UCI waters, this low holing has biological concerns that should be examined.
                            This nearby interception of "large numbers" of UCI kings has been alleged on these boards for at least the past 15 years, but no one has ever produced a link to an ADFG document to show the stock composition of the Kodiak chinook catch... by CWT, GSI or otherwise. Is it a case of they don't know, or is it simply they don't care. You have anything new to offer, onthego? Anyone?
                            "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
                            sigpic
                            The KeenEye MD

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              OK... they must care

                              Did quick google search " ADFG Kodiak chinook harvest stock composition"

                              Saw this for the comm side...
                              http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAi...4K.2015.17.pdf

                              And this for the rec side....
                              http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAi...2A.2014.18.pdf

                              Each document outlines their procedure/methods/means for doing the assessment, but neither paper shows actual results. Hopefully there's enough in the agency's budget to keep these studies going.
                              "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
                              sigpic
                              The KeenEye MD

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X