Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kodiak Sockeye Genetics Report

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    Thank you. I think, given the stock of concern status of Susitna sockeye, this information is fairly critical.

    Nerka points out the lost revenue to the commercial industry in Cook Inlet; what about the lost subsistence fish to area residents?
    I was not aware that any "subsistence" fishermen in Cook Inlet were starving. Also, those fish have been swimming by Kodiak for Eons. Kodiak is a subsistence area I believe - much of Cook Inlet is not. Pretty sure folks in Kodiak could claim that they need "our" fish more than many of us do...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
      Sure, attempt to avoid engaging in important management discussion by claiming I'm only concerned with allotment. Management changes affect allotment; so what? Do we quit managing fisheries with conservation goals and concerns in mind, because managing the fishery effects allotment? How ridiculous would that be! Allotments are an integral part of Alaska fisheries management. You can't have one without the other. And with this information that a fishery with no regulatory allotment of cook inlet fish is catching up to a million fish a year from the Cook Inlet, whose sockeye are fully allocated, management of the fishery needs a close assessment.
      Yikes willphish. I wasn't avoiding or claiming anything. Never said a word about quitting conservational management. All I did was ask you a couple questions to better understand the context of your "profound management impact" comment. Allocation (I think what you are calling "allotment") is not a bad or taboo thing to discuss here. As you said, allocations are an integral part of management.

      Take a deep breath.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
        Yikes willphish. I wasn't avoiding or claiming anything. Never said a word about quitting conservational management. All I did was ask you a couple questions to better understand the context of your "profound management impact" comment. Allocation (I think what you are calling "allotment") is not a bad or taboo thing to discuss here. As you said, allocations are an integral part of management.

        Take a deep breath.
        in light of past disparaging remarks toward me, Fun, you got the answer you did. Your question seemed rather condescending and appeared as just another tempt to minimize me by insinuating that all I care about in fisheries is getting fish into my own pocket- i.e, allocation. This has been your modus operandi as far as I can remember, so I responded with that in mind. Its ok to own it.

        To Smith: there is a subsistence fishery for sockeye salmon in Skwentna, and this area's sockeye are listed as a stock of concern. You want to make the claim that Kodiak commercial fishermen have a higher claim to these fish than local subsistence users, go for it. The following is the document describing c and t findings for Skwentna residents, and affirmation of a fish wheel subsistence fishery. file:///C:/Users/Mary/Downloads/uci-subsistence.pdf

        Now it has been brought to light that hundreds of thousands of Cook Inlet bound fish have been intercepted for a number of years and unaccounted for up to now near Kodiak. Given that restrictions to drift gillnet, set gillnet, personal use and sport use of these stocks have been made in the name of conservation, through both temporary emergency orders and long term regulatory changes, to just about every other user of these stocks, and that along with stock of concern status an action plan for recovery is required by law, it makes sense that managers will have to look very closely at this interception fishery and decide whether it is sustainable or not, and also decide whether or not to continue the de facto allocation of a million UCI sockeye to this fishery.

        The shared burden of conservation applies here. Up to now, this fishery has borne none of the burden of conservation of Cook Inlet stocks. In addition, the Magnusen Stevenson act requires that anadromous stocks be managed for sustainability throughout their run, not only at the end point.

        So really, Smith, whatever claims the fishermen prosecuting these fisheries feel they have, must be held up against the statutes, regulations and Acts that govern the fishery. If their claims line up with the regulatory framework, great. Go get em! If their claims are at variance, though, then something needs to change; either the fishery or the regulations which govern the management of mixed, anadromous stocks, both by the State and Federally.

        The state is tasked with managing according to the best science available. Right now, this seems to be the best available science. So the state will have to figure out how to use this information in management.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
          in light of past disparaging remarks toward me, Fun, you got the answer you did. Your question seemed rather condescending and appeared as just another tempt to minimize me by insinuating that all I care about in fisheries is getting fish into my own pocket- i.e, allocation. This has been your modus operandi as far as I can remember, so I responded with that in mind. Its ok to own it.
          Willphish, you more than anyone know I own everything I post. Unfortunately what you said I posted isn't mine. You are simply assigning your own motives to my post, as you apparently lick your wounds from prior discussions.

          Absolutely nothing in my post was "disparaging", "condescending", "minimizing", or personal. Nothing. Read it again... http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...=1#post1575519


          Also, smithtb never claimed Kodiak commercial fishermen have a higher claim to these fish than subsistence users, or that there are no subsistence fisheries in Cook Inlet systems. You simply concocted a straw man argument.

          There is a mountain of studies and reports indicating why Skwentna area sockeye are a stock of concern. Interception is not the problem nor the solution. That system has it's own unique production problems including disease, infections, parasites, beaver dam obstructions, and a healthy population of hungry Pike, to name a few. Regulating the Kodiak sockeye fishery as a way to address the Skwentna's stock of concern status is not reasonable management or good management.

          It is not true to say this fishery has borne none of the burden of conservation of Cook Inlet stocks. Of course it has. The fishery has co-existed with healthy Cook Inlet stocks for many decades, inherently conserving those stocks through strict harvest regulations regarding season, area, timing, gear, etc. After all, historically virtually all Cook Inlet sockeye systems have consistently met or exceeded goals. The mere fact we now have a better understanding of the harvest make-up does not automatically mean that harvest was not being fished conservatively. It just means we didn't know it. Can this new information be used to better manage harvest of Cook Inlet stocks? Sure. Which leads me back to my original question, willphish....what is this "profound management impact" you speak of?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
            Willphish, you more than anyone know I own everything I post. Unfortunately what you said I posted isn't mine. You are simply assigning your own motives to my post, as you apparently lick your wounds from prior discussions.

            Absolutely nothing in my post was "disparaging", "condescending", "minimizing", or personal. Nothing. Read it again... http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...=1#post1575519


            Also, smithtb never claimed Kodiak commercial fishermen have a higher claim to these fish than subsistence users, or that there are no subsistence fisheries in Cook Inlet systems. You simply concocted a straw man argument.

            There is a mountain of studies and reports indicating why Skwentna area sockeye are a stock of concern. Interception is not the problem nor the solution. That system has it's own unique production problems including disease, infections, parasites, beaver dam obstructions, and a healthy population of hungry Pike, to name a few. Regulating the Kodiak sockeye fishery as a way to address the Skwentna's stock of concern status is not reasonable management or good management.

            It is not true to say this fishery has borne none of the burden of conservation of Cook Inlet stocks. Of course it has. The fishery has co-existed with healthy Cook Inlet stocks for many decades, inherently conserving those stocks through strict harvest regulations regarding season, area, timing, gear, etc. After all, historically virtually all Cook Inlet sockeye systems have consistently met or exceeded goals. The mere fact we now have a better understanding of the harvest make-up does not automatically mean that harvest was not being fished conservatively. It just means we didn't know it. Can this new information be used to better manage harvest of Cook Inlet stocks? Sure. Which leads me back to my original question, willphish....what is this "profound management impact" you speak of?
            Fun, I have watched this issue for a long time and your comment about how Kodiak fished conservatively is questionable to me. First in the 60's and 70's UCI returns were so poor that going out into the Strait to catch UCI sockeye was not worth it. As pink and chum salmon populations increased in the Kodiak area the fishery started to move out of the Bays (for quality reasons) to the capes. That coincided with increasing sockeye returns to UCI and fisherman saw an opportunity to move off the capes and start targeting UCI sockeye. This came to a head in the late 80's with the large UCI returns and it was obvious to everyone that this was happening. It was a new and developing fishery. UCI fisherman made an issue of it and there were some management plans written to reduce the cape fishery is some very local area. Certainly not the whole island. The Board position then was that this should not be happening. Over the last two decades the fleet and the managers have altered fishing patterns that intercept more fish than the 60's and 70's which was the traditional fishing pattern. That is a fact and managers knew it based on average size of the fish caught in July and early August. Also, some systems on Kodiak would have to have return per spawner ratios that are not realistic if the harvest was mostly local stocks. To claim we are just finding this out is not true. What is true we are able to quantify it to a more precise level.

            The Board will have to deal with this and I am betting status quo will not last but few changes if any will be made at this Board meeting. The mixed stock fishery policy will come into play at some point along with all the allocation issues. I have said it before there are both allocation and biological issues involved. It is not just allocation. Claiming escapement goals are met for Kenai and Kasilof and things are thus fine is not a valid argument. There are other biological ramifications of this level of interception as I have pointed out. Not saying this will fix Susitna as we are on the same page there relative to in-river issues.

            Comment


            • #66
              sacrificing local runs to promote interception

              I payed the $35 fee so I could leave a comment here with some information from a different perspective. I'm a commercial fisherman in the Alitak district on Kodiak Island. We've had our lively hoods destroyed by the management of our sockeye systems. The Olga Bay section has four natural sockeye systems of varying strengths including Upper Station which used to be the second largest and Akalura which used to be the fourth. You also have the man made Frazer system which was once the most successful sockeye enhancement projects in the world. What was once a vibrant and prosperous fishery has some of the lowest ex-vessel values in the entire state. Pretty much people don't make enough money to pay expenses. This is all due to the way the board of fish and the local ADF&G fin fish department has managed the Kodiak area the last twenty years. They have prompted a very aggressive cape fishery for a seine fleet that continues to become more and more efficient, this has been done at the expense of the local sockeye stocks. If you read through the state of Alaska's sustainability policy it clearly states the importance of protecting migratory pathways. They as the state of Alaska, and the Kodiak Fin Fish department have known about the migratory pathways around Kodiak since the 1920's, yet have never addressed the problem only added too it. You know the length of a Kodiak seine was increased 100 fathoms or 600ft to a total of 300 fathoms of 900ft within the last twenty years. When the fishing is good up to four boats can stack out from one another off a cape forming a barrier 1200 fathoms or 7200 feet, almost a mile and a half. You add the increase in horse power for boats as well as the seine skiffs, along with massive upgrades to hydraulics, and seine web made out of spectra a extremely strong fiber that allows boats with upgraded hydraulics to pull massive bags of fish over the side without having to slow down. Heck you even have the really successful boats using airplanes to spot schools of fish. At what point does the state need to step in and make changes to the Kodiak management plan. I'm including some graphs that help illustrate the issues. All the data comes from the local ADF&G. The Alitak fisherman will be meeting in kodiak starting on Monday. We are hoping to try and help make changes to the management plan that will allow for much more diversity in natural salmon socks. The current mono culture of Karluk as the only viable natural stock simply goes against everything the State of Alaska stands for in the sustainability policy. I haven't even touched on what the local aquaculture has been allowed to do. All the Saltery fish are really from enhancement projects done through the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture. If you are coming to Kodiak for the board of fish or have any questions please contact me. Thanks

              Purse Seine Average Horse Power.pdf
              Alitak Setnet Harvest Loss Decline.pdf
              Last edited by alitakfisherman; 01-06-2017, 14:36. Reason: bad link

              Comment


              • #67
                A couple more attachments that show whats happened to the escapement over time to the sockeye at Upper Station and Frazer Lake.
                Late Upperstation Escapement LOSS.pdf Late run Upper Station
                Frazer Lake Escapment.pdf

                Comment


                • #68
                  OOOOH... the plot thickens!

                  It usually does when you start to dig deeper into mixed-stock intercept fisheries.
                  "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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                    Fun...your comment about how Kodiak fished conservatively is questionable to me.
                    I never made that comment.

                    Willphish erroneously stated this fishery has never borne the burden of conservation on Cook Inlet stocks. I said that is not true because the fishery, which we now know is made up of significant numbers of Cook Inlet sockeye, has inherently conserved those stocks through the fishery's own restrictions - season, area, timing, gear, etc. If you want to argue conservation was not occurring at the level you would like, or directly, or that we could do a better job, then that is a different discussion - keeping in mind this fishery has co-existed with sustained and healthy UCI stocks for quite some time now.

                    Obviously the new information brings to light some biological issues like forecasts, brood tables, spawner-return rates, etc. and overall how the stocks will be managed to goals - perhaps new goals. However, that does not mean the sky is falling, In fact on-going management changes based on the best information available is how fisheries management is designed to work. The issue to me is not that Kodiak fisheries are catching UCI sockeye - of course they are. The issue to me is the impact on UCI stocks - stocks that give every consistent indication they are healthy and can co-exist with this fishery. The big issue will be allocation. With UCI goals being met or exceeded, the sockeye forgone in the Kodiak fishery will just be harvested in Cook Inlet. Either that or we will exceed goals (miss goals) more than we already are.

                    I hope the BOF will use the latest information to balance allocation of these sockeye between Cook Inlet and Kodiak, while ensuring Cook Inlet stocks remain healthy.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by alitakfisherman View Post
                      A couple more attachments that show whats happened to the escapement over time to the sockeye at Upper Station and Frazer Lake.
                      [ATTACH]91713[/ATTACH] Late run Upper Station
                      [ATTACH]91714[/ATTACH]
                      AlitakF - Welcome to the Fish Mgt forum, and this BB! Your input and thoughtful post are most welcome. Your historical perspective is great to hear. It's always great to hear from the folks who are actually and directly affected by the decisions made by ADF&G and BoF. There are other folks on this BB that fall into that category. I'm not one of them but I appreciate their input and perspective (even though I'm located a 1000 miles away).

                      A word of caution - Be sure to have a thick skin. This forum can get rough at times. If you're here often enough, you'll learn who has the strong opinions, and who is quick to challenge almost everything that gets posted. But stay with us. Their bark is work than their byte……

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I need to check this out but have it on good authority that the southeast of Kodiak was not sampled and in some years the sockeye catch can be 500,000 but the streams in that area only have escapement goals of 30,000 or so. If that is the case then the interception rate could be more significant than thought. The onion is being peeled on this and it should get interesting.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          More Data from Kodiak

                          Cohoangler - Thanks for the heads up on the comments but at this point I really have nothing left to lose. Also I encourage people to question the data because that means people are talking about it. Most of the data has been around a long time. Here's a little more on what has be sacrificed at Upper Station, a natural run that dates back 7,000. It's become very clear to the fisherman in Alitak that the warning signs simply fall on deaf ears here on the island. We're hoping to start making people outside of Kodiak aware of the situation because we feel it has gotten out of hand. The memorandum comes from Heather Finked and Marry Beth Lowen in 2013 and it very well done.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2017-01-07 at 8.55.57 AM.png
Views:	1
Size:	127.6 KB
ID:	2497299

                          Nerka- The east side of Kodiak was not sampled with the excuse of budget constraints. Every fisherman and including the ADF&G manager know most of the fish on the eastside are attributed to cook-inlet sockeye. I feel it was intended to help protect a select user group, the seine fleet as the entire eastside of the island is exclusive seine only area. At this point no one knows what stocks make up the catch. It also makes you wonder why the local ADF&G allows the local hatchery on Afognak not to mark their fish.

                          Here is a quote from the same memorandum. It's a perfect example of ADF&G and the State having information on migratory pathways in the 1980's.

                          "TAGGING AND GENETICS SAMPLING
                          Tagging studies to determine run timing and catch proportions of Upper Station sockeye salmonhave been conducted since the late 1950s (Appendix D). The most recent work on stockseparation is a 1981 tagging study, summarized by Tyler et al. (1986). The 1981 study is of particular interest to Alitak Bay fishermen because 57% of the released tagged fish wererecovered in Olga Bay. It should be noted that in 1981, the Karluk sockeye salmon escapementwas low (222,206 fish for the early- and late-run combined) while the Frazer escapement wasvery high (377,716 fish).Additionally, the study speculated that there was deliberate under-reporting of tags recovered in the Kodiak seine fishery, while tags recovered in the set gillnetfishery were reported because of the desire of set netters to demonstrate the terminal fisherynature of their harvests."
                          Last edited by alitakfisherman; 01-07-2017, 13:54. Reason: misspelled name

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by alitakfisherman View Post
                            Cohoangler - Thanks for the heads up on the comments but at this point I really have nothing left to lose. Also I encourage people to question the data because that means people are talking about it. Most of the data has been around a long time. Here's a little more on what has be sacrificed at Upper Station, a natural run that dates back 7,000. It's become very clear to the fisherman in Alitak that the warning signs simply fall on deaf ears here on the island. We're hoping to start making people outside of Kodiak aware of the situation because we feel it has gotten out of hand. The memorandum comes from Heather Finked and Marry Beth Lowen in 2013 and it very well done.

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]91725[/ATTACH]

                            Nerka- The east side of Kodiak was not sampled with the excuse of budget constraints. Every fisherman and including the ADF&G manager know most of the fish on the eastside are attributed to cook-inlet sockeye. I feel it was intended to help protect a select user group, the seine fleet as the entire eastside of the island is exclusive seine only area. At this point no one knows what stocks make up the catch. It also makes you wonder why the local ADF&G allows the local hatchery on Afognak not to mark their fish.

                            Here is a quote from the same memorandum. It's a perfect example of ADF&G and the State having information on migratory pathways in the 1980's.

                            "TAGGING AND GENETICS SAMPLING
                            Tagging studies to determine run timing and catch proportions of Upper Station sockeye salmonhave been conducted since the late 1950s (Appendix D). The most recent work on stockseparation is a 1981 tagging study, summarized by Tyler et al. (1986). The 1981 study is of particular interest to Alitak Bay fishermen because 57% of the released tagged fish wererecovered in Olga Bay. It should be noted that in 1981, the Karluk sockeye salmon escapementwas low (222,206 fish for the early- and late-run combined) while the Frazer escapement wasvery high (377,716 fish).Additionally, the study speculated that there was deliberate under-reporting of tags recovered in the Kodiak seine fishery, while tags recovered in the set gillnetfishery were reported because of the desire of set netters to demonstrate the terminal fisherynature of their harvests."
                            Thank you for this insight. It is particularly amusing that the Department of Fish and Game in 1981 was questioning the accuracy of reporting by fishermen in certain fisheries. Seems like some things never change.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
                              I'm curious what "profound management impact" you are referring to?

                              UCI sockeye stocks are very healthy, particularly 2014-2016 (this study), with all UCI enumeration sites either meeting or exceeding in-river goals. The only exception are a few streams documented with their own unique production problems. Also, while the new data does help us understand impacts on UCI sockeye, it is also very inconsistent with wide fluctuations, and it lacks genetic specificity within UCI.

                              I can only assume you are referring to a profound management impact in regards to allocation?
                              I can't let this go. "The Yentna River sonar goal was replaced in 2009 with sustainable escapement goals(SEGs) monitored by weirs on three lake systems within the Susitna River (Judd and Chelatna Lakesin the Yentna River drainage and Larson Lake in the mainstem Susitna River drainage)." 2014- Larson Lake: escapement. 12,040 Seg Range: 15,000-50,000Chelatna Lake:escapement- 26,212 Seg Range 20,000-65,000Judd Lake: 22,416 25,000-55,000
                              2015: Judd and Larson fall within goal, Chelatna slightly exceeds goal
                              2016: Judd, after failing to meet minimum goal in 4 out of 7 years in use, is dropped due to "budget constraints." Of the remaining two weirs, one is within goal, Chelatna, and Larson fails to meet goal.

                              These are not just "a few streams documented with their own unique production problems." These are the index used to gauge the run for the entire Susitna and Yenta drainages.

                              How you can claim that when 2 of the 3 index systems fail to meet the minimum SEG, and the 3rd falls just inside the range, (2014)that "all UCI enumeration sites are meeting or exceeding goals (2014-2016)," is... I cannot find the words. Or respectfully choose not to use them.

                              Keeping the discussion to factual issues; here's the facts. Susitna sockeye are still listed as a stock of yield concern, with no recommendation from the department to change. A study has just been released showing heretofore unenumerated interception of UCI sockeye, including Susitna stock, off Kodiak Island, to be much higher than previously thought.
                              With this knowledge now available, managers need to take a close look at this fishery. Is its interception of Susitna stock sustainable or not? As this stock is in SOC status, Its important to know whether this interception is affecting its recovery or not.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Problem?

                                What problem?

                                "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