Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kodiak Sockeye Genetics Report

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

  • #76
    An article about WA salmon.

    http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/ne...ecovery-goals/

    Comment


    • #77
      Any word on what transpired at the Kodiak Board of Fish meeting regarding the information from the genertic study that started this thread? Was anything passed by the board? Management stay the same? Or? Any info would be appreciated.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
        I can't let this go...
        I almost missed this…

        Willphish, using enumerations at Judd, Chelatna, and Larson to indicate the health of UCI sockeye is a very myopic, half-baked approach. Those were the exact “exceptions” I was referring to. As a disclosure, I did extensive fisheries work on each of those streams/lakes dating back about four decades when their problems were in their infancy. So I know them very well.

        First, even when meeting all their goals (25K, 20K, 15K respectively), those streams combined represent only 1-2% of UCI sockeye.

        Second, there is a reason those streams have a wide goal range 3-4 times their minimum. Their returns fluctuate dramatically, inconsistently, and unpredictably - sometimes without any association to the other 99% of UCI sockeye, or even the total Susitna return itself. It is not uncommon to see poor returns to Judd, Chelatna, and Larson, yet see very healthy returns to the rest of UCI, including other nearby Northern District systems. Enumerations at these plagued streams almost never indicate the health of UCI sockeye. At best they represent the health of their own unique stream/lake system.

        Which brings me to the next point. During the 2014-16 period you are referring, the Chelatna not only met minimum escapement every year, but exceeded upper end of goals two of the three years (weir was pulled early in 2016 at 61K sockeye due to flooding - ADFG states in publication that “upper end of goal was likely exceeded”). The Judd was dropped for 2016, but easily met goals in 2015 and only missed by 10% in 2014. The Larson missed in 2016 by only 4.5% (some say because the confluence was over fished), easily met in 2015, and missed in 2014 by 19%.

        So if you want to use the plagued Judd and Larson enumerations in 2014 as your gauge of UCI sockeye stocks then, you sir, either do not understand UCI fisheries, or do not care to be honest. 2014 brought 5.33M sockeye to UCI with all enumerations either meeting or exceeding goals except…drum roll…Larson and Judd. You’re talking only 5,544 sockeye! So in a healthy run of 5.33M UCI sockeye, you want to use 0.1% of those fish as enumerators for UCI, and subject those healthy 5.33M until that .1% unhealthy is satisfied, if ever. No wonder you “cannot find the words.” The truth is, these streams are about the worst enumerators of UCI sockeye returns we have – exactly why I called them “exceptions”.

        Third, and probably most importantly, each of those streams is well documented for having their own unique production problems – disease, infection, parasites, habitat loss, ATV abuse, beaver blockage, pike and bear predation, floods, and so on. There is a mountain of studies, reports, projects, and findings regarding each. While all streams in UCI have their own unique issues, these particular ones stand out among the most problematic and unpredictable, and the reasons why are well-established and published. Which is exactly why they have been at the center of special attention and special projects for decades.

        Fourth, yes, because of these troubled streams, which at one time made up the majority of the Susitna/Yentna run, the system has been classified as a “stock of yield concern”. This does not mean endangered, it is not a conservation concern, or even a management concern. A yield concern is the least severe concern that can be issued. It means the stock has an inability to maintain yields or surpluses above its escapement needs. Now I am not downplaying a stock with a concern, but this one should be no surprise, as it’s own problems stick out like a sore thumb in a remaining UCI with very healthy returns.

        Finally, and as others have already pointed out to you, nothing in the Kodiak report says anything about the harvest of Susitna sockeye. It just mentions "Cook Inlet" stocks as a whole. So without any clue as to how many Susitna sockeye might be getting harvested, if any, you have decided to take it upon yourself, as usual, to make assumptions and jump to conclusions. You go so far as to actually make a statement that interception of Susitna sockeye is much higher than we thought. Huh? The report says nothing about Susitna sockeye.This leads me to question your motives willphish - it’s as if you’ve already made up your mind that the Kodiak fishery is the reason for your poor returns to Judd, Chelatna, and Larson. We’ve seen you do this time and time again with just about any issue that is in any way related to those sockeye. Reminds me of those health insurance subrogators who are always assuming another party is responsible for your injury, so they don’t have to pay.

        Yes, with better data in hand we do need to know it’s effects on the Susitna runs. It may change the production tables, goals, and other aspects of those plagued streams. But it will not solve their problems or remove their yield concern status, and instead only become your latest scapegoat. Even if we look at how many Cook Inlet sockeye were being harvested in Kodiak 2014-16, and were to make an assumption of how many of those were Susitna fish, and then another assumption of how many of those were from Judd, Chelatna, and Larson, I fail to see where the numbers add up to any direct cause or solution to the Susitna sockeye situation. But you are welcome to show otherwise.

        Comment


        • #79
          Anyone heard if there have been any changes to Kodiak management this year as a result of this report? The question was posed to ADFG recently by a friend and the response was less than encouraging. Doesn't sound like there has been much interaction between Kodiak and Cook Inlet management teams.

          Comment


          • #80
            with that low return forecast for cook inlet I would think f&g would show some concern to pass more CI fish. From what i hear the kodiak guys knew they were catching CI fish and didn't want that genetic data to prove it.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by yukon View Post
              with that low return forecast for cook inlet I would think f&g would show some concern to pass more CI fish. From what i hear the kodiak guys knew they were catching CI fish and didn't want that genetic data to prove it.
              Yeah - I highly doubt the fishermen care where the fish are headed. I don't blame them. ADFG could take a few steps to mitigate interception, IMO, rather than putting it all on the BOF to figure out. They could also continue sampling the catch. Maybe those things are happening, but yesterday's conversation with ADFG made me wonder.

              Comment


              • #82
                As is often said, "mixed stock" fishery. You know better than i, but from what i hear they can move those kodiak guys off the points and capes and have less interception. Be tough for the CI guys to get restriction and sit on the beach in low run years while their fish were caught in kodiak.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
                  Human kind has become incredibly efficient at exploiting the ocean's bounty.

                  Somehow...

                  Somewhere...

                  Someone....

                  .... is gettin' low holed.
                  http://kmxt.org/2020/01/breaking-boa...-in-two-areas/
                  "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


                  • #84
                    "And it’s absurd to place the burden three or 400 miles away from the Susitna River on Kodiak fishermen by closing the Mainland Area. It’s likely that because their inability or their unwillingness to accommodate the geography and the Katmai Alinchak Section that most of those chums and pinks will not go harvest it. So it’s a waste of public resource because of their failure to understand or appreciate the geography and their unwillingness to take that into account for these management places."

                    Actually, that is the essence of good management: taking into account the effect of a fishery on all stocks within that fishery. The management of the past, which said we only need to worry about and manage salmon once they get into or near the streams they spawn in, does not work. We have the technology to better analyze any fishery; we just need to pop our heads out of the sand and use the tec. Also, the Magnuson Stevens act requires managers to look at returns throughout their range, not just at the end point of their returns. This person quoted in the article "
                    http://kmxt.org/2020/01/breaking-boa...-in-two-areas/" was completely wrong in his assertion.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      How many Susitna-bound sockeye are caught in the Alinchak fishery?

                      How many will the Susitna see if that fishery is closed, and how many of those will be bound for streams of concern within the Susitna drainage?

                      Will UCI commercial fisheries be harvesting this increased number of sockeye now entering the UCI? Will Susitna-bound sockeye be among those?

                      How will the other stocks previously harvested in this fishery now be harvested? How will already healthy systems already meeting their goals be effected by this influx of fish?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
                        How many Susitna-bound sockeye are caught in the Alinchak fishery?

                        How many will the Susitna see if that fishery is closed, and how many of those will be bound for streams of concern within the Susitna drainage?

                        Will UCI commercial fisheries be harvesting this increased number of sockeye now entering the UCI? Will Susitna-bound sockeye be among those?

                        How will the other stocks previously harvested in this fishery now be harvested? How will already healthy systems already meeting their goals be effected by this influx of fish?
                        Fun - Welcome back! Nice to know you're still with us..... I was gettin' worried. This place isn't the same without you.

                        Those are really good questions. And unfortunately, having the answers is an unusual luxury when making fish management decisions in real-time. Indeed, if we had the answers, fish management would be child's play. But we don't, so it's hard. Really hard. Particularly when the decisions effect lots of folks in varying parts of the Great Land - from Kodiak to the Mat-Su Valley, and everywhere in between.

                        Comment

                        Footer Adsense

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X