Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cook Inlet Chinook collapse.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    The propensity to blame it on narrow spectrums is something I firmly believe in avoiding.
    While some interferences will obviously carry more far more weight in the end, that does not mean it won't ultimately take action on uncounted others to be successful for sustainability. Ocean conditions, agreed, a huge concern.

    For heavens sake, I have witnessed returning fish floating dead by the hundreds in a creek because of exceedingly high water temperatures.
    Events like that tend to steer towards a broad view.
    I listed one possible issue that could be causing the low numbers. There are many more that can be considered and probably have an impact (bycatch, illegal fishing, PDO, ocean acidity, the Blob, changes in ocean currents from warming, etc..). I only highlighted the Pink issue because there is a quickly growing agreement among fisheries experts that we cannot dump hundreds of millions of hatchery fish into the ocean without causing some kind of ripple effect. Out of all the possible ocean issues that could be causing a decline in King Salmon, it is the one issue that we can control right here in Alaska. Our own F&G department chose to ignore the possible concerns very recently by authorizing an increase in hatchery pink salmon smolt to be released.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Arcticwildman View Post
      I listed one possible issue that could be causing the low numbers. There are many more that can be considered and probably have an impact (bycatch, illegal fishing, PDO, ocean acidity, the Blob, changes in ocean currents from warming, etc..). I only highlighted the Pink issue because there is a quickly growing agreement among fisheries experts that we cannot dump hundreds of millions of hatchery fish into the ocean without causing some kind of ripple effect. Out of all the possible ocean issues that could be causing a decline in King Salmon, it is the one issue that we can control right here in Alaska. Our own F&G department chose to ignore the possible concerns very recently by authorizing an increase in hatchery pink salmon smolt to be released.
      I am in total agreement with you that there are multiple issues to consider and hope I did not come across contrarily.
      "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
        ........... This thread is not about those issues. This thread is about looking at the bigger picture. Because what we are doing so far has been very ineffective.

        So, now the 'Big Picture' is Smaller by decree ? LOL !

        BTW- 'We' are doing practically nothing in some well documented instances - naturally that translates to 'ineffective'.

        I do agree with you that there is a "crisis" . And, I have stated my opinion that no known contributing 'causes' should be left unattended and 'unknown' ones need ferreted out/resolved as possible.

        "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
          This is exactly what spawned this thread. thank you. And instead of any input from Nerka regarding what can be done about salt water issues, all he can do is a) question whether there really is a problem, and b) insist that more work needs to be done inriver. While offering nothing for identifying and rectifying possible saltwater issues.
          I wish if you claim I said something you would at least get it right. The State has 30 million dollars to spend on marine issues. Nothing close to that for freshwater. So when one says nothing is being done in the marine environment they are wrong. Not sure what Palmer staff is saying but I know they have no data on freshwater production of chinook. No fry or smolt work that would provide data. So the claim by the State that is only marine would be wrong. The Yukon smolt for example are going out stressed and not good condition in some years. That results in lower marine survival but the cause is in freshwater. Nothing is being done in freshwater on the Kenai

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nerka View Post
            I wish if you claim I said something you would at least get it right. The State has 30 million dollars to spend on marine issues. Nothing close to that for freshwater. So when one says nothing is being done in the marine environment they are wrong. Not sure what Palmer staff is saying but I know they have no data on freshwater production of chinook. No fry or smolt work that would provide data. So the claim by the State that is only marine would be wrong. The Yukon smolt for example are going out stressed and not good condition in some years. That results in lower marine survival but the cause is in freshwater. Nothing is being done in freshwater on the Kenai
            And what do you propose to do after you spend millions upon millions and learn that freshwater is getting to warm and marine has changed to not favor king salmon life cycle. Hmmm seems like this is already known. So what if you change the king fishing regulation in the Mat valley? Change the Kenai. Go right ahead change gill neting while you are at it these actions will not change what is happening to king smolt what are they doing on the Yukon probably nothing that will make there condition better and less stressed.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
              And what do you propose to do after you spend millions upon millions and learn that freshwater is getting to warm and marine has changed to not favor king salmon life cycle. Hmmm seems like this is already known. So what if you change the king fishing regulation in the Mat valley? Change the Kenai. Go right ahead change gill neting while you are at it these actions will not change what is happening to king smolt what are they doing on the Yukon probably nothing that will make there condition better and less stressed.
              Kid, depending on species there are a number of things one could do knowing what is limiting freshwater production. For example invasive pike can be eliminated like the State did in Alexander Creek. Beaver dams can be removed like at Shell Lake for sockeye salmon passage. Also controlling spawning levels can impact fry rearing numbers in lake systems like the Kenai River sockeye. Also habitat improvement projects can restore banks that rear chinook increasing the number of smolt and the quality of the smolt. So when you say it is already known you are mistaken.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                Kid, depending on species there are a number of things one could do knowing what is limiting freshwater production. For example invasive pike can be eliminated like the State did in Alexander Creek. Beaver dams can be removed like at Shell Lake for sockeye salmon passage. Also controlling spawning levels can impact fry rearing numbers in lake systems like the Kenai River sockeye. Also habitat improvement projects can restore banks that rear chinook increasing the number of smolt and the quality of the smolt. So when you say it is already known you are mistaken.
                I respectfully disagree. I could go to a has been town in anywhere USA and build a modern textile mill, or a wonderful hotel but both would remain vacant. I believe with the pressure and changes on the ecology of the northern hemisphere it will be different. some changes benefit some things while others will not benefit will be damage. I have talked to so many people about this and found so much to read about it that I beleive people need to start thinking differrently I do not buy the appraoch of pike, dams,temps habitat can solve the problem. There are too many examples where groups, or populations of plants animals insects fish in an area in wilderness settings have declined to small fragment of population size or have gone extinct. The one population you may start hearing more about in worldwide literature is Kodiak island king salmon as those declines are now being viewed as presumed to be permanent by people who watch this on the international level. plus It is known that many streams now exceed what do they call them lethal temperature limits to sustain salmon in some parts of their life cycle in many areas of the state of alaska. pike are not the only invasive. I would urge to be get involved in efforts by groups such as cook inlet keeper and others at both the local and the national level is where most help is needed. killing the pike yeah is great at the local level but pike are really not the whole story that's all they at the state can do plus they keep doing the same thing as you describe above which is understandable because it is what you know but their is more to know and much to do way over what you describe which is really not very cost effective as a whole.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Nerka has offered up some things that can be done. All ideas for action are appreciated, local and global.
                  There are ample clues to a litany of things that can be tried/done from the first post and throughout this thread - and many others in this forum. Sadly, listing them all is usually an invitation to derision in this political climate.

                  Getting a consensus and the gumption/means to act is the hard part.
                  "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
                    I respectfully disagree. I could go to a has been town in anywhere USA and build a modern textile mill, or a wonderful hotel but both would remain vacant. I believe with the pressure and changes on the ecology of the northern hemisphere it will be different. some changes benefit some things while others will not benefit will be damage. I have talked to so many people about this and found so much to read about it that I beleive people need to start thinking differrently I do not buy the appraoch of pike, dams,temps habitat can solve the problem. There are too many examples where groups, or populations of plants animals insects fish in an area in wilderness settings have declined to small fragment of population size or have gone extinct. The one population you may start hearing more about in worldwide literature is Kodiak island king salmon as those declines are now being viewed as presumed to be permanent by people who watch this on the international level. plus It is known that many streams now exceed what do they call them lethal temperature limits to sustain salmon in some parts of their life cycle in many areas of the state of alaska. pike are not the only invasive. I would urge to be get involved in efforts by groups such as cook inlet keeper and others at both the local and the national level is where most help is needed. killing the pike yeah is great at the local level but pike are really not the whole story that's all they at the state can do plus they keep doing the same thing as you describe above which is understandable because it is what you know but their is more to know and much to do way over what you describe which is really not very cost effective as a whole.
                    There are lots of examples of success with animal populations at low levels recovering with habitat changes done through restoration efforts. I believe you need to be more optimistic in UCI. We have had success in what I proposed. Factual examination supports my position

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                      I wish if you claim I said something you would at least get it right. The State has 30 million dollars to spend on marine issues. Nothing close to that for freshwater. So when one says nothing is being done in the marine environment they are wrong. Not sure what Palmer staff is saying but I know they have no data on freshwater production of chinook. No fry or smolt work that would provide data. So the claim by the State that is only marine would be wrong. The Yukon smolt for example are going out stressed and not good condition in some years. That results in lower marine survival but the cause is in freshwater. Nothing is being done in freshwater on the Kenai
                      What do you think the state could do with 30 million dollars in salt water to help Cook Inlet chinook, Nerka?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                        There are lots of examples of success with animal populations at low levels recovering with habitat changes done through restoration efforts. I believe you need to be more optimistic in UCI. We have had success in what I proposed. Factual examination supports my position
                        I can agree about success my problem is I have not seen much to be optimistic about. The pubic voted down habitat protection the fish and game is not doing anything new I have heard of anyway. Seems like action is needed not doing the same old thing. Ok the runs in Susitna is low so close fishing thatÂ’s all there is to do how many more years. the news release for kodiak said one of the rivers had not made the goal since if I remember right 2006. So I can believe in being optimistic but kinda hard to actually be optimistic when all around is not good and read hear stories about the changing environment that is unfriendly to salmon.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
                          What do you think the state could do with 30 million dollars in salt water to help Cook Inlet chinook, Nerka?
                          I am not Nerka, but they could buy out 120 set net permits or 60 drift net boats and permits.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            That would not help, other than make some guys real happy. You know what has changed, but you won't say it. The biggest factors of at sea survival we have no control over. During the greatest runs of Cook Inlet Kings we didn't even have the EEZ. We had trawl vessels from many countries fishing just outside the old 3 mile zone never tossing back anything. They had no bycatch ever they took it all! You want to point at everything other than what you can control as the trouble. When a drift netter catches a king, or a set netter catches a king. KRSA claims it is a monster Kenai King, and the Valley guys know it is one from there. No one wants to be shut down. So maybe the best thing to do is just let everyone fish till there is nothing to fight over. I feel that you would want every other fishing group closed so you could do C&R for thrills.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                              There are lots of examples of success with animal populations at low levels recovering with habitat changes done through restoration efforts. I believe you need to be more optimistic in UCI. We have had success in what I proposed. Factual examination supports my position
                              I sure wish I shared your optimism Nerka. I know it was done in the past for the ND King population in the 70's/80's but it seems like this time there are too many factors to overcome. Almost the perfect storm of circumstances that will resist our best efforts. It is such a shame that an entire generation of Alaskans will never witness what once was a world class fishing experience.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by MGH55 View Post
                                That would not help, other than make some guys real happy. You know what has changed, but you won't say it. The biggest factors of at sea survival we have no control over. During the greatest runs of Cook Inlet Kings we didn't even have the EEZ. We had trawl vessels from many countries fishing just outside the old 3 mile zone never tossing back anything. They had no bycatch ever they took it all! You want to point at everything other than what you can control as the trouble. When a drift netter catches a king, or a set netter catches a king. KRSA claims it is a monster Kenai King, and the Valley guys know it is one from there. No one wants to be shut down. So maybe the best thing to do is just let everyone fish till there is nothing to fight over. I feel that you would want every other fishing group closed so you could do C&R for thrills.
                                In amongst the snark and acrimony, you did give one possible solution. And an allusion to the pink elephant in the room; offshore human interception. At the peak of the bycatch, pollock fishery recorded over 100,000 chinook, with limited tracking of origin, at best. They still catch many thousands a year, again with limited stream of origin data. Considering how many chinook fisheries statewide are currently at a very low level of return, how much of the smaller bycatch number is a result of cleaner fishing, and how much is a result of years of overcatching? My suggestion for saltwater study money is to mandate testing of chinook bycatch in the pollock fishery, to find out what the sustainable number is. As it stands now, this is still the major player in the chinook fishery that is being largely given a free pass. My solution to illegal open sea gillnets is to remove the crew and scuttle ship in place.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X