Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cook Inlet Chinook collapse.

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

  • SmokeRoss
    replied
    I agree they might be enhancing the wrong species of salmon. I remember the days (1980's) when a guy could hook and release 30 Kings on the Kasilof before work in the morning. Kings were bouncing into my legs while I was fishing. Yeah, I'd sure rather catch those over pinks.

    Leave a comment:


  • kidfromgarcia
    replied
    Originally posted by Patsfan54 View Post
    So stocked fish will survive in Alaska as long as we pay these people to tell us they will, and give them a job stocking and studying these fish, all the while climate changes kills all other salmon in Alaska even while natural salmon are returning to rivers in California? Seems like there isn't much science involved in whatever climate predictions or your whatever it is your buddies at UAA are saying. There are more salmon today than there were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 years ago. Global warming is helping salmon numbers grow year in and year out. Certainly there are areas with the typically up and down, but as a whole the salmon numbers are way, way up decade after decade in Alaska and worldwide to boot.

    Hatcheries, especially those in Alaska are doing their part in making salmon numbers grow, but they are growing the number of the least of our salmon, not the best of our salmon. We need less hatcheries not more, or at the very least less humpy hatcheries. There is more and more scientific evidence that the massive amount of hatchery humpies dumped into our waters year in and year out is destroying our more valuable salmon harvest. Why are we growing the least valuable, least tasteful, and least quality salmon when we could support and grow better tasting species...Alaskan hatcheries are using the Walmart approach when they should be using the Whole Food's approach. Quality over quantity.
    did I say stock humpy in my post? I wouldn’t study I would just stock. The point is not that global warming is bad for all Salmon it is no secret that it will be too warm and not enough water for them to be produced naturally in the numbers they once were in the matanuska Susitna valleys. That is the point of hatchery to make up for what nature can’t do to support mankind. I would start now for future stocking instead of spending money on salmon studies and changing the regulations. I believe government is to big and believe in climate change global warming. Hopefully someone pulls head out of arse and gets it done. BTW the salmon fishing in Washington and Oregon is better than the valley and it is pretty much because of hatcheries and fact the environment there is no longer able to support them in the numbers they once had. Sound familiar?? Done! stop the studies stock fish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patsfan54
    replied
    Originally posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
    It is no secret There are climate predictions that show by the year 2060 or something most streams in the Matanuska Susitna Valleys will have changed to much to have salmon. I got this information from a friend who works at UAA who attends a salmon meeting in the valley wasilla I think? every year. The meeting is getting larger attended by salmon experts from different places and I think is in the spring? Anyway back to the point, the returns for each spawner is never coming back to stable levels it was like years ago according to the people in the know so there will be less fish on average and many less in the decades ahead. His opinion is all the arguing about regulations and fishing or who is catching all is a pointless activity. My friend said that the state can’t solve the problem and neither can people doing the fishing. Stocking is probably going to be the wave of the future until stocked salmon can’t survive. I mean Salmon fishing is better in Washington and Oregon than up in the valley and the reason is because of stocking.
    So stocked fish will survive in Alaska as long as we pay these people to tell us they will, and give them a job stocking and studying these fish, all the while climate changes kills all other salmon in Alaska even while natural salmon are returning to rivers in California? Seems like there isn't much science involved in whatever climate predictions or your whatever it is your buddies at UAA are saying. There are more salmon today than there were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 years ago. Global warming is helping salmon numbers grow year in and year out. Certainly there are areas with the typically up and down, but as a whole the salmon numbers are way, way up decade after decade in Alaska and worldwide to boot.

    Hatcheries, especially those in Alaska are doing their part in making salmon numbers grow, but they are growing the number of the least of our salmon, not the best of our salmon. We need less hatcheries not more, or at the very least less humpy hatcheries. There is more and more scientific evidence that the massive amount of hatchery humpies dumped into our waters year in and year out is destroying our more valuable salmon harvest. Why are we growing the least valuable, least tasteful, and least quality salmon when we could support and grow better tasting species...Alaskan hatcheries are using the Walmart approach when they should be using the Whole Food's approach. Quality over quantity.

    Leave a comment:


  • kidfromgarcia
    replied
    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    While zero retention of chinook has now become the norm for sport fishing on these Parks Highway streams, where sport fishing even remains open, Fish and Game continues to remove a large number of spawners annually from a small trib of Willow Creek to feed other stocked sport fisheries in the state.
    It is no secret There are climate predictions that show by the year 2060 or something most streams in the Matanuska Susitna Valleys will have changed to much to have salmon. I got this information from a friend who works at UAA who attends a salmon meeting in the valley wasilla I think? every year. The meeting is getting larger attended by salmon experts from different places and I think is in the spring? Anyway back to the point, the returns for each spawner is never coming back to stable levels it was like years ago according to the people in the know so there will be less fish on average and many less in the decades ahead. His opinion is all the arguing about regulations and fishing or who is catching all is a pointless activity. My friend said that the state can’t solve the problem and neither can people doing the fishing. Stocking is probably going to be the wave of the future until stocked salmon can’t survive. I mean Salmon fishing is better in Washington and Oregon than up in the valley and the reason is because of stocking.

    Leave a comment:


  • willphish4food
    replied
    While zero retention of chinook has now become the norm for sport fishing on these Parks Highway streams, where sport fishing even remains open, Fish and Game continues to remove a large number of spawners annually from a small trib of Willow Creek to feed other stocked sport fisheries in the state.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cohoangler
    replied
    Seems to me the word stock might have two different meanings. Or perhaps the word is being used in two different contexts.

    Are the five tribs (Little Willow, Willow, Goose, Sheep, and Montana) collectively considered one stock? If so, then weak stock management would suggest these five tribs would be managed as a group (a stock) when making management decisions (writ large) in the Mat-Su Valley. So ADF&G would manage other Mat-Su Valley stocks in comparison to this stock, which is comprised of the aggregate number of spawners returning to these five tribs.

    But if each individual tributary is a stock, thats different. It would suggest ADF&G would manage for whichever tributary has the weakest run.

    Those are two very different outcomes.

    My sense is that ADF&G is letting BoF know how they plan to manage these five tribs (i.e. as one stock). Weak stock management would suggest this one stock would be managed as a whole, rather than as five separate runs. Future management decisions within the Mat-Su Valley would not be concerned about the status of these individual tribs, as along as the total return is meeting the goals.

    If so, thats risky because one trib could get all the spawners, while the other four get none. By this measure, the stock would be doing just fine, even though one trib has an over-escapement while the other four have no fish (a completely unrealistic outcome, but it illustrates the point).

    This is where transparency becomes really important. ADF&G needs to be really clear about what they are telling BoF (and the public), and what the implications might be for future management of these tribs, and other Mat-Su Valley stocks.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishNphysician
    replied
    Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
    ADFG has recommended new escapement goals for UCI with signif changes for Susitna drainages. I'm a bit concerned that individual trib goals are being abandoned for the road accessible east-side tribs in favor of an aggregate goal that can mask signif shortfalls in any any single trib.

    https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f...CI_EG_memo.pdf
    Just listened in on the video streams of the opening day of BOF. Among the keynote issues of the morning session is a review of e-goals and an update on the stocks of concern identified in 2011.

    Bottom line, while harvests have been drastically reduced by the staff action plans, NONE of these trib stocks has consistently made goal since the stock of concern designation.

    What has folks concerned is staff's push for aggregate goals for the east-side road accessible tribs (Little Willow, Willow, Goose, Sheep, Montana). Staff says they want the change because it's a better match for how the group of tribs has hirtorically been managed as a group for the past 20 years. OK.... I'll buy that.

    BUT.... the rubber meets the road when the aggregate goal is used as the benchmark for lifting the group out of the stock of concern status.

    On one hand, staff says the aggregate goal will produce more conservative management.... because the tribs that aren't currently a stock of concern now are gaining the protections of the ones that are.

    OTOH, if the group's aggregate goal were being met, despite one or more tribs still consistently failing to make goal, the group could still be lifted out of the conservation status.

    Matt Miller tried to say that staff would still manage to the weakest stock.

    So which is it? Sounds like complete double speak to me... and I can see why the Board (particularly Mr Payton) is left confused and lacking trust that the best interest of the fish is being served.

    Leave a comment:


  • Funstastic
    replied
    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    Funtastic, everything you mention in fresh water is being addressed. There has been little to no fishing in many waters of the Big Su for many years now. The reason I call them boogeymen, is that you and many others keep pointing all attention to those issues, and continue to pretend that nothing has been nor is being done to address these issues, while refusing to look at salt water for possible answers to this crash. There are still people who deny there really is a collapse. The fact of the matter is that freshwater issues in the valley have been identified, and are being dealt with, to varying levels, and returns have not responded much, if at all.
    Your post exemplifies exactly why returns are not responding well. As usual, you not only make false statements and rely on erroneous assumptions, but you convey contentment and satisfaction with current fresh water management efforts - all so you can conjecture about marine issues.

    For the record, the issues I mentioned in fresh water are NOT being addressed. In the Pike example alone, only a small fraction of the more than 100 water bodies infested with Pike are being dealt with - and no plan to deal with them all. ADFG funding and enforcement can't begin to scrape the surface of what needs to be done, from habitat loss due to ATV's, beaver dam blockage, a solution to disease and parasites, to overfishing, etc. I bet you can't even give us an accurate number of how many fish are supposed to return to that system, what tribs they are dedicated to go, and what the carrying capacity of sportfishing, if any, they can support.

    willphish4food, it is unfortunate you shortsightedly stop at what little has been done in fresh water, and call it "addressed". It is also unfortunate you must accuse those pointing out tangible fresh water issues of pretending nothing is being done and refusing to look at salt water issues. We know that is absolutely wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishNphysician
    replied
    ADFG has recommended new escapement goals for UCI with signif changes for Susitna drainages. I'm a bit concerned that individual trib goals are being abandoned for the road accessible east-side tribs in favor of an aggregate goal that can mask signif shortfalls in any any single trib.

    https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f...CI_EG_memo.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • willphish4food
    replied
    Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
    Which means little because newly hatched Chinooks leave their spawning area shortly after the alevin stage, migrating to other (Pike infested) waters of the Su as fry and parr in search of food and habitat protection, and eventually further downstream to (Pike infested) sloughs and estuaries as smolts. Along the way they are almost sure to encounter one of more than 100 water bodies on the Su that ADFG has identified with invasive Pike.

    It's probably frustrating because you choose to view the mountain of studies, reports, and documented freshwater problems as "boogeymen". When really, there is nothing "boogeymen" about disease, pike predation, culvert and beaver dam blockage, habitat loss, urbanization, pollution, parasites, overfishing by guides and lodges, etc. Your "boogeymen" are real, and tangible.

    No one ever won a war by defending the flanks with conjecture and whims, and ignoring the front.
    Funtastic, everything you mention in fresh water is being addressed. There has been little to no fishing in many waters of the Big Su for many years now. The reason I call them boogeymen, is that you and many others keep pointing all attention to those issues, and continue to pretend that nothing has been nor is being done to address these issues, while refusing to look at salt water for possible answers to this crash. There are still people who deny there really is a collapse. The fact of the matter is that freshwater issues in the valley have been identified, and are being dealt with, to varying levels, and returns have not responded much, if at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Funstastic
    replied
    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    Pike is certainly a factor, but many chinook systems in the Su have zero documented pike.
    Which means little because newly hatched Chinooks leave their spawning area shortly after the alevin stage, migrating to other (Pike infested) waters of the Su as fry and parr in search of food and habitat protection, and eventually further downstream to (Pike infested) sloughs and estuaries as smolts. Along the way they are almost sure to encounter one of more than 100 water bodies on the Su that ADFG has identified with invasive Pike.

    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    It aggravates the crap out of me to see everyone keep circling back to known boogeymen in fresh water, and not even seeking answers from the marine environment.
    It's probably frustrating because you choose to view the mountain of studies, reports, and documented freshwater problems as "boogeymen". When really, there is nothing "boogeymen" about disease, pike predation, culvert and beaver dam blockage, habitat loss, urbanization, pollution, parasites, overfishing by guides and lodges, etc. Your "boogeymen" are real, and tangible.

    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    If you want to win a war, you can't do it by ignoring your flanks and defending one front.
    No one ever won a war by defending the flanks with conjecture and whims, and ignoring the front.

    Leave a comment:


  • willphish4food
    replied
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    He may spend 7 years at sea but over 90% of the mortality of salmon will occur in freshwater from egg to smolt. So the concentration on freshwater is justified. Also the State has control on what can be done in freshwater. The marine environment is more federal management. Also 30 million dollars on chinook research is being spent by the State and Federal Gov on marine studies of chinook. So your claim is a little shallow.
    Nerka, don't keep making this about my concerns. I am very concerned with freshwater, and do more than my share on that front. If you want to win a war, you can't do it by ignoring your flanks and defending one front. While we may not be able to control federal fisheries, we can provide better science to help them make their decisions. We can find out if our hatcheries are disrupting natural cycles or not. We can find out if changing ocean environments require different management and whether or not the current environment can handle what the environment 30 years ago could handle. "your claim is a little shallow." How do statements like that advance the cause of science? That does nothing for conservation, and will do nothing to bring back chinook runs. The state can control fishing in freshwater, but cannot control floods. It can control fishing after floods, if it is known that the event will lower production drastically, but to date, has never proactively managed in response to a major event with down the road implications; it manages year to year, until lower production shows up in lower returns, then management actions take many years to produce visible results.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cohoangler
    replied
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    He may spend 7 years at sea but over 90% of the mortality of salmon will occur in freshwater from egg to smolt.
    That would be correct, even under pristine conditions.

    So if 90% of the mortality occurs in freshwater, under the best of circumstances, that only leaves 10% to carry out the life history of the species. So the 10% who actually make into saltwater are that much more important.

    Conversely, if more smolts made it to the salt, ocean mortality would be LESS important since there would be more to start with. But since freshwater mortality is fairly high, even minor amounts of additional saltwater mortality gets magnified.

    I think that's Willfish's point.

    I'm not disagreeing with Nerka, I'm just looking at the same information differently.......

    Leave a comment:


  • 68 Bronco
    replied
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nerka again."

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by willphish4food View Post
    Pike is certainly a factor, but many chinook systems in the Su have zero documented pike. It aggravates the crap out of me to see everyone keep circling back to known boogeymen in fresh water, and not even seeking answers from the marine environment. A 7 year old Chinook spends all but a year and a few months of his life in salt water, yet about 99% of any conservation effort is spent on freshwater studies and solutions.
    He may spend 7 years at sea but over 90% of the mortality of salmon will occur in freshwater from egg to smolt. So the concentration on freshwater is justified. Also the State has control on what can be done in freshwater. The marine environment is more federal management. Also 30 million dollars on chinook research is being spent by the State and Federal Gov on marine studies of chinook. So your claim is a little shallow.

    Leave a comment:

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X