Tweet
I was asked to start a new thread to explain the concept of corridors in UCI and the impact on the drift gill net fishery. So here is my shot at it.
Fish movement in UCI: In UCI there are three main tidal rips which salmon use to migrate up the inlet. These are called the east, mid, and west rips. Water coming from the east and west converge in these areas. They gather all types of stuff in them and they are used by salmon as highways. There are smaller rips and fish move between the rips so I am trying to keep this simple.
In the 1980's while working for ADF&G I thought that maybe salmon stocks would separate out in the rips and that selective harvest could be done. That proved not to be the case. In one tagging effort I put out over 800 tags 5 miles off the Kasilof River and had fish move within 2 days into the Northern District, Kenai, Kasilof, and even fish went to the west side to Crescent River. So the idea of clean zones that encompass the rips is not possible.
Fish also move into UCI and hold and mature before moving to the rivers of origin. So early in the season fish that come into the inlet can hold up to 14 days before leaving while fish entering late move through in a couple of days.
Regulatory lines in UCI: In an effort to reduce the exploitation rate on Northern bound stocks the staff drew all types of lines to accomplish this. North/south lines, east/west, curved lines, all types. What we found was that we could not predict anything about where fish would be so we would draw a line and see the results and then adapt with new lines.
However, one thing was obvious. As we got out of the rips and toward the east side beaches the estimate of Northern bound fish went down in the catch. We kept moving the lines closer to shore and finally ended up with one about three miles wide. That is what is presently called the corridor.
One think that was obvious was that overall exploitation rates went down for a period but if you fished lots of corridor periods the exploitation rates stayed high. So fishing 5 days in the corridor could take the same number of fish as fishing one day in the inlet, especially if you allowed the rips to be fished in an expanded corridor- beyond three miles.
What the BOF did this time around: When the Board decided to pull districtwide periods they created an 8 mile corridor as the alternative fishing location. That flies in the face of 30 years of data on what the width of the corridor should be. So either the Board was very ignorant, which I believe, or they were pulling a fast one on the valley folks. I believe Jensen, Webster, and Morse may be in this group since they have UCI experience under their belt.
So the bottom line is that without clear objectives the BOF created all types of emotional damage on a group of fisherman, probably did not accomplish one thing for the valley, and left the meeting in a shambles for lawyers to fight about. Not very responsible in my opinion.
Fish movement in UCI: In UCI there are three main tidal rips which salmon use to migrate up the inlet. These are called the east, mid, and west rips. Water coming from the east and west converge in these areas. They gather all types of stuff in them and they are used by salmon as highways. There are smaller rips and fish move between the rips so I am trying to keep this simple.
In the 1980's while working for ADF&G I thought that maybe salmon stocks would separate out in the rips and that selective harvest could be done. That proved not to be the case. In one tagging effort I put out over 800 tags 5 miles off the Kasilof River and had fish move within 2 days into the Northern District, Kenai, Kasilof, and even fish went to the west side to Crescent River. So the idea of clean zones that encompass the rips is not possible.
Fish also move into UCI and hold and mature before moving to the rivers of origin. So early in the season fish that come into the inlet can hold up to 14 days before leaving while fish entering late move through in a couple of days.
Regulatory lines in UCI: In an effort to reduce the exploitation rate on Northern bound stocks the staff drew all types of lines to accomplish this. North/south lines, east/west, curved lines, all types. What we found was that we could not predict anything about where fish would be so we would draw a line and see the results and then adapt with new lines.
However, one thing was obvious. As we got out of the rips and toward the east side beaches the estimate of Northern bound fish went down in the catch. We kept moving the lines closer to shore and finally ended up with one about three miles wide. That is what is presently called the corridor.
One think that was obvious was that overall exploitation rates went down for a period but if you fished lots of corridor periods the exploitation rates stayed high. So fishing 5 days in the corridor could take the same number of fish as fishing one day in the inlet, especially if you allowed the rips to be fished in an expanded corridor- beyond three miles.
What the BOF did this time around: When the Board decided to pull districtwide periods they created an 8 mile corridor as the alternative fishing location. That flies in the face of 30 years of data on what the width of the corridor should be. So either the Board was very ignorant, which I believe, or they were pulling a fast one on the valley folks. I believe Jensen, Webster, and Morse may be in this group since they have UCI experience under their belt.
So the bottom line is that without clear objectives the BOF created all types of emotional damage on a group of fisherman, probably did not accomplish one thing for the valley, and left the meeting in a shambles for lawyers to fight about. Not very responsible in my opinion.
Comment