Well after seeing its OK for the wanton waste of our dissapearing Kings its time for them to go on the Endangered Specie list. It seems they dont care about trawlers wasting thousands of kings and chums so let do it and get it over with. Its time to either kiss them good bye or do something about it!! If they make that list them MANY will cry when they shut down fisheries!! Why does Dunleavy allow this??
WHAT A JOKE!! Time to get Kings on the ES list
- Thread starter kgpcr
- Start date
iofthetaiga
Well-known member
Can't answer that question without getting dinged for "politics", but I can't really believe you asked it in seriousness...unless you're truly new around here and have no idea what he's about...and I'm pretty sure you're not new around here, so...
Cohoangler
New member
Not sure the Chinook salmon from the Kenai River would be considered a ‘listable entity’ under the ESA. It’s quite possible that all Chinook salmon spawning in the Cook Inlet watershed could be a listable entity, but the Chinook salmon in the Kenai River itself are likely too limited to be considered its own ‘Distinct Population Segment’ (or Evolutionarily Significant Unit, as NMFS calls it).
So the ‘listable entity’ in this case, might be the Chinook salmon stocks that spawn in all tribs on the KP (Kenai, Kasilof, Anchor, Ninilchik, Deep Creek), plus all those in the Mat-Su drainage and the west side of Cook Inlet. But this is just speculation since NMFS has not, to my knowledge, outlined the ESU that would include the Chinook stocks that spawn on the KP or other Cook Inlet tribs.
On the other hand, Kenai River Chinook are unique enough that it's possible it could be considered it's own ESU. If so, it would a 'single river' ESA designation, which I've never heard of.
But your basic point is both valid and troubling. The Kenai River Chinook salmon (ER and LR) may be in grave danger, and some serious conservation actions may be necessary to ensure their continued survival. I would also add that serious conservation actions CAN be implemented without an ESA designation. And, conversely, an ESA designation doesn’t mean that sufficient conservation actions will be identified and implemented in a timeframe that ensures recovery. Look no farther than the Columbia Basin for an example of that.
So the ‘listable entity’ in this case, might be the Chinook salmon stocks that spawn in all tribs on the KP (Kenai, Kasilof, Anchor, Ninilchik, Deep Creek), plus all those in the Mat-Su drainage and the west side of Cook Inlet. But this is just speculation since NMFS has not, to my knowledge, outlined the ESU that would include the Chinook stocks that spawn on the KP or other Cook Inlet tribs.
On the other hand, Kenai River Chinook are unique enough that it's possible it could be considered it's own ESU. If so, it would a 'single river' ESA designation, which I've never heard of.
But your basic point is both valid and troubling. The Kenai River Chinook salmon (ER and LR) may be in grave danger, and some serious conservation actions may be necessary to ensure their continued survival. I would also add that serious conservation actions CAN be implemented without an ESA designation. And, conversely, an ESA designation doesn’t mean that sufficient conservation actions will be identified and implemented in a timeframe that ensures recovery. Look no farther than the Columbia Basin for an example of that.
Last edited:
cdubbin
Well-known member
I would say that freshwater habitat degradation and loss, invasive species, jet boat use, bank trampling, etc. etc. are at least as bad for kings as trawler bycatch...John Q. Sportsman generally don't want to talk about those things, though...
It's highly unlikely that Kenai kings would qualify for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for a wide variety of reasons. CA touched upon this earlier, in discussion of the Evolutionary Significant Unit requirement. But a big reason is, even as bad as they are, the returns are simply not low enough to qualify for ESA listing, as in most instances, minimum escapement goals are still being met. Historically, any ESA listings that happen are when the species numbers are so low, that the possibility of extinction is threatened. Kenai kings are nowhere near that level.
Sacramento River Winter Run Chinook Salmon is one "single river" ESA designation. But yes, single river designations are quite rare.
<<<On the other hand, Kenai River Chinook are unique enough that it's possible it could be considered it's own ESU. If so, it would a 'single river' ESA designation, which I've never heard of.>>>
<<<On the other hand, Kenai River Chinook are unique enough that it's possible it could be considered it's own ESU. If so, it would a 'single river' ESA designation, which I've never heard of.>>>
"May be in grave danger????" Kenai's 5 year ocean fish have been in 'grave danger' for decades. Those 'serious actions' should have been implemented a long time ago.
Cohoangler
New member
I agree. And it's entirely within the ability/authority of ADF&G, the BoF, the Gov, and the people of Alaska to take the necessary steps to conserve and recover this nationally important stock of Chinook salmon. And they don't need an ESA designation to do it.
Sure, that’s an issue and shouldn’t be ignored. But, when all king runs in the state are failing, there’s a bigger issue than habitat. Why aren’t the hatchery king salmon returning in big numbers? The Ninilchik and Kasilof are closing tomorrow. You can’t blame a single freshwater issue for the decline in hatchery returns.
Yep, the failure of the hatchery runs pretty much everywhere indicates that the major player in the decline is not the in-river issues. That's not to say that in-river issues should be ignored, though.
cdubbin
Well-known member
Some good reading here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17726-z
"We lacked sufficient data to investigate several factors that could contribute to size declines, especially in certain species or regions. In Alaska, there is relatively little contribution of hatchery production to the overall abundances of sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon..."
...the gist of this study is that increasing competition from hatchery pinks is causing significant size decline in returning chinook, the effect of which is decreased nutrient transport into freshwater, lower per capita egg count, etc...it becomes a vicious cycle...
cdubbin
Well-known member
"Our findings contribute to the mounting body of evidence that maintenance of body size, in addition to abundance, is critical for maintaining healthy salmon-people and salmon-ecosystem relationships. Yet, what are the options to slow or even reverse these size declines? While the impacts of size declines are experienced locally, the primary causes appear to be regional and even global. Of the two primary drivers associated with size declines, climate forcing and ocean abundance of salmon and particularly Alaska pink salmon, the latter is within local management control. Across the Pacific Rim, ca. 5 billion hatchery salmon[SUP]39[/SUP] are released into the North Pacific each year where they add to already high abundances of wild pink, chum, and sockeye. While signals of conspecific and interspecific competition are increasingly evident[SUP]38,40,54,55[/SUP], managers currently lack tools to help inform difficult decisions regarding hatchery releases. Tools that quantify the apparent trade-offs between the releases of one species and the impacts of size and productivity on conspecifics and other species are urgently needed."
Just who eats all these pinks?
Cohoangler
New member
The need to conserve a diversity of body sizes among spawning adult salmon is an astute observation.
Differing body are needed to ensure the adults take advantage of differing habitats in their spawning rivers. As Nerka has pointed out many times, stock differentiation in the Kenai River is less a reflection of timing (ER/LR) than it is about spawning locations (tribs/mainstem). This is reflects body size (to some degree). A larger body size is needed by the mainstem spawners in the high currents and large gravel sizes found in the mainstem Kenai. Conversely, spawning in the tribs is more advantageous for adults with a smaller body size.
But the challenge is: “How do we conserve the genetic traits for a diversity of body sizes among adult salmon?”.
As I have stated on this BB, and others, ocean harvest can have a huge effect on the body sizes of the returning adults. Ocean harvest takes salmon while they are in their feeding/growing phase. By contrast, fishing in and around the tribs takes adults that have already reached their terminal body size. Once they get into their natal tribs, adult salmon aren’t getting any bigger. But, in the ocean, they will grow to whatever size they are genetically programmed to achieve.
Unless they get caught……
Nobody throws back a 50lb Chinook hoping it will grow to 80lbs, even though it might. Ditto for 40lbers, 30lbers, and 20lbers. They all get bonked in the ocean regardless of how big they might get when they have completed their ocean phase. And, juvenile salmon also incur heavy mortality if they are caught incidentally (by-catch) in other fisheries (e.g., trawling). The effect is the same, even though there is no directed harvest on juveniles (duh).
If ocean harvest could be reduced (perhaps drastically), there would be more and larger adult salmon returning to the Kenai and many other rivers in the Great Land. I’m not sure how realistic that is, but it should be part of any solution.
cdubbin
Well-known member
That's not what these extensive studies are telling us, though...
"Harvest has been implicated in size and age declines for many marine fishes[SUP]5,28[/SUP] and has long been expected to contribute to declining salmon size[SUP]17[/SUP]. We did not detect any overall relationship between harvest rate and size change, but our analysis was necessarily limited to a subset of intensively monitored Chinook and sockeye salmon populations with adequate data."
cdubbin
Well-known member
Cats, I think...:grin2:
Trawlers in federals waters are outside the purview of and governor anywhere.
Listing a species as endangered means it is at risk of extinction, the king salmon is not as a species at risk of extinction.
Cohoangler
New member
ESA listing can occur at any one of three taxonomic levels: Species, sub-species, or Distinct Population Segment (DPS). NMFS uses the phrase Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), but it's the same as a DPS. For example, the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook are listed as endangered under the ESA. This DPS/ESU encompasses the spring Chinook stocks on the Columbia River upstream of Priest Rapids Dam (roughly).
On a range-wide basis, Chinook salmon are not a risk, as you have stated. However, the question is whether the Kenai River Chinook can be listed as a DPS/ESU (yes/no), and if it is, whether it is at risk of extinction. My personal thought is that it doesn't get over the first hurdle. That is, it's not its own DPS/ESU, as stated in post #3. Chinook salmon spawning in the tribs to Cook Inlet might be a DPS/ESU, but NMFS has not made any decisions on that. So there's no need for them to consider an ESA listing.
If someone were to petition this stock for ESA listing, NMFS might need to define the DPS/ESU in SC Alaska, including Cook Inlet.
kwackkillncrew
Well-known member
so when the kings are gone would it then be ok to use hatchery fish to create a run? i am really just curious. They stock the kasilof right? have those stocked fish taken over control of the natural king run?
