Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: common sense solution to reduce setnet king salmon exploitation

  1. #1

    Default common sense solution to reduce setnet king salmon exploitation

    Simple- eliminate mandatory windows. Do away with mandatory restrictions on the drift fleet. The managers can fish the beaches when the sockeye are there in good numbers and the drift fleet will be more efficient. No longer will the managers have to use e.o. after e.o. to try to meet the escapement goals.
    An example would be the July 11 restriction on the drift fleet. If not for this restriction the fleet would in all likelihood harvested half a million sockeye. Not to say that some of these same sockeye were not harvested at a later date,but surely this restriction had some impact on escapement levels.
    My point is, instead of our board picking random dates for windows and restrictions, they should be setting escapement goals and with allocation issues in mind let the managers do their job to try to reach those goals.

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question Comment, please . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    Simple- eliminate mandatory windows. Do away with mandatory restrictions on the drift fleet. The managers can fish the beaches when the sockeye are there in good numbers and the drift fleet will be more efficient. No longer will the managers have to use e.o. after e.o. to try to meet the escapement goals.
    An example would be the July 11 restriction on the drift fleet. If not for this restriction the fleet would in all likelihood harvested half a million sockeye. Not to say that some of these same sockeye were not harvested at a later date,but surely this restriction had some impact on escapement levels.
    My point is, instead of our board picking random dates for windows and restrictions, they should be setting escapement goals and with allocation issues in mind let the managers do their job to try to reach those goals.
    Sounds right to me.

    Bfish?

  3. #3

    Default

    If the Board would set real numerical allocation goals, then gunner's idea of giving the managers more flexibility might be more workable. However, the Board seems to be reluctant to do so. As a result there a bunch of implied allocations built into all the provisions of the management plans. That's why people get so spun up when out of plan actions are taken - there are embedded allocation effects.

    Additional fishing of the drift fleet would clearly move more kings to the river because the kings run deeper than the sockeye when offshore. But to do so comes at a cost of shifting catch shares from the set nets to the drifters. The drifters also take a bigger bite out of the northern-bound sockeye and coho. The expanded corridors this year were an attempt to protect northern bound stocks. The way things worked out, they caught alot of fish this year. Too soon to know whether the catch composition was shifted to Kenai stocks.

    The drop-the-windows idea has been around awhile and sounds good at first blush but doesn't hold up very well on closer examination (kinda reminds me of my first wife). The practical reality of setting aside the windows for the set net fleet would just be to fish more, not less. They'd likely end up going deeper into the sockeye tier ranges - sonar numbers would more often be in the middle or lower parts of the range (or even below) than spread throughout and sometimes over. King catches would go up along with the sockeye catches plus long periods of commercial set net openers dry up delivery of kings into the river fisheries (sockeye too).

    I actually think the windows are about the best king conservation tool there is. You could probably throw out most of the rest of the EO limits, tiers, etc. if fixed windows were honored. The windows are one of the few things in the plans that can't be managed around. The commercial guys hate them because they do pass fish and reduce their success which is measured based on total catch. The in-river guys love them because they improve success which is more related to days of reasonable opportunity.

    (But then again this is just my personal opinion and I don't really know anything about this anyway.)

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb Thanks . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    If the Board would set real numerical allocation goals, then gunner's idea of giving the managers more flexibility might be more workable. However, the Board seems to be reluctant to do so. As a result there a bunch of implied allocations built into all the provisions of the management plans. That's why people get so spun up when out of plan actions are taken - there are embedded allocation effects.

    Additional fishing of the drift fleet would clearly move more kings to the river because the kings run deeper than the sockeye when offshore. But to do so comes at a cost of shifting catch shares from the set nets to the drifters. The drifters also take a bigger bite out of the northern-bound sockeye and coho. The expanded corridors this year were an attempt to protect northern bound stocks. The way things worked out, they caught alot of fish this year. Too soon to know whether the catch composition was shifted to Kenai stocks.

    The drop-the-windows idea has been around awhile and sounds good at first blush but doesn't hold up very well on closer examination (kinda reminds me of my first wife). The practical reality of setting aside the windows for the set net fleet would just be to fish more, not less. They'd likely end up going deeper into the sockeye tier ranges - sonar numbers would more often be in the middle or lower parts of the range (or even below) than spread throughout and sometimes over. King catches would go up along with the sockeye catches plus long periods of commercial set net openers dry up delivery of kings into the river fisheries (sockeye too).

    I actually think the windows are about the best king conservation tool there is. You could probably throw out most of the rest of the EO limits, tiers, etc. if fixed windows were honored. The windows are one of the few things in the plans that can't be managed around. The commercial guys hate them because they do pass fish and reduce their success which is measured based on total catch. The in-river guys love them because they improve success which is more related to days of reasonable opportunity.

    (But then again this is just my personal opinion and I don't really know anything about this anyway.)
    Thanks, Bfish, for a perfectly understandable explanation (I'm getting smarter by the minute). That said, it's for better heads than mine to decide the issue of windows/no windows, but at least now I know there's an intelligent argument for the windows.

    Thanks . .

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks B for a good explanation of the pro's & con's of windows. I do appreciate your comments and hopefully you will continue to participate.

  6. #6

    Default

    Well I don't think the "explanation" by bfish was all that wonderful. Of course I would expect him to defend windows- it was invented and promoted by krsa. The fish hit the beaches at different times for different reasons. They don't give a **** what day of the month it is. If the managers could open up the fishery when the fish are there they would not have to have the grind of eo after eo. Isn't it possible thatless kings would be harvested in a 12 hour opening when 500,000 sockeye are harvested than there would be with that same sockeye harvest taken with60 hours of eos?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •