Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 264

Thread: Commerical buyout?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palmer, Alaska
    Posts
    230

    Default Commerical buyout?

    I am watching the outdoor channel and somewhere on the east coast the fishing folks bought out the commerical striped bass harvest in favor of personal use fishing. This is also based on the known science of the fishery. The bass stamp cost covered the buyout. Wonder if something like that could be used on halibut and/or salmon up here? Anyone have thoughts on this?

  2. #2
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    There has been talk of this for the east side of Cook Inlet.

    It think it's a great idea, however there is on more thing to point out;

    I think the only entities still operating salmon hatchery/stocking/enhancement are commercial fishing groups.

    ADFG has been closing hatcheries as if they were radioactive........

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default some information

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    There has been talk of this for the east side of Cook Inlet.

    It think it's a great idea, however there is on more thing to point out;

    I think the only entities still operating salmon hatchery/stocking/enhancement are commercial fishing groups.

    ADFG has been closing hatcheries as if they were radioactive........
    actually ADF&G has been building hatcheries for sport fisheries and they continue the coho programs around the state. Ship Creek is a good example, Crooked creek kings, Seward silvers, lower peninsula streams for chinook, and the list goes on just in UCI>

    Also, why buy out an industry for another industry which is not taking the salmon presently allocated to it. The PU fishery as I have stated before is harvesting about 1/3 of what it can take and has a whole month of fishing time to do it. What this says is that people view the fishery as recreation and the fish are a great plus but not a driving force. Over half the permit holders make only one trip the whole season.

    What a commercial buyout would do is put more fish up the river that should be harvested, it will divert money from good causes to this questionable one, and it will reduce diversity of industries in the local rural communities. The commercial industry is much more valuable than the PU fihsery in terms of economic value.

    At this point I do not see a problem. Anyone with a little effort can get their fish in UCI with all groups operating.

  4. #4
    Sponsor potbuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    4,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskariverrat View Post
    I am watching the outdoor channel and somewhere on the east coast the fishing folks bought out the commerical striped bass harvest in favor of personal use fishing. This is also based on the known science of the fishery. The bass stamp cost covered the buyout. Wonder if something like that could be used on halibut and/or salmon up here? Anyone have thoughts on this?
    I've got a lot of buddies back there who are addicted to striped bass fishing(saltwater carp) and i've never heard any of them mention anything about a buyout. Please don't go by the "science" of the NMFS(No More Fishing Service) all they have done is royally screw up all the fisheries on the east coast & i hope it never happens here or we're all screwed. What kind of money do you think it would take to buy out all the halibut & salmon permits & boats here?? Be one expensive stamp???

    Alaska Shrimp Pots

    Rigid & Folding Shrimp & Crab Pots
    Electra Dyne Pot Haulers
    Ropes, Buoys, Bait
    alaskashrimppots.com
    akshrimppots@mtaonline.net
    907 775 1692

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default really

    Not to be a jerk, but I have to point out that NMFS did not mess up the east coast. The Councils on the east coast messed up the east coast. NMFS only does what a council orders it to do. Councils set rules, determine quotas, and NMFS only carries it out. So if you want to vent please know what you are talking about. Just like any government divisions there are legitimate things to complain about NMFS, but what you said isn't one of them.

  6. #6
    Sponsor potbuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    4,234

    Default

    I was fishing there when it was all starting, its all one big boondoggle, whenever the government puts its nose into your business expect to get screwed. Do you know about the NOAA ship that they were using to do catch reporting with? They were towing the net sideways & off the bottom so they were catching sh*t for fish and those low numbers were used by the "counsils" to make quotas & seasons. It took some real draggermen to finally look at the net & doors to tell them play fishermen that the doors were off the bottom, how did they know you ask?? the steel shoes on the bottom of the doors were rusty if the had been tending the bottom they should have been shiney from rubbing on the bottom. How did they know the net was being towed sideways??? the wires were not marked evenly so the net was not towing square to the boat, it was going sideways. This is the kind of sceince that is used to determine peoples lives, they put people out of business with that great information they were using. I DO KNOW what i'm talking about. By the way they finally talked NMFS into letting them drag along with the survey vessel and guess what the real fishermen tripled the goverenment boat, what a surprise for a ocean empty of fish !!!

    Alaska Shrimp Pots

    Rigid & Folding Shrimp & Crab Pots
    Electra Dyne Pot Haulers
    Ropes, Buoys, Bait
    alaskashrimppots.com
    akshrimppots@mtaonline.net
    907 775 1692

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default info there

    Now you are putting out information about a specific problem! No fair.
    I admitted that they did some screwy stuff, but what you said wasn't factual. (*about the east coast) Councils screwed that up.

    And from what you described sounds like the system ended up working. Fisherman and NMFS working together. I know that it must have took a ton of talking and showing to get that done but in the end it's the best we have. Also the drag patterns the NOAA survey ships are about biomass levels as compared to the years before. So I know that they don't do tows in areas that contain fish, but they do cover areas in a specific and repeated pattern year after year. I've heard the argument about the surveys from years spent on the draggers you mentioned. It sounds good until you really look into it. Stock assesments are done using some pretty advanced math. I'll admit that I don't understand much of it, but they (NOAA and NMFS) do the best they can with very limited resources. An example is that there will be only ONE cruise this year compared to the 3 that would normally be done, because of budget cuts. (for stock anylasis) The type of talking you do helps the cuts happen.

    I for one am always thinking the more data the better. That there is always room for improvement in any process, and that fishermen do need to be more involved with the science. I think sometimes that people mistakenly thrown NMFS under the bus, when in fact it is the council they have a beef with.

  8. #8
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    There has been talk of this for the east side of Cook Inlet.

    It think it's a great idea, however there is on more thing to point out;

    I think the only entities still operating salmon hatchery/stocking/enhancement are commercial fishing groups.

    ADFG has been closing hatcheries as if they were radioactive........
    actually ADF&G has been building hatcheries for sport fisheries and they continue the coho programs around the state. Ship Creek is a good example, Crooked creek kings, Seward silvers, lower peninsula streams for chinook, and the list goes on just in UCI>...
    Where are these hatcheries?

    I'm familiar with the Ft. Rich, Elmendorf, and Big Lake hatcheries.

    Big Lake is long gone. Ft. Rich and Elmendorf are in trouble.

    If I'm not mistaken, the Trail Lakes Hatchery is funded heavily by the commercial fishing industry.

    Is that where the fry are coming from?

    If so, and if the commercial fishery is going to be politically attacked, will the state take up the effort? (And I'm no fan of the commercial fishing industry.......)

    ...Also, why buy out an industry for another industry which is not taking the salmon presently allocated to it..
    In order to finally gain control of scheduling.

    The PU fishery as I have stated before is harvesting about 1/3 of what it can take and has a whole month of fishing time to do it. What this says is that people view the fishery as recreation and the fish are a great plus but not a driving force. Over half the permit holders make only one trip the whole season.
    No kidding? We're "personal use". not professionals. We're not waiting around the dock calling the biologists every hour getting the latest.

    When the state plays with scheduling to the point with emergency openings and closings for the commercial fishermen closing when the fish arrive and reopening after they're past the Warren bridge and forcing the "personal use" folks (even after scheduling) to go home when the fish arrive, you should expect what we now have.

    What a commercial buyout would do is put more fish up the river that should be harvested, it will divert money from good causes to this questionable one, and it will reduce diversity of industries in the local rural communities.
    Yup.

    Welcome to the the opposing swing of the pendulum.

    It sucks, doesn't it?

    The commercial industry is much more valuable than the PU fihsery in terms of economic value.
    I'm not getting squat from it. Not one red cent.

    The tax structure for commercial fisheries (when compared to the oil and gas industry) is a joke.

    And I'm spending lots of gas money running down to the Kenai to catch fish just to get caught up in "emergency closures", and watching the commercial fleet motor up and run out of the Kenai River mouth.

    We're not stupid. We're just unorganized.

    At this point I do not see a problem. Anyone with a little effort can get their fish in UCI with all groups operating.
    The industry won't even sell us fish reasonably.

    Sorry.

    If the political pendulum swings way against it, even though it will mean great turmoil, I won't feel sorry for it.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    My understanding of the buyout was that it was for the same reason as they did a "rationalization" of the crab fleet....there was too much competition and a lot of fishermen were losing money so a lot of the boats were bought out. Is that the case here??

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    The industry won't even sell us fish reasonably.

    Sorry.

    If the political pendulum swings way against it, even though it will mean great turmoil, I won't feel sorry for it.
    Mark, send me a PM or an e-mail. . .


  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default answers for Mark

    Mark, typical of these discussions you have been misinformed or have drawn conclusions that are not supportable with data.

    Trail Lakes and Eklutna are operated by CIAA but sport fish raised at those hatcheries are paid for by ADF&G. Also, a new sport fish hatchery is being constructed in Fairbanks.

    You cannot control the scheduling of when fish arrive on the beach. If you could management of UCI would be a snap. If you look at entry patterns and number of fish harvested there are plently of fish to harvest going into the Kenai and Kasilof rivers. The PU fishery has been harvesting nearly 300.000 fish out of the Kenai and escapements and sport fish harvest in the last few years have put the number of fish passing the river mouth at between 1.5 to 2.0 million sockeye. This is just Kenai - add another 400,000 or so for Kasilof. So it is not about the number of fish entering the system - your comments are about your schedule and needs - which come across in your comments as selfish.

    People who live on the peninsula have no trouble getting their PU fish - they know when fish hit the river and are ready to go down and fish - you may have choosen to live somewhere else that takes longer to get here but last year I called friends in Anchorage when fish started to arrive and they drove down at midnight to get the morning tide - they limited out. Had they not driven down on short notice they would have missed a great day. Local here just got up and went fishing and we live very well with our commercial fisherman friends.

    I believe if you did a run reconstruction of the sockeye return at the river mouth you would be shocked at the number of fish entering, even on commercial fishing days.

    The state is managing the fishery for all users and your comments Mark about more fish up the river with no regard for the escapement levels will lead to reduce harvest for all users in the future - this is a classic case of cutting ones nose off despite your face. I would hope you would reconsider your attitude toward escapement levels vs individual harvest opportunities.

    The fact that you think you are not getting anything from the commercial fishery again shows a self interest viewpoint that is selfish. You are in fact getting something - management of this great resource - commercial fishing tax dollars cover the commercial fishery general fund budget. This provides the research and management dollars to keep the sockeye returns at high sustainable levels.

    Also, I am not a commercial fisherman and never have been. I am a member of a community that values the contribution of commercial fishing to the local area.

    Finally, the PU fisherman are not victim - I am a PU fisherman and I am not a victim of the state or commercial fisherman. I am a person who feels blessed to live in a State with lots of fish for everyone - in an area that will minimal effort I can get fresh wild salmon from streams that are natural and clean.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up Management tool. . .

    I don't know about a buy-out, but Kenai River Sportfishing Association disagrees with "present harvest methods." In a Compass piece, Manage Cook Inlet fisheries fairly (Anchorage Daily News, 12/16/04), Ron Rainey, chairman of the board of KRSA, says "We want to work with all user groups to find new harvest methods. . ." Rainey does not say or intimate what these new methods might be.

    Near the end of his Compass piece, Rainey says KRSA ". . . strongly advocates that all Kenai Peninsula watersheds receive an adequate return of salmon so our rivers are seeded as they were prior to the influx of commercial fishing."

    Beside begging the question of what "new" harvest methods KRSA has in mind, KRSA's position begs more questions: 1) Are Kenai Peninsula watersheds not currently receiving an adequate return of salmon,? and 2) What does "seeded as they were prior to the influx of commercial fishing" mean?

    The Cook Inlet gill-net industry is, besides a commercial venture, a management tool used to accomplish sustained yield of the inlet's mixed-stock salmon resources. How were our salmon runs managed before the gill-nets? Does KRSA advocate no management of Kenai Peninsula salmon runs, reverting back to when the rivers were "seeded" before the gill-net industry? Such no-management-for-sustained-yield would result in wildly erratic and unpredictable runs, the utter waste of harvestable surplus, and violation of the state constitution.

    The Personal Use fishery, the commercial sport fishery, and the private sport fishery are utterly incapable of harvesting enough fish to manage the salmon runs for sustained yield. What KRSA wants, say Rainey, is "harvest methods and allocations" that don't "allow the by-catch of kings and silvers."

    What those methods might be, Rainey offers not a clue. Moreover, the kings and silvers harvested by the gill-net industry are not "by-catch," they are one factor in the planned management of a mixed-stock fishery.

    In short, ADF&G is managing Cook Inlet as well as it can for sustained yield, and the gill-net industry is an absolutely vital tool in that management. Special-interest politics and economic opportunity make the job challenging, but in the meantime, there are plenty of fish for everyone. Keeping in mind, or course, that the fish have their own schedules, which may or may not coincide with our convenience.


  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Also, why buy out an industry for another industry which is not taking the salmon presently allocated to it. The PU fishery as I have stated before is harvesting about 1/3 of what it can take and has a whole month of fishing time to do it.
    The PU fishery doesn't really have an allocation. The only stipulation for the PU fishery is that the lower end of the OEG (500,000 to 1,000,000) must be achieved.

    The inriver goal was set to allocate fish for inriver sport harvest above the mile 19 sonar site.

  14. #14
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Mark, typical of these discussions you have been misinformed or have drawn conclusions that are not supportable with data.
    Partially both, but primarily have drawn conclusions with what I have seen with my aging eyes.

    Trail Lakes and Eklutna are operated by CIAA but sport fish raised at those hatcheries are paid for by ADF&G.
    At the hatchery end, how does one differentiate a sport salmon from a commercial salmon?

    The Ft. Rich hatchery, for example, raised fresh water sport species that were all planted in lakes; lake trout, rainbows, char, etc. There is no commercial pressure on those fish.

    Salmon fry purchased for sport fishing and released in the Kenai River has an overwhelming chance of being caught in commercial nets before reaching either personal use or sport fishermen.

    Also, a new sport fish hatchery is being constructed in Fairbanks.
    Do you know if salmon species will be raised there?

    Certainly whatever fish that are raised will be released in the Interior, correct?

    You cannot control the scheduling of when fish arrive on the beach.
    Correct. So in order to make sure that the folks you like best get the fish you open/close the fishery based on when the fish arrive and not with a fishing schedule which is predetermined.

    If you look at entry patterns and number of fish harvested there are plently of fish to harvest going into the Kenai and Kasilof rivers. The PU fishery has been harvesting nearly 300.000 fish out of the Kenai and escapements and sport fish harvest in the last few years have put the number of fish passing the river mouth at between 1.5 to 2.0 million sockeye. This is just Kenai - add another 400,000 or so for Kasilof. So it is not about the number of fish entering the system - your comments are about your schedule and needs - which come across in your comments as selfish.
    Like you point out, there are plenty of fish. If fishing schedules for all various parties; commercial fleet, commercial beach sets, personal use, resident sport, guided sport, motorized, and non-motorized are set in advance and in concrete, it is fair. There is no need for "selfishness", is there, because we all have our schedules and the emergency opening and closing game will go away.

    Right?

    People who live on the peninsula have no trouble getting their PU fish - they know when fish hit the river and are ready to go down and fish - you may have choosen to live somewhere else that takes longer to get here but last year I called friends in Anchorage when fish started to arrive and they drove down at midnight to get the morning tide - they limited out. Had they not driven down on short notice they would have missed a great day. Local here just got up and went fishing and we live very well with our commercial fisherman friends.
    That's wonderful. However I'm afraid I live on a schedule. I don't mind it. I even conduct state business on schedules. If I have, say, a court date, I've never gone to the court building and found an "emergency opening" for criminal prosecutions that suddenly took up all the judges.

    I have seen that repeatedly on the Kenai Peninsula with respect to dipnetting at the mouth of the Kenai.

    I believe if you did a run reconstruction of the sockeye return at the river mouth you would be shocked at the number of fish entering, even on commercial fishing days.
    I've monitored the daily counts on the ADFG website and zeroed in on the average dates when counts go up. Of course that's a generalized method of pinpointing dates.

    What I then do is attempt to time my own runs down there for at least two days after a commercial closure because I've actually seen fishing dry up in an hour or two after commercial boats run out of the Kenai harbor to a mile or so outside the mouth and lower their nets.

    But that rarely works, because when fish start coming in, the commercial boats invariably begin running out of the river for an emergency opening. It's like clockwork.

    The state is managing the fishery for all users and your comments Mark about more fish up the river with no regard for the escapement levels will lead to reduce harvest for all users in the future - this is a classic case of cutting ones nose off despite your face. I would hope you would reconsider your attitude toward escapement levels vs individual harvest opportunities.
    I'm not interested in individual harvest opportunities. I stopped PU fishing on the Kenai a few years ago. No use in wasting gasoline. I only go to Chitina now.

    The Kenai has too many different factions fighting for the resource, the commercial interests are well vested and own the board, and I don't have any input.

    That's fine. It's politics. There isn't a thing I can do about it.

    The fact that you think you are not getting anything from the commercial fishery again shows a self interest viewpoint that is selfish. You are in fact getting something - management of this great resource - commercial fishing tax dollars cover the commercial fishery general fund budget. This provides the research and management dollars to keep the sockeye returns at high sustainable levels.
    Perhaps you can cite for us the tax rate for commercial fishermen?

    The friend I commercially fished with at his set net site for a couple years told me.

    Let's put it this way; the commercial fishing industry in Alaska is about a century and a half old.

    We never had a permanent fund with a zero state income tax structure until the oil industry showed up.

    So, pray tell, please tell us all about the tax rate for commercial fishing......

    Also, I am not a commercial fisherman and never have been. I am a member of a community that values the contribution of commercial fishing to the local area.
    I'm not a commercial fisherman, either. I helped a friend out for a couple years at a Bristol Bay set net site for the pure adventure.

    Even while the price for sockeyes had plummeted, the money wasn't half bad for a couple weeks work.

    The taxes didn't kill him, either.

    Now let's talk about processors who pay immigrants pennies on the slime line, but when that filet reaches Carr's grocery store in Soldotna, it's >$6.00 per lb.

    What's more, I've approached commercial set netters on the peninsula with totes full of fish and simply asked if I could buy some fish. The answer was always no, and I was told that they would face trouble if they were caught by processors selling fish to the public.

    Finally, the PU fisherman are not victim - I am a PU fisherman and I am not a victim of the state or commercial fisherman. I am a person who feels blessed to live in a State with lots of fish for everyone - in an area that will minimal effort I can get fresh wild salmon from streams that are natural and clean.
    I used to live in a place like that. There is no meaningful sockeye run here in the Susitna drainage anymore.

    It certainly wasn't the PU or sport fisherman who "done it".

    Nobody knows if it was the pike or the commercial fishing gauntlet that these poor fish had to pass in Lower Cook Inlet. In fact, nobody seems to give much of a ****. The state has too much on it's hands playing with all the various warring factions on the Kenai to even figure out what went wrong here.

    I wonder why the Department doesn't have enough resources to study what happened to the sockeye runs of the huge Susitna drainage?

    Not enough tax revenue, perhaps?.................
    Last edited by Mark; 04-03-2007 at 16:40.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default More answers for Mark

    Mark you have lots of questions so I will try to answer those that I have information on.

    1. Stocking in the Kenai - there is no stocking of coho or chinook in the Kenai River. The only stock that has hatchery fish in it is Hidden Lake sockeye salmon and that numbers in the tens of thousands.

    2. No sure what the commercial tax structure looks like - as both fisherman and processors pay taxes and the state sends money back to the local communities based on commercial activities. I do know that the general tax was about the same as the cost of ADF&G general fund for commercial fisheries - they paid for their management.

    3. The Susitna River sockeye are not gone - last year weir program showed that a number of lakes in the Yentna drainage are doing well. Over 150,000 sockeye went into the lakes of the Yentna and over 100,000 sockeye went into systems above Sunshine. The comment ADF&G has not studied the Susitna is not true. Over the last 30 years extensive genetic work has been done, sonar counts have been made, two to three major mark/recpature studies have been attempted (these failed but money was allocated) and recently over 1 million dollars was allocated to this drainage. The money has not been spent well for the mark/recapture stuides but money has been allocated. In fact, more general fund money has been spent on the Susitna than the Kenai or Kasilof. The studies on those systems was funded by EVOS, not general fund money.

    4. Not sure why you would want to schedule a PU fishing day. Right now you can fish everyday. I would think a better issue is why the PU fishery cannot continue into August. The last few years the sockeye run has more than 20% of the return coming in during August and there is no commercial fishery. The reason no PU fishery was created or has been created in August is that coho sport fishing interests have stopped it. I would suggest someone put in a proposal to extend the PU fishery into August.

    5. Commercial fisherman cannot sell you fish off the beach unless they have a catcher/seller permit from the state. They would be breaking the law if they sold fish without it. Most do not have a catcher/seller permit as they do not want to mess with the fish tickets, insurance, DEC inspections, and the like for a few cents more on the dollar they may get. They cannot sell processed fish without a processor permit which requires thousands of dollars in bonds and other regulatory requirements. There are a few fisherman who have the catcher/seller permit. If you seek them out you can buy fish from them at rates slightly above what the processor is paying. I think Marcus said for you to send him a PM and he would give you the names of some fisherman. If a commercial fisherman even hints that he may sell you fish without the proper permits he could lose his fishing permit.

    6. If you look at harvest rates in the commercial fisheries for the northern bound stocks you will see they are very low. Less than 10% of the coho, chinook, pinks, and chums are harvested in the commercial fishery - see ADF&G tagging reports done a few years ago. Sockeye are exploited at less than 50% - any production loss in the Susitna is due to something in the drainage - recent studies indicate that beaver dams are blocking migration on some lakes, the large glacial lakes are not rearing as many fish, and pike have eliminated some sockeye stocks (Red Shirt Lake is a prime example).

    7. Finally, one cannot manage UCI sockeye on a schedule. I have seen over 1.00,000 sockeye come to river mouth on a single tide. If the commercial fishery had not taken 700,000 of those the escapements would have been over 2 milion. The PU and Sport Fishery just cannot fish hard enough to stop something like this. I have seen 500,000 fish come to the Kasilof on a single tide and again without the commercial fishery the escapements would have been well over the goals. So it is just a fact of life that if one wants to manage for goals then the commercial fishery must be managed on a flexible schedule.

    I guess that should do it. Oh yea, having been to court numerous times on fishery issues I would rather take the commercial fishing opening. I have shown up to have the judge or lawyers delay the proceedings for a variety of reasons. At least with the commercial fishery you can call the commercial fishery hotline for emergency order announcements. To get that number call the Soldotna office at 262-9636 and ask for the number - it use to be 262-9611 but am not sure if that is correct now. The staff makes decisions usually 12-24 hours in advance of an opening and puts it out on the line. During the peak of the run it may be shorter but they tend to tell people that on the hotline.

    Hope this helps answer some of your concerns.

  16. #16
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks for those answers, Nerka. I found some of them informative. I'll research some of them, because I did find them interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    4. Not sure why you would want to schedule a PU fishing day. Right now you can fish everyday.
    I didn't mention a fishing day. I refered to schedules.

    Last year, while Kasilof was open for personal use dipnetting between June 25 and August 7 and 24/7, the Kenai was open July 10 to July 21 (eleven days) and was closed between 11 PM and 6 AM each of those 11 days.

    On July 30, 2006, an emergency order was issued to reopen Kenai dipnetting fishing for a single day; July 31, between 6 AM and 11 PM.

    I understand the importance of emergency openings and closings as management tools, however it has appeared to me to be heavily in favor of the commercial fleet sailing out of the Kenai River, and commercial emergency openings when a run arrives is to the noticable detriment of dipnetters.

    I would think a better issue is why the PU fishery cannot continue into August. The last few years the sockeye run has more than 20% of the return coming in during August and there is no commercial fishery. The reason no PU fishery was created or has been created in August is that coho sport fishing interests have stopped it. I would suggest someone put in a proposal to extend the PU fishery into August.
    Good point, and I agree.

    5. Commercial fisherman cannot sell you fish off the beach unless they have a catcher/seller permit from the state. They would be breaking the law if they sold fish without it. Most do not have a catcher/seller permit as they do not want to mess with the fish tickets, insurance, DEC inspections, and the like for a few cents more on the dollar they may get. They cannot sell processed fish without a processor permit which requires thousands of dollars in bonds and other regulatory requirements. There are a few fisherman who have the catcher/seller permit. If you seek them out you can buy fish from them at rates slightly above what the processor is paying. I think Marcus said for you to send him a PM and he would give you the names of some fisherman. If a commercial fisherman even hints that he may sell you fish without the proper permits he could lose his fishing permit.
    I just learned something. Marcus did indeed PM me, and I expressed interest, but you did a great job of explaining why this is. It's good to know.

    (Now does anyone know a "catcher/seller" who targets offshore species like cod and rockfish?)

    6. If you look at harvest rates in the commercial fisheries for the northern bound stocks you will see they are very low. Less than 10% of the coho, chinook, pinks, and chums are harvested in the commercial fishery - see ADF&G tagging reports done a few years ago. Sockeye are exploited at less than 50% - any production loss in the Susitna is due to something in the drainage - recent studies indicate that beaver dams are blocking migration on some lakes, the large glacial lakes are not rearing as many fish, and pike have eliminated some sockeye stocks (Red Shirt Lake is a prime example).
    I agree with all of that.

    I'm certain that both pike and beaver have had a big effect on the decline of sockeye in the Susitna drainage.

    7. Finally, one cannot manage UCI sockeye on a schedule. I have seen over 1.00,000 sockeye come to river mouth on a single tide. If the commercial fishery had not taken 700,000 of those the escapements would have been over 2 milion. The PU and Sport Fishery just cannot fish hard enough to stop something like this. I have seen 500,000 fish come to the Kasilof on a single tide and again without the commercial fishery the escapements would have been well over the goals. So it is just a fact of life that if one wants to manage for goals then the commercial fishery must be managed on a flexible schedule.
    I can't effectively argue with that statement. However, I am still frustrated when standing in that cold water catching fish, then dodging the wake from the commercial fleet motoring out of the harbor, watching them lower their nets just offshore of the mouth, and the fishing stops like it hit a block wall.

    I'll go to Chitina, thanks.

    I guess that should do it. Oh yea, having been to court numerous times on fishery issues I would rather take the commercial fishing opening. I have shown up to have the judge or lawyers delay the proceedings for a variety of reasons. At least with the commercial fishery you can call the commercial fishery hotline for emergency order announcements.
    Been there, done that. In fact, the phone call was standard operating procedure before leaving for the Kenai. It's still on the memory banks of my cell phone.

    I still had commercial openings empty the river in front of me.

    To get that number call the Soldotna office at 262-9636 and ask for the number - it use to be 262-9611 but am not sure if that is correct now.
    I've got the 262-9611 number in my cell phone.

    I haven't tried it in a few years.

    The staff makes decisions usually 12-24 hours in advance of an opening and puts it out on the line. During the peak of the run it may be shorter but they tend to tell people that on the hotline.
    Yeah. When the river has run "cold" I've confirmed what I already knew by calling the "hot" line.

    Hope this helps answer some of your concerns.
    You've provided some great answers.

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Bad information?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    5. Commercial fisherman cannot sell you fish off the beach unless they have a catcher/seller permit from the state. They would be breaking the law if they sold fish without it.
    Nerka, just spoke with the Soldotna office, and according to them, any set-netter can sell fish off the beach. Such a sale necessitates a little paperwork but not a permit.

    Not true? Or did I misunderstand something?


  18. #18
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Destroy an economy so people from anchorage too busy/ lazy to put in the time to catch the fish they feel they need for the winter. Go for it, but when you catch no more fish than before because there are less harvestable fish than before and you actually catch less fish than now, don't say I didn't warn you.

    P.S. Buying back all the kenai permits would probably cost around a billion dollars because the fishermen wouldn't sell cheap.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  19. #19
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    .....P.S. Buying back all the kenai permits would probably cost around a billion dollars because the fishermen wouldn't sell cheap.
    The last I saw, commercial salmon permits were selling at the lowest price since limited entry started, because the price of salmon crashed. It might be recovering somewhat, but I still wouldn't pay much for one.

    I think Bristol Bay set net permits are still around $25K, if not less.

    A taxi permit in Anchorage is over double that.

    Go for it, but when you catch no more fish than before because there are less harvestable fish than before and you actually catch less fish than now, don't say I didn't warn you.
    The reason I stopped fishing down there is because I stopped catching fish and spent more time wrasslin' with the Kenaitze over access and the hordes of other folks on the beach for a spot to swish a net.

  20. #20
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    The last I saw, commercial salmon permits were selling at the lowest price since limited entry started, because the price of salmon crashed. It might be recovering somewhat, but I still wouldn't pay much for one.

    I think Bristol Bay set net permits are still around $25K, if not less.
    There is one Cook inlet permit for sale at $29k that I can find 3 cook inlet setnet permits for ~$15 the average price for a PWS drift permit is $50k and set permit is $60 now the fact that there are about 500 cook inlet permit holders that aren't selling and you realize that to buy out a permit holder who isn't looking to sell you are looking at ~$200k at least

    I'd tell you the official numbers but CFEC's server seems to be down..
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

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
  •