Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 96

Thread: "Juneau, we have a problem"

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default "Juneau, we have a problem"

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47855566...-anchorage_ak/

    We gotta look at the big picture, this is not just a Kenai problem, yes we can restrict in river users all we want but if the managers only deal with rivers of the state at a local level they are missing ball. Something is going on in the ocean, the lack of king returns on a statewide scale has got to be an indicator of what is going on in the ocean and it isn't good. I don't have the answers and I have a feeling it is much bigger than a couple "studies" can figure out, but in the end, the fish are in a decline and not only are they paying the price the local communities, whether it be subsistence, commercial, sportfishing, tourism etc....are going to pay the price.

  2. #2

    Default

    True indeed. King runs all over the state are suffering, and have been for a few years. For Kodiak and the Yukon, they have been suffering a little bit longer. I hope the recent declines to south central runs isn't a delayed effect of what's hampering Kodiak/Yukon, because if it is, and we are in store for a long period of low abundance in SC, then you're right, alot of people are going to affected. But as far as what to do, the only thing we can do in my opinion is control the human effects on salmon, which means restrict. Commercial, sport, subsistence, all of it. Put more salmon on the spawning beds. Are there other things to look at, yes, but they take money, research, time, etc. In the meantime let's help the resource out and let them be during these lean times.

  3. #3
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Perhaps it's time for a new statewide chinook harvest management paradigm for the duration of this purported down-cycle of the PDO.

    I liken this proposed to a dimmer switch.

    During the off-season, the dimmer switch is in the OFF position.

    When it comes time to open the season, the dimmer is turned up just enough to allow some light... wild C&R, single hook, artificial only, ALL-hatchery-fish-MUST-die with a well defined upper deadline for the in-river fishery, say, in proximity to the upper intertidal reach. The fishery remains in this highly "dimmed" state for the duration of the season until there is clear evidence that the run can support greater exploitation.

    EO-1.... turn up the dimmer a notch to liberalize the fishery to limited wild retention... a certain size, certain days of the week. The fishery remains at this moderately "dimmed" state for the remainder of the season until there is clear in-season evidence that the run can support greater exploitation.

    EO-2.... turn up the dimmer another notch to liberalize more days and greater area (deadline moves to another well defined boundary further upstream, any size. The fishery remains at this mildly "dimmed" state for the remainder of the season until there is clear in-season evidence that the run can support greater exploitation.

    EO-3... turn up the dimmer another notch to fully liberalize the fishery to allow bait, 7 days, maximum area.

    This model NEVER front loads the harvest... much better for preserving the full diversity of run-timing. It minimizes the risk of unexpected socio-economic disruptions. Every EO is a liberalization. Unless the run is totally in the toilet, there are no in-season restrictions. It greatly MINIMIZES the risk of ever fishing into the escapement goal.

    Better for the fish and curbs the seemingly insatiable human propensity to take take take.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

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

    Exclamation Just say "No" . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Perhaps it's time for a new statewide chinook harvest management paradigm for the duration of this purported down-cycle of the PDO.

    I liken this proposed to a dimmer switch.

    During the off-season, the dimmer switch is in the OFF position.

    When it comes time to open the season, the dimmer is turned up just enough to allow some light... wild C&R, single hook, artificial only, ALL-hatchery-fish-MUST-die with a well defined upper deadline for the in-river fishery, say, in proximity to the upper intertidal reach. The fishery remains in this highly "dimmed" state for the duration of the season until there is clear evidence that the run can support greater exploitation.

    EO-1.... turn up the dimmer a notch to liberalize the fishery to limited wild retention... a certain size, certain days of the week. The fishery remains at this moderately "dimmed" state for the remainder of the season until there is clear in-season evidence that the run can support greater exploitation.

    EO-2.... turn up the dimmer another notch to liberalize more days and greater area (deadline moves to another well defined boundary further upstream, any size. The fishery remains at this mildly "dimmed" state for the remainder of the season until there is clear in-season evidence that the run can support greater exploitation.

    EO-3... turn up the dimmer another notch to fully liberalize the fishery to allow bait, 7 days, maximum area.

    This model NEVER front loads the harvest... much better for preserving the full diversity of run-timing. It minimizes the risk of unexpected socio-economic disruptions. Every EO is a liberalization. Unless the run is totally in the toilet, there are no in-season restrictions. It greatly MINIMIZES the risk of ever fishing into the escapement goal.

    Better for the fish and curbs the seemingly insatiable human propensity to take take take.
    Why not just leave the switch off until and if the kings rebound? We have no idea whether their current decline is merely cyclical or whether there are greater and more serious, long-term threats in play.

    The convoluted rationalizations of those who wish to continue exploiting these fish is stunning. Catch-and-release kills fish and compromises their ability to spawn. If the kings have been declining and are continuing to decline, just leave them alone until and if they rebound. This ain't rocket science.

  5. #5
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Why not just leave the switch off until and if the kings rebound? We have no idea whether their current decline is merely cyclical or whether there are greater and more serious, long-term threats in play.
    That certainly one way to go about it. And when things rebound, then what? Do we go back to business as usual? And re-run the river down to certain depletion?

    Or do we instead get stakeholders accustomed to a more conservative long-term approach to managing a limited and finite natural resource? It's really all about conservation, and history has shown that we have fallen woefully short of our conservation objective.

    'Conservation' is often mis-characterized as some enviro-whacko fish-hugger objective. Let's be clear here. We're not talking about 'preservation' and turning the run into a no-touch museum piece. Conservation means the careful utilization of a natural resource in order to prevent its depletion. If Alaska wishes to extract maximum long-term social and economic benefits from its wealth of natural resources, it must be accomplished with stewardship and sustainability held first and foremost. That's where
    policymakers missed the boat on the Kenai. It's not about locking up precious resources but instead advocating for their responsible use over the long haul.

    The harvest paradigm I proposed certainly fulfills the conservation objective better than anything we've done the past 40 years.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Why not just leave the switch off until and if the kings rebound? We have no idea whether their current decline is merely cyclical or whether there are greater and more serious, long-term threats in play.

    The convoluted rationalizations of those who wish to continue exploiting these fish is stunning. Catch-and-release kills fish and compromises their ability to spawn. If the kings have been declining and are continuing to decline, just leave them alone until and if they rebound. This ain't rocket science.
    I agree! Shut it down until a time when numbers rebound enough to open it again!

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    . . Do we go back to business as usual? . .

    The harvest paradigm I proposed certainly fulfills the conservation objective better than anything we've done the past 40 years.
    What's with this "we" business? "We" Alaskan residents wanted a chance to eat an early run, Kenai king. As I recall it, you were advocating a c&r fishery at the time. Dp you remember this?

    from Salmon-Trout-Steelheader, April/May, 2002, “Giant Kenai River Kings” by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

    “Angling for large trophy gamefish has become the obsession of many sportfishermen. The thrill of hooking and landing that fish of a lifetime,... , is a rush...(...) One is rewarded with a sense of conquest... (...) The sheer elation must be experienced...”p. 40 . .


    “ADF&G needs to get its head out of the mud and step up to the responsibility of protecting the most valuable fish in Alaska’s most popular recreational fishery. The senseless slaughter of kings in the sockeye gillnets must stop. It is easily solved by mandating more selective methods of harvest (seines, traps, fish wheels). . . “For example, a catch and release derby could be organized.” p. 44

    —emphasis added

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    The proposed harvest paradigm has ample provisions for bonking fish for the table... but only when it is sustainable.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down A dead fish by any means smells the same . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    The proposed harvest paradigm has ample provisions for bonking fish for the table... but only when it is sustainable.
    And the operable words there are "when it is sustainable," which it appears it isn't at present.

    And obfuscation and sophistry aside, bonking is bonking whether it's accomplished by catch-and-keep or catch-and-release.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Catch and keep is 100% mortality. Catch and release is 2-8% mortality. Both keep dollars flowing into the local economy which is inarguably important. Both keep license fees flowing into the state coffers. Both provide opportunity for people to go fishing.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish4brains View Post
    Catch and keep is 100% mortality. Catch and release is 2-8% mortality. Both keep dollars flowing into the local economy which is inarguably important. Both keep license fees flowing into the state coffers. Both provide opportunity for people to go fishing.
    The problem is that this is not sustainable at the current pace. Were does the money come from when the fish are gone?
    Are you as unimpressed with my signature block as I am with yours?

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

    Lightbulb Both or none . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fish4brains View Post
    Catch and keep is 100 percent; mortality. Catch and release is 2-8 percent mortality. Both keep dollars flowing into the local economy which is inarguably important. Both keep license fees flowing into the state coffers. Both provide opportunity for people to go fishing.
    Agreed.

    Howeverrrrrrrrr . . .

    First, there's a rumor around that fishing opportunity is about something much greater than dollars, that fishing should be measured by an economic paradigm that takes into consideration something more than money. Good Time Charlies also keeps dollars flowing into the local economy. Now please don't accuse me of equating c&r with a girlie bar . . I'm merely saying that money is not the only way to define value.

    Second, granted the necessity (given current demand?) for a catch-and-release fishery to accommodate the fish-for-fun folks, there is no reason c&r should be given preference over a catch-and-kill fishery. Both fisheries, c&r and c&k should operate concurrently. As long as both sport-fishing user groups seek opportunity, both should be accommodated equally with, if necessary, the fishery restricted in terms of methods, means, times, etc.

    As for economic loss if the king fishery continues its decline, well, stuff happens . . we'll survive.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish4brains View Post
    Catch and keep is 100% mortality. Catch and release is 2-8% mortality. Both keep dollars flowing into the local economy which is inarguably important. Both keep license fees flowing into the state coffers. Both provide opportunity for people to go fishing.
    You make a valid point about the dollars. No doubt it will hurt those in the business. In the long run it will help them because if they kings go away forever its a national treasure that will be gone and then they will be out of business for ever

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Papi View Post
    True indeed. King runs all over the state are suffering, and have been for a few years. For Kodiak and the Yukon, they have been suffering a little bit longer. I hope the recent declines to south central runs isn't a delayed effect of what's hampering Kodiak/Yukon, because if it is, and we are in store for a long period of low abundance in SC, then you're right, alot of people are going to affected. But as far as what to do, the only thing we can do in my opinion is control the human effects on salmon, which means restrict. Commercial, sport, subsistence, all of it. Put more salmon on the spawning beds. Are there other things to look at, yes, but they take money, research, time, etc. In the meantime let's help the resource out and let them be during these lean times.
    Wise indeed . . .

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    KeenEyeMD has it about right. Ted Gerken would have loved you. Not bad for a chancre mechanic (sorry, Doc. No offense meant).

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question Huh . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly 2 View Post
    KeenEyeMD has it about right. . Ted Gerken . . chancre mechanic . .

    . . decipher, please . . . . who is Ted and what is a "chancre mechanic"?

    And what exactly has Doc got "about right"? Opening the season with C&R? What?

    Explain . .

  17. #17
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    We can do all we want in river and in state managed commercial fisheries to reduce mortality and improve habitat, but ultimately the health of the state's chinook salmon rests in the hands of the feds. They must shut down or severely restrict the pollock fishery before the chinook will be able to rebound.

  18. #18
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    From what I have heard from somebody who ought to know, there needs to be far better deep sea policing. I wholly agree. And believe restrictions need not be shared between personal and commercial, they need to be exclusive to commercial when applicable. Perhpas there are natural forces at work that cannot be controlled, but we will only know that when we take care of the human causes that we could control but have not chosen to.
    Science has a rich history of proving itself wrong.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    fishhook, ak
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Really, I think it's "Washington DC, we have a problem" But the state isn't exactly leading by example here (If we were, then this year's widespread sport closures would have been implemented at least 2 or 3 years ago, and the commercial harvest in Cook Inlet and PWS would have been minimized about the same time.

    Raingull...do you mean strictly "commercial" restrictions? What about the obviously commercial-enterprises that operate under sportfishing regulations? A major reason sportfish has had to be restricted as the runs decline is because of the drastic increases in sport harvest brought about by the guiding industry.

    That said, a dead fish can't breed, regardless of when and where it dies. As a state, we are obligated to reduce mortality of a troubled fish and game species however we can.

    WillPhish, if Parnell had any backbone and integrity, reducing trawl bycatch would be Alaska's primary beef with NOAA, but instead it's all about cook inlet belugas and polar bears and blah blah blah to keep the oil industry happy (FYI, I am an Alaskan who is grateful for many things the oil industry has done and continues to do for our state)


    Really, I do believe the skewed priorities of our state's administration is a substantial barrier to progress here...It'll be great to have a pipeline moving more oil and all, but maybe we can focus on renewable resources first and foremost...

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Its not just King by catch but Halibut as well. they voted to cut halibut bycatch by 15%. Really? 15%?? That is like a midget pizzing on a forest fire. And it does not take effect until 2014. What a joke! Parnell needs to take his wabbles out of his wifes purse and put them to use.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •