Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: I thought it was because people were keeping 60 pounders!!!!!!!.....

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    34

    Default I thought it was because people were keeping 60 pounders!!!!!!!.....


  2. #2
    Member ysr_racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Happily in So Cal.
    Posts
    583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ysr_racer View Post
    Indian to buffalo hunter, "does the buffalo heard look thinner to you".

    Buffalo hunter to Indian, "no, everything is fine. it's cyclic".
    See above message
    brad g.
    So Cal, USA
    Visit my Sporting Clays website
    http://www.ysr-racer.com

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

    Default

    Whatever happens, anglers, dipnetters and guides won't be the only ones pinched by the lack of king abundance, he said. Commercial fishermen will feel it too.

    "No doubt there will be pain," Lingnau said. "There will be pain on all sides by the end of the season."
    "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
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    The article is good but the title of this thread is silly. No one ever attributed the decline of king salmon to the in river selective harvest of big fish. The issue with selective harvest of big fish is that it leads to smaller average fish size. These are two distinctly different issues.

  5. #5
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    pretty good article, thanks. I blame the government, the mayan calander, dolphin safe tuna, and non-resident sheep hunters....yep think i have it all covered.

  6. #6
    Member mudbuddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska, Mat valley
    Posts
    1,195

    Default

    Thanks for posting the article. A great read.
    It was allot of fun to blame "flyNpysician" & others, but the article exonerates him/them
    We've got good at efficiently harvesting the ocean's bounty;
    can we get good at effective management? Anger, blame, excuses, greed, from user groups & lobbyist etc. haven't worked yet.
    Human greed has trumped real solutions so far. How's that working?
    Blame is easy to do, finding & implementing a workable solution/s is a huge challenge. Are we up to the task?
    If not : Frank-n-fish ?

    I can see down the road, a big tug boat tows in a giant circle net enclosure, full of adult kings to the mouth of the rivers, open the net on the river side, so the fish can only go up stream. Anglers line the shore & above that the boat fishermen, above that the dip netters, above that a big commercial net gets what's left. Fishing?

    Growing up, I fished lakes in PA, we went the day the trout were stocked & caught a limit in no time. They call that fishing back there.
    Oh yeah, had to pay X$ per person before you could go to the lake/pond ""fishing"". The meat was white, not like our trout here.
    They had gold ones, white ones, & some were similar to rainbows here but not much red/pink skin colors.

    The last frontier? Alaska WAS, but no longer.

  7. #7
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mudbuddy View Post
    The last frontier? Alaska WAS, but no longer.
    I think that depends on how you look at it.......I'm sure there are still places in the Brooks that would still be akin to a "Last Frontier"....
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Size and numbers . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    . . The issue with selective harvest of big fish is that it leads to smaller average fish size. . .
    Exactly!

    The obsession with "big" fish—bonking them, catching-and-releasing them, endlessly targeting them, and so on—is blamed for the decline in size, not for the decline in numbers.

    The only additional point made in that regard is that catch-and-release kills fish as dead as does bonking them, less perhaps in terms of percentage caught though with each time the fish gets caught the odds get worse, and c&r compromises the fish's ability to successfully spawn.

    The current issue is about more than the decline in the size of the fish. We're now dealing with a decline in size and a decline in numbers.

    No easy answers.


  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    34

    Default

    OOOOOOOooooo, so all the trawlers and commerical fisherman dont catch ANY BIG fish? Its all the anglers faults for keeping ALL those big fish?

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

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by bookram View Post
    OOOOOOOooooo, so all the trawlers and commerical fisherman dont catch ANY BIG fish? Its all the anglers faults for keeping ALL those big fish?
    Golly, no, but it is only the big-fishNobsession/in-river-commercial-fishery that harass the fish right on their spawning beds when they are most vulnerable and when every egg counts. The poor fish that make it to the rivers have successfully dodged the trawlers and commies only to have to run another gauntlet in order to reproduce. Can one imagine the veritable curtain of death encountered by every king entering the rivers to spawn? Eggs, K-9s, and more virtually shutting off the river so completely as to make any gill-netter envious. Shocking, shocking I tell you . .

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    34

    Default

    The whole bottom line is that the big fish that was posted earlier this season was blown way out of proportion without knowing the details of the fish. I was the one who caught that fish on the Deshka and that fish was in NO condition to be released. Ive been a guide on the Deshka and Parks highway streams for years now and was born and raised in Willow. Ive been lucky enough to catch and RELEASE multiple +50 pound Kings and know when one shouldnt be released. Ive also been on the other side of this coin, cause my family also commerical fished in Bristol Bay for years. Through all this people shouldnt just point their fingers and a few BIG fish being kept cause I GUARANTEE that thats not the reason why there are "NO MORE" big fish left. BUT dont get me wrong, yes that does add to the equation of the big picture but that article i posted earlier helps put some of the other factors into perspective.

  12. #12
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Well perhaps it is cyclic, but couple that with outrageous bycatch and what'd'ya got?

    Just like the out of control bear population reeking havoc on the moose.....couple that with a heavy winter kill and what'd'ya got?

    Yes they are NOW taking drastic measures. I just wish it would have been done sooner.....that's all.
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  13. #13
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4merguide View Post
    Well perhaps it is cyclic, but couple that with outrageous bycatch and what'd'ya got?

    Just like the out of control bear population reeking havoc on the moose.....couple that with a heavy winter kill and what'd'ya got?

    Yes they are NOW taking drastic measures. I just wish it would have been done sooner.....that's all.

    maybe the lack of salmon will cause a decline in the number of bears and the moose will recover...

    as far as the brooks being the last frontier... sounds to me like if you can land a plane on it, during hunting season there is someone camped there. I know people around here (the west end of the brooks) claim its becoming more crowded even in this region. sorry getting off topic

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool One can only hope . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by cjustinm View Post
    maybe the lack of salmon will cause a decline in the number of bears and the moose will recover...

    as far as the brooks being the last frontier... sounds to me like if you can land a plane on it, during hunting season there is someone camped there. I know people around here (the west end of the brooks) claim its becoming more crowded even in this region. sorry getting off topic
    We were in Dawson City last summer, and the locals there say there are more people in those hills now than there were during the gold rush of '98.

    The old days are gone . . gone forever . .

    And just maybe the lack of salmon will provide an opportunity to learn there's a helluva lot more to do up here than chase fish . . you think . . ?

  15. #15
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjustinm View Post
    maybe the lack of salmon will cause a decline in the number of bears and the moose will recover...

    as far as the brooks being the last frontier... sounds to me like if you can land a plane on it, during hunting season there is someone camped there.
    Oh yes.....I don't doubt that if you can fly into an area then it will end up being popular. But the Brooks is a big place with lots of it you can't land. Those are the places I'm talking about.

    I'd like to think that a lack of salmon would mean a decline of bears.....but unfortunately I think the bears would just eat more moose...!!! Otherwise I'd say KILL EVERY SALMON YOU CAN...!!! Besides you get more meat from a moose than a salmon anyways.....lol
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    We were in Dawson City last summer, and the locals there say there are more people in those hills now than there were during the gold rush of '98.

    The old days are gone . . gone forever . .

    And just maybe the lack of salmon will provide an opportunity to learn there's a helluva lot more to do up here than chase fish . . you think . . ?
    People will still come to Alaska with low king numbers and commercial fishermen harvesting some of those kings, people will still keep coming. Would high king numbers bring a few more of the hard core anglers? Sure it would. Will it affect people that come up to see the beautiful scenery in Alaska, the long daylight hours, the wildlife, and have a chance to fish in the meantime? No. That more has to do with the struggling American economy.

    People will still keep coming even though some bears and wolves get shot. I guarantee more tourists see moose than those that see wolves or bears. Tourist industries in Alaska will survive, will king guides be as well off as they once were? No, but neither well commercial fishermen because their time to fish will decrease as well.

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
  •