Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 87

Thread: Setnetters take on 8/6

  1. #1

    Default Setnetters take on 8/6

    Does anybody know how the setmetters did yesterday?

  2. #2

    Default

    estimated harvest for setnets fishing the central district on the east side- Ninilchik,cohoe,Kalifornsky, and salamatoff- are as follows-

    127 Chinook

    10,596 Sockeye

    3,566 Coho

    50,513 Pink

    2,857 Chum

  3. #3

    Default

    Could someone explain why we can't use bait in the lower Kenai? We were concerned about every king, but now 127 died in one opening. That would seem to be alot of catch and release opportunity to kill that many fish. The Department of Fish and Game has no rhyme or reason with their management of the Kenai this year. Biology is dead.

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

    Default

    Sorry, it can't be rationally explained.
    "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

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default What really matters...

    Biology maybe dead, but the drive for profits for the comm fishermen is very alive and well!

    And don't forget the whooping $30 that the whole comm fishing industry puts into the state tax collections so the state can provide all of us with essential goods and services. Isn't that $30 well worth the sacrifice? Actually, I overestimated. The Kenai is only 50th in terms of volume for seafood harvest, so their contribution is probably only a buck or so - perhaps .01% or so of the total contributions to fund our state.

    But lets not forget the economic impact of comm fishing to the majority of us Alaskans - I actually saw an ad in last Sunday's paper for a job in the comm fishing industry. And without those set netters, the economy in south central would surely collapse - we may be in dire danger now from the early closures. Haven't you noticed all the houses in your neighbor hood that have suddenly been dumped on the market?

    So just suck it up and realize that you have to sacrifice so the set netters can stay in business. And, after all, the Kenai sockeye fishery is managed for commercial harvest - set netters and sport fishermen are just a "consideration" as are the silvers and kings.


    Quote Originally Posted by akcarv View Post
    Could someone explain why we can't use bait in the lower Kenai? We were concerned about every king, but now 127 died in one opening. That would seem to be alot of catch and release opportunity to kill that many fish. The Department of Fish and Game has no rhyme or reason with their management of the Kenai this year. Biology is dead.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  6. #6

    Default

    What good is bait in the lower river right now anyway? There aren't any coho there to speak of, only kings that some boats seem to already be targeting without bait. It makes sense to me to continue to lay off those fish for several more weeks regardless of what the set nets are doing. Why does it always have to be tit for tat?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Sorry, it can't be rationally explained.
    Here is a rational explanation for you . 67,532 Sockeye, Chum, Coho, and Pink salmon were harvested. This will help the 400 setnet families pay some bills. In the process 127 kings were killed and sold at $3.oo a pound. Undoubtably, many of these were jacks. If this bothers some out of state eye doctor than I am glad.

  8. #8

    Default

    The first run of silvers in the Kenai is much earlier than most people think. They just don't always make it into the river, depending on what is happening in the commercial fishery. I have no problem with the set nets fishing. They should have been allowed to fish a few days during the peak of the red run. We have more kings in the river this year than the last several years, so why all of a sudden do we have all of these restrictions on our other fisheries. I have tired of the king rat race and have enjoyed fishing rainbows and silvers. Now with all of the king restrictions, rainbow and silver fishing is really a struggle without bait. As for those who are targeting kings, shame on them. We can't make regulations that hurt the honest people. It makes no sense to ban bait below the Soldotna bridge, but then allow bait above it where the kings are even more vulnerable. Commfish, you sound like you have been drinking the same koolaid as ADF&G.

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

    Default More unfounded abuse of AK's seafood industry . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    . . the drive for profits for the comm fishermen is very alive and well!

    . . the whooping $30 that the whole comm fishing industry puts into the state tax collections . , I overestimated. The Kenai is only 50th in terms of volume for seafood harvest, so their contribution is probably only a buck or so . .

    . . suck it up and realize that you have to sacrifice so the set netters can stay in business. And, after all, the Kenai sockeye fishery is managed for commercial harvest - set netters and sport fishermen are just a "consideration" as are the silvers and kings.
    And awaaaaay we go . . .

    Another hijack for the purpose dumping garbage on Alaska's seafood industry.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    Here is a rational explanation for you . 67,532 Sockeye, Chum, Coho, and Pink salmon were harvested. This will help the 400 setnet families pay some bills. In the process 127 kings were killed and sold at $3.oo a pound. Undoubtably, many of these were jacks. If this bothers some out of state eye doctor than I am glad.
    I don't mean to hijack the thread but fresh Alaskan Chinook for $3.00/lb!? That's about $150 to $180 for a Chinook of a lifetime! My wife could spend just about that on a couple pairs of shoes. Or, to be fair, I could spend that on one Lamiglass fishing rod......

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb From here to there . .

    . . fresh Alaskan Chinook for $3.00/lb!? That's about $150 to $180 for a Chinook of a lifetime . .
    In reality, that Chinook gets stepped on many, many times beginning with all the support industry in place to make the market even possible, the actual catching, the processing, refrigeration, transport, wholesale markets and more until the fish reaches its point of consumption having generated uncounted amounts of economic benefit in the process.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    But presumably, if I were to approach one of the ESSNetters (if I were in the Great Land) with $180, and if they had a 60lb Chinook fresh from their still-dripping gillnets, and if they were asking $3.00lb, I would have all the necessary ingredients for a fish-of-a-lifetime! I could even hold it up for a nice pic, alongside the mighty Kenai River, with an appropriate caption. Who would know that this 60lb behemoth was not caught on a rod and reel? Perhaps only those keen-eyed anglers (pardon the FishDoc pun) who know exactly what a gillnet-caught fish looks like.

    My ego could be satified for a mere $180.00........

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink Photo ops and more . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    But presumably, if I were to approach one of the ESSNetters (if I were in the Great Land) with $180, and if they had a 60lb Chinook fresh from their still-dripping gillnets, and if they were asking $3.00lb, I would have all the necessary ingredients for a fish-of-a-lifetime! I could even hold it up for a nice pic, alongside the mighty Kenai River, with an appropriate caption. Who would know that this 60lb behemoth was not caught on a rod and reel? Perhaps only those keen-eyed anglers (pardon the FishDoc pun) who know exactly what a gillnet-caught fish looks like.

    My ego could be satified for a mere $180.00........

    Well, at face value, Cohoangler, you are absolutely right with the only additional caveat being that the ESSNer had the legal right to sell you the fish . . some do, some don't as I understand it?

    Anyway, not sure exactly what we're talking about here, and I certainly don't want to offend you. But that said, you ask, "Who would know . . ?" Why the angler so posing would know, and for such a person, well, I reckon $180 is all his ego or integrity is worth.

    And to be clear, I most assuredly do not think you're anything like such a person.


  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Hey, I'm cheap! My wife and two kids tell me that almost everyday.....

    I'm just pointing out the irony. I can drive 20 miles north to Woodland, WA and buy a Lamiglass fishing rod at their factory store for $200, use that rod every single day for the rest of my natural life, and not come close to catching a 60lb Chinook salmon. However, I could also jump in a Alaska Airlines jet, fly to Anchorage, rent a car, drive to Soldotna, park that rental car at the end of K-Beach Road, walk down the beach, plop down that same $200, and have me a fish-of-a-lifetime. Just a bit ironic what $200 can buy.

    In the interests of un-hijacking this thread, I will pass on any further comment. Besides, I gotta catch a flight to Spokane....

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    . . In the interests of un-hijacking this thread, I will pass on any further comment. Besides, I gotta catch a flight to Spokane....
    Not to worry . . this thread is so dad-gummed hijacked already it's beyond salvage.

    Have a safe flight . .

  16. #16

    Default

    Hijacked is one thing, but it's been hijacked with lies...

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    The Kenai is only 50th in terms of volume for seafood harvest
    I decided to look this lie up and I found the Kenai Peninsula is 3rd in the NATION for landings by dollar value (2010 for Kenai, Seward, and Homer together). Amazing! The port of Kenai alone is ranked 34th. In terms of pounds landed, the Kenai Peninsula ranks 13th in the NATION, with the port of Kenai ranking 33rd alone. Again, we are talking in the NATION! That is remarkable!

    Reference: NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/comm...ort_yeard.html


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    so their contribution is probably only a buck or so - perhaps .01% or so of the total contributions to fund our state.
    I looked that lie up too. I found NOTHING substantiating that claim. I found where it was at least 5% (Alaska History and Cultural Economics), and at least 10% of Alaska's basic sector economy - fresh money brought into Alaska (Alaska Department of Labor Job Development).


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    And, after all, the Kenai sockeye fishery is managed for commercial harvest - set netters and sport fishermen are just a "consideration" as are the silvers and kings.
    I also looked this lie up. There is NOTHING in the Management Plan that says the Silvers and Kings are just a "consideration".

    "5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan

    (a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily for commercial uses based on abundance. The department shall also manage the commercial fisheries to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho, late-run Kenai River king, and Kenai River coho salmon stocks to provide personal use, sport, and guided sport fishermen with a reasonable opportunity to harvest salmon resources."

    Reference: Alaska Administrative Code
    http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akst...section360.htm

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default learn how to search...

    I did a search on kenai fish volumn ranking and found this again immediatly:

    http://www.marineconservationallianc...E_Feb2011a.pdf

    quote: "In the list of top US ports based on VOLUMN, Alaska had 11, ... Kenai (50)th...

    Commercial fishing contributed 1/2 of .75% of the state's tax budget to fund essential services for all of Alaskans. Easily verified at http://www.tax.alaska.gov/ How anyone can get "at least 5%'" out of that is beyond me.

    I'll leave it up to you to verify the other point.
    n the list of top 50 U.S. ports based on volume for -2009, Alaska had 11 including Dutch Harbor-Unalaska
    (1
    (50th) (NMFS 210.
    tiak (4th); Naknek-King Salmon (11th); Sitka
    (14th); Ketchikan (15th); Petersburg (18th); Cordova
    (21st); Seward 26th); Homer (36); Juneau (41st); Kenai


    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye2em View Post
    Hijacked is one thing, but it's been hijacked with lies...

    I decided to look this lie up and I found the Kenai Peninsula is 3rd in the NATION for landings by dollar value (2010 for Kenai, Seward, and Homer together). Amazing! The port of Kenai alone is ranked 34th. In terms of pounds landed, the Kenai Peninsula ranks 13th in the NATION, with the port of Kenai ranking 33rd alone. Again, we are talking in the NATION! That is remarkable!

    Reference: NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/comm...ort_yeard.html


    I looked that lie up too. I found NOTHING substantiating that claim. I found where it was at least 5% (Alaska History and Cultural Economics), and at least 10% of Alaska's basic sector economy - fresh money brought into Alaska (Alaska Department of Labor Job Development).


    I also looked this lie up. There is NOTHING in the Management Plan that says the Silvers and Kings are just a "consideration".

    "5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan

    (a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily for commercial uses based on abundance. The department shall also manage the commercial fisheries to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho, late-run Kenai River king, and Kenai River coho salmon stocks to provide personal use, sport, and guided sport fishermen with a reasonable opportunity to harvest salmon resources."

    Reference: Alaska Administrative Code
    http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akst...section360.htm
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  18. #18

    Default

    Here we go again. TV, If you can't say anything accurate, please don't say anything at all....

    I'll resist the urge to further your hi-jacking of the original thread, but you are ignoring the raw fish taxes, salmon enhancement taxes, corporate taxes paid to the state, municipalities, etc. The list goes on. Counting one sliver of the entire tax regime with a copy paste to a link that shows that sliver is meaningless.



    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I did a search on kenai fish volumn ranking and found this again immediatly:

    http://www.marineconservationallianc...E_Feb2011a.pdf

    quote: "In the list of top US ports based on VOLUMN, Alaska had 11, ... Kenai (50)th...

    Commercial fishing contributed 1/2 of .75% of the state's tax budget to fund essential services for all of Alaskans. Easily verified at http://www.tax.alaska.gov/ How anyone can get "at least 5%'" out of that is beyond me.

    I'll leave it up to you to verify the other point.
    n the list of top 50 U.S. ports based on volume for -2009, Alaska had 11 including Dutch Harbor-Unalaska
    (1
    (50th) (NMFS 210.
    tiak (4th); Naknek-King Salmon (11th); Sitka
    (14th); Ketchikan (15th); Petersburg (18th); Cordova
    (21st); Seward 26th); Homer (36); Juneau (41st); Kenai

  19. #19
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye2em View Post
    Hijacked is one thing, but it's been hijacked with lies...

    I decided to look this lie up and I found the Kenai Peninsula is 3rd in the NATION for landings by dollar value (2010 for Kenai, Seward, and Homer together). Amazing! The port of Kenai alone is ranked 34th. In terms of pounds landed, the Kenai Peninsula ranks 13th in the NATION, with the port of Kenai ranking 33rd alone. Again, we are talking in the NATION! That is remarkable!

    Reference: NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/comm...ort_yeard.html


    I looked that lie up too. I found NOTHING substantiating that claim. I found where it was at least 5% (Alaska History and Cultural Economics), and at least 10% of Alaska's basic sector economy - fresh money brought into Alaska (Alaska Department of Labor Job Development).


    I also looked this lie up. There is NOTHING in the Management Plan that says the Silvers and Kings are just a "consideration".

    "5 AAC 21.360. Kenai River Late-Run Sockeye Salmon Management Plan

    (a) The department shall manage the Kenai River late-run sockeye salmon stocks primarily for commercial uses based on abundance. The department shall also manage the commercial fisheries to minimize the harvest of Northern District coho, late-run Kenai River king, and Kenai River coho salmon stocks to provide personal use, sport, and guided sport fishermen with a reasonable opportunity to harvest salmon resources."

    Reference: Alaska Administrative Code
    http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akst...section360.htm
    Despite what the management plan says, Sockeyes are the driver. No where in this year's drift fleet EO's is it mentioned that steps are being taken to reduce Northern District Coho or Sockeye harvest. So now we have the following EO's; August 3, bait prohibited on Little Su. August 8, taking effect Aug 10, Bag limit on Jim Creek reduced from 2 to 1 fish, Little Su closed to the taking of coho salmon. The pattern continues; huge run of sockeye to the Kenai, wide open drift fishing, and coho run collapse in the Mat-Su Valley. But that's ok; we're just valley trash, we don't need salmon returns...

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I did a search on kenai fish volumn ranking and found this again immediatly:

    No, you cunningly picked old data, just to advance your anti-ism. You still won’t acknowledge the truth or correct yourself.
    Reference current data (both volume and value): http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/comm...ort_yeard.html


    No, you dishonestly used a reference that you yourself previously rejected as “a bias publication”.
    Reference (last sentence): http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...=1#post1150298


    No, you deceptively smeared the commercial fishery’s economic importance based solely on your own myopic, half-baked analysis of a tax.
    (I'd reference your analysis, but nothing supports it)


    And no, you concocted lies about how the Kenai Sockeye are managed, going as far as creating your own words (“consideration”) for the Management Plan. Of course you won’t even attempt to defend that lie.
    Reference: http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akst...section360.htm

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
  •