Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 81

Thread: Pollution: Dipnet fishery fees to increase?

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Pollution: Dipnet fishery fees to increase?

    Today's Peninsula Clarion carries a front-page story on the City of Kenai's deliberations on whether or not to double some user fees in the dip-net fishery in order to handle the massive amounts of pollution—human waste and fish offal—that has plagued that fishery since its inception.

  2. #2
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Don't see an article there at all.. perhaps linking the story itself.. rather then the paper. that changes each update?
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    Don't see an article there at all.. perhaps linking the story itself.. rather then the paper. that changes each update?
    Vince, just click on the link a little later this morning . . sometimes they sleep in at the Clarion and don't get things online until late in the morning.

    Good article . . I know from living down here and from observation that the dipnet fishery is a horrible polluter of the environment and the Inlet. High time someone did something to clean it up and get it under control.

    Kenai should raise fees, and BoF should cut limits.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    The dipnet fishery does have its issues, actually, it is too crazy for me and I haven't done it in years. But is is a helpful tool to prevent the overescapement of sockeyes. Hopefully the city and managers can get it under control as it is a valuable asset for Alaska's residents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Vince, just click on the link a little later this morning . . sometimes they sleep in at the Clarion and don't get things online until late in the morning.

    Good article . . I know from living down here and from observation that the dipnet fishery is a horrible polluter of the environment and the Inlet. High time someone did something to clean it up and get it under control.

    Kenai should raise fees, and BoF should cut limits.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    The dipnet fishery does have its issues, actually, it is too crazy for me and I haven't done it in years. But is is a helpful tool to prevent the overescapement of sockeyes. Hopefully the city and managers can get it under control as it is a valuable asset for Alaska's residents.
    Good point, yukon.

    As I got the story from a retired F&G biologist, the dipnet (personal use) fishery was instituted when the subsistence nets were shut down, and the gill-nets were assured, "Relax, they'll never take more than 100k fish."

    The fishery has, what, tripled that early estimate? . . and with its growth has come pollution, habitat destruction, waste, and more. The dipnet fishery has, additionally, added to community divisiveness . . just let someone from up north drive down and hit a dry spell and you-know-what hits the fan with Cook Inlet's gill-nets taking the blame.

    So, yes, the PU fishery is an asset for Alaska's residents . . but someone, somehow has to get it under control.
    ************************

    Vince, check the Clarion link . . the dipnet story has been posted.

  6. #6
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  7. #7
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,889

    Default

    I fully support doubling the fees for those using the beach to dipnet.
    I do not support doubling the fees for the boat launch though as many of the people who use the boat launch would not need the dumpsters for trash or fish cleaning stations.
    We dipnet from a boat we take all of our fish home for cleaning and dump the guts in the Kasilof near my parents house upstream of the bridge.
    Last year we left from Eagle Rock and boated downstream from there to avoid the chaos at the city dock.
    One thing they need to keep in mind though is what happens on the Kenai can and does effect the Kasilof river.
    So doubling the fees in Kenai will undoubtedly increase the number of people using the Kasilof beach as it is still currently without fees.
    I know the city of Kenai cannot manage what goes on in Kasilof but the state needs to watch out so it doesnt cause a spike on the Kasilof and more peoblems there.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  8. #8

    Default

    So, how far do you think the $$$bucks$$$ Pawn Sharnell is spending fighting EPA (whom is trying to insert some wisdom regarding one of the world's finest remaining fisheries) would have gone towards a responsible management plan and facilities on Kenai and Kasilof beaches? Or how about that proposed 2 Billion a year giveaway??
    Admittedly, that zoo needs managing - it is now combat fishing, which is most unfortunate. I would much rather see it clean, environmentally benign and perhaps even go to drawing or whatever it takes to make it enjoyable and possible to tolerate. A old fella needs room to handle his net and prefers that method as opposed to using a consumptive machine.

    And should we continue to just further gouge certain Alaskans for the resources they own?? The fees already hurt.
    Does everyone need an $8K 4 wheeler, $10 K boat, airplane, etc. to join the Elites able to procure natural healthy foods??
    Or do we need a new approach and attitude all together in the ways our resources are handled from the top down? Or should we just go ahead and kill Bristol Bay - heck, perhaps even the oceans - nuke Kenai beach and be done with it.
    We don't need no stinkin' fish. Copper and gold and oil - that's the ticket - tastes great.

    In the spirit of support demonstrated here: I fully support tripling the price of fuel for machines used to access, and in some cases, damage our resources.
    ( sarcasm w/ a bit of seriousness)

  9. #9

    Default

    Oh , I forgot - let's dig up salmon producing watersheds for coal, too. The 'State' is just itching to pull the trigger on that precedent. A lump in your stocking. We'll all be begging for the gift of fish on the shores and from boats, current trends being any indication. Fewer affordable, productive, accessible places to fish and these problems will only become more intense.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    . . should we continue to just further gouge certain Alaskans for the resources they own?? The fees already hurt. . .
    Yes, fees hurt, but in this case increased fees would in no way constitute "gouging" Alaskans for the resources they own.

    In this case, any increase in fees would go to pay for the horrible pollution, waste (human and otherwise), and habitat destruction caused by the dipnet fishery and that the citizens of the City of Kenai must then clean up.

    Alas, there is no cure for the abuse the gill-net industry must suffer when dipnetters fail to fill their coolers on any given day.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Yes, fees hurt, but in this case increased fees would in no way constitute "gouging" Alaskans for the resources they own.
    .....................
    In Your opinion. Ask someone who can not afford and had to carpool to even get there.

    Now, am I wrong, or were there big profits from the fishery? I know someone here has that info available - seen before, too busy trying to earn money today to bother.
    Now, you are aware of the toilets and trash service, right? I have been disappointed to see about half the toilets as there were the first year available.
    People have started bring their own portable ones. And yes, some folks are still insisting on wandering where they should not.
    Harsh words are heard in the crowded conditions. Oh, joy.

    Price folks out of there, I guess - let 'em eat cake.

  12. #12
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,889

    Default

    Just for the record I went dipneting on the Kenai last year. I went with my wife and my mom. Got the fish we needed wich was about half our limit.
    We did not pay the city of Kenai one dime to be able to go.
    There are ways/places to dipnet even on the kenai that do not require paying the city.
    Alaskans may own the fish but they do not always own the lands needed to access them.
    Why must the Peninsula and its residents bear the brunt of all these people trying to get "THEIR" fish?
    It is a madhouse that needs cleaned up one way or another!
    The city of Kenai is just trying to keep our local beaches from ending up looking like these pictures.
    That cost money!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Dipnet disgust1.jpg   Dipnet disgust2.jpg  
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  13. #13
    Member FishKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    260

    Default

    I am not opposed to a fee increase but they need to control the people on the beaches. They camp there for a week and the only rest room is the portable toilets that are always over full and in need of cleaning. If you collect the fees then do the service. Dip netters need to control the kids as well. The ones who think they are cool if the sh*t on the seats and live like wild animals.

    Also put the fish waste back in the water where other fish will benefits. Seward and other ports haul the waste out to sea and dump it..... Kenai should have same service for the price people pay.

    Additionally, it would pay to have a few cops patrol the area and issue tickets to people who litter. This will help cover the cost........

    Hope I am not way of the mark with my comments.

  14. #14

    Default

    I can understand the City of Kenai charging to use their parking, camping and trash services. The article doesn't say what the current rates are.....
    As long as their is no fee access to dipnetting on the Kenai somewhere I have a hard time thinking the city shouldn't charge what it costs them. Using a fee as a deterent to access or use should be a crime tho.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  15. #15
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    In Your opinion. Ask someone who can not afford.

    Now, am I wrong, or were there big profits from the fishery? I know someone here has that info available.
    The only reason dipnetting with its current fees makes money is because the state kicks in some grant money to the city of Kenai.
    The current user fees in no way fully compensate the city for its expenditures.
    If I could find a link to one of the dipnet reports I would link to it so you could see for yourself.
    Also why should all Alaskans pay in the form of a state grant so that some who live on the road system can dipnet on the Kenai for a reduced fee?
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    Just for the record I went dipneting on the Kenai last year. I went with my wife and my mom. Got the fish we needed wich was about half our limit.
    We did not pay the city of Kenai one dime to be able to go.
    There are ways/places to dipnet even on the kenai that do not require paying the city.
    Alaskans may own the fish but they do not always own the lands needed to access them.
    Why must the Peninsula and its residents bear the brunt of all these people trying to get "THEIR" fish?
    It is a madhouse that needs cleaned up one way or another!
    The city of Kenai is just trying to keep our local beaches from ending up looking like these pictures.
    That cost money!
    We got about the same - half our limit - and enough. Yes, it is a problem policing pigs. Now, were there profits for the city and if so, how about spending that money on solutions that work. How do we make it work? How does the crowding get alleviated - are drawings, extended hours (I used to dip at night to avoid hordes), or other management methods by responsible managers off the table?
    Fishing regs are involved - it is not All on the city. They should not be alone in finding solutions.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    The current user fees in no way fully compensate the city for its expenditures.
    If I could find a link to one of the dipnet reports I would link to it so you could see for yourself.
    .............
    I looked at that in the past - lg. profit, if I recall properly.
    Gotta go to work .................................................. .............................

    Oh, the roads - can't keep folks off them. What 'reduced fee'?

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default or...

    Another alternative would be to make it easier to catch the fish so there would be less time spent on the beaches. For the high fees charged the city could also provide some cleaning stations near the beach with running water and capture the waste rather than having it spoil the beaches. More restrooms spread out over the area would also help. I'd also eliminate the camping - there just aren't enough facilites like running water to support it.

    I'll bet more presence by the F&G guys checking license and catches would could also go a long way to reducing the fishermen and mess A few good expensive well-publicied busts for non-residency and exceeding limits may do wonders for reducing the crowds. IMO the fish should provide the maximum benefit to the maximum number of Alaskan - not non-residents.

    But with the absurdly high market prices one must pay for salmon here in Alaska one can bet the pressure for the fish will only increase in the future. I'd be happy to pay a few bucks a pound for a hundred pounds or so of raw fish but but I'm not about to pay $8 lb. for dried out fillets at the store. There has to be a better way for people like myself that would be happy to buy fish rather than go thru the misery of dipnetting and fighting over the fish.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Vince, just click on the link a little later this morning . . sometimes they sleep in at the Clarion and don't get things online until late in the morning.

    Good article . . I know from living down here and from observation that the dipnet fishery is a horrible polluter of the environment and the Inlet. High time someone did something to clean it up and get it under control.

    Kenai should raise fees, and BoF should cut limits.
    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

  19. #19

    Default

    Yes, a little creativity and properly spent funds rather than class warfare.
    Cleaning stations and waste management - Yes.

  20. #20
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    I looked at that in the past - lg. profit, if I recall properly.
    Gotta go to work .................................................. .............................
    Ok had tropuble finding a more recent report.
    Here is a link to the 2010 report.
    http://www.ci.kenai.ak.us/Dip%20Net%...Net_Report.pdf

    As you can see in 2010 the city of Kenai made $103,143.58 from dipnetting.
    They recieved $156,920 in grant money from the state.
    So dipnet user fees actually fell $53,776.42 short on covering the city's expenses. Luckily for them the state kicked in more than enough to cover it.
    Is it fair that the state used money belonging to all alaskans so those who live on the road system can dipnet for a reduced fee?
    If not for the generous donation by the state the city of Kenai would be over $53,000 in the red based on the 2010 report.
    Can the city rightfully expect the state will kick in enough grant money to make up for the shortfall in user fees?
    Should the state kick in money to help support a fishery they created even though not all Alaskans can reasonably be expected to be able to participate?
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

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
  •