Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 147

Thread: Set-netters take fewer Kenai kings than thought . .

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

    Lightbulb Set-netters take fewer Kenai kings than thought . .

    Check the Peninsula Clarion later this morning when they post the article online.

    According to the article, the ESSNs, previously thought to harvest 17-19 percent of late-run Kenai kings actually harvest 25 percent fewer than that. Genetic sampling has shown that that percentage of the catch are actually Kasilof-bound kings.

  2. #2
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Thumbs up

    Oh, gee, you mean they aren't the big bad wolf some here portray them as?
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  3. #3
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Big bad wolf? Scapegoat might be a better term.

  4. #4
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    So they take 13-14% of the kings instead? Don't see how that's much better.
    They still caught more than sport fisherman, who were actively targeting Kings. That's a lot of bycatch.


    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishCo...n.kenaiChinook bottom of the page

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

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_cowboy View Post
    So they take 13-14% of the kings instead? Don't see how that's much better.
    They still caught more than sport fisherman, who were actively targeting Kings. That's a lot of bycatch.


    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishCo...n.kenaiChinook bottom of the page



    Historically it's been claimed that the ESSNs take 25 percent of late-run, Kenai kings, the sport-fishery—private and commercial—takes another 25 percent, while roughly 50 percent of the run spawns.

    Now, with better tools, it's apparent that the ESSNs take far, far less than previously claimed—only 13 percent or so—while the sport harvest takes about double that.

    Finally, there is no such thing as "by-catch" in a mixed stock fishery. Mixed stock fisheries are managed as such with harvest of all species taken into account.

    It's all harvest.

    There is no such thing as "by-catch" in a mixed stock fishery.

  6. #6
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_cowboy View Post
    So they take 13-14% of the kings instead? Don't see how that's much better.
    Safe to say math class wasn't a real priority for you, eh?

    They still caught more than sport fisherman, who were actively targeting Kings.
    Incorrect. And how many sport fisherman caught Kings while targeting sockeye, coho, trout, etc?
    That's a lot of bycatch.
    As Marcus stated, King Salmon aren't bycatch when one is commercially harvesting, Salmon.
    It certainly behooves folks to have an understanding of that which they offhandedly vilify....
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  7. #7
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post

    Now, with better tools, it's apparent that the ESSNs take far, far less than previously claimed—only 13 percent or so—while the sport harvest takes about double that.

    Finally, there is no such thing as "by-catch" in a mixed stock fishery. Mixed stock fisheries are managed as such with harvest of all species taken into account.

    It's all harvest.

    There is no such thing as "by-catch" in a mixed stock fishery.
    You have numbers for "Double that" ? Here are mine from the F&G link above.

    2011 Chinook Harvest Sport:6,458
    Commercial Set Net harvest: 7,697


    So the fisherman complaing about not being able to fish SOCKEYE are actually fishing for everything? Weird.... Especially when the drift fleet (for sockeye) manages under a 1% bycatch rate for kings.

    It sucks that they weren't allowed to fish, and I hope that we have a new management going next year to let the nets back in the water. I would also like to see the setnetters propose ways to reduce the catch of Kings in their nets. The drift was allowed to fish since they catch 1 or 2 kings a season, if the setnetters reduce their King numbers I'm sure F&G wouldn't have any issue with them fishing.

  8. #8
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    Safe to say math class wasn't a real priority for you, eh?

    Incorrect. And how many sport fisherman caught Kings while targeting sockeye, coho, trout, etc?

    As Marcus stated, King Salmon aren't bycatch when one is commercially harvesting, Salmon.
    It certainly behooves folks to have an understanding of that which they offhandedly vilify....
    Lets see....17-19% multiply by 25% overestimation equals...13-14%... or 17x0.75 = 12.75 and 19x.75=14.25. My math is just fine.

    Still no numbers from you...and hope all those other sport guys had their King stamps.

    Bycatch is " noun unwantedmarinespecies thatarecaughtinthenetswhilefishing foranotherspecies. " So catching KINGS while fishing for SOCKEYE counts as bycatch. Also called "non-target" species.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_cowboy View Post
    You have numbers for "Double that" ? Here are mine from the F&G link above.

    2011 Chinook Harvest Sport:
    Quote Originally Posted by ak_cowboy View Post
    6,458
    Commercial Set Net harvest:
    7,697


    So the fisherman complaing about not being able to fish SOCKEYE are actually fishing for everything? Weird.... Especially when the drift fleet (for sockeye) manages under a 1% bycatch rate for kings.

    It sucks that they weren't allowed to fish, and I hope that we have a new management going next year to let the nets back in the water. I would also like to see the setnetters propose ways to reduce the catch of Kings in their nets. The drift was allowed to fish since they catch 1 or 2 kings a season, if the setnetters reduce their King numbers I'm sure F&G wouldn't have any issue with them fishing.
    Thanks, cowboy . . good figures, and, as usual, they confirm the fact that the ESSNs and the sport-fishery, private and commercial, take roughly the same number of kings. What's new is that figures now tell us that about 25 percent of the ESSN harvest is not Kenai-bound kings but are Kasilof-bound kings. So, yes, if that's the case, the Kenai king sport-fishery does in fact harvest a greater percentage of late-run, Kenai kings than do the ESSNs. Of course, that still doesn't take into account the Kenai kings killed by c&r and the undocumented effect of c&r on spawning ability.

    And, for the sake of accuracy, it isn't ADF&G that objects to anyone fishing. That's the BoF job. ADF&G does nothing except implement BoF decisions [i.e., who fishes, how much, etc.].


  10. #10
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Negative, Ghostrider. Bycatch is a non targeted species. Whilst Kings aren't specifically the salmon that the setnetters are after, they are still a salmon, and since they are being caught under a Salmon permit, welllllll, that ain't bycatch.


    Again, know of what you speak, it makes these discussions much more relevant.


    As to the sport fisherman, I sincerely doubt all the Kings caught on the Upper Kenai alone (which is closed to Kings) by the sockeye flossers where kept, thus no stamp needed. But that doesn't negate the fact they where caught, and many of em didn't survive that far upstream, and so close to their spawning beds.


    As has been stated before, the King runs historically survived and pretty much flourished before the huge surge in sport/guide numbers on the river decimated the stock.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    As has been stated before, the King runs historically survived and pretty much flourished before the huge surge in sport/guide numbers on the river decimated the stock.

    Any "historical" facts to back this statement up?

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

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    Negative, Ghostrider. Bycatch is a non targeted species. Whilst Kings aren't specifically the salmon that the setnetters are after, they are still a salmon, and since they are being caught under a Salmon permit, welllllll, that ain't bycatch. . .
    Hey, Hippie, I try to explain the "Kenai-kings-as-sockeye-by-catch" thusly: Think of "by-catch" as "collateral damage." For instance, if we target a terrorist with a drone attack, the terrorist is our "target species," but we know that collateral damage will most likely accompany the "harvest." Innocent victims will be wasted/sacrificed to the greater need. That's collateral damage. That's by-catch. Unintended but unavoidable waste. Rabbits killed by wheat combines are another example of collateral damage/by-catch.

    Such is not the case in a mixed-stock fishery. Sockeye may be our intended target, but because we know that other species will be caught as well, those species are factored into the overall harvest. Nothing is wasted, all is harvest. No collateral damage. No by-catch..

  13. #13
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcman View Post
    Any "historical" facts to back this statement up?
    I'm posting from my phone, thus no access to the data. However the demise of the King Fishery on the Kenai is a recent event. Commercial fishery has been there for decades, the newcomers are the guides/sportfisherman, prior to that factions explosive growth the River had healthy returns.

    I'm in NO way laying all this at the feet of the sport crowd. There are certainly other factors involved, including commercial catch. However this constant villification of the Commercial Fishery is so myopic it'd be laughable, where it not for those whose livelihoods hang in the balance.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  14. #14
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    [SIZE=2]

    Thanks, cowboy . . good figures, and, as usual, they confirm the fact that the ESSNs and the sport-fishery, private and commercial, take roughly the same number of kings. What's new is that figures now tell us that about 25 percent of the ESSN harvest is not Kenai-bound kings but are Kasilof-bound kings. So, yes, if that's the case, the Kenai king sport-fishery does in fact harvest a greater percentage of late-run, Kenai kings than do the ESSNs. Of course, that still doesn't take into account the Kenai kings killed by c&r and the undocumented effect of c&r on spawning ability.

    And, for the sake of accuracy, it isn't ADF&G that objects to anyone fishing. That's the BoF job. ADF&G does nothing except implement BoF decisions [i.e., who fishes, how much, etc.].


    Ok, I see what you're getting at better now. It's good news that they are catching a few less kings, but on the same hand, I dont think it will drop the numbers enough to change any regulations or future E.O.s

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    Negative, Ghostrider. Bycatch is a non targeted species. Whilst Kings aren't specifically the salmon that the setnetters are after, they are still a salmon, and since they are being caught under a Salmon permit, welllllll, that ain't bycatch.

    Again, know of what you speak, it makes these discussions much more relevant.

    As to the sport fisherman, I sincerely doubt all the Kings caught on the Upper Kenai alone (which is closed to Kings) by the sockeye flossers where kept, thus no stamp needed. But that doesn't negate the fact they where caught, and many of em didn't survive that far upstream, and so close to their spawning beds.

    As has been stated before, the King runs historically survived and pretty much flourished before the huge surge in sport/guide numbers on the river decimated the stock.
    So why weren't the setnetters screaming about not catching kings? I didn't see that on any picket boards... Maybe if they did target just sockeye they would still be allowed to fish.

    How would you fix the King runs? Let the setnetters fish while closing down all sport fishing? Let me know how that goes.

    And when did this "Huge Surge" in sport/guide numbers happen? Was it 1995 when it went from 250 to over 300?
    It's that or it took 30 years (or longer. The chart only goes to 1982) for this stock to be decimated.

    Attachment 66343

    I'm not saying that the sport guys haven't hurt the run, but they are equally to blame with the commercial guys. And probably more so for reducing the average size of the King stock.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    I'm posting from my phone, thus no access to the data. However the demise of the King Fishery on the Kenai is a recent event. Commercial fishery has been there for decades, the newcomers are the guides/sportfisherman, prior to that factions explosive growth the River had healthy returns.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post

    I'm in NO way laying all this at the feet of the sport crowd. There are certainly other factors involved, including commercial catch. However this constant villification of the Commercial Fishery is so myopic it'd be laughable, where it not for those whose livelihoods hang in the balance.


    Your sense of time might be a little more skewed then mine, I don't think of the people fishing for over 12 years as "newcomers"
    http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/asp/kena...dy_oct2010.pdf page 41

    I think the setnetters are getting the biggest blame right now beacuse they made themselves so visable this summer and brought all this attention towards them. Even though they weren't the only ones not allowed to fish.


  15. #15
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_cowboy View Post


    Ok, I see what you're getting at better now. It's good news that they are catching a few less kings, but on the same hand, I dont think it will drop the numbers enough to change any regulations or future E.O.s



    So why weren't the setnetters screaming about not catching kings? I didn't see that on any picket boards... Maybe if they did target just sockeye they would still be allowed to fish.

    How would you fix the King runs? Let the setnetters fish while closing down all sport fishing? Let me know how that goes.

    And when did this "Huge Surge" in sport/guide numbers happen? Was it 1995 when it went from 250 to over 300?
    It's that or it took 30 years (or longer. The chart only goes to 1982) for this stock to be decimated.

    Attachment 66343

    I'm not saying that the sport guys haven't hurt the run, but they are equally to blame with the commercial guys. And probably more so for reducing the average size of the King stock.



    Your sense of time might be a little more skewed then mine, I don't think of the people fishing for over 12 years as "newcomers"
    http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/asp/kena...dy_oct2010.pdf page 41

    I think the setnetters are getting the biggest blame right now beacuse they made themselves so visable this summer and brought all this attention towards them. Even though they weren't the only ones not allowed to fish.

    Setnetters aren't screaming about not catching kings because kings aren't the priority for them. Sure, they make a little money with them, but the sockeye is their main source of income. I guess you really don't understand the dynamics of setnetting if you think it is possible to ONLY target sockeye. Do you think they can just put an underwater sign down there saying, Kings swim this way to avoid the net and reds swim this way into the net? PLease get a clue
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  16. #16

    Default

    So, the Sportfishermen are the reason for the King decline? What about the rest of the state? The King decline is Alaska wide not just the Kenai. The setnets killed more kings in one day than the sporties did in an entire month. The #s for 2011 harvest showed 1,000 more by set netters, hardly the same amount when you are talking about percentages.
    We know the Kings are sold for profit and therefore are not bycatch for Essn. Lets see 100% observance on the beach so we get a real # of harvested kings, that goes for in river too.
    We have seen, we just don't need the Essn fishery to manage the red run and overescapment has been debunked.

  17. #17
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,890

    Default

    Just out of curiosity, how do they calculate sport fish king harvest?
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile

    Some points:

    Maybe if they did target just sockeye they would still be allowed to fish.
    It's a mixed-stock fishery, and second-run kings and sockeye run concurrently. There is no way and no intent to not harvest some kings along with the reds. To assume or advocate otherwise is tantamount to saying that people who buy their fish from restaurants and stores have no right to a portion of the harvestable yield—such yield belongs exclusively to sport-anglers and guides?

    The setnets killed more kings in one day than the sporties did in an entire month. . . hardly the same amount when you are talking about percentages.
    For the figures posted above—set-nets and sport—the set-nets took only 8.7 percent more of the harvest of 14,155 kings than did the commercial and private sport-fishery. Moreover, not all the set-net harvest was Kenai kings, and some years the difference goes the other way.

    The problem is that a segment of the sport-fishery, private and commercial, acts like they believe all the kings—100 percent—somehow belong to them.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default no, but...

    Who needs facts or data? Just repeat something enough and people will eventually accept it as fact.

    "You can fool all of the people some of the time etc....."


    Quote Originally Posted by tcman View Post
    Any "historical" facts to back this statement up?
    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

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Exclamation Not even wrong . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishguy View Post
    . . We have seen, we just don't need the Essn fishery to manage the red run and overescapment has been debunked.

    And we could as easily say "We have seen we just don't need the Kenai king sport-fishery for this area to survive and prosper economically." Is that where we want to go with "to hell with them" reasoning?


    Second, over-ecapement has in no way, shape, or form been "debunked" as is foolishly asserted here. What particular numbers constitute "over-escapement" may be in question, awaiting further, scientific data, but the concept itself—over-escapement—is unassailable, scientific fact.

    Common sense alone is enough to know that any given ecosystem, be it a farm or a wild river, can optimally, in terms of production, support only a finite number of users.

    Over-escapement is a fact of life. Google "The Law of Diminishing Returns" for a birds-and-bees understanding of the concept.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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
  •