Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: BOF Proposal 217

  1. #1

    Default BOF Proposal 217

    Was wondering if anyone had a chance to read through the statewide finfish proposals. Specifically proposal 217. Here's the link.

    Here are a few of the proposed STATEWIDE changes:

    It suggests raising all Chinook lower escapement goals in all rivers by 30% over time, irregardless of that river's current goal.

    It suggests changing gillnet gear, decreasing setnet opportunity and increasing drift opportunity, and paring inriver restrictions to commercial on a 1:1 fish basis.

    It identifies the problem of low Chinook abundance as a management problem, not one of habitat, despite all of the evidence that points to low marine survival.

    It suggests treating all Chinook stocks as stocks of concern.

    It suggests that Jack Kings are not considered valuable to the reproduction of this resource and that we should not count Jacks as spawning Kings, even thought Jacks do indeed reproduce and there is no proof that age at maturity is a purely hereditary trait.

    It suggests that statewide we have experienced "25 years of progressive 'losses'" of chinook.

    In addition to the above, here are a few things that this proposal got wrong:

    It listed four rivers, and very selectively chose to average escapements from three different time periods in an attempt to illustrate that King returns have been declining over time. The four rivers listed were the Karluk, Situk, Nushagak, and Kenai. In addition to getting all of the escapement data from the Kenai wrong, this proposal also got the Karluk EG wrong. It is 55,000-120,000. Perhaps the biggest 'error' however, is that both the Kenai and Nushagak rivers experienced several years of VERY strong escapements in the last decade - in fact the returns in the mid 2000's were RECORDS for both rivers. Unfortunately, these years were omitted from the averages, as they would not have shown the long-term declining trend that it is seeking to fabricate.

    The proposal also suggests that we are 'managing for Sockeye escapements at the expense of Chinook'. At a time when the Kenai Sockeye SEG and inriver goal have likey been exceeded for the last two years, and the Kasilof BEG exceeded last year, and northern bound sockeye stocks suffered as well, all for the achievement of the King escapement goals (which were made handily), nothing could be further from the truth.

  2. #2
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006


    This proposal doesn't have a chance in heck.
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  3. #3


    I should hope not. Perhaps the saddest part is that this proposal was submitted by the chair of the Anchorage ADFG Advisory Committee.

  4. #4


    ADFG's response to prop 217 included this :

    "Systematically increasing king salmon escapement goals would lead to a loss of sustainable yield, as well as increasing the potential for reduced production in future years."

    Despite how softly it's stated, I guess there are some biologists who believe that large escapements can diminish future returns. Who woulda thunk?!

    Here's a link.

  5. #5
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006


    I am still surprised that there is no analysis of proposals in the BoF process. It makes it possible for anything proposed to be selected for management, even if the facts are not checked by an independant third party with proper training. Seems like there is a step missing.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts