Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71

Thread: KRSA plans Cook Inlet takeover. . .

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

    Default KRSA plans Cook Inlet takeover. . .

    Laws for the SEA
    A weekly report on fisheries issues before the Alaska Legislature
    VOLUME 13 #15 APRIL 30, 2007 17 DAYS TO ADJOURNMENT
    ANGLERS ANNOUNCES PLANS TO TAKE OVER COOK INLET SALMON

    (Used by permission of the author)
    The heads of the Kenai River Sportfishing Association discussed plans to takeover the Cook Inlet salmon
    fisheries with a shift in harvest priorities that would limit the commercial catch to whatever remains after all other user
    groups, including tourists, catch their limits. The chairman of the committee that heard their testimony said he plans to
    bring Cook Inlet salmon allocation before the legislature next year.
    "The public should have the first right to allocation for the fisheries they need. Your family, my family, people that
    live here should have the amount of fish they need for their own needs, and the tourists should. Then whatever is surplus to
    our needs could be commercially harvested," said Bob Penney, maven of the Kenai Peninsula sport charter industry and a
    board member of KRSA.
    "That's the way the fishery has got to be changed and it's going to be coming down to see you in the next few
    years in some manner because the public is going to want to see that done," Penney said at an April 24 hearing before the
    House Special Committee on Economic Trade and Tourism.
    "You talked a lot about the Cook Inlet area, but I think the comments could probably pertain statewide," said Rep.
    Mark Neuman (R-Big Lake), chairman of the committee, in response to Penney's comments.
    Despite the legislature's long aversion to involving itself in fisheries allocation, Neuman, in his third year in the
    House, said he's taking the plunge.
    "It is this chair's intention to go back and look at quotas. Go back a little bit and look at fishing quotas. Did they
    work like they were supposed to and how were they supposed to work?' Neuman said earlier in the hearing. Referring to
    discussions "in different fishing communities and boards" on Cook Inlet allocation, Neuman added, "Next year this body
    needs to take a look at that too, at the legislative level and I think that would be appropriate. Forewarned."
    Penney, who helped organize the 1996 "Fairness In Salmon Harvest" (FISH) initiative petition said following
    the hearing that a proposal submitted to the Board of Fisheries for the coming winter's Cook Inlet meeting cycle asks for a
    shift in harvest priorities there to put commercial fishing at the bottom of the list.
    "If the board doesn't pass this, this is going to become a public issue in the next three to five years while I'm still
    on this earth. We're going to see that take place and be put to a vote of the people in some way," Penney said.
    Jim Marcotte, Fish Board executive director, said KRSA submitted 14 proposals, including one "that seeks to
    limit the department's emergency order authority on closing the windows." April 10 was the deadline for submission of
    proposals, which will be published for public review in May.
    The legislative hearing was posted as a review of the economic value of sport fishing and began with calls from a
    string of KRSA board members and staff for a new, comprehensive state study on the value of charter fishing. Over the
    course of an hour it morphed into a push for reallocation of the Cook Inlet salmon harvest.
    Following the hearing Talkeetna charter fishing business operator Bob Meals acknowledged that the economic
    data is necessary to support his industry's goal of reallocating the fishery.
    "It's a proper reallocation of a resource that's been misallocated for a number of years ... That's called the free
    market. That's exactly the way it should be," Meals said. After working in the charter business for 25 years, Meals said his
    operation has developed to the point where he can make a living working only during the summer fishing season.
    Wasilla fishing guide Bruce Knowles, who was also a sponsor of the FISH initiative, called for a new
    classification that would eliminate the distinction between sport, subsistence and personal use.
    "The average Alaskan is called a sport fisherman. In reality they are consumptive users and they are beat about the
    head and shoulders because they go out there and harvest fish with a rod and reel," Knowles said. "This way they have
    managed to say they don't have to have those fish, they're out there enjoying themselves," Knowles added, without
    specifying who "they" are.
    Proposed for the 1996 general election ballot, the FISH initiative would have given users other than commercial harvesting
    a priority for five percent of statewide salmon harvests, but allowed the noncommercial users to take more than five percent
    in any given area as long as they stayed below the statewide cap. An Alaska Supreme Court decision that fish stocks could
    not be allocated by initiative petition knocked it off the ballot.

    Laws for the SEA is written and published by Bob Tkacz at Juneau, Alaska. All rights reserved. Contents
    may not be reproduced, broadcast, e-mailed or otherwise transmitted in any manner without specific prior approval. All
    comments and suggestions are welcome. Written communications should be directed by email to: junobob@att.net or by
    postal mail to Bob Tkacz, 416 Harris Street, Suite 203, Juneau, AK 99801; by telephone to 907-463-5455.
    All contents ©Copyright 2007 Robert P. Tkacz


    It's plain from the above and much, much more that Kenai River Sportfishing Association and Bob Penny have long sought the undoing of Cook Inlet's gill-net industry in their quest for more second-run Kenai kings and more coho for the [commercially-oriented] sportfishery.

    Some questions should Penny/KRSA get their way:

    1) Who at present is not getting what they need of Cook Inlet salmon?

    2) Without an efficient gill-net industry, how will ADF&G manage Cook Inlet salmon for [maximum] sustained yield to the benefit of all Alaskans, not just for a select few who want a few more kings and coho?

    3) How much more pressure can the Kenai River and its ecosystem stand? How much more can resident lifestyle stand?

    4) Do we wish to see the area’s economic base further restricted to and dependent on tourist-oriented, commercial sportfishing, which is vulnerable to the economic stability of baby-boomer nest eggs?



  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    "said Bob Penney, maven of the Kenai Peninsula sport charter industry"

    Bob Penny does not represent the Charter industry. Another attempt to tie guides into something they have not commented on nor endorsed, to my knowledge.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default maybe maybe not

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    "said Bob Penney, maven of the Kenai Peninsula sport charter industry"

    Bob Penny does not represent the Charter industry. Another attempt to tie guides into something they have not commented on nor endorsed, to my knowledge.
    Yukon, one cannot forget history and KRSA has paid for guides to attend the BOF meetings, they have taken up their position on a number of issues, and used their influence and money to push the guide agenda. So they are tied together in the perception of the public. May not be fair but when the guide leadership is in constant contact with the KRSA leadership and they have the same exact position it does not look like independent thinking to the general public.

    However, that is not the issue of this thread. Marcus asks some good questions about what this means and why KRSA is threatening to do this to our community via a State regulation.

    Penny in his simplistic mind cannot understand or refuses to understand the trade-offs. If late run chinook are declared a recreational priority and the fishery can use all the late run chinook ( which they could if one wanted to raise bag limits and remove other restrictions) then does that mean the whole eastside set net fishery must close for sockeye - with the waste of sockeye?

    How does he propose to balance the various interest of sport fishing groups? All sport fishing groups do not want combat fishing and more people on the rivers.

    How does he plan to deal with tributary issues - all Russian River sockeye are allocated to sport fisherman so does that mean to meet that priority the commercial fishery must close for all sockeye in the inlet?

    This type of hype from Penny is exactly the issue a number of us have been pointing out in public discussions. The KRSA and Bob Penny have no clue what a recreational priority means or how it would be implemented. They have no clue nor do they care about what happens to the local community. They are a group with little regard for the average fisherman.

    Yukon, I am glad you said that the guide industry does not support this at this time. It would be nice if the guide industry issued a press release saying that in public. Maybe you can get the guide leadership to do it. It would put some distance between your industry and KRSA. I will await to see if that happens however I am not convinced it will happen.

    The management plans in UCI, for all their faults, try to recognize the various trade-offs and balance the allocations to those trade-offs. That is why there is an OEG in the Kenai River, action points for closures of all fisheries when stocks are weak, a plan with windows that can be followed in average to below average returns (the problem is with large returns). So at this point what purpose does Bob Penny's comments serve except to cause pain and discomfort for everyone?

    I will continue to tell him that he does not represent me, the community, or the interest of the average fisherman on the rivers of UCI. Others should do the same and use our collective voices to say this is wrong and we are not going to take it anymore.

    No matter if you are a commercial fisherman, sport fisherman, personal use, or subsistence fisherman the hype of the Bob Penny can only lead to conflict. He is a promoter of the culture of conflict in Alaska.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Nerka, I do not represent the guides or their leaderships opinion and I did not say the guide industry does not support this at this time. I said to my knowledge they have not commented on nor endorsed this plan. This is the first I have heard of Mr. Penny's comments and have not heard a thing in the rumor mill.
    Again, I represent what I know and do not speak for anyone or group other than myself.
    I just want to avoid any confusion and the appearance that I know more than I do, I am not a player in any of this.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    240

    Default

    This sounds like a great idea! It's about time.

  6. #6
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    I didn't want to comment on this until I listened to the April 24th presentation by KRSA to the House Committee on Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. You can find the audio archive here:
    http://www.ktoo.org/gavel/archive.cf...2E85860D7554E1

    First, I want to say that Ricky Gease, the exec director of KRSA, did a good job with the presentation. Bob Penney probably was the most vocal and extreme about giving his side of things. Penney said that Cook Inlet sportfishery is only allowed 15% of salmon harvest while the commercial fleet is allowed 85%, and that fisheries management should be "turned around 180 degrees" from where it is now so that the public has first right of allocation. Any surplus could then be given to commercial fleet. Overall the talk and presentation centered around the economic value of the the sportfishery and how it pertains to tourism and overall contributions to various local economies. And how particularly in Cook Inlet the value of the salmon sportfishery is worth ten times the economic value the commercial fleet provides. Penney summed it up thusly: "Make more fish available to the public...believe me the tourists will come...
    put more fish in the river and watch the economic engine run hard."

    At no time in the entire presentation (and Gease explains at the outset that KRSA is a conservation org) was there any talk of any adverse impacts to habitat, or to the fishery itself, from increasing the volume of tourists/sportfishers to the tune that Penney and others spoke about.
    "Growth" was mentioned quite a bit. There was talk about more boat launches, more infrastructure needs, more access...to accomodate all the current and future tourists and sportfishers and PU fishers. New Princess Tours lodges, more guides, new retailers, 7-8% growth rates in tourism, subsequent increased demands on the sportfishery...economic stimulus that comes from this growth etc.

    Ironically, growth is what kills a lot of fisheries. Growth means habitat fragmentation and damage. Growth also means trying to manufacture (in essence, with hatcheries) more fish. Sometimes more fish (and boats and anglers) than the system can support. Little was made of overescapement problems, and one of the presenters scoffed at overescapement and alluded that the danger espoused by biologists of having too many fish was just hype.


    In the end, what I gleaned from the KRSA presentation was this: Money is the most important aspect of any fishery, and all allocation decisions should be based on which fishery provides the most economic benefits to the state.


    In my opinion (and as co-chair of an org whose main mission is conservation and protection of habitat for hunters and anglers), no org that claims to be about conservation should ever base decisions about fish and wildlife populations and prudent management on what is the most economically profitable. The fishery, in this case, must be the prime concern...how to manage that fishery in perpetuity so that there is minimal habitat damage and so that we can have consistent sustained yields over the long term that benefit a variety of user groups.


    While some spoke to the value of consumptive use for Alaskans, many who spoke flat-out said that non-residents were the bulk (or in one case, made up 100%) of the growing sportfishing business, and that also the value of a C&R salmon (to the economy) far exceeded the value of a commercially caught or consumptively caught salmon. I see no difference in the argument I heard KRSA make about sport-fishing value being greater than commercial economic value, and any future argument that C&R caught fish are worth more economically per fish than consumptive fisheries and thus the C&R fishery should be given a priority. This isn't a put-down on C&R fisheries; rather a sense of what we may be in store for in future.

    Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers will oppose any future attempt to legislate new allocations to the sportfishery as advocated by KRSA. Such mandates would handcuff biologists, are unwise from a management perspective, and would lead to overuse and habitat damage and likely regional system damages due to lack of effectively controlling overescapement. We need to start thinking beyond the immediate future as to what we want the Kenai to look like fifty years down the line, how what it looks like (growth) effects the fishery, and how to ensure that future generations can have an opportunity to fish in all the various fisheries. We need to begin working together instead of making more demands that increase polarization. There are better ways to go about solving some of the allocation disputes than turning the system of management 180 degrees around.

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default At what cost?

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Little was made of overescapement problems, and one of the presenters scoffed at overescapement and alluded that the danger espoused by biologists of having too many fish was just hype.
    All that you say and much more is true, bushrat. Regarding your observation above, you and all of us have got to get it in our heads that these folks don't give a rat's butt about sockeye. If, because of overescapements, the sockeye runs become wildly erratic—plentiful one year, scarce the next—it means nothing if more kings and coho enter the river for the [predominantly tourist-oriented, commercial] sportfishery.

    According to an Anchorage Daily News Compass piece (12/16/04), KRSA chairman of the board, Ron Rainey said, “ ". . . we (KRSA) disagree with present harvest methods. . . that allow the by-catch of kings and silvers. . . . . [KRSA] also strongly advocates that all Kenai Peninsula watersheds receive an adequate return of salmon so our rivers are seeded as they were prior to the influx of commercial fishing."

    Rainey's claim that kings and silvers are "by-catch" is a disingenuous portrayal of mixed-stock fishery management and an insult to the efforts of ADF&G to manage Cook Inlet's fisheries for [maximum] sustained yield to the benefit of all Alaskans. What can "seeded as they were prior to the influx of commercial fishing" possibly mean except "seeded without management"?

    No, a few more second-run kings and a few more coho aren't worth it. The Kenai River, it's ecosystem, and much more are already stressed to the limit—polluted, overcrowded, and degraded to little more than a dog-and-pony show. And we need more of this? I don't think so!

    At what cost does KRSA and Penny advocate such nonsense? That we give up management of Cook Inlet fisheries for sustained yield to the benefit of all Alaskans, that we further degrade and stress the river, and put yet more boats out there? For more money? Pathetic!



  8. #8
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Sad!

    The Kenai is alread elbows to a-holes during the run, and they want to put more people on the river?????

    I'll put up with the hords to fill my freezer, ie dipping, but I can't enjoy fishing on a river that is so crowded.

  9. #9
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    I think a sustained yeild for ALL Alaskans first, then tourist.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default



    At what cost does KRSA and Penny advocate such nonsense? That we give up management of Cook Inlet fisheries for sustained yield to the benefit of all Alaskans, that we further degrade and stress the river, and put yet more boats out there? For more money? Pathetic!

    [/quote]

    It does seem to come down to money. Why else do commercial fishermen fish? And many sport fish guiding entities are the same. However, putting the priority for sport fish would benefit more people overall, not just guides, from not only local populations but the world's as well.

    It's been proven many times that sport caught fish generate more money per fish to the local economy than commercially caught fish.

    I have questions about the management technique referred to as maximum sustained yield. Sounds good, but I've heard this management tool hasn't worked very well in other places (WA state comes to mind). Nerka and FnP, please comment.

    Changing the priority isn't guaranteeing that more boats will be put on the river. That is a separate issue. Same for the claim that changing the priority would further stress and degrade the river. Again a separate issue. Here comes the so-called "overescapement" argument again, no doubt.

    This priority change would NOT be a benefit for a few. It would be a problem for a few (commercial gillnetters). It would likely benefit everyone else from the people who sportfish to the many local business that capitalize on those who sportfish.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default not so fast

    Charholio - not true on the sport caught vs commercial caught fish. ISER study on the Kenai showed this was not true.

    However, comparing the two is really apples and organes. Very few sport studies take into account the lost harvest commercial harvest to get a sport caught chinook.

    I have used the example of putting the whole sockeye run into the Kenai to get all the chinook in - this is a negative on benifits to the community.

    We have plently of fish for everyone - why this debate goes on is beyound me - I have yet to see data that people are not getting the fish they need with the present sport and personal use fishing opportunities in UCI.

    Even in the Susitna River most of the coho, chinook, chum, and pink salmon returns go into the river (over 90% based on ADF&G studies).

    It is a matter of getting to the fish in the Susitna as the west side streams are not on a road and some runs go into systems on the east side that are not on a road.

    Again, I ask for the data to indicate that people are not getting their fish. I do not need to hear that they want to get them faster - that is a different issue. For method and means can increase the ability to take fish - a dip net is not very effective if one wants to catch fish fast.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kasilof, AK & Forks, WA
    Posts
    185

    Thumbs down

    Some years Nerka ...

    What happened at the mouth of the Kasilof last year should make everybody in ADF&G ashamed of themselves.

    We hear of only so many sockeye left in the Inlet, and the Kenai numbers way below where they should be. So move the whole commerical fishery inside the Kasilof mouth, with zero regard for anything but the sockeye count???????????????????????

    That's plain assinine.

    I won't bother using the uploader here because the limitattions of file size don't allow for any detail in these pics to show, but here are a couple of links to what the Kasilof mouth looked like last year. This is probably about about a 45 degree view, keep in mind that the entire scenario spanned 180 degrees. In the case of both of these picture, we counted between 180-190 drifters working, and countless set sets in varying stages of fishability.

    Also note that the Coast Guard had to come into play here because the nets were even anchored on to all the navigation bouys!

    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/b.../tnetting1.jpg
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/b.../tnetting2.jpg

    ADFG's numbers showed sockeye exploitation rates during this fishery as high as 98%.

    ADFG's own release on the UCI fishery last year stated that:

    One third of the entire Inlet's catch came from this 3 square mile fishery.

    "The aggressive use of this terminal harvest area affected product quality, price, and "traditional" harvest areas and gear types to a degree that was not contemplated when this management plan was crafted."

    I'm sure sport guides would be happy to show their logbooks from the last few years, and for those that have kept them before required, that would be pretty sad.

    More data? Look at the the catch rates for the test net fishery being conducted by ADF&G on the Kasilof late-run kings. Even though 2005 was the heaviest netting in the area in many, many years, the 2006 catch in the tag & recapture study in July was just a fraction of the year before. During the terminal fishery, they couldn't catch enough withe a gill net to distribute tags.

    Since that was the case, how to do you logically assume there was enough left for any sort of sport take or escapement??

    An odd coincidence that when ADF&G finally gets around to trying to get a count on these fish, it happens in a couple of years that the fishery outside is at levels WAY beyond what is normal due to larger sockeye runs.

    So how do we get an accurate assessment on the king numbers for the study?

    We don't.

    But maybe that was the plan??

    There's room for both fisheries, but the overall picture must be looked at as well.

    Maybe we just can't do as "perfect" a job of managing the sockeye only when we must take into account the impact on other species. In some cases, that's simply more for other user groups, in an instance such as what we saw last year in the Kasilof, that's probably just enough to keep the run going.

    Whether it's what KRSA is proposing or something else, after watching this fiasco last year, it's time for a change.

    One of the reasons there's 10 proposals in the mix with my name on the bottom.
    Last edited by Bob Ball - Piscatorial Pursuits; 05-12-2007 at 09:41. Reason: bad url

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

    Thumbs down Money talks. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Ball - Piscatorial Pursuits View Post
    Whether it's what KRSA is proposing or something else, . . . it's time for a change.
    Give us a break here, Bob. As a Kasilof guide, it would seem you're all hot and bothered simply because you imagine "your" fishery—second run Kasilof kings—might be threatened. That's a piss-poor reason to go along with KRSA/Penny's mad rush for dollars, dollars, and yet more dollars.

    Earlier this year I did chat with some of the guys at ADF&G about your gloom-and-doom prognostications for your business, but according to them, you've nothing to worry about.

    Why is it always about money?


  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default I agree with Bob on the terminal fishery

    Bob, I have stated on this forum that the terminal fishery was a bad idea. Since I help write the regulation that created it I have some perspective on the situation. The regulation was written for emergency use only and never intented to be used from the start of the season.

    However, you need to blame KRSA for this and not the commercial managers or ADF&G. They pushed the windows for the Kenai and could care less about the Kasilof. When Kasilof escapements went over the goal a number of years ADF&G wanted to go outside the eastside set net fishing plans and target the commercial fishery on periods when sockeye where abundant on the beach. The KRSA and others who's main interest is in the Kenai, not the Kasilof, objected. In fact, they pushed and got an one AG opinion that unless ADF&G used the terminal fishery first they should not go outside the windows. ADF&G gave in to KRSA demands and started the terminal fishery in early July. That was never the intent of the fishery.

    Something has to change - that is correct. Fishery management should go back to ADF&G and out of the political micro-management that the Board of Fish and KRSA promotes. You picked the wrong team to be with on this one Bob.

    For the record, most commercial fisherman do not like the terminal fishery - it caused a reallocation within the commercial fishery as well and that was not accepted very well. Some made lots of money on the terminal fishery so be careful how one speaks for the industry on this one - they are not united.

  15. #15
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    The Kasilof terminal comm fishery could co-exist with the sportfishery... BUT ONLY IF SELECTIVE GEAR IS USED so as to allow for the passage of NON-target stocks.

    The intent of the terminal fishery is to cull off "excess" Kasilof sockeye... NOT THE INDISCRIMINATE SLAUGHTER OF EVERYTHING ELSE ENTERING THE RIVER!

    If gillnets continue to be the weapon of choice, the terminal fishery should be scrapped!
    "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

  16. #16
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default unlimited growth...

    ...is the ideology of the cancer cell.

    We just can't base a fishery on corporate economic growth models. We must put the health of the fishery first. Even if sportfish were worth more per fish than commercial ex-vessel catch, that still would not be a valid reason to do as KRSA wants and completely change the allocation of fisheries so that the sportfishery gets the allocation priority.

    Charholio, you can talk about "separate" issues, but they are all one and the same. Am I the only one who actually listened to the KRSA presentation I gave a link to? What part of this following Bob Penney quote aren't you guys getting?

    "Make more fish available to the public...believe me the tourists will come...put more fish in the river and watch the economic engine run hard."

    If the allocation is changed, I guarantee there will be more boats, more stress, more access demands, more crowding, more pollution. If that's what you all want, then throw in with KRSA. If not, then I urge you to get them to severely tone down their demands that further polarize the allocation issues we face.

    Bob, and Francis...c'mon, don't tell me you guys support what KRSA is proposing?

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool So what's your idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    The Kasilof terminal comm fishery could co-exist with the sportfishery... BUT ONLY IF SELECTIVE GEAR IS USED. . .
    That's KRSA's gripe too, Francis—the "INDISCRIMINATE SLAUGHTER" ( ) of a few, select, sport-coveted fish? KRSA, like you, "disagrees" with present harvest methods but offers no alternatives that will enable them to get that last 20% of late-run kings in the river while still trying to meet sockeye escapement goals.

    If I remember, that's what you're after too, isn't it—all the second-run kings? So what's your idea? How can it work? A return to outlawed fish traps?

    Exactly what sort of "selective gear" are you thinking about and wanting to see? How do we manage Cook Inlet's mixed-stock fishery for [maximum] sustained yield for the benefit of all Alaskans while at the same time pandering to the "nonresident/fishNaddiction/big king addiction/c&r" folks who want every last king for the "sport/commercial sport" crowd?


  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kasilof, AK & Forks, WA
    Posts
    185

    Exclamation

    Never said KRSA's bandwagon was what I was jumping on. But then again, if we can't find a middle ground that looks after all species, not only the sockeye ... and I have to take a side, then it WILL be on the one that looks after the fish that no one seems to give a hoot about.

    Give us our late-run management plan for the Kasilof and stick to it.

    Isn't it odd how the commercial interests want nothing to do with establishing a plan for this stock?

    That's putting $$$$$$$ WAY in front of what is best for the fish, the region, and its citizens.

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Your accusation. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Ball - Piscatorial Pursuits View Post
    . . .commercial interests want nothing to do with establishing a plan for this [late-run Kasilof] stock?

    Bob, can you in any way substantiate or document that accusation?


  20. #20
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Ball - Piscatorial Pursuits View Post
    What happened at the mouth of the Kasilof last year should make everybody in ADF&G ashamed of themselves.

    We hear of only so many sockeye left in the Inlet, and the Kenai numbers way below where they should be. So move the whole commerical fishery inside the Kasilof mouth, with zero regard for anything but the sockeye count???????????????????????

    That's plain assinine.

    Here are reasons to hold a fishery at the mouth of the kasilof

    1)Fish were being seen all over cook inlet fishermen were way angry because they couldn't fish when the run was there just late
    2)The opening at the mouth of the kasilof showed that the kenai run was just late (one of the biggest recorded openings right?) of course ADFG didn't realized (or did and faced to much political pressure from people like you to leave it closed) that and overescaped the kenai again
    3) The Kasilof was facing overescapement
    4) Cook inlet is huge if the run was as small as feared (it wasn't) the likelyhood of kenai fish being in the kasilof THA was slim to none (of course there were tons of kenai fish)


    if the sport fish association wants to put 500 people out of work they better pony up a ton of money, I had no trouble catching my reds last summer.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •