Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: Subsistance netting a Go!!!!!

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    516

    Default Subsistance netting a Go!!!!!

    Just got word they will allow gill netting this summer on the kenai and Kasilof!!

    Anyone have info????

    What a shame if it did!!!!!
    Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

  2. #2
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default I read differently

    I read rod/reel or dipnet at R. River Falls, Moose Meadows, and one other place.

    Ninilchik will not get to retain rainbows, lakers or dollies, but Hope and Cooper Landing may.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    527

    Default

    i wonder how many folks will actually take advantage of this newfound privilidge.... i have no idea..... are there really a significant number of residents that will do this??? i have a feeling they'll get booed (among other things) by anyone passing by because this ruling appears to have absolutely zero public support. what would you say to a cooper landing resident that decided to take his dip net one day and go out and harvest a few 25 inch rainbows??? i can't imagine him/her making any friends that day. they're gonna have to be pretty stealthy about it because onlookers will surely not put up with it.
    maybe i'm way off here, but i have a hard time envisioning this being accepted or even tolerated by neighboring sportfishermen. can anyone defend this ruling? i'd love to hear someone with a viewpoint that supports it; i haven't yet, but there must be someone that agrees with it out there..... anyone???
    Mark W.
    www.akfishology.com

    fishing isn't about life or death... it's more important than that.

  4. #4
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default Not tolerated?

    If this fishery is guaranteed by the Federal Government, it will be guarded and managed by the feds. Regardless of whether people boo, or make faces or stand in the way, or throw fish guts at these people, the fishery will be carried out, because it is LEGAL.

    People tolerate, in a wholesale manner, the flossing of reds, which is nothing more than snagging in the mouth. And such flossing should be tolerated, no matter how unsportsmanlike, because it is LEGAL. So will this be. Those who will scream the loudest will be those envious of the right to do the harvesting- largely Anchorage bowl folks who operate under the premise that the rest of alaska, and especially the Kenai, is their personal back yard and the heck with the people who actually live here.

  5. #5
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    How much $$ do those Los Anchoragites put into "their backyard"?
    “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."

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,521

    Default some rationale thought please

    Before people go off the deep end they should read what the fishery looks like and how it will impact others. From my perspective it will not impact other users at all. To say the harvest of 4000 reds and 3000 coho between two river systems will be measureable in the sport fishery is silly. The 1000 chinook will not be harvested as it is a rod and reel fishery. Heck the whole fishery above the Soldotna bridge only harvest 1000 fish in July.

    This ruling is legal, it was justified given the history of the subsistence fisheries in UCI, and it does not put any stocks at risk of anything. The hype by some, including the State on this, is just unreal. When faced with cold hard facts the hype melts into nonsense.

  7. #7
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default Aw, Hippie

    Your avatar says it all!

  8. #8
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    Your avatar says it all!
    That's been said before.


    Remind me again about how much "Those Anchorage Bowl people who treat the Kenai like it their backyard" spend on the Peninsula?

    I'm generally a pro-subsistence guy, but this ruling smacks of nothing more than stupidity.
    “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."

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    516

    Default Well

    I was more concernd with the by catch. Ie rainbows and dollies. we all know the kind of trout you can pull out of the kenai. If to many are caught by net I will be pissed if we can't fish for them. I am sure they will use a net with large enough holes that small trout will not be harmed but what about the big breader size. And for some what about the " Trophy" size????????????

    Just my thought!!
    Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

  10. #10
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default Most Anchorage folks...

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    That's been said before.


    Remind me again about how much "Those Anchorage Bowl people who treat the Kenai like it their backyard" spend on the Peninsula?

    I'm generally a pro-subsistence guy, but this ruling smacks of nothing more than stupidity.
    ... tank up, grub up, tackle up and gas up in the city. Many bring their own camping gear. Why pay borough taxes? Most won't be guided.

    Big money for the pen. comes from outsiders who come up in mororhomes and 5th wheelers and camp for a month or two.

  11. #11

    Default

    Nerka,
    It sounds like you will be netting with them out there. I can't beleive you said this will not impact other user groups. Get real! This is going to be a huge mess for everyone who uses the river.
    To give them 3000 silvers is crazy, we do not even know how many are in the runs.
    The only reason for the low harvest of Kings above the bridge is the "fine" slot limit that has the majority of anglers fishing below the bridge.
    The slot limit was to protect early run 5 ocean fish, now they will be easy pickings on their spawning beds when subsitence fishers come through with a net.

  12. #12

    Default

    I don't agree with the new ruling. There are better ways to up the catch for reds, kings, and slivers on the river. The thing about using nets, they will net anything in it's path. I hope that those of you that will use this new rule to your advantage use it with respect. Throw all the trout back in the water. The trout numbers are no where near that of the salmon and need to be protected if we want to keep it a good fishery.

    You would think common sense would prevail here, but it has obviously failed. If we wanted more salmon cought, then we could up the bag limit both for sport fishing and dip netting in the mouth, longer seasons for bait, change the slot limit, change the ruling on how reds are cought (ie- acciental snagged reds could be kept). All these ways would target a specific type of salmon, thus not harming other species.

    This is just how I feel, so don't get upset if you feel differently.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Well I have two thoughts on this issue.

    One I think it is pretty dumb. The historical thing get blown way out of proportion. I seriously doubt that Nininchik or Hope ever fished the upper Kenai. If it was truly about subsistance and getting FOOD TO LIVE then hope has a good Pink run.....eat them. Or Ninilchick gets fish too. Fish them. Or put out set nets in cook inlet.

    However.....I doubt that many will fish this way. While they will be able to you'd have to wonder how many will.

    As Nerka said the impacts will be minor, and this is going to be Legal. I would pretty much mind my own business if I saw someone dipnetting on the upper river. I might ask them what in the world they were doing, but if they told me that they were doing something legal...I'd at the most call the troopers. They would then either A:ignore me or B: tell me it was legal.

    Also while we don't know how many silvers actually enter the Kenai here are some run counts from last year you can compare and then decide for yourself if 3000 silvers (which even once alloted must be caught....not all that easy I'd imagine.) are to many.

    Russian river 776 silvers
    Deep Creek 6132 silvers
    Anchor River 10,150 silvers.

    So while I have no idea how many silvers actually enter the Kenai I'd imagine it's in the 50,000 t0 150,000 fish range. Or more.

  14. #14
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default Changes

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

    Bureau of Land Management
    National Park Service

    Bureau of Indian Affairs


    Federal Subsistence Board
    News Release

    Forest Service




    For Immediate Release
    May 11, 2007
    Contact: Maureen Clark

    (907) 786-3953 or (800) 478-1456
    Maureen_Clark@fws.gov








    Federal Subsistence Board Approves Changes to

    Kenai Peninsula Subsistence Fishing Regulations

    The Federal Subsistence Board approved changes to Federal subsistence fishing regulations for the Kenai Peninsula at its May 8-10 meeting in Anchorage . The new regulations take effect June 11, 2007 and apply to Federally qualified subsistence users. Among the changes, the Board approved proposals to:



    · Allow residents of Ninilchik to take sockeye, Chinook, coho, and pink salmon through a dip net/rod-and-reel fishery in the Kasilof River .

    · Allow residents of Ninilchik to take lake trout, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout in the Kasilof River through a rod-and-reel fishery and in Tustumena Lake with gear used through the ice.

    · Allow residents of Ninilchik, Hope, and Cooper Landing to take salmon in the Kenai River through a dipnet/rod-and-reel fishery.

    · Allow residents of Hope and Cooper Landing to take lake trout, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout in the Kenai River through a rod-and-reel fishery.



    Permits and regulations, including season dates, harvest limits, harvest reporting requirements, and fishery locations, will be available prior to the opening of these fisheries. Staff from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kenai Field Office and Chugach National Forest plan to hold meetings in Ninilchik, Hope, and Cooper Landing to issue permits, explain eligibility requirements, and answer questions about these fisheries. The dates, times, and locations of these meetings will be announced.



    -FSB-

    ___________



    For more information contact the Office of Subsistence Management at:



    3601 C Street Suite 1030 Anchorage , Alaska 99503 (800) 478-1456 or (907) 786-3888; Fax (907) 786-3898

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  15. #15
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    My $.02. This is a case of political correctness run amok. "Traditional subsistence" harvesters did not travel 84 miles one way to catch subsistence fish when there are three streams within 20 miles of the village containing large numbers of salmon. I think the feds are being afraid of being labeled xenophobic/racist for having the courage to say - "I don't think so".

    It is really a matter of economics - no one is going to travel that far (in the days before mechanized travel) to harvest food when it exists in a much closer location.

    As for the impact - it creates another scenario of "haves versus "have-nots" . . and the "have-nots" are feeling left out. note that because these are navigable waters, the feds are making the call (thank you broken statehood promises), so no one can make the argument that this violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution . . (e.g. the game of the state belong to all the people of the state . . .

    You probably overpaid for my opinion, but that's OK too . . .

    tight lines,

    SH

  16. #16
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default Better get used to it

    Quote Originally Posted by Sierra Hotel View Post
    As for the impact - it creates another scenario of "haves versus "have-nots" . . and the "have-nots" are feeling left out. note that because these are navigable waters, the feds are making the call (thank you broken statehood promises), so no one can make the argument that this violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution . . (e.g. the game of the state belong to all the people of the state . . .

    SH
    We haven't seen anything yet. If you have been in Alaska for any length of time you have already seen the resources divied up to user groups who have become the "haves". This will not change, but will get worse. Probably, the Kenai will end up like many rivers in the lower 48 where you can only fish with a guide, or on certain days, or total C&R, etc. As our population grows and there are more people with divergent uses of rivers, such as the Kenai, it is inevitable.

    It would be a good thing for those who wish to harvest fish to band together rather than be jealous of one another. I say this, because the environmentalist contingent, and the PETA contingent, and the sight see-er contingent, and total C&R contingent, and the "earth mother" contingent are each growing in number and will lobby for the rivers and lakes to become "wild and scenic" and nearly untouchable. Mark my words.

  17. #17

    Default Police escort may be necessary for them to exercise their rights

    The Russian River falls is what gets me. I'm not saying that I'm for or against it, I'm trying to picture it. Some guys with dipnets or gillnets walking up that crowded trail full of elitist fly-fishermen with guns. They might need a police escort. Should be a scene. (not that the Russian isn't alread a scene).
    Hike faster. I hear banjo music.

  18. #18
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default Help

    Quote Originally Posted by wildog View Post
    Some guys with dipnets or gillnets walking up that crowded trail full of elitist fly-fishermen with guns. They might need a police escort. Should be a scene. (not that the Russian isn't alread a scene).
    And how would this help the situation? It would probably amount to a closed fishery with no one there except the netters.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    690

    Default You Said It

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    It would be a good thing for those who wish to harvest fish to band together rather than be jealous of one another. I say this, because the environmentalist contingent, and the PETA contingent, and the sight see-er contingent, and total C&R contingent, and the "earth mother" contingent are each growing in number and will lobby for the rivers and lakes to become "wild and scenic" and nearly untouchable. Mark my words.
    There's been too much infighting and the only solution for us to find a diplomatic solution is to unify user groups and their needs and present them to the Board of Fish. I'm personally a little surprised that this passed due to the whole travel issue... Ninilchik to the Russian? hmmmmmm.

    As far as the biologists and appointed experts are concerned; they have their jobs for a reason. I'm not much on political agendas but I can't imagine the impact of a community that has few residents and fewer that will fish this new opportunity. Not really much to gain from the Lower Penninsula demographic so really... what's the harm? Let them do it. The moment they pull up to the gas pump down there to fill up for a 5 hour round trip they'll think twice. It's not like that's a community flush with money.

    No offense to the penninsula folks; I used to live there myself. So please don't think I'm bashing any region or lash out at me for saying it like it is.
    Last edited by Back Country Robb; 05-11-2007 at 14:23. Reason: NO offense meant
    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default Special privelege for the few = Entitlement

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Before people go off the deep end they should read what the fishery looks like and how it will impact others. From my perspective it will not impact other users at all. To say the harvest of 4000 reds and 3000 coho between two river systems will be measureable in the sport fishery is silly. The 1000 chinook will not be harvested as it is a rod and reel fishery. Heck the whole fishery above the Soldotna bridge only harvest 1000 fish in July.

    This ruling is legal, it was justified given the history of the subsistence fisheries in UCI, and it does not put any stocks at risk of anything. The hype by some, including the State on this, is just unreal. When faced with cold hard facts the hype melts into nonsense.
    Ah, Nerka, I politely, yet firmly disagree. I invite you to research the Boldt Decision from Washington state.

    This subsistence ruling may or may not have much impact--yet. But it sets a really dangerous precendent, as discussed in previous forum board conversations. Remember your history, and look south to the bone-headed moves that have been made by the feds there, i.e. the Boldt Decision in Washington, made in 1974 which basically gave Indian tribes 50% of the return of anadromous fish to those Indians to harvest via gillnet. It is a special entitlement to a few select people, despite what might be best for the majority of citizens. Being "legal" certainly is not equivalent to right or best. And just because the feds made it legal doesn't mean it's smart. In no way can such an entitlement be viewed as a management best practice.

    The result in Washington was the native fish were wiped out (Puget Sound steelhead are now listed as "Threatened" under the Endangered Species Act) and hatcheries were built to put fish in the rivers, depleting the gene pools of stocks that evolved over the centuries to survive in specific watersheds. Granted, the habitat destruction was terrific down there; but the in-river subsistence fishing by the tribes and the production of non-native hatcher fish were like the nails in the coffin for wild fish populations in those streams.

    This is an ENTITLEMENT like welfare checks, only this one is automatically given to certain people regardless of need and with very questionable, made-up historical claims to the resource. It is unfair to the rest of the citizens of Alaska, without question.

    The rest of you need to pay attention and become active if you oppose this sort of entitlement, for this is only the beginning of such entitlement-type ploys. Other groups are going to ask for similar entitlements, and this nickle-and-dime process threatens the rest of us. Remember, those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.

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
  •