Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Set net buy out

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default Set net buy out

    If any one or group wants to stop the set netters from catching kings to improve the run, here is the way to do it! Buy the set net permits and sights from the owner and shut it down! If the money that has been spent on every other effort to shut the ESSN's down had been used to buy up sights over the years very few sight would be fishing now. Is it just more fun to just take away someones way of life and food out of the mouths hard working people? Be fair, buy them out, not starve them out!

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

    Default

    "When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?".

    Do your research. Even the bios are saying that it is likely a high seas problem (on the news tonight, in fact).
    Up until 1959 the inlet was heavily fished using highly efficient FISH TRAPS (look them up) which could scoop up waaaaay more fish than any set netter could ever dream of. All the way up and down the east side, and yet the run continued strong. Then, in 1959. the traps were banned and set netters came into their own, followed by sport fishing, which grew exponentially (while commercial fishing actually lessened due to limited entry). The two fisheries co-existed right alongside each other for decades, so what happened? If you blame the set netters you must also blame the sport fishers... but the culprit is probably not even in the inlet or Alaska waters at all.
    Quit pointing the finger, you are showing your ignorance.

  3. #3
    Supporting Member AlaskanSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Wow, just wow. Such drivel hardly deserves a response. Setnetters are affecting the return such an infinitesimal amount, it hardly deserves considering.

    Now the "personal use" dipnetting where you catch fish to send to all of your friends and family in the lower 48 is another issue. And perhaps charter operators should have quotas like the commercial halibut?

    Setnetters feeding their families from selling a few fish, is just as noble as families catching more personal use salmon then they need and eating them.

    You can effectively control which species a gillnet catches through restricting mesh sizes. A king salmon will bounce off a 4.85" mesh size - which is even too small for Cook Inlet reds, however if hung average to loose, that will catch a few reds.

    Sayak hit the nail on the head too - but even beyond that, there have been historical cycles that the run does recover from. Lets not let emotions and politics cloud the process.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    You missed the point. It was for KRSA to stop attacking the set netters all the time. You know "put up or shut up" "put your money where your mouth is" if you took my post the wrong way sorry. I am on the set netters side!

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    You missed the point. It was for KRSA to stop attacking the set netters all the time. You know "put up or shut up" "put your money where your mouth is" if you took my post the wrong way sorry. I am on the set netters side!
    Oh, sorry! I really thought you were suggesting that the sport guys up and buy them out. Not that set netters would necessarily sell out their family operations...

  6. #6
    Member alaska_pike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    big lake
    Posts
    320

    Default

    i agree with this,.. i have no problem with dipnetting but i dont understand why people take more than they need. i dipnetted 25 reds last year and it was the perfect amount for my family, we just finished our last couple packs and now im getting tired of people trying to pawn off their freezer full of salmon to me right when im looking forward to this years season. just because the permit alows you to take 30 or 40 or 50 fish,.. why not just take what you need.

  7. #7

    Default

    I get your point MGH, and it's a valid one. Thanks for starting a new thread. True - with the amount of money KRSA spends buying votes and slinging mud, they could have bought up a ton of setnet permits by now. I've been hearing 'buyout' from a lot of people, even some in the setnet community. My response is, why? What good would it do? I realize that everyone has faced restrictions due to Kings in the last couple of years, but none of the data suggests that this problem is permanent, and setnets only catch a small fraction of the Kenai King run. Most years, there is more than enough fish to satisfy all user groups, and there aren't any user groups in the Inlet or in our river that need to grow or have a larger share of the pie. Quite the contrary, actually. Our river is overcrowded. Less pressure would be better. A setnet buyout wouldn't help anything - setnets aren't the problem. The problem is that dishonest people who lie, cheat, and steal to get their way have corrupted every part of the public process involving our fisheries, and the misinformation that they spread is taken as gospel by too many people. I'm hopeful that it's beginning to change though.

  8. #8
    Supporting Member AlaskanSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    598

    Default

    I apologize as well - I did not get the tone reading between the lines. Thx!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    I wish every set netter had half the money the Mr Penny others have put in their pockets. The fight has never been about the fish, just greed. As long as they are making money they will not stop.

  10. #10

    Default

    This has actually worked really well in other places with things like shrimping nets, etc, but that's generally for a season that runs a set number of days with a set number of licenses. It seems like in alaska this may not work as well because if you reduce the number of permits, what you are likely to get is more openings. IE the impact on the fish may be very similar unless you buy up a huge amount of the permits.

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb A better idea . . . ?

    How about this idea:


    Let Cook Inlet's gill-net industry along with catch-and-eat anglers, environmentalists, and those sickened by the Kenai River Circus buy out KRSA?


    Works for me . . .

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Fishery buy-outs are normally a voluntary, willing-buyer/willing seller concept. If the State is looking to reduce the amount of fishing pressure on a fishery (in many places around the country), a buy-out is often an attractive option for those folks looking to get out of the fish business without a major haircut. It's been used extensivily in New England, Florida, Northern California, the Gulf Coast, and a little in the Great Lakes. However, I've only seen them used when a fishery has been in deep decline for years, and the economic costs of buying out the fishermen is considerably less than other options. I'm not sure this applies to the KP, and the ESSNetters. One tough year doesn't make a trend. Besides, the lack of the target fish (sockeye) is NOT the problem on the KP. The lack of the target fish is ALWAYS the major problem in other fisheries where buy-outs have been employed. So, in my view, buy-outs are a non-starter on the KP.

    Also, Marcus, do you mean to suggest that a buy-out of KSRA would mean a buy-out of the recreational fishing guides on the Kenai River? Given that the KSRA is likely supported primarily by the folks who make their living guiding other folks on the Kenai, that's seems to be what you are suggesting. Maybe I'm reading too much into your post....

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

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Also, Marcus, do you mean to suggest that a buy-out of KSRA would mean a buy-out of the recreational fishing guides on the Kenai River? Given that the KSRA is likely supported primarily by the folks who make their living guiding other folks on the Kenai, that's seems to be what you are suggesting. Maybe I'm reading too much into your post....

    You've got it bass-ackwards, Coho . . it's the other way 'round. Buy out KRSA, and 99.9 percent of the divisiveness will cease. Guides aren't the problem, KRSA is the problem.


    Guides are a needed part of our area's economic base providing a service to tourists and residents alike. Guides aren't the problem.


    KRSA is the problem . . .


    Attachment 70248




  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Marcus - I'm not sure I understand. KRSA doesn't harvest fish. Anglers do. KRSA doesn't take people on the river to catch fish. Guides do. KRSA doesn't harvest sockeye to make a living. Commercial fishermen do.

    Near as I can tell, KRSA is a advocacy/lobbying organization. So if they were to be "bought out" what would the State (or whoever) be buying? What are they getting for their $$'s? Normally, a buy-out is used to reduce the fishing pressure on a specific stock of fish, thus preserving a public resource (the fish). But KRSA is only exercising their constitutional rights to advocate and lobby for their point of view and policy perspective, which lots of people on this BB disagreement with. But not all. That's okay, but last I knew, constitutional rights aren't for sale. Nor can they be.......

    Perhaps you were just 'thinking outside the box' as a way to neutralize a policy perspective you disagree with. That's fine, but I suspect the folks at KRSA might get a good chuckle from your suggestion.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Marcus - I'm not sure I understand. KRSA doesn't harvest fish. Anglers do. KRSA doesn't take people on the river to catch fish. Guides do. KRSA doesn't harvest sockeye to make a living. Commercial fishermen do.

    Near as I can tell, KRSA is a advocacy/lobbying organization. So if they were to be "bought out" what would the State (or whoever) be buying? What are they getting for their $$'s? Normally, a buy-out is used to reduce the fishing pressure on a specific stock of fish, thus preserving a public resource (the fish). But KRSA is only exercising their constitutional rights to advocate and lobby for their point of view and policy perspective, which lots of people on this BB disagreement with. But not all. That's okay, but last I knew, constitutional rights aren't for sale. Nor can they be.......

    Perhaps you were just 'thinking outside the box' as a way to neutralize a policy perspective you disagree with. That's fine, but I suspect the folks at KRSA might get a good chuckle from your suggestion.



    Yes, Cohoangler, I was, tongue-in-cheek, thinking outside the box. Wishful thinking and all that . . .


    As for KBSA getting a good chuckle, I doubt it. Not out of what's posted here.


    And not out of what's posted here: http://peninsulaclarion.com/opinion/...#comment-15107 (scroll down to the comments and read those too)


    Bad neighbors, really bad neighbors . . . give me a call sometime when you're in the area . . we'll sit down over a beer . .

    Attachment 70285

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Marcus - As I'm sitting here in an office building in Portland, there is no place I would rather be than on the banks of the Kenai, tipping a cold beer, and watching the ice break-up, if it hasn't already. The anticipation of another fishing season on the KP would be well worth the effort. Indeed, if I get up there, we'll do that. I'll buy.

    Best of luck.

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

    Thumbs up Sounds good to me . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Marcus - As I'm sitting here in an office building in Portland, there is no place I would rather be than on the banks of the Kenai, tipping a cold beer, and watching the ice break-up, if it hasn't already. The anticipation of another fishing season on the KP would be well worth the effort. Indeed, if I get up there, we'll do that. I'll buy.

    Best of luck.

    I'll look forward to it, Cohoangler, and I'll furnish the cigars. Lots of stories to share . .


    In the meantime and for the record, let me say that I am in no way opposed to folks lobbying for sport-fishing interests. Such folks are as entitled to that right as are commercial fishing interests. Alaska's ADF&G Advisory Committees, on which I once served, take pains to make sure all interest groups are represented.


    What I am opposed to is chicanery, duplicity, divisiveness, and the like. I am opposed to passing oneself off and collecting money as a conservationist and then using that money to promote one interest group. I am opposed to secretive financial dealings and closed books. I am opposed to efforts to destroy our area's diversified economic base just to pander to one, selfish user group. But you get the idea. Much more could be said.


    KRSA used to fly high down here, back in their glory days when Uncle Ted was around. Area businesses used to say "Welcome Kenai Classic" on their marquees. Not no more. KRSA flies well under the radar locally these days. They'll always have their supporters, but that support is dwindling and fading away. And they've always had their detractors, but I've never seen so much public disapproval and outrage as at present. Have no way of knowing, but I'd suspect KRSA's in damage-control mode right now.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Have no way of knowing, but I'd suspect KRSA's in damage-control mode right now.
    Judging from their Facebook page, (which they only let people who agree with them comment on - how boring!) KRSA is using this publicity to attract new members. Since one of their 500 reasons for booting Webster was because he supposedly 'attacked' the PU fishery, they are soliciting that user group for new members. At least they're creative I guess. Kinda like that crazy uncle who always calls collect from prison looking for money - he's always got some new story that everyone listens to but no one believes. Who keeps posting his bail anyways? He was where he belonged, shame on them!

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default uh.... not so much

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    I'd suspect KRSA's in damage-control mode right now.
    Maybe you didn't read the post in one of these threads that describe's KRSA's "doubling down" on the situation they seem to have helped to create.

    That is pretty much the opposite of damage control imo.

    Sorry I don't have any cutesy yet quite repetitive pictures to post that would likely greatly help to illustrate what I'm saying here...

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Wasted fish...

    By the same token - should the commercial guys take more than they or the public really "needs".

    Do we really have any hard facts on what amount of fish is wasted by sport fishermen, dip netters, or fish sold commercially? It is easy to condemn the locals for fish wasted but we don't see the vast amounts of commercially caught fish that is eventually wasted - "out of sight, out of mind". Fish discarded by processors, stores, and by the consumers is just off our radar - and, what the heck, the comm guys made money off the "waste" as well as that actually consumed so who really cares

    And of course there is always the wasted commercial "by-catch" - but that is off topic.

    If we really were worried about the fish being "wasted" we'll let them all swim upstream to die and feed the eco-system as it evolved over the milleniums. NATURE WASTES NOTHING.



    Quote Originally Posted by alaska_pike View Post
    i agree with this,.. i have no problem with dipnetting but i dont understand why people take more than they need. i dipnetted 25 reds last year and it was the perfect amount for my family, we just finished our last couple packs and now im getting tired of people trying to pawn off their freezer full of salmon to me right when im looking forward to this years season. just because the permit alows you to take 30 or 40 or 50 fish,.. why not just take what you need.
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •