Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: King issues to me.

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

    Default King issues to me.

    The Kenai King issue as it relates to in-river impacts.

    Yukon has a couple posts that have got me thinking. I wanted to clarify positions I think many hold, but that might not be as plain to everyone as some think it is.

    Iíve said I would like to have more limits on guided angler impacts in times of low Kenai King Abundance. I think this group has the largest inriver impact, and is a commercial operation. As such it has to limited prior to non-guided angler by law. (in my opinion). This is a central idea to me, and is a bone of contention to many. I know many donít agree that you should/can separate guided anglers from nonguided when both are sportfishing. However, I think the issue has been clearly defined by the courts and public opinion. They are different, and can be managed as such. I am not saying non guided anglers have no impact, or would not also have to be restricted. I would expect them to also be restricted in times of low abundance and would support this.

    Another thing is at times fishing (and catching) are confused with the ability to fish. An old poster Gramps, had a great take on this imo. That fishing is a legal chance to catch fishÖÖ.but wasnít really about take, and catching. That being able to fish is the key, not how many the sector can kill. So if you had the chance to fish, then sport fish is open, and therefore other sectors should be too. I tend to agree with this. (thought with may levels as itís complicated).

    Also the idea of catch and release and catch and kill being different is another one that is never clearly stated. They are not. Both are a chance to fish. If one is open the other should be too. Most Alaskans feel this way I think, and it sometimes boils over into slamming on guides. C&R also has an unknown mortality and unknown (likely very negative) impacts on spawning success.

    I think there are ways around and through these issues personally. I just think things should be clear. Those are my thoughts. Maybe not as deeply explained as they should be, but there they are. Convince me Iím wrong! Iím very open to discussion on it, and have changed my mind before based on discussion here and on the old AOJ forum.

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy The root of our problems?

    All well-stated and all valid issues, Brownsfan.


    That said, it's my opinion that all those factors combined pale in comparison to the divisiveness and contention caused by KRSA in their relentless, political efforts to get 100 percent of late-run, Kenai kings devoted to the in-river, sport fishery, the destruction of the ESSNs sockeye fishery, and the eventual destruction of all of Cook Inlet's gill-net industry.


    If KRSA were not a factor, if they would just go away, it's my opinion that we Alaskans could work out, as neighbors, whatever issues remain.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Well Marcus, I tend to agree as well. However, I do think the above it at the root of why KRSA was successful. People are not clearly stating what their end idea is. They think they are, but in reality they arentí. They are fooled so to speak.

    Itís like the crowding issue in the other thread. I donít really believe anyone who uses that as a way to decrease guided angler impacts really cares itís crowded. Crowded is a human issue, not a fish issue. It makes it less enjoyable to the angler. It MAY be a fish issue if the crowds are are spawning areas, or if the crowding somehow increased takes. I mean I donít care if people had boats bumper to bumper as long as itís legal area to fish. If they chose to do so, then they have the right to do so. What the actual issue is is overall impacts on Chinook. One of the many issues is guided angler impacts, and not ďcrowdingĒ per se.

    Same as with what Iíve written above. Iíve seen those central issues being thrown around in almost all of these threads, but in some very odd ways. From both sides of the issues. I always think for the most part solutions are pretty easy. Getting people to agree with them is pretty darn hard.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    Well Marcus, I tend to agree as well. However, I do think the above it at the root of why KRSA was successful. People are not clearly stating what their end idea is. They think they are, but in reality they arentí. They are fooled so to speak.

    Itís like the crowding issue in the other thread. I donít really believe anyone who uses that as a way to decrease guided angler impacts really cares itís crowded. Crowded is a human issue, not a fish issue. It makes it less enjoyable to the angler. It MAY be a fish issue if the crowds are are spawning areas, or if the crowding somehow increased takes. I mean I donít care if people had boats bumper to bumper as long as itís legal area to fish. If they chose to do so, then they have the right to do so. What the actual issue is is overall impacts on Chinook. One of the many issues is guided angler impacts, and not ďcrowdingĒ per se.

    Same as with what Iíve written above. Iíve seen those central issues being thrown around in almost all of these threads, but in some very odd ways. From both sides of the issues. I always think for the most part solutions are pretty easy. Getting people to agree with them is pretty darn hard.

    No argument from me, Brownsfan. One solution, maybe the solution, is to restrict management of our fisheries to local Advisory Committees and the BoF . . all others stay away.


    Special interest groups, lobbyists, and the like . . tell your story to the local ADF&G Advisory Committee.


    Stay away from BoF meetings.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    In July with the current restrictions on guides the overall catch of kings is very close to 50/50 between the guided and unguided angler.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Thanks for that information Yukon. I'd say that looks to be as it should be. More effort from unguided angler in July. I know I keep using guided angler as the sector I'm poking at. That is just where I see the most confusions. I'm not anti-guides I'm really not. I value that sector as I value all of them when there is surplus to harvest. I think I'm for the fish, and fair and legal management.

  7. #7
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,357

    Default

    In sport fishing, whether C&R or C&Eat, a reasonable opportunity to catch fish is important. Being able to fish is key, as you said, but doesn't go far enough... there also has to be a reasonable opportunity to catch fish. This is why very few people go fishing in blown out rivers. You can fish all you want in the mud and turbulence, it very likely will not be crowded, but the opportunity to catch fish in these conditions is greatly diminished. During King season, anglers like to see fish being caught, and know fish are swimming through. In Silver season, anglers wish to see a steady flow of fish through the season. It is expected that runs begin with a few fish, build steadily to their peak, then taper off until its over.

    Sports fishing as an entity depends upon opportunity to catch fish. Year's end numbers don't mean much. If the Kenai LR chinook make their escapement goal, because of an early August push, that doesn't put fishermen on the river nor fish in the freezer if the kings aren't in the river in July during open season. The Mat valley sports fisherman looks for silvers in the rivers after July 4th. All too often they see a slow buildup, then a near total tanking of the run, and then a little push at the tail end. If there is a late push in early September or late August that allows rivers to meet thresholds, it doesn't matter a hill of beans to most sport anglers, if they had little real opportunity at success through most of the season.

    Managers look to meet numbers. If numbers are met at the end of the year, all is good. The season was a success. Anglers look for opportunity. If there was little or no opportunity, either due to lack of fish or closures resulting from lack of fish, the season was a failure.

    Anglers put up with crowding very well; when they are catching fish. Its not even too bad if they see a lot of fish getting caught around them. But if they go to a crowded river, have to put up with the crowds, draw a skunk, and see little or no action around them, they don't handle it nearly as well. The perception then is that while they had an opportunity to fish, it was meaningless due to lack of fish.

    You stated catch and release and catch and keep are the same, as both allow people to fish. There are many who would disagree with that. The C&R crowd will be happy to get out and fish in a fishery closed to retention. After all, its about a chance to get out and fish, and release what they catch. Those looking for fish to eat, though, will not bother, and consider a closure to C&R only to be the same as a total closure. For these persons, having a manager look them in the eye and saying their fishery is still open, they just can't keep fish, is a total slap in the face. They don't understand the manager's perception that the fishery is still technically open, therefore other fisheries on the same stock are also allowed to remain open. To them, the fishery is closed, as there are not enough fish to sustain their harvest. So it would make sense to close other fisheries upon the same stock as well.

  8. #8
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan
    Also the idea of catch and release and catch and kill being different is another one that is never clearly stated. They are not. Both are a chance to fish. If one is open the other should be too. Most Alaskans feel this way I think, and it sometimes boils over into slamming on guides. C&R also has an unknown mortality and unknown (likely very negative) impacts on spawning success.


    I don't want to get into yet another philosophical discussion on C&R fishing <grin>. But...this is an interesting graph above Akbrownsfan. I think those of us who are aware of actual fish stocks resource concerns and the real impacts of catch and retain, understand that the impacts of catch and retain are much more significant on fish stocks. I am not a fan of C&R, and I think the entire idea of C&R that has permeating the fishing culture in America has had many negative impacts. However, take the grayling in the Chena River that runs through Fairbanks. Catch and retain was wiping out that stock. It went to C&R only. Knowing what I do about that particular fishery, and wanting to put the resource first, ahead of any desire to catch and retain grayling there, I don't think that catch and retain should be open alongside C&R.

    If "most" Alaskans, as you say, believe that wherever and whenever it's C&R only, that catch and retain should also be allowed, think about what that really means. For starters, if true then "most" Alaskans either aren't aware of the real resource concerns, don't believe the bios and managers, or simply don't care. It's that latter one that scares me the most.

    Also, have to agree with the last graph in willphish's post. Tis true.


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

    Red face But is it fishing . . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    . . If "most" Alaskans, as you say, believe that wherever and whenever it's C&R only, that catch and retain should also be allowed, think about what that really means. For starters, if true then "most" Alaskans either aren't aware of the real resource concerns, don't believe the bios and managers, or simply don't care. It's that latter one that scares me the most.

    Also, have to agree with the last graph in willphish's post. Tis true.



    No one I know would disagree that C&K can, given enough pressure, decimate a fish stock. That said, all that would be necessary to keep a fishery open to both C&R and C&K is to limit opportunity some other wayótimes, days, means, etc.


    As willphish said:


    "Those looking for fish to eat, though, will not bother, and consider a closure to C&R only to be the same as a total closure. For these persons, having a manager look them in the eye and saying their fishery is still open, they just can't keep fish, is a total slap in the face. They don't understand the manager's perception that the fishery is still technically open, . ."


    But in this world where economics trumps ethics, Doug Vincent-Lang said it best:


    "
    It (catch-and-release) is a tool which enables managers to continue maximizing the opportunity to participate in recreational fisheries while reducing mortality to what can be termed 'catch-and-release mortality.' In this way, the economic value of recreational fishing is not jeopardized as the opportunity to participate is not reduced."Money rules!



    If anyone had suggested to my father's generation that we go fishing to let fish go, he'd have thought them insane. The bottom line is that C&R anglers and C&K anglers have totally different definitions of "fishing."

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Aren't "economic" factors mandated by the constitution to be taken into consideration in management? Both for sport fisheries and commercial?

    *Edit* Quick search of the F&G site:

    Because fish and wildlife were recognized as critically important to the fledgling state, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game was created as a cabinet level department run by a commissioner, who answers directly to the governor. The directives of the constitution were included in statute by the legislature under Alaska Statute 16.05.020. The functions of the commissioner are to:

    (2) manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest of the economy and general well-being of the state.


    Colors added by me

  11. #11
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus
    The bottom line is that C&R anglers and C&K anglers have totally different definitions of "fishing."

    I have to disagree Marcus.

    Some of us are both.

    When it's time to fill the freezer, I prefer sockeye, and fill it I do. However I've never felt that trout hold up as well frozen and are best eaten fresh. Also, I've not fished for Kings, period, on the Kenai for over a decade.
    Similarly, I just very much enjoy fishing, and I've been raised to only kill that which I eat, a principle I am passing on to my daughter. Somewhere around here I have an old photo from back in the 70's of me as a child, holding a stringer full of nice sized rainbows, on the Upper Kenai. I'm standing on a Jon Boat, with my old Mitchell spinning reel and a rod passed down from my Father, gripping and grinning.
    A scant number of years later that same area was struggling with maintaining a healthy population of rainbows, and I fully understood I was a part of that problem.

    Flash forward 20 something years later, and the restrictions on motorized boats, tackle, and bag limits have returned that stretch of river to a once again thriving rainbow fishery.
    I now have a photo of my daughter, in almost the exact same location as my older photo. She is kneeling down, with her flyrod/reel that I passed down to her, posing with a dandy rainbow that she caught, and released, after a day of catching and keeping sockeye. She has my smile, and I hope, the ability to one day capture her child(ren) in the same pose.

    I realize your ethical opposition to C&R, and I respect it. However, population increase, habitat loss, and fishing pressure have increased significantly over time, and if we want to pass on a heritage to our progeny of spending time on a river, catching fish, perhaps that morality supercedes one which reduces the abundance of a valued resource.

    Just food for thought....pun intended.

    ďLife has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.Ē ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

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

    Red face Money trumps morals . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Aren't "economic" factors mandated by the constitution to be taken into consideration in management? Both for sport fisheries and commercial?

    Oh, absolutely! For sure! But by that logic, why not sanction adult bookstores? More Good Time Charlies? They make money too.


    Strange as it may seem, there are those who consider C&R ethically compromised:

    "The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Zigliara, Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136)."


    Or as author John McPhee put it:


    ďNever say playing. You are at best torturing and at worst killing a creature you may or may not eat. Playing at one end, dying at the other -- if playing is what it is, it is sadism.ĒóJohn McPhee


    Nor am I posting those quotes to start another argument . . only to illustrate that the ethics of one user group are being ignored in order to please the ethics of another user group and to provide "opportunity" purely for the sake of monetary gain.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Well stated AKHippie

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question A worthy heritage . .

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    I have to disagree Marcus.

    . . I realize your ethical opposition to C&R, and I respect it. However, population increase, habitat loss, and fishing pressure have increased significantly over time, and if we want to pass on a heritage to our progeny of spending time on a river, catching fish, perhaps that morality supercedes one which reduces the abundance of a valued resource. . .

    Thanks, Hippie,


    And I respect your right to disagree and your reasons for doing so. To each his own.


    As Luther said, " . . to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."


    As for whether ". . a heritage . . of spending time on a river, catching fish . ." just to let them go, stressing all and killing some in the process is something worth passing on, we'll save that discussion for when we get together.


    The natives are getting restless . .
    Attachment 70402

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote who ever you want that supports your opinion, I just merely pointed out the managers are going by the State Constitution, any beef should be with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Oh, absolutely! For sure! But by that logic, why not sanction adult bookstores? More Good Time Charlies? They make money too.


    Strange as it may seem, there are those who consider C&R ethically compromised:

    "The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Zigliara, Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136)."


    Or as author John McPhee put it:


    ďNever say playing. You are at best torturing and at worst killing a creature you may or may not eat. Playing at one end, dying at the other -- if playing is what it is, it is sadism.ĒóJohn McPhee


    Nor am I posting those quotes to start another argument . . only to illustrate that the ethics of one user group are being ignored in order to please the ethics of another user group and to provide "opportunity" purely for the sake of monetary gain.

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

    Default

    Yukon is absolutely right; ADFG has a mandate to include economic considerations in its management planning.

    But I don't think that necessarily means that money trumps morals, John. Or that the C&R opportunity is merely for economic gain alone. And as far as I know, adult book/video stores are legal in Alaska <grin>.

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

    Red face Good thing we're all different . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    . . I don't think that necessarily means that money trumps morals, John. Or that the C&R opportunity is merely for economic gain alone. And as far as I know, adult book/video stores are legal in Alaska <grin>.



    Whatever winds your clock, Mark . . .


    Attachment 70403


    To each his own . .

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Palmer, ak
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    I have to disagree Marcus.

    Some of us are both.

    When it's time to fill the freezer, I prefer sockeye, and fill it I do. However I've never felt that trout hold up as well frozen and are best eaten fresh. Also, I've not fished for Kings, period, on the Kenai for over a decade.
    Similarly, I just very much enjoy fishing, and I've been raised to only kill that which I eat, a principle I am passing on to my daughter. Somewhere around here I have an old photo from back in the 70's of me as a child, holding a stringer full of nice sized rainbows, on the Upper Kenai. I'm standing on a Jon Boat, with my old Mitchell spinning reel and a rod passed down from my Father, gripping and grinning.
    A scant number of years later that same area was struggling with maintaining a healthy population of rainbows, and I fully understood I was a part of that problem.

    Flash forward 20 something years later, and the restrictions on motorized boats, tackle, and bag limits have returned that stretch of river to a once again thriving rainbow fishery.
    I now have a photo of my daughter, in almost the exact same location as my older photo. She is kneeling down, with her flyrod/reel that I passed down to her, posing with a dandy rainbow that she caught, and released, after a day of catching and keeping sockeye. She has my smile, and I hope, the ability to one day capture her child(ren) in the same pose.

    I realize your ethical opposition to C&R, and I respect it. However, population increase, habitat loss, and fishing pressure have increased significantly over time, and if we want to pass on a heritage to our progeny of spending time on a river, catching fish, perhaps that morality supercedes one which reduces the abundance of a valued resource.

    Just food for thought....pun intended.

    Awesome post Hippie!!

  19. #19

    Default

    I look at C&R fishing like duck hunting. Who goes duck hunting for the meat? I realize that you can't exactly release a dead duck, but you get my drift.

    While I think we need to further examine the effects C&R has on fecundity, I don't have any moral opposition to it. Better for kids than playing video games.

    What makes me sad is the growing inclination that harvesting kings is somehow wrong or irresponsible. While I understand that less harvest pressure may be helpful on low returns, this is a fish that many natives and generational Alaskans feel is in a class of its own. While Kings are huge, beautiful, amazing fish to catch, they are also considered the finest tasting salmon by many. Their responsible harvest should be celebrated and encouraged. They are one of natures finest gifts.

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

    Thumbs down Speak for yourself . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I look at C&R fishing like duck hunting. Who goes duck hunting for the meat? . .

    Shirley, you jest! . . . Attachment 70413


    I love wild duck . . wild duck breast, sliced thin and fried with okra is to die for!


    My neighbor back in Texas had 1600 acres he let me hunt . . jump shooting stock ponds . . mallards, gadwalls, scaup, ringnecks . . love 'em, love 'em, love 'em.


    You'll have to speak for yourself, smith . . I hunt[ed] ducks for the meat, nothing else.

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
  •