Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Enhancing the Kenai king fishery . .

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

    Question Enhancing the Kenai king fishery . .

    This week's Peninsula Clarion, online poll asks whether "the Kenai River king salmon run should be enhanced with hatchery fish?"


    With over 450 respondents as of this morning, the poll is running 55% in favor of enhancing the fishery.


    The poll may be viewed here: http://peninsulaclarion.com/

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Thanks Marcus. I voted no.

    However, it is very understandable why folks on the KP would vote yes. Pacific salmon are an important component of the economy of their region. And without a strong Chinook salmon run, everyone is affected. I get that. But the short-term fix of hatchery supplementation is not worth the long-term risk to the health of the stocks (in my view).

    I recognize that in some circumstances, a hatchery might be warranted, such as when habitat is lost permanently to a hydro dam. But that's not the case on the Kenai. The habitat is available, and in fairly good condition (perhaps that's an understatment). So, there is no need to supplement the stocks given that habitat is not the problem. If the problem is ocean productivity (which it seems to be), all the hatchery supplementation in the world won't increase the number of returning adults. And when ocean productivity rebounds (which it will), the stocks will too. But if we're also supplementing with hatchery fish, those hatchery fish will return in big numbers too. The spawning grounds will be a mix of wild and hatchery fish. As we've outlined on this BB on many occasions, that's a really bad outcome. The result will be a long-term loss of diversity and productivity of the wild fish. That is exactly what we're trying to avoid.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    . . in some circumstances, a hatchery might be warranted, such as when habitat is lost permanently to a hydro dam. But that's not the case on the Kenai. The habitat is available, and in fairly good condition (perhaps that's an understatment). So, there is no need to supplement the stocks given that habitat is not the problem. . .

    Now if we could only get some of our borough assembly members and their sycophants to admit that habitat is not the problem and to back off their high-handed attempts to ram their version of public virtue down the throats of local citizens, . . .

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Now if we could only get some of our borough assembly members and their sycophants to admit that habitat is not the problem and to back off their high-handed attempts to ram their version of public virtue down the throats of local citizens, . . .
    I won't plow old ground, but my guess is that the borough folks know that quite well already. Their purpose is to ensure the habitat stays in really good shape. Maintaining the current habitat in the face of an increasing population on the KP ain't easy. But I won't debate that issue. Or if I did, I would contribute to that other thread.......

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

    Question The "borough folks"? . . which "borough folks"? Us or them . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    I won't plow old ground, but my guess is that the borough folks know that quite well already. Their purpose is to ensure the habitat stays in really good shape. Maintaining the current habitat in the face of an increasing population on the KP ain't easy. But I won't debate that issue. Or if I did, I would contribute to that other thread.......

    Not that easy, Cohoangler. They say there ain't much to see in a small town but what you hear makes up for it.


    Trust me, there are a number of issues over which our community is deeply dividedóBrent Johnson's selective harvest experiment, term limits for borough assembly members, and now this so-called "habitat protection" ordinance being disingenuously marketed as "zoning."


    The proposed ordinance presupposes that area residents either don't care or aren't bright enough to do what's right unless led by the nose and whipped into shape by our local Cognoscenti . . those who know what's really best for the unwashed masses. The issue has been very, very badly handled and needs a fresh start.


    And now we have another, potentially explosive issue regarding enhancing the Kenai king fishery.


    Never a dull moment . .

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Marcus - My apologies for an unclear response. I was only referring to your post which indicated "borough assembly members". I can see how that could be mis-interpreted to mean anyone who lives in that borough. My mistake. Short-hand never works......

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus;1298194[SIZE=3


    And now we have another, potentially explosive issue regarding enhancing the Kenai king fishery.

    Never a dull moment . .
    [/SIZE]
    Why stock the Kenai? really why? You could simply close all the fishing that catch them or get rid of one of the two groups fishing that fight over them so there would be enough. Stocking would create bigger problems and fish and game could never stock enough. It would just give the groups catching them kings more to fight over. That's how I see it it.

    Marcus when you say it is an explosive issue I couldn't agree more. Let's stock the Kenai and what comes back to the river after they are stocked is all mine. yeah with the track record of people around here stocking kings in the kenai will workout about as good as throwing gas on a fire. guess you could also just fish the kings down to zero so everyone would not fight each other for them that way there would be none to stock from and we wouldn't have to bother with this bad idea.

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Enhancing the Kenai king fishery ... just say NO!

    In the words of a now famous native elder...

    No
    Not no.
    Not just no...
    But HELL NO!
    "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

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

    Default Why not . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    In the words of a now famous native elder...

    No
    Not no.
    Not just no...
    But HELL NO!

    Your graffiti fails to explain "why not?"


    Think of the increased economic benefit to our area, think of the increased opportunity to pursue "that fish of a lifetime," think of the possibility of so many kings that it puts an end to the endless whining about our gill-net industry.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Your graffiti fails to explain "why not?"


    Think of the increased economic benefit to our area, think of the increased opportunity to pursue "that fish of a lifetime," think of the possibility of so many kings that it puts an end to the endless whining about our gill-net industry.
    it would not do any good that's why
    The crying by both sides will never end not with more kings not with less. It will never happen I am sick of them both one is as bad as the other.

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

    Question Why not . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerline View Post
    it would not do any good that's why
    The crying by both sides will never end not with more kings not with less. It will never happen I am sick of them both one is as bad as the other.

    Powerline, please don't read anything into my posts than what is actually there. I am not, not yet anyway, advocating enhancing the Kenai king fishery. I'm only noting it's an upcoming issue and asking "why not."


    Regarding your statement above, it's my opinion that one side and one side only whines, gripes, cries, and complains about the lack of Kenai kings and that is a faction of the in-river, sport fishery. The gill-nets, both drift and set-nets, seem quite content with whatever amount of kings come their way in the pursuit of harvest of a mixed-stock fishery.


    The poor gill-net industry is too busy defending itself against the outrageous vilification it receives from some sport anglers to worry much about how many kings are in the river.

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

    Cool The ayes have it . . . so far . . .

    As of right now, the Peninsula Clarion online poll is running 57% in favor and 43% against enhancing the Kenai king fishery.


    One comment posted below the poll:


    The size of Kenai Kings have been getting smaller and the numbers has been getting fewer each year for several years,. I was once told by a fish biologist that they could kill 40 hens a year and produce "Wall to Wall" kings in the river, but in his opinion the public wouldn't stand for it. If we released the returning wild fish, and kept only the hatchery fish, I can only see the up side. Wouldn't it be fun to catch a "Kenai King" again?

    A portent of things to come . . ?

  13. #13

    Default

    I'm against it for many reasons. Introducing hatchery fish is not going to solve the problem. The problem is much bigger than the Kenai itself. Need proof? ADF&G just closed Ship Creek to king fishing due to low numbers. What happened to this hatchery run? In river guide issues? Overescapement? Poor habitat? Catch and release mortality? You can stock as many king salmon as you want but something in the marine environment has affected their return.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    As of right now, the Peninsula Clarion online poll is running 57% in favor and 43% against enhancing the Kenai king fishery.
    . ?
    I remember when clarion also ran a poll for adding more drift boat days, I told everyone I knew to vote yes. If I remember right yes to drift boats won pretty convincingly nothing happened.

    As I said before it should not be stocked it will only create more problems and what comes back would not be as good. I do not fish Kasilof river and ninilchik river people say the hatchery fish are all small, people tell me it is a joke very small fish I do not know why that is.

    Another thing I was thinking about is that if done the kenai river would never close or would be hard to close boats would always be out trying to catch hatchery fish and let go wild fish. So conflicts would be same powerboat vs drift boat, guides vs everyone, guides vs normal people, gillnetters vs river people, gillnetters vs guides. Can you just see the arguments we release wild fish and they kill both, no they kill both? They drive power boats on the river and boat wakes kill small wild fish these are examples of the issues it would create and it would go on and on and on just like issues now but make it worse like I think I mentioned in a previous post it would just be gas on a fire. I have probably gone probably 4-5 years without catching a rainbow trout in the Russian river over about 20 inches this year I have already caught 3 that big and guy I fish with caught one Thursday that was almost 26. What did I do inbetween for those years, try to change regs ask fish and game to stock, complain about too many people fishing the river? No I didn't you know sometimes we get 3 months of winter vegetables from the garden and greenhouse sometimes we get a month or less same goes for the raspberries fish can be that way to.

  15. #15
    Member honeybadger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vikings Country AK
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post

    The poor gill-net industry is too busy defending itself against the outrageous vilification it receives from some sport anglers to worry much about how many kings are in the river.
    Vilification of the commercial fisherman?

    Well let's look at if it is deserved.

    The chinook salmon population has been declining heavily for the vast majority of the fisheries. Where is the issue, in the rivers or in the ocean? I tend to lean toward the commercial fisheries there.

    Who are the commercial fisherman? Are they predominantly Alaskan residents or from somewhere else, say maybe Washington?

    How many of the past governors have had ties to the commercial fishery here in Alaska?

    Is the chinook stock headed the same way as the atlantic cod stock in in the north east, (or the majority of all historically important commercial fisheries)? I'd put my money on it.

    Now what really gets me is the fact that commercial fisherman from out of state can slay kings in the inlet, but ALASKAN RESIDENTS can't keep one dipnet caught king. I guess we can see who is paying the state's (ADFG included) bills. Sad if you ask me. Just my lowly opinion though.

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
  •