Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 137

Thread: Who is ready to slay kings on Kenai tomorrow?

  1. #1
    Member danmiotke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    214

    Default Who is ready to slay kings on Kenai tomorrow?

    Can anyone tell me why the @&$€ the river is opening? The Anchor has 1000 more fish then the kenai, gotta give the guides a couple days I guess!

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,517

    Default

    At this point, the driving force in decision-making is keeping the ESSN's in the water. If they close the river, then so go the ESSN's.

    The magic number to watch is 15,000.

    No reasonable person can expect this run to perform anywhere close to historic late runs. With basin-wide cook Inlet chinook failures dominating 2013, somewhere in the bottom three or perhaps even dead last is all anyone should expect for Kenai. The first extended ESSN opener yielded a whopping 58 kings. I realize it's early, but that's a very troubling sign for the late run.

    Bottom line, each dead king taken in the river places the setnet fishery one fish closer to potential closure. Last year's devastating ESSN closure was unprecedented. No one really wants to see the same thing happen in 2013. The best defense against that happening is a rapid and decisive step-down to C&R before too many kings are harvested in-river to make a difference.

    If the LR ends up anything like the ER when compared to forecast, no amount of in-river conservation will help to achieve the new SEG.

    The ESSN's could well be hosed no matter what they do in-river.
    "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

  3. #3
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    The first extended ESSN opener yielded a whopping 58 kings. I realize it's early, but that's a very troubling sign for the late run.
    OK... gotta retract that number as more tickets obviously were tallied over the weekend and the totals for last Thursday were updated today.

    The final tally was about triple what I originally posted... 171 kings for the ESSN's. Interestingly, the drift fleet took 164 kings that same day... a bit unusual since the drifters usually encounter kings at a rate that's about an order of magnitude less than the ESSN's. To see it shift to nearly 1:1 is a bit perplexing.

    Regardless, the first dipstick into the late run is thankfully less foreboding than my initial post would have otherwise suggested.
    "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

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Good luck on the "slaying"! Just got off the river, an honest 18 rod hours, 1 dolly. Creel survey had heard of only 1 blush 40" hen taken as of 3pm.

  5. #5
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenaislider View Post
    Creel survey had heard of only 1 blush 40" hen taken as of 3pm.
    Most likely an ER fish.

    If Ivan measured it, pretty safe to assume it was bonked?
    "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

  6. #6
    Member agp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Homer, AK
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Boy Doc, you sure like to stir the pot don't you. That is all. You don't have to tell me all about your magic tonic called C&R.

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

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by agp View Post
    Boy Doc, you sure like to stir the pot don't you. That is all. You don't have to tell me all about your magic tonic called C&R.

    . . . . +1

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,517

    Default OOPS... there it is!

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    OK... gotta retract that number as more tickets obviously were tallied over the weekend and the totals for last Thursday were updated today.

    The final tally was about triple what I originally posted... 171 kings for the ESSN's. Interestingly, the drift fleet took 164 kings that same day... a bit unusual since the drifters usually encounter kings at a rate that's about an order of magnitude less than the ESSN's. To see it shift to nearly 1:1 is a bit perplexing.

    Regardless, the first dipstick into the late run is thankfully less foreboding than my initial post would have otherwise suggested.
    Sorry about that last mess of a post as my numbers got crossed between columns in the table.... must've been the Aberlour 12.

    The original post of 58 kings on the ESSN's opening day WAS CORRECT.


    Here are the for-real-deal figures for chinook catches in the Central District as seen with clear eyes and mind.....

    6-24.... 10 kings taken by drifters (no ESSN opener)
    6-27.... 12 kings taken by drifters, 58 by ESSN's
    6-30.... 04 kings taken by drifters, 66 by ESSN's
    7-01.... 16 kings taken by drifters, 76 by ESSN's

    Total to date = 42 drift, 200 ESSN's

    On the water reports I got from the lower river today totaled perhaps 10 fish taken for a fleet of 40-50 boats.

    Earliest indicators so far for this late run are essentially showing no signs of life.

    Uh, Houston... yeah, we have a problem.
    "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

    Thumbs down Stirring the pot . . bubble and boil . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    . . Uh, Houston... yeah, we have a problem.


    Don't be bashful, Doc, spit it out . . what's your point? . . . what's our problem?

  10. #10
    Member c6 batmobile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Interior
    Posts
    2,101

    Default

    Saw a C&R pic posted by EZ limit guide service of a 40-50 lber this morning. Guess there are a few in there but the numbers would indicate it should be closed for sure. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
    Makin fur fins and feathers fly.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    And now we have less ER kings in the river too, because no one wants to make the call. We can only hope it will be done half ***** and go to C&R. I heard that a lot of the kings were feeders, I saw three that were whites.

  12. #12
    Member CTobias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Here and there.....
    Posts
    237

    Default

    I have a picture of a 61lb King caught when they reopened the lower Kenai. I don't have permission to use the photo, so I won't post it.

    If they really wanted to make a difference in the mortality rate they would stop all the king fishing, not just the sport fishing.

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

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by CTobias View Post
    I have a picture of a 61lb King caught when they reopened the lower Kenai. I don't have permission to use the photo, so I won't post it.

    If they really wanted to make a difference in the mortality rate they would stop all the king fishing, not just the sport fishing.

    Kings are but one, small part of Cook Inlet's mixed-stock fishery, and to stop all king fishing would mean shutting down all fishing in Cook Inlet—the gill-net industry, commercial sport, and sport-fishing alike.


    To forego the harvestable surplus and the economic benefits of the entirety of Cook Inlet's fisheries for the sake of one species would be, well . . sheer foolishness.


    If Cook Inlet's chinook salmon are so fragile that the species cannot sustain its place in the Inlet's mixed-stock fishery, that's regrettable but life goes on. There are plenty of chinook elsewhere . . the species is in no danger of extinction.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Palmer, ak
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Kings are but one, small part of Cook Inlet's mixed-stock fishery, and to stop all king fishing would mean shutting down all fishing in Cook Inlet—the gill-net industry, commercial sport, and sport-fishing alike.


    To forego the harvestable surplus and the economic benefits of the entirety of Cook Inlet's fisheries for the sake of one species would be, well . . sheer foolishness.


    If Cook Inlet's chinook salmon are so fragile that the species cannot sustain its place in the Inlet's mixed-stock fishery, that's regrettable but life goes on. There are plenty of chinook elsewhere . . the species is in no danger of extinction.
    So just kill em all, huh?

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

    Wink Let them eat cake . . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by AaronP View Post
    So just kill em all, huh?

    That's not what I said, is it . . . Attachment 71903


    What I said was this:


    Hundreds of thousands of people reap the benefits—economic, culinary, and more—of Cook Inlet's fisheries.


    It would be incredibly foolish to hold hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries hostage to the self-interests of a few hundred.


    If "big" fish are where it's at, there are billfish in Mexico and tarpon in Florida. Really big fish . . .

  16. #16
    Member CTobias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Here and there.....
    Posts
    237

    Default

    But what if those industries are having a detrimental impact to the population of the kings?

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

    Wink More hassle than they're worth . . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by CTobias View Post
    But what if those industries are having a detrimental impact to the population of the kings?




    Just kidding . . .


    Seriously, it would be incredibly foolish to hold hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries hostage to the self-interests of a few hundred (read "we want more kings").


    There are millions of kings elsewhere nor will they ever be exterminated from Cook Inlet due to "those industries." The worst that might happen is that Kenai kings would not be present in enough quantity and size (already happening) to keep the "size-matters" faction happy.


    There are enough fish in Cook Inlet to keep everyone happy . . maybe not quite enough kings, but enough fish overall. If size is so important, let them fish for tarpon and marlin.

  18. #18
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,517

    Default

    Shameless display of human arrogance.

    Callous tolerance/acceptance of localized depletion of salmon populations is what has historically led to their regional extinction.

    As a scholar of history, Marcus, your irreverent attitude about Kenai chinook being just another unavoidable casualty of the status quo is difficult to understand. And it's not just some careless quip.... you've posted similar remarks repeatedly this year.

    All I can say is WOW!
    "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

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Shameless display of human arrogance.

    Callous tolerance/acceptance of localized depletion of salmon populations is what has historically led to their regional extinction.

    As a scholar of history, Marcus, your irreverent attitude about Kenai chinook being just another unavoidable casualty of the status quo is difficult to understand. And it's not just some careless quip.... you've posted similar remarks repeatedly this year.

    All I can say is WOW!
    But you have to see Marcus's point of view... if they did shut down all the fishing, that would greatly hurt, not just the fishing "for fun" group of Alaskans and tourists alike, but it would hurt the commercial fisherman and it would turn into a domino effect. People would stop coming to Alaska, in turn, most of the towns that are supported BECAUSE of their fisheries would not be nearly as abundant as they are now. Jobs could be lost. And so on and so forth.

    I see both sides to it. But I think if someone sat down and thought, "Do i want to not see Kings anymore in the rivers, Or do I not want to fish anymore period?" I think you have to take the lesser of two evils in that instance.

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

    Wink Shameless? Arrogance? . . . I don't think so . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Shameless display of human arrogance.

    Callous tolerance/acceptance of localized depletion of salmon populations is what has historically led to their regional extinction.

    As a scholar of history, Marcus, your irreverent attitude about Kenai chinook being just another unavoidable casualty of the status quo is difficult to understand. And it's not just some careless quip.... you've posted similar remarks repeatedly this year.

    All I can say is WOW!



    Thanks for your post, Doc.


    Kenai chinook, should they ever become extinct (not likely), would not be the first nor would they be the last casualty to changing times, climate, and social preference. Life is not a static condition for any species, including us.


    Nor is my attitude toward the inevitability of change "irreverent," "shameless," or "arrogant" as you charge—my attitude is realistic in light of historical precedent and process and economic necessity. The seasonal fluctuations of one, minor species of salmon should not put at risk nor hold hostage the greater social good. They are, after all, only fish.


    Finally, to broadly assert that acceptance of local depletion leads to regional extinction is a simplistic non sequitur. There are far more factors in play in such an instance. Read Montgomery's King of Fish, McPhee's The Founding Fish, and Kurlansky's Cod.


    Hope you're having a nice summer . . .

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •