Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Setnetters sue for more time

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Setnetters sue for more time

    "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

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

    Thumbs up Cook Inlet rocks . . .

    Thanks for posting that, fishNphysician, saw it in this morning's Clarion while trying to wake up with my morning coffee and cigar.


    What a witch's brew this turning out to be . . . . again . . .


    Between no one being able to figure out whether ADF&G knows how to count whatever, whether the Didson-confirms-the-nets-or-vice-versa, conflicting ratios-of-this-to-that, disagreements about run-timing, biologists that can't agree on data, ADF&G playing hide-and-seek with the public, raucous voices clamoring for independent review of who-knows-what, various interest groups all pursuing conflicting agendas, and now throw a law-suit into the mix . . ?


    As someone said, nuthin' new under the sun and surely not in Cook Inlet . . .






  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Courts managing a fishery...... Why not? Everyone else is... (sorta)

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

    Red face "Endeavor to persevere" . . Chief Lone Watie

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Courts managing a fishery...... Why not? Everyone else is... (sorta)

    Trying to, FamilyMan, trying to and wish they could . . .


    As my dad used to say, "Try, that's all a steer can do."


    In the meantime, ADF&G endeavors to persevere . . . you really gotta feel sorry for them . . . what an utterly, thankless job.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Trying to, FamilyMan, trying to and wish they could . . .


    As my dad used to say, "Try, that's all a steer can do."


    In the meantime, ADF&G endeavors to persevere . . . you really gotta feel sorry for them . . . what an utterly, thankless job.
    Agreed on the wishing. So far as thankless, yes, but some of the methods they use while managing does definitely instill less thankfulness within the average Alaskan - and for good reason.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    This suit is a bad idea and probably will fail for a variety of reasons. My reading of the regulations suggest that the Commissioner can modify any management plan based on new and significant information in-season. Therefore, while the plans state that the set nets can fish up to xxx hours extra per week it does not prescribe that ADF&G has to fish that extra time.

    There is a question about when fisheries are closed - when the chinook projection is under 15,000. Above that level all fisheries are to be managed and kept open. Both the sport fishery and commercial fisheries are open to the harvest of chinook and sockeye but not at the level that some want. I doubt that a judge will over-rule the decisions of ADF&G given the e.o authority of the Commissioner that was upheld in the Brown decision a few years back. We will see.

    I would caution everyone not to label "setnetters file suit" to mean all set net groups or even a majority. This was not done by the Kenai Peninsula Fisherman Association or the FairFishing907 group and as far as I know they are not part of this which speaks volumes. In fact, they may in concept oppose this suit - we will see what they say.

    Feeling sorry for ADF&G is a nice emotion but in point of fact management agencies are accountable to the public and should be totally transparent. It is not fun in UCI during the summer but ADF&G is not always correct. The 2012 season showed that without a doubt and it cost this community millions of dollars. Accountability is not something we should give up just because we feel sorry for them.

    They know the game when they got in it. I never felt that when people came in and they were civil that I should not answer their questions and explain the decisions. Only when people got nasty or made comments about being on the take did I react and usually by asking them to leave and come back when they could be civil. You need broad shoulders at ADF&G but you also have to be humble as management of a mixed stock fishery will lead to errors and one should just be transparent and say we made a mistake. Have not heard that yet from ADF&G for the 2012 season and yet it is clear significant mistakes were made. This season is not over and we will see where the escapements end up. However, Kasilof sockeye goals have been exceeded and therefore the calls that led to that should be reviewed and judged in light of what the final escapement numbers are for the other systems.

    Also, for those who want to try and understand UCI management the discussion of alternatives and uncertainty in the data and potential sources of political influence all help to educate the public with real time examples. That is what I thought was one purpose of this forum. If one just want's to say ADF&G has a tough job and they are doing the best they can - great - but that provides little as a learning experience. At least those who post alternatives and concerns are upfront in their position and can see whether they were right or wrong and the rationale for their position. That I believe is a good thing for everyone.

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

    Cool

    Well, "learning" is in the mind of the learner, isn't it? One man's facts are another man's BS.


    As for understanding Upper Cook Inlet fishery management? According to some, not even the folks who are doing it, have done, and wish they could do it have a clue. There is no consensus about the Cook Inlet management, never has been, never will be.


    As for ADF&G, hey, it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. Poor buggers . . what with every Tom, Dick, and Harry these days presuming to advise them, point out their mistakes, and publicly flog them at the mast for every error, real or imagined. ADF&G is responsible to its Commissioner who is responsible to the Governor who is responsible to the public.


    This annual brouhaha/kangaroo court serves no purpose except to further confuse, divide, and rile up the public . . all of whom too have their own axes to grind.


    The beat goes on . . .



  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    This forum never fails to highlight the unique circumstances that occur in the Great Land.

    It appears that lots of folks on the KP are arguing about how to divy up an over-abundance of sockeye. For those of you steeped in these issues, let me ask you: Do you know of any other fishery in any other place on the entire planet where this is a problem?

    In every other spot on this earth, lots of folks are arguing about too few fish, how to divide an increasingly scarce resource, and the economic and humanitarian consequences of their decisions. But on the KP, everyone is arguing almost to the same degree on how to divide an increasingly abundant and valuable resource - an over-escapement of sockeye salmon. There are more fish than they know what to do with. But the arguments continue. Nice problem to have....

    The netters lawsuit is disappointing, but predictable given the difficulties of managing a fishery based on future predictions of what the run-size and run-timing will be. Not an easy task, but it's made much more difficult if the decisions are being in Juneau rather than in Soldotna. I say they should let the ADF&G fish managers in Soldotna do their job. They won't always get it right, but they will more often than not. And if they don't, they will see the consequences of their actions and do better next time.

    They will endeavor to persevere........

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

    Talking A collective cork . . ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    This forum never fails to highlight the unique circumstances that occur in the Great Land.

    It appears that lots of folks on the KP are arguing about how to divy up an over-abundance of sockeye. For those of you steeped in these issues, let me ask you: Do you know of any other fishery in any other place on the entire planet where this is a problem?

    In every other spot on this earth, lots of folks are arguing about too few fish, how to divide an increasingly scarce resource, and the economic and humanitarian consequences of their decisions. But on the KP, everyone is arguing almost to the same degree on how to divide an increasingly abundant and valuable resource - an over-escapement of sockeye salmon. There are more fish than they know what to do with. But the arguments continue. Nice problem to have....

    The netters lawsuit is disappointing, but predictable given the difficulties of managing a fishery based on future predictions of what the run-size and run-timing will be. Not an easy task, but it's made much more difficult if the decisions are being in Juneau rather than in Soldotna. I say they should let the ADF&G fish managers in Soldotna do their job. They won't always get it right, but they will more often than not. And if they don't, they will see the consequences of their actions and do better next time.

    They will endeavor to persevere........

    Well said, Lone Watie . . . +1 . . .


    We all wish for a lot of things, but you know how that goes . . wish in one hand, pee in the other and see which gets full first.


    Trouble with leaving it all to the boyz in da 'hood here on the KP is that too much of the rest of the state has too big an interest in what goes on down here . . we home boyz are pretty much bystanders.


    No, what we really need is to collectively put a cork in our bellyaching and whining . . take it to the governor . . stop agitating the masses with pompous pontifications, political agendas and personal vendettas.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Well, "learning" is in the mind of the learner, isn't it? One man's facts are another man's BS.


    As for understanding Upper Cook Inlet fishery management? According to some, not even the folks who are doing it, have done, and wish they could do it have a clue. There is no consensus about the Cook Inlet management, never has been, never will be.


    As for ADF&G, hey, it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. Poor buggers . . what with every Tom, Dick, and Harry these days presuming to advise them, point out their mistakes, and publicly flog them at the mast for every error, real or imagined. ADF&G is responsible to its Commissioner who is responsible to the Governor who is responsible to the public.


    This annual brouhaha/kangaroo court serves no purpose except to further confuse, divide, and rile up the public . . all of whom too have their own axes to grind.


    The beat goes on . . .


    Talk about BS - this statement is a perfect example of it. Hang you head in the sand if you want Marcus but please keep your BS to yourself about the qualifications, motives, and outcomes of what others post.

    The Board of Fish is the place for the political/social issues to be decided under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Governor appoints the Board of Fish from a list submitted by the Joint Boards. In both 2012 and 2013 the Governor has stated that he is not involved in management and does not want to be involved. Therefore, the Commissioner of ADF&G is the person people need to contact. Plain and simple if one is engaged but it is much easier to drink coffee and smoke in the morning and write BS about what others post and judge whether it serves any purpose. It may not serve your purpose but you do not speak for everyone.

    Also, it is very hypocritical of you to talk about kangaroo courts after reading your posts on the habitat protection ordinance where you call every government official every name you could in objecting to the ordinance and the Assembly members who passed it and the task force members who worked to craft a draft bill.

    Lets stick to the subject Marcus which is the set netter suit - not what you think is proper forum material or not.

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

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Talk about BS - this statement is a perfect example of it. Hang you head in the sand if you want Marcus but please keep your BS to yourself about the qualifications, motives, and outcomes of what others post.

    . . Plain and simple if one is engaged but it is much easier to drink coffee and smoke in the morning and write BS about what others post and judge whether it serves any purpose. It may not serve your purpose but you do not speak for everyone.

    Also, it is very hypocritical of you to talk about kangaroo courts after reading your posts on the habitat protection ordinance where you call every government official every name you could in objecting to the ordinance and the Assembly members who passed it and the task force members who worked to craft a draft bill.

    Lets stick to the subject Marcus which is the set netter suit - not what you think is proper forum material or not.



    If you would post your complaints in terms of ideas rather than as personal accusations and personal abuse, I'll try to respond.


    Thanks . . .


    Otherwise, consider reporting your concerns to the moderators.

  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Runsize update happens this weekend... I'm wagering it will at the very least put us in a scenario of up to 51 additional EO hours per week.... regardless of the lawsuit.
    "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

  13. #13
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Nerka, I've tried to find a copy on the web, but I just keep coming up with old versions of the KRLRSMP.

    Can you you post the incremental decision-making thresholds of run-size and in-river goals in the latest version of the KRLRSMP?
    "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

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post


    If you would post your complaints in terms of ideas rather than as personal accusations and personal abuse, I'll try to respond.


    Thanks . . .


    Otherwise, consider reporting your concerns to the moderators.
    If you will post something useful it would be nice. Here is just the last example of your personal attack on those posting who you do not agree with "put a cork in our bellyaching and whining . . take it to the governor . . stop agitating the masses with pompous pontifications, political agendas and personal vendettas."

    So Marcus some of us call out a bully when we see one. What personal vendettas are you speaking - want to clarify that for the masses? Pompous - whom do you speak - lets see a name or names. Whining and bellyaching - just whom do you speak. You must have someone in mind. Have the courage to speak to the person face to face instead of hiding behind the forum. Of course bullies tend to run when confronted and yell foul and play the victim.

    If you have a problem with the posts you take it to the moderators and keep it off the forum. Stop trying to hide behind I am just discussing issues. That is so far from the truth it is laughable and some of us are very tired of it.

    All of the posts except yours dealt with issues that impact Alaskans and they spoke to issues until you labeled them as above. It is so hypocritical of you to make these posts.

    So you can end this right now if you stick to the issues and speak with data, new insight, something relevant to the subject - anything constructive. Negative labels serve no purpose and this is personal because you posted a personal opinion on the quality of other people's posts. You made it personal.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Nerka, I've tried to find a copy on the web, but I just keep coming up with old versions of the KRLRSMP.

    Can you you post the incremental decision-making thresholds of run-size and in-river goals in the latest version of the KRLRSMP?
    The Board did not change the KRLRSMP. It only changed the 17800 to 15,000. So all the old regulations apply. So here are the main points:

    1. if the projected inriver return is less than 15,000 king salmon, the department shall close the sport fisheries...close the commercial drift net fisheries within one mile... close the set net fisheries in the Upper Subdistrict of the Central District.

    Then it says from July 20-July 31 if the inriver return is less than 15,000 then the sport fishery may be restricted and the commercial fishery only closed if the sport fishery closes.

    So one can argue that going to no bait and fishing the commercial fishery is totally consistent with the management plan except for the date when the sport fishery went to no bait.

    The other item for the courts to decide is whether the Commissioner had enough new and significant information to over-ride this management plan. That debate will take place when the actual merits of the case are argued. The injunction standard is that one may prevail in the case and harm will take place without the injunction. Harm also applies to the State and a judge has to weigh those issues. Again, I am no lawyer but that is my experience with injunctions in the past that have been granted.

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    . . So Marcus some of us call out a bully when we see one. What personal vendettas are you speaking - want to clarify that for the masses? Pompous - whom do you speak - lets see a name or names. Whining and bellyaching - just whom do you speak. You must have someone in mind. Have the courage to speak to the person face to face instead of hiding behind the forum. Of course bullies tend to run when confronted and yell foul and play the victim.

    If you have a problem with the posts you take it to the moderators and keep it off the forum. Stop trying to hide behind I am just discussing issues. That is so far from the truth it is laughable and some of us are very tired of it.

    All of the posts except yours dealt with issues that impact Alaskans and they spoke to issues until you labeled them as above. It is so hypocritical of you to make these posts.

    So you can end this right now if you stick to the issues and speak with data, new insight, something relevant to the subject - anything constructive. Negative labels serve no purpose and this is personal because you posted a personal opinion on the quality of other people's posts. You made it personal.

    Can't help you . . I have made nothing personal, nothing—no names, no personal abuse, no personal accusations. Where you choose to take it is your choice. Infer what you please from my concerns, opinions, and ideas . . that is your option.


    If you really want to conduct your conversation on this level. PM me for for another forum where personal comments are allowed and encouraged, and I will engage you there.



  17. #17
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The Board did not change the KRLRSMP. It only changed the 17800 to 15,000. So all the old regulations apply. So here are the main points:

    1. if the projected inriver return is less than 15,000 king salmon, the department shall close the sport fisheries...close the commercial drift net fisheries within one mile... close the set net fisheries in the Upper Subdistrict of the Central District.

    Then it says from July 20-July 31 if the inriver return is less than 15,000 then the sport fishery may be restricted and the commercial fishery only closed if the sport fishery closes.
    I was more interested in the SOCKEYE thresholds, not the chinook.

    This is what I have found so far, but I don't think it's current.

    The inriver goal (fish delivered to the counter) is:

    650-850K for run strength under 2 million
    750-950K for run strengths 2-4 million
    0.85 - 1.1 million for run strengths over 4 million.

    .... to achieve an OEG (after upriver harvest) of 0.5 - 1.0 million (fish delivered to the gravel)


    Maybe the thresholds have changed since that 2011 publication?

    So I went back to look at the 2013 Mgmt Outlook http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ho.../258650040.pdf
    There it states the in-river goal (fish delivered to the sonar) is 1.0 - 1.2 million and that the OEG is 0.7 - 1.4 million (fish delivered to the gravel) based on DIDSON.
    "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

  18. #18

    Default

    2012 AMR states Kenai inriver goal of 1,100,000-1,350,000. Last year's passage was 1,581,555

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR13-21.pdf

    I am not part of any lawsuit. While I have not read the lawsuit in its entirety, I would presume that I have issues with many of the same management mistakes that those who filed the lawsuit do. I chose to pursue my goal of a healthy, diverse fishery in a different way.

    I have to say though, local businessmen filing a lawsuit with private funds is much more tasteful to me than an "educational nonprofit" organization spewing misinformation, eavesdropping on private calls, and engaging in legally questionable "representational lobbying" to spear public servants and intimidate people into getting their way.

    I think that many of the data gaps and management errors are a manifestation of problems many years in the making. While I think that there are some people in ADFG with less than respectable agendas, I think that most of them are hard-working people who inherited a great big management mess that has been warped by this decades-old fight. I hope that we learn from our mistakes, and that all fisheries will be better off for it.

    Now let's all go kill some Sockeye without destroying vital habitat!!!

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    I was more interested in the SOCKEYE thresholds, not the chinook.

    This is what I have found so far, but I don't think it's current.

    The inriver goal (fish delivered to the counter) is:

    650-850K for run strength under 2 million
    750-950K for run strengths 2-4 million
    0.85 - 1.1 million for run strengths over 4 million.

    .... to achieve an OEG (after upriver harvest) of 0.5 - 1.0 million (fish delivered to the gravel)


    Maybe the thresholds have changed since that 2011 publication?

    So I went back to look at the 2013 Mgmt Outlook http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ho.../258650040.pdf
    There it states the in-river goal (fish delivered to the sonar) is 1.0 - 1.2 million and that the OEG is 0.7 - 1.4 million (fish delivered to the gravel) based on DIDSON.
    OEG is 700,000 to 1,400,000 million spawning fish.

    Inriver goal range which includes sport harvest above the counter is:

    900,000 to 1,100,000 at run strengths of less than 2,300,000 Kenai run

    1,000,000 to 1,200,000 at run strengths of 2,300,000 to 4,600,000

    1,100,000 to 1,350,000 above 4,600,000

    Note commercial managers look at the in-river goals because they have an allocation in them for the sport fishery above the counter. That harvest is subtracted to see if the OEG is met.

  20. #20
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Thresholds and goals have changed....

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post

    The inriver goal (fish delivered to the counter) is:

    650-850K for run strength under 2 million
    750-950K for run strengths 2-4 million
    0.85 - 1.1 million for run strengths over 4 million.

    .... to achieve an OEG (after upriver harvest) of 0.5 - 1.0 million (fish delivered to the gravel)


    Maybe the thresholds have changed since that 2011 publication?
    Thanks for the link, tb.

    Went to page 13 where the new sockeye thresholds are explained. As before there are 3 tiers.

    1) <2.3 million, with a goal to deliver 0.9 - 1.1 million fish to the counter
    2) 2.3 - 4.6 million, with a goal to deliver 1.0 -1.2 million fish to the counter
    3) >4.6 million, with a goal to deliver 1.1 -1.35 million fish to the counter

    The new OEG (fish delivered to the gravel) is 0.7 - 1.4 million.


    We will soon find out (some time after Saturday) where the in-season update places this 2013 run.

    Additional ESSN time jumps to a potential of 51 hours at Tier 2 and jumps to a potential of 84 hours at Tier 3.
    "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

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •