Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Editorial about lower King numbers

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Farmers Loop Permafrost
    Posts
    152

    Default Editorial about lower King numbers

    Nice editorial on the allocation of kings to commercial fisheries.
    http://www.newsminer.com/opinion/com...a4bcf6878.html
    Paul Holland
    Board Member Chitina Dipnetters Association
    chitinadipnetters dot com

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Thanks for the link. Just a very small quote from that editorial letter:

    "If we remain complacent and simply accept the fact that we are not worthy of eating kings, all of our fish will continue to be allocated to commercial fishermen, escapement goals will be “adjusted” down, and we will never again see a harvestable surplus of fish available to us. A couple more years of complacency, and we will gradually accept hanging up our king rods forever and buying our fish at Fred Meyer."

  3. #3

    Default

    Duuuude!

    Have you ever been to Homer? All you can handle bro! It's totally chill! You can whack two kings a day all winter man! Nobody counts them!

    "while Alaska dip-netters, risking life and limb to harvest their food"

    Man, you forgot to include the word 'unnecessarily'. Most dipnetters could buy their fish cheaper than they could harvest them themselves. Risking life and limb? Seriously?

  4. #4
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    This has long been an issue, and will continue to be worse as we work through the current low king cycle. In the valley, a very small commercial king fishery caught 1300 kings, while sport fishermen were kept from keeping any kings from road accessible streams draining the Susitna, Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers. That is because many of these streams are in danger of becoming stocks of concern after missing minimum goals year after year. The attitude in Comfish is that it is more important to give a few commercial fishermen ample fishing opportunity than protecting future health of inriver runs. Its sport fish divisions job to protect inriver runs. They also feel, from those I've spoken with, that 1300 fish from the whole pool of fish returning to Susitna drainages is too insignificant to worry about allowing into the rivers.

    Why is this? The newly publicized and adopted "less is more" approach to management relies on higher returns per spawner at low returns to bring an increase in runs in the future. So using that, and going with a 6:1 return off those 1300 fish, the direct effect on future spawns is 7800 fish. That's insignificant? Especially considering that just a hundred or two more kings escaping into Willow, Sheep and Montana creeks each of the last few years would have prevented the closure of these streams to retention this year...

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

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    This has long been an issue, and will continue to be worse as we work through the current low king cycle. In the valley, a very small commercial king fishery caught 1300 kings, while sport fishermen were kept from keeping any kings from road accessible streams draining the Susitna, Talkeetna and Chulitna rivers. That is because many of these streams are in danger of becoming stocks of concern after missing minimum goals year after year. The attitude in Comfish is that it is more important to give a few commercial fishermen ample fishing opportunity than protecting future health of inriver runs. Its sport fish divisions job to protect inriver runs. They also feel, from those I've spoken with, that 1300 fish from the whole pool of fish returning to Susitna drainages is too insignificant to worry about allowing into the rivers.

    Why is this? The newly publicized and adopted "less is more" approach to management relies on higher returns per spawner at low returns to bring an increase in runs in the future. So using that, and going with a 6:1 return off those 1300 fish, the direct effect on future spawns is 7800 fish. That's insignificant? Especially considering that just a hundred or two more kings escaping into Willow, Sheep and Montana creeks each of the last few years would have prevented the closure of these streams to retention this year...



    willphish4food,


    Let me venture a reply:


    Cook Inlet is a mixed-stock fishery . . we all know that. It simply, to my mind anyway, does not make economic or management sense to hold the entirety of a mixed-stock fishery hostage to the welfare of one species of relatively minor importance. Nor am I suggesting that effort should not be made to reasonably protect the welfare of each and every species. I am suggesting only that such efforts must have limits.


    There is too much at stake in the whole to sacrifice its overall welfare to the benefit of any one part. Cook Inlet is not a chinook fishery nor a sockeye fishery nor a chum fishery, etc., Cook Inlet is a mixed-stock fishery.

  6. #6

    Default

    I was under the impression that the Deshka drainage, where most of these Kings were headed, remained open to sport King fishing this summer. Is that correct?

  7. #7
    Member Gr is for Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Anchorville
    Posts
    597

    Default

    The only reason anyone can claim most of the Susitna kings this year were headed for the Deshka (and I'm not convinced this is correct), is because all of the other king runs have tanked. Most of the Parks Highway streams and Clear Creek were all loaded with kings 5 - 10 years ago, and just about everyone who went there and fished in earnest got a king. Past several years, they haven't had the chance to wet a line - season closed before it opened. I have no clue why the Deshka seems to operate in isolation to those other streams, and I was very happy to see that it made its escapement goal this year, but even the Deshka has had low returns in other recent years, not meeting its EG. But I'm sorry, to point to the one viable fishery and say there is no problem with Susitna kings is wrong, even borders on blatant misdirection.

    Top of the morning to you John, I see you weighing in on this subject again (as am I, hehehe...). Cook Inlet is a mixed-stock fishery - correct. The kings run at the same time as all the other fishable salmon - incorrect. If you want to harvest reds and pinks, you could sit idle the entire month of May and most of June and still clean up in latter June, July, and into August. Am I wrong? There are comm fishers here. When you go out in May and early June, what are you catching? What are you targeting? Let's talk about it.

    And John, your argument below (which you should probably just make your signature; that way you can express it every post instead of every-other post, and it saves you the trouble of retyping), has merit at face value, but the fishery can be managed to favor escapement of kings without "holding hostage" fishing for other species. And I will restate (because you have restated) that I think most people do not agree that kings are of "relatively minor importance". That's not your call to make. Seriously, think about it, why would anybody feel they can say any species is important or unimportant? You're a reasonable guy. Doesn't that seem a little inappropriate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post


    It simply, to my mind anyway, does not make economic or management sense to hold the entirety of a mixed-stock fishery hostage to the welfare of one species of relatively minor importance.
    My signature is awesome.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Gr is for Greg View Post
    Top of the morning to you John, I see you weighing in on this subject again (as am I, hehehe...). Cook Inlet is a mixed-stock fishery - correct. The kings run at the same time as all the other fishable salmon - incorrect. If you want to harvest reds and pinks, you could sit idle the entire month of May and most of June and still clean up in latter June, July, and into August. Am I wrong? There are comm fishers here. When you go out in May and early June, what are you catching? What are you targeting? Let's talk about it.

    And John, your argument below (which you should probably just make your signature; that way you can express it every post instead of every-other post, and it saves you the trouble of retyping), has merit at face value, but the fishery can be managed to favor escapement of kings without "holding hostage" fishing for other species. And I will restate (because you have restated) that I think most people do not agree that kings are of "relatively minor importance". That's not your call to make. Seriously, think about it, why would anybody feel they can say any species is important or unimportant? You're a reasonable guy. Doesn't that seem a little inappropriate?



    And to you as well, Greg. No argument from me about the timing of gill-net effort in Cook Inlet . . far too ignorant to comment. If selective harvest could be accomplished or even furthered by regulating fishing times, then that is assuredly a consideration.


    You're right, it is only my opinion that Cook Inlet kings are of relatively minor importance . . others opine differently, and that's their right. Personally, I find any "size matters" fishery somewhat vulgar whether for tarpon, billfish, kings or whatever,


    Secondly, it's been my more-than-occasional thought that kings are simply more trouble than they're worth.


    Of course, there have been times when what seems reasonable to me doesn't seem reasonable to others . .


    . . . not even my wife . . .
    Attachment 72502

  9. #9
    Member Gr is for Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Anchorville
    Posts
    597

    Default

    There are probably plenty of people involved in oil exploration in the Arctic who feel that polar bears are more trouble than they're worth. Anybody that's been involved in any major marine construction project in Cook Inlet might be inclined to feel that beluga whales are more trouble than they're worth. And neither of these species has near the socio-economic impact that king salmon have. How many more people come to the state to catch a big king than to go polar bear watching? And there is no commercial polar bear harvest. Yet we, as humans, have made a consistent effort, at least in recent times, to prevent our actions from leading to the destruction of any species, however important. Just offering some more thoughts... I'm at work on a Sunday, so I'm shamefully avoiding work to play on the computer...
    My signature is awesome.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Duuuude!

    Have you ever been to Homer? All you can handle bro! It's totally chill! You can whack two kings a day all winter man! Nobody counts them!

    "while Alaska dip-netters, risking life and limb to harvest their food"

    Man, you forgot to include the word 'unnecessarily'. Most dipnetters could buy their fish cheaper than they could harvest them themselves. Risking life and limb? Seriously?
    Excuse me, but are you a commercial fisherman?

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

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Gr is for Greg View Post
    There are probably plenty of people involved in oil exploration in the Arctic who feel that polar bears are more trouble than they're worth. Anybody that's been involved in any major marine construction project in Cook Inlet might be inclined to feel that beluga whales are more trouble than they're worth. And neither of these species has near the socio-economic impact that king salmon have. How many more people come to the state to catch a big king than to go polar bear watching? And there is no commercial polar bear harvest. Yet we, as humans, have made a consistent effort, at least in recent times, to prevent our actions from leading to the destruction of any species, however important. Just offering some more thoughts... I'm at work on a Sunday, so I'm shamefully avoiding work to play on the computer...



    Greg,


    I understand your point perfectly, I simply am not willing to make a principle of preservation of a species at all costs.


    Remember the Spotted Owl brouhaha in the Pacific Northwest . . shutting down logging and all that?


    The problem was solved by some enterprising loggers who, down in Cajun country along Bayou Lafourche, advertised the owls as good to eat, limit one, and the season was closed.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Palmer, ak
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Sorry for the mistake post

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Palmer, ak
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Duuuude!

    Have you ever been to Homer? All you can handle bro! It's totally chill! You can whack two kings a day all winter man! Nobody counts them!

    "while Alaska dip-netters, risking life and limb to harvest their food"

    Man, you forgot to include the word 'unnecessarily'. Most dipnetters could buy their fish cheaper than they could harvest them themselves. Risking life and limb? Seriously?
    People want to catch their own food, that is part of the allure of Alaska. Your argument about buying them cheaper is probably true at face value, but you don't seem to take into account the economic impact of the sport and personal use fisheries. Sport fishermen spend tons of money all over the state to fill their freezers which keep many businesses going and people employed. The commercial fishery (most of which are not even from Alaska) hammer this fish, provide very few Alaskan jobs and export the vast majority of the fish oversees. That whole "we provide the rest of the country with salmon argument doesn't work for me. I see where the fish goes.

  14. #14
    Member Grayling Slayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    728

    Default

    This article was specifically about the Copper River drainage. All king fishing was closed before the season even opened and the comm fleet has caught over 10,000 kings. That's 10,000 to 0 in the allocation of the fish against resident families.
    "I'd rather be fishing!"

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AaronP View Post
    People want to catch their own food, that is part of the allure of Alaska. Your argument about buying them cheaper is probably true at face value, but you don't seem to take into account the economic impact of the sport and personal use fisheries. Sport fishermen spend tons of money all over the state to fill their freezers which keep many businesses going and people employed. The commercial fishery (most of which are not even from Alaska) hammer this fish, provide very few Alaskan jobs and export the vast majority of the fish oversees. That whole "we provide the rest of the country with salmon argument doesn't work for me. I see where the fish goes.
    Don't know about the rest of the state, but over 80% of UCI gillnetters are residents.

    Since the Kenai has its escapement with more fish running every day, and the Kasilof has WAY more than it should, sport and dipnet fishermen should have no problem getting their share. Any Southcentral Alaskan with an ounce of determination should have fish in their freezer. If they don't, they either don't like fish or care to get any, or are to poor, dumb, or lazy to do anything about it, in which case our tax dollars will probably end up feeding them anyhow.

    All fisheries are important to our state. All of them.

  16. #16
    Member Gr is for Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Anchorville
    Posts
    597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Any Southcentral Alaskan with an ounce of determination should have fish in their freezer. If they don't, they either don't like fish or care to get any, or are to poor, dumb, or lazy to do anything about it, in which case our tax dollars will probably end up feeding them anyhow.
    Hehehe... Ouch! I don't have any dip-net fish in my freezer, just a few from earlier in the season rod-and-reel. Am I aptly described by your comment? Don't like to fish? (Doubt that) Don't care to get any? (Doubt that as well) Poor? (I'm comfortable) Dumb? (Not very accustomed to being called this) Lazy? (Even less accustomed to being called this) And tax dollars will feed me? Perhaps I'm too dumb to understand how that works. By all means, educate me. I'm all ears.

    Words hurt, Smith. Words hurt...
    My signature is awesome.

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

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Gr is for Greg View Post
    . . Words hurt, . . Words hurt...

    People have feelings, and words can hurt when they're aimed at people.


    Ideas don't have feelings.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    People have feelings, and words can hurt when they're aimed at people.


    Ideas don't have feelings.
    People generate and foster ideas, and people fall in love with their ideas. That is what an "ideology" is, and ideological struggle has become the foundation of the most deadly century in human history; the 20th Century.

    Pointing out fault and weakness in ideas can and does result in hurt feelings in people. This forum shows that in spades.

  19. #19
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain View Post
    People generate and foster ideas, and people fall in love with their ideas. That is what an "ideology" is, and ideological struggle has become the foundation of the most deadly century in human history; the 20th Century.

    Pointing out fault and weakness in ideas can and does result in hurt feelings in people. This forum shows that in spades.
    Very true...
    "Grin and Bear It"

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

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain View Post
    People generate and foster ideas, and people fall in love with their ideas. That is what an "ideology" is, and ideological struggle has become the foundation of the most deadly century in human history; the 20th Century.

    Pointing out fault and weakness in ideas can and does result in hurt feelings in people. This forum shows that in spades.

    . . if you're ever inclined to pursue the subject further, PM or email me for suggestions . . or chime in here lest this thread wander off-topic.


    Attachment 72515

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
  •