Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: Another player to stir the pot . . .

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

    Default Another player to stir the pot . . .

    One more player to stir the endless, witch's brew of Kenai kings . . .


    The [Kenai King Conservation Alliance] was formed in May. Its mission is to preserve and protect Kenai River king salmon.

    “I want my grandkids to have the chance to catch (kings),” said founder Bob Penney. “If we don’t protect them, they’ll be gone.”


    Penney and five other longtime Alaskans founded the organization after the Board of Fisheries chose not to enact additional protections for Kenai River kings at its March 2013 statewide meeting, Penney said. . . .


    Penney, Mark Hamilton and Dennis Mellinger are registered as the nonprofit’s directors in its filing with the State of Alaska.


    The organization has also filed for federal nonprofit status, but that is pending. Ernouf said that the alliance was formed to represent king salmon’s interests. The founders were avid fishermen, and noticed the declining king resource in the last three to five years. While there are several groups speaking on behalf of fishermen, there was “no one advocating for the fish itself,” Ernouf said.


    Penney and Hamilton both listed Anchorage residences in incorporation documents for the nonprofit, but they also have homes on the Kenai and are members of Kenai River Sportfishing Association’s board of directors. Penney is also a KRSA founder.

    http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/201...et-for-july-30


    By DAN COFFEY

    The world famous Kenai River king salmon are facing a major crisis, with historic low returns of this special salmon to their spawning grounds. I say this as a former chairman of the Alaska Board of Fisheries and a concerned citizen still involved in fishery issues. As an attorney, I represent the Kenai King Conservation Alliance.

    More info: http://www.bizapedia.com/ak/KENAI-KI...-ALLIANCE.html


    Will it ever end?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alexander Creek
    Posts
    1,190

    Default

    This is the perfect example of the words "Special interest"! I notice on their website that they have a link to BP's website? One special group to another!

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

    Cool Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

    If one clicks on the "bizapedia" link in the OP and then on "Dennis Mellinger," it gets more interesting . . .


    Anyone know who or what "Cook Inlet Shores Owners Association, Inc." is . . .


    Both Mark Hamilton and Bob Penny are board members of Kenai River Sportfishing Association . . .

  4. #4

    Default

    "There appear to be several reasons for the low returns: poor ocean survival, catches by the high-seas trawlers, setnet catches in Cook Inlet and marginal productivity. And there may be others."

    Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/07/23/298810...#storylink=cpy

    Mr. Coffey, could you please provide a single piece of scientific data to suggest that ESSN King harvest is one of the reasons for current low LR King returns?

    Yup. Thought so. You just totally made that up.

    I love how he just slipped that in there.

    Sounds like the same slimy tactics that turned their last organization's name to mud.

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

    Smile

    More from KTUU . . play the video at the link . . . Attachment 72385


    http://www.ktuu.com/news/low-king-sa...0,825006.story

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    ......Will it ever end?
    No. In fact, the division is guaranteed to grow.

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

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain View Post
    No. In fact, the division is guaranteed to grow.

    The amount of contention, division, greed, hostility, anger, rage, and more generated by the presence of one single species of fish in one single Alaskan river boggles the mind . . . Attachment 72386



    Maybe Tolstoy had the Kenai River in mind?

    “He liked fishing and seemed to take pride in being able to like such a stupid occupation.”

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    The amount of contention, division, greed, hostility, anger, rage, and more generated by the presence of one single species of fish in one single Alaskan river boggles the mind . ...


    It doesn't seem to matter what the resource or commodity is. If it's desirable, people will fight over it. This fact predates recorded history and goes beyond humanity. Cavemen fought over territory and hunting/fishing resources. Bears fight over fishing holes. It's just the way it is.

    It's better to realize that and, if the resource is important enough to you to engage the fight, fight to win.............

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Having more groups involved in the debate is not a bad thing if the groups were honest in their representation of what is happening. At least they can come together for a common good - for example habitat protection. All of these diverse opinions joined forces to fight for habitat protection along the anadromous streams of UCI. So it is a mixed blessing. I just wish they would be honest in how they represent the situation when the issue is allocation.

    In the present case Coffey is making it a conservation issue and Bob Penney is holding a big chinook salmon. He never mentions that the sport fishery targets large females or the goals have been met for the last 25 years. I guess that just slipped his mind. In contrast, the commercial set netters who are in court are saying that they should fish above 15,000 but fail to realize right now by going to catch and release the fishery is not closed and the option to fish remains open. ADF&G could have closed the sport fishery right now and been justified to do so.

    I think the issue is for them is that last year the Commissioner said she had to follow the plans and could not reopen the fishery and this year she is indicating she does not need to follow the plans because she has authority to alter them. Two different stories. That is confusing to the public. Personally I think she can pretty much do what she wants in season based on in season information so she was not correct in 2012 but is in 2013. That is another story.

  10. #10

    Default

    Haven't I heard the name Dan Coffey before regarding the Kenai River? Wasn't he the lawyer who tried to get the Kenai city or borough to shut down dipnetting access once while representing a setnetter?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brain View Post
    Haven't I heard the name Dan Coffey before regarding the Kenai River? Wasn't he the lawyer who tried to get the Kenai city or borough to shut down dipnetting access once while representing a setnetter?
    No, Dan Coffey was on the Board of Fish and he was a sport fish representative. Unfortunately his ethics and mine do not match up very well.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    The amount of contention, division, greed, hostility, anger, rage, and more generated by the presence of one single species of fish in one single Alaskan river boggles the mind . . . Attachment 72386



    Maybe Tolstoy had the Kenai River in mind?

    “He liked fishing and seemed to take pride in being able to like such a stupid occupation.”
    This is not just one species in one river marcus. This happens to have been the greatest kingfishery in the world with multiple record fish. If you want to give up on that then you are fool

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

    Unhappy Sad but true . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by iyouktug View Post
    Zip it! I gettin tired of hearing this crap . . i dont got time to read all the nonsense . .
    Quote Originally Posted by iyouktug View Post
    This is not just one species in one river marcus. This happens to have been the greatest kingfishery in the world with multiple record fish. If you want to give up on that then you are fool

    Sadly, you are correct—"happens to have been"—past tense, and lots of folks have given up on it.


    Even national magazines have noted what's happened:


    Attachment 72391


    Read the story here:

    http://www.salmonandsteelheadjournal...ing-Kenai.aspx

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Having more groups involved in the debate is not a bad thing if the groups were honest in their representation of what is happening. At least they can come together for a common good - for example habitat protection. All of these diverse opinions joined forces to fight for habitat protection along the anadromous streams of UCI. So it is a mixed blessing. I just wish they would be honest in how they represent the situation when the issue is allocation.
    The anadromous ordinance is NOT an example of coming together for the common good, or honesty - that is Nerka's biased opinion. Without question the record shows that the anadromous ordinance was more about political posturing and overreaching government control than sincerely saving a salmon. It divided the community, pitted neighbor against neighbor, grew government, reduced land owner and public land use liberties, and exemplified political dissemination of one-sided emotional bias and misinformation. As a Task Force member in favor, Nerka's own posts here were vivid examples of that.

    I don't find much difference in Bob Penney's special interest group and the special interest group that pushed the anadromous ordinance down the public's throat...both used the moniker of "saving the salmon" to get what they want. In the case of the anadromous ordinance, that meant more government control over private and public land use. As Nerka hypocritically points out, the fact goals were met and the waters were clean seem to have slipped their mind.

    So, unless Bob Penney, Dan Coffey, and their lot have been through some serious economic special interest rehab, you can bet they are up to no good, once again ruining the fishery under the auspice of salmon do-gooders.

    These agenda-driven progressives never go away. They just find another door, pushing their agendas further and further. Just look how far Nerka's anadromous ordinance has "transformed" since its original intent for the Kenai River back in 1995; it now includes virtually every anadromous water within the entire Kenai Borough - hundreds upon hundreds!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    The anadromous ordinance is NOT an example of coming together for the common good, or honesty - that is Nerka's biased opinion. Without question the record shows that the anadromous ordinance was more about political posturing and overreaching government control than sincerely saving a salmon. It divided the community, pitted neighbor against neighbor, grew government, reduced land owner and public land use liberties, and exemplified political dissemination of one-sided emotional bias and misinformation. As a Task Force member in favor, Nerka's own posts here were vivid examples of that.

    I don't find much difference in Bob Penney's special interest group and the special interest group that pushed the anadromous ordinance down the public's throat...both used the moniker of "saving the salmon" to get what they want. In the case of the anadromous ordinance, that meant more government control over private and public land use. As Nerka hypocritically points out, the fact goals were met and the waters were clean seem to have slipped their mind.

    So, unless Bob Penney, Dan Coffey, and their lot have been through some serious economic special interest rehab, you can bet they are up to no good, once again ruining the fishery under the auspice of salmon do-gooders.

    These agenda-driven progressives never go away. They just find another door, pushing their agendas further and further. Just look how far Nerka's anadromous ordinance has "transformed" since its original intent for the Kenai River back in 1995; it now includes virtually every anadromous water within the entire Kenai Borough - hundreds upon hundreds!
    This is not about the habitat ordinance. The example was to show that the groups could come together for a purpose. Your perception of why they came together is pure speculation and your biased opinion. Also, your analysis of the public will is not borne out by the votes on the assembly, the public record, or the administration. I guess in your mind they do not represent the people and were voted into office by trolls.

    But back to the new group.

    They claim a conservation concern. That is a misused word. It implies some threat to the long term health of the Kenai River late run chinook salmon. That is not even close to being true. The escapement goals are set to maintain maximum sustained yield for chinook salmon in the Kenai River. It is called a sustained yield goal because of uncertainty in counting but in point of fact it is MSY. That means it will produce on average the greatest yields. So when the 15,000 is met it means that the probability of future yields being high is high. So this is really about allocation and user harvests in the future. The stock is healthy relative to the long term sustainability of it. The number that would put that is question is much lower than 15,000. Also, remember the multiple ages classes have evolved to buffer poor return years relative to future returns.

    So this is all about the trade off between future sockeye production and future chinook production. Hypothetically, if both the sockeye and chinook MSY goals were met the future would look very bright. Right now going over the sockeye goal is favoring future chinook production as sockeye yields will be hypothetically lower. The reason I use hypothetically is that the returns have not happened in the future but the historical data shows this very well.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    . . this is all about the trade off between future sockeye production and future chinook production. . .

    Well noted . . .

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Pardon my ignorance, but I thought there was a conservation concern with the early-run Chinook, particularly those that spawn in the tribs. Maybe not.....

    I realize this new group seems overly concerned about the late-run Chinook (the big ones), but they haven't said their concerns are limited to just one stock. But their concerns with the LR fish seem to reflect allocation under the guise of conservation. If they were really concerned about the health of the Chinook salmon on the Kenai River, they would simply sell all their fishing equipment, and take up bowling. And they would ask lots of other people to do the same. But if they continue to fish for these animals (C/K or C/R) while also advocating for their protection seems to be internally inconsistent. I realize I won't get much support for that suggestion on this BB.

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up +1 . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    . . . If they were really concerned about the health of the Chinook salmon on the Kenai River, they would simply sell all their fishing equipment, and take up bowling. And they would ask lots of other people to do the same. But if they continue to fish for these animals (C/K or C/R) while also advocating for their protection seems to be internally inconsistent. . .

    But . . but . . . but . . . . Attachment 72423 . .


    "Inconsistent" . . ? . . . you think . . ?

  19. #19
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    The current administration (and plenty of other individuals and orgs) was not at all happy with KRSA's methods in getting Vince Webster off the BOF. It is my firm speculation (does that make sense? Can speculation be "firm?" <grin>) that Penney et al became aware that KRSA's rep and lobbying stock took a huge dive, and so they needed to form a new org to push for the exact same thing but under a different context. A disassociation and rebranding was needed. Of course it was a no-brainer that "Conservation" became part of the new name.

    Sure Bob, we really believe you've totally changed your tune and no longer want to run that economic engine centered around sportfishing and property values as hard as possible. Uh-huh.

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

    Wink Same ol', same ol' . . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    . . Sure Bob, we really believe you've totally changed your tune and no longer want to run that economic engine centered around sportfishing and property values as hard as possible. Uh-huh.

    Here's the exact quote, Mark:


    "The economic value of the land along the Kenai River privately held from Skilak to Ames bridge; three years ago the assessed value to the borough of only the privately owned land was three hundred and thirty-five million dollars. As Mr. Busey just said to you, it's increased since then. Now, I know it's well over five-hundred, but we haven't seen what the borough's assessed it. But gentlemen and ma'm, all that assessment in value came from one reason; cause there's fish in the river. And you put the fish in the river, and you put the fish in the inlet, and you give the opportunity for the public you'll see the economic engine run hard." (emphasis added)

    Bob Penny to the House Committee on Economic Development and Trade/ The Economics of Sportfishing, April 24, 2007

    "Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots?" —Jeremiah

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
  •