Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: KAFC position statement on Kenai kings?

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

    Default KAFC position statement on Kenai kings?

    "I would like to offer the following suggestions as ways to help this valued resource start to recover:

    • Insist that State and Federal agencies responsible for managing this resource develop and employ the most accurate field equipment to enumerate these stocks in both the mainstream and tributary waters.
    • Revise the slot limit to 42in.55in. and leave it in effect throughout the King season above the Soldotna Bridge.
    • Apply the slot limit regulation to the PU fishery as well.
    • Add a second drift boat day per week that would be open to both guided and unguided anglers to reduce outboard disturbance and turbid conditions associated with heavy powerboat use.

    If we fail to act soon we may further sacrifice the uniqueness of this great resource. We cannot rely on our agencies to do it for us. Their current mandates seem to be more about providing access and opportunity, and less about maintaining the quality of our fisheries. It is incumbent on us as anglers and conservationists to do so for the resource and future generations to enjoy."

    ...

    Nerka, just curious who authored this piece as it is written in the first person rather than an organizational position statement.

    Also curious as to the rationale/science behind the 42" recommendation for the slot limit, as well as the "above the bridge" recommendation for its implementation.

    Finally, has KAFC changed any of these recommendations since they were first written?

    Thanks
    "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
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default

    Not trying to stir the pot but what makes the Soldotna Bridge the magic spot? From the bridge down is the most heavily exploited stretch of river, (now a days) and all the spawning water, like Centennial, Sunken, Poachers, Harry Gaines, RW's, Porters, Big Eddy, Stewarts, Falling In, Honey Moon, Pillars, and River Quest are pounded to oblivion by power boats and drift boats alike. What chance does a June or July mainstem spawner have in this stretch of river? Turbidity is no issue in these areas, the banks are not mud like below Eagle Rock. What will one more drift day really do for the river? At some point we are going to have to address the exploitation of the lower river spawners. A dead king is a dead king and it makes little to no difference if it was harvested from a drift boat or a power boat. It might be a good idea to figure out how to protect every spawning bed in the entire Kenai. Who is ready to bite the bullet and if you are what ideas do you have to get it done? I'll start the discussion. How about no bait or retention of Kings above (pick a spot) through June and no King fishing above Eagle Rock in July? That way once a King has run the gauntlet and makes it to the bedroom they have a free ticket to spawn and make more. This approach, or something like it, might help the Kenai King run become robust once again by eliminating their extermination by exploiting them after they have reached their destination and have no choice but to stay their to prepare to spawn while at the same time dodging several hundred baited hooks a day for days on end. I know this would push a lot of boats down into tidewater, and if crowding and turbidity are issues we may have no choice but to limit use. It sucks, but if we don't all make some sacrifices soon it may be game over.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    "I would like to offer the following suggestions as ways to help this valued resource start to recover:

    • Insist that State and Federal agencies responsible for managing this resource develop and employ the most accurate field equipment to enumerate these stocks in both the mainstream and tributary waters.
    • Revise the slot limit to 42in.55in. and leave it in effect throughout the King season above the Soldotna Bridge.
    • Apply the slot limit regulation to the PU fishery as well.
    • Add a second drift boat day per week that would be open to both guided and unguided anglers to reduce outboard disturbance and turbid conditions associated with heavy powerboat use.

    If we fail to act soon we may further sacrifice the uniqueness of this great resource. We cannot rely on our agencies to do it for us. Their current mandates seem to be more about providing access and opportunity, and less about maintaining the quality of our fisheries. It is incumbent on us as anglers and conservationists to do so for the resource and future generations to enjoy."

    ...

    Nerka, just curious who authored this piece as it is written in the first person rather than an organizational position statement.

    Also curious as to the rationale/science behind the 42" recommendation for the slot limit, as well as the "above the bridge" recommendation for its implementation.

    Finally, has KAFC changed any of these recommendations since they were first written?

    Thanks
    Help me here as I do not know where this came from. I am no longer in KAFC so not sure what the quote is from or who wrote it.

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

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Since it was written in the first person I suspect it was written by the President of the Organization. I did not have anything to do with it so cannot say for sure.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    fishNphysician, why don't you contact KAFC? Aren't you a member? Can't you see that web site was last updated 4/2011?

  7. #7

    Default

    fishn.... Not sure of your intent here but looking at the 2014 UCI proposal book I suspect all of these issues will be discussed thouroughly in committee meetings since there are proposals relating to each issue. As I recall this came from a 2010 opinion piece in the Clarion authored by the KAFC Chairman at the time. As for the slot limit of 42 rather than 46, there was a lot of discussion that the 46 - 55 was only saving what few 1.5 fish we have left and the large male portion of the 1.4 fish. The 1.4 females with a smaller head structure generally fell just below the slot and were harvested out of proportion for their size and roe content. This is just the opposite of the intent of the slot limit so why not support a 42in. change?


    I also see that KAFC has a new proposal 219 that would institute spawning conservation zones above the Soldotna Bridge that would kick in during early July to protect a good portion of valued spawning area for future stock rebuilding and rearing. This sounds logical to me and establishes a change in how we prosecute our Chinook fishery in the future to insure stock replacement and still allow plenty of opportunity below the bridge for our sport fishery. This seems like a good compromise given our present Chinook declines and what we know will be growing demands on these stocks in the future.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Help me here as I do not know where this came from. I am no longer in KAFC so not sure what the quote is from or who wrote it.
    What? Not a member of kafc? Weren't you one of the founding members?

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    What? Not a member of kafc? Weren't you one of the founding members?
    I was but after the 2011 BOF meeting I decided that in the best interest of myself and KAFC that I should leave. I was participating in 8 different organizations and needed to reduce my work load and enjoy retirement. The KAFC board has a number of biologists and it was time for them to step up.

    I also felt that at the 2011 BOF fishing I could not represent KAFC because of the venom against myself as a former commercial fisheries biologists. Others on the Board agreed so we parted ways.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default political infighting

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I also felt that at the 2011 BOF fishing I could not represent KAFC because of the venom against myself as a former commercial fisheries biologists. Others on the Board agreed so we parted ways.
    That is a real loss (for us) that the BoF can't rid itself of venomous fighting to the point of permanent wall building between members. You'd think they'd have enough real challenges, without adding in a few of their own.

    In the business world, when personal disagreements consume valuable business time, they're dealt with by the boss stepping in and doing his job - because that's what his job is: management. So possibly the BoF has two large problems here instead of just one?

    Nerka, I do not always agree with you, but I have always enjoyed learning from the information you bring to the table and share - 100% of the time. Thanks.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Back at you FamilyMan. Thanks

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
  •