Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 407

Thread: Proposals for Kenai kings

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

    Default Proposals for Kenai kings

    Proposal book is out.

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f/...posal_book.pdf

    I particularly like these... 192, 193 and 197. These elements for managing the fishery should have been implemented the first time around over 10 years ago.

    Protect the biggest. Set expectations low. Start slow and ramp up as the run-size permits in-season in real-time.

    Prudent...
    Precautionary...
    Perfect.
    "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

    Red face Opportunity, opportunity, opportunity . . . and yet more opportunity . . .

    192 Increase Kenai River early-run king salmon slot-limit size requirement.


    193 Increase the Kenai River early-run king salmon slot-limit size requirement and

    extend slot limit through July 31.


    197 Modify the Kenai River early- and late-run king salmon sport fisheries to begin

    seasons without bait and catch-and-release only.

    ____________________________


    And awaaaaaaay we go . . . .



    Attachment 74256


    "[Catch-and-release] is a tool which enables managers to continue maximizing the opportunity to participate in recreational fisheries while reducing mortality to what can be termed 'catch-and-release mortality.' In this way, the economic value of recreational fishing is not jeopardized as the opportunity to participate is not reduced."

    — Doug Vincent-Lang, et al, "Mortality of coho salmon caught and released using sport tackle in the Little Susitna River, Alaska, 1992"



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

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    205 is the funniest proposal I have seen in a long time, sad it came from the Homer AC, they will lose a lot of credibility before the BOF with proposals like that.

    Interesting how some see protecting more fish as increasing opportunity. Maybe we should got with McCombs proposal of killing every king hooked, that is better for the fish........

    Or one could claim it is all politics and not get involved and sit behind a computer and pontificate about others who are involved and their proposals.....

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

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    205 is the funniest proposal I have seen in a long time, sad it came from the Homer AC, they will lose a lot of credibility before the BOF with proposals like that.

    Interesting how some see protecting more fish as increasing opportunity. Maybe we should got with McCombs proposal of killing every king hooked, that is better for the fish........

    Or one could claim it is all politics and not get involved and sit behind a computer and pontificate about others who are involved and their proposals.....



    205 Close Kenai River tributaries to all fishing July 1–August 30, and the Kenai River
    mainstem upstream of river mile 13 from July 10–September 20.
    ——————————————

    In the words of Vincent-Lang, slot limits/catch-and-release does not "protect" fish, C&R merely reduces mortality to the mortality of catch-and-release while maintaining opportunity for guides and C&R anglers.


    . . . Attachment 74282


    At least, Proposal 205 has the honesty to suggest protecting the fish by reducing opportunity rather than preserving opportunity by pretending to protect the fish.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Proposal book is out.

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f/...posal_book.pdf

    I particularly like these... 192, 193 and 197. These elements for managing the fishery should have been implemented the first time around over 10 years ago.

    Protect the biggest. Set expectations low. Start slow and ramp up as the run-size permits in-season in real-time.

    Prudent...
    Precautionary...
    Perfect.
    +1
    I think lowering the slot limit to 42 will protect the females of the same age class as the 46" males that were protected with the current slot limit. I definitley think this is why the current slot limit hasn't shown any real results because almost every time you catch a fish just under the slot, it's a female!
    Also agree that the season should start out ultra conservative with no bait, and catch and release until we have the numbers in river, or at least an idea of what the run is shaping up to look like. Liberalize the fishery as the season progresses.

    Lower the slot and start out conservative, verses allowing a bunch of harvest before we know what the run looks like. And yes, ADF&G likes to keep fisheries open even if harvest isn't allowed. Opportunity is a long standing policy at ADF&G.

  6. #6

    Default

    If we want to start conservative, why not start out with retention only two days a week, (maybe the two drift only days) with more opened by EO as abundance allows? Thats how the Kasilof starts for natural Kings, and also how the commercial set and drift fisheries start.


    One of the more disturbing ideas I see in these proposals is embedded in several of the KRSA proposals. It's basically the implementation of "if the FORECAST = , then the Department SHALL". That sounds like terrible management. In current language, "may" is used a lot - this gives managers flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, and helps not put them in a box. These guys seem hellbent on limiting ADFG's ability to manage effectively.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    If they need protecting, why all the *****footing around? Just close the fishery down until they have the needed escapement. Pretty simple really. Put the sport fishery under the same hammer as commercial fisheries.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  8. #8

    Default

    There has been a pretty common theme over the last few years that the Kenai Kings need more protection to help recover from the declining numbers we have been witnessing. Some have suggested a 5 year closure or C&R untill escapement. I do not advocate for either. However, I do think we have to concede to a management strategy with a more consevative approach. We simply can't keep killing our Kings all the way to Skilak lake throughout the entire season and expect a sustainable fishery.

    There are several proposals that suggest closing more areas for spawning protection. I think these proposals have a lot of merit and may provide the resource protection we need to restore our current downfall and supply sustainability for the future. Of all of these proposals I believe proposal 219 on page 253 offers the best solution while still allowing some fishing opportunity throughout the river before closing certain areas for spawning protection.


    Proposal 219

    This proposal seeks to set up two Spawning Conservation Zones that occur in the middle river in July to provide spawning protection for both ER & LR Kings. The first zone from the Moose R. - Skilak Lk. would close those waters to King fishing after July 1st and the second area from the Soldotna Bridge - Moose R. would close on July 10.

    This concept would allow some limited opportunity for property owners and others who have traditionally fished those waters but then provide spawning and rearing certainty for the stocks to aid in their recovery and provide resource protection that will result in sustainable fisheries for future generations to enjoy.

    Pressure on our King resource is only going to increase as a growing population will place more demand on these stocks. Over the last few years of low returns we have seen a trend where some fishermen are hitting these spawning areas whenever there are low numbers of fish in the lower river or the fishing conditions are poor in the lower river. With fewer fish available there is a drive to find fish where ever the harvest opportunities are the highest and sometimes that means fishing on spawning beds where fish tend to be protective and somewhat more agressive.

    This proposal also understands the need for a vibrant sport fishery and alllows for such below the Soldotna Bridge throughout the King season.

    Take a look at the other aspects of this proposal as written and see if you see the same promise in it that I do. For me this is a matter of survival for our king fishery otherwise we will remain in a recovery state until we admit defeat and start enhancing our fishery like the PNW ended up doing after they failed to recognize the signs of their declines.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    The majority of the kings spawning in the LR spawn below the Soldotna bridge and according if memory serves, from the Bendock there are more "ER mainstem spawners" per river mile below the bridge than any other stretch of river. In reality there are no Early Run mainstem spawners, just early arriving mainstem spawners. A king arriving in May that spawns in the mainstem is not genetically different than on arriving July 31st.

    There is no King effort between the moose river and Skilak in June, and very little until maybe the middle of July and even then there is minimal pressure. The last few years that section of river has been closed to king fishing by EO. Along with anything above the bridge has been closed or significantly restricted by EO from the department. The Department has the authority to manage based on abundance to make escapement. The way the department has managed the kings recently indicates they are managing the fishery conservatively.

    Does it matter if a king is killed at Eagle Rock or at Bear Creek? Every king no matter where it is caught is a spawner.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    The majority of the kings spawning in the LR spawn below the Soldotna bridge and according if memory serves, from the Bendock there are more "ER mainstem spawners" per river mile below the bridge than any other stretch of river. In reality there are no Early Run mainstem spawners, just early arriving mainstem spawners. A king arriving in May that spawns in the mainstem is not genetically different than on arriving July 31st.

    There is no King effort between the moose river and Skilak in June, and very little until maybe the middle of July and even then there is minimal pressure. The last few years that section of river has been closed to king fishing by EO. Along with anything above the bridge has been closed or significantly restricted by EO from the department. The Department has the authority to manage based on abundance to make escapement. The way the department has managed the kings recently indicates they are managing the fishery conservatively.

    Does it matter if a king is killed at Eagle Rock or at Bear Creek? Every king no matter where it is caught is a spawner.
    Yukon, just to correct a few things. First, the idea of mainstem and tributary spawners is probably a better way to manage the fishery. However, to say a fish that enters in May and one that enters in late July are genetically the same is not correct. That is over reaching the power of the genetic program and testing. We know that run timing is genetically controlled and thus fish entering in May are probably different than those in late July. Also, fish entering in May that spawn in the lower river vs those than spawn in the upper river are also probably genetically different - these are meta-populations. So lets not confuse entry pattern with making every fish the same. That would be a huge mistake.

    Actually, if one looks to manage mainstem spawners vs tributary spawners different the seasons would be different and the areas opened and closed would be different. Thus the proposals that pacman suggests may be a good starting point for discussion. For example, if you are protecting tributary spawners then starting the bait fishery on July 1 makes no sense as there are few mainstem spawners at that point. Also, closing by August 1st for the whole river makes little sense as then one is not harvesting equally over the return and mostly on mainstem spawners.

    It does matter if a king is killed at Eagle Rock or at Bear Creek. The exploitation rates are not the same at these two locations on the stocks. The issue is not a single fish but the exploitation rate for the population or stock of question. So the proposals that pacman is suggesting lower exploitation rates and are focused on a segment of the overall population. That is a reasonable question to ask - do certain segments or meta-populations need more protection because their exploitation is higher for some reason.

    You position of treating all fish equally is just not good fishery management and one reason small systems like Slikok Creek are in trouble. Unless people start to break down these returns into components and look at exploitation rates on these components of the return we will still be headed in a downward spiral.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Thanks for clarifications, but....
    My point of reference is discussions with f&g managers over the years, even those doing the genetic studies. It would be a major management shift to not only change from managing first run and second run fish (Trib spawners and mainstem spawners) to managing sub populations with within those runs. Do spawners at the first powerline deserve more protection than a fish at porters? Both mainstem spawners. It is a discussion worth having.
    The BoF has already protected major tributary staging areas for the entire king season and the department has the freedom (which they have) to exercise their EO authority to protect fish.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Red face Duh . . .



    "If . . " "Probably . . " "Point of reference . . " "Not correct . . " "Major shift . . " . . yadda, yadda, yadda . .


    If the fish need protecting, leave them alone! Duh . . .


    Is the almighty dollar worth a further decline in the numbers and size of Kenai kings? Is the [juvenile] "rush" of catching a big fish, photo ops, and playing BMOC really worth the risk of further decline? Are more boondoggle "management" guessing games the answer?


    Get honest. This ain't about fish, it's about money and thrills. How does any self-respecting person continue to try and delude themselves into thinking that killing the fish, at whatever rate, is protecting them?


    Vincent-Lang was honest enough to admit the truth: "[Catch-and-release] is a tool which enables managers to continue maximizing the opportunity to participate in recreational fisheries while reducing mortality to what can be termed 'catch-and-release mortality.' In this way, the economic value of recreational fishing is not jeopardized as the opportunity to participate is not reduced."


    Give it a rest!


    Give the fish a rest!


    Leave them alone!


    "Though the fate of salmon rests in human hands, it is not clear that we will be able to save them even if our society wants to. Part of the problem lies in the conflict between the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences and the certainty demanded by policy makers when balancing natural resource protection against economic opportunities."

    —King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon,
    Montgomery, Westview Press, 2003

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Thanks for clarifications, but....
    My point of reference is discussions with f&g managers over the years, even those doing the genetic studies. It would be a major management shift to not only change from managing first run and second run fish (Trib spawners and mainstem spawners) to managing sub populations with within those runs. Do spawners at the first powerline deserve more protection than a fish at porters? Both mainstem spawners. It is a discussion worth having.
    The BoF has already protected major tributary staging areas for the entire king season and the department has the freedom (which they have) to exercise their EO authority to protect fish.
    Yukon, despite the duh comment you received I believe you have the best interest of the stock at heart along with your economic survival. I do not think that is a bad thing at all.

    If you want to increase yield then exploitation rates on sub-populations should be taken into account, otherwise you over or under harvest and reduce future yields. When stocks are strong this is less of an issue but with reduced production (if assumed to be ocean caused) you want to keep your freshwater production up. If you have 100,000 smolt and the ocean is at 20% and reduced to 10% that leaves 10,000 fish. However, if you only put out 50,000 smolt (because of over or under harvest in-river or habitat issues) at 10% that is 5,000 fish. This is too simplified in reality but I used it to make the point. I believe for the early run this is happening - Slikok Creek is down 400-500 adult fish, Beaver Creek is gone, Soldotna Creek is gone, and Cooper Creek is down. We need for the early run to get these systems back into production.

    The ADF&G is locked into management plans that have an artificial and meaningless date. So that should change at a minimum. While they have the authority to do something it is hard from a political position to over-ride management plans. I believe the biology of Kenai River chinook salmon would dictate the change to trib vs main-stem.

  14. #14

    Default

    Good discussion.

    Nerka, if I'm not mistaken, there is currently no funding for any future smolt-out research in the Kenai or Kasilof. Correct me if I'm wrong but without those we really only know two things about current smolt production. Jack and shpit.

    Perhaps the funding issue is one all user groups can work on their legislators for. We need this research.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post



    If the fish need protecting, leave them alone! Duh . . .
    I agree 100%. Equal protection in the freshwater and equal protection in the saltwater.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    No offense but saying if fish need protecting leave them alone or equal protection makes no sense. Management does this already - if goals are not being met fisheries are closed to all users. If the goal is being met but a full out fishery cannot be prosecuted then no bait or catch and release is used. So lets say the MSY goal is 15,000 to 30,000. If the escapement with a full out fishery would take the number of fish below 15,000 then options can be implemented to keep the number of spawners above 15,000. It is always about human needs whether for food or recreation. We do not manage salmon to goals for the health of the resource. We manage to goals to have high sustained yields and opportunity to fish. One can miss a goal and not threaten the health of the stock only the potential future yields.

    So all this talk about leaving the fish alone to protect them is just that talk without any scientific foundation. Goals protect humans so they can harvest fish in the future. Now if you want to protect the fish you need to talk about habitat.

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

    Wink Calling a spade a spade . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    . . Equal protection in the freshwater and equal protection in the saltwater.

    Any so-called "science" that claims we can protect fish by killing fish is not science, it's a seance.


    No one's interested in protecting Kenai kings—least of all advocates of Catch-and-Release/slot limits—they're interested in protecting their ability to use the fish for monetary gain and for thrills.


    Moreover, in the case of Kenai kings, any so-called "protection" offered by Catch-and-Release/slot limits comes at the expense of some user groups—set-netters and anglers who fish for food—to the benefit of other user groups—guides and Catch-and-Release anglers.


    Let's be honest here . . call a spade a spade. Catch-and-Release/slot limits are not about protecting fish, they're about protecting the "economic value" of the fish for thrills, a rush, photo ops, and money.


    Attachment 74519

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Any so-called "science" that claims we can protect fish by killing fish is not science, it's a seance.


    No one's interested in protecting Kenai kings—least of all advocates of Catch-and-Release/slot limits—they're interested in protecting their ability to use the fish for monetary gain and for thrills.


    Moreover, in the case of Kenai kings, any so-called "protection" offered by Catch-and-Release/slot limits comes at the expense of some user groups—set-netters and anglers who fish for food—to the benefit of other user groups—guides and Catch-and-Release anglers.


    Let's be honest here . . call a spade a spade. Catch-and-Release/slot limits are not about protecting fish, they're about protecting the "economic value" of the fish for thrills, a rush, photo ops, and money.


    Attachment 74519


    Thanks for the response. I guess I know who you're trying to protect and it ain't the fish.

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile For the record . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    Thanks for the response. I guess I know who you're trying to protect and it ain't the fish.

    penguin,


    Sorry for any misunderstanding . . I am not trying to protect anyone or anything . . period.


    I am simply trying to make clear that C&R/slot limits are not about protecting fish.


    C&R/slot limits are about protecting fishing . . .


    . . . for the benefit of some user groups and at the expense of other user groups.


    That's all . .

    . . hope that helps . . . . . carry on . . .

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post

    No one's interested in protecting Kenai kings—least of all advocates of Catch-and-Release/slot limits—they're interested in protecting their ability to use the fish for monetary gain and for thrills.


    Attachment 74519
    So you know everyone's personal intentions...........

Page 1 of 21 12311 ... 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
  •