Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Kenai king escapement goal proposals

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

    Default Kenai king escapement goal proposals

    Currently we manage for an OEG of 5300-9000 for ER and 15,000-30,000 for LR.

    Proposal 189 advocates for an ER OEG 9,000 - 14,000

    Proposal 208 advocates for a LR BEG of 17,800 - 35,700

    Proposal 207 advocates for a LR OEG of 20,000 - 40,000


    Actually Proposal 208 has a technical error (perhaps typo) in that the BEG for ER has already been established and it's NOT nor can it be 17,800 - 35,700. The board may however opt for a discretionary OEG of 17,800 - 35,700.

    For some historical perspective, the original point e-goal for ER was 9,000 and the original point e-goal for LR was 22,300 (established by BOF in 1988). this was BEFORE the advent of BEG's and OEG's
    "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
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Currently we manage for an OEG of 5300-9000 for ER and 15,000-30,000 for LR.

    Proposal 189 advocates for an ER OEG 9,000 - 14,000

    Proposal 208 advocates for a LR BEG of 17,800 - 35,700

    Proposal 207 advocates for a LR OEG of 20,000 - 40,000


    Actually Proposal 208 has a technical error (perhaps typo) in that the BEG for ER has already been established and it's NOT nor can it be 17,800 - 35,700. The board may however opt for a discretionary OEG of 17,800 - 35,700.

    For some historical perspective, the original point e-goal for ER was 9,000 and the original point e-goal for LR was 22,300 (established by BOF in 1988). this was BEFORE the advent of BEG's and OEG's
    If you cannot count them and the past goals were based on faulty counting then all these are meaningless. The Department needs to tell us what they can count and what they cannot. For example, can the new Didson count large fish with any degree of confidence? If so then maybe a large fish goal can be set. However, if they cannot count even large fish then another management approach is needed. They exist but as long as ADF&G says they can count those will not be discussed. Of course no one can evaluate the Department position because the data are not available for review by independent observers/research personnel.

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
  •