Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: New Trawl fishery in Cook Inlet, Chignik, and Kodiak waters

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default New Trawl fishery in Cook Inlet, Chignik, and Kodiak waters

    In the proposal book there is a proposal or series of proposals (43,44,45) that create a new groundfish and polluck fishery in Cook Inlet, Chignik, and Kodiak state waters. The Board considered it at the Lower Cook Inlet meeting and will take it up at the Kodiak meeting.

    Proposal 43 states : Create state waters groundfish management plans for trawl vessels less than 58 feet in Cook Inlet, Kodiak, and Chignik management areas>


    I guess I am out of sync here but the State and others have argued that the by-catch in trawl fisheries are potentially harmful to other fisheries and have been working to reduce these issues. Then along comes this proposal and wham they are off and running creating a new problem. At the Lower Cook Inlet Board meeting the Board said they were going to make an implementation task force to work on this proposal. That sent a signal to fisherman to get ready for this new fishery which will be passed at the Kodiak meeting from the rumors on the street.

    Why in the world would the Board create this fishery given all the issues of a trawl fishery and why in State waters where juvenile salmon and other species are concentrated. I was told ADF&G did not object to this fishery.

    Someone help me out here.

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Ho'boy! Unbelievable….

    Thanks for the heads up Nerka
    "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

  3. #3
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    This fishery is a terrible idea imo. They should never allow trawlers in cook inlet, especially given the fragile state the kings are in right now. Are they not dragging up enough fish sticks and filet-o-fishes already?

    Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    I think this really got past a lot of the user groups. It may not be too late if the major organizations get on this. Also, I would assume this would create some issues between the Feds and the State but again not sure. I understand ADF&G is not objecting so wonder why if that is true.

  5. #5
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    That is a shame. I can understand the proposers concern about the potential impacts of the renewed push for rationalization in some of the federally-managed GOA fisheries, but I really wonder if this is the right approach...or is it simply appealing to the State's desire to grab what we can while we can.

    None of the hard-fought (though still too high) Chinook bycatch limits that the North Pacific Council recently adopted for the Gulf would apply...and I certainly hope the Board will not allow a NEW non-pelagic (hard on bottom) trawl fishery in State waters.

    One large problem when the Board has previously considered state waters p cod fisheries was the inability of the State to allocate itself halibut mortality to "fund" the bycatch that would undoubetdly occur...and that was the reason pot and jig were the only gear types allowed. Another very seriously deep wrinkle for them to consider, not only for the legal reasons, but especially in light of the deep cuts to directed halibut harvest the charter and longline fisheries have borne to date.
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  6. #6
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I understand ADF&G is not objecting so wonder why if that is true.
    Actually, from the written ADFG comments, they are opposed. Good background information in that document on props 43 & 44
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f/...ts_chignik.pdf
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Thanks Mr. Fish as I was told that from someone at the meeting but did not know for sure.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    HOLY BYCATCH BATMAN! I can only imagine how many halibut and kings will die in the nets. This one is scary

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

    Default

    This is coming up at the Kodiak meeting and I would suggest people send comments ASAP - I am still running down what happened to this at the Lower Cook Inlet meeting and will report back.

  10. #10
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default

    How about this? http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ap.../379227017.pdf Not just cook inlet - let's TRAWL in Prince William Sound too.

    6 cents a pound just for this test fishery. How much bycatch is going to be waisted just in the test fishery? My gut tells me that this is going to set a precedence that I, as a sportfisherman am not going to like.

    I shouldn't make off the cuff comments without researching some first............but I am on this one.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    You might want to reread this part "Eligible vessels must have registered for the 2014 PWS directed pollock trawl fishery." This should tell you that there is a pollock fishery already going on in PWS.

  12. #12
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    You might want to reread this part "Eligible vessels must have registered for the 2014 PWS directed pollock trawl fishery." This should tell you that there is a pollock fishery already going on in PWS.
    In 1999 the BOF directed ADF&G the establish a pollock fishery in PWS to "geographically apportion the catch"; the idea being to reduce the impact of pollock fishing on Steller sea lion populations in other areas of the gulf. It was an ill conceived idea that is only recently beginning to be executed. The impact on bycatch species will be studied as they go. This will be a destructive experiment and is a BAD idea. By the time the damage to non-target PWS species is documented and brought to light it will be too late, the damage will have been done. Trawl fishing should be banned in general, but it's especially inappropriate in the enclosed waters of PWS.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Do you feel the shrimp trawl should be shut down to?

  14. #14
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    Do you feel the shrimp trawl should be shut down to?
    What part of my opinion of trawl fishing was unclear?
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    How would you feel if what you do/did to feed and put a roof overhead was taken from you because someone did not like it? To shut down any fishery for unsound reasons every fisherman in that fishery must be, and should be fairly compensated for their investment and for lost income! The cost of a buy back or buy out should be funded buy the group that wants that group of fishermen shut down.

  16. #16
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    How would you feel if what you do/did to feed and put a roof overhead was taken from you because someone did not like it? To shut down any fishery for unsound reasons every fisherman in that fishery must be, and should be fairly compensated for their investment and for lost income! The cost of a buy back or buy out should be funded buy the group that wants that group of fishermen shut down.
    Ah yes, the oft used entitlement defense. Persons who choose to invest and engage in destructive practices should be entitled to continue receiving compensation once their destructive practices are halted... What a bunch of baloney. By the same logic; once the oil industry is done sucking all the oil out of Alaska, and leaves us with the mess, should we also have to continue fairly compensating them for the investment they made and the income they no longer receive?
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Back to unsound reasons. You have a hate for the oil industry too.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Ah yes, the oft used entitlement defense. Persons who choose to invest and engage in destructive practices should be entitled to continue receiving compensation once their destructive practices are halted... What a bunch of baloney. By the same logic; once the oil industry is done sucking all the oil out of Alaska, and leaves us with the mess, should we also have to continue fairly compensating them for the investment they made and the income they no longer receive?
    Yeah, I totally feel you. Alaska would be a much better place without the commercial fishing and oil industries. The audacity of Alaskans to think that they are entitled to make a living off of Alaska's natural resources....

    Seriously though, count me out of supporting any new trawl fisheries at this point.

  19. #19
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    Back to unsound reasons. You have a hate for the oil industry too.
    No, I hate short-sighted, greedy, entitlement minded consumers, as well as short-sighted greedy, entitlement minded extractive industries who hold no respect for the long term health of the resource, the environment as a whole, or future generations who depend on it; I hate those who are only interested in making a fast buck at the expense of the ecosystem, or horking down their next $1.95 Happy Meal, before tossing the packaging out the window. And I hate small minded thinkers who mindlessly accept and defend that ideology, as if there was no other alternative. While we're at it; I hate smokers who toss their cigarettes out the window while driving or sitting at intersections. I don't think they deserve to be in the gene pool. Plain enough for you?

    PS: I have little use for baggy pants displaying butt cracks, and the punks who wear them around in the grocery store while holding their crotch. I also have a strong dislike for mushrooms. And escargot.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    I think there is a balance to this debate.

    First, relative to the new trawl fishery some commercial fisherman in LCI spoke in favor of it and used salmon conservation as a reason. Pollock and cod were eating too many salmon smolt (coho was referenced to get sport fisherman on board) and pink salmon juveniles from the CIAA hatchery. So lets kill these predators so we as commercial fisherman can make more money - via the pollock fishery and more salmon from LCI hatcheries. I dislike anyone who creates a fishery just for personal greed and uses conservation to create it. This comment is directed at those who testified to this not commercial fisherman in general. The facts do not support these comments and of course the impacts on the whole ecosystem are not even mentioned.

    So if this fishery is created and it is found to be harmful then it should be shut down without any compensation. Fisherman helped create it and if it proves harmful then the cost of the experiment should be borne by those who potentially would have the most gain.

    The east coast cod fisheries have a history which violates the rule I am suggesting. They are over-harvested by economically motivated commercial interests and then when the stock fails they want compensation for a lost fishery. That is not fair to the general public.

    Compensation should happen when the public decides one fishery that is viable and healthy and environmentally sustainable needs to be reduced or replaced for a greater public good. In this case, the fisherman have done everything correct and society just wants a different priority. The elimination of some fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico would fit this criteria. For example, areas where commercial fishing was allowed that had a land status change from open public lands to a National Park as an extreme example.

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
  •