Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Making do with less

  1. #1

    Default Making do with less

    Couldn't find a link, but here is the proposal:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ImageUploadedByTapatalk HD1393907534.582528.jpg   ImageUploadedByTapatalk HD1393907519.652884.jpg  

  2. #2

    Default

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ImageUploadedByTapatalk HD1393907607.141886.jpg   ImageUploadedByTapatalk HD1393907595.015177.jpg  

  3. #3

    Default

    Is this really the place we should be spending money right now? At a time with across the board budget cuts, when projects such as new in-river netting techniques for the kenai Kings (which we desperately need) are in question due to lack of funding, when things like habitat research, smolt-out studies, water quality monitoring, sonar stations, pike eradication, and so many other projects which would INCREASE production fall by the wayside due to lack of funding, do we really need to spend millions trying to figure out how to slice a smaller pie?

    I love the part which suggests they can double or triple the ESSN's income. Let me guess, we fish 12 meshes deep and uncle Bob will let us fish all summer. Hahahahahahahahah! Nice try guys. I laughed so hard I almost lost my tuque!

    Was anyone impressed with the results last year, given the cost?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ImageUploadedByTapatalk HD1393908074.149949.jpg  

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

    Default

    I say bring it on!
    "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
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Then you write the check! Stop pissing away money the could be used to make improvements.
    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    I say bring it on!

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Just a friendly reminder your inbox is full fishNphysician

  7. #7
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iyouktug View Post
    Just a friendly reminder your inbox is full fishNphysician
    Space freed up.... fire away
    "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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Space freed up.... fire away
    This proposal is a total waste of money. First, over 600,000 has been spent in 2013 and for 7 chinook salmon which provided little information at a cost of 100,000 per fish. ADF&G said as much at the Board meeting and are not supportive of this proposal at the local level.

    The sockeye tagged were done as a last resort as they could not catch chinook. Next, the whole purpose of this is for management of the stocks which does not produce one fish. Where fish migrate in UCI will not be defined with a few hundred fish but more importantly management must be able to predict fish movement - there is no part of this proposal that does that or even tries. This proposal was written by someone who has no/little understanding of UCI fishery management.

    If I had almost 3 million dollars in UCI for research and action I would be focused on producing some fish - not try to reduce a 10% exploitation rate to 5% which is not even measurable in the scale of things.

    So here is a better expenditure of the money in my opinion - 1) 200,000 to try and define an easy way to kill pike with pressure waves - egg, larval, juvenile, and adult stages. We know pressure waves will kill pike the question is whether we can make a unit small enough for remote lake work. If possible then we have a way to actually go in and kill pike and restore lakes 2) lake and stream restoration - I spoke to lake restoration but to me Kenai streams like Slikok, Beaver, Soldotna, and Cooper need to be examined and a restoration play developed - this may include some short term smolt releases. 3) beaver dam removal in the Susitna drainage - we have a number of streams that have blockages to migration - I would use some of the money to remove these blockages 4) studies on juvenile chinook salmon rearing in the Kenai and other streams - the actual critical habitats for chinook salmon rearing are not known - these data would be very useful in land use planning on the Kenai streams. 5) develop predicative models for fish movement in UCI - this requires a preliminary ocean current, temperature, salinity understanding of the inlet. If it even possible to do. We need an physical/chemical oceanographer and 6) pike removal in some lakes in the Yentna - by any means including chemical or intense netting - Shell Lake use to produce 50,000 to 100,000 sockeye and today nearly zero. So I would take some of the money for that effort - it may be 500,000 or more as it would require some stocking restoration. If 1 works above the cost would be significantly less.

    I think this list is much more useful in the long run than knowing something about a few hundred fish that does not even represent the population as the fish will not be caught or tagged in proportion to abundance. So again this is a giant waste of money and shows again the bias of the valley in thinking all of their problems will be solved with commercial fishery management. They live in a delusional world with that approach.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    If I had almost 3 million dollars in UCI for research and action I would be focused on producing some fish - not try to reduce a 10% exploitation rate to 5% which is not even measurable in the scale of things.
    Almost 3 million dollars? Don't be so small-minded Nerka. This proposal is for a study 3-5 years in duration, at around 2.9 million PER YEAR all-in. Thats $14.5 million dollars, assuming it comes in on budget.

    Meanwhile, ADFG's budget is getting cut, and much needed fresh water projects that could increase PRODUCTIVITY will again go unfunded.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post

    I love the part which suggests they can double or triple the ESSN's income. Let me guess, we fish 12 meshes deep and uncle Bob will let us fish all summer. Hahahahahahahahah! Nice try guys. I laughed so hard I almost lost my tuque!

    Was anyone impressed with the results last year, given the cost?

    Smith -- You didn't know that by fishing 12 mesh deep nets, catching about 5 sockeye a tide, you could actually double and triple your profits? Ha.

    I guess I fail to see the benefits for the multi-million dollar price tag. We know timing wise that sockeye can't be fished at different times than late run kings. We know susitna, kenai, and kasilof sockeye all run approximately the same time so again nearly impossible to selectively target one over the other in Cook Inlet. The BOF just placed major restrictions on drifters the last two weeks of July when coho begin to enter the lower inlet, so coho allocation has already been decided and really no need to track them.

    Do kings swim deeper than sockeye? Yeah for the most part. But sockeye also swim up and down the water column depending on tides, weather, and sea conditions so continually shortening nets beyond 29 mesh will miss a lot of sockeye harvest. Eventually it will get to the point its not economical to fish a little minnow net. Could that be the goal? Again barring an EO from the Department, the BOF just approved an extra 7,500 kings to the river before setnet liberalizations are supposed to take place and set that as an escapement goal before any kind of an August fishery can take place. Not seeing a ton of benefits by knowing on average kings swim a couple of meters deeper than sockeye for the price.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 33outdoorsman View Post
    Smith -- You didn't know that by fishing 12 mesh deep nets, catching about 5 sockeye a tide, you could actually double and triple your profits? Ha.
    No, seriously, we joke but that's the pitch. At the BOF meeting, KRSA reps suggested to setnetters that if they would only consider going to 16 mesh deep nets, they would likely be free from any king restrictions whatsoever....

    I bet if the guys inriver switched from hooks to needles they would also be free from restrictions

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    No, seriously, we joke but that's the pitch. At the BOF meeting, KRSA reps suggested to setnetters that if they would only consider going to 16 mesh deep nets, they would likely be free from any king restrictions whatsoever....

    I bet if the guys inriver switched from hooks to needles they would also be free from restrictions
    I don't doubt that smith. Remember as what one BOF member was quoted as saying that "they can learn to share" (to CI comm. fishermen during PU deliberations), this member must have failed to realize that setnetters have shared more lately than any other group. Every fall we see letters in the paper from prominent members of a certain sportfishing group griping about the kenai kings those "curtains of death" caught. They seem to have a problem "sharing" 10 to 20 percent of the late run kings, but I highly doubt a BOF member would dare say "learn to share" to this group.

    I honestly believe a 16 mesh net would be better than the current proposed SHM's though. Maybe Lisa's fishery disaster funding will fund the transfer of your king killing 45 mesh net to a 16 mesh net? Be interesting to see if there's any help for a 29 mesh net.

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
  •