Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 102

Thread: Question for consideration - Kenai chinook

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default Question for consideration - Kenai chinook

    So to the best of our knowledge the set net fishery on the east side of Upper Cook Inlet takes about 13% of the annual return of Kenai late run chinook. Of that 13% the number of three ocean fish and older is maybe 2/3 of that percentage. This can be as high as 3/4. So lets say 10% for sake of discussion.

    The average time to catch a chinook at low run strengths is on the order of 30 hours or more as it is typically a no bait fishery and that average has by all accounts had a serious impact on the guide industry and private angler use of the river. So now the question.

    If the whole east side set net fishery was shut down and the number of large fish entering the river (2000 on a 20,000 return) how much would it change the catch rates and would it be enough to revitalize the guide industry? Catch rates would still be over 30 hours to catch a fish in my opinion.

    My personal belief is that is not enough and that the cost in lost sockeye harvest to the commercial fishery and indirectly to the local communities is too high. It is the law of diminishing returns. At some point putting more in does nothing if the threshold for revitalizing the guide industry is much higher relative to catch rates. Remember at 20,000 returns the in-river fisheries would be at no bait as the fishery is operating in the goal range.

    So looking at it this way maybe the question is not what is the number of fish caught in the set net fishery. Maybe the question should be what level of return is going to restart a chinook guide industry if one wants that. What got me to thinking about this was the recent Guide Academy report saying the guides there were for sockeye not chinook. Thus the guides have made the determination with all of the Board actions that their fishery is not worth the cost.

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    I think it is called adaptation so one can survive. If the traffic on the river is not reduced everything will go the way it is. The biggest die off first you all know it.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    We already did that experiment decades ago with the early run: closing the sockeye set net fishery on behalf of putting more early run Kings in the River for the sport fishery. It didn't work. Those Kings just got decimated by the in-river circus, year after year, to no end. Now here we are closed. See, it doesn't matter how many Kings the set net fishery puts in the River. The thirst to support the commercial guide industry is bottomless. Those Kings will just continue to get exploited by the in-river circus until something is done.

    A threshold level of King return to support a guide industry? There is no threshold high enough, because their is no limit on the guide industry - it's a bottomless pit. The Kenai once had unbelievable returns and surpluses, and they were slowly decimated, in large part to the unlimited guides. So this idea that putting a few more Kings in the River will make it all better, is wishful thinking. We've seen that a history of healthy, peak runs cannot even sustain the pressure.

    Ask yourself what the objective would be for closing the set nets?...Answer: to make fishing better in the river. So once again, it boils down to allocation.

    The Guide Academy (have you ever heard of such a ridiculous thing?) report is a joke. You can bet your bottom dollar that if there's Kings in the River, those new guides will be fishing them. And yep, they will be lining the banks with boatloads of their sockeye clients too, pushing every local and do-it-yourself tourist out, creating a whole new problem on the River. BTW, why are we still promoting adding guides to the already enormous group - a group most want to limit? Why are we feeding and funding the very industry that is detrimental to the River's spawning Kings? Hey, I got it...the set netters could start a Set Netter Academy, and add 50 new set netters....

  4. #4

    Default

    It's pretty simple. Guides sell opportunities to catch fish for money. If you can't fish for kings than you fish for other fish. As MG55 said, "adaption so one can survive."

    So, "what level of return is going to restart a Chinook guide industry." An amount that will not cause a closure. If the fishery is stable, guide businesses will be stable.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    It's pretty simple. Guides sell opportunities to catch fish for money. If you can't fish for kings than you fish for other fish. As MG55 said, "adaption so one can survive."

    So, "what level of return is going to restart a Chinook guide industry." An amount that will not cause a closure. If the fishery is stable, guide businesses will be stable.
    Guides exploit the resource. And when there is no limit on them, there is no limit on their exploitation of the resource.

    By "adaption" don't we mean assimilation? I mean with an unfettered, limitless, guide industry won't the next thing "adapted" just get decimated too?...Ruin the King fishery and "adapt" to the Coho fishery. Ruin the Coho fishery and "adapt" to the Sockeye fishery. Ruin the Sockeye fishery and "adapt" to trout in the Swanson Canoe system lakes. And so on and so on.

    See, there isn't enough food at the table to feed and unlimited crowd. And until some limits are imposed, the food will disappear.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    It's pretty simple. Guides sell opportunities to catch fish for money. If you can't fish for kings than you fish for other fish. As MG55 said, "adaption so one can survive."

    So, "what level of return is going to restart a Chinook guide industry." An amount that will not cause a closure. If the fishery is stable, guide businesses will be stable.
    but if it is just opportunity then business should not have gone done. It is catch rates and my point is that all the allocation fight is over nothing. No net gain for the in river industry even if the set nets are closed. If no closure was true then the no bait should have kept bookings up. So to me it is no restrictions and that happens when returns are good and everyone including set nets are fishing.

    Funstastic is correct that without controls on guide numbers there will never be enough fish, even with a total closure of the set nets

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    Guides exploit the resource. And when there is no limit on them, there is no limit on their exploitation of the resource.

    By "adaption" don't we mean assimilation? I mean with an unfettered, limitless, guide industry won't the next thing "adapted" just get decimated too?...Ruin the King fishery and "adapt" to the Coho fishery. Ruin the Coho fishery and "adapt" to the Sockeye fishery. Ruin the Sockeye fishery and "adapt" to trout in the Swanson Canoe system lakes. And so on and so on.

    See, there isn't enough food at the table to feed and unlimited crowd. And until some limits are imposed, the food will disappear.
    Thanks for describing the history of capitalism to me. God Bless America.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    Thanks for describing the history of capitalism to me. God Bless America.
    I think you mean the abuse of capitalism. As a capitalist myself, I know that no capitalist industry can sustain itself without some basic intervention, regulation, and rules of law - all which are lacking when it comes to the absence of guide limits and how that effects the resource. A free market doesn't mean everything is free. Look at the set netters - Capitalism at it's finest, yet they are limited in number and impact due to limited entry laws that help conserve the resource. JMO.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    The question Nerka posed is not a scientific/biological question. It's a social/business/economics question. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't put too much scientific thought into it.

    The question suggests that since closing down the ESSNetters will not put enough large Chinook (late run) back into the Kenai Rv to increase recreational fishing enough to revitalize the guide biz, it's highly questionable whether the ESSNetters should be shut down at all. That's not an unreasonable conclusion, from a scientific standpoint. However, as I have suggested in the past, there is value in the concept of 'shared sacrifice".

    If one sector of the fishery is shut down, then from an "optics" standpoint, other sectors should be too. One sector is likely to react badly if they are told to stand down (for biological or societial reasons), while other sectors continue to operate. So, from a biological standpoint, the premise is reasonable, but from a political standpoint, it may be tough for some folks to swallow.

    So, why didn't the ESSNetters seriously object when they were shut out from the first run of sockeye and the ER Chinook (back in the 1980's or whenever), when the recreational anglers were not? Not sure, but it's likely that the recreational fishery wasn't a huge concern at the time. However, times have certainly changed. And the ESSNetters have very vocal about that for a couple decades......

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    As a capitalist myself, I know that no capitalist industry can sustain itself without some basic intervention, regulation, and rules of law - all which are lacking when it comes to the absence of guide limits and how that effects the resource.
    So are you saying that the EO's that ADF&G wields when it closes down the king fishery isn't a "basic intervention.....that effects the resource"? Wasn't this year's ER closure done preventively before any new in season data has come in other than a preseason projection? By controlling the fishery they control and regulate what a guide can and can't do.

    Look, I'm in favor of capping the guide numbers but if I recall Yukon has stated that constitutionally it can't be done. Remember when Tony Knowles put a moratorium on guide numbers before he left office and it was thrown out? What rule of law was violated when Knowles issued that?

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    It's pretty simple. Guides sell opportunities to catch fish for money. If you can't fish for kings than you fish for other fish. As MG55 said, "adaption so one can survive."

    So, "what level of return is going to restart a Chinook guide industry." An amount that will not cause a closure. If the fishery is stable, guide businesses will be stable.
    So if demand for caffeine is stable, will drive-thru coffee stand business remain stable? Last I checked there was quite a few vacant ones that didn't make it, no doubt due to market saturation. I'm sure they're blaming the commercial guys. Dangit, Folgers!

    This has basically been pointed out already, but your assumption that "if the fishery is stable, guide businesses will be stable" is false.

    First, it ignores the scientific fact that if we continue to allow unlimited access to this limited resource, the fishery will never be stable.
    Second, it ignores the economic fact that without sufficient barriers to entry into one's market, that market will likely never be stable.

    What are the current barriers to entry into the Guided fishery?

    Capital/Startup: Cost of licensing, fees, equipment, advertising. Not too bad if one only starts with one boat, a website, and no lodge.
    Intellectual: Got to learn how to catch fish - not too hard on a body of water as small as the Kenai - especially when you're on the spawning beds!
    Gubment Regulations: Here's a whopper. Gotta pass guide academy, a whizz-quiz (I know, right?), and CG license.

    What did I miss? Maybe a couple things, but it really doesn't take that much to penetrate this market. Several years of solid returns and a good economy and I bet we see the same kind of market saturation we saw several years ago in both this and the south peninsula charter market. And the drive-thru coffee stand market.

    Sorry Penguin, the current business model for guiding on the Kenai is broken. Can't blame the Setnetters for that one.

  12. #12

    Default

    I can't believe it only took three posts before this became a guide bash topic.

    Guess I'll drink my folgers and watch what was originally a good question go down the worm hole.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post

    Sorry Penguin, the current business model for guiding on the Kenai is broken.
    Not sure I agree. The business model for guiding on the Kenai Rv is no different than the business model for guiding anywhere in North America. Likewise, the limitations on that business model (the size/stablility/productivity of the populations of the target fish species) are also the same on the Kenai Rv as they are elsewhere. And when the stocks of fish suffer, so do the businesses that depend on them. Ditto for the various related businesses that depend on a healthy fishery.

    I agree that nobody should blame the setnetters. But, when the ship sinks, everyone on board goes with it, even though they didn't have anything to do with hitting that iceberg.....

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcman View Post
    I can't believe it only took three posts before this became a guide bash topic.

    Guess I'll drink my folgers and watch what was originally a good question go down the worm hole.
    Oh boo-hoo. I wasn't bashing guides. I was pointing out obvious problems with their industry. I think guided fishing/hunting is vitally important to our community, and want to see it stay strong and healthy. If the above is all you plan to contribute, you don't have much room to talk...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Not sure I agree. The business model for guiding on the Kenai Rv is no different than the business model for guiding anywhere in North America. Likewise, the limitations on that business model (the size/stablility/productivity of the populations of the target fish species) are also the same on the Kenai Rv as they are elsewhere. And when the stocks of fish suffer, so do the businesses that depend on them. Ditto for the various related businesses that depend on a healthy fishery.

    I agree that nobody should blame the setnetters. But, when the ship sinks, everyone on board goes with it, even though they didn't have anything to do with hitting that iceberg.....
    Coho, I'll admit that I don't know much about guiding in other parts of North America, but I have hard time believing that many guided fishing markets cram as many guides in as small of a space as we do on the Kenai. Granted, many of those businesses happily guide other places on the Peninsula, but they all want to call the Kenai home, providing their clients with Kenai Hawgs whenever possible. I have gone on fishing trips other places like Hawaii, where there is a VERY limited number of guides, and the fish caught are sold commercially by the charter businesses. So I hardly think it's the same everywhere.

    And there are plenty in this community who have been screaming "iceberg!!!" for many years.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    So to the best of our knowledge the set net fishery on the east side of Upper Cook Inlet takes about 13% of the annual return of Kenai late run chinook.
    Interesting choice of words. Other evidence indicates that this number is substantially greater (in a normal fishing year that is).

  16. #16

    Default

    What evidence, that KRSA claims set netters don't report kings? Why should we assume they are any less honest than any other fishermen? Or that Craig Medred used some half-baked math to suggest a 40% dropout mortality? Or the fact that Kintama lost 40% of the 12 Kings of unknown origin that they tagged in the inlet? Oh that's right, 11 of the 12 were tagged AFTER THE SETNETS WERE CLOSED FOR THE SEASON.

    All of the scientific data we have supports Nerka's statement. If you have other FACTUAL evidence, do tell.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Interesting choice of words. Other evidence indicates that this number is substantially greater (in a normal fishing year that is).
    What other evidence Bfish. ADF&G published what they thought the escapements were for the late run and total return. So the 13% is an average so in some years it is much less. The reason I said to the best of our knowledge is because of the potential error in the counts. However, even if it was higher on average I doubt that at low run abundance it would drive a viable guide fishery as no bait would still be the rule.

    So my question for you Bfish is why sockeye management is not a consideration in these discussions of chinook. In my example, the whole set net fishery is closed which means millions of dollars for a couple thousand chinook which will not make a difference to the in-river fisheries. I am just trying to get the metrics to jive with the reality of the fisheries on the ground. It makes no sense to me to discuss just fish numbers.

    Let me give you a second example. The first 1 million sockeye harvested in the PU fishery and sport fishery on the Kenai means a lot to those families harvesting. However, putting another million fish in a river for these fisherman is not of the same benefit. Most people have their fish as PU fisherman do not take their limit now because they do not need or want them. So there is a lower return on investment in the second million fish - in other words there is a threshold of maximum benefit. So one saying another 1 million fish is the same as the first million is just not correct. I maintain the same applies to the chinook fishery. Putting 10% more is will not reach the threshold of a meaningful benefit.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Not sure I agree. The business model for guiding on the Kenai Rv is no different than the business model for guiding anywhere in North America. Likewise, the limitations on that business model (the size/stablility/productivity of the populations of the target fish species) are also the same on the Kenai Rv as they are elsewhere. And when the stocks of fish suffer, so do the businesses that depend on them. Ditto for the various related businesses that depend on a healthy fishery.

    I agree that nobody should blame the setnetters. But, when the ship sinks, everyone on board goes with it, even though they didn't have anything to do with hitting that iceberg.....
    Not true cohoangler. One problem is in defining the fishery. If you do it by calling it just a chinook fishery then your point is well taken. However, the guide industry is not a single species fishery. It is a fishery that has lots of options - sockeye, pinks, coho, rainbows, dolly varden. In fact, one guide last year stated that with the 2012 chinook closure he switched to sockeye and lost only 3% of his income. He may be an exception as he has foresight. However, in the commercial fishery is closure is for all species. Not a fair or reasonable request if you want to share the burden.

    Also, relative to the early run and commercial fisheries. The reason was that these small stocks could not sustain a large commercial fishery. We are talking about tens of thousands of fish rather than millions.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    So my question for you Bfish is why sockeye management is not a consideration in these discussions of chinook.
    Of course, sockeye management is a consideration - it's just not the only consideration. When the dust settles on this season, millions of Kenai and Kasilof sockeye will be harvested by the commercial set and drift gillnet fisheries in Central Cook Inlet. A greater share will go to the drift fishery than in normal years. The setnet fishery will get substantial fishing time at around the peak of the sockeye run. The commercial king harvest, coming primarily in the set net fishery, will be substantially greater than the combined harvest and mortality of the sport fisheries. Unless the Kenai king forecast is a gross overestimate, we will see another escapement at or just above the lower goal which continues the recent trend of record low numbers. And the kenai sockeye escapement goals will be achieved as long as management employs the tools at their disposal within the current management plans.

  20. #20

    Default Question for consideration - Kenai chinook

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Of course, sockeye management is a consideration - it's just not the only consideration. When the dust settles on this season, millions of Kenai and Kasilof sockeye will be harvested by the commercial set and drift gillnet fisheries in Central Cook Inlet. A greater share will go to the drift fishery than in normal years. The setnet fishery will get substantial fishing time at around the peak of the sockeye run. The commercial king harvest, coming primarily in the set net fishery, will be substantially greater than the combined harvest and mortality of the sport fisheries. Unless the Kenai king forecast is a gross overestimate, we will see another escapement at or just above the lower goal which continues the recent trend of record low numbers. And the kenai sockeye escapement goals will be achieved as long as management employs the tools at their disposal within the current management plans.
    Are you saying your client isn't going to threaten ADFG employees with their jobs this year if they merely think of EO'ing out of this king plan in the interest of balancing future yield trade offs between stocks (read making biological goals on all stocks)?

    Have you relayed how this is going to work to ADFG because last time I checked they were still trying to figure out what exactly the board's intent was in several aspects of the new regulations, and HTF they were going to control sockeye escapements on 6 million returns without going outside the plans given the new SIGNIFICANT setnet and drift restrictions, the new in river goal for kings, and the new August OEG for Kings that kicks in after the river closes, putting the conservation burden squarely on the ESSN's (broader) shoulders.

    How exactly are the drifters going to harvest more Kenai/Kasilof sockeye while they are wrapping up with every charter boat in the south inlet while catching more southern Kings in their new corridor your Mat-Su buddies cooked up?

    You say of course Sockeye management is a consideration, however you and your client didn't say that to the BOF and no part of your new plan gives consideration to Sockeye management. It's called 'notwithstanding'. Contrarily, in the new plan, King management is the only consideration.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •