Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: YUKON KINGS…. closed for 2014

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516
    "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 2013
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Oh no no noooo!

  3. #3
    Member Anythingalaska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Sitka, Ak
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Good, it should be closed. I can only imagine how many Kings will be poached by villagers and others.

  4. #4
    Member akiceman25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Two Rivers, AK
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anythingalaska View Post
    I can only imagine how many Kings will be poached by villagers and others.

    Ohhh you mean those people that have harvested these fish for survival for the last several thousand years???

    I'm more curious how many were killed as "by-catch" by commercial fishermen in more recent history........
    I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74

  5. #5
    Member Anythingalaska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Sitka, Ak
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akiceman25 View Post
    Ohhh you mean those people that have harvested these fish for survival for the last several thousand years???
    Yes, that's what I mean. Just because you've done it for X amount of years, doesn't give you any exception. If the population is hurting that much, it doesn't matter who you are.

  6. #6
    Member akiceman25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Two Rivers, AK
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anythingalaska View Post
    Yes, that's what I mean. Just because you've done it for X amount of years, doesn't give you any exception. If the population is hurting that much, it doesn't matter who you are.

    And the by-catch continues.
    I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74

  7. #7
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akiceman25 View Post
    Ohhh you mean those people that have harvested these fish for survival for the last several thousand years???

    I'm more curious how many were killed as "by-catch" by commercial fishermen in more recent history........
    When the fish are gone completly we will all wonder what we should have done.
    While Trawler bycatch is a serious issue, when there is a closure I don't care who you are the resource should come first.
    And personally I don't care if you have been harvesting them for 1 year or 10,000 years when the fish are suffering we all need to do our part to keep them alive or bear our share of the blame for their demise.
    Out of curiosity what have you done in regards to the bycatch issue? Written any letters to your congressmen/women? Strated a campaign against them?
    Just curious as you should do something if you are that concerned yet I doubt you have (other than complain here).
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akiceman25 View Post
    Ohhh you mean those people that have harvested these fish for survival for the last several thousand years???

    I'm more curious how many were killed as "by-catch" by commercial fishermen in more recent history........
    Same group of people, however their population has increased exponentially and they have incorporated modern technology and efficiency into their traditional harvest methods. Big difference. Their ancestors didn't have outboards, cell phones, or monofilament gear.

  9. #9
    Member FishGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fishing your hole before you get there
    Posts
    1,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Same group of people, however their population has increased exponentially and they have incorporated modern technology and efficiency into their traditional harvest methods. Big difference. Their ancestors didn't have outboards, cell phones, or monofilament gear.
    Excellent point! I brought this up in a different thread. Cell phones have changed that subsistence fishery unlike any other form of technology.
    Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Same group of people, however their population has increased exponentially and they have incorporated modern technology and efficiency into their traditional harvest methods. Big difference. Their ancestors didn't have outboards, cell phones, or monofilament gear.
    tbsmith, if I use your reasoning the drift gill net fleet should be using outboard motors, the set nets limited to the beach, and airplanes and cell phones not used to communicate between fisherman and where the fish are. Also, monofilament gear is gone.

    I think every fishery has improved with technology so one should not pick out one group to make a point. The subsistence fishery has a priority use. Notice the word use not users. So restrictions in the commercial fishery or sport fishery are to take place before the subsistence fisheries are to be impacted. Asking about by-catch is a good point to help define the harvestable surplus and who gets it given the State and Federal priorities for subsistence use.

    One issue that keeps coming up is the issue of goals and specifically sustainable management goals. At some point all users need to be shut down but where that point falls is open to debate. In mixed stock fisheries there is always tension between goals for the different stocks of fish. In the Yukon they have treaty obligations that need to be met which further complicates the issue. I am not saying subsistence uses should happen regardless of run size - that would be a fools game - just that defining thresholds is very complicated.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anythingalaska View Post
    Good, it should be closed. I can only imagine how many Kings will be poached by villagers and others.
    Believe it or not...not that many. I've talked to fishermen in three villages on the Yukon. They won't put nets out until after the kings run...It sucks, b/c often times other Salmon run at same time.

    As an outsider, it sucks that the Native population can't fish while the commercial fishers can. It's all about money it seems.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    This will only be my third fishing season out here. Every year it has been worse than the year before. I'm all for protecting the Kings, however I believe we need to close down all king fishing.

    Every student I have depends on Salmon. It is not a money making issue, it is a survival issue.

  13. #13
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius View Post
    Every student I have depends on Salmon. It is not a money making issue, it is a survival issue.
    Do you honestly believe your students will not survive if they cannot catch and eat some Yukon river kings?
    I do know that in my household when we do not have something in our freezer that we want to eat we eat something else.
    Last year my boat had mechanical problems. That means no Subsistence Halibut (my wife and stepson are Native with SHARC cards)in our freezer.
    So we ate more Salmon,ducks, wild berries and other foods which we had more of.
    My guess that is what all native people have done/will do in times of shortage. My guess is that this is not the first time a salmon run in Alaska has been late or was not there in sufficient numbers to allow consumptive users to harvest all they needed/wanted of them.
    Yet Alaska's native people still perservere.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  14. #14
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius View Post
    As an outsider, it sucks that the Native population can't fish while the commercial fishers can. It's all about money it seems.
    Can you elaborate on this?
    Are you saying that they are commercially catching Yukon river kings yet subsistence users are shut out? Where is this occuring?
    One can only guess you mean the commercial Trawl fleet and the bycatch issue?
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    tbsmith, if I use your reasoning the drift gill net fleet should be using outboard motors, the set nets limited to the beach, and airplanes and cell phones not used to communicate between fisherman and where the fish are. Also, monofilament gear is gone.
    Um, not exactly.

    I did not suggest that subsistence users shouldn't be able to utilize technology, although I think most reasonable people agree that increased harvest efficiency should lead to decreased opportunity in a limited resource - for commercial, sport, and subsistence users alike. It certainly has in the commercial fisheries you mentioned, but not so much in the inriver fisheries nearby...

    I was responding to someone else's implication that since this Yukon subsistence fishery has occurred for many years, its impacts - more specifically the impacts of illegal activity - are de minimis or should somehow be ignored, or that those users have a right to fish that supersedes the needs of the resource.

    Had I been arguing that UCI commercial fishermen have been harvesting for over a century, so they should be left alone to harvest (legally or illegally) without their impacts being considered, your above reasoning and points would be perfectly relevant. But I wasn't and they are not.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    Do you honestly believe your students will not survive if they cannot catch and eat some Yukon river kings?
    I do know that in my household when we do not have something in our freezer that we want to eat we eat something else.
    Last year my boat had mechanical problems. That means no Subsistence Halibut (my wife and stepson are Native with SHARC cards)in our freezer.
    So we ate more Salmon,ducks, wild berries and other foods which we had more of.
    My guess that is what all native people have done/will do in times of shortage. My guess is that this is not the first time a salmon run in Alaska has been late or was not there in sufficient numbers to allow consumptive users to harvest all they needed/wanted of them.
    Yet Alaska's native people still perservere.
    They persevere. On moose. There are some other game but the staple here is moose and salmon. The kings have been restricted for the last two years that I know of. Problem the last two years is that the chum ran at same time. I guess the difference between road and bush is the cost to get good out here. So I will say yes. If the salmon are allowed to be caught it could mean the difference between nourishment and lack of.

    I heard an elder once say that he was a criminal because politicians made it a crime for him to feed his family.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    Can you elaborate on this?
    Are you saying that they are commercially catching Yukon river kings yet subsistence users are shut out? Where is this occuring?
    One can only guess you mean the commercial Trawl fleet and the bycatch issue?
    Yep. Commercial and by catch. I'm not sure of all regulations but it seems that commercial fishing is still going but not subsistence. Why is this? I'm ok with restricting, but shouldn't we restrict all king fishing? Or does it have to do with spawning vs non spawning?

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    What is the common belief about subsistence fishing? Anyone have any idea what impact the subsistence fishing has on the kings?
    someome mentioned earlier that it will truly take a combined effort to save the yukon king.
    We are all guilty of pointing at the others.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius View Post
    If the salmon are allowed to be caught it could mean the difference between nourishment and lack of.

    I heard an elder once say that he was a criminal because politicians made it a crime for him to feed his family.
    Or it could mean the difference between living in the bush and moving to a place where food, energy, and housing are more affordable and jobs more abundant.

    Unfortunately for that elder, he was a criminal because he chose not to follow the laws of our government. The same government that spends hundreds of millions on state/federal subsidies for food, fuel, waste and water treatment, ultra high speed internet, roads and so on for the AK bush. Perhaps someone should explain to that elder that he cannot choose not to follow our laws simply because it doesn't suit him.

    Not trying to diminish anyone's way of life, but rules are rules.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Or it could mean the difference between living in the bush and moving to a place where food, energy, and housing are more affordable and jobs more abundant.

    Unfortunately for that elder, he was a criminal because he chose not to follow the laws of our government. The same government that spends hundreds of millions on state/federal subsidies for food, fuel, waste and water treatment, ultra high speed internet, roads and so on for the AK bush. Perhaps someone should explain to that elder that he cannot choose not to follow our laws simply because it doesn't suit him.

    Not trying to diminish anyone's way of life, but rules are rules.
    I understand the point your trying to make. I truly do. However I think many people that live in the bush choose to live here. It's there culture. It's their life. City living isn't for everyone. I also beeline many of our native children are not prepared for life outside the village. Most live in poverty. Most are offered a substandard education (multiple reasons but it believe main reason is teacher turnover). Many villages are already drying up as the younger ones leave. Subsistence living is a survival necessity for many villagers.
    Im honest. I don't break the rules. However there are times I can sympathize. I may not support. But I do understand.
    Mid like to see the problems fixed. Which restrictions and closings might be the way. But they are only temporary fixings.

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
  •