Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Kasilof PU gill net fishery - what is going on.

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default Kasilof PU gill net fishery - what is going on.

    Talked with ADF&G today and it looks like the Kasilof gill net PU fishery will be cut in half time wise - either days or hours per day.

    I just cannot figure out what ADF&G is doing other than playing political games. The in-river sport fishery for chinook is closed, the Kasilof River chinook are catch and release or retention of marked fish only and yet a sockeye PU fishery that catches 40-80 chinook is allowed to proceed. Why? The PU fisheries for sockeye go all the way through July with dip nets so there are alternative fisheries available to PU fisherman.

    Also, why just cut fishing time in half. Does 40 fish saved mean the goals are met? No. This appears so politically charged that it sinks. These fisheries should be closed infthe in-river sport fisheries are closed for conservation reasons. There are no pressing trade-offs between species, there are alternative fisheries, and ADF&G is allocating with this potential action. They are saying the PU fishery should get some fish just not a full fishery. But that is not what an e.o is for. Either there is a reason to close for conservation or there is not. If ADF&G is saying 40 fish saves makes the goal I would like to hear that but I think we all know that is not true.

  2. #2

    Default

    Would you also delay the Kasilof setnet opener based on potential king catches?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Would you also delay the Kasilof setnet opener based on potential king catches?
    The set net fishery opens based on late run chinook not early run. Therefore, delaying the set net opening based on early run is not consistent with the management plans and thus require in-season information to use an emergency order. If data indicate the late run is in trouble relative to goals then the plans outline the appropriate actions. If early run data indicate that the run is very late and early run fish are in the set net fishery that might be considered new and significant information and thus a delay could be justified. However, precautionary delays via e.o are not in any plan for the late run.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    fishhook, ak
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Isn't the early run and late run a complete myth anyhow? Lets be honest.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andweav View Post
    Isn't the early run and late run a complete myth anyhow? Lets be honest.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yes and no. Biologically I think the genetic data will show that the tributary fish are separate from the main stem spawning fish. They should be managed based on that separation rather than run timing.

    The no part comes in because that is the way the management plans are written with a July 1 separation date. I would argue the management of the fishery based on this is totally wrong and should be changed.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    I'm pretty surprised. I was bracing for the news of a record red escapement in progress, with increased limits for all being discussed. And for all I mean everybody that gets reds.

    Its only June. A few months from now lets see if cutting back, or staying same but anticipating increasing opportunity/hrs, was the thing we should be doing now, ok?

    Thanks for the update Nerka, no matter how fishy it does sound - and I don't mean that in a good way - well, except about thanking ya.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Yes and no. Biologically I think the genetic data will show that the tributary fish are separate from the main stem spawning fish. They should be managed based on that separation rather than run timing.

    The no part comes in because that is the way the management plans are written with a July 1 separation date. I would argue the management of the fishery based on this is totally wrong and should be changed.
    I believe it's headed that direction. The data presented at the recent BOF meeting showed where trib spawners were physically located in the river at every time span during the fishing season. As in what percentage of radio-tagged trib spawners were in open fishing zones at any given time during their migration.

    Using that sort of data is way more productive than an arbitrary July 1 cut-off.

    I believe we are starting to see the fruits of that work in terms of the deadline for in-season ER (trib spawner) management action being moved down from the Soldotna bridge to the bottom of the newly expanded Slikok sanctuary.

    You also see evidence of it in the way the current EO for the ER (trib spawner) closure is crafted to effective for the ENTIRE king season (thru July 31). The only king fishing that will take place will be after July 1, but ONLY below the Slikok sanctuary.

    Yes, these changes came late in the game (perhaps too late?) but at least the right changes have finally happened.

    I believe the deadline moving from the Soldotna bridge to Slikok is a BIG deal. Even though the KAFC conservation Proposal 219 for mainstem spawning sanctuaries failed, this move by ADFG effectively accomplishes more.

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...219?highlight=
    "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

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
  •