Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Feds close ALL Kuskokwim drainage sport fishing

  1. #1

    Default Feds close ALL Kuskokwim drainage sport fishing

    This is hard to believe, but true and verified by ADFG biologists:

    The Federal US Fish and Wildlife manager of the Yukon DELTA National Wildlife Refuge has closed ALL sport fishing in the Kuskokwim and its major tributaries until July 20.

    This includes the Aniak, Kisaralik, Kwethluk, and Eek Rivers.

    Again, the closure includes ALL sport fishing - trout, Dollies, grayling, and other salmon - to anyone other than federally-qualified fishermen.

    News article can be found here:


    http://www.adn.com/article/20150611/...-rural-anglers

    Statement of Federal action can be found here:

    http://www.doi.gov/subsistence/news/...kuskonews5.cfm


    The action raises many questions. Among them are:

    1) (the obvious question) How in the world does trout fishing have any measurable effect on Chinook salmon escapements?

    2) If the Kuskokwim drainage is closed due to a Chinook conservation problem, why are the nearby Kanektok, Arolik, and Goodnews Rivers unaffected? Each of those rivers is also suffering from poor Chinook returns.

    3) Does this action signal a precedent that we can expect elsewhere in the state?
    Last edited by Icebear; 06-20-2015 at 14:53.

  2. #2
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    This is absolutely nuts! The Federal government's job is not to crush state commerce and economics. The air charters, lodges and guides can provide a monetary boost in some villages that rivals the importance of subsistence foods to sustaining livelihoods. This action will do little to nothing to help the kings because it attacks fisheries that have very little impact on the kings. "Lets just shut down a bunch of high dollar tourist oriented activities in our little colonial outpost, they can come up with income somewhere else. After all, they have a ton of money squirreled away in an investment account; they don't need other ways to raise revenues or boost employment." said the feds.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    This is absolutely nuts! The Federal government's job is not to crush state commerce and economics. The air charters, lodges and guides can provide a monetary boost in some villages that rivals the importance of subsistence foods to sustaining livelihoods. This action will do little to nothing to help the kings because it attacks fisheries that have very little impact on the kings. "Lets just shut down a bunch of high dollar tourist oriented activities in our little colonial outpost, they can come up with income somewhere else. After all, they have a ton of money squirreled away in an investment account; they don't need other ways to raise revenues or boost employment." said the feds.
    It may not be a good call but so far I have seen no data to say one way or the other. The rationale should not come from newspapers but the Federal justification and we should hold our comments until a full picture emerges. The biological rationale in the news release is pretty weak.

  4. #4
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,789

    Default

    Before closing down all sport fishing a "full picture" should have been given. That would have shown the service to indeed be a service, and not a arbitrary, self justifying agency.

  5. #5

    Default

    I haven't heard that the state has filed for an injunction. That is pretty telling. Maybe they don't want to lose and set a precedent? It does seem like an over reach, but if sport fishing causes even one C&R mortality, technically it would violate the subsistence priority. Could be interesting in the future if the upper kenai subsistence needs bump up against the PU priority if it should become law.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seinerman View Post
    I haven't heard that the state has filed for an injunction. That is pretty telling. Maybe they don't want to lose and set a precedent? It does seem like an over reach, but if sport fishing causes even one C&R mortality, technically it would violate the subsistence priority. Could be interesting in the future if the upper kenai subsistence needs bump up against the PU priority if it should become law.
    Ahhh, yes. We are to the point of deciding who "needs" the fish most, based on some arbitrary factor like area of residence. And here I thought this was the US of A, where we are all equal under the law... I'll go out on a limb here and say that there are no subsistence "needs" on the upper Kenai...

    If there is a heavy sportfishing presence in the Kuskokwim drainage, isn't this fishery facilitated by some of the more entrepreneurial residents there? It seems this should be one economic driver for these communities. Don't members of these communities depend on the dollars spent in the sport fishery every bit as much as the salmon they catch in subsistence nets? I hope the residents there take issue with the decision, and support diversity in harvest. Unless I'm missing something, which I might be cause I have not looked into it at all.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Ahhh, yes. We are to the point of deciding who "needs" the fish most, based on some arbitrary factor like area of residence. And here I thought this was the US of A, where we are all equal under the law... I'll go out on a limb here and say that there are no subsistence "needs" on the upper Kenai...

    If there is a heavy sportfishing presence in the Kuskokwim drainage, isn't this fishery facilitated by some of the more entrepreneurial residents there? It seems this should be one economic driver for these communities. Don't members of these communities depend on the dollars spent in the sport fishery every bit as much as the salmon they catch in subsistence nets? I hope the residents there take issue with the decision, and support diversity in harvest. Unless I'm missing something, which I might be cause I have not looked into it at all.
    This is why you fish and are not a lawyer

  8. #8

    Default

    Well: If I were fishing the Aniak this time of year - not knowing any better - I would be trying to catch a king. I thought that run was doing OK, from the pictures I've seen brought back. But if the fish runs are really doing so bad that a complete closure is announced without notice, it could lead to pressure on any remaining open rivers within flight distance. Flights and equipment have been booked.

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    This is just a prime example of federal overreach, and unelected officials making an enormous impact on people's lives. There are enough kings in the rivers to allow subsistence fishing for kings with various means and methods, but hook and release fishing for rainbow trout will have such a large impact on kings that it must be closed?

  10. #10

    Default Feds lifted the closure

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsiutoo View Post
    This is hard to believe, but true and verified by ADFG biologists:

    The Federal US Fish and Wildlife manager of the Yukon DELTA National Wildlife Refuge has closed ALL sport fishing in the Kuskokwim and its major tributaries until July 20.

    This includes the Aniak, Kisaralik, Kwethluk, and Eek Rivers.

    Again, the closure includes ALL sport fishing - trout, Dollies, grayling, and other salmon - to anyone other than federally-qualified fishermen.

    News article can be found here:


    http://www.adn.com/article/20150611/...-rural-anglers

    Statement of Federal action can be found here:

    http://www.doi.gov/subsistence/news/...kuskonews5.cfm


    The action raises many questions. Among them are:

    1) (the obvious question) How in the world does trout fishing have any measurable effect on Chinook salmon escapements?

    2) If the Kuskokwim drainage is closed due to a Chinook conservation problem, why are the nearby Kanektok, Arolik, and Goodnews Rivers unaffected? Each of those rivers is also suffering from poor Chinook returns.

    3) Does this action signal a precedent that we can expect elsewhere in the state?
    ================================

    Last week (week of June 28-July 4), the fed USFWS lifted their assumed authority over fisheries management on the Kuskokwim drainage.

    his means that ADFG regs went back in place, and a more sensible means to protect Chinook salmon went into effect; namely, targeting and retaining Chinooks while sport fishing in the Kuskokwim tributaries is closed, but trout fishing, and fishing for other salmon, is open to all.

    Let's hope this is where the fed mistake ends, and that we never see anything like this again.

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
  •