Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: A court victory for BoF and ADF&G. And KSRA........

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,206

    Default A court victory for BoF and ADF&G. And KSRA........

    Not sure how this court decision is being viewed in the Great Land.....

    I haven't read it all yet, but it appears to reaffirm the authority of the State to regulate the various fisheries on the Kenai Rv.


    http://www.thefishingwire.com/story/358741

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Cohoangler, this is actually a victory for commercial fisherman since they are a minority user in terms of numbers. I know this sounds weird so I will try to explain. First, most commercial fisherman probably thought this suit was not going to succeed as it challenged a previous court ruling - the Brown Decision. The Brown Decision said that ADF&G emergency order authority on time and area could not be compromised by the Board of Fish regulations if new and significant information existed (new and significant information came out of the PMA case). The Supreme Court in this decision basically reaffirmed that position and in fact reduced the PMA impact as pre-season forecast can be used a new and significant information. Thus ADF&G has extreme flexibility to change management plans, ignore portions or them, or even create new approaches to achieve conservation objectives. So in UCI the Brown decision resulted in a provision in the UCI management plan that stated this but was not every tested. This tested that decision and flexibility and ADF&G won over the Board of Fish for in-season management.

    So commercial fisherman who have been faced with increasing restrictions in plans can now point to two cases that state clearly that ADF&G does not have to follow those plans to meet escapement goals. In addition, ADF&G can decide which goal takes a priority and that is significant. So trade-offs will be made by ADF&G not the Board of Fish in-season. That should remove the political influence to a point. ADF&G will try to follow plans but not be limited by them.

    In my opinion the ADF&G authority was re enforced, the Board of Fish can allocate fish and write plans but they cannot override ADF&G emergency order authority to meet goals, user groups cannot drive in-season management politically if the escapement goal data does not support their position, and ADF&G will have to be more accountable with their decisions.

    For commercial fisherman as a minority user the establishment of escapement goal management is critical to their survival.

  3. #3
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,354

    Default

    [QUOTE=Nerka;1507510]Cohoangler, this is actually a victory for commercial fisherman since they are a minority user in terms of numbers. I know this sounds weird...] Yes, it does sound weird, and will take an incredible amount of spin to sound plausible. Since there are fewer of them, they are the minority user; even though they are the majority consumer, by a vast margin. So what you are trying to say is that the user who consumes roughly 90% of the resource is the minority user and needs every advantage possible in order to survive. Brilliant.

  4. #4

    Default

    [QUOTE=willphish4food;1507761]
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Cohoangler, this is actually a victory for commercial fisherman since they are a minority user in terms of numbers. I know this sounds weird...] Yes, it does sound weird, and will take an incredible amount of spin to sound plausible. Since there are fewer of them, they are the minority user; even though they are the majority consumer, by a vast margin. So what you are trying to say is that the user who consumes roughly 90% of the resource is the minority user and needs every advantage possible in order to survive. Brilliant.
    Not quite sure of the point of this post, other than to reiterate your distaste for commercial fishing. Yes, minority user is accurate to describe commercial fishermen since there are a lot less of them. No spin there. Yes, majority harvester is another accurate way to describe commercial fishing when referring to many areas/species. Luckily, most people don't use harvest ratios to judge or equate fairness. Perhaps your gripe would be legitimate if commercial fishing has drastically impacted your ability to sport fish, but in our area of the state, sport fishing opportunity abounds. If you actually looked at catch rates rather than harvest, you'd see that many people utilize our fish resource without consuming it, so much so that for most species of salmon, sport fishermen likely catch more in Cook Inlet than commercial. I have not found the numbers, but I know they are out there...

    Why do you always talk about harvest rather than catch? If I go fishing for the day and catch 10 fish but keep none, did I still have opportunity and a fun, successful trip? Does that not count towards utilization and consumption of our resource, or are you only concerned with harvest?

    As far as the lawsuit - whatever, I didn't pay much attention. It was sure to be bad press for setnetters either way. Just one more nonprofit group trying to influence policy. Blah.

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

    Default

    [QUOTE=willphish4food;1507761]
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Cohoangler, this is actually a victory for commercial fisherman since they are a minority user in terms of numbers. I know this sounds weird...] Yes, it does sound weird, and will take an incredible amount of spin to sound plausible. Since there are fewer of them, they are the minority user; even though they are the majority consumer, by a vast margin. So what you are trying to say is that the user who consumes roughly 90% of the resource is the minority user and needs every advantage possible in order to survive. Brilliant.
    Willphish4food, you are something else. It is too bad you cannot read and understand what I said. The main point was ADF&G authority to manage for escapement goals in-season is up to ADF&G on how they do it, not the Board of Fish management plans or some legislator from the valley or whereever.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    I will take your word for it that this decisions helps the commercial folks. But, if so, it does seem odd that KSRA is cheering this decision. Maybe they recognize and appreciate the importance of retaining the ability of ADF&G to manage the various fisheries, even if they don't always agree with the outcome.

    If so, that would be a good thing....

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    I will take your word for it that this decisions helps the commercial folks. But, if so, it does seem odd that KSRA is cheering this decision. Maybe they recognize and appreciate the importance of retaining the ability of ADF&G to manage the various fisheries, even if they don't always agree with the outcome.

    If so, that would be a good thing....
    I think they may also feel they control the political will right now and can control ADF&G. It has worked in the past but administrations change and Walker may be different. The commercial fisherman had no options if the BOF could dictate to ADF&G. At least with ADF&G they have in-season options whether they are used or not.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    I will take your word for it that this decisions helps the commercial folks. But, if so, it does seem odd that KSRA is cheering this decision. Maybe they recognize and appreciate the importance of retaining the ability of ADF&G to manage the various fisheries, even if they don't always agree with the outcome.

    If so, that would be a good thing....

    KRSA is cheering this decision because they sided with the state against some setnetters and their side won. For the core of KRSA, winning is the most important part.

    KRSA had a half-dozen paid reps at the last BOF meeting touting the need for specific, "prescriptive" management plans, and they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax-free "educational" charity money each BOF cycle lobbying their "prescriptive" proposals through. I hardly think they consider the judicial reinforcement of EO authority a win, despite what they may have argued in court and the fact that they were the ones pressuring the department to breach the management plans and shut down the setnetters in June of 2012 based on what was at the time little more than a bad feeling.

    Honestly, I don't think most of the KRSA crew puts that much thought into this stuff. Likely they care much less about the long-term implications of reinforcement of EO authority than they do about the short-term implications of them assisting the state in defeat of some dirty commies and the PR opportunities this victory provided. Surprised they didn't provide their Click Pick Give link with the story. Ha.

    FWIW, I fully support the ADFG's EO authority, and try to even when it does not suit me. The BOF can provide good guidelines, but no plan survives contact... That said they should have just cause to break management plans.

  9. #9

    Default

    Willphish, wondering if you put any thought into my questions about catch vs harvest?

    I did some looking into the numbers. Did you know that while Cook Inlet commercial fisheries harvested 5,000 Kings in 2014, Cook Inlet sport fisheries had the opportunity to catch 44,000? Likewise, while commies caught 135,000 Silvers, Sport Fishermen caught over 212,000.

    Obviously once one factors in Sockeye, Cook Inlet commercial fisheries catch more salmon, but it's more of a 2:1 ratio when compared to sport catch.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I did some looking into the numbers. Did you know that while Cook Inlet commercial fisheries harvested 5,000 Kings in 2014, Cook Inlet sport fisheries had the opportunity to catch 44,000? Likewise, while commies caught 135,000 Silvers, Sport Fishermen caught over 212,000.
    Todd, you might want to recheck your numbers

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Todd, you might want to recheck your numbers
    Ray Beamesderfer, I would appreciate your respect in keeping names out of this discussion. Last time I asked you to verify my numbers, you very smugly told me I couldn't afford you. Perhaps someone else out there can verify this for me.

    You are right though - KRSA and the Mat-Su borough are better sugar daddies than me.

    Here's where I got my numbers.

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm....exvesselquery

    Shows all of Cook Inlet (not just UCI) 2014 Commercial harvest:

    Kings 5,000
    Coho 135,000

    2014 Sport King Catch:

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/sportf...region.results

    I did not include all of Southcentral which technically includes the Nush, Kvich, Kodiak, North Gulf, PWS, and AK Peninsula. I stuck to Cook Inlet, and tallied:

    Knik 1,829
    Anchorage 1,382
    Susitna 12,507
    West Side 1,507
    K Pen Fresh 10,652
    K Pen Salt 15,982

    Total 43,859


    2014 Sport Coho Catch:

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/sportf...region.results

    Knik 20,434
    Anchorage 13,939
    Susitna 37,637
    West Side 12,954
    KP Fresh 101,944
    KP Salt 25,799

    Total 212,707



    It's been a decade since my last statistics class, but pretty sure I nailed it. The only issue I see is that these numbers could possibly include Seward. Even if so, the point holds.

    Obviously, sport harvest was much lower than this. That was my point.

  12. #12
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,354

    Default

    Smith, your numbers are impressive. But you are comparing apples and oranges. Commercial catch is derived from physical counts of dead fish, i.e. fish tickets, and the catch and harvest are equal. Sport fish catch and harvest are not the same, as many fisheries require release of fish caught in them, and even in areas where retention is allowed, many fish caught are released rather than harvest. Sport fish catch and harvest are algorythms, a guesstimate, based on a sport fish survey turned in at the end of the year by the few sport fishermen who receive one in the mail and bother to fill it out and return it, basing their numbers on memories six or more months past. Basically, the sport caught numbers you are stating are estimates based on estimates; there is a huge margin of error. The margin of error isn't even known; it can only be guessed at.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Smith, your numbers are impressive. But you are comparing apples and oranges. Commercial catch is derived from physical counts of dead fish, i.e. fish tickets, and the catch and harvest are equal. Sport fish catch and harvest are not the same, as many fisheries require release of fish caught in them, and even in areas where retention is allowed, many fish caught are released rather than harvest.
    Willphish, thanks for the response, and you are totally correct. Comparing commercial and sport fishing using harvest - or catch - is like comparing apples to oranges. Neither is a very good way of evaluating our management of this resource or equity in user group access. That's why it drives me completely insane that people constantly compare harvest numbers between the fisheries to judge equity. If we must compare the two for this purpose, at least try to do it in a way which represents the OPPORTUNITY each user group receives. Ignoring the majority of sport fishing opportunity/effort by comparing only the fish harvested is disingenuous. While you may not have realized this, there are plenty of people who do, yet continue to perpetuate this clouded logic. Like those who have the resources and expertise to double check my data rather quickly but would rather just cast doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Sport fish catch and harvest are algorythms, a guesstimate, based on a sport fish survey turned in at the end of the year by the few sport fishermen who receive one in the mail and bother to fill it out and return it, basing their numbers on memories six or more months past. Basically, the sport caught numbers you are stating are estimates based on estimates; there is a huge margin of error. The margin of error isn't even known; it can only be guessed at.
    Amen! We need better data! There is room for improvement in all fisheries, and the accurate, referenced data I posted represents a best guess estimate of catch and harvest by ADFG.

    I don't think that detracts from my point.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    This is only slightly relevant to this discussion:

    http://www.cbbulletin.com/435358.aspx

    Lots of salmon being harvested in the Great Land..... I found this report a bit surprising, given the recent 'doom and gloom' from the ocean conditions in the North Pacific.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Todd, you might want to recheck your numbers
    My mistake. I missed that you were comparing sport catch to commercial harvest - much clearer from your follow-up post.

    Perhaps we could both agree that neither catch or harvest numbers fully represent the values and opportunities of the various fisheries to their participants?

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Opportunity. I usually buy a Non Res Annual license. Some years I fish hard and keep little, other years I keep a few usually less than 5, mostly reds and pinks. This year was only one Halibut out of Seward. I have had catch rates of 25 fish per hour on pinks with a jig and bobber, no kenai jerk needed. No need to hit the reds due to surgery and generosity of others this past summer. May just go to buying fish from the setnetters.
    Terry

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    My mistake. I missed that you were comparing sport catch to commercial harvest - much clearer from your follow-up post.

    Perhaps we could both agree that neither catch or harvest numbers fully represent the values and opportunities of the various fisheries to their participants?
    Perhaps we could, but I'm not passing out colored pie charts to the BOF and the Legislature which show the inequity in harvest while ignoring catch, claiming those misleading statistics represent the values and opportunities of the various fisheries to their participants.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Perhaps we could, but I'm not passing out colored pie charts to the BOF and the Legislature which show the inequity in harvest while ignoring catch, claiming those misleading statistics represent the values and opportunities of the various fisheries to their participants.
    Harvest numbers don't matter?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Harvest numbers don't matter?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    They do not if yoiu measure opportunity in catch rates as opposed to harvest rate. In UCI there has never been a good discussion of trade-offs for other values except in 1999 when the sockeye tiers were made and the impact of smaller sockeye returns on the commercial fishery were used in the allocation. All the other regulations have to do with who gets what percent of the harvest. Just look at the rationale for escapement goal actions - the BOF said they are to be in proportion to harvest - no other criteria. In my opinion that is simplistic and not in the best interests of the state.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Perhaps we could both agree that neither catch or harvest numbers fully represent the values and opportunities of the various fisheries to their participants?
    If you agree with your above statement then you must realize that many of your clients misrepresent harvest data as a matter of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Harvest numbers don't matter?
    I certainly didn't say that. Participation/effort, harvest, catch - they are all important data and should be presented accurately and in context, not used as cheap props to support whichever argument best suits one's retirement plan.

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
  •