Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: BOF proposals on line now

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,534

    Default BOF proposals on line now

    The Alaska Board of Fisheries has posted all of the proposals to be considered at the upcoming meeting cycle (2016-2017) for all of their meetings. You can view and download the proposals at the following link:

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fisheriesboard.proposalbook

    Here is the backstory on this change of practice. Some individuals filed a freedom of information request to get the ADF&G proposals submitted to the BOF. ADF&G checked with the AG office and they ruled that the request was valid for all proposals submitted. So a decision was made to post all proposals on the web ASAP so everyone could have them. This is good news as now people in advisory committees, the public, agencies, and the like have months to look at them and discuss the ramifications of the various proposals.

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    THX Nerka.... and kudos to the Board Support staff for getting this up within a month of the submission deadline!
    "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

  3. #3
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    OOPS!

    Check that link again and repost, Nerka.... thx.

    I was unable to see it on the Board of Fish website, either.
    "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

  4. #4

    Default

    Thanks for the heads up. I couldn't get the link to work, but found it. Maybe this one will work. Dunno if it was just me though cause they look the same.

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...d.proposalbook

  5. #5
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    That one works, but not really facilitate discussing specific proposals as NONE are numbered and they appear in rather haphazard order without any organizational structure.
    "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

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    That one works, but not really facilitate discussing specific proposals as NONE are numbered and they appear in rather haphazard order without any organizational structure.
    Same stuff, different year.

    The commies want more fishing time.

    The sporties want less fishing time for the commies.

    Most reasonable people want more sensible management plans for Kenai Kings.

    The Matsu AC doesn't want anyone fishing, anywhere, if they have any restrictions on Northern Districts streams.

    KRSA wants more opportunity/fish for sport/pu fisheries, and to continue cramming more and more people on our rivers while arguing for less opportunity for commercial users of the same resources due to conservation concerns.

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

    Default

    OK... I used the Adobe search feature to more easily navigate that 500-pg PDF.

    Couple of key Kenai River proposals submitted by USFWS that caught my eye...

    1) Establishing a permanent Skilak Sanctuary of 4.5 miles immediately below the lake outlet ( there currently is NONE)

    2) Extending ER slot/bait restrictions above the Slikok Sanctuary thru ALL of July (currently the slot/bait restriction lifts after July 15). This essentially creates a baseline season-long slot limit above the Slikok Sanctuary

    ...


    Other Kenai proposals of note submitted by KAFC...

    1) Expand the current slot regs to prohibit the retention of ANY kings over 42" river-wide and season-long.

    2) Permit only ONE of your 2 annual limit of kings to be killed in June

    3) Create the MEGA-sanctuary for Kenai kings... fishing would ONLY allowed below the Slikok Sanctuary, essentially eliminating the upper bounds of the current Slikok Sanctuary to create a new "no king fishing" deadline 300 yds below the Slikok mouth.

    4) Make the entire river SINGLE HOOK only.

    5) Start the baseline July fishery with NO BAIT

    6) Add another drift-only day each week.

    7) Create a temporary "Sonar Sanctuary" July 1-7 in order to help get the final push of Early Run fish into/past the Slikok Sanctuary. I believe this idea started out as a complete closure the first week of July, with the intent of making up the lost days in the first week of August. It has since morphed into ONLY allowing fishing BELOW the sonar that week, essentially creating a temporary no king fishing deadline at the sonar during the first week of July.

    I believe ALL of these ideas have their merits. I also foresee that ALL will be vehemently challenged.
    "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

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Smile Me likey....

    Hey... I see the Central Peninsula AC threw one in there for mandatory circle hooks for flossing reds.
    "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

  9. #9
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Greg Brush has a couple of proposals that speak conceptually about starting the season SLOW and ramping up only when ADFG is assured in-season that the run is materializing as expected.

    SLOW meaning a baseline fishery that starts C&R, single hook, no bait. From there, it could go one three ways:

    1) it can be allowed to continue "as is" all season if it does NOT jeopardize the OEG.
    2) it can be EO'd to closure at any point the run is forecast/projected to fall sort of OEG
    3) it can be liberalized in step-wise fashion, commensurate with increasing run strength determined/confirmed in-season.

    Somehow it all sounds so hauntingly familiar. Gee... how much better off would the Kenai king runs be right now if this concept had been implemented back in 2002 when it was first brought up?

    Kudos to Greg for submitting the formal proposal(s)
    "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

  10. #10

    Default

    I very much respect the fact that Brush submitted proposals for what he thought needs to happen in the sport fishery and didn't get in the weeds about what to do in order to create parity in other fisheries. I believe at least one other local guide submitted a similar proposal.

    That said I'm not sure I agree that every season needs to start at C&R. While I completely get the point that we can't un-kill these fish and I have a some questions about our past and present ability to count them, I participate in a very sustainable fishery which depends on killing fish before they are counted, so I have reservations about taking that concept too far, as I think it will lead to an underutilization of the resource.

    I hope to see the river changed to no bait for the late run unless escapement is projected to be exceeded, like what is normal for the early run. I think that would help tame the July 1 bonkfest on all but strong runs.

  11. #11

    Default

    [QUOTE=fishNphysician;1540029]

    Couple of key Kenai River proposals submitted by USFWS that caught my eye...

    1) Establishing a permanent Skilak Sanctuary of 4.5 miles immediately below the lake outlet ( there currently is NONE)



    I assume this proposed sanctuary would be for kings, correct?

  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    YES...

    The USFWS Skilak Sanctuary speaks specifically about a CHINOOK closure in that 4.5 miles.
    "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

  13. #13
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    A brief synopsis of the KRSA proposals....

    1) Limit gear in the ESSN's to 29 meshes deep to reduce chinook encounters.

    2) Increase coho bag in the Kenai River to 3 upon closure of the ESSN fishery.

    3) Expand the dip net fishery boundary for boats up to Cunningham

    4) Either re-align in-river sockeye goals with OEG's or drop the in-river goal altogether

    5) Raise the upper bound OEG on LR kings to 40K (currently 30K)

    6) Expand non-fishing "windows" to include early Kasilof ESSN prior to July 7 as well as the Kasilof terminal fishery.

    7) Rolling slot limit enacted by emergency order based on IN-SEASON abundance estimates. 1) Closure if OEG can't be met; 2) 20" max retention at escapement projections at or near the lower OEG (basically C&R of all adult chinook) if it will help to achieve the lower OEG, 3) 30" max retention at escapement projections within the OEG; 4) slot lifts at escapement projections greater than the upper OEG

    For clarification, KRSA also proposes eliminating the current 55" upper slot bound.... essentially making the 20" and 30" cut-offs a MAX SIZE limit unless the escapement projection exceeds OEG at which point ANY size king can be retained.

    They also put in a provision to allow an angler to keep fishing (C&R) after retaining a king less than 30".
    "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

  14. #14
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    And this one from SCADA...

    Allow shore-based dipnetting above the Kenai Bridge from approved "fish habitat friendly" structures
    "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

  15. #15
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Ted Wellman proposes 6-6 guide fishing hours... from bank and/or boat
    "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

  16. #16
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    7) Rolling slot limit enacted by emergency order based on IN-SEASON abundance estimates. 1) Closure if OEG can't be met; 2) 20" max retention at escapement projections at or near the lower OEG (basically C&R of all adult chinook) if it will help to achieve the lower OEG, 3) 30" max retention at escapement projections within the OEG; 4) slot lifts at escapement projections greater than the upper OEG

    For clarification, KRSA also proposes eliminating the current 55" upper slot bound.... essentially making the 20" and 30" cut-offs a MAX SIZE limit unless the escapement projection exceeds OEG at which point ANY size king can be retained.

    They also put in a provision to allow an angler to keep fishing (C&R) after retaining a king less than 30".
    Been ruminating on this one for the past 24 hours... and the more I think about it, the more some of this makes sense, esp after reviewing the Funny River weir data for 2015. The 30" max retention idea whenever escapement projections fall within the OEG makes a LOT of sense. This alone would statistically prevent the harvest of virtually all ER hens until the run recovers from this "period of reduced productivity."

    Not quite sure I want to endorse the harvest of ANY size king at escapement projections above OEG. The OEG is just a total number of spawners. If that number was composed of 82% males, and 82% of those were dinker bucks.... well I could NOT support it. If however the OEG was expressed as a "large fish goal" ( i.e. fish over 30") then I would be WAY more comfortable with it.
    "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

  17. #17

    Default

    Seems to me that KRSA is doubling down on bad science.

    - Despite ADFG appropriately refuting the Kintama findings in their article titled "Oversimplification of complex harvest modeling issues outlined in Welch et al. (2014), the conclusions of Kintama", KRSA seeks to push the 29 mesh gear restriction further than already implemented in the management plan due primarily to this study. Notice the Anchorage AC submitted a proposal to remove the 29 mesh restrictions because they were based on bad science.

    - KRSA seeks more closure windows for the ESSN fishery for additional "protection" of Kasilof River Kings, despite no evidence (and even some to the contrary) that closure windows increase King passage. They claim that the current closure windows later in the year provide "significant" protection for Kings, despite no data to support that position. By far the most effective way to increase King passage is to fish the gillnets when sockeye are abundant no matter the day of the week. Furthermore, most of the data shows that Kasilof Late Kings run later into the fall than Kenai Kings (and always have), providing additional protection from overharvest. (Yes I realize that harvest across the entire run is better than focused harvest, and that the KRSHA is a bad deal - and that ADFG has committed to trying to use it less.) This proposal is another whack at the commercial fishery shamelessly disguised as a "conservation" proposal.

    Their obsession over the inriver goals is simply a strategy to get more sockeye inriver to support the ever-growing sport fishery because they've never heard of too much of a good thing. They had a similar proposal last cycle. Anything to get a better return on that Yamaha stock I suppose...

    Their suggested implementation of a LRK OEG of 15-40K is just another way to get more Kings in the river. While they didn't spell out how they will whack the setnetters on this one, we can pretty much count on the fact that they will be supporting something like a whopping 12 hours per week for the ESSN sockeye fishery unless the river is wide open and projected over 40K.

    Unfortunate that the KRSA board members won't replace the leadership and turn that organization around.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    By far the most effective way to increase King passage is to fish the gillnets when sockeye are abundant no matter the day of the week.
    I know that I'm late to the party, and everybody else may understand what you mean, but could you explain this. Because, it's an anti-intuitive statement, so I think there is some nuance I'm missing.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HikerDan View Post
    I know that I'm late to the party, and everybody else may understand what you mean, but could you explain this. Because, it's an anti-intuitive statement, so I think there is some nuance I'm missing.
    Wise use of time and area is the most effective tool ADFG has to sustainably manage the ESSN fishery. That means harvesting when sockeye abundance dictates, not the calendar. Fish don't care what day of the week it is. When they decide to push to the river, they go. I can't count how many times I've put tears in my beer watching a large pulse of sockeye swim towards a river projected to be overescaped, unable to harvest them due to a closure window supposedly designed to protect kings. Then we are opened the next day on the tail end of the pulse when the red to king ratio is much more unfavorable than it would have been the day previous, and the foregone harvest of those sockeye cannot be recovered.

    I get maintaining closure windows to enhance sportfishing (although I think even they should be ignored on large runs because they are unnecessary), but it is not scientifically defensible to claim these windows protect kings.

    I realize the abundance issue could be flipped to justify doing away with regular periods in the commercial fishery, however traditionally the regular periods have been ADFG's best indicator of abundance in these fisheries, and used to manage all of our fisheries. Commercial fisheries have always depended on additional abundance-based EO time to be viable.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    smith:

    I follow you if you mean that closures for the purpose of avoiding Chinook bycatch should preferably be during periods of low Sockeye concentration because that allows for longer closure periods without diminishing Sockeye catch. But, it's not the fishing during times of sockeye production that protects the Kings, is it?

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •