Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: Can I dip Chitna AND personal use fish the Kasilof?

  1. #21
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    *Sigh*....another year, another thread containing spurious allegations of "wastage" by dipnetters....this is an urban legend, people....it's not true. There are no ads out there for freezer burned fish...the PU salmon runs are among the strongest in the state...you all beating this dead horse year after year, why don't you just give it up? There are no sources whatsoever for these hysterical claims....
    Yes another year of people denying the truth.
    So the ads I see for people giving away freezer burnt fish each and every year at the beginning of dipnet season are just figments of my imagination?
    The ones that get linked to on this forum each and every year?
    Oh that's right you'll post up your same old argument that since they don't list how they were caught they could be sport or commercial caught fish.
    We will then link to the artical about the fish waste dumping in Anchorage streams during dipnet season that includes whole fish that someone got tired of cleaning and again we can't prove how those wasted fish were caught so it wasn't dipnetters.
    When the Anchorage zoo asks for old fish and fills a walk in freezer in 2 days none of those could be pu fish either right?
    The person who told me on the beach "time to throw out last years old fish" as he pushed a wheelbarrow full of Kasilof reds past me towards their truck didn't happen either.
    Personal use fishermen are perfect and utilize everything down to the last fillet every year.
    Blah blah blah.
    Take off your blinders and maybe you'll see what I and many others see.
    That is that there is some level of overharvest and waste in the dipnet fishery.
    Sure you don't want to admit there's waste in your favorite fishery.
    But come on man do you really believe there are no ads giving away freezer burnt pu fish? That no pu fish is ever wasted?
    Not that the OP here is guilty of it just that it does occur each and every year at least a little bit.
    Hence the reminders for people to figure out their needs and harvest accordingly.
    "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"

  2. #22
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coho slayer View Post
    A realistic goal to get my family at home through the winter is about 50 fish, give or take. I fished the subsistence portion of the Copper so I could theoretically get all we need for the year in one trip and avoid the circus of Kenai.

    Did I get anywhere near my goal? Not even close....

    But, that is my reasoning behind choosing that fishery. I would never need or want the number of fish I am allowed, so I think a lot of this argument isn't about getting too many fish but making the best use of the options we have to get what you need.
    That does make sense.
    If your Chitna trip doesn't fill all your needs maybe a Kenai/Kasilof trip would.
    Or vice versa.
    As long as people are aware of their needs and avoid wasting to the best of their ability it's all good.
    "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"

  3. #23
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    That does make sense.
    If your Chitna trip doesn't fill all your needs maybe a Kenai/Kasilof trip would.
    Or vice versa.
    As long as people are aware of their needs and avoid wasting to the best of their ability it's all good.
    Most reasonable thing you've said in a while. Instead of judging other's needs based upon your own needs, or the wasteful acts of some, judge them according to regulations; are they following the regulations? Anything else is just you being the morality police, with your own definition of "needs" being the basis of your judgement.
    To summarize; some PU fisherpeople catch too many fish to use, some catch just enough, and some not enough. Because some catch too many to use, you have advocated very strongly that all must catch fewer, regardless of the hardship that may cause those. Of course, if those PU fish don't get caught, there are more swimming upstream, as "waste," according to many within the commercial industry, so the commercial industry would be tasked with gathering in that "waste" and saving nature from itself.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    Our family has had years wherein we limited out, or nearly limited out in both PU Dip-Net fisheries. I've loaded our walk-in smoker with reds a number of times, with it taking up to 108 fillets at a time when maxed out (54 fish total at a time).

    On those years we may have given away 5-10 fillets, total, eating the rest, throwing away NONE.

    I would assert that had we NOT caught those fish, we still would have eaten. We simply would not have eaten THOSE fish. But we would've eaten. Some amount of money saved or spent on gathering them would've gone to different sources, but we'd have eaten.

    The technical lines re. redistributing PU fish, or 'gifting' them, were re-addressed when someone in the Interior (a devout R) raised a stink about Rep Scott Kawasaki (D) holding a fund-raiser BBQ at which he served some of his personal use reds from Chitina to feed his supporters, which at that time was a technical violation of a regulation that largely went unenforced, as sharing your bounty in Alaska is a practice that goes back to before recorded time here.

    We no longer fish the Kenai as a rule, for several reasons; crowds are insane, leading to near-collisions numerous times, the bacteria levels have been fairly high on many years (in part due to peoples' presence and slower flow in the river over-all), and access to a friend's boat having changed, etc.

    That all said, I was raised by a depression-era baby (my mother); we DON'T throw food away at our home, and frown on those who do... heavily. Especially when it's wild fish or game. Because, just for starters, that amounts to killing for the sake of killing.

    On the other hand, I've found over half of my current cooler collection, including Coleman 56-qt coolers and 48-qt, in the dumpster, often with store stickers still on them, with a rotting fish or two inside, along with melted ice water, and, typically, an empty ice bag; circumstances telling a fairly clear story... I detest the wastefulness of such behavior, but have also scored a number of fairly new and nice coolers, as a result of others not being good stewards, and being unwilling to clean up their errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Most reasonable thing you've said in a while. Instead of judging other's needs based upon your own needs, or the wasteful acts of some, judge them according to regulations; are they following the regulations? Anything else is just you being the morality police, with your own definition of "needs" being the basis of your judgement.
    To summarize; some PU fisherpeople catch too many fish to use, some catch just enough, and some not enough. Because some catch too many to use, you have advocated very strongly that all must catch fewer, regardless of the hardship that may cause those. Of course, if those PU fish don't get caught, there are more swimming upstream, as "waste," according to many within the commercial industry, so the commercial industry would be tasked with gathering in that "waste" and saving nature from itself.

  5. #25
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Most reasonable thing you've said in a while. Instead of judging other's needs based upon your own needs, or the wasteful acts of some, judge them according to regulations; are they following the regulations? Anything else is just you being the morality police, with your own definition of "needs" being the basis of your judgement.
    To summarize; some PU fisherpeople catch too many fish to use, some catch just enough, and some not enough. Because some catch too many to use, you have advocated very strongly that all must catch fewer, regardless of the hardship that may cause those. Of course, if those PU fish don't get caught, there are more swimming upstream, as "waste," according to many within the commercial industry, so the commercial industry would be tasked with gathering in that "waste" and saving nature from itself.
    It's not a matter on judging based on my needs but judging based on what a family can actually consume in a year.
    When numbers like 300 fish are thrown out there do you really think any Alaskan family utilizes that much fish?
    Yes Cohoangler did explain that one, but before he did it sure made me wonder.
    With an average Chitina red salmon at say 5 pounds thats 1,500 pounds of salmon.
    With Kenai reds averaging 6.5 pounds that would be closer to 2,000 pounds.
    Even a family of 10 would need to consume 1/4 pound a day each 365 days a year to use that much chitina salmon figuring on a 60% meat to waste ratio.
    Most families are not 10 people.
    "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"

  6. #26
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,812

    Default

    I guess what my point in all of this is that a person having lived in AK a couple of years or more should be able to get a good ballpark figure in their fish needs.
    We just need to remind people to think about those needs and not be wasteful as this waste happens every year as noted above and in many previous posts from years past.
    If your family will utilize limits from both PU fisheries then have at it.
    Most families will not/can not use that much fish.
    "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"

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    I agree with that. Taking more than one needs is a mark of poor character traits, in my opinion, as well as a violation, at least of moral concepts and good stewardship.

    I agree that our species tends to plunder what we have, and often rationalize over-use or over-harvest of nearly any resource we take a fancy to.

    On years we have lots of smoked fish at our house, we eat lots of smoked fish; casseroles, dips, plain, crackers, you name it.

    On years we don't have so much, we don't eat it.

    But ALL of my family members, children now adults, and otherwise, have all heard me many times, lecturing them about not taking food for granted.

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    I guess what my point in all of this is that a person having lived in AK a couple of years or more should be able to get a good ballpark figure in their fish needs.
    We just need to remind people to think about those needs and not be wasteful as this waste happens every year as noted above and in many previous posts from years past.
    If your family will utilize limits from both PU fisheries then have at it.
    Most families will not/can not use that much fish.

  8. #28
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    It's not a matter on judging based on my needs but judging based on what a family can actually consume in a year.
    When numbers like 300 fish are thrown out there do you really think any Alaskan family utilizes that much fish?
    Yes Cohoangler did explain that one, but before he did it sure made me wonder.
    With an average Chitina red salmon at say 5 pounds thats 1,500 pounds of salmon.
    With Kenai reds averaging 6.5 pounds that would be closer to 2,000 pounds.
    Even a family of 10 would need to consume 1/4 pound a day each 365 days a year to use that much chitina salmon figuring on a 60% meat to waste ratio.
    Most families are not 10 people.
    Please don't mix subsistence limits with PU when arguing against current PU limits. They are two different animals with different regulations, limits and constitutional protections. A family of 10 can take 115 PU Copper River fish (25 head of household, 90 for 9 additional members) So at 3# per fish, filleted, that's 345#, not 2,000 pounds. (Your math was a little off. ) This equates to 34.5# per family member, roughly 10oz. a week per individual. When you consider smoked fish for snacks, canned to replace tuna, and barbecued or baked in meals, this is not at all excessive.
    When you advocate for more restrictive limits, families that fully utilize this resource must spend time and money to harvest to their needs through other methods. This currently is not a resource issue; Kenai and Kasilof consistently over escape on sockeye, and Copper has not under escaped, either. Its a social, ethical and moral issue. I absolutely hate to see wild caught fish and game go bad. Whether it goes immediately to a dumpster, or is dumped out of commercial freezers because reserves are too high, waste sucks. But whether the limit is 2 fish or 200 fish, there will be people who will waste it.

  9. #29
    Member coho slayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Please don't mix subsistence limits with PU when arguing against current PU limits. They are two different animals with different regulations, limits and constitutional protections. A family of 10 can take 115 PU Copper River fish (25 head of household, 90 for 9 additional members) So at 3# per fish, filleted, that's 345#, not 2,000 pounds. (Your math was a little off. ) This equates to 34.5# per family member, roughly 10oz. a week per individual. When you consider smoked fish for snacks, canned to replace tuna, and barbecued or baked in meals, this is not at all excessive.
    When you advocate for more restrictive limits, families that fully utilize this resource must spend time and money to harvest to their needs through other methods. This currently is not a resource issue; Kenai and Kasilof consistently over escape on sockeye, and Copper has not under escaped, either. Its a social, ethical and moral issue. I absolutely hate to see wild caught fish and game go bad. Whether it goes immediately to a dumpster, or is dumped out of commercial freezers because reserves are too high, waste sucks. But whether the limit is 2 fish or 200 fish, there will be people who will waste it.
    Excellent post.

  10. #30
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,812

    Default

    I guess there isn't any point in debating this anymore on this thread.
    But I've been around and involved in sport, pu, subsistence, educational, and commercial fisheries.
    I've personally witnessed waste in all of them.
    But of the ones I have seen none come close to matching the waste and illegal activities of the pu fisheries.
    That's just my personal observations.
    And why I feel an annual reminder on forums such as this to only harvest what your family will consume is not a bad thing.
    Bu the way since this thread is about participating in both pu fisheries you need to double your numbers.
    If you dip the Kenai instead of the Kasilof the numbers go up a little more also.


    Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk
    "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"

  11. #31
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,725

    Default

    OK. Not saying that anyone's "gut feelings", second-hand anecdotes, or personal biases are wrong....even in the total absence of any hard facts or data...just saying how impressive it is that dippers waste more than any other user group when you look at some actual numbers...

    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  12. #32
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    OK. Not saying that anyone's "gut feelings", second-hand anecdotes, or personal biases are wrong....even in the total absence of any hard facts or data...just saying how impressive it is that dippers waste more than any other user group when you look at some actual numbers...

    Ok whay I said was based on what I actually witnessed with my own eyes or what someone told me they actually did.
    I don't have a picture of the guy I witnessed catch and keep a king from his dipnet on the Kasilof. But I did see it with my own eyes.
    The coworker who dipped beside me then days later told me he didn't mark his card so he could get a second limit how do I prove that?
    I could go on and on.
    I'm done with this thread.
    especially when some of you can't remove your blinders.
    I don't care who catches the highest percentage.
    Waste is waste ,illegal acts are still illegal and the smallest user is certainly capable of plenty of both.
    "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"

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    190

    Default

    I'd like to see ADF&G limit people to one fishery or the other. I'd really like to see them make people purchase a permit for one particular water per year. You get to choose: Copper, Kenai, Kasilof, or Fish Creek.

  14. #34
    Member coho slayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yellowstone View Post
    I'd like to see ADF&G limit people to one fishery or the other. I'd really like to see them make people purchase a permit for one particular water per year. You get to choose: Copper, Kenai, Kasilof, or Fish Creek.
    Why?

    What if you don't get what need at one fishery and can't afford the time off for another trip all the way to Chitina (my current situation... the 7 fish I caught aren't going to last the winter).

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    I suspect that since these fisheries all involve some degree of State management and State waters/fisheries, there'd be the issue of the State Constitution's equal access mandate.... already laid out in the State Supreme Court's subsistence rulings.

    But as Coho Slayer asked, why, considering the scant numbers taken by Personal Use fisher-persons, in contrast to the commercial fisheries (seemingly tossing the Constitution's stated intent on its head), if persons don't get their needs met in one fishery, and they're behaving within the law, why limit them to ONE fishery?

    If the fishery shows signs of distress and over-harvesting, cut back on harvest for ALL parties/groups, but especially pay heed to what the Constitution says about priorities. Something the State and Nation seem to drift further from with each passing year, in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yellowstone View Post
    I'd like to see ADF&G limit people to one fishery or the other. I'd really like to see them make people purchase a permit for one particular water per year. You get to choose: Copper, Kenai, Kasilof, or Fish Creek.

  16. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Please don't mix subsistence limits with PU when arguing against current PU limits. They are two different animals with different regulations, limits and constitutional protections. A family of 10 can take 115 PU Copper River fish (25 head of household, 90 for 9 additional members) So at 3# per fish, filleted, that's 345#, not 2,000 pounds. (Your math was a little off. ) This equates to 34.5# per family member, roughly 10oz. a week per individual. When you consider smoked fish for snacks, canned to replace tuna, and barbecued or baked in meals, this is not at all excessive.
    When you advocate for more restrictive limits, families that fully utilize this resource must spend time and money to harvest to their needs through other methods. This currently is not a resource issue; Kenai and Kasilof consistently over escape on sockeye, and Copper has not under escaped, either. Its a social, ethical and moral issue. I absolutely hate to see wild caught fish and game go bad. Whether it goes immediately to a dumpster, or is dumped out of commercial freezers because reserves are too high, waste sucks. But whether the limit is 2 fish or 200 fish, there will be people who will waste it.
    Willphish you are right that it is a social issue. You are correct that a family of 10 can take 115 PU fish. In fact they can take 115 fish in one tide if the conditions warrant. Here in Kenai, many people expect to do just that (due in no small part to the expectations folks like yourself have encouraged over the years.) For most it's not entirely practical or responsible to do so; properly caring for that many fish is a big job that many don't fully appreciate until it's too late. Likewise with your list of uses for the fish. Yes, all great ways to eat fish, and quite realistic for a small subset of our population, but by and large most families will never catch, properly care for, or eat that many fish. It's totally cool to do so, but don't make it sound like the norm. That's what leads to the social issue of the gold rush mentality we see too often in these fisheries. Perhaps if there was a daily limit - where if you wanted hundreds of fish you would need to put in a little time - it would help curb some of those social issues. Who knows. Bottom line is, if you hate to see fish wasted, stop implying that a typical Alaskan family would fully utilize a PU limit of salmon. Most would not.

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    OK. Not saying that anyone's "gut feelings", second-hand anecdotes, or personal biases are wrong....even in the total absence of any hard facts or data...just saying how impressive it is that dippers waste more than any other user group when you look at some actual numbers...

    1. Where did you get this data? I'd love to see their numbers.

    2. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT? I could see if sport/personal use fishing was terrible, but it's not. It's quite good, and the opportunities boundless. Why does this harvest inequality always come up? Assuming it's even remotely accurate, how does it represent the amount of opportunity or waste in sport/pu/commercial fisheries?

    Quote Originally Posted by ruffle View Post
    I suspect that since these fisheries all involve some degree of State management and State waters/fisheries, there'd be the issue of the State Constitution's equal access mandate.... already laid out in the State Supreme Court's subsistence rulings.

    But as Coho Slayer asked, why, considering the scant numbers taken by Personal Use fisher-persons, in contrast to the commercial fisheries (seemingly tossing the Constitution's stated intent on its head), if persons don't get their needs met in one fishery, and they're behaving within the law, why limit them to ONE fishery?

    If the fishery shows signs of distress and over-harvesting, cut back on harvest for ALL parties/groups, but especially pay heed to what the Constitution says about priorities. Something the State and Nation seem to drift further from with each passing year, in my opinion.
    How do our commercial fisheries toss the constitution on its head? Do they exclude anyone from participating? Do you not think vibrant commercial fisheries are in the best interest of Alaska or Alaskans?

  17. #37
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post


    1. Where did you get this data? I'd love to see their numbers.
    https://www.google.com/amp/slideplayer.com/amp/4757104/
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  18. #38

    Default

    AK Subsistence presentation. Nice. Regardless, that chart has no relevance to your opportunity as a fisherman, or to anyone's propensity towards wanton waste. The amount of seafood going through places like Kodiak, Homer and Dutch really has little to no effect on my sport life, but it is pretty important to a lot of Alaskans.

  19. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Interior Alaska
    Posts
    893

    Default

    The State Constitution prioritizes subsistence/personal, yet case precedent and subsequent statute (as well as management policies) clearly places a preference on commercial fishing. That has been clear for a long time.

    A recent ISER report reveals that the State spends approximately $280 Million MORE/year subsidizing commercial fishing than they receive in revenues from commercial fishing and processing, and that the vast majority of persons working in that segment of our economy, whether in direct fishing jobs, or processing and tending, are NOT Alaska residents. (More corporate welfare? Not too unlike our history with oil and timber, mind you).

    Then there's the federally protected wanton waste created or committed by the trawlers; a whole 'nother can of worms.

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    How do our commercial fisheries toss the constitution on its head? Do they exclude anyone from participating? Do you not think vibrant commercial fisheries are in the best interest of Alaska or Alaskans?

  20. #40
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    AK Subsistence presentation. Nice. Regardless, that chart has no relevance to your opportunity as a fisherman, or to anyone's propensity towards wanton waste. The amount of seafood going through places like Kodiak, Homer and Dutch really has little to no effect on my sport life, but it is pretty important to a lot of Alaskans.
    I agree it is nice...BTW, this is the AK dipnetting forum, right? I'm a dipnetter posting facts and rebutting misconceptions about dipnetting by disgruntled or insecure individuals....I could always go over to Deckboss and throw some shade on the waste committed by that user group, but that would be a pretty Richard move now, wouldn't it.....
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •