Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: Non-pelagic closure SE AK

  1. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Lewisville, TX
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chez View Post
    The population of every species goes up and down, they're cycical and theres nothing anyone can do about it because thats the way nature works.
    Wellll ... yes to the first part of your statement, but no to the second part.

    Hypothetically, if we halted all harvest of a fish species for a couple of reproductive cycles, then their numbers should soar. Likewise, if we increase harvest, their numbers will go down. I understand the dilemma the fisheries managers have, as most of these rockfish species have very long maturity rates - isn't yelloweye something like 20 years to sexual maturity? That would put two full cycles at about 40 years for these fish to start repopulating.

    I do agree with 270ti that the regulations should probably target population centers which get relatively heavy fishing pressure. On the other hand, leaving other areas open to harvest might just motivate fishermen to range further out in their fishing efforts. Tough call.

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Zeek View Post
    Wellll ... yes to the first part of your statement, but no to the second part.

    Hypothetically, if we halted all harvest of a fish species for a couple of reproductive cycles, then their numbers should soar. Likewise, if we increase harvest, their numbers will go down. I understand the dilemma the fisheries managers have, as most of these rockfish species have very long maturity rates - isn't yelloweye something like 20 years to sexual maturity? That would put two full cycles at about 40 years for these fish to start repopulating.

    I do agree with 270ti that the regulations should probably target population centers which get relatively heavy fishing pressure. On the other hand, leaving other areas open to harvest might just motivate fishermen to range further out in their fishing efforts. Tough call.

    The rabbit - lynx populations go up and down based on the others population. Lots of bunnies = lots of cats, lots of cats eventually push the bunny pop back down and then the cat pop moves on to better feeding grounds. The same thing happens in the ocean and humans cant control it.

    Granted humans could wipe out a species if they got crazy with the hunting (remember the wild buffalo in the lower 48) and some regulation is needed but these guy are trying to manage based on micro testing areas and results.

    A perfect example is all the ridiculous regs on the kenai - single hooks only in this section between these dates, no bait except this area on every other Tuesday between this marker and that marker during the full moon and only if its 75* out.... OK I blew that out of proportion but everyone knows that those ridiculous regs have not done a darn thing to help the king population

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chez View Post
    A perfect example is all the ridiculous regs on the kenai - single hooks only in this section between these dates, no bait except this area on every other Tuesday between this marker and that marker during the full moon and only if its 75* out.... OK I blew that out of proportion but everyone knows that those ridiculous regs have not done a darn thing to help the king population
    There is no doubt that all those regulations have not done a darn thing to help the king population, but if catching more kings were to help the king population then how would catching more non-pelagic rockfish help their population? If the managers of the king population on the Kenai were to have done what the managers of non-pelagic rockfish in SE just did I can't help but imagine there would be more kings today in the Kenai.
    “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Physicist ― Richard Feynman


  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan54 View Post
    There is no doubt that all those regulations have not done a darn thing to help the king population, but if catching more kings were to help the king population then how would catching more non-pelagic rockfish help their population? If the managers of the king population on the Kenai were to have done what the managers of non-pelagic rockfish in SE just did I can't help but imagine there would be more kings today in the Kenai.
    I never suggested catching more fish, where did you get that idea?

    My suggestion for the kenai (not mentioned above) is to have one set of rules for the entire river with maybe a section for fly fishing/drift only. Limit the number of guides and restrictions on size limits such as only being able to keep 30" or smaller. Keep these rules for 20 years and the big kings will make a comeback. Cull the jacks from the herd and the big boys will make a comeback and then we can change the rules to keeping one or two of the big guys.

    As far as the rockfish go its pretty much impossible to determine with any accuracy what the population actually looks like since the starship Enterprise cant scan the ocean... Again, I'm not saying unlimited catch limits...

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chez View Post
    I never suggested catching more fish, where did you get that idea?
    You brought up all the various regulations on the Kenai, which are all designed to catch more kings even to the point of catching them just to release them. The complete non-pelagic rockfish sports fishery closure in SE means there will be a legal sports fishery catch of exactly zero non-pelagic rockfish. So if the managers of the king population on the Kenai were to have done what the managers of non-pelagic rockfish in SE just did and closed the fishery then any catch above zero would be catching more fish.
    “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Physicist ― Richard Feynman


  6. #46
    Charterboat Operator 270ti's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Craig, Alaska
    Posts
    3,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan54 View Post
    Perhaps you have been away tending to your commercial interests, but the questions remain. How much of your commercial interest are you willing to give up to have the required surveys done, and if they were to just shut down all commercial fisheries that impact non-pelagic but allow sport fishing in certain areas would you support that?
    its the exact opposite. Sport is allocated 16%. That includes charter. They have been under that allocation. Longliners as bycatch take the most.

    so essentially they shut down the sport at 16%, the smaller user group, and kept the largest open. Yeah, that makes sense?! The big reason why sport is closed is they can release them alive.

    I have seen the locations they did their rover surveys. Horrible locations. Only one of them from Omney to Shakan has ever seen a rod, and I know that exact rockpile. It’s surrounded by piles full of yellow eye.

    Nothing about this closure makes sense. I was told an outside influence made it happen. They did a survey in 2018. That same data allowed them to open a commercial directed rock fishery in 2019 but with that same data the stocks are collapsing in 2020? Someone needs to be fired.
    Alaska Wide Open Charters
    www.alaskawideopen.com
    907-965-0130

  7. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    its the exact opposite. Sport is allocated 16%. That includes charter. They have been under that allocation. Longliners as bycatch take the most.

    so essentially they shut down the sport at 16%, the smaller user group, and kept the largest open. Yeah, that makes sense?! The big reason why sport is closed is they can release them alive.

    I have seen the locations they did their rover surveys. Horrible locations. Only one of them from Omney to Shakan has ever seen a rod, and I know that exact rockpile. It’s surrounded by piles full of yellow eye.

    Nothing about this closure makes sense. I was told an outside influence made it happen. They did a survey in 2018. That same data allowed them to open a commercial directed rock fishery in 2019 but with that same data the stocks are collapsing in 2020? Someone needs to be fired.
    A LOT of people need to be fired

  8. #48
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    5,222

    Default

    Until the commercial guys take a serious hit in the pocket book they'll never change.
    Close them down or severely restrict their operations and they will figure out how to reduce their bycatch.
    I do agree in this instance all sides should take an equal hit.

    Sent from my S41 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"

  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    its the exact opposite. Sport is allocated 16%. That includes charter. They have been under that allocation. Longliners as bycatch take the most.

    so essentially they shut down the sport at 16%, the smaller user group, and kept the largest open. Yeah, that makes sense?! The big reason why sport is closed is they can release them alive.

    I have seen the locations they did their rover surveys. Horrible locations. Only one of them from Omney to Shakan has ever seen a rod, and I know that exact rockpile. It’s surrounded by piles full of yellow eye.

    Nothing about this closure makes sense. I was told an outside influence made it happen. They did a survey in 2018. That same data allowed them to open a commercial directed rock fishery in 2019 but with that same data the stocks are collapsing in 2020? Someone needs to be fired.
    I understand what you are saying, and the complete sport closure doesn't make sense while commercial is allowed free reign (especially with a 84-16 split) but you didn't answer my questions. How much of your commercial interest are you willing to give up to have the required surveys done, and if they were to just shut down all commercial fisheries that impact non-pelagic but allow sport fishing in certain areas would you support that? Seems like a pretty straightforward set of questions, 0%, 5%, 20%, 50%, 100% or anywhere in between and then a yes or no.

    Also, as I'm sure you are aware sports and commercial fisheries are separate divisions in ADFG.
    “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” Physicist ― Richard Feynman


  10. #50
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sierras, Ca.
    Posts
    7

    Default

    THIS!
    unless these areas are protected from commerial longlining and dinglebar fishing, the cuts to the sports will mean nothing, and the nets and troller fishing needs to go also.

  11. #51
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sierras, Ca.
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Zeek View Post
    I've seen other states handle this by mandating maximum fishing depths & closed areas. Not sure how well the charter or commercial fleets could handle being limited to max fishing depths of say, 120 feet (like Southern California had). As far as the survivability of fish released at depth - maybe it's not 95%. But it's surely much higher than letting them float away.
    The rock fish came back in good numbers in California, but the Ca. F&G have not a clue how to regulate sustainability and balance of the commercial and sport fish industries. Without quotas for the commercial boats the fish numbers will not last! Now they are proposing to open the drag-boat net fishing, which is indiscrimintory take of many species, that pretty much rapes the ocean! With the modern technology available harvesting of the ocean can be easily unbalance the natural state of the area. When I take people out to fish I try to teach about the conservation of our waters as much as showing and enjoying the sport. We try to take bigger adult fish and then only what we want for eating. Most other persons we encounter the first thing they ask is if we got our limits. It I could continue on about human greed and such but I need to stop now! Teach those that are naive about the such!

  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    72

    Default

    I'm no expert but I've made 5 trips to fish the west side of POW. Closer to town than where 270ti fishes, but I've always been shocked at the abundance of yelloweye, not to mention quillbacks and coppers which I think are also covered under these new regs. Even within sight of Craig or Klawock, if you drop a jig 200 ft on a rockpile it takes about 5 seconds to hookup. There are so many rockfish it's usually hard to fish for halibut or lingcod. I'm a scientist by profession and I certainly understand the issue (slow growth rates and susceptibility to over fishing) but geez it seems a little nuts to lump rockpiles near Juneau under the same regs as someplace off of Noyes or Warren islands.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •