Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: ADN Letter to the editer....For the Valley

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default ADN Letter to the editer....For the Valley

    Here is a copy of a letter in todays paper:


    Guide should have given thought to commercial fishery's rights

    Regarding the article "Mat-Su anglers demand action," printed Jan. 11:

    For the record, drift fishermen face mandatory closures when returns are delayed in the central district. One year on a 20 million pink salmon return to the Kenai River the fishery was closed.

    Like charity, stewardship begins at home. Asphalt ecology, jet-boat hydrology, development, pike, junk cars and Superfund sites are not components of good stewardship of habitat.

    For the record, drift fishermen do not intercept fish.

    Area H commercial fishermen are licensed by the State of Alaska to harvest salmon.

    If I were a Mat-Su Valley guide I would be mad too. I would be mad at myself for starting a fish business upstream from a 100-year-old limited entry commercial fishery.

    -- John McCombs

    Ninilchik

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post

    If I were a Mat-Su Valley guide I would be mad too. I would be mad at myself for starting a fish business upstream from a 100-year-old limited entry commercial fishery.

    -- John McCombs

    Ninilchik
    That about sums it up right there.
    "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 ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    makes sense to me, seriously who fishes for sockeye in the susitna drainage besides the 8 thousand lodges on lake creek?
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down And your point is . . ?

    Beyond pointing out that there are partisan opinions on both side of commercial sport/commercial nets issues, yukon, what did you hope to gain by posting the letter?

    Can you rebut Mr. McCombs points and add something positive and constructive to the dialog?

    Or wasn't that your purpose? . . .

    Tell us, what was your point or purpose in posting the letter?


  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Best summed up in your own words, "simply to pass on information, letting readers form any opinion they wish."

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    That about sums it up right there.
    So, doc, are you saying you agree with Mr. McCombs?

    yukon: But why that particular piece of "information"? . .

    What did you hope or expect or imagine it might add to the conversation?


  7. #7
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    .......seriously who fishes for sockeye in the susitna drainage besides the 8 thousand lodges on lake creek?
    That's similar to the question of who fishes for white sharks in Lake Mead?

    Nobody. And for the same, obvious reason.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post

    yukon: But why that particular piece of "information"? . .

    What did you hope or expect or imagine it might add to the conversation?

    That was the only piece of information about the fisheries in the paper today.

    I don't know, let's see where the conservations go.

    Mr. McCombs has an opinion, lets see what others opinions are.

    And yes, Mr. McCombs stated, "100-year-old limited entry commercial fishery"

    Limited Entry was started in 1973.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile Help us out. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Mr. McCombs has an opinion, lets see what others opinions are.
    Well, start the ball rolling, and give us a hint—what's your opinion? Doc seems to agree with McCombs ("That about sums it up right there."), do you agree with Mr. McCombs?

    As for the 100 year thingy, I'd guess Mr. McCombs meant the fishery was 100 years old, not that limited entry was 100 years old.

    Reckon. .


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Riverfront Alaska
    Posts
    210

    Default

    A while back on another thread I poised the question what do commercial fishermen do for the habitat? Do they contribute to the weirs or fish counts? Are they helping with the pike or beaver dams? Reading an article I found some of my answers.

    From the ADN article about removing the Deshka Weir I found these statements enlightening:

    From the Anchorage Daily News


    Fish gate on Deshka lost to cut in budget
    SAVING $55,000: Salmon count to be less accurate.
    (Page 2 of 2)

    Managers have yet to use the Deshka weir results to make changes during the fishing season, but Rutz said that's only because the department has not set goals for silver salmon returns in the Susitna drainage.
    Rep. Bill Stoltze, R-Chugiak, said the decision to pull the weir comes at a time when anglers have complained and fishery managers have acknowledged the lack of data on Mat-Su fisheries. An ongoing $1.6 million study funded by the state to study sockeye, or red, salmon runs in the Valley was seen as a step in the right direction. This appears to be a step backward, he said.

    Bruce Knowles, a longtime fishing guide and member of the mayor's task force, said the decision also feeds into a widespread feeling that Mat-Su sportfisheries get short shrift compared with Kenai commercial fisheries, a charge commercial fishermen deny.

    He noted the sportfisheries division budget is limited because it comes almost entirely from fees paid for fishing licenses and from federal funds. The state's commercial fisheries division, in contrast, gets much more from the state, he said.

    According to Geron Bruce, an assistant director with commercial fisheries, about half the division's $57 million budget last year originated in the state general fund. The sportfisheries division, in contrast, expects about $2.4 million or about 5 percent of its proposed $48 million budget to come from the state general fund, according to Monica Wellard, a deputy director with the division.

    Both Neuman and Stoltze said they would look for ways to restore the weir either by moving around funds within the Fish and Game Department or by tapping state funds. Engel said the task force would also be asking the borough Assembly to press for restoration of the funding.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Find S.J. Komarnitsky can be reached at www.adn.com/contacts/skomarnitsky or 352-6714.


    "He noted the sportfisheries division budget is limited because it comes almost entirely from fees paid for fishing licenses and from federal funds. The state's commercial fisheries division, in contrast, gets much more from the state, he said."

    I guess that answers my question commercial fishermen pay NOTHING towards weirs or fish counts. Why would they want to? It would only cause them grief if the results were not what they wanted. As seems to be the case with the Yentna/Su

    And then we have this:

    "According to Geron Bruce, an assistant director with commercial fisheries, about half the division's $57 million budget last year originated in the state general fund. The sportfisheries division, in contrast, expects about $2.4 million or about 5 percent of its proposed $48 million budget to come from the state general fund, according to Monica Wellard, a deputy director with the division."

    Half of a $57 million dollar budget for commercial fishermen as compared to a measely 5% to the sportfishery. Four years of decline in the king run on the Deshka and now that the coho run dropped from almost 70K in 2006 to just over 10K in 2007 they want to drop the weir just at a time when it is needed most. $55,000 seems a small price to pay for knowledge. The fishermen through license fees have paid their part I think commercial fishermen should step up to the plate.
    If you take the woods out of the woodsman you have nothing left but a man in the woods.

  11. #11

    Default

    The commercial fishing industry in Alaska brings more $$ into the state than any other industry except oil and gas.


    http://www.dced.state.ak.us/pub/Net_...n_Overview.pdf

    Remember to support Prop 211! Those Anchorage dipnetters are scoopin' up Valley fish!!

  12. #12
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default interesting report

    Interesting, but the net revenue from tourism was almost double that of the net revenue from commercial fishing. 20,534,000 to 11,427,000 In fact, tourism had a higher net revenue than timber and minerals, as well.

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Interesting, but the net revenue from tourism was almost double that of the net revenue from commercial fishing. 20,534,000 to 11,427,000 In fact, tourism had a higher net revenue than timber and minerals, as well.
    Ishmael may be referring to taxes paid to the state. We've debated commercial fishing taxes before (not that we got anywhere, even though there was pretty firm data/numbers............)

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Interesting, but the net revenue from tourism was almost double that of the net revenue from commercial fishing. 20,534,000 to 11,427,000 In fact, tourism had a higher net revenue than timber and minerals, as well.
    That's because fisheries have to be managed to keep the tourists coming.



    I guess you missed further down in the same table:

    Tourism: $49,750 (good thing they raised the cruise ship head tax)
    Fisheries: $90,980?


    Or just a bit further:
    Fishing Industry Total Revenues $89,145,536

    But alas, some has to go back to keep Alaska's fisheries the envy of the world...


    How much revenue does your business generate for the state Will?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Riverfront Alaska
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    The commercial fishing industry in Alaska brings more $$ into the state than any other industry except oil and gas.


    http://www.dced.state.ak.us/pub/Net_...n_Overview.pdf

    Remember to support Prop 211! Those Anchorage dipnetters are scoopin' up Valley fish!!
    So does that give them the right to not foot the bill for studies of the salmon run? Since they provide such a large amount of money for the state then they should foot the bill for fish weirs across the state on rivers to have a better grasp of what actual numbers are making in back to the rivers. Also, since they take and consume the lions portion of the salmon they should have to provide funds equivilent to the precentage of fish taken for projects like the fish weirs which benefit everyone (including commercial fishermen)that use the fishery. That evidently is not being done.

    Some facts about sport fishermen and their monetary benefit to the Alaskan economy. There is $1.5 billion dollars generated by tourism, 1.6 million summer tourists. Of which 20% come to fish, spending an average of $934 each. This is a total of over $300 million generated by the sport fishing industry by tourists alone. It doesn't account for all the residents who also purchase licenses, boats, fishing gear, gas and other items that they use while fishing.
    If you take the woods out of the woodsman you have nothing left but a man in the woods.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maineguide View Post
    So does that give them the right to not foot the bill for studies of the salmon run? Since they provide such a large amount of money for the state then they should foot the bill for fish weirs across the state on rivers to have a better grasp of what actual numbers are making in back to the rivers. Also, since they take and consume the lions portion of the salmon they should have to provide funds equivilent to the precentage of fish taken for projects like the fish weirs which benefit everyone (including commercial fishermen)that use the fishery. That evidently is not being done.

    Some facts about sport fishermen and their monetary benefit to the Alaskan economy. There is $1.5 billion dollars generated by tourism, 1.6 million summer tourists. Of which 20% come to fish, spending an average of $934 each. This is a total of over $300 million generated by the sport fishing industry by tourists alone. It doesn't account for all the residents who also purchase licenses, boats, fishing gear, gas and other items that they use while fishing.
    How much of that $$ goes back out in the carpet bags of a transient workforce, most of whom are themselves tourists?

    We just get to clean up the mess.

  17. #17
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    .....Some facts about sport fishermen and their monetary benefit to the Alaskan economy. There is $1.5 billion dollars generated by tourism, 1.6 million summer tourists. Of which 20% come to fish, spending an average of $934 each. This is a total of over $300 million generated by the sport fishing industry by tourists alone. It doesn't account for all the residents who also purchase licenses, boats, fishing gear, gas and other items that they use while fishing.
    How much of that $$ goes back out in the carpet bags of a transient workforce, most of whom are themselves tourists?......
    Approximately a quarter of all commercial salmon fishing licenses in Alaska are owned by non-residents.

    How much of the money gained in the commercial salmon fisheries goes back to Washington, California, and Oregon?

    We already know that nearly half the salmon meat harvested by commercial fishermen here is consumed in Japan.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Approximately a quarter of all commercial salmon fishing licenses in Alaska are owned by non-residents.

    How much of the money gained in the commercial salmon fisheries goes back to Washington, California, and Oregon?

    We already know that nearly half the salmon meat harvested by commercial fishermen here is consumed in Japan.

    We live in America Mark. I'm sorry you don't like that Alaska's resources belong to America, but they do.

    I'm glad you enjoyed your lunch of Rockfish and chips at the restaurant today Mark.
    It's nice to have the option of halibut, cod, or rockfish; isn't it?


  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Riverfront Alaska
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    How much of that $$ goes back out in the carpet bags of a transient workforce, most of whom are themselves tourists?

    We just get to clean up the mess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    We live in America Mark. I'm sorry you don't like that Alaska's resources belong to America, but they do.
    Every state has a transient workforce of some sort or other. College kids, migrant workers, even foreign workers. At least most of the workers coming to Alaska are Americans, you are not dealing with illegal immigrants to the extent as many other states are. But that is another subject.

    Just as with others here defending commercial fishing you and others have not come forward to say or admit that commercial fishing should bear the burden of sharing the costs to pay for fish countings, fish weirs or any habitat management that benefits salmon stocks. If they catch 70% of the fish they should bear 70% of the expenses that comes from these methods of fish management. They are not contributing any funds to these things from what I have seen and read and now the Deshka Weir is being closed down during the silver run for lack of funds. The only major weir in the Matsu valley and it is being closed for lack of funds. To me as an observer and from conversations and postings I have heard it looks to me as though commercial fishermen don't want these safety measures as they only hurt their agenda of catching more salmon. Case in point you ignored the reason of my last post (dollars for fish weir) and focused only on the transient work force leaving with $$$. Afterall with out any factual scientific information commercial fishermen can claim, as they are now, that their is nothing to base our fears of less fish on.
    If you take the woods out of the woodsman you have nothing left but a man in the woods.

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Tourism much larger than just fishing. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    . . .the net revenue from tourism was almost double that of the net revenue from commercial fishing. . . In fact, tourism had a higher net revenue than timber and minerals, as well.
    Only a small percentage of tourists fish in Alaska, and that number is declining.

    Tourism consists of far, far more than fishing.


Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •