Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: Best of BOF testimony

  1. #1

    Default Best of BOF testimony

    What do you hear in public testimony that tickles your fancy?

  2. #2
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default stock of concern...

    Former Board member Larry Engel gave good testimony this morning relating to the Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy and he urged the Board to consider the Susitna sockeye as a stock of yield concern. His arguments were compelling, in my opinion.

    However, what to do, even if a yield concern finding is made, is more difficult.

    btw, does anyone know how many people signed up for testimony in time for this morning's deadline?

  3. #3

    Default Number of speakers

    By the time I left at 2PM it was 125 speakers. I was number 43 or so and talked at 1:45. Might be really fast tomorrow...or last really long tonight. They want to let out tomorrow at 1:00PM for the Super Bowl, so it might flow over until Monday.

  4. #4
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default overscapement

    I enjoy the arguments against overescapement. While most recognize overescapement, biologically speaking, as a big problem, most who argue against overescapement of reds in the Kenai river are not talking of overescapement on a biological sense, ie, a BEG. Biological escapement goal. The escapement goal on the Kenai is an OEG- Optimal Escapement Goal. This is the goal that will result in Maximum Sustained Yield. Chronically overescaping a biological escapement goal will cause a crash in the stocks: a one year event would be very tough to cause a crash, as reds spend one or two years in fresh water before leaving, and variable years in salt water before returning. Chronically overescaping an OEG, however, will only bring less yield to the commercial drift and set net fleets which see "foregone opportunity" from the excess fish in the river. The trigger point for fish stock collapse on the Kenai has yet to be found. 1.6 million fish past the sonar in 1989 didn't do it. (I believe the return per spawner estimate for that year was higher than any other time- 9:1 is the number I've heard, but I can't verify that with the data yet.)

    So this is why throughout the testimony I've heard that overescapement must be prevented, but not by liberalizing sport limits or dipnet boundaries or times. No, the only means by which to control overescapement is by commercial harvest- which only makes sense, as it's not a biological issue at all. It doesn't matter to the river if half a million or a million and a half reds spawn; it only matters to the commercial guys that see all those extra $$$$$$$ swimming on up the river and then dying unharvested. Its a waste. Of course, if you're a sport guy and see your rod hours per fish caught drop drastically, then see the girth/length ratio of trout and dollies as a result of the "wasted" fish, they don't seem like such a waste...

  5. #5
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default wrong, wrong, wrong

    The Kenai spawning escapement in 1989 was 1.333 million (excluding late Russian sockeye and Hidden Lake (enhanced)) and the return per spawner from that year was 2.92 (appendix C4, page 47, "Review of Salmon Escapement Goals in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska, 2007" By Fair, Clark and Hasbrouck. This is all part of the data set available for this meeting.

    The report is at: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/f...scapgoalre.pdf

    The return per spawner ratio, while not the lowest on record, was quite low and tracks well with other years where high numbers of sockeye escaped.

    Look at the table and stop "winging it" with the data.

  6. #6
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    .....Chronically overescaping an OEG, however, will only bring less yield to the commercial drift and set net fleets which see "foregone opportunity" from the excess fish in the river. The trigger point for fish stock collapse on the Kenai has yet to be found. 1.6 million fish past the sonar in 1989 didn't do it......
    Yup. We've read the same thing on this forum several times: overescapement is a waste of financial opportunity/money down the drain.

  7. #7
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    The Kenai spawning escapement in 1989 was 1.333 million (excluding late Russian sockeye and Hidden Lake (enhanced)) and the return per spawner from that year was 2.92 (appendix C4, page 47, "Review of Salmon Escapement Goals in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska, 2007" By Fair, Clark and Hasbrouck. This is all part of the data set available for this meeting.

    The report is at: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/f...scapgoalre.pdf

    The return per spawner ratio, while not the lowest on record, was quite low and tracks well with other years where high numbers of sockeye escaped.

    Look at the table and stop "winging it" with the data.
    Excuse me. I am not wrong. I said "past the sonar". You are correct- 1.33 million spawners is the number listed. However, 1.6 million went past the sonar, as I stated. 280something thousand were caught by sportfishermen. Those numbers are available to you as well as to me. Just telling someone they are wrong doesn't make it so, and sure doesn't open any meaningful dialogue.

  8. #8

    Default Best of (1)

    I agree w/ MRFISH, Engel's testimony was on target for what appears to be the issue of UCI fin fish for this cycle. Also like MRFISH, don't know what should be done about unique stocks in the Valley other than we better get on the stick b4 someone else starts beating us w/ one. The first step is to get the stocks listed to trigger some research and action.

  9. #9

    Default Best of (2)

    Most (whatever adjective you care to insert).

    Gary Turner - KRSA Board Member, Director of Local Kenai College

    Testifying against adding a driftboat day on the Kenai. It would increase net fuel consumption required to fish the Kenai, based on a calculation requiring two vehicles to shuttle the boat. Further elaboration revealed concern about the carbon footprint and increase in greenhouse gas emission and exacerbating climate change....

    Here's where local knowledge can add some context.

    The Dude drives a Hummer w/ vanity plates.

    Last month he publicly testified at the Soldotna City Council against a proposal for a cemetery in his neighborhood, citing too much noise from outboards for graveside services.

    That was just a bit much to swallow.

  10. #10
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    now i don't care who you are, that there's funny!

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I put my 3 minutes worth in on Sunday morning was stayed to listen to some testimony. Here are two of my favorites.

    Roland Maw: Declares that there should not be a stock of concern for the Northern Salmon runs and basically wants to keep things status quo until more study is done. Repeats throughout his testmony there is no need to declare a stock of concern. (BTW, I believe he has ties to the Drift netters). During questioning he goes on and on about all this study that should be done and the weirs that are needed and more data should be collected before any changes are made. When questioned about how much it would cost he says around $3 million, of money not approved. He says how he has been talking to legislators from the Valley and lobbying for the money. (didn't they just shut down the Deshka weir to save $55k)

    Then the question from the board comes: Wouldn't it help to get the funding if we declared the runs a "stock of concern"?

    Roland pauses and stutters and tries to explain again why it isn't necessary, I think the board saw through it.


    Another top one for me, a processor from Kenai testifies in favor of extending the season for commercial fishermen, he says a few board cycles ago a week was taken away because of the weak Kenai coho runs, the following year a bunch of fish came in (during the week the comfish lost) and the run was strong and healthy. Citing that as reason to let them fish again.
    Doesn't it make sense then that the regulation worked, the run was week, the nets were pulled and the fish made it to the river?

    Another set netter from the Northern district gave some very good testimony and only wanted one day and a 6 hr. opening. I really felt for him and I hope he gets some more time for his small operation. I don't have all the details of his testimony, but it was very good and compelling. He was very reasonable and didn't want the world, just a little that he had lost over the years.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Soldotna AK
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Chaos.

    I am still laughing.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos View Post

    Gary Turner - KRSA Board Member, Director of Local Kenai College

    Testifying against adding a driftboat day on the Kenai. It would increase net fuel consumption required to fish the Kenai, based on a calculation requiring two vehicles to shuttle the boat. Further elaboration revealed concern about the carbon footprint and increase in greenhouse gas emission and exacerbating climate change....

    Here's where local knowledge can add some context.

    The Dude drives a Hummer w/ vanity plates.
    So? What bearing does that have on the information he presented?



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Most (whatever adjective you care to insert).

    Gary Turner - KRSA Board Member, Director of Local Kenai College

    Testifying against adding a driftboat day on the Kenai. It would increase net fuel consumption required to fish the Kenai, based on a calculation requiring two vehicles to shuttle the boat. Further elaboration revealed concern about the carbon footprint and increase in greenhouse gas emission and exacerbating climate change....

    Here's where local knowledge can add some context.

    The Dude drives a Hummer w/ vanity plates.

    Last month he publicly testified at the Soldotna City Council against a proposal for a cemetery in his neighborhood, citing too much noise from outboards for graveside services.

    That was just a bit much to swallow.

    I put my 3 minutes worth in on Sunday morning was stayed to listen to some testimony. Here are two of my favorites.

    Roland Maw: Declares that there should not be a stock of concern for the Northern Salmon runs and basically wants to keep things status quo until more study is done. Repeats throughout his testmony there is no need to declare a stock of concern. (BTW, I believe he has ties to the Drift netters). During questioning he goes on and on about all this study that should be done and the weirs that are needed and more data should be collected before any changes are made. When questioned about how much it would cost he says around $3 million, of money not approved. He says how he has been talking to legislators from the Valley and lobbying for the money. (didn't they just shut down the Deshka weir to save $55k)

    Then the question from the board comes: Wouldn't it help to get the funding if we declared the runs a "stock of concern"?

    Roland pauses and stutters and tries to explain again why it isn't necessary, I think the board saw through it.


    Another top one for me, a processor from Kenai testifies in favor of extending the season for commercial fishermen, he says a few board cycles ago a week was taken away because of the weak Kenai coho runs, the following year a bunch of fish came in (during the week the comfish lost) and the run was strong and healthy. Citing that as reason to let them fish again.
    Doesn't it make sense then that the regulation worked, the run was week, the nets were pulled and the fish made it to the river?

    Another set netter from the Northern district gave some very good testimony and only wanted one day and a 6 hr. opening. I really felt for him and I hope he gets some more time for his small operation. I don't have all the details of his testimony, but it was very good and compelling. He was very reasonable and didn't want the world, just a little that he had lost over the years.
    Gary Turner is president of Kenai Peninsula College, a branch, I think, of University of Alaska. Both Turner and Mark Hamilton, president of UA, last I knew, are KRSA board members.

    Roland Maw, Ph.D., is a past president of United Cook Inlet Drift Association.


  15. #15
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    ....Gary Turner is president of Kenai Peninsula College, a branch, I think, of University of Alaska. Both Turner and Mark Hamilton, president of UA, last I knew, are KRSA board members......
    That's interesting, but unless the University of Alaska has announced a political position on Kenai River management (which wouldn't surprise me), their professional positions shouldn't have any bearing on the issue.

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default


    Type "university of alaska kenai river management" into Google . . .


  17. #17

    Default huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    So? What bearing does that have on the information he presented?



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

    Which piece of information are you referring to?

  18. #18
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default Wow

    Amazingly enough, there was no consensus between setnet and drift gillnet groups in committee A on any proposals regarding allocation. I thought Bonnie Williams as chair did a good job on keeping a lid on things. Discussion has been a lot more heated in past meetings.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
    Which piece of information are you referring to?
    My point is that it shouldn't matter what anyone who testifies at the BOF drives. What type of car a person drives has nothing to do with fisheries or allocation.

    If Joe Stalin said, "2+2=4", would the fact that he murdered millions of people alter the truth value of that statement?

    We should play fair. Even with Gary Turner and Hummers. That's all I'm getting at.


  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Type "university of alaska kenai river management" into Google . . .
    Thanks for that tip. I should have known U of A would have prepared an economic analysis of the issue.

    It shows a likelihood of a small net loss of jobs, and commercial industry losses larger than the gains of the sport fishing industry. That's as good an an economic analysis as is available.

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
  •