Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Kenai Sanctuaries Closed Jan 1 to July 31.

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

    Default Kenai Sanctuaries Closed Jan 1 to July 31.

    The Third Hole/Wally's Hole closure and Slikok/college hole closure have been extended from Jan 1 to July 31. WOW, that is pretty big, looks like KAFC got their proposal passed. I know a bunch of old timers that fish Third hole are gonna be upset!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. #2
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    Also interesting: 28" and under kings won't count against the Kenai 2 fish limit, and you can continue fishing after keeping one, but you can't keep a bigger fish if you keep one under 28". Department testimony was that this would help residents who want to keep a fish. What they left unsaid was this will not induce a non resident or guided angler to keep these small kings. This ought to make guides really happy!
    Last edited by willphish4food; 02-11-2008 at 14:19. Reason: more stuff

  3. #3

    Default Sanctuary closures

    The original proposal for the closure was to keep the sanctuaries closed once they closed on June 25th.

    For instance, the 3rd hole closure was June 25th through July 15th. It re-opened on the 15th and ran through the end of the king season on July 31st.

    The proposal I read stated that KFC wanted to extend the closures from July 15th through the end of the season.

    So are you saying that the closures will be just that, complete closures of these areas? No king fishing at all?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    What! already being twisted into a guide thing. What is the big deal about this one? I know guided anglers who just want a little meat but want to fish. This regulation allows them to get some meat and continue fishing and enjoy the day, not a big deal. Dang, there is nothing to blame the guides for on this one. You gotta have something better than this to blame on guides. Give me a break! When in doubt, blame the guides!

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

    Default

    SC, I was not in the room when the ruling came down, but that is how I understand it. All the sanctuaries will be closed from Jan 1 to July 31. I assume those areas will be open to bank fishing for reds, but I could be wrong.
    I am pretty sure the last board cycle they allowed shore fishing in the closed areas as those are mainly sockeye fishermen and they shouldn't be implaced in areas closed to king fishing from a boat.

  6. #6
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default not poking at the guides...

    Don't know if it was my comment that gotcha or not, Yukon, but it wasn't aimed at guides. Just aimed at the ridiculousness of the comment by ADF&G, as the proposal aimed to weed a lot of fish out of the smaller segment and give anglers who wish to keep a decent king the chance at leaving with a consolation prize. Well, now many still won't keep a small king because it will mean they cannot then keep a bigger one if they wish.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Also interesting: 28" and under kings won't count against the Kenai 2 fish limit, and you can continue fishing after keeping one, but you can't keep a bigger fish if you keep one under 28". Department testimony was that this would help residents who want to keep a fish. What they left unsaid was this will not induce a non resident or guided angler to keep these small kings. This ought to make guides really happy!
    This isn't quite the outcome or even what was said. Final reg change is no annual limit for kings less than 28" for EARLY-RUN Kenai River king salmon. Bag limit in the early-run remains a one per day greater than 20". If you catch a king greater than 20", you put your rod down like you always did, but it does not count against your annual limit if it is less than 28".

    Also, I heard the department say that this would primarily benefit anglers who fish the river more than several days. If you only fish one or two days it probably won't mean much to you.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akkona View Post
    This isn't quite the outcome or even what was said. Final reg change is no annual limit for kings less than 28" for EARLY-RUN Kenai River king salmon. Bag limit in the early-run remains a one per day greater than 20". If you catch a king greater than 20", you put your rod down like you always did, but it does not count against your annual limit if it is less than 28".

    Also, I heard the department say that this would primarily benefit anglers who fish the river more than several days. If you only fish one or two days it probably won't mean much to you.
    Thanks for that clarification akkona.

    I think its a good compromise reg that will help to incentivise the harvest of smaller fish that historically have gone under/unharvested.

    I like the two-tiered approach that it still counts against your daily limit, but does NOT count against your annual limit.

    How do you plan to have anglers record these fish on their tag? Or will they even be required to be recorded at all?

    ****

    Also a HUGE thumbs up to the board for taking a pro-active stance for conservation by sealing up the sanctuaries for the ENTIRE king season. That change was LONG overdue.
    "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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Thanks for that clarification akkona.

    I think its a good compromise reg that will help to incentivise the harvest of smaller fish that historically have gone under/unharvested.

    I like the two-tiered approach that it still counts against your daily limit, but does NOT count against your annual limit.

    How do you plan to have anglers record these fish on their tag? Or will they even be required to be recorded at all?
    King salmon less than 28" caught prior to July 1 would not have to be recorded on your license and/or harvest record card.

    Also a part of the package for the early-run that was adopted was a change in the slot to 46-55" and EO authority to allow bait when the dept. can project the run will be within the OEG of 5,300 to 9,000.

    Nothing was changed for the late-run.

    Coho bag limit was increased to 3 beginning September 1 and the season was extended through November.

    No change to drift days

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    AKKONA, what do you think the opinion of the old timers at 3rd hole will think? (have you gotten any insight yet?) Just make sure you let them know the closure didn't come from the guides not KRSA, but from a new coalition of area fishermen.

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Incentive. . .

    Especially if they go to bait before July 1, I'll probably be "incentivized" to go down by Cunningham Park and try for some of those 28" and less fish.

    Anyone know what the daily limit is/will be?


  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I am not exactly sure Marcus, I think it is 1 under 28" a day for all of the early run.

  13. #13

    Default

    The bag limit for king salmon 20" or greater in length remains at one per day.

    I accidently hit submit before I was ready, I meant to say there are no changes to drift days YET. They will be addressing those proposals tomorrow.

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

    Default oops!

    I better get Brian to delete those other DBO posts for now!
    "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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    AKKONA, what do you think the opinion of the old timers at 3rd hole will think? (have you gotten any insight yet?) Just make sure you let them know the closure didn't come from the guides not KRSA, but from a new coalition of area fishermen.
    The closure date change came under RC #139 and was from a group of 4 organizations: KAFC, KRSA, KRPGA, and Cooper Landing AC. The department didn't oppose the spawning area closures.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Thanks for the update kona. I was unware of RC139, my apologies to KAFC. It was my understanding that this came from them. I will see what I can find out as to how the 4 groups came together.

    Have you talked to the vibrax killer yet? I do feel for him and his buddies.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default get the story straight please Yukon

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Thanks for the update kona. I was unware of RC139, my apologies to KAFC. It was my understanding that this came from them. I will see what I can find out as to how the 4 groups came together.

    Have you talked to the vibrax killer yet? I do feel for him and his buddies.

    Thanks AKKona for the correct approach. Just for the record the committee chairman asked the groups to work together. They met and KAFC insisted that before any action by the Board all the AC's and other parties have at least 24 hours to review the suggestion and comment to the Board. Also, KAFC made the closure a priority because of concern for the stock - the mainstem spawners.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Don't worry, as you quoted me Nerka, I apologized to KAFC when given the correct information.

  19. #19
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Also, KAFC made the closure a priority because of concern for the stock - the mainstem spawners.


    So are you saying that the sanctuaries at the trib mouths constitute critical spawning habitat for mainstem spawners?

    My understanding is that the sanctuaries were set up to protect staging ER tributary spawners awaiting their final ascent to spawning sites in the tribs.

    I believe the four groups and the BOF missed the boat on protecting ER mainstem spawners when they failed to pass either of the two slot proposals that would have done exactly that.
    "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

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post


    So are you saying that the sanctuaries at the trib mouths constitute critical spawning habitat for mainstem spawners?

    My understanding is that the sanctuaries were set up to protect staging ER tributary spawners awaiting their final ascent to spawning sites in the tribs.

    I believe the four groups and the BOF missed the boat on protecting ER mainstem spawners when they failed to pass either of the two slot proposals that would have done exactly that.
    We tried to get more discussion on mainstem spawners but could not with ADF&G - the closures do protect some mainstem fish spawning in that area - not enough but a start. You take what you can get with ADF&G opposing every move.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •