Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 335

Thread: Dip net fishery closure?

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Dip net fishery closure?


    Check the front-page story in today's Peninsula Clarion (peninsulaclarion.com) for a story on the dip-net fishery.


  2. #2
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Couldn't find it.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Keep trying. . . just checked the Clarion's Web page, and it hasn't yet been updated from yesterday. Take a look in an hour or so. . .


  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default huh?

    I just checked too Marcus.

    Give it up.......what do you know?

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

    Default Part of the story. . .

    Attorney wants dipnet closure
    Damage to Kenai beaches, salmon habitat concerns cited

    By Phil Hermanek

    A Kenai attorney who represents commercial fish harvesters and small processors rattled a loud sabre Wednesday night when he called for a halt to dipnet salmon fishing on the Kenai River.

    Mouths were agape and the Kenai City Council chamber stood silent as Jim Butler said shutting down the personal use dipnet fishery would be "an excellent place to start" in taking action to protect Kenai's beaches and fish habitat. . .

    . . . Butler, who said he is representing most local processors and small commercial fish harvesters, told the council action is being formulated to "correct the problem and prevent future damage to our beaches."

    "We're going to become more aggressive," Butler said.


    ********************

    You'll have to wait until the Clarion posts today's paper for the rest of the article.


  6. #6
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    No way that they'll completely close it. I can certainly forsee more restrictions on access and numbers, but this fishery has quickly become ingrained as a Southcentral tradition.

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default It's up. . .

    (for the whole story, go here)
    http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stor...ews_3990.shtml

    Web posted Friday, March 7, 2008

    Attorney wants dipnet closure
    Damage to Kenai beaches, salmon habitat concerns cited

    PHIL HERMANEK
    Peninsula Clarion

    A Kenai attorney who represents commercial fish harvesters and small processors rattled a loud sabre Wednesday night when he called for a halt to dipnet salmon fishing on the Kenai River.

    Mouths were agape and the Kenai City Council chamber stood silent as Jim Butler said shutting down the personal use dipnet fishery would be "an excellent place to start" in taking action to protect Kenai's beaches and fish habitat.

    Butler was responding to Councilman Mike Boyle, who asked point blank: "Are you saying shut down dipnetting?"

    Butler, who said he is representing most local processors and small commercial fish harvesters, told the council action is being formulated to "correct the problem and prevent future damage to our beaches."

    "We're going to become more aggressive," Butler said.

    He said Alaska Board of Fisheries action in February to curb hydrocarbon pollution from outboard boat engines below the Warren Ames bridge "will put 70 percent of those dipnetters back on your beaches."

    "Southcentral Alaska uses our beaches as a doormat," Butler said.


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Wow is that stupid. Please just remeber this is one guy who represents some processor and SOME small harvesters.

    I usually defend the commercial side in many issues as I like to talk facts, but this is very shortsighted, stupid, meanspirited, and did I say stupid?

    greed pure and simple for some people is what is going on.

  9. #9

    Cool Habitat

    I'm always amazed at the disregard dipnetters seem to have for property rights and the environment when I go dipping. My friends who live in the area constantly complain about dippers wanting to camp on or cross their property to access the river.

    Maybe a time-out is in order. I've always wondered how a resident only dipnet fishery that impacts a commercial fishery passes muster under the US Constitution. Thoughts?

    I duck hunt on the flats at Kenai and Kasilof - the banks are caving in from the foot traffic causing fractures in the bank. It just seems like the habitat has been disregarded in the frenzy. Some mitigation measures seem appropriate. I don't want to see the Kenai and Kasilof rivers go the way of other west coast salmon rivers - loved to death and urbanized.

    I hope that this gets resolved before this summer, otherwise there could be some serious implications. It isn't hard to imagine how a federal judge might see this. Katie John? Zoebels? ANILCA?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    I agree with your thoughts on habitat. However they can be mitagated without stopping dipnetting. What about no camping (that would suck) or no motorized use? Or more toilets? I didn't know there WERE residents on the mouth of the Kasilof or Kenai? In all my years of dipneting I have never seen a house there? I do sometimes see a NIMBY attitude from some. Someone who lives 20 miles from the mouth of the Kenai has no more or less right to use that area than I do.

    Also I don't see banks caving in? I see sand moving. I dipped Kasilof by the bouy last year and a day dip in Kenai. While I saw to much trash, feces, and people driving where they shouldn't be allowed to ( dunes) . I did not see massive unregular erosion. Maybe I missed it?

  11. #11

    Default Habitat

    Well, my friends who live in VIP subdivision on the South bank of the Kenai River sure have to deal with the problem. I know of several instances when the police had to be called because dippers insisted on crossing private property and got beligerant when asked not to trespass.

    As you cross the Warren Ames bridge, look downstream and you will see hard-packed trails along the riverbank. These cause fractures that slough-off when the big fall tides come in. The next year, another path is created, resulting in a cycle of bank fractures and subsequent erosion.

    Yes, the human feces and trash component is pretty disgusting. I spoke with some friends in Kenai today, and the reaction is mixed, but at least half favor some restrictions and all of them think that there should be some discussion. There is concern over who is going to pay for the mitigation/remediation that might be needed.

    It's definitely a delicate subject, but one worthy of discussion. There is no doubt that human waste, trash, and illegal vehicle traffic is enough to get people at least asking questions...

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default not the whole story

    Marcus has fired a cannon shot here without the full story - it is very complicated legal issue involving the federal government and how fisheries are created. The personal use fishery may be in violation of federal law (it is limited to residents), it may have violated NEPA because the Board of Fish did not follow federal law, and it may have been created against federal law with the reallocation of fish from sport and commercial users.

    So the comment on closure is one that is seeped in legal issues. Also I know from taling with the city representatives they have a significant liability with the personal use fishery. The city has trouble with police powers (they add 7 officers in summer just for the PU fishery), they have waste issues and may be violating the clean water act to clean up the junk left over from the fishery (fish parts just bulldozed into the water), they are losing the dunes which is threatening the bluff area, and the list goes on. It is costing the city between 20-50K per year to continue this fishery. The city may want to restrict the fishery just to keep from losing money.

    So this is a complicated case and do not jump off the cliff on one newspaper article. What it does point out is that you cannot put thousands of people in a small area and not destroy things.

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    ......"We're going to become more aggressive," Butler said......
    So who's surprised?

    Those people think the resource belongs to them, and they have no qualms using any excuse that presents itself to block others from utilizing it.

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

    Default Not true. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Marcus has fired a cannon shot here without the full story -
    Correction:

    I have fired no "cannon shot" somebody else did that! All I did was post a newspaper story about the "cannon shot."

    Thanks, Nerka. . .


  15. #15

    Default Polarization

    Here we go... it seems like there will only be two sides to this issue. Each side thinking they are right, the other side wrong. Ready, fire, aim.

    Wow. This is why salmon disappear everywhere there is urbanization.

    Hopefully, reasonable voices and heads will prevail and reasonable mitigation measures will come about - protect the habitat and provide reasonable opportunity for consumptive harvest.

    I'm afraid this is going to get Civil War ugly...

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    What two sides? So far it seems like we're on the same side?

    Can see what you are talking about on the trails. Otherwise I agreed with you

    Nerka simply pointed out the complexities in this. Marcus simply put up an article that generated disussion.

  17. #17
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dipper View Post
    Here we go... it seems like there will only be two sides to this issue. Each side thinking they are right, the other side wrong. Ready, fire, aim.

    Wow. This is why salmon disappear everywhere there is urbanization....
    No, it's not.

    It is well recognized that major and long lasting environmental damage and damming is what kills salmon runs altogether, not conflicts over who has what right to harvest how much salmon within sustained yield principles.

  18. #18

    Default Wow

    Well, I certainly didn't intend to point fingers at anyone in particular here, I was thinking more globally.

    First, environmental damage seems to follow urbanization and the adverse effects at the mouths of the Kenai and Kasilof rivers due to dipnetting are probably the result of road accessibility and popularity - urbanization.

    As for the polarization issue - the reference to the cannon shot and the resulting umbrage seemed like an indicator.... I imagine discussion in the global context will be similar to convincing someone to change political or religous beliefs. I wasn't pointing to anyone in particular here, just thinkin out loud (in written form).

    I was just suggesting that we hold a mirror up and take a hard look at what we see, not suggesting that anyone here disagreed with me or that I had a problem with any individual post.

    I'm a newbie to this forum thing. I'll figure out the etiquette...

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Lol that IS the etiquette. It's all good!

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    No hard feelings.

    Don't be so sensitive. All is good.

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... 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
  •