FYI:Open House Meeting, RE: Kasilof Boat Launch
Received in the mail today an invitation for an Open House meeting at Tustamena Elementary School on Weds May 21st.
schedule: Open House 5-6pm Presentation 6pm Open House 6:20-8pm
State Dept of Fish and Game and Natural Resources representatives (both agencies) are to be present to answer questions.
Subject matter in the invitation (summarized):
Due to popularity of drift boat fishing on the Kasilof - the State of Alaska wishes to purchase a parcel of property in order to construct a boat launch/retrieval sight. You've been invited to attend.
Basically, this post is just to alert those locals who might have an interest in weighing in / finding out more about the State's plan - here is a chance to participate. Though I will be down at the cabin in Kasilof at that time, I can't promise I will be available to attend or report on the meeting, but I hope one of our forum members might be able to....
God bless. Have a great weekend.
drift fishing only?
If I am to understand this notification, Driftboat's are the only reason why they are looking at a Kasilof launch? It is my understanding that Federal and state funds have to include all users, not just drift boats so I am looking for a launch that will benefit motors too. Just FYI.
this is a piece of good news
and a step in the right direction to make all commercial sport fish guiding; at least on the Kasilof, a drift boat only fishery.
At some point there is likely going to be some (more regulated) separation between powered boats generally, commercial sport fish powered boats especially and drift boat fisheries only.
I understand your point thewhoop2000 about power boats too. It's not like power boats AND drift boats don't have a place or places to get in and out of the water and both could 'share' this one.
We do have trails built with State money and municipal monies for bicyclist and walker/runners but we don't let 4 wheelers and motorcycles run on them; so it must be legal to do this kind of thing.
The cost the commercial fishery puts on the resource, including impacting the river system altogether is a cost absorbed now by all of us in the State.
There is literally no contribution; no net gain to all the residents of this State to account for for the take, and the overall costs of maintaining the "system" the commercial sport fish industry makes a living off of.
The overall impact to OUR rivers that the commercial sport fish industry has created which includes displaced opportunity and added cost their special interest puts on residents is HUGE. This is a step the State could take, and probably should be taking in order to start putting the pieces in place to begin shifting the entire KP "commercial sport fishing industry" to a drift boat only fishery.
And thewhoop2000, I don't know if you are a guide but if you are not then the way I see your objection (as legit by the way) about the restricted launch is that it is another consequence with all sorts of associated costs as to how the commercial sport fish industry causes stress on residents. At everyone else's expense too.
The State, when it comes to natural resources, does not have to balance all interests. But, short of taking the bull by the horns and requiring the commercial sport fish industry pay all costs associated with their special interest take or to stand down because their unpaid cost are shifted to everyone else then we are stuck with this juggling act and everybody except the special interest commercial sport fish industry is compromised.
I can not imagine BP getting by with taking profits from a resource like is happening with fish and game AND shoving the costs down the throats of all Alaskans.
I wonder why oil is so much more important to OUR state than f&g when it comes for paying all the costs for the take with the benefits only going to those who run local ancillary business?
Is it because f&g are renewable resources?
Is there a public power boat ramp on the lower Kasilof?
Originally Posted by AVALANCHE
I would encourage every local drifter that fishes the Kasilof River to attend this open house meeting if at all possible. Thanks for your postís AK-Tex-Or.
Not a guide
Avalaunch?, I am not a guide. I started the South-central Alaska dipnetting association. Only because 21,000 households dipnet the Kenai/kasilof every year. I tried to get portapotties at the north beach(Kasilof) last year for dipnetting. Was told by fish and game that they cannot seperate different fisheries in funding requests.If my request was forwarded for dipnetting it would be denied. I was told it had to just say fisheries. Federal funding could not be split between user groups. The BOF would have to control drifting verses motors. That is their venue. So many agencies, so little time.
Any questions, call me on my cell, I'm not shy!!!! Ken 715-8363
Was anyone able to attend the Weds evening Kasilof boat launch discussion? If so, any updates? Since I was unable to make it, currently all I have to go on is this Clarion article:
Build it and they will come....
Building powerboat infrastructure will draw a burgeoning powerboat fleet. It's just human nature. While the federal funds seem tempting... just say NO! Keep it drift only.
Here's a chance for the state to step up and do the right thing before it ever gets out of hand with the powerboat armada.... as it has in other immensely popular river fisheries where fishing from powerboats is so deeply entrenched.
It's already too late for places like the Kenai and the Little Su. Let's NOT screw it up for the Kasilof!
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone."
The KeenEye MD
The Trujilo (spelling?) family, who own the lowest of the pull out sites-the one at the fish processors-, made a suggestion last year to fish and game that they put in a ramp with drift only above the ramp and powerboats below. That would allow power boats to use the tidal portion of the river -where drifters have not been fishing - without conflict with the drifters who would have all of the upper river-at least from the bridge to the point they all take out now anyway. Is this a compromise that anyone might accept? It would also prohibit power boats on the upper portion of the river by regulation rather than the way it works now.
I'm sure there would be a lot of push back from our commercial friends who don't want power boats full of Alaskan families in the dip net fishery on the Kasilof-heaven forbid we take any of their fish.
gusdog44 - not about that
Gusdog44 - KAFC objections to a growing dip net fishery was not about commercial/sport/pu fish allocation. It was about powerboats in the lower Kasilof River without a regulatory plan in place to take care of some of the problems associated with boat use. Here are some issues.
Originally Posted by gusdog44
1. The PU fishery is already destroying the dunes and area near the mouth of the river - until such time that ADF&G, BOF, and DNR take care of exisitng problems they should not create new ones.
2. A powerboat dip net fishery that puts older two stroke engines on the lower Kasilof (displaced from the Kenai) may just create a new impaired water body. Regulations need to be in place to deal with that issue.
3. Unlike the Kenai, the Kasilof is a smaller systema nd the channel in and out is narrow. If a large number of people start to dip net from boats there will be problems with navigation of the commercial fleet into and out of the river. The Kenai has had a number of near misses and it is much larger. The flats at Kasilof and the river channel are very difficult to navigate so PU boats in the channel could be a real mess on vessels entering and leaving. The Coast Guard has been involved with this issue with the existing set net PU fishery.
At this point KAFC contacted DNR and the director of Parks indicated that a Kasilof Special Management Area may be needed to resolve these issues before development takes place. KAFC agreed and offered to help him move in that direction.
While we like to reduce things to allocation in UCI the truth is that there are real environmental/social concerns and objections are not always based on my fish or their fish.
can you reference that attitude on the part of cook inlet gillnetters, or is that just a tacky guess?
Originally Posted by gusdog44
I guess my tacky comment comes from the continued efforts of attorneys and other commercial fishermen to shut down the PU fishery in the Kenai and I think it is indicative of an attitude....that the PU fishery is taking away from their harvest opportunities.
then what,s the difference between them and kenai river sportfishing association (krsa) with its continued efforts to shut down the gillnet fishery that is supposedly taking away from their harvest opportunities?
Originally Posted by gusdog44
snotty name-calling by those who live in glass houses accomplishes nothing except more community discord.
Nerka, where are your pollution studies or overtime photo's
. The PU fishery is already destroying the dunes and area near the mouth of the river - until such time that ADF&G, BOF, and DNR take care of exisitng problems they should not create new ones.
I hear what you are saying about displaced two-strokes from the kenai and the lower river being narrow for navigation, But... Do you have any scientific proof that the dunes are being destroyed? That the area is being destroyed. Is this opinion or Fact? Come on Nerka, you are a retired fish scientest. I would expect better facts than assumed hunches, especially from you. Propogating opinions without supporting facts is not making your case. Everbody just assumes the PU fishery kills the dunes and rapes and pillages the resource. I disagree. Now that is my opinion.
O.K. So just say you are right, whop and move on. Please don't just assume that the problems in the Kenai automatically just roll over to the Kasilof, impaired waterways and crowded conditions. Thanks and have a good weekend.
a picture is worth a thousand words
I think I can attach a picture which will say it all
Pictures a little confusing but thanks for the effort.
Nerka, I can see the 2nd picture with a couple of campers at the edge of the dunes fine. The first is a little confusing cause the waterline is not visable. Nice effort though. Can you say how long apart these pictures were taken from each other and is it a before and after shot? As said, I'm a little lost. Are you also implying that dipnetters have caused the differance and variations that the pictures try to show? Beaches might change but can you put the blame just on dipnetting for four weeks? Here in the Valley, the big sue can move miles in river channels in just a couple of years, which you know. Someone as slow as me needs it spelled out for them. After all, I did take the little school bus to school every day. Thanks, And... have a good day too.
am I taking the bait or not
O.K. for those not familar with the situation the pictures show the impact of people using the dip net fishery after the fishery is over. The PU fisherman have used 4 wheelers and four wheel drive vehicles to trash the wetlands and dunes. Despite signs by ADF&G not to make these trail - in fact the sign was torn down and was full of bullet holes.
The pictures are the south shore and the north shore is even worse relative to the dune vegetation.
So the whop2000 if there was no dip net fishery the pictures would not have these trails at all. If you blow up one of the pictures there is a small lake/wetland area and you can see it is completely void of vegetation. Also, birds nesting in this area have been eliminated and the activity is just bad.
I also attached a picture of Kenai and you can see tents in the dunes and that happens all the time at Kasilof. Also, the City of Kenai has spent thousands of dollars to try and keep people off the dunes.
So the whop2000 - does this meet your proof needs? If not I am not sure what you need. The damage to both the Kenai and Kasilof is the direct result of the PU fishery. ADF&G has presented these photos to the BOF and spoke to this issue.
I am not sure what I am supposed to look at in the pictures, but to me they look the same, one is just taken from further away and makes it appear the dunes are smaller.
Nerka we posted at the same time, but with the signage that is already there is it an enforcement problem as well. Is it possible to ticket people who are camping in the designated habitat areas?
Tags for this Thread