Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: UCI Management

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    690

    Default UCI Management

    Okay, the last thread is getting just too stinking long and a little too personal on some posts. I elect to start this new thread and getting back on track for discussing:

    The way things are currently managed, how are the determinations for escapement considered?

    What is the financial contrast between commercial and sport fisheries including all infrastructure and supporting businesses?

    Is there a way to communicate the balance in a public/diplomatic fashion so that user groups feel that things are fair?
    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Back Country Robb View Post
    Okay, the last thread is getting just too stinking long and a little too personal on some posts. I elect to start this new thread and getting back on track for discussing:

    The way things are currently managed, how are the determinations for escapement considered?

    What is the financial contrast between commercial and sport fisheries including all infrastructure and supporting businesses?

    Is there a way to communicate the balance in a public/diplomatic fashion so that user groups feel that things are fair?
    not being a fisheries biologist, i can,t hope to respond to question #1.

    as for question #2, kenai river sportfishing association advances a so-called "economic" study that purports to show that sport-caught fish are more economically valuable than gill-net caught fish. from my reading, however, the study is deeply flawed.

    the study takes into account the money generated by sport-caught fish in terms of all supporting infrastructure and claims to do the same for gill-net caught fish. problem is, as i read the report, it stops counting the economics of gill-netted fish when the fish reaches the processor. the study does not take into account the money generated by the tremendous supporting industry necessary to move the fish from the processor to end-market users: processing, summer employment, ice production, transportation, restaurant and supermarket sales, and on and on.

    moreover, the krsa-touted study fails to take into account the risks of putting all the area,s economic eggs into one basket, leaving the area,s economy vulnerable to the vagaries of tourist-market whims, energy prices, the ups and downs of the stock market, and the disposable income of american and foreign would-be travelers.

    finally, the krsa-touted study does not take into account the attendant costs of further stressing an already compromised ecosystem or the resident quality of life. nor does the study take into account the right of the non-fishing public to a proportionate share of the resource.

    as for question #3, let me suggest the "ignore list," featured in the user control panel—upper left on the screen. simply use it to "ignore" undiplomatic or otherwise problem users. if no one responds, they may leave in frustration.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    690

    Default Thanks again Gretchen

    Nerka, what is your idea of the solutions or modifications for these topics?
    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default I can help on 1

    I guess I need a little more informaiton before I tackle 1. Do you mean how the escapement goals are set? The type of data and uncertainity in the data? Or do you mean how does ADF&G manage for the goals and how do they make the tradeoffs? If you give me some better direction I will be happy to give you my take.

    Relative to question 2 the presentation by ISER (UAA) to the recent legislatiive task force basically said there have been no recent studies in UCI on this issue that meet scientific criteria. The spokeperson was very polite in making sure the legislature heard that the KRSA was not valid and that even the ISER study of which he was part could not make good direct comparsions. It was very interesting to hear.

    The quesiton of communication is a good one. Since the early 1980's I have seen nothing but miscommunication by design from all groups. It reminded me of a world war 2 comment by a general. He said the more misinformation put out it takes the other side more resources to figure out the truth if they ever do. I really believe that is happening here in UCI. For over 28 years I have seen groups present polished reports that have lots of nice figures but they selectively use data or forget to ignore data that is contrary to their position.

    So in answer to your question on 3 I have felt for a long time a third party independent group (not ADF&G because their data is involved) needs to look at UCI on a regular schedule and that group should be paided professionals. A professional Board of Fish with their own scientific staff may be a better route than just the BOF with lay personnel. I think BOF members try to do a good job but as volunteers they must read thousands of pages of documents, sit in meeting for days, and try to sort out misinformation. I think they are understaffed. I have suggested to the legislature that we have a billion dollar industry run by a lay board. Where in the corporate world would find anything like this?

    Give me some direction and I will try to take on question 1.

  5. #5
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gretchen View Post
    Originally Posted by Back Country Robb
    Okay, the last thread is getting just too stinking long and a little too personal on some posts. I elect to start this new thread and getting back on track for discussing:

    The way things are currently managed, how are the determinations for escapement considered?

    What is the financial contrast between commercial and sport fisheries including all infrastructure and supporting businesses?

    Is there a way to communicate the balance in a public/diplomatic fashion so that user groups feel that things are fair?
    .....as for question #2, kenai river sportfishing association advances a so-called "economic" study that purports to show that sport-caught fish are more economically valuable than gill-net caught fish. from my reading, however, the study is deeply flawed.

    the study takes into account the money generated by sport-caught fish in terms of all supporting infrastructure and claims to do the same for gill-net caught fish. problem is, as i read the report, it stops counting the economics of gill-netted fish when the fish reaches the processor. the study does not take into account the money generated by the tremendous supporting industry necessary to move the fish from the processor to end-market users: processing, summer employment, ice production, transportation, restaurant and supermarket sales, and on and on.....
    Nor is it taken into account for sport fishing (reference, quoted and linked, duly added, page 12):

    This measure does not assess the net economic value of recreational fisheries to sport fishing guides and outfitters and sport fish processors (freezing, smoking, canning, packaging, and mailing) In addition, the NEV to consumers of sport-caught fish—the family, friends, and business associates who eat the fish caught by sport anglers—is not included in this assessment.
    ....moreover, the krsa-touted study fails to take into account the risks of putting all the area,s economic eggs into one basket, leaving the area,s economy vulnerable to the vagaries of tourist-market whims, energy prices, the ups and downs of the stock market, and the disposable income of american and foreign would-be travelers.....
    I don't believe anybody is proposing all eggs should be deposited into any single basket. The KSRA economic analysis states that the current average allocation is 80% for the commercial industry and 20% for the sport/personal use/subsistence communities.

    .....finally, the krsa-touted study does not take into account the attendant costs of further stressing an already compromised ecosystem or the resident quality of life.....
    Since the more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise.

    I also feel the need to point out that the KSRA economic report is not the only report out there. Please review the others as well.

    .....nor does the study take into account the right of the non-fishing public to a proportionate share of the resource.....
    What is a "share" for someone who doesn't fish? Viewing?

    Won't the escapement serve that need?

    ....as for question #3, let me suggest the "ignore list," featured in the user control panel—upper left on the screen. simply use it to "ignore" undiplomatic or otherwise problem users. if no one responds, they may leave in frustration.
    That is a very interesting suggestion.

    What does his question ("Is there a way to communicate the balance in a public/diplomatic fashion so that user groups feel that things are fair") have to do with the ignore function on this forum?

    Even if it's related, if a "user group" is ignored, will they feel "that things are fair"?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Nor is it taken into account for sport fishing (reference, quoted and linked, duly added, page 12):
    There is a huge contrast in the economics associated between processing sport-caught fish and commercial fish. Entire communities, livelihoods, and economies have succumbed to the loss of commercial fishing processing plants.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    I don't believe anybody is proposing all eggs should be deposited into any single basket. The KSRA economic analysis states that the current average allocation is 80% for the commercial industry and 20% for the sport/personal use/subsistence communities.
    The study fails to say what "allocation" level the river systems can take, physically. We have already seen environmental degradation and habitat destruction at current "allocation" levels.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise.
    Got a reference for that opinion? The majority of UCI sportsfishermen are non-resident, and the majority of UCI commercial fishermen are residents. Not to mention commercial sport fishermen (guides) are also commercial users. Alaskans that are neither a sport fisherman or commercial fisherman also have thier own definition of "quality of life".


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    I also feel the need to point out that the KSRA economic report is not the only report out there.
    That report is probably the poorest, most deceiving, and most widely misrepresented report referenced. It has been ripped to shreds many times. One must swallow KRSA's, Ted Steven's, and Bob Penney's "economic engine run hard" philosophy to even consider it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    What is a "share" for someone who doesn't fish? Viewing?
    If he consumes fish (which most do), his share would come from the commercial fishermen in the form of purchased fish.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Won't the escapement serve that need?
    A dead fish does not serve someone who doesn't fish.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Quote Originally Posted by Gretchen
    ....as for question #3, let me suggest the "ignore list," featured in the user control panel—upper left on the screen. simply use it to "ignore" undiplomatic or otherwise problem users. if no one responds, they may leave in frustration.
    What does his question ("Is there a way to communicate the balance in a public/diplomatic fashion so that user groups feel that things are fair") have to do with the ignore function on this forum?
    It's pretty simple. If someone wanted to communicate in a diplomatic fashion, as desired by the original poster (Back Country Bob), then "ignoring" undiplomatic and otherwise problem users would be one way to accomplish that, as Gretchen described.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Even if it's related, if a "user group" is ignored, will they feel "that things are fair"?
    It is related. It's obvious that a "user group" would feel things were more fair if the undiplomatic and problem users were not involved. Undiplomatic and problem users are seldom fair.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Got a reference for that opinion? The majority of UCI sportsfishermen are non-resident, and the majority of UCI commercial fishermen are residents.
    The reported estimates of statewide and regional participation in Alaska sport fishing by residency can be found on page 21 of the most recent published Statewide Harvest Survey report:

    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fds07-40.pdf

    This table reports the number of anglers by Region, therefore Southcentral includes more than just UCI, but here is a run down of the numbers for Southcentral from 1999-2004:
    1999: 52.9% resident anglers
    2000: 51.9% resident anglers
    2001: 52.0% resident anglers
    2002: 52.5% resident anglers
    2003: 52.4% resident anglers
    2004: 50.0% resident anglers

    On a statewide basis in Alaska, there has been more non-resident anglers mainly driven by the SE region. Of note is looking at angler days, which is always higher for resident anglers.

  8. #8
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    Nor is it taken into account for sport fishing (reference, quoted and linked, duly added, page 12):
    There is a huge contrast in the economics associated between processing sport-caught fish and commercial fish. Entire communities, livelihoods, and economies have succumbed to the loss of commercial fishing processing plants.
    That is likely because of the tonnage involved. A further important difference in that analysis is who does the processing for the commercial industry, who does the processing for the sport industry, and the pay difference between the two.

    Further, there are other differences not fully taken into account between the two industries which are dramatically contrasting............like lodging, for example. Where do commercial fish processors live, how much does that add to the economy, and vice versa for sport fish processors?

    The bottom line is that processing for both are not taken into account.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    I don't believe anybody is proposing all eggs should be deposited into any single basket. The KSRA economic analysis states that the current average allocation is 80% for the commercial industry and 20% for the sport/personal use/subsistence communities.
    The study fails to say what "allocation" level the river systems can take, physically. We have already seen environmental degradation and habitat destruction at current "allocation" levels.
    That may be because it's an economic analysis, not an environmental, biological, legal, social, and political analysis.

    You will always come up with yet another reason why society cannot and should not do what you don't want them to do.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise.
    Got a reference for that opinion? .....
    Page 21:

    .....In 2007, the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) reported that there were 571 active drift gillnet permits in the Cook Inlet area, with 70% issued to Alaskan residents (Appendix A13)……….CFEC also shows that there were 738 active set gillnet permits in Cook Inlet, with 83% being issued to Alaskan residents......
    70% of 571 + 83% of 738 = 1,012 resident commercial fishing permit holders in the entire Cook Inlet commercial fishery area.

    Do I really need to provide a citation to show that there are well over 1,012 resident sport/personal use/subsistence fishermen in Cook Inlet?

    Originally Posted by Mark
    I also feel the need to point out that the KSRA economic report is not the only report out there.
    That report is probably the poorest, most deceiving, and most widely misrepresented report referenced.......
    And that perception is probably why you absolutely love to repeatedly point at it (kicking and screaming) while ignoring the ISER economic report (that shows even more detail regarding the economic differences between commercial and sport fishing economics), and probably why ADFG is commisioning it's own reports.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    What is a "share" for someone who doesn't fish? Viewing?
    If he consumes fish (which most do), his share would come from the commercial fishermen in the form of purchased fish.
    Than his interests are being fully served because the vast majority of harvested fish are available for him to purchase, are they not?

    And even if this person doesn't fish or doesn't eat fish, the fish included in escapement fulfills his needs.

    So this is not an issue whatsover.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Won't the escapement serve that need?
    A dead fish does not serve someone who doesn't fish.
    Than this person cannot be satisfied, because all salmon that enter fresh water to spawn die, including those which escaped commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence fishermen, and those that escaped the bears, eagles, mink, etc.


    Originally Posted by Gretchen
    ....as for question #3, let me suggest the "ignore list," featured in the user control panel—upper left on the screen. simply use it to "ignore" undiplomatic or otherwise problem users. if no one responds, they may leave in frustration.
    What does his question ("Is there a way to communicate the balance in a public/diplomatic fashion so that user groups feel that things are fair") have to do with the ignore function on this forum?
    It's pretty simple. If someone wanted to communicate in a diplomatic fashion, as desired by the original poster (Back Country Bob), then "ignoring" undiplomatic and otherwise problem users would be one way to accomplish that, as Gretchen described.
    That is not true. Posters are able to post at will, regardless of the postings of others. But even if that were true, the original question didn't ask about "undiplomatic and otherwise problem users" of the forum. He was concerned with user groups feeling that things were fair.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Even if it's related, if a "user group" is ignored, will they feel "that things are fair"?
    It is related. It's obvious that a "user group" would feel things were more fair if the undiplomatic and problem users were not involved. Undiplomatic and problem users are seldom fair.
    Yes, but even undiplomatic and problem users are a user group, are they not?

    And if "things were fair", perhaps they wouldn't be "problem users"?

    And if others were "diplomatic", perhaps they would also be more diplomatic?

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    aktally, as you noted those figures are not UCI.

    Page 17 of that (2004) report clearly identifies "Southcentral" as including places like the North Gulf Coast, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Naknet River Drainage, Alaska Peninsula Area, Kvichak River Drainage, and the Nushagak.

    According to the latest ADFG license sales figures, only 47% of sport fishing licenses are resident. I would expect even a lower percentage of resident licenses in the UCI area, due to its huge tourism and out-of-state fishing draw.

    BTW, when I asked Mark for a reference I was not asking for license numbers. I was asking him to back up his statement that "the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise".

    Quote Originally Posted by aktally View Post
    The reported estimates of statewide and regional participation in Alaska sport fishing by residency can be found on page 21 of the most recent published Statewide Harvest Survey report:

    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fds07-40.pdf

    This table reports the number of anglers by Region, therefore Southcentral includes more than just UCI, but here is a run down of the numbers for Southcentral from 1999-2004:
    1999: 52.9% resident anglers
    2000: 51.9% resident anglers
    2001: 52.0% resident anglers
    2002: 52.5% resident anglers
    2003: 52.4% resident anglers
    2004: 50.0% resident anglers

    On a statewide basis in Alaska, there has been more non-resident anglers mainly driven by the SE region. Of note is looking at angler days, which is always higher for resident anglers.

  10. #10
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    ......BTW, when I asked Mark for a reference I was not asking for license numbers. I was asking him to back up his statement that [I]"the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise".
    In review:

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise.
    Got a reference for that opinion? The majority of UCI sportsfishermen are non-resident, and the majority of UCI commercial fishermen are residents. Not to mention commercial sport fishermen (guides) are also commercial users. Alaskans that are neither a sport fisherman or commercial fisherman also have thier own definition of "quality of life".
    The first part of your answer clearly focuses on the ratio of residency. I provided that ratio for commercial fishermen, as well as the total number of commercial fishing permitees.

    And there can be no doubt that there are exponentially more than 1,012 residents trying to harvest fish in UCI who are sport/personal use/subsistence fishermen.

    The quality of life for these residents trying to harvest fish in UCI in the sport/personal use/and subsistence fisheries is clearly increase with the opportunity to harvest fish.

    Do you deny that?

    Further, if the number of commercial permits bought back by the state was just 5%, that would mean just 51 permits, but would equal approximately 4% of the total UCI harvest, which would boost the sport/personal use/subsistence allocation by 20%.

    I would opine that would be an increase in the quality of life for more Alaskans, and a 5% reduction in commercial permits is likely near a retirement rate for commercial fishermen. There would be very little "displacement".

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    According to the latest ADFG license sales figures, only 47% of sport fishing licenses are resident. I would expect even a lower percentage of resident licenses in the UCI area, due to its huge tourism and out-of-state fishing draw.
    Cook Inlet fisheries make up 85%-91% of the anglers in Southcentral Region total (Appendix A10). Therefore the percentage of resident/nonresident is not likely to change much. Looking at Appendix A7 on page 21, it is clear the 47% of resident license sales is driven by the SE Region.

    Days fished (also Appendix A7) is a better indication of who is utilizing the resource to a greater extent than number of anglers. Same with comparing catch vs harvest. Resident anglers tend to harvest a higher percentage of their catch than non-resident anglers.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    That is likely because of the tonnage involved...
    Exactly. Sport fish processing is on a much smaller scale. For many it's a fillet knife, a vacuum sealer, and a freezer in the garage.


    The bottom line is that processing for both are not taken into account.
    ...And all things would be equal if both were of equal magnituded. But they are not. Commercial processing is a huge industry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    That may be because it's an economic analysis, not an environmental, biological, legal, social, and political analysis.
    Exactly my point. In the name of "allocation", the report ignores other impacts of economic importance...the costs of habitat degradation and rehabilitation, pollution, facilities, user-group conflict, management, enforcement, and the social effect on the community, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    You will always come up with yet another reason why society cannot and should not do what you don't want them to do.
    I have learned from the past...what "society" has done to other rivers and fisheries.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise
    Got a reference for that opinion?
    ...... Page 21
    No. The reference I requested was referring to your comment: "the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise". Again, reference?

    Also the data on "Page 21" you referenced is from 2004, and it includes "Southcentral", which the report clearly defines on Page 17 as the North Gulf Coast, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Naknet River Drainage, Alaska Peninsula Area, Kvichak River Drainage, and the Nushagak. You were speaking to UCI. Since the UCI is a major hub of tourism, commercial guiding, and out-of-state fishermen, the number of non-resident licenses would be much greater than the entire "Southcentral" you reference which includes the more remote areas listed above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    70% of 571 + 83% of 738 = 1,012 resident commercial fishing permit holders in the entire Cook Inlet commercial fishery area.

    Do I really need to provide a citation to show that there are well over 1,012 resident sport/personal use/subsistence fishermen in Cook Inlet?
    Hopefully you understand that Cook Inlet commercial fishing permits have a moritorium and are limited in number by law. And they fall under a completely different licensing and fishery regulation program.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    And that perception is probably why you absolutely love to repeatedly point at it (kicking and screaming) while ignoring the ISER economic report (that shows even more detail regarding the economic differences between commercial and sport fishing economics), and probably why ADFG is commisioning it's own reports.
    Actually I don't have the boner for economic or political issues that you do. I don't believe our fisheries should be managed to economic whims, but rather fisheries biology, with a priority on habitat and resource. I like to "point at" your report because our largest and most politically aligned sport fishing group touts it as gospal for their sport and commercial sport fishery. Not to mention it obvioiusly makes you "kick and scream".


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Than his interests are being fully served because the vast majority of harvested fish are available for him to purchase, are they not?
    Not the 25 fish in your dipnet. If his interests are being fully served by purchasing fish, then yours would be too.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    And even if this person doesn't fish or doesn't eat fish, the fish included in escapement fulfills his needs.
    He can't eat escaped fish, because no one caught them.


    So this is not an issue whatsover.
    Sure it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Than this person cannot be satisfied, because all salmon that enter fresh water to spawn die, including those which escaped commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence fishermen, and those that escaped the bears, eagles, mink, etc.
    He's satisfied if he got to eat those fish that were destined to die.


    That is not true. Posters are able to post at will, regardless of the postings of others. But even if that were true, the original question didn't ask about "undiplomatic and otherwise problem users" of the forum. He was concerned with user groups feeling that things were fair.
    Yes, it is true. The original question suggested discussion in a "diplomatic" fashion. The best way to have a "diplomatic" discussion is to remove the undiplomatic person from that discussion, as pointed out by Gretchen and others. The "ignore" feature is a way to do that. I know you are familiar with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Yes, but even undiplomatic and problem users are a user group, are they not?

    And if "things were fair", perhaps they wouldn't be "problem users"?

    And if others were "diplomatic", perhaps they would also be more diplomatic?
    Whatever you say Mark.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    The first part of your answer clearly focuses on the ratio of residency. I provided that ratio for commercial fishermen, as well as the total number of commercial fishing permitees.
    ...so...?

    And there can be no doubt that there are exponentially more than 1,012 residents trying to harvest fish in UCI who are sport/personal use/subsistence fishermen.
    ...and...? Commercial licenses have a moritorium and are limited. Have been for decades.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    The quality of life for these residents trying to harvest fish in UCI in the sport/personal use/and subsistence fisheries is clearly increase with the opportunity to harvest fish.
    Again (3rd time), I ask for a reference.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Further, if the number of commercial permits bought back by the state was just 5%, that would mean just 51 permits, but would equal approximately 4% of the total UCI harvest, which would boost the sport/personal use/subsistence allocation by 20%.
    That's nice. Unfortunately there are plenty of fish and fishing opportunity in UCI for you to harvest an extrodinary amount of fish. Many systems have "allocation" that is not being harvested. I have yet to see any justification for a 20% increase in allocation, or a commercial permit buy-out. More allocation for river systems that are already maxed with negative environmental and habitat sport and commercial sport fishing impacts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    I would opine that would be an increase in the quality of life for more Alaskans, and a 5% reduction in commercial permits is likely near a retirement rate for commercial fishermen. There would be very little "displacement".
    You are certainly welcome to your "opine". However it is not mine. As a sportfisherman I already have all the fish (and more) that I can handle. Putting more pressure on our river systems would not increase my quality of life. I am already dealing with pollution problems, lack of facilities, degredation of habitat, the need for restoration programs, more complex regulation, greater need for enforcement, and the list goes on.

    The Kenai is plugged with sockeye right now. They're jumping like popcorn at the mouth. They are going by in numbers greater than we sportsfishermen can harvest. Most of my friends finished filling their larders by last night. You aren't here. Yet you want more allocation. And you want to do away with the commercial guys. Whatever you say, Mark.

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default For Robb

    Robb, this has the potential to be an informative thread.

    I also wondered if you could clarify your question #1 on how escapement goals are set.

    As to #2, certainly economics plays into fisheries mgmt and is important. And that information is valuable. My main beef though with trying to use economics as thee priority that determines how we manage, is that it can lead to actually diminishing sustainability, harming habitat etc. We learned this on the commercial side certainly, that greed can lead to overfishing, thus some of the changes of limited entry and a set number of permits. We haven't yet learned that, however, on the sport-fish commercial side, but it's coming. Bottom line is that if it can be proven that an inriver sockeye caught by a non-resident angler using a guide is worth, say, $80 (by the time all is factored in, lodging, food services, air or ground transport, guiding fees, value of the meat etc etc), whereas a commercially caught sockeye is worth $30 (I'm making these numbers up), does that necessarily mean it would be prudent to then shift the allocation priority to the inriver fishery? There are just a host of potential problems with that notion, overescapement, habitat damage, crowding, sustainability etc. And if you look at Chinook economic numbers, it's more complicated, because we're dealing with mixed stocks that can appear at nearly the same time...so if Chinook are worth way more inriver than commerical, and we chose to prioritize that by letting hundreds of thousands of sockeyes escape inriver...we just have to look at all the factors and downsides.

    As to #3, and balancing all the allocations out so that all users feel it is fair, I think history has shown that as long as there are fish there will be various user groups fighting over them. And many will feel that they have been slighted. Indeed this is the #1 problem, as is evidenced right here on this forum and in the growing number of proposals before the BOF over allocative issues. I think so far we've been lucky in how things have panned out with the overall process...well not "lucky" per se but the BOF hasn't lost track of the overall goal of sustaining our fisheries stocks while also trying to deal with various allocative demands. But that is becoming more complicated I fear, and some changes are needed, like what Nerka has referred to in the past, a professional BOF, perhaps full time, more staff etc.

    I've been trying to learn more about fisheries biology and mgmt for about three years now. But unlike the game side, which I'm much more knowledgable about, the fisheries side is much more complex and harder to really grasp. Trying to manage these mixed-stock fisheries in a sustainable way for various user groups is a daunting task. No one, and no agency, would ever do it in a way that made everyone happy. And unlike the game side, the fisheries side deals with an MSY goal over time, which further complicates things. So I guess as to your last question, I think it would be impossible for any agency to ever manage in a way where all users thought it was "fair."

    If you keep reading the mgmt reports and data, along with talking to fisheries biologists and managers, I think you will be able to get a good grasp of things. The two (reading and talking with the professionals, current and retired) from my experience are both needed to really understand what is going on and cut through much of what you read here. Overall, ADFG & BOF have done a remarkable job in providing sustained fisheries for everyone, and I applaud them for it. There will always be some off years, nothing is for sure and there are many factors we have no control over, like climate changes, ocean and river temps, glacial silting. There are, however, a host of things we do have control over, like urban/suburban planning, control of pike and beavers etc. In the end, we have to ensure our collective greed doesn't get the better of us.
    Sincerely,

  15. #15
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    That is likely because of the tonnage involved...
    Exactly. Sport fish processing is on a much smaller scale. For many it's a fillet knife, a vacuum sealer, and a freezer in the garage.
    That is definately so for residents like me, but not as much so for the non-resident sport fishermen you like to focus on.

    And fish processors who cater to sport fishermen provide services (smoking, kippering, etc.) that cost more per pound and thus inject more into the economy.

    The bottom line is that processing for both are not taken into account.
    ...And all things would be equal if both were of equal magnituded. But they are not. Commercial processing is a huge industry.
    They are not equal per pound of fish harvested, and that is the entire point of the economic comparisons.

    If more of the tonnage were harvested by sport fishermen, the dollars per pound of harvested fish injected into the economy is greater, just like the difference in the timber industry for logs in the round shipped to Japan verses lumber products like furniture being manufactured for individual customers.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    That may be because it's an economic analysis, not an environmental, biological, legal, social, and political analysis.
    Exactly my point. In the name of "allocation", the report ignores other impacts of economic importance...the costs of habitat degradation and rehabilitation, pollution, facilities, user-group conflict, management, enforcement, and the social effect on the community, etc.
    The economic report is not "ignoring other impacts" in the name of "allocation". The economic report is titled, "Economic Values of Sport, Personal Use, and Commercial Salmon Fishing in Upper Cook Inlet", and that is what is analyzed.

    The many other factors needed to be considered if allocation change is to be considered are other factors to be considered.

    Originally Posted by Grampyfishes

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise
    Got a reference for that opinion?

    ...... Page 21
    No. The reference I requested was referring to your comment: "the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise". Again, reference?
    Addressed here.

    ....Also the data on "Page 21" you referenced is from 2004........
    No, it is not. It was right in my quote, linked, and I quote it again:

    .....In 2007, the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) reported that there were 571 active drift gillnet permits in the Cook Inlet area, with 70% issued to Alaskan residents (Appendix A13)……….CFEC also shows that there were 738 active set gillnet permits in Cook Inlet, with 83% being issued to Alaskan residents......
    .....and it includes "Southcentral", which the report clearly defines on Page 17 as the North Gulf Coast, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Naknet River Drainage, Alaska Peninsula Area, Kvichak River Drainage, and the Nushagak....
    That is incorrect. The Cook Inlet area does not include the North Gulf Coast, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Naknet River Drainage, Alaska Peninsula Area, Kvichak River Drainage, and the Nushagak.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    70% of 571 + 83% of 738 = 1,012 resident commercial fishing permit holders in the entire Cook Inlet commercial fishery area.

    Do I really need to provide a citation to show that there are well over 1,012 resident sport/personal use/subsistence fishermen in Cook Inlet?
    Hopefully you understand that Cook Inlet commercial fishing permits have a moritorium and are limited in number by law. And they fall under a completely different licensing and fishery regulation program.
    I understand that fully, and am trying desperately to make that point clear to all, because it reinforces my position with regard to UCI commercial salmon fishing permits (which I will quote again):

    Further, if the number of commercial permits bought back by the state was just 5%, that would mean just 51 permits, but would equal approximately 4% of the total UCI harvest, which would boost the sport/personal use/subsistence allocation by 20%.
    Originally Posted by Mark
    And that perception is probably why you absolutely love to repeatedly point at it (kicking and screaming) while ignoring the ISER economic report (that shows even more detail regarding the economic differences between commercial and sport fishing economics), and probably why ADFG is commisioning it's own reports.
    Actually I don't have the boner for economic or political issues that you do. I don't believe our fisheries should be managed to economic whims, but rather fisheries biology with a priority on habitat and resource.......
    Than you will no longer point to commercial fishing economic factors?

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Than his interests are being fully served because the vast majority of harvested fish are available for him to purchase, are they not?
    Not the 25 fish in your dipnet. If his interests are being fully served by purchasing fish, then yours would be too.
    Only if there are not enough fish for him to purchase from the commercial industry, and since nearly half of the fish (and perhaps more) are exported to Japan, there are plenty of fish for all Americans.

  16. #16
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    The first part of your answer clearly focuses on the ratio of residency. I provided that ratio for commercial fishermen, as well as the total number of commercial fishing permitees.
    ...so...?
    So since more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise (we have come full circle, and I'm quite prepared to go around again if I must.........it only serves to illustrate the point again to more Alaskans).

    And there can be no doubt that there are exponentially more than 1,012 residents trying to harvest fish in UCI who are sport/personal use/subsistence fishermen.
    ...and...?.
    And since exponentially more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise [/B](we have come full circle, and I'm quite prepared to go around again if I must.........it only serves to illustrate the point again to more Alaskans).

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the more Alaskan harvesters of UCI fish are sport/personal use/subsistence users than commercial users, the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise.
    Originally Posted by Mark
    The quality of life for these residents trying to harvest fish in UCI in the sport/personal use/and subsistence fisheries is clearly increase with the opportunity to harvest fish.
    Again (3rd time), I ask for a reference.
    And I have already provided a reference to show that there are only 1,012 commercial salmon fishing permit holders in Cook Inlet, there are exponentially more resident sport/personal use/subsistence fishermen in Cook Inlet, and so the majority of Alaskans would benefit if their allocation was increased.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Further, if the number of commercial permits bought back by the state was just 5%, that would mean just 51 permits, but would equal approximately 4% of the total UCI harvest, which would boost the sport/personal use/subsistence allocation by 20%.

    That's nice. Unfortunately there are plenty of fish and fishing opportunity in UCI for you to harvest an extrodinary amount of fish. Many systems have "allocation" that is not being harvested......
    And there are entire drainages (in fact, the primary drainage within Cook Inlet) that have had trouble meeting it's minimum escapement goals for years.

    ...I have yet to see any justification for a 20% increase in allocation, or a commercial permit buy-out.....
    A 20% increase in allocation for the majority of Alaskans is just a single benefit of a 5% buyback of commercial permits.

    The troubled Susitna-Yentna drainages is one reason to reduce commercial fishing permits (or at least limit commercial fishing pressure).

    ....More allocation for river systems that are already maxed with negative environmental and habitat sport and commercial sport fishing impacts....
    As you pointed out above, the Cook Inlet area includes more than just a couple of "river systems that are already maxed with negative environmental and habitat sport and commercial sport fishing impacts". If returns in these other systems were more accessible and healthy, perhaps healing could occur in the rivers getting pounded.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    I would opine that would be an increase in the quality of life for more Alaskans, and a 5% reduction in commercial permits is likely near a retirement rate for commercial fishermen. There would be very little "displacement".
    You are certainly welcome to your "opine". However it is not mine. As a sportfisherman I already have all the fish (and more) that I can handle. Putting more pressure on our river systems would not increase my quality of life......
    I am not advocating increasing the number of fishermen. That has already occurred, and will continue to occur regardless what you and I opine. I advocate increasing the allocation for the increase in resident population which has already occurred and which will continue to occur.

    Since the 1972 limited entry laws (which has kept the number of commercial fishing permits static in Cook Inlet and everywhere else), the resident population in Cook Inlet has well more than doubled.

    ....I am already dealing with pollution problems, lack of facilities, degredation of habitat, the need for restoration programs, more complex regulation, greater need for enforcement, and the list goes on....
    I'm so sorry, but I don't know what to tell you. The people have come, and there isn't anything you can do to either make them go away or to stop them from coming.

    As for the lack of facilities, I agree that more are long overdue to accomodate this increase in population.

    But we already hashed that out in the Whittier Parking thread, didn't we?

    ....The Kenai is plugged with sockeye right now. They're jumping like popcorn at the mouth. They are going by in numbers greater than we sportsfishermen can harvest. Most of my friends finished filling their larders by last night. You aren't here.....
    I'm on my way.

    .....Yet you want more allocation.....
    Not for me.

    For the majority.

    ....And you want to do away with the commercial guys.....
    Nope. I want to buy back a small percentage of commercial permits.

    ...Whatever you say, Mark....
    If it's "whatever I say", why are you arguing?

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes
    Exactly. Sport fish processing is on a much smaller scale. For many it's a fillet knife, a vacuum sealer, and a freezer in the garage.
    That is definately so for residents like me, but not as much so for the non-resident sport fishermen you like to focus on.
    You keep making my point. Residents like yourself with their own fillet knives, vacuum sealers, and freezers make up about half of the sportfshermen. That leaves only the other half to contribute economically via processing of their fish. And you can't begin to compare their economic impacts of fish processing to commerical fish processing...unless you're writing a biased economic report and ignore it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    And fish processors who cater to sport fishermen provide services (smoking, kippering, etc.) that cost more per pound and thus inject more into the economy.
    That would be specailty processing...not something most sportfishermen do. And if you consider that, you must also consider the commercially processed specialty items (smoking, kippering, etc) sold State-wide in retail/grocery stores.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    They are not equal per pound of fish harvested, and that is the entire point of the economic comparisons.
    That's the whole point to commercial processing. They process large quantities of fish, and therefore impact the economy in large ways. You can try to deminish that to "per pound of fish harvested" all you want. In the end commercial processing dwarfs sport fish processing economically. And that was the whole point originally made about those types of economic considerations being left out of the report.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    The economic report is not "ignoring other impacts" in the name of "allocation". The economic report is titled, "Economic Values of Sport, Personal Use, and Commercial Salmon Fishing in Upper Cook Inlet", and that is what is analyzed.
    And it excludes the "Economic Value" of things like commercial processing. It excludes the "Economic Value" of a trashed river that has become polluted and degraded from sport, commercial sport, and personal use. It clearly ignores impacts on "Economic Value" in the name of allocation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    The many other factors needed to be considered if allocation change is to be considered are other factors to be considered.
    Huh?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes
    No. The reference I requested was referring to your comment: "the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise". Again, reference?
    Addressed here.
    That's what I thought....no reference backing up your comment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    No, it is not...2007
    Correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    That is incorrect. The Cook Inlet area does not include the North Gulf Coast, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Naknet River Drainage, Alaska Peninsula Area, Kvichak River Drainage, and the Nushagak.
    Nobody said it did. The 2004 report aktally referenced (page 21) defined "Southcentral" as the North Gulf Coast, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Naknek River Drainage, Alaska Peninsula Area, Kvichak River Drainage, and the Nushagak (page 17). Figures from that report were being used for UCI, which is deceiving.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    I understand that fully, and am trying desperately to make that point clear to all, because it reinforces my position with regard to UCI commercial salmon fishing permits (which I will quote again)
    Mark, you are not making you point or your position clear at all. Rather than the argumentative banter, multi-quoting, etc., why don't you just explain your points and views in words?

    Example: I'm Mark. My point in this post is........(fill in blank). I'm Mark. My position is:.............(fill in blank).


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Than you will no longer point to commercial fishing economic factors?
    Says who? Alaska fisheries management is based, in part, on consideration for economic factors. It's in law. It must be considered. But it's only one small piece. Economics can not be a priority for how we manage our fish, which is contrary to the point and position I see you trying to make here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Only if there are not enough fish for him to purchase from the commercial industry, and since nearly half of the fish (and perhaps more) are exported to Japan, there are plenty of fish for all Americans.
    Then there are enough for you too.

  18. #18
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Exactly. Sport fish processing is on a much smaller scale. For many it's a fillet knife, a vacuum sealer, and a freezer in the garage.

    That is definately so for residents like me, but not as much so for the non-resident sport fishermen you like to focus on.
    You keep making my point. Residents like yourself with their own fillet knives, vacuum sealers, and freezers make up about half of the sportfshermen. That leaves only the other half to contribute economically via processing of their fish. And you can't begin to compare their economic impacts of fish processing to commerical fish processing...unless you're writing a biased economic report and ignore it......
    And the fuel purchased by "residents like myself" who drive a few hundred miles (and sometimes several times) to fish for 30 fish cannot be compared to cannery workers who drive just a short distance to process thousands of fish, yet that isn't addressed, either, just like the money spent by non-residents on airfare to Alaska to catch a few dozen fish compared to a non-resident slime line worker who will process thousands of fish or the fuel for a seine boat that travelled to Alaska from Oregon.

    Again, the bottom line is that processing wasn't part of the analysis (just like the fuel used by differing fishermen and airfare by differing fishermen etc, etc), that point was acknowledged in the report, and the reasons for that should begin to dawn on you by now.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    And fish processors who cater to sport fishermen provide services (smoking, kippering, etc.) that cost more per pound and thus inject more into the economy.
    That would be specailty processing...not something most sportfishermen do.
    Correct. It is primarily done by non-resident sport fishermen, which drives up the economic gain per pound of sport caught fish.

    ....And if you consider that, you must also consider the commercially processed specialty items (smoking, kippering, etc) sold State-wide in retail/grocery stores.....
    That is true, which is another reason processing wasn't a consideration; the data was probably too difficult (or impossible) to obtain.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    They are not equal per pound of fish harvested, and that is the entire point of the economic comparisons.
    That's the whole point to commercial processing. They process large quantities of fish, and therefore impact the economy in large ways......
    Mass production. Henry Ford first brought this concept into capitalism. It lowers the cost per unit, thereby increasing profit for the capitalist.

    ....You can try to deminish that to "per pound of fish harvested" all you want.....
    And I will, while also pointing out the wider distribution of that economic gain into the wider economy, too.

    ....In the end commercial processing dwarfs sport fish processing economically....
    Only because it commands 80% of the harvest, which is what the allocation politics is all about.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    The economic report is not "ignoring other impacts" in the name of "allocation". The economic report is titled, "Economic Values of Sport, Personal Use, and Commercial Salmon Fishing in Upper Cook Inlet", and that is what is analyzed.
    And it excludes the "Economic Value" of things like commercial processing.......
    Along with many other economic factors, which the ISER analysis covers better, and which the currently ongoing ADFG analysis might even improve on more.

    ....It excludes the "Economic Value" of a trashed river that has become polluted and degraded from sport, commercial sport, and personal use.....
    But which I have repeatedly addressed by pointing out that increased access to other opportunities might alleviate, but which you also appear to oppose.

    Originally Posted by Grampyfishes
    No. The reference I requested was referring to your comment: "the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise". Again, reference?

    Addressed here.
    That's what I thought....no reference backing up your comment.
    The reference has been posted, linked, and it stands for all to review, regardless whether or not you acknowledge it.

    ....Also the data on "Page 21" you referenced is from 2004........
    No, it is not. It was right in my quote, linked, and I quote it again:

    .....In 2007, the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) reported that there were 571 active drift gillnet permits in the Cook Inlet area, with 70% issued to Alaskan residents (Appendix A13)……….CFEC also shows that there were 738 active set gillnet permits in Cook Inlet, with 83% being issued to Alaskan residents......
    Originally Posted by Mark
    That is incorrect. The Cook Inlet area does not include the North Gulf Coast, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Naknet River Drainage, Alaska Peninsula Area, Kvichak River Drainage, and the Nushagak.
    Nobody said it did. The 2004 report aktally referenced (page 21) defined "Southcentral" as the North Gulf Coast, Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Naknek River Drainage, Alaska Peninsula Area, Kvichak River Drainage, and the Nushagak (page 17). Figures from that report were being used for UCI, which is deceiving.
    I am not aktally. I am Mark. I also referenced Page 21, however there are more than a few words on Page 21. Please review the words I quoted, and refrain from accreditting somebody elses reference to me.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    And that perception is probably why you absolutely love to repeatedly point at it (kicking and screaming) while ignoring the ISER economic report (that shows even more detail regarding the economic differences between commercial and sport fishing economics), and probably why ADFG is commisioning it's own reports.

    Actually I don't have the boner for economic or political issues that you do. I don't believe our fisheries should be managed to economic whims, but rather fisheries biology with a priority on habitat and resource.......
    Than you will no longer point to commercial fishing economic factors?

    Says who?
    Refer to the bold underlined words above from your computer.

    ....Alaska fisheries management is based, in part, on consideration for economic factors. It's in law. It must be considered.....
    Thank you. Economics is a factor in fisheries management.

    I assume the total price per pound of fish is a valid economic consideration when considering the economic factor of the differing fisheries?

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Only if there are not enough fish for him to purchase from the commercial industry, and since nearly half of the fish (and perhaps more) are exported to Japan, there are plenty of fish for all Americans.
    Then there are enough for you too.
    Yup. But I choose not to buy them from you and yours, but to catch them (and even process them) myself.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    the majority of Alaskans would benefit if their allocation was increased.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    the majority of Alaskans would benefit if their allocation was increased.
    And I'll ask a 4th time....prove it. Refererence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    And there are entire drainages (in fact, the primary drainage within Cook Inlet) that have had trouble meeting it's minimum escapement goals for years.
    Not at the fault of the UCI commercial fishing industry, or the surplus in other rivers that still provide you more than ample opportunity to harvest fish. Not at the fault of allocation or the number of commercial fishing permits. If you disagree, then prove it. Reference.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    A 20% increase in allocation for the majority of Alaskans is just a single benefit of a 5% buyback of commercial permits.
    Show why residents in the UCI need a 20% increase in allocation. Show why they don't have enough fish or fish opportunity already. Facts and references please.

    Keep in mind I'm swimming in sockeye on the Kenai right now, and you, instead of taking the opportunity to harvest them, are complaining on the computer. You want more at the expense of the commercial fishermen, but according to your prior posts, you don't even fish them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    The troubled Susitna-Yentna drainages is one reason to reduce commercial fishing permits (or at least limit commercial fishing pressure).
    Prove it. Show how commercial fishing has caused, and continues to cause, the Susitna-Yentna problems.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    As you pointed out above, the Cook Inlet area includes more than just a couple of "river systems that are already maxed with negative environmental and habitat sport and commercial sport fishing impacts". If returns in these other systems were more accessible and healthy, perhaps healing could occur in the rivers getting pounded.
    That doesn't mean you don't already have enough fish and fish opportunity. It doesn't mean the answer is to allocate yourself more fish at the expense of reduced commercial fishing permits. Try spending your efforts on this "access" and "healthy" "healing" stuff you mention rather than pointing fingers at commercial fishing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    I advocate increasing the allocation for the increase in resident population which has already occurred and which will continue to occur.
    Show were the resident population does not have enough fish, and why allocation from the commercial fishermen should be increased. Facts. References. Again, I'm sitting on a pile of fish here right now, just a few hours from you. And last year we ended with a surplus that you never harvested.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the 1972 limited entry laws (which has kept the number of commercial fishing permits static in Cook Inlet and everywhere else), the resident population in Cook Inlet has well more than doubled.
    ...and so...?

    Fisheries management has not remained "static". Show where this population does not have enough fish.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    I'm so sorry, but I don't know what to tell you. The people have come, and there isn't anything you can do to either make them go away or to stop them from coming.
    No intention. My intention is for the River's habitat, environment, and a healthy resouce. I want my great, great grand kids (people) to have a Kenai River left. And the first step in achieving that is recognizing what the system can take, apart from economics, politics, and your user-group beefs. The first step is recognizing that more isn't better. Especially when you already have enough.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    I'm on my way.
    You're already late, and you've already lost good fishing opportunity. Just like you did last year which left us with a surplus.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Not for me.

    For the majority.
    More allocation for the majority, but not yourself. Uh...ok.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes
    And you want to do away with the commercial guys...
    Nope. I want to buy back a small percentage of commercial permits.
    Same thing as doing away with the commercial guy. And you've never justified why we need to do that, at least with any facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    If it's "whatever I say", why are you arguing?
    Whatever you say, Mark.

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mark
    the quality of life for more Alaskans should rise

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mark
    the majority of Alaskans would benefit if their allocation was increased.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mark
    the majority of Alaskans would benefit if their allocation was increased.

    And I'll ask a 4th time....prove it. Refererence.
    I cannot "prove" a "quality of life" question. I've given you an opinion, which is all you can give in opposition, and I've given you numbers regarding residency of the differing fishery entities.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    And there are entire drainages (in fact, the primary drainage within Cook Inlet) that have had trouble meeting it's minimum escapement goals for years.
    Not at the fault of the UCI commercial fishing industry.....
    "Prove it". Referenced.

    Keep in mind I'm swimming in sockeye on the Kenai right now, and you, instead of taking the opportunity to harvest them, are complaining on the computer.
    I'll get mine. I'll "prove it", too.

    Photos are forthcoming.......

    You want more at the expense of the commercial fishermen, but according to your prior posts, you don't even fish them.
    I never said "I want more", and I'll prove that I'll get some.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    As you pointed out above, the Cook Inlet area includes more than just a couple of "river systems that are already maxed with negative environmental and habitat sport and commercial sport fishing impacts". If returns in these other systems were more accessible and healthy, perhaps healing could occur in the rivers getting pounded.
    That doesn't mean you don't already have enough fish and fish opportunity......
    That isn't what I wrote. I wrote that if returns in these other systems were more accessible and healthy, perhaps healing could occur in the rivers that you're crying about.

    .....It doesn't mean the answer is to allocate yourself more fish at the expense of reduced commercial fishing permits......
    I'm not advocating an increase in allocation for me.

    I'm advocating a decrease in commercial fishing harvest or pressure.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Since the 1972 limited entry laws (which has kept the number of commercial fishing permits static in Cook Inlet and everywhere else), the resident population in Cook Inlet has well more than doubled.
    ...and so...?
    And so the allocation for the sport/personal use/subsistence fisheries has decreased per capita.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    I'm so sorry, but I don't know what to tell you. The people have come, and there isn't anything you can do to either make them go away or to stop them from coming.
    No intention. My intention is for the River's habitat, environment, and a healthy resouce......
    How do you propose to achieve that goal?

    .....I want my great, great grand kids (people) to have a Kenai River left. And the first step in achieving that is recognizing what the system can take, apart from economics, politics, and your user-group beefs. The first step is recognizing that more isn't better. Especially when you already have enough.
    How does "recognizing what the system can take, apart from economics, politics, and your user-group beefs" secure "a Kenai River left"?

    Originally Posted by Grampyfishes
    And you want to do away with the commercial guys...

    Nope. I want to buy back a small percentage of commercial permits.
    Same thing as doing away with the commercial guy......
    Shooting a caribou is the "same thing" as decimating an entire herd when the herd numbers are known without question?

    Would that opinion be considered wildlife management?

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
  •