View Poll Results: How should UCI salmon fisheries management be prioritized?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sport fishing should be the highest priority

    18 60.00%
  • Commercial fishing should be the highest priority

    4 13.33%
  • Personal use fishing should be the highest priority

    7 23.33%
  • Native Alaskans should be the highest priority

    1 3.33%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: UCI management priority

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default UCI management priority

    There are always arguments on this poll that boil down to the management priority of UCI fish. Currently, ADF&G manages with priority based on maximizing commercial harvest of sockeye salmon. Many seem to question this priority, saying that the current priority does not benefit the majority of Alaskans. I started this post to see how members of this forum feel about the priority system. If you were king how would you prioritize management of UCI's salmon fisheries?

    1. Sports fishers as the highest priority
    2. Commercial fishers as the highest priority
    3. Personal use as the highest priority
    4. Native Alaskans as the highest priority

    I'm not sure this poll will show up as intended. If you want to support your overal priority ie commercial fishers first priority, and why; Native second priority, and why; sports third, and why; and personal use 4th priority, and why, that will be helpful.

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

    Default how does this really help?

    Charholio...UCI managament is just about as complicated as it gets. As with most other polls, it's tough to answer an over-simplified question with an A, B, C or D answer -- especially as you have it posed.

    You've read and contributed to a number of threads on UCI management...and while I haven't always agreed with you, I can understand and appreciate your point of view.

    Generalized questions like this will just push people further apart in an area where the battle lines are already drawn and the trenches dug. If there's anything that's guaranteed, it's that people will disagree.

    But, the more specific and focused the question is, the better...and the more constructive the discussion will be, IMO.

    Art.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Priorities are kinda difficult

    I think it would ease some of the tension if the F&G would at least recognze that the sport and personal use fishermen are an important consideration in the management of the late run reds.

    Wording like "managed for maximum commerical yield" in the management plan only helps to inflame the passions of the sport and personal use fishermen esp. when the boats go out on an emergency opening" on the weekends when people are down trying to stock their freezers and get some fish to smoke.

    If this year turns out to be a bust after the commerical fleet has been out so long the hearing could get real interesting next year.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default jsutify claim

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I think it would ease some of the tension if the F&G would at least recognze that the sport and personal use fishermen are an important consideration in the management of the late run reds.

    Wording like "managed for maximum commerical yield" in the management plan only helps to inflame the passions of the sport and personal use fishermen esp. when the boats go out on an emergency opening" on the weekends when people are down trying to stock their freezers and get some fish to smoke.

    If this year turns out to be a bust after the commerical fleet has been out so long the hearing could get real interesting next year.
    TVfinak. You keep making claims like ADF&G to recognize the sport and personal use fisherman as an important consideration in management.

    Please tell me where they do not recognize this. Give me some examples from the management plans or their actions relative to those plans.

    I see all types of examples that show the three fisheries working. There is an allocation to all groups via these plans. There are more fish in the escapement objectives for sport fisherman than they presently harvest, the staff;s meet and discuss management options daily, and the Board of Fish ahs bent over backwards to try and be fair to all user groups. So please tell us where ADF&G does not recognize sport or personal use fisheries.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kasilof, AK & Forks, WA
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    TVfinak. You keep making claims like ADF&G to recognize the sport and personal use fisherman as an important consideration in management.

    Please tell me where they do not recognize this. Give me some examples from the management plans or their actions relative to those plans.

    I see all types of examples that show the three fisheries working. There is an allocation to all groups via these plans. There are more fish in the escapement objectives for sport fisherman than they presently harvest, the staff;s meet and discuss management options daily, and the Board of Fish ahs bent over backwards to try and be fair to all user groups. So please tell us where ADF&G does not recognize sport or personal use fisheries.
    I will ... Kasilof late-run king salmon management, or lack thereof.

    If ADF&G allowed 120+ hours straight of beach nets in the Kenai / EF section on top of multitudes of EO's prior ... there would be a public lynching.

    Sorry, I don't see all three working.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Important consideration

    Simply read the first line of the late run sockeye management plan.

    Just what part of "managed for maximum commercal harvest" don't you understand?

    The considerations for sport and personal use are in later paragraphs in the plan, primarily for managing an excess escapement.

    It was a fight to even get consideration this year for keeping the nets out of the Keani over the weekend when the dip netter are out in force. Get out and talk to the people dip netting and sport fishing and ask them how well it is working - don't take my word for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    TVfinak. You keep making claims like ADF&G to recognize the sport and personal use fisherman as an important consideration in management.

    Please tell me where they do not recognize this. Give me some examples from the management plans or their actions relative to those plans.

    I see all types of examples that show the three fisheries working. There is an allocation to all groups via these plans. There are more fish in the escapement objectives for sport fisherman than they presently harvest, the staff;s meet and discuss management options daily, and the Board of Fish ahs bent over backwards to try and be fair to all user groups. So please tell us where ADF&G does not recognize sport or personal use fisheries.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    I've yet to see anyone legitimately explain how our fisheries could be managed with sportfishing priorty. Most of us are sitting on the internet complaining rather than fishing. In most cases sportfishermen are already getting more fish than they can harvest. The river systems can't take much more people pressure, and in fact many are already succumbing with habitat loss. With very few exceptions sustainable goals are being met, if not exceeded. Surpluses exist. Exactly what are you going to do with a bazillion fish once they're in the river? Catch them all in a dip net or on rod and reel? Not. Catch as many as you can, and then say, "ok commercial fishermen, the rest are yours". Not...they're already in the river. Come on folks, have some foresight. Things are managed the way they are for a reason. Perfect? Certainly not. Room for improvement? Certianly. Proven to work the best it can? Yes.

    tvfinak, you are completely in the dark if you think F&G doesn't recognize and consider the personal use and sportfishermen. Please read the management plans. They include sportfishing. This is a complex mixed-stock fishery with many user groups. It is near impossible to manage. Sportsfishermen have plenty of opportunity to get their sporty ya-ya's satisfied, and fill their freezers. In fact it's the best in the world. You exemplify my entire point...3/4 million sockeye in the rivers here and you claim (in another post) that there are "no fish". You just want a hand out.

    Again, explain in detail how a sportfishing priority could possibly work.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Ball - Piscatorial Pursuits View Post
    I will ... Kasilof late-run king salmon management, or lack thereof.
    That's odd. In your guide advertisement you claim the Kasilof late run King fishery is "the Kenai Peninsula's best kept angling secret".

  9. #9
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    I've yet to see anyone legitimately explain how our fisheries could be managed with sportfishing priorty......
    I haven't seen anyone show how our fisheries/wildlife could be managed with a subsistence priority, either, but that's where we're at legally.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default misquoted

    Sorry - the first line reads "managed primarily for commercial harvest".

    I can't cut and paste from the .pdf file.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Simply read the first line of the late run sockeye management plan.

    Just what part of "managed for maximum commercal harvest" don't you understand?

    The considerations for sport and personal use are in later paragraphs in the plan, primarily for managing an excess escapement.

    It was a fight to even get consideration this year for keeping the nets out of the Keani over the weekend when the dip netter are out in force. Get out and talk to the people dip netting and sport fishing and ask them how well it is working - don't take my word for it.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    tvfinak, why wouldn't the Kenai late-run sockeye plan be "managed primarily for commercial harvest"? Again, you refuse to explain how a sportfishing priority could possibly manage millions and millions of sockeye.

    Mark, I see Alaska's subsistence and sport fishing as apples and oranges, by definition. I don't believe they can be compared in terms of priority. Sportfishing will ever hold the legal ramifications that subsistence does. For example both the sportfishing and personal use sockeye fisheries on the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers are fairly new. Mostly commercialized. There is no history of people depending on those two sport fisheries for customary and traditional use, and sockeye simply were not targeted by either fishery. Whereas, subsistence fishing dates back centuries, and was used as a non-commercial, customary, and traditional way of survival.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Do you understand or admit that commercial harvest IS the main management tool, and in fact the only one? (in reality.......don't tell me sport/pu could catch all the fish)

    Come up with some way to deal with massive numbers of fish WITHOUT making sure you can fish the commercial guys anytime they are needed. And not saying over and over some figure like 150,000 extra fish...........HOW do you propose to do so? How and WHEN would you allow these extra fish? Answer us that.

    I know where you are coming from TV, but sometimes wonder why you don't understand the management end more. I used to say the same thing you do, but when Nerka, and others told me how and why things are the way they are I started to change my mind on my priorities.

  13. #13
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Poll questions emphasize part of the problem

    It's always been my opinion that our fisheries should be managed with the main priority being given to the fisheries stocks. All this infighting over allocations tends to obfuscate this, and so we endanger the very thing we are all fighting over. Just my humble opinion.

  14. #14
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Originally Posted by Grampyfishes
    I've yet to see anyone legitimately explain how our fisheries could be managed with sportfishing priorty......

    I haven't seen anyone show how our fisheries/wildlife could be managed with a subsistence priority, either, but that's where we're at legally.
    Mark, I see Alaska's subsistence and sport fishing as apples and oranges, by definition. I don't believe they can be compared in terms of priority.....
    They can't because they provide different returns. Sport fishing provides macro economic returns as well as recreational returns, commercial fishing provides macro economic returns, personal use provides micro-economic returns, and subsistence also provides micro economic returns.

    The difference is that subsistence is the legal priority over all others.

    And, again, "I haven't seen anyone show how our fisheries/wildlife could be managed with a subsistence priority, either, but that's where we're at legally".

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default wrong again Bob

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Ball - Piscatorial Pursuits View Post
    I will ... Kasilof late-run king salmon management, or lack thereof.

    If ADF&G allowed 120+ hours straight of beach nets in the Kenai / EF section on top of multitudes of EO's prior ... there would be a public lynching.

    Sorry, I don't see all three working.
    Bob, there is no evidence that the late run Kasilof chinook are in any trouble. To the contrary the exploitation rate on chinook in the commercial fishery appears to be very low.

    Both you and TV think in too narrow of a box, like most users. If you read all the plans and allocation parts for the whole inlet they put together a reasonable allocation plan.

    TV - I talked to a lot of sportfishreman and pu fisherman and most are fine with the situation. Of course they tend to know how to plan their trips, know the fish run timing, know the areas of the river fish will be, and in general are good fisherman. For the rest of the public that thinks they can drive down to Kenai on the weekend and be assured fish - too bad it does not work that way. Become a good fisherman and things will change.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSC01614.jpg  

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kasilof, AK & Forks, WA
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    That's odd. In your guide advertisement you claim the Kasilof late run King fishery is "the Kenai Peninsula's best kept angling secret".
    Why is that odd?? In fact, the very reason a tiny fraction of the July king traffic on the KP fishes it is the only reason that what is allowed to happen does take place.

    Nerka ... It's hard to think outside the box when the damage is done inside. You talk about the "plan" ... and the plan would likely work if it was stuck to. But the two windows in the plan were shattered by the EO's this week ... and trying to drive exploitation rates on Kasilof-bound fish into the 90% range or higher as we saw two years ago DOES have an effect.

    Yes, they're targeting reds and the gear is suited more towards them ... but many kings are still taken. Yes, numbers are lower this year ... but it's alsol a well-known fact that no UCI king stocks are returning at normal levels, so yes, you would expect them to be lower.

    I understand many of the issues that make sockeye management tough ... frankly to lump by thoughts together with TV is assinine. If you can't find enough reds on the Peninsula these days, then you're probably not gonna even find one at the market either.

    I don't care what days windows fall, they simply need to exist ... no matter what until we have a grip on exactly how much exploitation this stock is incurring. There is little question that over the past two decades run timing is occuring later ... coincidence, perhaps, but doubtful.

    The non-guide Kasilof day in July was presented as a trade-off years ago to obtain the window to help keep king passage somewhat steady. Since UCI managers feel that they are not needed, I suppose I can go ahead and run trips on Sundays then as a trade-back? Hmmm, interesting thought.

    Smoke and mirrors, that's all we ever see about this nearly mythical stock. And not simply from ADF&G from from KRSA & KPGA as well ... don't need to the Kasilof in July, so why fight for the continued health of the stocks. One reason neither organization will ever see a penny from my pockets.

    We don't really know what effect the netting is having and nor the slowly building sport fishery either ... both need to be addressed and a plan for in-season monitoring and BEG / OEG's is severely overdue.

    It's time to pull our heads out of the sand on this one.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Exactly

    I agree - the SHORT, INTERMEDIATE, AND LONG TERM survival of the fisheries stock and habitat should always be the priority - not commercial or sport or personal use.

    The statement that every fish over the minimum escapement that is not used is "a lost resource" fails to consider the intermediate and the long term lost of nuturiants that never make it up the rivers to nourish the plants along the rivers and other other species of animals. It does not appear that the current plant considers the long term effects of catching every fish possible for commercial sales.

    The commerical fishing fleets around the world have a long history of overfishing resources to almost toal depletion.

    In the end you can't fool Mother Nature. The fish existed sucessfully for a long time before we tried to "manage" them..


    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    It's always been my opinion that our fisheries should be managed with the main priority being given to the fisheries stocks. All this infighting over allocations tends to obfuscate this, and so we endanger the very thing we are all fighting over. Just my humble opinion.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  18. #18
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Bob Ball, why your comment was "odd"

    Bob,

    It's always surprised me that guides like yourself tout how great the fishing is on various Kenai streams, then claim they aren't managed very well.

    Earlier on this thread, Nerka asked, "
    So please tell us where ADF&G does not recognize sport or personal use fisheries."

    And you responded: "
    Kasilof late-run king salmon management, or lack thereof."

    Yet on your website, as Grampy posted, you claim things about the Kasilof LR Kings that don't (to me, anyway) jibe with your earlier comment. Here's some quotes from your website:
    We believe that over the last decade, Bob has guided more anglers on this river [Kasilof] than any other guide working on the Kenai Peninsula...The Kasilof's July king fishery is perhaps the Kenai Peninsula's best-kept angling secret, normally less than 10-15 boats float the entire open fishing section of the river on any given day...Perhaps the best-kept secret of all of the Kenai Peninsula fisheries, the second run of kings entering the Kasilof provides Kenai Peninsula anglers with catches of trophy-class Alaska king salmon without the crowds of the nearby Kenai...While the next world-record will not come from its glacial waters, our clients catch 50 to 60 pound class fish nearly every week during the second run of kings.

    And you've got the ubiquitous photos of a clients holding up huge Kasilof LR kings, so I dunno, but in reading your website it sounds to me like you've been doing pretty darn well guiding there, and the fishing has been good. Maybe you can better explain what the problem is, as you see it, with the LR Kasilof king mgmt "or lack thereof," of this "mythical stock" you are claiming is the best kept secret on the Kenai peninsula.

  19. #19

    Default

    "The commerical fishing fleets around the world have a long history of overfishing resources to almost toal depletion." -Tvfinak

    So you're implying that this is happening in Cook Inlet? Your arguments and comments have been proven time and again to be factually deficient, yet you continue to make comments and innuendos such as this. What gives? Sure, commercial overfishing has been problematic in various places, but to insinuate this is the case in Cook Inlet is unfounded. "Total depletion"?? Is the sky falling too?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Bob, bushrat said it pretty well. I mean if you sincerely feel the run is in trouble and managment is doing a poor job (claims you haven't backed up), why in the world would you continue to kill its Kings for profit?

    "our clients catch 50 to 60 pound class fish nearly every week during the second run of Kings".

    What kind of person concerned with the fishery proudly advertises that he has commercially exploited the Kings more than any other guide on the Kenai Peninsula?

    "Bob has guided more anglers on this river [Kasilof] than any other guide working on the Kenai Peninsula".


    tvfinak, would you please find yourself a tutor. Read the studies, reports, and management strategies. Try to understand before you post such wrecklessness. Your comments about nutrients and catching every fish possible are totally off base...again.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •