Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 217

Thread: Divisions and controversites in fisheries management

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Divisions and controversites in fisheries management

    I picked up a lot of good information and sources of information here and learned a lot but obviously still learning.

    In reading the overescapment report it notes that "the topic of overescapement is controversial and complex."

    I guess I'll figure it out eventually but to help others and myself understand the politics and controversities within the F&G and fisheries management in general can someone shed some light on the major divisions and conflicting opinions with the groups? I could care less about the strictly political nature and alignments - I'm really only interested in the different thoughts on fisheries management and interpretation of the data and studies as it relates to the fisheries management.

    Thanks in advance!
    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

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I picked up a lot of good information and sources of information here and learned a lot but obviously still learning.

    In reading the overescapment report it notes that "the topic of overescapement is controversial and complex."

    I guess I'll figure it out eventually but to help others and myself understand the politics and controversities within the F&G and fisheries management in general can someone shed some light on the major divisions and conflicting opinions with the groups? I could care less about the strictly political nature and alignments - I'm really only interested in the different thoughts on fisheries management and interpretation of the data and studies as it relates to the fisheries management.

    Thanks in advance!
    Considering fisheries 'management'.

    Start with the Alaska Constitution. The rule of law.

    Commercial fisheries (IS resource management) are established by a specific body of law. Protected constitutionally. As are the public's interests and the public's use of fisheries resources.

    The commercial sport fish industry; as an industry, does not enjoy constitutional protections. This industry was and is not provided for in resource management mandates. Just as the commercial hunting industry is not constitutionally provided for.

    Over the years since our Constitution was ratified by Congress the commercial sport fish industry in Alaska has put together an unsustainable industry. Increasingly, that industry demands their special interests are served through management. Allocation.

    The demands of that unsustainable industry puts in conflict the rules that are set out by law to manage the resources for the public interests. Including, the public interest in the commercial fishing industry (tonnage dudes). THAT INDUSTRY (the tonnage dudes) was set out in the constitution, as a separate body of law, to protect the public interest.

    The commercial sport fish industry is forcing their special interests (profit) into the heart of the protected relationships. The protected relationship are made up of the public interests and the tonnage dudes interest with respect to the specific fisheries resource management mandates.

    This 'need' by the commercial Sport fishing industry to transform the management system to accommodate the demand of the special interest of the commercial sport fish industry has induced chaos into the system of management.

    Somehow the Feds get to play in the games too.

    A lot of us want to "care less about the strictly political nature and alignments" and might be "only interested in the different thoughts on fisheries management and interpretation of the data and studies as it relates to the fisheries management.".....but it might not be realistic.

    A person pretty much has to "pick" a group to align with because management decisions, data, and interpretation of studies are spun at every level.

    It seems reasonable to me now that some kind of public use and tonnage dudes coalition might achieve fisheries management mandates best.

    OR, a supporting a constitutional amendment that actually provides for the consideration of the demands of the commercial sport fish industry with respect to management.


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

    Default Thanks

    It was obvious that there were some conflicts but I wasn't sure of all the issues. Thanks for the heads up.

    By the political thing I was refering more to the two party system thing- people who are the appointed political hacks primarily. I'm sure it isn't easy as you say to not take sides.

    As a sports fisherman it appears I can't win - either the dip netters or the commercials guys get the vast majority of the fish - yet sports fishermen are by far the largest group of the users.


    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post

    A lot of us want to "care less about the strictly political nature and alignments" and might be "only interested in the different thoughts on fisheries management and interpretation of the data and studies as it relates to the fisheries management.".....but it might not be realistic.

    A person pretty much has to "pick" a group to align with because management decisions, data, and interpretation of studies are spun at every level.
    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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    As a sports fisherman it appears I can't win - either the dip netters or the commercials guys get the vast majority of the fish - yet sports fishermen are by far the largest group of the users.
    I am not sure I have it exactly right. There will likely be some dialog coming along that points that out.

    Sports fisherman; those who fish for food (and recreation) and do not take profits from selling the public resources are SUPPOSED to be the first allocation. Equal to PU dipnetters.

    Sport fisherman like yourself would do well to align with the dipnetters AND tonnage dudes; recognizing that it is the tonnage dudes that act as THE 'management' tool. Their 'profits' are critical to your benefit.

    The way it is coming down the battle will go on until the commercial sport fish industry is assimilated legally into the management mandates or 'quieted'.

    Quieting of that 'industry' can ONLY be accomplished by adhering to the management (mandated) protocols. Or amending the constitution.

    For now, the public should hold managements feet to the fire to do just what they are required to do; NO concessions for 'special interest'.

    There should not be winners and losers really but it does feel like that is exactly the struggle that is going on.

    To end the chaos the focus needs to be reset to the basics; and stay there!


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

    Default Follow the constitution & rules

    Ron has it right - follow the constitution and avoid all the special interest influence.

    I watched where I grew up it swallowed up by develpment and tourism; it is not a pretty sight. The guides pretty much screw it up for the sports fishermen - I would rather fish with less fish that more tourist and a few more fish.

    I suspect there is a political trade-off somewhere between the king fishery and the sockeye fishery. The kings are big with the big boys; most of us depend on filling our freezers and eating reds rather than kings. Reds are also a poor mans fish; one doesn't have to travel to the lower Kenai and have an expensive boat etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    I

    For now, the public should hold managements feet to the fire to do just what they are required to do; NO concessions for 'special interest'.
    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

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I suspect there is a political trade-off somewhere between the king fishery and the sockeye fishery. The kings are big with the big boys; most of us depend on filling our freezers and eating reds rather than kings. Reds are also a poor mans fish; one doesn't have to travel to the lower Kenai and have an expensive boat etc.
    Try to remember; resource management must not be bent or micro managed by special interests to do things one way in one river system and another way for a different system.

    Granted there are differences between impact/use/demands/timing from one area in Alaska to the next; but catering to special interests is not SUPPOSED to be an 'option'; especially when it conflicts, compromises and corrupts the public interest.


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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    As a sports fisherman it appears I can't win - either the dip netters or the commercials guys get the vast majority of the fish - yet sports fishermen are by far the largest group of the users.
    Here we go again...tvfinak's theme...that he doesn't get enough fish. Well, sorry but I'm not going to let it slide.

    tvf, what exactly do you mean, "can't win"? "Win" what?

    Where and when do you sportfish for your sockeye? I'm a sportfisherman too, and I find our sockeye sport fishery to be a bonanza. I mean geeze, over the last decade both the Kenai and Kasilof have exceeded goals more times than not. As sportfishermen we frequently have surpluses that we don't even harvest. It's not uncommon for bag and possession limits to be liberalized. Where do you get off on this? Is it just the fact one group simply gets "more" fish than you? I mean what would we do if we got the "vast majority of fish"? How would we manage the fishery? Isn't the object to make all the fisheries viable, successful, opportunistic, and sustainable? I mean where don't you find our sportfishery doing that?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Can you supply some information?

    Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? You been watching the players for a long time - I was hoping you could fill in some of the outsiders like my self that are not up on the goings on and who is battling for what. At the moment I what the poles call an "undecided voter" and I'm trying to figure out who is for what. It is not as easy as a political showdown with defined sides and issues.

    I'll continue to "let it slide".

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Here we go again...tvfinak's theme...that he doesn't get enough fish. Well, sorry but I'm not going to let it slide.
    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

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default over-escapement issues

    This is a complex issue but I will try to hit some major points.

    1. Confusion on terms. Over-escapement refers to a potential loss of harvest due to lower production. Some people think it refers to the health of the stock - it does not.

    2. Single species management vs. multiple species or ecosystem management - In some cases people feel that management for MSY for a single stock puts other stocks and systems at risk. This can take the form or over-harvest or lack of nutrients in a small stream system to food resources for other animals. How one defines the management objective is important in the discussion and whether the data supports the position. For example, saying sockeye are needed for nutrients in Skilak Lake is a false statement - light penetration is the limiting factor not nutrients.

    3. Allocation issues - when one manages for MSY it can impact allocation issues. Sometimes more fish are needed for fishing opportunity than an MSY goal would allow. For example, the Kenai River return averages about 3 million and it takes 500,000 to 1 million spawners to get there. However, if there was no MSY goal the total return may be 1 million but if all of those fish went in the river the fishing might be great in that year even if future years also produce less than the 3 million fish average.

    4. Downsides to not managing for MSY in concept are also significant. When one says they do not want all the harvestable surplus of fish then industries that threaten habitat can make the point that you are not using all the fish so we can have some via a habitat loss. If the resource is not fully allocated to users then industry wants an allocation to them via lower production.

    There are other issues but I think you get the point. It is complex. In Alaska we have a mandate to manage for MSY and sustained yields depending on which documents one looks at. The State has a sustained yield principle, the feds reference MSY in the M/Stevens Act, the state founders reference MSY management in the back-up documents to the constitution, the Board of Fish has both MSY and SEG goals, and the list goes on. So one has to be careful in this discussion to clear state what one means.

  10. #10
    Member alaskachuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    3,256

    Default I have to chime in

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Here we go again...tvfinak's theme...that he doesn't get enough fish. Well, sorry but I'm not going to let it slide.

    tvf, what exactly do you mean, "can't win"? "Win" what?

    Where and when do you sportfish for your sockeye? I'm a sportfisherman too, and I find our sockeye sport fishery to be a bonanza. I mean geeze, over the last decade both the Kenai and Kasilof have exceeded goals more times than not. As sportfishermen we frequently have surpluses that we don't even harvest. It's not uncommon for bag and possession limits to be liberalized. Where do you get off on this? Is it just the fact one group simply gets "more" fish than you? I mean what would we do if we got the "vast majority of fish"? How would we manage the fishery? Isn't the object to make all the fisheries viable, successful, opportunistic, and sustainable? I mean where don't you find our sportfishery doing that?

    Ok I dont and do not claim to now alot about this issue. I do know that there has been alot of back and forth of management issues on the site. I have been a resident of alaska for 26+ years. My brain still wants to explode as i read the posts here and try to take it all in. It is very overwhelming. I am not a commerical fisherman. I was in 81-82 and 83. I set net out of clam gulch and did pretty good for myself as a kid at that time. Fishing monday and fridays and when there were EO's. I could knock down 10 to 15K in a summer. I am a sportfisherman. I have been fishing the Kenai watershed since 1978. I do think the red fishing is as good if not better than ever. The silvers are great too. I dont do the King thing as there are just way to may boats and lines in the water for me. As I have gotten older i dont do well in crowds or with "stupid is not the word but crazy king eyed fisherman" Im not knocking those that do chase them. It is just not my cup of tea. I did it for the first time this year since 83 and i remember why I dont anymore. The upper kenai fishing is great for reds and the rainbow and dolly fishing is as good as it gets. I can remember when we almost fished all the bows out of the river. This management thing is like the presidental race. All of us have opinions, only about 55% of the people will be happy with fish management and they election. Also there is no exact science to this. Sometimes fish show up. sometimes they dont. So many variables that are not understood come into play. It is and will be somewhat of a guessing game for years to come. Just had to throw my .02 out there
    Grandkids, Making big tough guys hearts melt at first sight

  11. #11

    Default Good stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    1. Confusion on terms..... It is complex. In Alaska we have a mandate to manage for MSY and sustained yields depending on which documents one looks at. So one has to be careful in this discussion to clear state what one means.
    At Statehood, it was these documents that established the protocols of managing the resource. The management considerations were for personal use ["fish for food"] and fish for the tonnage dudes.

    The Commercial Sport Fishing Industry was not included in the original documents that mandated management principals.

    From your perspective what do the MSY, and the States Sustained Yields "documents" mandate with specific respect to commercial sport fish allocations?


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

    Default

    tvf, being constructive with you doesn't work. The flow of information I've provided you here continues to go without comprehension. That is not a surprise, as your mind-set is biased, irrational, and unreasonable.

    So exactly what is your question or point here? To define the divisions and lines drawn by user groups regarding our fisheries managment? The controversies within F&G? Why are you asking others?...You are the one with the issues, you are the one who apparantly doesn't have enough fish, you are the one wanting to rewrite management, you are the one complaining in thread after thread. You are the one talking about "winning", "battles", "defining sides", "who is for what", "taking sides", "conflicts", and so on. You are the one drawing the lines and taking issue...so why don't you tell us?

    You cite verbage from an overescapement report that says the "topic of overescapement is controversial and complex". Are you looking to identify controversies within F&G or something?

    The overescapement report I'm looking at says that the "topic of overescapements is controversial and complex" due to three major issues that recur the debate: Definitions, effects of overescapements on the stock, and effects of overescapements on the fishery....

    "The topic of overescapement in Pacific salmon stocks is controversial and complex, especially in regards to the management of Alaskan sockeye salmon Onchorhynchus nerka. The controversy has many facets, but three major issues tend to recur in the debate: 1) the definition of overescapement; 2) the effects of overescapement on the stock; and, 3) the effects of overescapement on the fishery. This report attempts to clarify these major issues from the perspective of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Our perspective is one that is mandated by the imperatives of Alaska law, guided by a very simple but useful theory of wild salmon produciton, based on experience gained through the development of scientifically defensible escapement goals for sockeye salmon stocks throughout the state, and grounded in the sound fishery managment principles we have applie to the harvest of these stocks."

    You can read the full report here: http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/Sp07-17.pdf

    If you are looking for controversy and conflicts within F&G's commercial fish and sport fish divisions, you should take some serious time to study their mission statements, strategic plans, governing laws, and defined responsibilities and powers..comprehensively.

    You said you suspect a political trade-off between the king fishery and the sockeye fishery. Again, you make a misguided statement and fail to read and comprehend how those fisheries are managed.

    The late-run king fishery is managed primarily for sport and guided sport use. The late-run sockeye fishery is managed primarily for commercial use to minimize harvest of the late-run kings. Both efforts work together utilizing specific scientific goals and lawful managment strategy.

    tvf, you can continue to be an "undecided voter", however your prior posts here have clearly established your anti-commercial fishing colors. You will never understand that the object is to make all the fisheries work together as viable, successful, opportunistic fisheries. But to do that it takes understanding the fisheries. Anyone who won't or is unable to understand, can take sides. So cast your vote, take your side, and "win", tvfinak.

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    From today's Juneau Empire:

    Researcher: Limit Kenai anglers

    ANCHORAGE - The number of people fishing on the Kenai River must be limited to preserve the vitality of the river, a retired state researcher said Sunday.

    "They need to restrict the people," said Ken Tarbox, who retired after 20 years as research project leader for the state division of commercial fisheries for Upper Cook Inlet.

    The issue of how many people can fish the popular river and still maintain its health and productivity is one of several issues the Alaska Board of Fisheries is discussing at its Anchorage meeting, through Feb. 20.Increases in the number of sport anglers, development along the river and commercial fisheries operations, "combined with real ineffective land use planning down here, put this river at risk," Tarbox said.

    Board member Larry Engel, a former biologist for the state division of sport fishing, said the board accepts something must be done to preserve habitat on the river, but exactly what is undecided.
    It has become an open attack on access.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Does Mr Tarbox propose limiting sportfishing access while supporting full utilization of the resource by commercial fishermen?? I know he is a regular poster on this forum - perhaps he will clarify his position. As a founding member of the Kenai Area Fishermans Coalition I would expect him to stand up for "Joe Fisherman" - as the members of KAFC keep saying they do - rather than decrease access opportunities for us.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    I would imagine it has to do with degrading habitat, and not the amount of fish available. Seems obvious to me? Still maybe he will chime in.

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    170

    Default

    That article appears to be O-L-D, from the Juneau Empire archives.

  17. #17
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    Does Mr Tarbox propose limiting sportfishing access while supporting full utilization of the resource by commercial fishermen??....
    That is the latest game, partially brought to us by Mr. Butler. It's the growing use of "degrading environment" to attack "the others".

    In that way the commercial industry is exempt because they don't destroy the river itself. They're all out to sea busily collecting up 85%+ of the resource.

    .....As a founding member of the Kenai Area Fishermans Coalition I would expect him to stand up for "Joe Fisherman" - as the members of KAFC keep saying they do - rather than decrease access opportunities for us.
    A regular Robin Hood, he is...............

  18. #18
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 375JDJ View Post
    That article appears to be O-L-D, from the Juneau Empire archives.
    Whoops! It does say archives, but the page is dated today with no further links to the original story.

    Now I notice that the board meeting is referenced, which ended Feb 20.........

    So I guess it hasn't just begun.............it began earlier this year.........

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default News Flash

    Take a look a Mark's next posting:

    "ANCHORAGE - The number of people fishing on the Kenai River must be limited to preserve the vitality of the river, a retired state researcher said Sunday.

    "They need to restrict the people," said Ken Tarbox, who retired after 20 years as research project leader for the state division of commercial fisheries for Upper Cook Inlet."

    I am trying to determine who the players are, their special interests, and what interests they are representing. The article Mark referenced, a conversation I had today with my ex-fish bilogist friend, and some conversations with others in the industry revealed a lot to me.

    The pieces are coming together and things are coming into focus.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    tvf, being constructive with you doesn't work. The flow of information I've provided you here continues to go without comprehension. That is not a surprise, as your mind-set is biased, irrational, and unreasonable.

    So exactly what is your question or point here? To define the divisions and lines drawn by user groups regarding our fisheries managment? The controversies within F&G? Why are you asking others?....
    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

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Whoops! It does say archives, but the page is dated today with no further links to the original story.

    Now I notice that the board meeting is referenced, which ended Feb 20.........

    So I guess it hasn't just begun.............it began earlier this year.........
    Uh...........if Larry Engel was on the BOF....it would have had to have been Feb 2002.......or earlier.

Page 1 of 11 123 ... 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
  •