Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Want More Cook Inlet Kings?

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

    Thumbs up Want More Cook Inlet Kings?

    It is great to see someone seeing beyond themselves. I almost can't believe they are doing this. They became willing to use an alternative method of harvest even though it probably cost them quite a bit in forgone harvest. Click on this link: http://www.lummiislandwild.com/sustainability.cfm
    then click to view the short video.
    Last edited by Daveinthebush; 02-24-2009 at 20:45. Reason: Spelling

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default reefnet pics

    See the attached picture. There are many more pics in the website link in my first post in this thread. Here's that link again: http://www.lummiislandwild.com/sustainability.cfm
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails close-up-reefnets520x328.JPG  

  3. #3
    Sponsor potbuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    4,229

    Default

    Fish traps??? what a great idea!! they work so good they outlawed them in Alaska I can imagine the mayhem when a bunch of sport boats go running over those guys reef nets !!!

    Alaska Shrimp Pots

    Rigid & Folding Shrimp & Crab Pots
    Electra Dyne Pot Haulers
    Ropes, Buoys, Bait
    alaskashrimppots.com
    akshrimppots@mtaonline.net
    907 775 1692

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default Not so fast, potbuilder

    I could be wrong, but the REEF NETS the Lummis are using look like moveable, non-permanent structures, unlike the permanent, piling constructed fish traps of the early 1900s that were outlawed.

    Reef Nets could be place in the terminal areas (think Kasilof, Kenai, Nushagak, etc.) that sportsfisherman can't fish; there would be no hassles like you referred to above in these areas. . . Of course, if these are easily moveable and deployable, they could easily be used in areas besides the terminal areas. In the photo, the reef net system looks hard to miss. I don't think anybody who can see would have trouble avoiding them.

    Advantages: selectivity of harvest, they are always fishing even when 'harvesting'; product is not damaged from the gill nets, no wasted or damage bycatch, I bet there's more but work is calling and I have run)
    Last edited by Charholio; 02-24-2009 at 17:51. Reason: addition

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default practicality

    Not sure how practical they would be here. The waters of Puget Sound are clear and that is a must for a reef net so they know when to trip it. Those guys standing on the towers are used to spot the fish swimming into the net. In silty or dirty water, they wouldn't work. Wouldn't work in the surf either.

    Also, that was a self promotion. I truly doubt their survival rate is as good as posted. You see all those fish splashing in the webbing? They are all losing a lot of scales. I'd be curious to know how long they tracked them and how after releasing them.

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default twodux and a reef net

    Twodux, you bring up a few good questions. If they WOULD work well in the Kenai/Kasilof/ netting areas, and if survivial is even HALF of what a gillnet's is, wouldn't it be worth it? Surely, the encounter with a reef net is much less damaging than an encounter with a gill net.

    Although the Lummis are in a clear water area I question whether it's absolutely necessary for clear water. How about using sonar and/or infrared to help tell?

    Maybe we should ask them about all of this instead of speculating. I'll do it, if time permits. Maybe they could come up here to show us how to do it as part of the educational fishery or whatever it's called. . . or maybe as just an ADF&G project.
    Last edited by Charholio; 02-25-2009 at 15:56. Reason: error

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default why go here?

    First, this is not a viable solution for a number of social and logistical reasons but I will not go into that - the question I have is why go there - for 20 percent more chinook to get into the Kenai - this is just another idea to displace and disrupt a group of families who make a living via commercial fishing for the self interest of another user group. We have more important things to face relative to resource protection than this discussion.

  8. #8

    Default Question...

    Wouldn't selective harvest of stocks be better for northern district fish that are "Of Concern", and stop the indescriminate harvest that happens with gill nets?

    It just makes sense to me that if we could selectively harvest JUST Kenai sockeye and guarentee that no northern district sockeye (Yentna, etc...) were being taken...what's the downside?

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    This is a great idea, and should be explored further, not just discarded. For instance, in Northern District pink salmon fisheries, where coho are the "accidental" bycatch. If fishermen truly want to fish for the pinks, they would be able to do it without fear of overharvesting non target species such as coho. I don't see it working for separating different place of origin sockeye stocks, as the technology to differentiate them instantly isn't here yet, but different species would certainly be easy to separate out. My concern with coho would be scale loss and survivability in the long term. Northern district has many issues right now; with a burgeoning population, and demands on in-river numbers growing with it, there has been a large downturn in chum salmon returns. Chinooks are barely at or below threshold escapement levels in over half the monitored streams, pinks were nearly absent in 2008, and coho numbers still have not returned to a number that will allow a three fish bag limit- a limit that was taken away from sport fishermen under the coho conservation plan. If coho numbers are healthy, they would be able to sustain historical harvest levels.

    From a commercial perspective, if the overhead to fish in this manner is less, and you're able to deliver a higher quality product to market, I don't know why it would be opposed carte blanche. Give it a chance- run some numbers, study its viability, and see if it will work! Its not the number of fish being caught thats causing financial problems for fishermen- its the ballooning overhead- fuel especially, and stagnant values of the fish.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default tell me

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Charlie View Post
    Wouldn't selective harvest of stocks be better for northern district fish that are "Of Concern", and stop the indescriminate harvest that happens with gill nets?

    It just makes sense to me that if we could selectively harvest JUST Kenai sockeye and guarentee that no northern district sockeye (Yentna, etc...) were being taken...what's the downside?

    So tell me Charlie, how you gonna tell the difference between a Mat-Su sockeye and a Kenai sockeye in your reef net? Or a Mat-Su silver and a Peninsula silver?

  11. #11

    Default Well...

    The only way I see that you could do that would be to have the reef nets set up in the terminal areas, therby targeting a specific stock. This may or may not be possible. I don't claim to be an expert.

    I posted the question because based on what I have read so far it would seem the idea deserves some merit, and should be looked at as something that is a possibility, and not dismissed right out of the gate.


    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    So tell me Charlie, how you gonna tell the difference between a Mat-Su sockeye and a Kenai sockeye in your reef net? Or a Mat-Su silver and a Peninsula silver?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default Thanks for the Info

    Good for you for at least being open minded enough to look for a better way to harvest fish. Those that think the current method is "all that" are usually somehow invested in the current system. I know I resent suggestions for changing the way we sport fish for them, but when better ideas come along we should all keep an open mind and at least look at them before dismissing them as impossible. I don't put a lot of merit in preserving something that is out dated. Change will always have a negative affect on some. Sometimes it will be on families. If some have their way many families will be affected by changes in guiding policies. And you don't have to be an expert to have ideas worthy of discussion.

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
  •