Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Putting a lid on kenai river use

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default Putting a lid on kenai river use

    I went to a meeting to address the questions that will be asked on the quality of experience survey that will be conducted on the Kenai this summer. This survey was commissioned by State Parks. I think we know where this is headed. Parks is trying to gather enough data to justify limiting the crowds. The loss of quality fish habitat due to heavy use is being addressed with the hydro carbon, erosion and turbidity studies. Now we will have a study to try and quantify what the loss in quality of experience has been. Add this all up and what do you get? Right now the United States has 11 rivers that have restricted recreational use laws. If we model ours after theirs I can almost guarantee you that not only a lot of guides will be dismayed. The people who live here will be the biggest losers in regard to opportunity. I asked for and am still waiting for the regulations on those rivers. I will post them as soon as they come in. They will probably offer a glimpse into our not so distant future unless we are smart enough to figure out how to do it ourselves.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    I attended one of the sessions in Soldotna and the questions were very obviously slanted toward a certain outcome.....limited access to a drift boat only river. Be afraid, be very afraid.

  3. #3

    Default putting the river first?

    I must admit I don’t fully appreciate social science and the reason for this study. I do know there is a segment of Kenai River users that feel the commercial guiding interests occupy too much of the river. Attempts to limit their use is predicated on the need to document a social “problem” and a repeat of the river use study is the vehicle.

    I think limits are justified for all users given the documented challenges with maintaining the most basic of needs for the fish, like water quality. If the outcome of these studies result in limits only on the guide population, they will be replaced 1:1 by another user, be it in rental boats or private users. More treating the symptoms than the illness – I don’t believe the resource agencies of the State have the courage to face the facts, until told to do so by federal oversight. So the question is will they tell us how to do it or will special interests work out solutions that allow the state agencies to avoid federal oversight?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default Pretty Close Chaos

    I think you are pretty close to being correct Chaos. I think that this is a situation where both sides (guides and private anglers) need to lay down their arms and come to the table seeking solutions by considering what they can see themselves sacrificing. We are all Joe Fisherman. If the private sportsmen and the guides can't figure it out then Big Brother will shove a solution down our throat. I said it before and I will say it again...... We have met the enemy and he is us.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default What is wrong with this picture

    The guides sue to stop a limit on their number. The court agrees and orders a new study. That study is eventually funded and now people are afraid it may limit them - duh. Of course limitations will come - the river is being pushed biologically and socially. All studies have pointed to that - what is happening is exactly what happens with a common resource. Those who make money push for short term economic gain over long term health of the resource.

    I have suggested that the KRSMA Board start to look at turbidity issues and the answer I get back and wait until the second year of study is done. Now, DEC is saying sampling in July 2009 will not take place since they failed to fund a study at 100 percent of costs. They want non-profit groups like the KWF to fund 40% of the study. Why would KWF do this since they have no ready cash and it is the responsibility of the State of Alaska to maintain clean water?

    It is a sad situation when a river as great as the Kenai has people who use it contributing to its demise. That people focus only on salmon when the environmental issues impact all aquatic life. That there are other users of the river than salmon fisherman. That there are other species that use the river and depend on it for breeding and rearing.

    Who will stand up and insist that DEC sample this year? Will the guides? the other State agecies who manage the river? the average fisherman? Who made the decision in DEC to not go forward and hope that EPA will not put it on impaired river status - Director Kent? I for one will go to EPA with others to force some type of action. For those who do not understand I will repeat it - there are two years of data (the 2007 was presented at the 2008 Board of Fish meeting) and a decision can be made. Some of us were willing to wait and allow DEC to sample more area and start a public process for resolution. I guess they would rather have EPA do it.

  6. #6

    Default

    We are talking about 3 weeks in July

  7. #7
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Put the entire burden on the sport fisherman?

    Nerka,
    Spoken like a true comm fish bio... I do believe that there are some crowding issues on the Kenai R... Are you blaming the demise of the Kenai king fishery on the sport fisherman?

    Is there not rampant unban growth within the lower and middle river riparian zones? Why is DEC, watershed forum, and state parks not concerned w/ this? Why is ADFG turning a blind eye to urban development within the riparian zones?

    While we are on the topic... Is the commercial fisheries bycatch of Kenai kings not significant? Couldn't limits on sockeye escapements to maximizing sockeye production and harvest potentially limit silver and king rearing and production???

    No doubt the turbidity issues needs to be addressed... But let's not loose our perspective on what the limiting factors for producition may be. ADFG has continually and almost annually LOWERED both early and late run BEG's to facilitate both sport and commercial harvests, ensuring these fisheries thrive and are not closed down. While there may be spawner recruitment data to support higher production from lower escapements... It this a wise way to manage the largest sport fisheries for silvers and kings in the state?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The guides sue to stop a limit on their number. The court agrees and orders a new study. That study is eventually funded and now people are afraid it may limit them - duh. Of course limitations will come - the river is being pushed biologically and socially. All studies have pointed to that - what is happening is exactly what happens with a common resource. Those who make money push for short term economic gain over long term health of the resource.

    I have suggested that the KRSMA Board start to look at turbidity issues and the answer I get back and wait until the second year of study is done. Now, DEC is saying sampling in July 2009 will not take place since they failed to fund a study at 100 percent of costs. They want non-profit groups like the KWF to fund 40% of the study. Why would KWF do this since they have no ready cash and it is the responsibility of the State of Alaska to maintain clean water?

    It is a sad situation when a river as great as the Kenai has people who use it contributing to its demise. That people focus only on salmon when the environmental issues impact all aquatic life. That there are other users of the river than salmon fisherman. That there are other species that use the river and depend on it for breeding and rearing.

    Who will stand up and insist that DEC sample this year? Will the guides? the other State agecies who manage the river? the average fisherman? Who made the decision in DEC to not go forward and hope that EPA will not put it on impaired river status - Director Kent? I for one will go to EPA with others to force some type of action. For those who do not understand I will repeat it - there are two years of data (the 2007 was presented at the 2008 Board of Fish meeting) and a decision can be made. Some of us were willing to wait and allow DEC to sample more area and start a public process for resolution. I guess they would rather have EPA do it.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default typical tynmon

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    Nerka,
    Spoken like a true comm fish bio... I do believe that there are some crowding issues on the Kenai R... Are you blaming the demise of the Kenai king fishery on the sport fisherman?

    Is there not rampant unban growth within the lower and middle river riparian zones? Why is DEC, watershed forum, and state parks not concerned w/ this? Why is ADFG turning a blind eye to urban development within the riparian zones?

    While we are on the topic... Is the commercial fisheries bycatch of Kenai kings not significant? Couldn't limits on sockeye escapements to maximizing sockeye production and harvest potentially limit silver and king rearing and production???

    No doubt the turbidity issues needs to be addressed... But let's not loose our perspective on what the limiting factors for producition may be. ADFG has continually and almost annually LOWERED both early and late run BEG's to facilitate both sport and commercial harvests, ensuring these fisheries thrive and are not closed down. While there may be spawner recruitment data to support higher production from lower escapements... It this a wise way to manage the largest sport fisheries for silvers and kings in the state?
    Typical comment from you trying to make my concern for the long term health of the river some allocation issue. Your inability to treat people who care about this river with respect is more of a reflection on you than me.

    Your questions also show a complete lack of understanding of the regulatory framework. ADF&G does not control riparian development even on state lands. DNR controls that, on private lands the cities and KPB control the regulatory process.

    Also, if you had been involved with habitat issues on the river instead of just exploiting it you would know that there is a fish habitat partnership of private, local, state, and federal agencies that is working on a new approach. It has met for months. I have attended every meeting - funny I have not seen you there.

    You also obviously do not know what the watershed forum does. They have educated hundreds of people on the value of riparian area, good land use planning, and what the major threats to fish habitat are - including urbanization and development along the middle river.

    Your comment about escapement goals applies to early run chinook but there is no commercial fishery on that stock so your comment is incorrect.

    On the late run the goal has actually been made higher from the original goals for this stock. Again, you need to do a little history research.

  9. #9
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Those are some good answers...

    Nerka,

    My question where meant as retorical... Not suprising that you have well though out and almost planned responces to them.

    I never stated that u don't care about fisheries resources in Upper Cook Inlet.... As for respect for u and other fishery managers, u and I both know I hold only the highest respect for fisheries managers even if I don't aggree w/ decisions they make.

    You are quite mistaken that I said commercial bycatch affected the early run Kenai Kings.... I am quite aware of the causes of their contunual demise. As for the late run king escapements, the bigger picture is the accuracy by which they are counted... Even if the "official" escapement is being raised... The validity and accuracy of the king sonar leaves much to be desired. Both the early and late runs are in trouble and there is no single smoking gun, but an entire army of reasons for the demise of one of the single greatest king runs in the world.

    I would love to be involved in habitat issues concerning the Kenai R.. Currently I am attempting to further my fisheries education and God help me possibly find a niche w/ a dual career somewhere between a fisheries manager and fishing guide.

    I would never challenge you experience or knowledge of UCI Fisheries... I would however question the lack of respect in for which you reply to any posts. I think it is great that we all have you as a resource here on the forum and am shocked that u are even allowed to post as I don't see many other current fish managers on this board.

    While my hat off to the magnificent job u do, and the knowledge you have u still didn't answer some of the simple retorical questions that I asked u.....

    I am sure these are questions that you rather not have heard on this forum and prefer to point out singular smoking guns and point a finger at all the evil guides....

    If I could be there and be part of the solution I would be, just not in the cards at the moment... I hope to be involved more in KRSMA and many of the other heavy hitters and I will always be for management of our fisheries more of a maximium ecological view, then a maximium harvest view point.

    Too bad that Yukon, Iceblue and many others arn't on this very post because they are sick of the verbal pounding that they recieve when they express their views and idea's.

    While u and grampyfishes may lunp me into a group a just another fishing guide, that would be an ignorant mistake and I have contributed countless volunteer hours to both state and federal agencies.




    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Typical comment from you trying to make my concern for the long term health of the river some allocation issue. Your inability to treat people who care about this river with respect is more of a reflection on you than me.

    Your questions also show a complete lack of understanding of the regulatory framework. ADF&G does not control riparian development even on state lands. DNR controls that, on private lands the cities and KPB control the regulatory process.

    Also, if you had been involved with habitat issues on the river instead of just exploiting it you would know that there is a fish habitat partnership of private, local, state, and federal agencies that is working on a new approach. It has met for months. I have attended every meeting - funny I have not seen you there.

    You also obviously do not know what the watershed forum does. They have educated hundreds of people on the value of riparian area, good land use planning, and what the major threats to fish habitat are - including urbanization and development along the middle river.

    Your comment about escapement goals applies to early run chinook but there is no commercial fishery on that stock so your comment is incorrect.

    On the late run the goal has actually been made higher from the original goals for this stock. Again, you need to do a little history research.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    While u and grampyfishes may lunp me into a group a just another fishing guide that would be an ignorant mistake
    TYNMON, your posts are filled with nothing but personal innuendos...I haven't even posted in this thread, yet here you are telling everyone I'm ignorant. It is no surprise that the first words out of your mouth here were "commercial fishing". As for "respect"...we know from your prior postings that you hold great contempt and disrespect for our fishery managers, and guys like Nerka and myself who sincerely care about what we can do for the River, not what the River can do for us. Your past comments are repleat with that disrespect and I will re-post them if you persist.

    Other than bungling another thread, I fail to see what your point is here. I think Nerka pointed out your misguided lack of understanding pretty well.

    There is no question the Kenai River is suffering from overexploitation problems. It should be no surprise that individuals, groups, and agencies are looking for ways to address that. And it should be no surprise others are looking for ways to resist. Hat's off to those who keep trying to do what's in the best interest of the River and our future generations.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Matanuska Valley
    Posts
    26

    Default

    You guys need to stop butting heads. Others who read these posts arn't interested in your bickering or how well you can debate each other. How about getting back on topic?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crowdcor225 View Post
    You guys need to stop butting heads. Others who read these posts arn't interested in your bickering or how well you can debate each other. How about getting back on topic?
    What are you talking about???? This thread went 10 posts, 8 days, almost a year ago and you bring it up again??? I see you only have 3 posts, obviously you haven't been around long enough to really see the forum members butt heads. We can do and will do much better on other posts.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    What are you talking about???? This thread went 10 posts, 8 days, almost a year ago and you bring it up again??? I see you only have 3 posts, obviously you haven't been around long enough to really see the forum members butt heads. We can do and will do much better on other posts.
    Yukon - maybe crowdcor225 has only 3 posts put has been reading the posts on this forum for some time. I am in the situation, I read the posts almost daily, but because I live far away I have little to contribute. I have observed where no matter what Nerka or Gramps post Tynmon will post something contradictory. I sometimes wonder why they even try to educate him - I believe it is a lost cause!!

    ClearCreek

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Soldotna AK
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The guides sue to stop a limit on their number. The court agrees and orders a new study. That study is eventually funded and now people are afraid it may limit them - duh. Of course limitations will come - the river is being pushed biologically and socially. All studies have pointed to that - what is happening is exactly what happens with a common resource. Those who make money push for short term economic gain over long term health of the resource.

    I have suggested that the KRSMA Board start to look at turbidity issues and the answer I get back and wait until the second year of study is done. Now, DEC is saying sampling in July 2009 will not take place since they failed to fund a study at 100 percent of costs. They want non-profit groups like the KWF to fund 40% of the study. Why would KWF do this since they have no ready cash and it is the responsibility of the State of Alaska to maintain clean water?

    It is a sad situation when a river as great as the Kenai has people who use it contributing to its demise. That people focus only on salmon when the environmental issues impact all aquatic life. That there are other users of the river than salmon fisherman. That there are other species that use the river and depend on it for breeding and rearing.

    Who will stand up and insist that DEC sample this year? Will the guides? the other State agecies who manage the river? the average fisherman? Who made the decision in DEC to not go forward and hope that EPA will not put it on impaired river status - Director Kent? I for one will go to EPA with others to force some type of action. For those who do not understand I will repeat it - there are two years of data (the 2007 was presented at the 2008 Board of Fish meeting) and a decision can be made. Some of us were willing to wait and allow DEC to sample more area and start a public process for resolution. I guess they would rather have EPA do it.
    Very well said Nerka were do Joes send in money $$$.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Kenai Watershed Forum in Soldotna has been performing turbidity study sampling. They sampled during the summer of 2009 so not sure where the comments came from that there was none. If you want to send money to anyone to support sampling send it to them, I've been told that they are doing it again in the summer of 2010.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default More studies

    With all these studies on the impact of sport fishermen on the river - and I am not stating that they are bad or do not need to be done - let's do a really good long term comprehensive study on the loss of nutrients to the whole river eco system.

    So far like all the studies and proposed studies are focused on the sport fishermen and how to ultimately restrict their use of the river. Meanwhile the commercial guys just keep on humming along mainly unquestioned removing the hundreds of tons of fish ech year that used to go up the river and supply nutrients for the whole eco system.

    I've read some studies done in the lower 48 that included the nutrients removed by the wildlife and deposited some distance from the actual river to nourish the plants there but I haven't found any similar long term comprehensive studies on the Kenai eco system.

    My intuition and 40+ years of expereince in science and engineering tell me you can't drastically alter an established eco system like the Kenai fishey without some eventual significant negative long term effects. We maybe seeing some of these negative effects now with the loss of plant habitat along the river's edge - but it much easier and politically correct to blame it on sport fishermen.

    We need to open both eyes wide and look at the whole big picture - not just how the sport fishermen and guides impact the river. I well know it is not PC in Alaska to address any problems the commerical guys might be causing but a long term study needs to be conducted. The results - combined with the ones now proposed - could well alter how the whole river is used.
    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

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClearCreek View Post
    Yukon - maybe crowdcor225 has only 3 posts put has been reading the posts on this forum for some time. I am in the situation, I read the posts almost daily, but because I live far away I have little to contribute. I have observed where no matter what Nerka or Gramps post Tynmon will post something contradictory. I sometimes wonder why they even try to educate him - I believe it is a lost cause!!

    ClearCreek

    TYNMON has not been on this website since 11/29/09. Perhaps he's been "educated" enough and chose not to participate in these forums anymore.....who knows. I suggest starting a new thread if you'd like to discuss a topic instead of pointing out the conflict between current members and a former member.

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
  •