Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: Personal Use Management Plan

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default Personal Use Management Plan

    As this season unwinds I find myself again wondering why the regulatory authorities have not written a personal use management plan that deals with some of the problems of this fishery. It is not a bad fishery per se but one that has few controls and direction. I would like to see before the next Board of Fisheries proposal timeline a group of people come together to define a proposal that deals with the following issues.

    1. Boat use in the PU fishery and safety - At the peak of the fishery the PU had 380 boats out on the water. They were a mix of large and small craft and they tended to have little regard for rules of the road. Combine this fleet with the drift gill net boats and the chance of a serious incident increases. If the drift fleet is going out with an ebb tide they must do over 5 knots just to maintain control. With 380 boats they cannot react fast enough to avoid problems. There have been lots of close calls. In addition, the mix of large and small boats in the PU fishery has created an issue. I watched some big boats get up on step and run up river but they really could not see very well - one almost went over a small raft with a family in it. I would think we could expand the PU area upstream and maybe close the area below the canneries. More separation of boat types is necessary. Also, maybe we need to define fishing corridors and navigation corridors.

    2. Persona use fishery and the dunes - while Kenai is taking action the Kasilof River is not under any control right now. I went down and took some pictures and it is a sad situation. People just park on the dune grass, there are few facilities to handle the volume of people. We need to have some group in charge of this and to put up fencing like Kenai to protect sensitive areas.

    3. Personal use fishing and management. Today I was told by ADF&G that the PU fishery takes up to 40% of the fish entering the river. That was a shock to me - I thought maybe 20 percent. But with the growth in the boat fishery and shore fishery the exploitation rate is very high. So when Kenai is weak some type of management plan is needed on how to share the conservation burden. It may be that this fishery is not restricted but right now the two divisions argue over when to take action. They did it last year and today are meeting to define what to do about Kenai and the various fisheries. A discussion of step down actions may be needed.

    4. PU fishery growth and other issues.-- the fishery is growing at a signficant rate and unless these other issues are fixed it will destroy habitat and continue to be a problem for various regulatory agencies. Some limit on growth may be needed or at least a controlled growth rate. The sport and commercial fisheries have these built into their managment plans. For example, the in-river goals and limited entry control the actions in the commercial fishery. There are limits on the number of sport caught fish and there are bank and in-river closures to reduce habitat damage.

    5. The City of Kenai and the State should act to control impacts beyound the river. During the peak, cars and trailers were parking on the Bridge Access road maybe in violation of state law. Maybe when the boat launch parking is full the city should close the public boat launch.

    There are other issues but I think a calm rationale discussion with some people could put together a good proposal to deal with these. It may reduce tension at the Board meeting on these issues. Allocation of fish is another matter and should not enter the discussion.

    Any takers?

  2. #2

    Default Good ideas

    A friend of mine who is an Alaska resident and commercial drift fisherman, had his commercial boat hit by a dipnetting boat last year. Fortunately the dipnetting boat hit the back corner (where the hull is the strongest) of my friends boat and only put a gouge and large scrape on the hull, but had the dipnetter hit it in the stern, it could have easily put a hole through the commercial vessel. This wasn't just a small rub between two boats, this was a solid hit by an out of control idiot driving a boat, who didn't even have the courtesy to leave a note. The dipnetting boats are an accident waiting to happen- it is a pitiful and dangerous scene. If I had a $75-$200k commercial boat tied up in the river, I couldn't sleep at night knowing some moron could seriously damage my boat. So I support anything and everything that will reduce the number of boats in the river, place more control on the boats allowed in the river, and overall make it a safer activity. This year I also saw a few dipnetting boats traveling at high rates of speed weaving around between the upper river cannery docks and the boats tied up in the river. We are talking about an area that should have zero wake, yet these guys act like it's their own little speedway. Not every dipnetting boat is like this (obviously), but there are more than enough acting this way that make it a danger to all who are on the river.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    For those who want to do this I was thinking of drafting some language for each area - post it and then have people modify the language. If you object to some words then strike them and replace them with something else and put a rationale for the change. That way we can say yes or no.

    This is something new for this forum to make a proposal and work toward a positive solution. So if people want to do this I will try and be the co-ordinator of the proposal. We have until April of 2010 to get it done.

    If you want to PM me with your comments that is fine also. I will start with the first section in the next few days.
    Last edited by Brian M; 07-24-2009 at 18:29. Reason: referenced deleted comment

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Nerka very good idea.

    I want to dipnet in the future, and all your suggestions seem to help me do that. I dip on Kasilof and am bummed out that there are not fees, and outhouses paid for by the fees (mainly on the southshore and not just at the access. ) I also wish for more troopers to keep folks off the dunes, and maybe a sign about WHY to stay off the dunes.(Kind of like the signs at the russian about bank vegetation, and it would be cool to learn more about tidewater/estuarine ecology) I don't think most know how it hurts the grass, and think it's like a lawn. Also rampant ATV use on the dunes with new trails popping up all the time.

    I also like your idea of working on a proposal in the forum. It would be cool, and a good use of my time. I'd be in!

  5. #5
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Some constructive idea's..........

    There is a dire need for another boat launch on the lower Kenai that would help both the Sport and PU fisheries.... If the fishery become more restrictive time wise or duration this will increase congestion further.

    It has been my observation both as a guide and running the river for ADFG that dipnet traffic in general is very hazerdous.... Dipnetter typically run the river differently then sport fisherman and often have absolutely no respect for the sport fishery. The lower Kenai has unspoken navigation lanes to facilitate the congestion from the king fishery, dipnetter do not follows these unspoken travel lanes at all and often do not follow the rules of the road at all.

    I can't see further boat restrictions just to suite the PU fishery, what restrictions on the fishery do you see that will decrease congestion? Lowering limits? Decreasing fishing hours? Maybe, increasing the fishing hours and decreasing the limit would help? I have no clue how boating safty could be further increased other the another ramp to reduce dipnet traffic all the way from Eagle Rock and Pilliars.

    I still believe that there is a commercial fisherman's agenda to reduce both sprot and PU fisheries.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    I'll be happy to help work on a proposal to improve the experience and safety of the fishermen and lessen the environmental impact of the pu fishery. I think this is very important to many of us and we need to take action to ensure the continuation of the pu fishery.

  7. #7

    Default

    Ty- same could be said of the dipnetters and sportfisherman, a good number of them like to see and would like to see further restrictions on the commercial harvesters. So what's your point? Or did you just have to interject that little comment for good measure, what does it have to do with Nerka's proposal?

    I personally think the dipnetting, both on the beaches and in boats is getting out of hand. I don't blame the people for participating in it, but I believe if left the way it is, there will be bad consequences at many levels. It's pretty sad to see what it has become.

  8. #8
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Since I must have studdered while typing I will be more clear.....

    1. Boat use in the PU fishery and safety - At the peak of the fishery the PU had 380 boats out on the water. They were a mix of large and small craft and they tended to have little regard for rules of the road. Combine this fleet with the drift gill net boats and the chance of a serious incident increases. If the drift fleet is going out with an ebb tide they must do over 5 knots just to maintain control. With 380 boats they cannot react fast enough to avoid problems. There have been lots of close calls. In addition, the mix of large and small boats in the PU fishery has created an issue. I watched some big boats get up on step and run up river but they really could not see very well - one almost went over a small raft with a family in it. I would think we could expand the PU area upstream and maybe close the area below the canneries. More separation of boat types is necessary. Also, maybe we need to define fishing corridors and navigation corridors.

    So let me get this straight... you want the dippnetting deadline moved upstream to reduce navigation hazards for the commercial drift net fleet..... Yeah, that's gonna happen... Not.

    2. Persona use fishery and the dunes - while Kenai is taking action the Kasilof River is not under any control right now. I went down and took some pictures and it is a sad situation. People just park on the dune grass, there are few facilities to handle the volume of people. We need to have some group in charge of this and to put up fencing like Kenai to protect sensitive areas.

    So who is going to pay for this?? Seems as though the city is already maxed out.. Isn't the land the state's responsibilty, the city just has teh easement to the beach? So how will dipnetters be taxed for these user management fee's?

    3. Personal use fishing and management. Today I was told by ADF&G that the PU fishery takes up to 40% of the fish entering the river. That was a shock to me - I thought maybe 20 percent. But with the growth in the boat fishery and shore fishery the exploitation rate is very high. So when Kenai is weak some type of management plan is needed on how to share the conservation burden. It may be that this fishery is not restricted but right now the two divisions argue over when to take action. They did it last year and today are meeting to define what to do about Kenai and the various fisheries. A discussion of step down actions may be needed.

    So is the inriver allocation going to be just affect the PU fisherman? Or will EO action to close the sport fishery too? My problem w/ this action is that often, commercial catch is maximized then later down the road, it's like OPPS we are not goin to make minimium escapemnt so better shut down all the fisheries beacuse the run was OVER FORCAST!

    4. PU fishery growth and other issues.-- the fishery is growing at a signficant rate and unless these other issues are fixed it will destroy habitat and continue to be a problem for various regulatory agencies. Some limit on growth may be needed or at least a controlled growth rate. The sport and commercial fisheries have these built into their managment plans. For example, the in-river goals and limited entry control the actions in the commercial fishery. There are limits on the number of sport caught fish and there are bank and in-river closures to reduce habitat damage.

    How is these restrictions going to be allocated? Through reduced fishing times, increased fishing times, smaller bag limits, or under EO authority?

    5. The City of Kenai and the State should act to control impacts beyound the river. During the peak, cars and trailers were parking on the Bridge Access road maybe in violation of state law. Maybe when the boat launch parking is full the city should close the public boat launch.

    Again, as I stated earlier, the Kenai needs another public boat launch on the LOWER river... Many of these problems could be reduced by sharing the burden of boats between more public facilities and reduce traffic from above King sonar to access the P U fishery.

    There are other issues but I think a calm rationale discussion with some people could put together a good proposal to deal with these. It may reduce tension at the Board meeting on these issues. Allocation of fish is another matter and should not enter the discussion.

    Explain to me how allocation reamains out of the picture if you are proposing reduced bag limits, fishing time, and fishing area's??

  9. #9
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    how much is the current PU fees now per area? sorry for my ignorance, but in my years here i have never fished down that way nor care too.....

    but it would make sense to greatly increase the user fees for the accommodations required.. as they are the users of them.

    i also feel that The "SPORT" crowd should pay an access fee for their sport as well...

    it all will boil into.... " but i want mine my way" as it always does with the reds down there... but no one wants to give an inch so all should pay access.... i mean wht the heck.... thousands every year spend thousands to get here to catch a fish to throw it back?????? what another 10 bucks for getting your feet wet fee? it is all for the sport right?

    some one is going to get pissed... no mater which way you make it.... the end result is still the Com guys catch fish for the rest of the US... who buy theirs at market... vs the smaller percentage who subsists or sport....
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  10. #10
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    1. Boat use in the PU fishery and safety - At the peak of the fishery the PU had 380 boats out on the water. They were a mix of large and small craft and they tended to have little regard for rules of the road. Combine this fleet with the drift gill net boats and the chance of a serious incident increases. If the drift fleet is going out with an ebb tide they must do over 5 knots just to maintain control. With 380 boats they cannot react fast enough to avoid problems. There have been lots of close calls. In addition, the mix of large and small boats in the PU fishery has created an issue. I watched some big boats get up on step and run up river but they really could not see very well - one almost went over a small raft with a family in it. I would think we could expand the PU area upstream and maybe close the area below the canneries. More separation of boat types is necessary. Also, maybe we need to define fishing corridors and navigation corridors.

    So let me get this straight... you want the dippnetting deadline moved upstream to reduce navigation hazards for the commercial drift net fleet..... Yeah, that's gonna happen... Not.

    2. Persona use fishery and the dunes - while Kenai is taking action the Kasilof River is not under any control right now. I went down and took some pictures and it is a sad situation. People just park on the dune grass, there are few facilities to handle the volume of people. We need to have some group in charge of this and to put up fencing like Kenai to protect sensitive areas.

    So who is going to pay for this?? Seems as though the city is already maxed out.. Isn't the land the state's responsibilty, the city just has teh easement to the beach? So how will dipnetters be taxed for these user management fee's?

    3. Personal use fishing and management. Today I was told by ADF&G that the PU fishery takes up to 40% of the fish entering the river. That was a shock to me - I thought maybe 20 percent. But with the growth in the boat fishery and shore fishery the exploitation rate is very high. So when Kenai is weak some type of management plan is needed on how to share the conservation burden. It may be that this fishery is not restricted but right now the two divisions argue over when to take action. They did it last year and today are meeting to define what to do about Kenai and the various fisheries. A discussion of step down actions may be needed.

    So is the inriver allocation going to be just affect the PU fisherman? Or will EO action to close the sport fishery too? My problem w/ this action is that often, commercial catch is maximized then later down the road, it's like OPPS we are not goin to make minimium escapemnt so better shut down all the fisheries beacuse the run was OVER FORCAST!

    4. PU fishery growth and other issues.-- the fishery is growing at a signficant rate and unless these other issues are fixed it will destroy habitat and continue to be a problem for various regulatory agencies. Some limit on growth may be needed or at least a controlled growth rate. The sport and commercial fisheries have these built into their managment plans. For example, the in-river goals and limited entry control the actions in the commercial fishery. There are limits on the number of sport caught fish and there are bank and in-river closures to reduce habitat damage.

    How is these restrictions going to be allocated? Through reduced fishing times, increased fishing times, smaller bag limits, or under EO authority?

    5. The City of Kenai and the State should act to control impacts beyound the river. During the peak, cars and trailers were parking on the Bridge Access road maybe in violation of state law. Maybe when the boat launch parking is full the city should close the public boat launch.

    Again, as I stated earlier, the Kenai needs another public boat launch on the LOWER river... Many of these problems could be reduced by sharing the burden of boats between more public facilities and reduce traffic from above King sonar to access the P U fishery.

    There are other issues but I think a calm rationale discussion with some people could put together a good proposal to deal with these. It may reduce tension at the Board meeting on these issues. Allocation of fish is another matter and should not enter the discussion.

    Explain to me how allocation reamains out of the picture if you are proposing reduced bag limits, fishing time, and fishing area's??
    told ya so....
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  11. #11
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    The lower Kenai has unspoken navigation lanes to facilitate the congestion from the king fishery, dipnetter do not follows these unspoken travel lanes at all and often do not follow the rules of the road at all.
    Maybe the travel lines need to be spelled out on the back of the PU permits. The majority of the folks dipnetting from their boats probably never run their boats in the Kenai at other times. How are they supposed to know about these "unspoken" lanes? That might be a good addition to the management plan.

  12. #12
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    how much is the current PU fees now per area? sorry for my ignorance, but in my years here i have never fished down that way nor care too.....
    It's $15 to park at the beach. It doesn't cost anything if you have someone drop you off and pick you up - at least not on the north beach.

    I'd support a $10-$20 permit fee to help the state defray costs from management. This shouldn't all fall to the city of Kenai - the state should play a role as well.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Kasilof South Beach is free as far as I know. There are portable toilets at the access but that's it. I'd pay any decent fee, but normal state park camping fees makes sense.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    3. Personal use fishing and management. Today I was told by ADF&G that the PU fishery takes up to 40% of the fish entering the river. That was a shock to me - I thought maybe 20 percent. But with the growth in the boat fishery and shore fishery the exploitation rate is very high.
    I don't know where CF staff came up with this figure but as you can see from Table 18 (page 72) in the attached report, the exploitation rate for the combined PU, Education, and sport harvest below the sonar is much lower than 40%.

    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fmr07-66.pdf

    2000 - 20%
    2001 - 24%
    2002 - 19%
    2003 - 20%
    2004 - 19%
    2005 - 21%
    2006 - 10%

    Updated info:
    2007 - 30%
    2008 - 32%

    Obviously just the pu harvest alone will be a lower exploitation rate of the inriver return than the numbers listed above. Maybe I'm missing something here but that is the information I have.

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

    Default Thanks Ak

    Quote Originally Posted by aktally View Post
    I don't know where CF staff came up with this figure but as you can see from Table 18 (page 72) in the attached report, the exploitation rate for the combined PU, Education, and sport harvest below the sonar is much lower than 40%.

    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fmr07-66.pdf

    2000 - 20%
    2001 - 24%
    2002 - 19%
    2003 - 20%
    2004 - 19%
    2005 - 21%
    2006 - 10%

    Updated info:
    2007 - 30%
    2008 - 32%

    Obviously just the pu harvest alone will be a lower exploitation rate of the inriver return than the numbers listed above. Maybe I'm missing something here but that is the information I have.
    I did not have time to question them today but these figures make more sense to me.

    Back to the proposal. I see a management plan that the Board of Fish can deal with and then a list of recommendations to State and local governments on issues they can deal with.

    Relative to allocation. If we write something that does not put a limit but a range or blank space then the Board of Fish can deal with allocaiton. I am more concerned about safety and habitat at this point. I will take the suggestions here and start the process and we will see where it goes.

  16. #16

    Default

    Dipped the Kasilof for 10+ years. I don't want to lose the fishery.

    I saw way more damage to the dunes this year than I've ever seen before. Folks parking, camping, 4 wheeling all over them. I don't think most people know they're supposed to stay off them. More signs and education and maybe some fences would help.

    Lack of facilities has always been an issue but it's a beach! Not a roadside pullout. When we beach camp we bring our own facilities.

    I'd be willing to pay $10 for a PU stamp (like a king stamp) if it would improve the fishery and prevent it's loss, but I'm doubtful the $ would find it's way to the right place.

    I see this fishery as the best way for alaskans to "meat fish". It's a very family friendly camping & fishing trip for us.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default back on track

    Of the issues I raised in my initial post are there any others that relate just to the PU fishery? I want to make sure we have all the issues on the table. So please concentrate on issues at this time - not solutions. We will get to solutions latter.

    I know this is using the forum in a different way but it may work. So lets keep on track - define issues right now if the list I proposed is not complete.

    Thanks.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    AKTally,
    Does F&G keep track of the number of Kings caught in the PU fishery?

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sterling, AK
    Posts
    62

    Default Waste

    Management of fish waste should be part of a plan. Processors must have discharge permits that require grinding to minimum size and other criteria. The volume of waste generated in the PU fishery (and other hotspots) leaves the regulators and those being regulated scratching their heads.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    AKTally,
    Does F&G keep track of the number of Kings caught in the PU fishery?
    Yes. Table 26, page 80 in the report mentioned above.

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
  •