Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Drift gillnetting opens again tomorrow?!? Wha...?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    230

    Default Drift gillnetting opens again tomorrow?!? Wha...?

    What am I misunderstanding here? As of yesterday the escapement numbers on the Kenai were a full 150,000 below the minimum in-river goal. So, ADF&G this afternoon announced that drift gillnetting opens tomorrow at 7 a.m. Here is the link to the news release.

    So, if the escapement goal isn't met, what will be the excuse? They can't wait, say, five days to see what the sonar counts are showing? We're talking the minimum escapement goal. ADF&G says it's "projected to be achieved".

    Really? We all know that their projections are generally spot on, but still.... color me bewildered.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default try to help out here

    Quote Originally Posted by Bibico View Post
    What am I misunderstanding here? As of yesterday the escapement numbers on the Kenai were a full 150,000 below the minimum in-river goal. So, ADF&G this afternoon announced that drift gillnetting opens tomorrow at 7 a.m. Here is the link to the news release.

    So, if the escapement goal isn't met, what will be the excuse? They can't wait, say, five days to see what the sonar counts are showing? We're talking the minimum escapement goal. ADF&G says it's "projected to be achieved".

    Really? We all know that their projections are generally spot on, but still.... color me bewildered.
    The sonar counts will cross 600,000 tonight and a projected 20-50k in river below the counting site. That means the in-river goal is assured - the goal is 650,000 to 850,000. The goal is based on a range that will produce maximum sustained yields- that goal is 500,000 to 800,000 spawners. So if ADF&G puts the escapement in that range they did their job.

    Relative to your question about low vs high end in reality the range reflects the inability to separate the two relative to production. So escapements of 500,000 have produced record or near record returns. Also the Board of Fish instructed the Department to make escapements through out the range. So having a low one is meeting this objective.

    Hope this answers your question.

  3. #3
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    They've been doing this for decades and management is based on data, not how some folks feel about the commercial fisheries. You conveniently skipped the parts where everywhere except the Kenai has already exceeded escapement. They survey fish counts down in the inlet so they don't have to wait for them to actually get into the river and pass the sonar for the biologists to know that escapement will be met for the Kenai as well. Relax.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Not sure where you come up with the 650,000 figure. I take the 750,000 figure from the escapement totals page on ADF&G's web site. As far as I know, that number hasn't changed since I've been checking it from early in the season.

    I didn't "conveniently" overlook any other escapement numbers. They're irrelevant to what the fishery managers are doing to help ensure the escapement goals for the Kenai are met. The Kenai spawning production is, I believe, vastly more economically important than the Kasilof red production, and I think that erring on the side of adequate escapement would not be imprudent.

    I have no bias one way or another in terms of commercial guys. Some people think if anyone's in favor of seeing sufficient fish get upriver they must be anti-commercial. I'm happy if the commercial guys have a good season, but I know that 3 or 4 years from now when the fish return I'd like to know that a decent number escaped this year to spawn them. Seems reasonable to me to let the sonar counts over the next 3-5 days determine when and whether the commercial guys should go back to work. That's not asking much, I believe.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Seems like the commercial guys would agree that the escapement goal should be met before they fish.....at least Steve Vaneck's proposal before the board of fish would indicate that.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default news release

    Quote Originally Posted by Bibico View Post
    Not sure where you come up with the 650,000 figure. I take the 750,000 figure from the escapement totals page on ADF&G's web site. As far as I know, that number hasn't changed since I've been checking it from early in the season.

    I didn't "conveniently" overlook any other escapement numbers. They're irrelevant to what the fishery managers are doing to help ensure the escapement goals for the Kenai are met. The Kenai spawning production is, I believe, vastly more economically important than the Kasilof red production, and I think that erring on the side of adequate escapement would not be imprudent.

    I have no bias one way or another in terms of commercial guys. Some people think if anyone's in favor of seeing sufficient fish get upriver they must be anti-commercial. I'm happy if the commercial guys have a good season, but I know that 3 or 4 years from now when the fish return I'd like to know that a decent number escaped this year to spawn them. Seems reasonable to me to let the sonar counts over the next 3-5 days determine when and whether the commercial guys should go back to work. That's not asking much, I believe.
    The Department made a projection of Kenai run strength around the 20th of July and reduced it to below 2 milion. That changed the goal from 750,000 to 950,000 to the 650,000 to 850,000 I referenced. You can get the news release on the commercial fisheries web site for UCI.

    The sonar counter is driving the decision as I posted. They have met the goal and there are surplus fish to harvest. If you look at escapements and returns the highest yields come from escapements near 500,000 so you should not worry about the escapements this year. They are well in the range for producing good returns.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default not a chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    Seems like the commercial guys would agree that the escapement goal should be met before they fish.....at least Steve Vaneck's proposal before the board of fish would indicate that.
    Gusdog44 - you know Steve Vaneck does not speak for the commercial fishing industry - also his proposal I believe is intended to start the PU fishery when escapement is met or exceeded. That was the original criteria for the fishery when it was formed. He is just asking for that to happen in the future. He will not get it and we all know it. So lets not try to paint the commercial fishery organizations or positions based on Steve's individual proposal.

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

    Default Sport fishermen catch

    Nerka-

    I may have seen this information the past but could not locate it.

    Out of the 650,000 to 850,000 projected escapement how many fish are projected to be harvested by sport fishermen? How would that number change for an escapement of 750,000 to 950,000?

    Thanks!



    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The Department made a projection of Kenai run strength around the 20th of July and reduced it to below 2 milion. That changed the goal from 750,000 to 950,000 to the 650,000 to 850,000 I referenced. You can get the news release on the commercial fisheries web site for UCI.

    The sonar counter is driving the decision as I posted. They have met the goal and there are surplus fish to harvest. If you look at escapements and returns the highest yields come from escapements near 500,000 so you should not worry about the escapements this year. They are well in the range for producing good returns.
    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
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Kenai River second run Kings are on pace for such a low return (perhaps the worst on record) that if the water conditions or inriver harvest levels would of been anywhere close to normal for the month of July I believe that a restriction or closure would of been a given in the sport fishery this season. Is this the Comm Fish fault? No, I do not believe so but why not allow the kings that are coming into the Kenai in the next few weeks a free pass instead of being caught within sight of the mouth of the Kenai River by the setnet or drift fleet? Just to catch a few extra sockeye that are getting more and more water marked with each passing day? Or is it really the coho that are being sought now?

    Does anyone know what the state of the second run Kasilof Kings are at this time? The Kasilof River used to see a second run king salmon return that mirrored the Kenai in regards to run strength but you would never know that by the returns these days. These kings have been thrown under the bus in the name of keeping the Kasilof River sockeye escapement to a man made number which is set to low at this time. Not good. Not good at all.

    The Kenai River is going to be near or at the bottom end of the minimum sockeye escapement numbers this year but still Comm Fish has decided to allow the fleet to go back out after Kenai River sockeye numbers are approaching the 600,000 mark. Yes, maybe there are a few extra sockeye available for harvest in this area but why wouldn't Comm Fish want to insure the health of all Cook Inlet stocks (coho, chums, Upper Cook Inlet sockeye, and kings) and not just focus in on the Kenai/Kasilof sockeye? Just another classic example of single stock management at its finest.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    My comment concerning Mr Vaneck's proposal was supposed to be a joke...I know that he doesn't speak for most of the commercial fishermen just as Bob Penney doesn't speak for most of the sport fishermen.

    I do agree with Ice blue ....with the low king return and marginal red return why hammer the run now? Let the fish that are left in the inlet get up the river to spawn.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default another possibility

    Another management possibility would have been instead to leave or re-open the personal use fishery for another few days - esp. in light of the fact that the conditions were so miserable this year. The "keep one king' allowance could have been dropped to protect those stocks.


    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    My comment concerning Mr Vaneck's proposal was supposed to be a joke...I know that he doesn't speak for most of the commercial fishermen just as Bob Penney doesn't speak for most of the sport fishermen.

    I do agree with Ice blue ....with the low king return and marginal red return why hammer the run now? Let the fish that are left in the inlet get up the river to spawn.
    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

  12. #12
    Member MaximumPenetration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    374

    Default

    Two normal openers in a row closed down on EO only to have an EO opener right after when the numbers of fish aren't there. Management FAIL.

  13. #13
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default New thread on fish creek is posted But...

    Since the Commercial fleet is or was closed down, Fish Creek has finally been open again for dipnetting. Go fiquere? So by closing the COMfleet masses, out of concern for the Kenai,they have allowed a Northern Stream to reach it's escapement. Would you consider that single river management? I'm not quite sure but I'm happy that it has happened. Maybe it is just a by-product but a good one at that. Me thinks!!!

  14. #14

    Default

    Red return to the Kenai is not marginal, it's right within the goals; if it were marginal and some of you (Iceblue,Gunsdog) were really so concerned about getting enough up the river, why didn't you suggest closing down all fishing, including sport and dipping a week ago? I mean if the runs are so marginal and all, closing down everything would be the best for the fish, right? Where were you guys at a week ago defending the fish? Suggesting the commercial guys hang it up for the year is ridiculous and shows where you guys are coming from; even when the escapement goals are being met, you guys still want the commercial fleet to stay away from the fish. The commercial fisherman have as much a right to the fish as the rest, plus their financial investment is 10-50 times more than a dipper or sport fisherman.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumPenetration
    Two normal openers in a row closed down on EO only to have an EO opener right after when the numbers of fish aren't there. Management FAIL.
    Welcome to the Management Forum. You might want to educate yourself a little more before making those claims....run timing, run abundance, in-season indicators, etc. Anytime we meet escapement goals, management has succeeded. Yes, some user groups pay the price, and management decisions aren't always perfect or fair. But getting the escapement is the main thing.

  16. #16
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumPenetration View Post
    Two normal openers in a row closed down on EO only to have an EO opener right after when the numbers of fish aren't there. Management FAIL.

    The numbers to legally justify their actions are most definitely there.

    The bigger moral question is why must they insist on harvesting down to the very LAST fish? Especially when recent past history is a loud and clear reminder of the perils of doing so. Can you say, "missed the goal by 35K in 2008" ???

    The upper end of goal is another 200K away. There is ZERO danger of exceeding the Kenai goal by keeping the fleet reigned in. ZERO!


    They can just as easily keep the comm fleet sitting on the beach and still legally satisfy the management plan.

    Maybe give the Northern District stocks a chance to replenish?

    Maybe cut back on coho exploitation on what looks to be a SERIOUSLY down year for silvers?

    Maybe let a few more late run Kenai kings swim by unmolested since it is now tied for the ALL-TIME WORST run on record?

    Again, this is a simple risk benefit analysis for the aggregate good of ALL UCI stocks. It should not be a myopic, one-species driven strategy.

    I'd love to to see the one-sided "sockeye-centric" mindset someday take its last breath within ADFG... hopefully someday before I take mine.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thewhop2000
    Since the Commercial fleet is or was closed down, Fish Creek has finally been open again for dipnetting. Go fiquere? So by closing the COMfleet masses, out of concern for the Kenai,they have allowed a Northern Stream to reach it's escapement.
    Do you have any evidence to support that?...Or is this yet another emotional assumption that management couldn't possibly use to manage the fishery. It's my understanding that would've happened anyway.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powderpro
    Red return to the Kenai is not marginal, it's right within the goals; if it were marginal and some of you (Iceblue,Gunsdog) were really so concerned about getting enough up the river, why didn't you suggest closing down all fishing, including sport and dipping a week ago? I mean if the runs are so marginal and all, closing down everything would be the best for the fish, right? Where were you guys at a week ago defending the fish? Suggesting the commercial guys hang it up for the year is ridiculous and shows where you guys are coming from; even when the escapement goals are being met, you guys still want the commercial fleet to stay away from the fish. The commercial fisherman have as much a right to the fish as the rest, plus their financial investment is 10-50 times more than a dipper or sport fisherman.
    Good point....especially since just 15 miles away the Kasilof had double liberalized limits, expanded dip net areas, and an over-escapement surplus. A shift in the PU and sportfishery for a short period would've made sense to me, plus it would've complied with requirements for all user groups to share the burden and reasonable opportunity. Of course hind-sight is 20/20.

  19. #19

    Default

    "There is ZERO danger of exceeding the Kenai goal by keeping the fleet reigned in".

    I've heard that before...

    So missing a goal by 35k places us in moral peril, but recently exceeding it by 500,000 is moral righteousness?

  20. #20
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Thumbs up Gramps, I don't know, I'm asking?

    I don't know how long it takes for a fish to go from the Central district to the Northern district. But the fish are telling us one thing and our studies tell us something else. All the things I have read say that inteception is not a problem, yet the fish: are they telling us something indeed?
    I just find it strange that the two ideas don't seem to mesh. This is my opinion, Gramps. Nothing more and nothing less. I was hoping someone else was going to post and give their opinion also. What do you think?
    All I know is I did not blow up any beaver dams this summer and building out here has not stopped near fish creek. Could our studies be wrong?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •