Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Group out to eliminate chinook from Kenai PU fishery

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default Group out to eliminate chinook from Kenai PU fishery

    The word on the street is that the guides and Kenai River Sport Fishing Association is starting to lobby sport fish individuals, groups, and BOF members to eliminate the retention of chinook salmon in the Kenai River personal use fishery.

    I understand this from some members of KAFC approaching the Board of Directors on this subject as well as a few guides and it was brought up by ADF&G staff to me. The groups want support for this position while ADF&G must remain neutral but privately some sport fish staff think this is a good idea. KAFC has not taken any position on this but as a director of this organization I have some misgivings about going in this direction. I will share them with you and get some feedback.

    1. Chinook salmon appear healthy and there has been surplus fish in the past and should be in the future. So why restrict a valid user group when there is no pressing conservation issue?

    2. Alaska residents participate in the personal use fishery so why would one take fish from Alaskans to give to non-residents in the guided sport fishery? I would think that if a reallocation takes place because of shortage it should be from non-residents to residents, regardless of method of harvest.

    3. I know a number of local residents who have been pushed out of the upriver sport fishery who love to catch a chinook in the PU fishery - it is a treat to them. Forcing them to just sockeye appears to be unfair to these individuals who left one fishery to avoid the upriver conflict.

    4. I understand the guides and KRSA position as they are sport fish groups. However, KAFC likes to think they represent diverse fishing opportunity and that restrictions, if needed, should be fairly balanced between groups. Taking a whole stock of fish away from the PU fishery does not appear to be fair. An allocation may be fine but that should be defined in regulation and for all species.

    These are some of the reasons I am not fully supporting this move. When I talked to individuals about this they say you are a sport fishing group and how can you not push for exclusive use by the sport fishery? I try to respond that I am also an Alaskan resident and fully appreciate that sometimes a sport fishing agenda need to be modified for a greater good to society.

    So lets hear your comments from the user group most impacted by this proposed regulation change. I am sure we will see a proposal at the BOF meeting in 2011 for this and maybe sooner as a petition to the BOF.

  2. #2
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    My concern is the ability to release a chinook that is entangled in loose gillnet mesh without causing mortal harm to that fish. I know that currently all chinook after the first one must be released, but very few dipnetters catch more than one anyhow. I have never caught more than one, and the few that I have caught over the years have been very, very difficult to remove from my net. I am certain that they would have suffered serious injuries in the process if I had to remove them from my net alive. If forced to release these fish, I'd wager that a good percentage of them would die soon thereafter and drift downstream without being used by anyone and without being able to spawn. If I'm correct in my assumptions, what is the benefit of this proposal?

  3. #3
    Member big_dog60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    between wasilla and palmer
    Posts
    1,061

    Default

    If the population is healthy, I see no reason to restrict the dip net fishery.

  4. #4
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default This is the first that I have heard about this..

    Number of thoughts. If there is a problem with meeting an escapement goal, the BOF can address this at the time. Look at what happened in Chitina this year. No king retention was allowed by personal users.
    I have dipneted for over twenty years and have only landed two, maybe, by net. Don't know if I'm just an idiot by how I dipnet or if the King take is miniscule. I am in contact with many other fishing groups and this is the first I have heard about this. Possibly the rumor mill?
    As of now, there is no biological reason to even consider this. If this is true, it is just excluding the average Alaskan for getting one king, per year, from dipnetting as the means to collect that one fish.
    I totally agree with Nerka and would also like to publically thank him for supporting personal use, in this thread. Ken SCADA

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Ken - Do you dip from shore or from a boat? I'm still relatively new to the dipnet scene, but in the past five years I have dipped from the shore three times and from a boat twice. Both times I dipped from a boat I caught a king and saw a handful of other anglers get one as well (including another friend in my boat one time). I have never caught one from shore, however, and have only seen two or three landed among the hundreds of shore-based dippers. It seems like boat-based dippers get more kings, but maybe my perception is off.

  6. #6
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Brian M. been dipnetting from a boat for 6 years.

    15 years from shore, NADA. Only two from a boat in the last 6 years. So now i give you a funny story. Two years ago, I am dipnetting on a buddy's boat with a guy that has never dipnetted before. We are talking and enjoying ourselves since it is a little slow by netting fish. I explain to the newby that I have been dipping for twenty years and never caught a king. I tell the kid," Kings are few and far between. Eventually your time will come." Two minutes later, the Kid nets a 50 pounder King and it took all of my patience to not throw him over the boat with that King. He was all smiles and I didn't blame him. It actually turned out even better cause I caught my first king, ten minutes later. So, by boat, it does help your chances. Chitina is a differant story. Never caught a king there by net, ever. That is why it is called fishing!!! Ken

  7. #7
    Member power drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Down wind of 2 Glaciers
    Posts
    1,088

    Default whats next

    If this is the case than maybe we will have to take the rights to boating away to. It's one thing after another for the everyday guy. I guess they won't stop till we have to hire a guide or buy it in the store.
    As for catching kings in the dip net, I have gotten a few over the years but mostly smaller jacks. I wonder with the influx of so many new people doing this now how many of them can even tell one salmon from another when they are smaller.I have over the years seen some nice ones caught but really for the amount of people still very few. I think the trick from shore is to fish short, closer to shore. Everyone has this idea to get out farther than anyone else.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    This is the first that I have heard of this as well and I believe that I would of "heard the rumor on the street" if in fact there was an organized attempt at this. Right now I would suspect that everything is on the table and open for discussion by all user groups in regards to the upcoming BOF for Upper Cook Inlet.

    I am surprised to see this information put on this forum in this manner placing blame on KRSA and the guides without any effort to verify the validity of the claim under the guise of being "friends" to the dipnetters of the world. The past track record indicates that the Director of KAFC, UCIDA, and the Eastside Setnetters association have all tried to reduce or eliminate the amount of fish or open areas that can be utilized by dipnetting in the Kasilof/Kenai area. In fact KRSA and the "guides" have always supported SCADA and have worked with them to try and protect the dipnet fishery as it is known today.

    I would also suggest that everyone interested in dipnetting look at the last two or three Upper Cook Inlet Board of Fish proposal books and see what proposals were put in and who submitted them.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    I agree, this is the first I have heard of anything like this. I think Nerka would have enough respect to verify before putting information like this out in a public forum. If I put something out about a position I heard KAFC I would get jumped for not calling them to find out. I would think they would do the same, as putting blame and rumors out do nothing to bring groups together, only seperate them. I would expect more.

    Thanks, Yukon

  10. #10
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default A few facts

    Here is a link to how many kings were caught for the past 12 years, in UCI. Doing a ten year average, it comes out to @910 kings a year are caught in dipnets.
    Not a totally large amount when you consider 23,000 permits were issued in 2008, for UCI. Sounds like a few people are just wanting to try to cut back on personal use and the Rumor mill is acting as expected. Proposals are being worked and put together for the next UCI BOF meeting. That is a fact that no one can deny but... Maybe we should just wait and see on what comes down the pike? I'm at the point that I will deal with this as it progresses. I can only be so proactive, a little at a time.
    As for the KRSA, we both want the same thing: Access, continuity of the resource and habitat protection. If KRSA was pushing this, I would have been the first to know. KRSA has always supported SCADA and though we disagree, at times, access and education is always the priorty and that is what we do agree on. So... in my humble opinion, KRSA has not pushed this agenda. Just myo.


    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/regio...st.cfm#Permits

  11. #11
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The word on the street is that the guides and Kenai River Sport Fishing Association is starting to lobby sport fish individuals, groups, and BOF members to eliminate the retention of chinook salmon in the Kenai River personal use fishery.
    I was contacted by someone from KRSA and he told me that this is not something that is being proposed by their organization. Apparently the word on the street is incorrect, or so I am told by a KRSA rep.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    So lets hear your comments from the user group most impacted by this proposed regulation change. I am sure we will see a proposal at the BOF meeting in 2011 for this and maybe sooner as a petition to the BOF.
    First, where is "this proposed regulation change", I thought it was just a rumor?

    To answer your question, I would be more concerned with seeing the repeat of proposals from different individuals and organizations. As in only being able to retain your daily sportfish limit in the PU fishery and such things.

    Your title to this thread "Group out to eliminate chinook from Kenai PU fishery" is also misleading and apparently false. it does nothing to help all of the user groups work together as so many have tried to do. It just further promotes the divide between groups. IMO, this is just wrong unless this is one's intention.

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

    Default In the words of the famous rodney King...

    Can't we all just get along?

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default record straight

    First, in response to the issue I heard from KRSA and their spokeperson indicates they do not support a proposal of this nature.

    However, I posted that this was heard on the street and identified sources of where this came from - individual guides have approached KAFA and this is a fact so at least some individuals are trying to build support for it - these individuals wanted KAFA to actually put the proposal in prior to the April deadline and told our leadership that they could not because of the political ramifications. We were asked to support it and thus the action on this forum.

    Second, ADF&G staff indicated they had similar conversations and knew this would be an issue for the 2011 Board of Fish meeting. They heard this from this summer when the chinook run was looking poor.

    This forum can be used to allow people to refute rumors or to confirm them and that is not a reflection on me or KAFA. I was totally honest in where I heard this.

    Also, Yukon you are wrong. Since the guides who approached KAFA said they would not put this in because it was a hot issue why would you expect an honest response to a question. They approached us with this plan, we did not generate it. However, some members of our organization may actually support it - we have 200 members. So getting input from this forum and pointing out this potential is not unethical at all. Let see if a proposal is in when the proposals come out next fall and who puts it in.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    What the heck is KAFA?

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The word on the street is that the guides and Kenai River Sport Fishing Association is starting to lobby sport fish individuals, groups, and BOF members to eliminate the retention of chinook salmon in the Kenai River personal use fishery. .
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    This forum can be used to allow people to refute rumors or to confirm them and that is not a reflection on me or KAFA. I was totally honest in where I heard this. .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    First, in response to the issue I heard from KRSA and their spokeperson indicates they do not support a proposal of this nature..
    Sorry Nerka, this doesn't hold water. You have told me and others that we were irresponsible for posting stuff about KAFC and rumors about them. You have said we should have called or e-mailed members of the KAFC board to get the truth before posting rumors. One quick call to KRSA and you could have found out instead of posting the above and posting "Group out to eliminate chinook from Kenai PU fishery"

    What group are you talking about with the title, KRSA or "the guides"?



    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    4. I understand the guides and KRSA position as they are sport fish groups..
    Again, you are posting assumptions. Have you contacted either group before posting this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    However, I posted that this was heard on the street and identified sources of where this came from - individual guides have approached KAFA and this is a fact so at least some individuals are trying to build support for it .
    -
    So you failed to "identify sources" as you claim, you never said anyting about your "sources" for the groups that are apparently being lobbied, F&G, BOF, and "other groups".
    So it was some "individual guides" that approached KAFC or KAFA (whatever that is) not "guides" in general or the the guide association. In your origninal post you stated:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The word on the street is that the guides and Kenai River Sport Fishing Association is starting to lobby sport fish individuals, groups, and BOF members to eliminate the retention of chinook salmon in the Kenai River personal use fishery. .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Also, Yukon you are wrong. Since the guides who approached KAFA said they would not put this in because it was a hot issue why would you expect an honest response to a question..
    I have no idea what you are talking about. In your first statement (the above quote) you stated "the guides" and KRSA, nothing about individual guides or that the guides as a whole may not want this and that is why individual guides went to your group instead of the guide association.

    So, why would guides approach KAFA instead of the guide association? Why is it a hot issue? You indicate in your reasoning that guides may be wanting this to allocate more kings to the guided industy and "non-residents". Why would guide go to KAFC instetad of the KRPGA if they wanted more kings for their clients?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    2. Alaska residents participate in the personal use fishery so why would one take fish from Alaskans to give to non-residents in the guided sport fishery?
    BTW, lots of Alaskans and their families use guides on the Kenai.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    This forum can be used to allow people to refute rumors or to confirm them and that is not a reflection on me or KAFA. I was totally honest in where I heard this. .
    So "the street" is now fair game to post rumors on here? Okay, just remember this when I hear on "the street" about KAFC positons.

    Again, all I am asking is that you respect KRSA, and the guides and go to the source, the same you as of us when discussing KAFC.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default out of line Yukon

    Yukon, nice try but to defile me but you do not know the whole story and therefore your ignorance is making you say things that you should not say.

    Individual guides approached KAFC ( for the record I mistyed the KAFA so sue me Yukon) on behalf of the guides in general and they were members of the guide association. They indicated their association did not want to do this because of th political heat - now whether they represent the guide association or just themselves and misrepresented their authority I cannot tell. I will tell you that if they represented the guide association and now are caught in the public debate I would not trust an honest answer from them. They did not want to be identified so I respect that along with our group.

    Second, for the same reason we cannot give the names out of ADF&G personnel who informed us of this action and where they heard it.

    So Yukon you need the rest of the story before you get so high and mighty.

    Relative to KAFC and posting of false information about KAFC you and others stated positions as fact not rumor. There is a difference. I posted that this was clearly a rumor by the comment word on the street. You tended to post things as fact about KAFC.

    Also, there are two sources for this supposed rumor - one is our direct contact with the guides who approached us and second from ADF&G staff that had knowledge of this. The movement to do this is real so lets stick to the issue which I brought up. What is the feelings of people about a proposal of this nature? As I said some of KAFC members may support this so I was honest in that assessment also. So Yukon - should the PU fishery be allowed to retain chinook or not? Answer the questions about the issue not divert this to attacks on me so you do not have to deal with the issue.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    No attempt to defile you in any way, you did a good job that yourself, no biggie. The title of your thread sure screams rumor to me " Group out to eliminate chinook from Kenai PU fishery" I can not see how I possibly missed the rumor part.
    BTW, I am not all high and mighty, just trying to hold you accountable, you seemed to say a couple different things in your posts, it didn't read very consistent. It went from KRSA and the guides, to a few individual guides approached KAFC to push this and KRSA is not pushing this and somewhere someone supposedly approached BOF members. Just trying to figure out what "group is out to eliminate chinook frm the Kenai PU fishery".

    Seems you have some contacts in F&G that will only talk to you. Maybe they are the current members of the F&G staff that are also members of KAFC. really I don't care if they are or the guides who approached you are members of the guide association, if they aren't man enough to come forward I got no use for any of them.
    I thought F&G worked for the public, not KAFC, good on you, you seem to have their ear and the ability to have access the general public doesn't. I wish I had friends in F&G like that.

    As to the original question, I am not sure why you are asking it on the forum as if I were a member of KAFC I would be more concerned with my membership, not some hacks on an internet forum, but here is my two cents.....

    If people want to catch kings in the dipnet fishery that is fine with me. I think there is concern with anglers as well as F&G (from a good source) that there is no mechanism to deal with kings in the dipnet fishery in times of low runs, like the last two years. There is a mechanism to deal with kings in the in river fishery (no bait, c&r, closure) but no way to restrict kings caught in the PU fishery.
    I am not sure how the management plan is worded, if the kings are primarily managed for sportfishing or if it is primarily managed just for escapement. I would think F&G would want the tools in their EO arsenal to manage all species to ensure escapement.
    The reds in that the Kenai reds are managed for the commercial fishers, primarily. Obviously it managed for optimal escapement, but as far as users goes reds are managed for commercial fishermen.
    I guess the manages would have to figure out how to deal with the PU fishery in the event we are in danger of not making the king escapement goals. I would be willing to bet as the PU catch creeps up to 1000 kings a year and growing F&G would want tools to manage it if they felt the PU fishery was going to continue to grow and have more and more of an impact.

  19. #19
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default allowable bycatch???

    My thought is that 900 kings are an allowable bycatch, yearly. 80,000 to 90,000 Alaskans benefit from dipnetting, in UCI, and those people don't have to clog the river to catch a king. They get it through dipnetting, on the lower river. So... would it be better those dipnetters launch a boat on the middle river and compete with all the other fisher's? For one king? I don't think so. Dipnetting is get your fish and go... Allocating fish is one thing but to make a person put in twice to retain the same amount of both species is just madness. Hell, let's clog the river even more. Who, in the right mind suggested this? Not thought out properly, MYO.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    My thought is that 900 kings are an allowable bycatch, yearly. 80,000 to 90,000 Alaskans benefit from dipnetting, in UCI, and those people don't have to clog the river to catch a king. They get it through dipnetting, on the lower river. So... would it be better those dipnetters launch a boat on the middle river and compete with all the other fisher's? For one king? I don't think so. Dipnetting is get your fish and go... Allocating fish is one thing but to make a person put in twice to retain the same amount of both species is just madness. Hell, let's clog the river even more. Who, in the right mind suggested this? Not thought out properly, MYO.
    Possibly F&G wants tools to deal with it in case of shortages, JMO. Right now it is 900 kings but if 80,000 to 90,000 Alaskans benefit then you can see the potental for substantal growth.

    I agree the PU fishery takes pressure away from the sportfishery and helps keep the banks from getting overun with sockeye anglers.

    It is not me in any way pushing this. It is not the guide association, as when asked in the last 24 hours, 2 board members had heard nothing of this. And it wasn't KRSA, so I'm still trying to figure out, who the " Group out to eliminate chinook from Kenai PU fishery" is???? Nerka? do you know since you posted it?

    I brought this up for discussion earlier (not that I support it) but what if a PU fisher had to give up sportfishing in order to participate in the PU fishery?

    What if one gets a king in the PU fishery and their two in the sportfishery? Should PU caught kings count against sportfish caught kings in limited king fishery such as the Kenai?

    Just a few thoughts for discussion, nothing more, nothing less.

    Heck, ask Nerka, he has the "sources" in the guide community and F&G.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •