Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 194

Thread: How much would you pay for a dipnet permit?

  1. #1
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default How much would you pay for a dipnet permit?

    If proposal 166, submitted to the BOF, does pass, there would be no need for an Alaskan fishing license to dipnet. So... If I could get some legislature's to propose new fees to make up for the loss of monies to Fish and Game, What would you be willing to pay for a permit? $10.00 per person, $20.00 for a household? I'm curious and will try to get some legislation submitted, so please respond with your thoughts. How much is dipnetting worth to you? How much is too much?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default public post or anonymous poll

    I'm betting you'll get better results using a poll here.

    Many members here are reticent to post anything publicly saying they'd agree to paying more money to the state, due to the response they will get from others.

    Any way to get a copy of that proposal? And/or any others regarding dipnetting?

  3. #3
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Fish and Game proposal booklet

    In the 2009/2010 BOF proposal booklet, it is on page 148. I have a hard copy from Fish and Game but if you go to their website, I'm sure you could download it. Better yet, go to the BOF support section webpage and look under current proposals While you are there you might want to look at proposal 165 also. Mr. Vanek, who yearly puts in proposals to limit dipnetting or to do away with it is at it again. As for a poll, I'm computer illeterate so if you want to put up one, feel free.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default poll is posted

    I've posted that poll here:
    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=67063

    Each members vote is anonymous; only the summary is viewable by members.

    I found that BOF proposal you mentioned; it is online:
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/f...ropbk09-10.pdf

    But it doesn't look to be as complete as they say... I know of 2 proposals that should be in there that are not.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default 16 votes so far

    So, after 16 votes, half say they would not go dipnetting if a new $10. fee was instituted.

    I've been wondering how long it will take someone here to post a reason or two why it would be a good thing if only half as many people showed up to dipnet next year.

    Myself, I've always had a good time meeting so many others there - so I can't wish for fewer people. Yeah there can be a lot at times there, but everyone I've met down there is the helpful friendly type.

  6. #6

    Default

    I think there is a problem with the survey because you did not offer people a choice of not wanting to pay any fee. The only way to show displeasure with any fee is to vote for the $10 fee.

  7. #7
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default sitting at a computer....

    It's easy to say you wouldn't go dipnetting while snow is on the ground, and say a 10 dollar fee was instituted. But look at the money people would save if they only had to pay 10 bucks and they only dipnetted. That is better than buying a 25 dollar fishing license. !0 bucks to be allowed to catch 25 reds? I would say that is pretty cheap.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Unhappy no zero fee option

    Quote Originally Posted by commfish View Post
    I think there is a problem with the survey because you did not offer people a choice of not wanting to pay any fee. The only way to show displeasure with any fee is to vote for the $10 fee.
    Darn it I probably should have; sorry.

    The reason it didn't occur to me is that this poll came about because of a proposal that might institute a fee (a fee that is not zero) - so a fee of zero didn't occur to me. Sorry.

  9. #9
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Removing the requirement to buy a fishing license is going in the wrong direction. Keep the license requirement and add a small fee for the dipnet permit that will help with the cost of enforecment at the fishing sites. Ten or twenty is reasonable. The higher the fee, the more you will descriminate against the low income families. So "market value" of the catch, etc. need not be considered in the fee structure. The only purpose of a fee is to help pay for administrative and enforcement costs.

    The root problem is too many people. Therefore we don't want to make it easier or less expensive to participate in the fishery. If I were King, I'd add a $20 fee for the dipnet permit (on top of the fishing license and you must also have a king stamp to keep a king on the Kenai). Then I'd reduce the take to 20 fish per house plus 5 per dependent family member with an absolute maximum per household of 50 fish. I'd further restrict each permit to 6 fishing days (after you've logged 6 days on the permit, you're done fishing for the season regardless of catch).

    I'd also limit a single permit to fishing no more than one dipnet at a time and adjust the fishing hours at all sites to the same 6am to 10pm timeframe. No camping allowed within 500 feet of the mean high tide level of the legal fishing zones. Law Enforcement officers must be on site while the fishery is open.

    There should be an EO closure link between the commercial and dipnet fisheries. If the commerical fleet is shut down by low escapement, then the dipnetters will be shut down at the same time.

    The head of household must wear a pink bandana while fishing. OK, just kidding on that one. The point is to bring about some sensible measures to reduce the people pressure. It only requires a little tweaking to accomplish that.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  10. #10

    Default Shared Conservation Burden

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    There should be an EO closure link between the commercial and dipnet fisheries. If the commerical fleet is shut down by low escapement, then the dipnetters will be shut down at the same time.
    The conservation burden is supposed to be shared by all user groups. That has not been the case and commercial fishermen are not happy. You know, they have an investment and an expectation that the state will manage within statutory and constitutional requirements, but that has not happened. No wonder there is such an effort against the dipnet fishery. Something as simple as this might make a huge difference.

  11. #11
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Big dipper, from what I understand...

    The BOF is supposed to make emergency closures when it is warranted. 2006 is a case in point. Dipnetters were shut down by the BOF, during in-season. I think dipnetters would expect the same consideration as commercials get with all the EO's that the commercials get at the beginning of the season when the runs are strong. Personal use is set by a date not run strength. We, as dipnetters get what we can during the prescribed period set by the BOF and Fish and Game. So if are to limit dipnetters to the commercial EO's and closures, maybe we can have a reasonable ratchet up of a bag limit for Dipnetters, when the runs are strong. Just like the commercial openers and EO's that happen for those commercials, during a strong run.
    I'm not being greedy, I can only use 40-50 reds a year, don't get me wrong. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Tie us in to the commercials , OK. , spread the wealth. In times of a large escapement, share those extra fish amoungth all users and in times of need, cut back all users. I'm OK with that.
    I did not create this fishery but I love that any Alaskan can get a net and try to put some fish in the freezer. I just get tired when commercials yell that the average Alaskan is taking their fish. Those are "OUR" fish. All Alaskans, whether you are a commfisher or a sportfisher, or a dipnetter. There are enough fish to go around for everybody, just wish some people were not so greedy when it came down to sharing the resource. This is just MYO and I am tired and cold from working outside, so I might just change my take here once I warm up.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Pole Alaska
    Posts
    166

    Default really

    A $10 dollar fee stops you from dipnetting, really? A resident fishing license is a must IMO, a $10 permit fee is reasonable. Not sure paying a fee would help anything, wasting money seems to be what goverment does. 30,000 permits just an estimate=new great fee $300,000 extra= 1 new boat, big ole new truck and fuel, darn moneys gone. Still need accessories (depth finder, floor mats, new hitch, super duper light bars) OH crap we lose money on this one. I change my mind I vote no against the fee.

  13. #13

    Default Up the limit?

    You can't be serious. Do you really believe that people will only take what they need? I did not dipnet this year, used a rod and reel. Don't get me wrong, I've done plenty of dipping. I learned my lesson early on that I don't need what I'm allowed. And I eat a lot of salmon. Likely more than most people do, just based on people I know who dipnet and what they take.

    Part of the problem is this idea that if the commercial fleet harvests 1 million fish, then the dipnetters have a God given right to take 1 million and one.

    I live right above the North Beach, and I really can't handle it anymore.

    Dude, people were busting down fencing and camping on private property. It has become a crazed mob - and the fishery is only really about ten years old. If you increase the limit, you will only contribute to the problem and further diminish the value of these fish.

    Just my humble opinion.

  14. #14

    Default

    I think that its a bummer that the state imposed dipnetting on my community, cutting into the sport, guide, and commercial industries that support it. Then, the state provides absolutely no support for handling the crouds of people who show up to get fish. The city of Kenai barely breaks even (and has lost money some years), trying to regulate and clean up after dipnetters. City cops are patrolling the river because there is no state presence. "The Wop" - you're right, they are all of our fish, and it bothers me that we're giving them away when we could be selling them. While you may really use 40-50 fish a year, you would have to practically be eating fish while you typed for that to be true. I stand on the bank and watch people kill more fish than they will possibly eat in a year. Hope you're not sending any of that fish to out of state relatives and cutting into the commercial market. The lady at Soldotna ADF&G told me she had one family apply for a permit with 23 dependants. Yeah, right. And to all those people I passed in their Escalades towing their 4 wheelers and dipnets, that's not subsistence, it's sport fishing and it's not very sporting.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Arrow crux of the situation

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    ... Then, the state provides absolutely no support for handling the crouds of people who show up to get fish. The city of Kenai barely breaks even (and has lost money some years), trying to regulate and clean up after dipnetters. City cops are patrolling the river because there is no state presence....
    There are a few basic "crux of the problem"s to what the overall problem is today, and I think what you wrote above is one of the largest ones.

    Feds are "in charge" of Kasilof, yet are they? On the beach?

    State made the fishery, but their Troopers have violent crimes to deal with elsewhere; would you have them abandon that to chase after a people vs. fish situation?

    The City of Kenai is left holding the bag because its their backyard; they've done what they can so far but its not working.

    So, maybe change is needed? If so, what? There's been some good ideas posted here lately; lets keep them coming.

  16. #16
    Member Bearclaw67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    329

    Default

    pay nothing, after our debacle last year I'll never go again.
    Paul

  17. #17
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Smithtb has posted the overwhelming public opinion from the locals on this matter. While I don't think the fishery should be shut down, I'm a minority around here. I have a hard time finding anyone around Soldotna/Kenai who still thinks this fishery is a good idea. I think we need to scale it back drastically in order to save it from self-destruction and inevitable shut down.

    This whole fishery is a classic example of entitlement mentality. It all started not that long ago when we had such huge numbers of fish coming back that "they" decided to let the people go down to the river and dipnet the excess out. That "Emergency Order" to try and put the excess fish to good use has now turned into some kind of "right" of the people. I'm sorry, but no one has a "right" to dipnetting, or gillnetting, or single-hook no-bait or baited multiple hook or whatever means of take you want to bring up.

    Perhaps we're getting into broken record posting as I've been here before. The specific problems, whether real or imagined by the general public, include too many people, too many vehicles, too many campers, too many boats, people taking more fish than they can use, people not filling out their permits with accurate info, people giving away "subsistence" fish to non-residents, dipnetting stays open while commercial fishery gets EO closures, people not cleaning up after themselves and ruining the public beach for the rest of the people.

    How do you address these specific problems? You have to reduce the people pressure by making it more difficult to go fishing. That means charge a fee for the permit and restrict access to the fishing sites. No camping at the fishing site. A minimal fee will cover the costs of site control. I'd even go so far as to require people to sign in and out of the fishing sites and have their fish count verified prior to leaving the site with the permit being stamped by an "official" to make it legal. That will fix the problems associated with non-documentation of fishing and inaccurate fish counts.

    There are plenty of LE officers available, but this fishery isn't being given a priority. Heck, fish-n-feathers has the resources to have a guy sitting there watching a spruce grouse decoy on a remote gravel road for the entire month of October just in case there is one idiot who is too lazy to take 3 steps off the side of the road first. So don't tell me they can't have the same guy and a couple of his buddies sitting on the beach for the entire month of July where there are thousands of people and dozens of laws being repeatedly broken amongst them all.

    Even if you can use 80, 100, or 120 fish, is there a justification for being able to dip that many? I don't really think so. While it's not that the fishery won't allow that many fish to be taken, it's the public perception of wonton waste when a single family is taking home 500 pounds of salmon basically for free. You want to talk market value? That's over $10,000 worth of salmon at the grocery store meat department. Why should the state allow one family to take that much? So, let's reduce the threshold. I think 50 ought to be the maximum regardless of the number of dependents. Thus my suggestion of starting at 20 for the permit and add 5 per dependent up to a max of 6 people. That's still up to $4,000 worth of premium salmon. Don't you think that's enough if it will help with the perception that the fishery isn't being abused?
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  18. #18
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Question Joat, you might be right

    Capping a family limit to 50 fish, regardless of family size might be a good idea. I use up to fifty but can get by with 40 or so. I smoke and can about 15 fish(3 fish per case of 12). That leaves me with five cases of smoked fish. I can plain about 2 cases. That uses @ 21 salmon. The rest I vacuem pack and freeze as fillets for meals. My freezer is empty and my smoked almost are gone come spring.
    As to your idea of making camping a no-no on the Kasilof? I'm not sure what I think of that? Maybe on the north side where people do drive their rigs onto the grasses. That might have merit.
    As to the other post where it says the dipnetter mentality is to one up the commercials by catching that one extra fish, is totally wrong, JMO. Dipnetters take a maximum of close to 300,000 fish. Mostly averaging @ 270,00 yearly. Commercials take 1.5 to 2.3 million fish yearly, in the good years. These are estimates only, don't chide me if I'm off a couple of thousand!! But, the numbers come down to 6 fish,per person,per year, for dipnetting. Sportfishers can do that on a weekend. I gave up pure sportfishing for the sake of fishing, years ago. I'm a meat hunter now. Same way with hunting, If I'm gonna climb a mountain, might as well shoot something to eat while I'm up there. Wasting my energy for the sake of calling it hiking, are days past. So my weapon in the pursuit of Salmon is a dipnet. I like the odds a litlle better than with a rod and reel. Same result though, fish in the freezer!!
    If the number of fish each person obtains, per year, was given the same publicity (6 per person)as the crowds and the preconcieved notion that all dipnetters take more than they are allowed, by limit; maybe we wouldn't have such a distorted image. I just don't find six fish per person such a travestry.
    As for the city of Kenai losing money on the dipnet fishery, I find this hard to believe. 20,000 family permits issued for South-Central and to have those families spending money in Kenai and Soldotna? Just think in sales of Ice alone. Never mind food,gas,lodging and misc. stuff. People forget about sales tax. I wonder what percentage dipnetters pay for the city of Kenai government to exist? Personally, I drop a couple of hundred, if not more every time I come down to dipnet. Sure wish you folks down there would come to the valley for two weekends a year and drop that kind of dough too.
    Anywho, I'm getting off topic. Proposal 166 will, if passed, keep a family of four(DAD,MOM,16 yearold and 17 year old) from having to pay $100 to dipnet. Technically, the BOF did not have authority to set the requirement for a fishing license to dip. Only the Legislature can set monetary requirements and fee's. That is why 166 was submitted. If it does pass, fish and game is going to lose a big chunk of change. That is why I support a fee of some kind to go back to fish and feathers. I think they do a pretty good job overall and would not want them to be shortchanged by such a large amount if it does. Any thoughts?

  19. #19
    Member tjm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I think that its a bummer that the state imposed dipnetting on my community, cutting into the sport, guide, and commercial industries that support it. .
    how so?..how many of those dip netters would hire a guide or go to the store to buy fish?

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    they are all of our fish, and it bothers me that we're giving them away when we could be selling them.
    are you referring to folks send the fish to family out of state?...if so, i agree, take all you need for your family...

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    While you may really use 40-50 fish a year, you would have to practically be eating fish while you typed for that to be true.
    50 fish a year is quite easy to eat..that's less than 1 fish per week...heck my family eats one fish per night, with just enough left over for a sandwich....it would be surprising to me if a family couldn't eat 50 fish a year, if you're not then you aren't eating much fish...

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    those people I passed in their Escalades towing their 4 wheelers and dipnets, that's not subsistence, it's sport fishing and it's not very sporting.
    it is not sport fishing at all....it is getting food, plain and simple.....who gives a rip if it is 'sporting', people don't do it for sport

    does it matter how much money a guy has?...income has nothing to do with dipping.....If I was a millionaire I'd still be out there doing it...why?...because it is fun and I like eating fish....
    ------------------------------------------------
    pull my finger....

  20. #20
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default Dipnet fees

    JOAT I agree with you 100% and I am a local.
    Anyone read the Clarion article a couple of weeks back where one of the Kenai city Council members talks about The fact that although the city of Kenai makes money on dipnetting the city itself would rather not have to deal with it. Lots of issues with dealing with all of the people and the logistics of it all. Also talks about how this was thrust upon the city of Kenai years ago and the state doesn't seem to be stepping up to do their share. Not sure where to find a link but I have the actual paper at home.
    BTW it's not $100 for a family of four to dipnet it's only $25.
    One family member can harvest for the rest.
    If we eliminate the resident fishing lic. requirement whats next? Allowing non-res to dip?
    Also it is hard to believe someone would spend $100 in gas plus a whole host of other expenses to come to Kenai from Anchorage or wherever and then balk at a little$10 fee! If dipping cost too much maybe they should fish closer to home!
    Dipping is a PRIVELAGE not a RIGHT! A lot of dippers seem to think it is the opposite.
    Personally I would give it up in a heartbeat if the crowds, trash,overharvest and others things that have been mentioned would go away. Have personally seen people dipping for over two weeks straight. everyday. This was my first summer up here working at the cannery Transfer site in Kasilof. You know that old fellow got way more than his limit.What possibly could he be doing with all these fish? I think we all know there is a lot of fishy(no pun intended) stuff that goes on in the dipnet fishery.Troopers don't seem top care much either.
    A couple of years ago a few friends of mine launched at Eagle Rock and returned a few hours later. Troopers were checking boats and when they saw a few clipped tails in the boat said oh dipnetters go ahead we are just checking rod and reel fisherman . Witch was fortunate as my friends had miscounted and were a few fish over their limit.
    Anyway we have strayed far and wide from the original intent of this fishery. And something needs to be done. If a small fee would cut the numbers by a few percent than why not.
    I know that people feel this is their chance at some cheap yet healthy food. It is great for the low income. Yes it is not feasible for many to buy their salmon in anchorage at Market prices.
    But I know a few people who don't like salmon live close to the Kenai river and have a low income. Even though they don't eat salmon they are far from starving.
    Just because you like something doesn't mean you have to eat it. Or that you have a right to catch it.I love king crab but it is expensive so I don't buy it that often. If I could get it cheaply especially fresh caught.I sure would eat it more often. I would love to see a King crab season open on the pennisula.But I am not starving because I can't catch King Crab locally. I can find plenty of cheaper things to eat.
    Had a fellow tell me once he wanted to Dipnet and release as he did not like fish but loved dipping don't think he did it but this is some peoples mentality. It is treated as a free for all by some!
    Why do we need a dipnetters Association? What is there out there that we need a special group to protect it? Is it because some people want to make dipping a god Given right?
    It is a PRIVELAGE not a RIGHT.
    Just my opinion.
    CHRIS

Page 1 of 10 123 ... 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
  •