Ak Fishing News: Kenai Federal Subsistence Subcommittee Formed
This news clip is from Alaska Fishing News. Discussion is welcome, but these robot generated news threads are not monitored by the webmaster.
After rejecting a proposal to establish a committee to consider Kenai Peninsula subsistence issues on federal lands and waters, the Southcentral Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council voted to establish a Kenai subcommittee.
The new subcommittee will advise the Southcentral council, and is comprised of representatives of various user groups.
The Anchorage Daily News reported "The new subcommittee will include representatives of the Salamatoff, Ninilchik, and Kenaitze tribes; the Kenai River Sportfishing Association; the Kenai River Professional Guides Association; the Upper Cook Inlet Drift Association; the Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association; and the communities of Cooper Landing, Hope and Ninilchik, according to program administrators."
Read the entire story in the Anchorage Daily News >>>
Read the individual article on Alaska Fishing News...
We welcome news tips that are useful to the community. Please send tips and links to complete stories by email to
we have them all in one room
I bet this will be fun and productive-not These groups do not respect each other and the idea they can talk and work things out is just not supported by history. Having been in numerous meetings with the sport and commercial groups before (the natives actually were very helpful) I know they will not agree on the agenda let alone anything else. Also, KRSA, if not getting their way, will work the political process and abuse the work group in the process.
Going into this meeting KRSA has already stated they do not want a fishery on the Kenai so how does one talk in a co-operative manner with that position firmly set? How can they ever appreciate the need or right of others to fish in a different manner than they want? Also, they have the guides to help them out with commercial fisherman waiting in the rear for support. This is not a fair and level playing field from the start.
The only group with any sense is the Joe Fisherman group formed on the Kenai recently. They turned down the opportunity to participate because they knew this was the wrong forum - the group has no power, will sit around and make allegations against one another, and divide the community. Joe Fisherman members said no - they do not want to fight with their friends in the community over this issue with emotion running high right now. When a process is developed that allows a rationale and calm discussion about the issue they will probably participate.
My suggestion is for a few good people who can listen and are non-users of the Kenai to go and talk to each group individually, hear their positions, rely those concerns to other groups, and then try to find middle ground.
If no middle ground is found then so be it. However, it will take an independent party who works outside the formal setting of a work session to deal with this.
We do not put Iran and North Korea at the table together with other countries and try to discuss things until a lot of pre-meeting work is completed. The same process should be started here. Federal Subsistence Board members or their representatives need to talk to each group separately and only bring them together when common ground is defined. They will never get there sitting around a table entrenched in their positions in full public view. Too much politics for that to happen.
From what I've heard about the subcommittee its not about the fishery existing or not - the Feds have already ruled that there will be one-end of story. It sounds like it will be about methods and means......gill net, dip net, fish wheel etc. It might be possible for the sub committee to do some productive work in that direction. I agree that were it about the fishery itself that no work would likely be done because of the different agendas of the various groups. Gill nets on the upper Kenai scare the heck out of me so I hope they come up with a plan that doesn't involve them. By the way - who is the Joe Fisherman group??
The formal name is Kenai Area Fisherman's Coalition. It is a group of citizens and scientist that are coming together to provide additional scientific input to the decision makers on proposed regulations. As of today I understand they have 8 fish biologist as members who advise them.
KAFC sounds interesting. How would I contact them? When and where do they meet?
how many members does this "organization" have?
contact for KAFC
The phone number I have for the KAFC acting secretary is 283-1054. I am not sure how many members they have. I know there are 8 biologist on the board to help with technical issues. I would guess they have 20-30 people who have paid membership dues and another 20-30 who have expressed interest. They appear to be getting new members everyday but I do not have access to that information. I just know a number of people in the community have asked me about the organization and I refer them to the number above.
Kafc. . .
The newly-formed Kenai Area Fisherman's Coalition is, in my mind, hugely significant in that eight scientists have come together with Alaska's Joe Fishermen anglers to speak to management issues concerning the area's fisheries. Of the eight scientists, six of them have sport-fish backgrounds and two have comm-fish backgrounds. Together they represent over 120 years of experience with area fisheries.
That such a group could coalesce speaks volumes about a process gone awry. Fisheries management in Cook Inlet has become hostage to special-interest politics at the highest levels of state government. Moreover, the state's Joe Fishermen have virtually no representation in management policy decisions. KRSA is essentially dedicated to commercial sportfishing interests, KRSMA seats no member representing Joe Fisherman, and the state's ADF&G Advisory Committees are a joke, listened to or not by a politicized Board of Fisheries.
KAFC has huge potential if they can get their collective wits together. I'm hopefully waiting the day they are able to issue position papers with the full weight of their scientific expertise behind them, defining policies that benefit the areas resources as well as represent the state's Joe Fishermen.
I'd really like to know more about the KAFC. As far as I have been able to find out Dwight Cramer and Ken Tarbox, com fish biologists - retired - are the only names I have heard. Who are the others? If they represent Joe Fisherman I'd like to know who they are and how to contact them. KRSA has 300+ members, only a very small number whom are guides. Most members are non-commercial users of the river, a lot even home owners on the Kenai. I'm not sure what commercial benefit Bob Penney and the rest get from any proposals they put forth. The KRPGA is the voice of commercial users and is often in conflict with KRSA.
The rumor mill. . .
Where did you hear that Mr. Kramer is a retired comm-fish biologist?
Originally Posted by gusdog44;48668[FONT="Georgia"
I heard that the KAFC was started by "a couple of com-fish biologists" and the only names I have heard connected to it are Mr. Tarbox and Mr. Cramer. I know Mr. Tarbox was a com-fish biologist. I made an assumption about Mr Cramer......sure would be nice to get some real information about this organization...like how to get in touch etc. As a "Joe Fisherman" I'd like to know more about the guys who say they are representing me. Do you have any information?
Don't believe everything you hear. . .
See Nerka's post above: "The phone number I have for the KAFC acting secretary is 283-1054." If you really want to know, dial the number. Rumors and assumptions are a poor substitute for facts.
Originally Posted by gusdog44
Thanks Marcus - I had somehow missed Nerkas' posting. I'll give 'em a call.
Got some info on the KAFC and there do seem to be several active and retired state and federal biologists in the group. Dwight Cramer claims 12-15 members. Among those members is Loren Flagg, a retired commercial fisherman and the former executive director of UCIDA and Ken Tarbox, a retired commercial fish division biologist who worked for UCIDA as a consultant at the last Board of Fish meeting. Mr. Tarbox has been active in opposing proposals brought before the board and KRSMA by sportsfishermen. I find it hard to believe that these gentlemen represent Joe Fisherman....I rather think that they continue to represent commercial interests. The United Cook Inlet Driftnet Association has a long history of opposition to sportfishing initiatives. There are some sports fish people in the group as well so will be interested to see if they can form a functional group.
gusdog44 - more misinformation
Gusdog44, if you are going to make references to people you should get it correct.
Loren Flagg was a department of Fish and Game employee for over 20 years. He then retired and worked as the executive director for the Kenai Peninsula Fishermans Association - a set net group - he did not work for UCIDA. He then left the KPFA and started a Kenai River guide business which he has done for the last 6 years - maybe more.
Ken Tarbox retired in 2000 after 20 years with ADF&G and 8 years working for Woodward Clyde Consultants (4 in Alaska). Since his retirement in 2000 he has consulted on a number of fishery projects, including helping UCIDA prepare the technical aspects of their proposals. He never spoke against a KRSFA proposal unless it was technically incorrect. At the Board of Fish meetings he did not promote or advance any proposal that UCIDA submitted.
In fact, when the backroom deal was made between KRSFA and UCIDA he was 150 miles away from the meeting. He left after the committee meetings and before delibrations - in which he was not a member. He also has served two years on the Kenai/Soldotna advisory board. He resigned in protest after the last Board of Fish meeting since the public process was polluted by the UCIDA and KRSFA deal. That is on the public record if you had bothered to look it up.
Also, he has not opposed sport fish proposals that are allocative. He has opposed proposals by KRSFA which reduced the management flexibility of the ADF&G to meet escapement goals. In fact, he authored in 1999 the present Kenai River sockeye plan with the escapement objectives tied to various run sizes. He convinced Dan Coffey that this was a good management tool and Mr. Coffey agreed and supported it through the Board process. That plan gives sport fisherman in the Kenai River an allocation of over 500,000 sockeye above the sonar counter when the runs exceed 4 million fish. Today the harvest is about 250,000 with liberal bag limits. At low run strengths the allocation is 150,000 to 250,000.
Mr. Kramer and Mr. Nelson also resigned over the Board of Fish public meeting.
Your comments are typical and one reason why this group has formed - to counter the attack on the integrity of the scientist who are working for the good of this river. They are going to call people like you out. To let the public know that science requires data not character labeling or assumptions about motives. That facts speak louder than your words.
Further, you also failed to mention that the 6 other scientist in the new group are sport fish biologist retired from ADF&G and the federal government. Gee, you were given that information since you knew the other biologist backgrounds - wonder why that is? Trying to pull a fast one?
No more gusdog44. If you are going to provide information please provide all the information. Mr Kramer, when I talked to him, gave you the membership that has paid to date. However, there are at least 5 members who are out of state who indicated they will pay when they return.
So if people want a different view of the world, one based on science and not pseudoscience, then watch what this group does. Judge it on the products it produces not on some off the cuff remarks by gusdog44 and people like him.
not as mad anymore
When I read gusdog44 comments I got really frustrated as the post above shows. Sorry for the tone of the comment - but really gusdog44 and others - is it better to attack people or positions. To my mind it is better to discuss positions and the rationale for that position. Calling people commercial or sport fish oriented will never get us anywhere. The same with assuming someone who is a guide supports the position of the guide leadership. They may or may not and to characteize all guides as one is just as wrong.