Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 106

Thread: UCI Fishery proposals for next year

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

    Default UCI Fishery proposals for next year

    I'm sitting here trying to think of some proposals for the next Board of Fish meeting, for next year. Anyone have some suggestions for changing sport or personal use rules or regulations?
    This would include allocation, resource management or daily bag limits ,etc.
    Come on guys and girls, give me some idea's I can put together to change the status quo, as it stands right now.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Have you looked through the proposals for the upcoming meeting in March? It is a statewide meeting but there are a few proposals that would change the way fish and game does business. I am not versed enough in the differences in the terminology as to exactly what the proposer wants and how that would impact our fisheries. With a little research it would make more sense, but it is probably something you want to check out as it will affect the Cook Inlet fisheries and how escapements are counted.
    There is also one (#165 I think) that deals with the dipnet fishery, I think in the Kenai but it may affect Fish Creek.

    That meeting is coming up March 16th for a week or so and often proposals fly under the radar.

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

    Default Yukon, 165 wants to...

    Keep personal use from even starting till the escapement goal is met. This was put forward by "OUR" favorite commercial fisherman that comes out with these every year. This is the same guy that tried to put the personal use limit at three fish a day, like sport fishing. As it is, personal users do not have an allocation but I believe the current system is working out well enough.
    Mr. V just does not like dipnetting at all. He has publicly stated that the fish that dipnetters catch is fish he can't catch and sell. The exact quote is,: The upper cook inlet personal use fisheries are a gift from the commercial fishing community. We own those fish." This was taken from his testimony at the 2005 UCI BOF meeting. Nice quote, eh? That is what I thought too.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Rods and reel guys too

    I'm sure Mr. V doesn't think too highly either of those that try to fill our freezers with a rod and reel. A "gift" is a "gift" no matter how the fish is harvested and any fish caught by an individual and not in the nets is a fish lost.

    After all the comm guys "own the fish" and sockeye salmon are primarily managed for the comm guys benefit - not for personal use or sport fishermen although these users apparently receive some consideration.


    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Keep personal use from even starting till the escapement goal is met. This was put forward by "OUR" favorite commercial fisherman that comes out with these every year. This is the same guy that tried to put the personal use limit at three fish a day, like sport fishing. As it is, personal users do not have an allocation but I believe the current system is working out well enough.

    Mr. V just does not like dipnetting at all. He has publicly stated that the fish that dipnetters catch is fish he can't catch and sell. The exact quote is,: The upper cook inlet personal use fisheries are a gift from the commercial fishing community. We own those fish." This was taken from his testimony at the 2005 UCI BOF meeting. Nice quote, eh? That is what I thought too.
    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

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    And here we go again...down the same slippery slope of anti-commercial fishing.

    tvfinak, you obviously don't realize that Alaska's largest personal use fishery eliminated a rod and reel fishery that used to take place at the mouth of the Kenai River. Up to 1982, when the Kenai personal use fishery went into effect, individuals and especially locals, utilized that rod and reel fishery to fill their freezers. That sportfishery is gone - Not on behalf of commercial fishing, but because of personal use fishing.

    So while you're hung up with anti-commercial fishing sentiment, it appears personal use fishing doesn't think too highly of those who fill their freezers with rod and reel either.

    I don't condone all things Mr. V represents, or all things about personal use fishing, sport fishing, or commercial fishing. But Mr. V does make a very good point...The commercial fishery has given up an allocation to the personal use fishery...A fishery that has turned into what many call a wasteful, recreational zoo that is a detriment to community resources, facilities, and the environment. If you spent a lot of money on that well-established UCI commercial fishery by making payments on your permit, gear, and boat, etc. and then watched your allocation be redistributed, you'd have something to say too.

    As far as commercial fishermen "owning the fish"...Those are your emotional words, not the words of commercial fishermen, fishery managers, or historical actions. If you were capable of understanding the fishery, willing to put your reckless bias aside and replace it with rationality, and interpret our fishery management laws the way they are intended, you would understand why sockeye are managed primarily for commerical fishing.

    As an example, for more than half of the last 32 years the Kenai River has exceeded it's sockeye escapement...those were sockeye that sportfishermen and personal use fishermen could not possibly harvest. Lost yield. Subsequent potential for low returns. So I can't imagine how the sockeye fishery could begin to be managed primarily for sport or personal use fishing...that's simply a selfish attempt to get yourself more fish (like you don't already have enough). The sad truth is, our fishery management is succumbing more and more to the emotional political pressure of folks like yourself, rather than the facts, laws, and biological data that have sustained our fisheries since Statehood. And that is unfortunate.

    thewhop2000, my only suggestion would be to propose replacing half of the personal use fishing time at the mouth of the Kenai with the original rod and reel fishery that used to take place there. For obvious reasons the two fisheries can't occur at the same time, so maybe alternate days. This would restore what was really a traditional sport fishery. I don't think it was right to displace that fishery on behalf of what's basically a "new" fishery that's unfortunately become much more than simply "personal use".

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

    Default Grampy, FYI

    Mr.V IS the one who said the commercials own those fish. I or others did not make this up. It is on record from the BOF testimony, during Mr.V's testimony.
    Just wanted to be clear on that. No one is embellishing what is already on record.
    You do have a good point on alternating days. My only concern would be that dipnetting is only allowed on the Kenai for 21 days. So maybe a four day to one would be more realistic. I hear what you say but I'll wait till more people chime in on that Rod and reel thing at the mouth. In the years I have been dipnetting, I have yet to hear about people wanting to go back to that. Now that does not mean there is not an interest, just have not heard much about wanting to go back to that.
    I. for one, am not anti-commercial fishing. There is enough of the resource to go around. I am just in favor of getting my fish and getting out. I am a carpenter and most of my time is spent working in the summer months. I don't have the time to throw a line, I would just rather hold a net and then get back to work.
    You do talk about over escapement but in the past 10 years, the emergency openers for commercials have been pretty liberal, In my opinion. So those commercials/sport/and dipnetters all missed those fish.
    It is a balancing act and I would not want to be a Jeff Fox, per say. That job and judgement calls would not be worth what money and retirement they put in front of you.
    I started this thread asking for suggestions on proposals to tweak what is existing, not looking at re-allocating the resource. Heck, If I wanted to do that, I would just say do away with commercials and let the state net off the mouth and sell/give those fish away. Problem solved. But... That is not the point. We need all user groups to work together and coming into this thread with a chip on the shoulder, does not help.
    I am just asking for suggestions, not a re-allocation so just go with the flow and come up with some tweaks, I am not looking for a commercial shut down or a slow down. NOT MY POINT!! I hope I have explained myself well enough. Sometimes I have a problem getting my point across. Enough said.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Commercial fishing sentiment

    Actually I did fish for reds the Kenai in the early 80s with rod and reel. I didn't do the dip net thing until much later.

    Don't blame me for using the term "owning the fish" - it was coined by one of your guys. Instead of condemming that sort of emotional inflamatory language you instead rant and rave at me and take the side of the person that coined the phrase - your obvious commercial bias is showing again!

    We still don't know if the "over escapement" or lost yield or not - at least in the long term. There is still a lot about management we don't know and may not know until it is too late. Right now we error on the side of the comm guys and only hope we are doing the right thing. We may someday find out that we are in error - like the killing of bald eagles, rainbow, and dollies!


    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    And here we go again...down the same slippery slope of anti-commercial fishing.

    tvfinak, you obviously don't realize that Alaska's largest personal use fishery eliminated a rod and reel fishery that used to take place at the mouth of the Kenai River. Up to 1982, when the Kenai personal use fishery went into effect, individuals and especially locals, utilized that rod and reel fishery to fill their freezers.

    I don't condone all things Mr. V represents, or all things about personal use fishing, sport fishing, or commercial fishing. But Mr. V does make a very good point...

    As far as commercial fishermen "owning the fish"...Those are your emotional words, not the words of commercial fishermen, fishery managers, or historical actions.
    ".
    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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default tvfinak beating his same old drum...

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    Actually I did fish for reds the Kenai in the early 80s with rod and reel.
    Then you know it wasn't the commercial fishery that displaced that unique rod/reel fishery. It was the dipnet fishery. Then you also saw the well-established commercial fishery lose allocation to the new dipnet fishery, which is basically Mr. V's point.

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    Don't blame me for using the term "owning the fish" - it was coined by one of your guys.
    First, you've misrepresented Mr. V as one of "my guys". Not only do I not know Mr. V personally, but am I not a commercial fishermen. If I were, Mr. V would not speak for me.

    Second, you are mistaken that I blamed you for using the term "owning the fish". I blamed you for using that term out of context, to once again launch your predictable anti-commercial fishing crusade. You can't launch a post without bashing commercial fishing.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    take the side of the person that coined the phrase
    Taking sides in non-productive. Obviously you don't want to understand where Mr. V is coming from, and what causes his emotional comments. You are strictly partisan line sportfishing...no better than Mr. V.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    your obvious commercial bias is showing again!
    Just because one refuses to take your anti-commercial fishing stance, doesn't make him bias toward commercial fishing. Actually I'm a proponent of sportfishing, since that's what I do. I just choose to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    We still don't know if the "over escapement" or lost yield or not - at least in the long term.
    We do know that we should manage our fisheries based on what we do know...defendable science. You should inform yourself with the data, studies, and reports that support that science. We also know that we should not manage our fisheries based on what we think we don't know. You'd have to do that with hypotheticals.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak
    Right now we error on the side of the comm guys and only hope we are doing the right thing. We may someday find out that we are in error
    Last I checked our fisheries were managed on the side of both sport, personal use, subsistence, and commercial fishing. All are big parts of what we are doing, and all are responsible for sustainability into the future. If you have proof we are not doing the right thing by giving commercial fishing priority on the sockeye, then reference it. Your hypotheticals, conspiracy theories, and attempts to manage the fishery based on what you think you don't know, is non-productive. If you're truly worried that we aren't doing the "right thing", then you would stop fishing and trying to get yourself more fish.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Thanks whop. You do just fine getting your point across.

    I realize Mr. V said that. My point was that those were his own words, not the words of the "commercial guys". It was wrong of tvfinak to use those words out of context, as a notch in his anti-commercial fishing platform. In other words, it would be like saying, "tvfinak represents us sportfishing guys...After all, the sportfishing guys don't have enough sockeye, and the millions of sockeye should be managed for sportfishing, not commercial fishing". But we know that isn't an accurate representation of sportfishermen. Just as we know commercial fishermen, fishery managers, lost yields, closures, reallocations for sportfishing, etc. do not support tvfinak's embellishment of Mr. V's comment.

    Look, we all know Mr. V got emotional at the BOF meeting. And like I said, I don't condone everything he does. But he did lose allocation to the personal use fishery...an allocation that he depended on, and which his limited entry permit (which he paid for) gave him the authority to harvest. Not understanding Mr. V's emotional remark, and turning it into something to use against commercial fishermen to get oneself more fish, is quite pathetic.

    If restoring the rod/reel fishery were to be proposed, I don't see how alternating 4 dipnet days to 1 rod/reel day would be fair. I understand fishing days are limited for dipnetting at the mouth of the Kenai, but they are also limited similarly for rod/reel fishing at the mouth. If the 4 dipnetting days fell at the peak of the run, or on prime tides, it would diminish the whole point of restoring the rod/reel fishery at the mouth...it occured primarily at the peak of the run. A 1 to 1 ratio would be equally fair, especially since the rod/reel fishery at the mouth would probably include just as many or more fishermen who would need more time to catch the same amount of fish.

    If you were here in 1982 when the dipnet fishery evolved, you would remember the public outcry concerning preservation of that unique sport fishery. Concern fell on deaf ears, and then there were user conflicts, and even a rally where sportfishermen united, went down to the beach, and forced their way between dipnetters. That didn't go too good for the rod/reel guys...I think the city cops showed up. I know there were several newspaper editorials and articles about the lost fishery that continued on for over a decade. The fishery died on deaf ears, like many other concerns of the dipnet fishery that have unfortunately become reality now. However, I doubt interest would be lost if the rod/reel fishery at the mouth were to spark itself alive again. A proposal could do just that.

    I agree with you that there are plenty of fish to go around. However, I disagree that the dipnet fishery should be managed around how easy and fast one gets his fish. Fishing is still "fishing", and manipulating another user group's allocation based on a dipnetter's job or work schedule is ridiculous. Your high expectations of the dipnet fishery are all too common, but not reasonable considering the whims of sockeye, Mother Nature, other user groups, and the complexity of managing a mixed-stock fishery. The sockeye are there when they are, in the numbers they are. It's up to you, the fishermen, to catch them.

    Your comment about liberal commercial fishing over the last 10 years does not make sense. 5 of the last 10 years exceeded escapement goals. So the commercial fishery was not liberal enough. Managers were conservative toward commercial fishing due to sport and personal use pressure...when neither could harvest them all. The consequences?...Lost yield and overescapements that are likely causing our recent low returns.

    I agree that all user groups need to work together. That is why I chimed in after the commercial fishing bashing started. It is a theme, headed by folks like tvfinak, that will get us sportfishermen nothing except more contention. I hope you understand.

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

    Default Gramps...

    Nice post, Thank you
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    fishhook, ak
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    in regards to the original post, i would propose some motorized closures on the little su. upstream of burma. (is this BOF territory?)


    going on 20 years ago now my father and I would float from the parks, sometimes in june, sometimes in august, sometimes both. the last time was 10 years ago, when we nearly basically swamped by about half a dozen different power-boaters. many are very considerate of other users and the impact of their wake on the river, but there are those who aren't.


    Anyhow I would like to see a few 2-3 day motor-closures upstream of burma. how about once mid-june, once late-june and twice in august. this river recieves ever-heavier use during these time periods, making it fairly unpleasant in non-motorized craft. just a few calm periods would go a long ways towards making this river enjoyable for me again.


    espcially after this past summer's miserable escapement, it would likely help the stocks as well.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andweav View Post
    in regards to the original post, i would propose some motorized closures on the little su. upstream of burma. (is this BOF territory?)
    The BOF has the authority to restrict fishing from a motorized vessel, but not restrict general outboard motor use by non-anglers. So they could prohibit fishing from a powerboat but that wouldn't prohibit anglers from getting out of the boat and fishing from shore, nor would it stop other users (hunters, recreational users) from running the river.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Still more bias

    It would appear that it is excusable for Mr. V to accuse the dipnetters of "stealing his fish" that but anyone that questions anything the the comm guys is bashing! You should be critizing Mr. V but all he gets from you is understanding and sympathy.

    And anyone that quotes what he said - and is on record as saying -is "embellishment" and "pulling out of context"? Yet your pulling things out of context and "interpreting" what people meant is beyond belief.

    Sportfishermen and dipnets happen to get emotional too - like Mr. V. We are all human too - you should understand a few things also.

    Mr. V and yourself should also realize that commercial fishing is fishing too - just like the sport and dipnetters. We also spend a lot of money and time on licenses and equipment and sometimes we lose out also. Fishing is fishing - comm, sport and dipnetting. Yet somehow the comm guys are special in your eyes for some reason and somehow exempt from the rules of "fishing".

    What is pathetic is your double standard and bias which prevents you from seeing both sides of the issue. A one sided stance does nothing to bring both sides together.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post

    I realize Mr. V said that.

    Just as we know commercial fishermen, fishery managers, lost yields, closures, reallocations for sportfishing, etc. do not support tvfinak's embellishment of Mr. V's comment.

    Look, we all know Mr. V got emotional at the BOF meeting.

    Not understanding Mr. V's emotional remark, and turning it into something to use against commercial fishermen to get oneself more fish, is quite pathetic.

    I agree that all user groups need to work together. That is why I chimed in after the commercial fishing bashing started. It is a theme, headed by folks like tvfinak, that will get us sportfishermen nothing except more contention. I hope you understand.
    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

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    It's unfortunate you see things that way tvfiank. And it's unfortunate you chose to use this thread to bash Mr. V and commercial fishing rather than to provide proposal ideas.

    Good luck achieving your objective and making your point...whatever it is.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Just a thought here but why are some so concerned with the success with comfish at the expense of the people. I am NOT bashing comfish but a real genuine question. I have a buddy who owns a construction company and the state and federal govt could care less if he makes any money or even stays in business. He too has a lot invested in his company. He may have work he may not but the govt is certainly not concerned if he does. also he employs a lot of people like comfish does. Just wondering as in my mind the one place the people should come first is the CI salmon fishery as many depend on it for food.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default look at it this way

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    Just a thought here but why are some so concerned with the success with comfish at the expense of the people. I am NOT bashing comfish but a real genuine question. I have a buddy who owns a construction company and the state and federal govt could care less if he makes any money or even stays in business. He too has a lot invested in his company. He may have work he may not but the govt is certainly not concerned if he does. also he employs a lot of people like comfish does. Just wondering as in my mind the one place the people should come first is the CI salmon fishery as many depend on it for food.
    Well, I do not think you are totally correct here. The federal and state governments have spent millions if not billions of dollars on projects to promote jobs. The military industrial complex has been inefficient for years as Senators and Representatives protect these private firms. So to say they do not care is accurate in that context.

    Second, the reasons people want to protect an industry like commercial fishing is that is serves a public good. Just like farmers get federal and state aide so does commercial fisherman as both provide food to a nation. One of the major advantages we have in this land is our ability to provide food which relieves us to do other things and be creative in other ways.

    Relative to Mr. V. comments I think people need some background. They were a poor choice of words but the point he was making was that compromizes were made at previous Board of Fish meetings on allocation and those deals were violated. For example, the Kenai River sockeye management plan states that the sockeye shall be managed primarily for commercial uses. Coho and chinook are primarily for sport uses.

    When the Kenai dip net fishery was created the harvest estimate was for 80,000 fish and the up river sport fishery was taking about the same. Today the combined fisheries are at nearly 400,000 or more fish. Mr. V who was at those meetings made what he thought was a good faith deal - he would not target Kenai chinook or coho and in fact not fish on some stocks like Susitna River chinook (historically the drift fleet was a major harvester) and in return he would have sockeye salmon with the sport and recreational harvest levels mentioned above. So I think you can see why he would choose the words our fish in this context. He feels strongly the Board has not kept its promise and therefore is angry with the system. I think we can all see how one would feel in this situation. Just for the record I was at these Board meetings and Mr. V. is correct on his opinion that the sockeye fisheries would not be allowed to grow unlimited.

    With a new Board every few years the historical perspective gets lost and people on the Board treat every UCI meeting as a new start. That is unfortunate as in a complex fishery some stability is needed for all parties.

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

    Default

    kgpcr, I don't know where you get the idea there is a shortage of CI salmon for those who depend on it for food, or that the success of the commercial fishery is at the expense of the people. Both are invalid statements.

    We can take advantage of CI feeder Kings all winter long, filling our freezers before the other salmon even arrive. If that isn't enough, then it's basically a limitless supply of CI sockeye...The Russian, Kenai, and Kasilof systems alone provide us more sockeye than we could ever consume...Liberalized limits...Overescapements more years than not...Dipnetting 25, plus 10 more for each family member (accomplished sometimes in a matter of hours). Then there's an awesome abundance of coho, topped off with a zillion pinks and chums.

    If you can't satisfy your food needs, then you aren't taking the opportunity to fish. There is plenty for all, and no reason not to have a successful, prosperous, and beneficial commercial fishery.

    The difference between your buddy's construction business and commerical fishing is that your buddy's business does not capitalize on public owned resources like commercial fishing. In other words, just as we would not want your buddy's construction business deciding how to develop our state and federal lands, we would not want commercial fishermen deciding how to harvest our state and federal fishery resources. Thus we have fishery management by the people's government, who concerns itself with commercial fishing, including restrictions, control, management, and related government programs.

    This thread has digressed from its topic. If you have a point kgpcr, please make it.

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

    Default Grampy

    You are right on this one. I started this thread with good intentions but it looks like it is taking a different slant then what I thought.
    Anyway, I'm a sport fisher at heart but don't want to argue allocation, just thought I would get the creative juices flowing.... Looks like it ain't happening on this thread so far.
    Come on guys, give me some idea's I can grab onto and extstrapolate on, excuse my spelling.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Well, I do not think you are totally correct here. The federal and state governments have spent millions if not billions of dollars on projects to promote jobs. The military industrial complex has been inefficient for years as Senators and Representatives protect these private firms. So to say they do not care is accurate in that context.

    Second, the reasons people want to protect an industry like commercial fishing is that is serves a public good. Just like farmers get federal and state aide so does commercial fisherman as both provide food to a nation. One of the major advantages we have in this land is our ability to provide food which relieves us to do other things and be creative in other ways.

    Relative to Mr. V. comments I think people need some background. They were a poor choice of words but the point he was making was that compromizes were made at previous Board of Fish meetings on allocation and those deals were violated. For example, the Kenai River sockeye management plan states that the sockeye shall be managed primarily for commercial uses. Coho and chinook are primarily for sport uses.

    When the Kenai dip net fishery was created the harvest estimate was for 80,000 fish and the up river sport fishery was taking about the same. Today the combined fisheries are at nearly 400,000 or more fish. Mr. V who was at those meetings made what he thought was a good faith deal - he would not target Kenai chinook or coho and in fact not fish on some stocks like Susitna River chinook (historically the drift fleet was a major harvester) and in return he would have sockeye salmon with the sport and recreational harvest levels mentioned above. So I think you can see why he would choose the words our fish in this context. He feels strongly the Board has not kept its promise and therefore is angry with the system. I think we can all see how one would feel in this situation. Just for the record I was at these Board meetings and Mr. V. is correct on his opinion that the sockeye fisheries would not be allowed to grow unlimited.

    With a new Board every few years the historical perspective gets lost and people on the Board treat every UCI meeting as a new start. That is unfortunate as in a complex fishery some stability is needed for all parties.
    Nerka
    Thanks for your reply. Your reply makes sense and ansewred my question. Again you have reminded me there are two sides to everything. You did so without bashing me or putting me down. again thanks for your reply.

  20. #20
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Grampy- "This thread has digressed from its topic. If you have a point kgpcr, please make it."

    Absolutely right, grampy. I jumped in here looking for proposal ideas, only to see a ton of print time from you, bashing anyone who said something that may be anti commercial. Oh, and one line out of 5 posts with a proposal. So please take your own advice! KGPCR, and TV, sometimes you gotta put someone on mute to be able to stay on topic. Ideas for proposals- good thread starter, Whop.

    I am working on several proposals. They will deal with sport, personal use, commercial and subsistence. I'm painting with a broad brush- fisheries need to come first.

    1st- establish limits on bycatch in the subsistence fishery of whitefish in Lake Louise and surrounding lakes. This is a fishery that is seeing a growing influx of people, who are setting nets in non-whitefish areas and catching more Lake trout and burbot than whitefish. This can look like a total shut down of nets as a method for whitefish subsistence, or caps on total bycatch, then shut down the entire fishery, or personal caps, when that is reached that person's household is finished. It could also be changed to allow fishing only in certain parts of the lake.

    Residents of the area are upset because of purported illegal activity that takes place under the guise of a legal subsistence fishery, and also the seemingly intentional take of large numbers of lake trout and burbot. The recent history of burbot on Lake Louise is a complete shutdown of sportfishing due to overharvest, and for lake trout, restrictions on length and numbers of fish retained to protect these slow growing fish. With "subsistence" netters now catching and retaining large numbers of both these species, it flies in the face of the logic of the sport fish restrictions.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •