Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 122

Thread: Kenai gillnets

  1. #1

    Default Kenai gillnets

    Today is the last day for public comment on the subsistence proposals.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishguy View Post
    Today is the last day for public comment on the subsistence proposals.
    What where how??? Is there a link or an email that we can send our comments to?

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile Here you go. . .

    Send your comments to:

    Federal Subsistence Board
    Office of Subsistence Management
    3601 C Street, Suite 1030
    Anchorage 99503
    E-mail: subsistence@fws.gov
    fax: 907-786-3898 (att.: Bill Knauer)


  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    I hope everyone submitted comments opposing this federal subsistence gill netting proposal FP07-27, as well as FP07-29, 30, and 10-13.

    I hope everyone supported FP07-28.

    Allowing gill netting in the Kenai, Kasilof, Tustumena, Skilak, and fragile lakes like Hidden and Cooper makes no ethical sense. We've seen what this does to rivers, steams, and lakes around the world....decimation.

    Proposals like these are totally discriminatory, and go against all current fisheries biology, resource management, and ANILCA laws and legislation.

    Is there a reason the Natives in these communities can't harvest their fish under current personal use and sport regulations, filling their freezers like the rest of us do?

    10,000 fish per community? How many of Hope's 140 population, Cooper Landing's 322 population, and Ninilchik's 772 population are actually Alaskan Natives? Census statistics say about 3%. And how many of those rely on and practice customary and traditional subsistence use? About 1-5% of those. So we can count them on one hand.

    As a child, I grew up and went to school with Natives from these communities. They didn't know the first thing about hunting and fishing. They had no customs or traditions in that regard. In fact I taught many of them who had never done it before. They used to wear my boots and gloves because they didn't have any.

    I say if these communities want a subsistence way of life using customary and traditional ways, then we only give it to them after removing our public lands, public resources, public roads, public accesses, modern vehicles and outboards, electricity and fuel supplies, grocery stores, modern clothing, soda pop, twinkies, cigarettes, and federal $assistance$ and $health care$ programs.

    Since my family homesteaded here I've seen Alaskans lose more and more land and resources to the Native's special interest. My forefathers didn't die conquering this land and its resources so we could turn around and give it away. I have just as much right to it as any Alaskan Native.

    Now gill netting? This subsitence proposal is yet another discriminatory give-away. Is there no end?

    It takes two minutes to let the Feds know if you support or oppose the proposal. Send comments to: subsistence@fws.gov

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

    Default racism in this forum?

    The following was in today's Clarion and speaks well to the issue - not the rant by Grampyfishes that tends toward racism. Using words like Since my family homesteaded here I've seen Alaskans lose more and more land and resources to the Native's special interest. My forefathers didn't die conquering this land and its resources so we could turn around and give it away. and
    As a child, I grew up and went to school with Natives from these communities. They didn't know the first thing about hunting and fishing.

    I heard this bull and generalization about a whole group of people in the South in the 70's and I hear it all the time in Alaska about Native peoples. No wonder they turn to the Federal Government - just like Afro-Americans in the south. However, some like the article below want to cooperate - not divide.
    Reader offers recipe for cooperation
    Letter to the Editor





    An Outdoor View (Clarion, Dec. 29) does disservice to claim the Federal Subsistence Board’s decision to establish subsistence fisheries on the Kenai and Kasilof is a recipe for conflict. The FSB’s decision is not a recipe for conflict any more than a recipe for cooperation.
    We can as easily use the FSB decision to cook up understanding, tolerance and neighborliness as we can use it to cook another batch of divisiveness, intolerance and conflict. What we cook — cooperation or conflict — is up to us.
    An Outdoor View complains the FSB’s decision might impact fishing as we know it. But fishing as we know it depends on who “we” are, and regardless of who “we” are, fishing as “we” know it has changed in the past, is changing now and will continue to change in the future.
    The Alaska Native Interest Land Claims Acts was made law to settle Native people’s claims, clearing the way for the building of the pipeline. Inherent in ANILCA is our national conscience’s wish to protect the native way of life, which transcends simplistic definitions of subsistence and rural.
    In order to accommodate Native lifestyles without violating our federal constitution, Congress used a “rural” priority to safeguard values and lifestyle.
    Alaska’s constitution began by ignoring Native sensibilities, using “subsistence” to protect whatever Native rights the state deemed to indulge, namely the right to fish and game in times of shortage. That priority was found illegal by Alaska’s Supreme Court — a subsistence priority violates the equal access guaranteed by our state’s constitution.
    Thus began the contest between federal law — rural priority designed to protect Native values and lifestyles — and state law — equal access to fish and game by all Alaskans.
    The feds won. Alaskans cannot disregard the national conscience and flaunt national law any more than could the southern states when confronted with the necessity of civil rights.
    Now, federal bureaucrats, seeking to obey and implement the provisions of ANILCA, have decided to establish subsistence fisheries on the Kenai and Kasilof. Like it or not, whining, complaining, pointing fingers, name-calling and more will not change that.
    What’s left to be decided is the recipe, what we’ll be eating when the cooking is over. We can cook up more conflict or we can cook up cooperation.
    We’ve had too much conflict, blame, accusations, divisiveness and more between user groups. Conflict accomplishes nothing. We can choose this time to try to understand each other. We can reject conflict and try cooperation, understanding and tolerance. We are, after all, neighbors.
    John Nelson Soldotna

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy Racism and more. . .

    I wrote the letter-to-the-editor above, and no one should miss the fact that I am not advocating for or against subsistence fisheries on the Kenai and Kasilof. I am advocating for calm dialog, respecting each other's points of view, and using established, legal process to try to change what we don't like.

    To make the subsistence fisheries strictly an issue of race is, I think, a grave mistake. Before and in spite of simplistic, legalistic definitions, subsistence is nothing more than a way of looking at the rest of creation. The apartment dweller in New York City who grows tomatoes on his rooftop is acknowledging and practicing a subsistence lifestyle at some basic level.

    Some few years back, hundreds of area residents reacted loudly and long when a catch-and-release proposal threatened their historic and traditional use of first-run Kenai kings.

    Subsistence is not about Natives, it's not about rural, subsistence is about priorities. That federal law has so defined the issue as to make possible the current state of affairs is no excuse for the discussion to degenerate in racism or personal abuse.

    We've been a long time getting here, and we'll be a while getting beyond where we are. In the meantime, let's try to keep the discussion in the realm of ideas.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Oh, please Nerka. There was nothing "racist" in my comment. You're the only one mentioning "racism" and the "south".

    But since you brought it up, frankly, I'm tired of losing my rights to public land and public resources just because of my race. I am tired of Alaskan Natives discriminating against me and excluding me from doing the same things they want to do in the same areas they want to do it, just because of my race.

    Nerka, your problem is that you don't realize that these types of proposals are racist at their very core. They drive a direct wedge between people and communities. They are proposed by one particular race, for the sole benefit of that one particular race, with exclusion for all other races. The proposal isn't about equality and non-discrimination. It's about special treatment for one race.

    The fact is, the more we "cooperate", the more we lose.

    For Pete's sake, these are public lands and resources the Federal Government put aside for public use, for all Alaskans. Not for special use by certain races. Read ANILCA. The Kenai Wildlife Refuge was not established by the Feds for continued subsistence use.

    Land I used to hunt on (and generations of mine before that), is no longer available for my children to hunt on. It is now posted Native land. I have been excluded from harvesting the resource there because of my race. Now I am being excluded from a fishing regulation that allows additional harvest of fish because of my race. A regulation that will, without question, effect the way I currently harvest my own fish. A regulation that will, without question, effect fish populations and sustainability of lakes and rivers.

    Nerka, to be non-racist, non-discriminatory, cooperative, tolerant, etc., the proposal would have to apply to all Alaskans in all communities.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Subsistence is not about Natives, it's not about rural, subsistence is about priorities.
    I guess that's one of the problems I have with this proposal....it is all about the Natives. The purpose of the proposal specifically singles out tribal use. Otherwise it would apply to all Alaskan people. And it is all about rural classification. Otherwise is would apply to all communities.

    The Native people and these three communities have transformed. They no longer rely on subsistence as a way of life or livelihood. And the small core of individual Natives within these communities (we're talking just a few people in some communities) simply do not qualify the entire community for subsistence, as the proposal suggests.

    Per ANILCA, National Wildlife Refuge designation did not give statutory "priority" to continued subsistence use in the Kenai unit. While opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation were statutory priorities.

    But put all the legal and "racial" comments aside for a moment.

    Lets picture gill nets fishing Rainbow Trout in the Kenai River, and try to imagine what that would do to that special strain of fish. Picture gill nets fishing for Steelhead in rivers that currently have unsustainable populations. Picture gill nets in Hidden Lake, harvesting fragile Lake Trout that only spawn at certain sizes, ages, and locations. I won't go on, only to say that regulations have consistently been reducing harvest of these fish because their populations are not sustainable. Nothing supports an additional gill net fishery. And how do we go about managing this, and at what cost to Alaskans?

    The one that really gets me is FP07-29, "Proponent wishes to know which species would be permitted to be used for dog food". Now there's putting a subsistence gill net fishery to good use...lets manage our fisheries for "dog food".

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down Sorry, I'll pass. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    I guess that's one of the problems I have with this proposal....it is all about the Natives. The purpose of the proposal specifically singles out tribal use. Otherwise it would apply to all Alaskan people. And it is all about rural classification. Otherwise is would apply to all communities.

    The Native people and these three communities have transformed. They no longer rely on subsistence as a way of life or livelihood. And the small core of individual Natives within these communities (we're talking just a few people in some communities) simply do not qualify the entire community for subsistence, as the proposal suggests.

    Per ANILCA, National Wildlife Refuge designation did not give statutory "priority" to continued subsistence use in the Kenai unit. While opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation were statutory priorities.

    But put all the legal and "racial" comments aside for a moment.

    Lets picture gill nets fishing Rainbow Trout in the Kenai River, and try to imagine what that would do to that special strain of fish. Picture gill nets fishing for Steelhead in rivers that currently have unsustainable populations. Picture gill nets in Hidden Lake, harvesting fragile Lake Trout that only spawn at certain sizes, ages, and locations. I won't go on, only to say that regulations have consistently been reducing harvest of these fish because their populations are not sustainable. Nothing supports an additional gill net fishery. And how do we go about managing this, and at what cost to Alaskans?

    The one that really gets me is FP07-29, "Proponent wishes to know which species would be permitted to be used for dog food". Now there's putting a subsistence gill net fishery to good use...lets manage our fisheries for "dog food".
    All you claim and more may be true but so what? It's all immaterial to the legal realities of where we all are right now. Negative rants about Natives, catch-and-release, trout, pollution, dog food, erosion, rural, ANILCA, and/or whatever else comes to mind is pointless, destructive, and will only exacerbate the divisions among us, making things worse.

    If we don't like the current state of affairs, use the systems in place to try to change them. What's the alternative? More divisions? More hate? More blame? That's not a world I care to live in.

    When confronted with a bad state of affairs, attack the bad idea and attempt to change minds. Sometimes that works, sometimes not, but we're well advised to leave people alone. . . we're all subject to the same sins and frailties.


  10. #10
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default Dog Food

    While it is had to imagine a species being used for dog food, it is used for such. When I lived in the village of "Wild Guess" and there was a bad king run, the mushers all complained that they would run out of fish for the dogs. True.....and a real concern.

    So the State provided fish for the mushers. "Kings" Yep! The flew in crates of kings. We did not have a school lunch program so we scrounged a few cases to use in our kitchen to provide lunches for the kids. Yes, we cooked dog food for the kids to eat.

    So yes, some species are used for dog food. I'd rather see pinks used instead though.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    All you claim and more may be true but so what? It's all immaterial to the legal realities of where we all are right now. Negative rants about Natives, catch-and-release, trout, pollution, dog food, erosion, rural, ANILCA, and/or whatever else comes to mind is pointless, destructive, and will only exacerbate the divisions among us, making things worse.

    If we don't like the current state of affairs, use the systems in place to try to change them. What's the alternative? More divisions? More hate? More blame? That's not a world I care to live in.

    When confronted with a bad state of affairs, attack the bad idea and attempt to change minds. Sometimes that works, sometimes not, but we're well advised to leave people alone. . . we're all subject to the same sins and frailties.
    I understand your point. That is why I submitted comments through the Federal Subsistence Board and just encouraged others to do the same.

    The problem is that some people use the "systems in place" very keenly, to get what they want for their own interest. The true intent of laws gets twisted. Consideration for others is squashed. Legal systems fail again and again as these people generate loopholes and fill them with selfishness. And we let it happen all in the name of not being "politically correct".

    I feel this proposal is just that. As spelled out in black and white, it is introduced by the Ninilchik Traditional Council for the purpose of satisfying the Ninilchik Tribe. It excludes and discriminates almost every other Alaskan.

    Tip-toeing around the real issue has only softened matters and allowed many Alaskans to be excluded. Not enough of us speak out. While some of us would like to think the "system" establishes equal treatment, fair regulations, and an inclination for everyone to get along, that just isn't reality.

    It is proposals like this that really exacerbates division among us. In fact this proposal represents division at its finest.


    Daveinthebush, I understand fish can be used as dog food. But we're not dealing with a remote village full of dog mushers who rely on King runs and use their dogs for transportation.

    We're dealing with modern communities with modern roads that don't rely on king runs for a way of life or a livelihood. While one or two people might mush dogs, they do not do it as a way of life. They get their Eukanuba at the grocery store. Again, managing gill net fisheries that have a potential to decimate unique fish populations in unique waters for dog food is ridiculous.

  12. #12
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default Dog Food

    The fish that were shipped to the villages for dog food were commercially caught and processed. Somewhere! Copper River, Bristol Bay, Kenia. The village I was in was not the only one. There were probably 20-30 villages that recieved commercially caught kings for dog food that year along the Yukon. There were 100-125 commercial packed boxes that came off the plane just where I was. I am guessing 7-10 fish per box.

    Just a fact. Not all commercialy caught fish is used for human consumption.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    We digress.

    The communities represented in the proposal are not dog mushing communities and they do not rely on dogs for transportation or a way of life. They are not remote communities along the Yukon. In fact they are very modern communities in the heart of Alaska's highway and road system. They have very plush homes with SUV's and fancy trucks parked in the driveway.

    The fact they suggest using the resource for dog food indicates that they don't need the fish for personal consumption. If the object is to make feeding their pets cheaper, or to supply fish to their dogs using an easier method, then I would say, exactly.

    Keep in mind that we are trying to fit this dog food gill netting thing in with current personal use, sport, commercial and subsistence uses. And we're not just dealing with salmon. We're talking about more fragile and unsustainable species like Rainbow Trout, Lake Trout, etc.

    If the State provided commercially caught King Salmon as dog food, then the State had to pay the commercial fisherman for it. That payment contributed to the livelihood of the fisherman. In fact it just shows that we don't need special gill net regulations to support dog food...the State can buy it from commercial fisherman and give it to the three people in these communities who apparently need it.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default Where are the data?

    We're talking about more fragile and unsustainable species like Rainbow Trout, Lake Trout, etc.

    Grampyfishes - where are your data to support the above statement? Rainbow trout and lake trout are sustainable otherwise we would not have a fishery on them.

    The harvest levels for any fishery - subsistence, sport, or commercial will be set to sustain the resource. In fact, if one wanted to reallocate the sport harvest of rainbow trout or lake trout to the subsistence fishery and close the other fisheries the fish resources would continue to be sustainable at today's levels. If not then the sport fishery is overharvesting the stocks today.

    In addition, what makes lake trout and rainbow fragile? How are you defining fragile? Easy to overharvest? If that is the case then one must look at the fishery and see what the potential harvest rate will be - since no proposal for the subsistence fishery has been passed there are no data on which to base an analysis. Saying they are fragile is very subjective and not objective. We need objective analysis to make rationale decisions.

    Finally, when we make this a race issue by pointing out proposals by Native organizations and degrade their value by reference to the race of the authors it is a subtle form of racism.

    That is the problem with racism it is often more subtle than most people realize. Race should not be in this discussion at all. If a commercial organization or sport fish group put in a proposal it would be discussed relative to the merits of the proposal. However, if a native organization puts in a proposal it degrades to they and we - they do not need the fish, they do not know how to hunt and fish, they want more for themselves than for my race, they have locked up my lands - these are examples of racism by definition.

    I am not going to pursue the race discussion anymore but lets stick to the proposals and what impact those proposals have on the resources and all user groups. The discussion will be cleaner and more professional in that manner.

  15. #15
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Being against a few natives who take more than we need is not being racist. Also being against natives who push for regulations that can hurt all of us so they can take more than they can use is not racist. Thinking native corporations need to stop destroying habitat is not racist. If these people really need food they can pool there money and come up with the 40 grand needed for a keani set net permit and boat and fish in whatever traditional ways they want and catch as many fish as they want and sell those they can't use. Gillnets in the keani maistream if fished correctly could caught 25 thousand fish per day during the height of the run. I just can't believe anything on the road system is considered rural, and anywhere that people have to drive past a fred meyers and a safeway to get to where they would subsitence fish would even have a chance beyond the AMPLE opportunity to fill their freezers like the rest of us. I hope the Federal Subsistence Board isn't full of idiots who cater to special interests and puts down this attempt to destroy the best fishery on the north american road system. I hope the board of fish realizes that overescapement of sockeye is a huge problem and starts a skilak lake setnet fishery.

    When it comes to native non native issues, Native corporations won't let me harvest their resources, why should I let thier share holders harvest mine? I'm not saying all natives are bad, just the corporations and the shareholders that support them locking up lands, polluting, logging, and spraying. I'm also against anyone who doesn't listen to state biologists, or a person who is too lazy to cast a line with a glob of eggs for a few hours to cautch their ten dollies that will feed them for a week, and instead pushes for special treatment because they'd rather pick fish from curtains of death.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default idea of gillnets will lead to overharvest is just wrong.

    If we get the emotion out of the discussion we can examine the issue in a more objective manner.

    To say gillnets can harvest thousands of fish in the Kenai is a true statement but not meaningful to the discussion. For example, the UCI commercial fishery with over 1800 nets, which are longer than any net proposed for the subsistence fishery, can overharvest UCI fisheries without a doubt if unregulated. We, as a people, do not do allow that to happen. They are regulated. The same will be true for a subsistence fishery. It is just not correct to jump to the conclusion that a fishery that is yet to be defined will lead to overharvest. I can tell you there are more Dolly Varden caught in the commercial nets and discarded than this subsistence fishery will catch.

    In addition, the sockeye sport fishery has overharvested sockeye in the Kenai on a number of years. This is because sport fish managers failed to regulate the fishery when escapement levels fell below the in-river goals. So it is not the fishery per se but the combination of the fishery and regulatory authority.

    Relative to the comments about Native corporation lands these are private lands. If they do not want them open to the public it is their right under our laws. There are plently of private lands that are owned by individuals who are not native and do not make them available to the public. I do not see a big rush to label them as to their race and then point heated comments at them for doing something that is legal.

    ak_powder_monkey - reread your post and look at how you went from a few native comment to a generalization about the whole native peoples. Look at how you defined their needs for them - food is the basis of your subsistence definition but there are other critieria for defining subsistence.
    Look at the comment about being against natives who take more than they need - you define their need and why use natives in the comment? It would appear to me that one should be against anyone who takes more than their limit.

    You define native resources vs your resources - this is not correct - the resources are owned in common(both at the federal and state level) so the people of Alaska and the other states are harvesting resources as defined in regulation. Native corporations can only control access to land and how their lands can be used. Private homeowners can do the same. I do not let people hunt on my property (I am a hunter) for legal liability reasons.

    Let me give an example of how I would like the discussion to go. A proposal for a Skilak Lake sockeye salmon fishery. At first blush this appears to be a reasonable idea. However, here are some things to consider : 1) the harvest in Skilak Lake would take all stocks upriver of the lake - the harvest levels would have to be set so that goals for Russian River are met along with Kenai Lake tributaries - this may mean setting goals for those systems upriver that presently have no goals 2) there will be a harvest of rainbow trout, lake trout, and dolly varden - the fishery would need to be designed by time and area to avoid or minimize this impact if these are not targeted species 3) habitat concerns - putting lots of people on Skilak Lake shores - in a refuge- may destroy habitat or cause human interactions with refuge animals - bears concentrate in the lower lake area in July/August - time and area restriction could deal with this 4) safety concerns - Skilak Lake is one of the most dangerous lakes in Alaska as the winds come up quickly - again time and area for a fishery may reduce this risk or the fishery should not proceed because of this concern - 5) is the fishery consistent with other refuge goals - since federal law governs both subsistence and refuge purposes is there a conflict between the two - a court may need to decide the priority use.

    These are the issues we should be discussing - not the race of the proposer.

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

    Default

    We're talking about more fragile and unsustainable species like Rainbow Trout, Lake Trout, etc.

    Grampyfishes - where are your data to support the above statement? Rainbow trout and lake trout are sustainable otherwise we would not have a fishery on them.
    Where's your data to support the fact they would be sustainable? Or do we just make/pass proposals like this with the assumption that gill nets will have no effect on the sustainability of the species?

    Over the last couple of decades, harvest limits have been reduced, catch and release regulations have gone into effect, and methods of taking have been scrutinized. This indicates a clear decline in sustainablility and a desire to preserve the resource. It would not indicate room for a new gill net fishery, particularly for dog food. At best, throwing a gill net fishery into the scheme would undoubtedly effect current fisheries, straining the resource even more. Clearly, Federal approval would put the $burden$ back on our State when it comes to managing the even more complex mess.

    You might want to do some researce on how gill netting has effected Trout fisheries across the world. Decimation.

    For example, Lake Trout grow extremely slow. They only spawn at a particular age and size, usually quite old. So only a very small percentage of the Lake Trout in a lake actually do the spawning. If too many younger and smaller fish are gill netted, no breed stock remains. If too many breeders are gill netted, nothing spawns. And when they do spawn, they do it schooled up, usually migrating to a particular area. They spawn in unique areas of lakes, and at unique and unusual times. Very susceptible. Obviously, they are an extremely fragile species that could easily be decimated by gill netting....as history has proven. Add in the lack of studies and understanding of these Trout in the proposed areas, and we have a formula for disaster.


    In fact, if one wanted to reallocate the sport harvest of rainbow trout or lake trout to the subsistence fishery and close the other fisheries the fish resources would continue to be sustainable at today's levels. If not then the sport fishery is overharvesting the stocks today.
    That is ridiculous. You better read ANILCA and NWRSIA legislation for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.

    Trout fisheries are a public resource on public lands. No provision for continued subsistence use is given to the Kenai Unit. In fact NWRSIA legislation in 1997 prescribes wildlife dependent recreation, including sport fishing, as the priority public use.

    So at the same time you're suggesting ignoring current laws, you're also indicating, without any substantiation, that these communities can not harvest adequate fish quantities under current State sport fishing, personal use, dip netting, commercial fishing, and subsistence fishing regulations. Not to mention you're ignoring the balancing act that would be required by the State to re-manage the complex fishery.


    what makes lake trout and rainbow fragile? How are you defining fragile? Easy to overharvest?
    See my above comments exampling Lake Trout. Species of fish don't necessarily need to be "overharvested" to be decimated. They can be decimated by harvesting prime breeders. Particularly where only a small percentage of the fish population spawn, and then only at certain ages and sizes in certain areas.

    If that is the case then one must look at the fishery and see what the potential harvest rate will be
    Exactly. To propose gill netting with designated limits and mesh sizes without knowing that scientific information is a disastrous approach.


    since no proposal for the subsistence fishery has been passed there are no data on which to base an analysis. Saying they are fragile is very subjective and not objective. We need objective analysis to make rationale decisions.
    Lets not reinvent the wheel. History is littered with objective analysis on how fragile Lake Trout and Rainbow Trout fisheries are, particularly to gill netting. My comments are not subjective, but based on research, education, and fisheries biology.

    There is certainly no data to make proposals that include limits and gill net mesh size. We would need to know populations, spawning ages, sizes, habits, etc. for each species/strain and body of water proposed to determine that.


    Race should not be in this discussion at all.
    It was you who brought it up.


    Finally, when we make this a race issue by pointing out proposals by Native organizations and degrade their value by reference to the race of the authors it is a subtle form of racism.
    The Ninilchik Traditional Counsel is clearly listed as the proponent of this proposal. The proposal's purpose of the regulation change clearly spells out the Ninilchik Tribe.

    Nerka, you can only be eligible for that group if you are of particular race. You can read about the racial requirements here:

    http://www.ninilchiktribe-nsn.gov/eligibility.html

    So please, if you have a racial issue, talk to the Tribe, not me. Because the proposal doesn't say it represents all Alaskans, all people, and all races. I am excluded and discriminated upon because of my race. Pretty simple.


    That is the problem with racism it is often more subtle than most people realize.
    It is in our face on this one. In fact the proposal is racism at its finest.... One race gets a special fishery, another doesn't.


    I am not going to pursue the race discussion anymore....The discussion will be cleaner and more professional in that manner.
    Thank you.

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile Out in the cold. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    It is in our face on this one. In fact the proposal is racism at its finest.... One race gets a special fishery, another doesn't.
    The fishery was granted because of "rural," not because of "race." Anyone—race, tribe, club, city, whatever—may propose a subsistence fishery, but if it ain't rural, it ain't gonna happen.

    And what can be said about c&r fisheries? Not being a c&r kinda guy, "they" get a fishery and I don't?


  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default Provide the data

    Grampyfishes - you did not provide one bit of data to support your position. You made generalized statements that are not based in biological fact. First, if there are existing fisheries on these stocks then they are being regulated based on some biological and social criteria. They are being sustained by definition that a fishery is taking place. If not, then ADF&G has failed in its mission.

    The fact that the Upper River rainbow stocks are under catch and release has nothing to do with biology, except for the fact that one can turn the population over 4 times with catch and release. The catch and release proposal has to do with social concerns about providing opportunity for sport fisherman. A harvest fishery could be put in place but the season would be shorter and the number of participants less. Either fishery is sustainable.

    The same is true for the early run chinook salmon fishery. The regulations to reduce exploitation rate was to keep the fishery at high levels of use and provide opportunity. The fishery could have been regulated to close after a number of fish were harvested -either by size class or total numbers.

    So lets cut the bull about this being a biological issue. It is about allocation between user groups. If I put a gill net in the upper river and provide harvest guidelines that is sustainable then one has a sustainable fishery - pure and simple. If you want in your criteria to have genetic concerns identified then so be it. Under your analysis the gear determines the sustainability as opposed to the harvest rate. That is just plain wrong biologically.

    Using history to make a case for not using gillnet would be like saying gillnet in the Northwest have reduced stocks so there should be no gillnets in Alaska. However, Alaska fishery managemet is the best in the world and gillnet fisheries are part of that management - both for commercial, sport, subsistence and personal use. If I follow your train of thought there should be no gillnet fisheries in any freshwater system. However, we know Alaska has a number of gillnet fisheries in freshwaters that are sustaining populations of salmon and trout.

    Relative to race it was your statements that prompted the actions. My comments only called you on it - if you had left race out of the discussion I would have been silent.

    While the tribe has the right to ask for their interest to be taken into consideratioin it was your comments about natives not knowing how to hunt or fish and your grandfather conquering the land - by implication that means the people that were here also - native people. Conquer means to gain mastery over someone or something by physical, mental, or moral force. So when you say your grandfather conquered this land you are saying he conquered the people that were here - maybe not physically but certainly by mental and moral force. To use these types of words relative to native peoples is racism - pure and simple.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    To say gillnets can harvest thousands of fish in the Kenai is a true statement but not meaningful to the discussion.
    Of course it's meaningful. Just one community, like Ninilchik, could take 10,000 salmon. And fish they catch under sport or personal use don't count toward that community limit. Plus they get to keep "incidental" catch.


    For example, the UCI commercial fishery with over 1800 nets, which are longer than any net proposed for the subsistence fishery, can overharvest UCI fisheries without a doubt if unregulated. We, as a people, do not do allow that to happen. They are regulated. The same will be true for a subsistence fishery.
    Here's some problems with that argument:

    First, the UCI commercial fishery is a way of life, and a large number of fisherman rely on it for their livelihood, as does a considerable portion of the community. In contrast, the communities represented in the proposal do not rely on salmon for their livelihood, nor is it a way of life.

    Secondly, the UCI commercial fishery in not an in-river fishery. It does not necessarily target only Kenai and Kasilof River fish, but includes West Side, Northern, and Susitna fish. In contrast the proposed gill net fishery directly targets Kenai and Kasilof in-river fish.

    Thirdly, UCI permits are limited. Future growth of the fishery is very unlikely. In contrast the subsitence gill not proposal sets no limits on the number of households eligible. Future growth of the fishery, mainly due to population increases, is very likely.

    Next, although permits to commercially fish the UCI are limited, they do come available from time to time for anyone from anywhere to puchase and fish. In contrast, the proposal allows only persons eligible by race and community to fish.

    Finally, you are implying that a Federal Subsistence program would be regulated and balanced by the State of Alaska, as part of its on-going fishery management. Federal and State management of fisheries are not one in the same. State of Alaska Fish and Game management was never intended to balance Federal management. The Feds know nothing about managing Alaska's fisheries.


    It is just not correct to jump to the conclusion that a fishery that is yet to be defined will lead to overharvest.
    Then why does the proposal establish limits?


    I can tell you there are more Dolly Varden caught in the commercial nets and discarded than this subsistence fishery will catch.
    Now there's a jump to conclusion.


    This is because sport fish managers failed to regulate the fishery... So it is not the fishery per se but the combination of the fishery and regulatory authority.
    Exactly. The fishery is very complex and difficult to manage. So why would you want to add in yet another regulatory authority and fishery (Federal Subsistence)? Do a handfull of tribal members claiming traditional and customary justify that?


    Relative to the comments about Native corporation lands these are private lands. If they do not want them open to the public it is their right under our laws.
    These were public lands, established by the Federal Government for public use. My family used them for decades to hunt and fish...something my children will not be able to do because of their race.


    There are plently of private lands that are owned by individuals who are not native and do not make them available to the public.
    Those lands were purchased. They were never owned and put aside by the Federal Government for public use. They were available for purchase to anyone from any race. In contrast, Federal land designated for public use was basically given to these Natives. Why? Not because they are people, but because they are Native.

    Nerka, could you give us a number of the residents in Hope, Cooper Landing, and Ninilchik that practice cutomary and traditional uses? Because I heard that you could easily count them on one hand.

    Also Nerka, I had to stop fishing half way through July because my two chest freezers were jammed with fish. Is there a reason a Native from Ninilchik, who also has the opportunity to harvest moose, halibut, cod, bear, caribou, waterfowl, etc., can't harvest a sufficient numbers of fish under current State sport and personal use regulations?

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •