Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Guides and Set Netters to reduce chinook PU harvest

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default Guides and Set Netters to reduce chinook PU harvest

    Well, according to the local biologists in Soldotna the Kenai/Soldotna AC the other night passed a proposal to have PU fisherman release chinook salmon in the Kenai River. The proposal was brought to the AC by a guide on the AC and commercial set netters on the AC supported it - it is rumored that one said a chinook is a sport fish and should be released in the PU fishery. That PU fisherman should be limited to reds as they are the meat fish and therefore PU fisherman have no right to them.

    If you remember I brought this up months ago when KAFC was approached to do this and a number of guides on this forum said that they would not put in such a proposal. So someone got the AC guide representative to do it with commercial fisherman support on the AC. Nice move politically but we know where this is coming from- self interest and money on both groups part.

    Guides want more chinook for their clients and set netters want more chinook to pass the counter so they keep fishing. If PU fisherman have to suffer the few fish they catch to do this so be it. Also, local sport fish biologists asked KAFC if they would put the proposal in and KAFC said no to this request.

    At least one guide who is an alternate to the AC objected and said that this was nuts. That local residents cannot keep a chinook from the river that is adjacent to their homes. He was upset but could not vote on the measure. So who is really behind this move. To get the whole AC to vote for it means that PU fisherman are not represented well and that the economic self interests may be controlling the Kenai/Soldotna AC.

    So the question. jWhere are the major groups standing on this proposal. Lets hear from KRSA, AOC, KPGA, KAFC, UCIDA, and KPFA on this. Lets put some pressure on them to stand up and be straight with PU fisherman. Lets not let them wait until the BOF meeting and do their work in the back rooms.

    KAFC will take a position shortly and I am pretty positive we will not support this proposal - unfortunately one of our directors Scott Miser died suddenly this week at 47 so we need to take that in and deal with it before we meet again.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    The guide alternate on the AC is a board member of Kenai River Professional Guide Association (he was the one that was upset that this proposal went in and that he could not vote against it). This proposal was brought to KRPGA at the last KRPGA monthly meeting and it was voted down by an overwhelming margin.

    The title of this thread is poorly written and does not even come close to being accurate. It makes it sounds like ALL GUIDES AND SET NETTERS support this proposal. I do not know were the set netters stand on this one as a group but I can say that the vast majority of Kenai River Guides are against this one.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    215

    Default Just to be clear

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Also, local sport fish biologists asked KAFC if they would put the proposal in and KAFC said no to this request.
    Local area sport fish management staff never requested KAFC, or anyone, submit this proposal. A month or so ago a member of KAFC was in the Soldotna office talking to the sport fish managers and told staff that he was just approached by an individual asking him if KAFC would submit the proposal. Staff asked him what he thought of the idea.

    That was the extent of the discussion.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default not true

    Quote Originally Posted by aktally View Post
    Local area sport fish management staff never requested KAFC, or anyone, submit this proposal. A month or so ago a member of KAFC was in the Soldotna office talking to the sport fish managers and told staff that he was just approached by an individual asking him if KAFC would submit the proposal. Staff asked him what he thought of the idea.

    That was the extent of the discussion.
    Aktally, you comments are not accurate. If you want the name of the person who had the conversation I will send it to you via PM and you can call him and talk to him. I am sure he will tell you exactly what he told me.

    Iceblue, that is why I asked what the group postion's are and you answered. So we have two answers - one from KAFC and KPGA. Lets see what the other groups say. Maybe the thread title should have said some but the charge at the AC was led by a guide and a commercial set netter who has a leadership role in the set net community. The jest of this is still true - there is a fight over chinook in the Kenai River that has now led to a proposal by the local AC to remove chinook from being harvested by PU fisherman. That is the issue.

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

    Default truth in advertising

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    The title of this thread is poorly written and does not even come close to being accurate.
    Yes, not accurate, but not as awful as the NCLB title; that title caused many children to be left behind, imo.

  6. #6
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default Releasing kings from dip nets is a death sentence anyway.

    I have seen what happens to kings released by dippers at Kasilof. A few conscientious folks may try to revive them after they are disentangled, but generally they are not treated carefully and end up being caught again by another net down the line. My guess is that they end up as seagull food. Can you imagine a 60 lb. chrome chinook laying on the Kenai mud flat because it had to be released? Releasing fish from mesh designed to retain them is far different than releasing them from a landing net. Dumb idea if it is true.

  7. #7
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Hilarious nerka! Like setnetters and guides need more reasons for people to hate em

  8. #8
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    I have seen what happens to kings released by dippers at Kasilof. A few conscientious folks may try to revive them after they are disentangled, but generally they are not treated carefully and end up being caught again by another net down the line. My guess is that they end up as seagull food. Can you imagine a 60 lb. chrome chinook laying on the Kenai mud flat because it had to be released? Releasing fish from mesh designed to retain them is far different than releasing them from a landing net. Dumb idea if it is true.
    Keep that visual image about releasing a dipnett king and imagine kings that fall out of set net gear......

  9. #9
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default As an old setnetter...

    ... I only imagine the kings firmly entrapped in my mesh as I pick it. That is what mesh is designed to do; not to have people picking fish out of it just to release them.

    I must admit that as a meat fisherman and former commercial fisherman, I have less problem with setnetters catching fish to eventually be eaten than I do with people catching and releasing fish for sport. I don't prescribe to that mentality.

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

    Default I have stayed back during this initial public notice.

    That said, I'm debating on whether to submit a proposal to increase the Chinook bag limit for dipnetters, from the Kenai. Your first Chinook would count towards your sportsfish limit of five, for UCI, and must be recorded on the back of your "mandatory" fishing license. Your second king will just have to be recorded on your dipnet permit. This way, it does not matter how you catch your two kings, it is just the point that you do. One of them just counts towards your sportsfish caught limit, the second does not.
    There is no biological concern that dipnetters catch @ 900 kings a season. This is just another allocation grab and maybe, I won't submit a proposal and just use this in my testimony against this proposal. The high road or the low road. Decisions, decisions????
    Do I stoop down to their level or just use this to reinforce the fact that a lot of people have heartburn that Alaskans are putting fish in their freezers..
    Thoughts? I am asking for positions, where do you guys stand?
    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
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    I talked to one of the AC members and he said that the vote was like 14 - 0 with the only one objecting being a GUIDE but since he was an alternate could not vote. There are only two guides seats on and two commercial seats on this AC so the blame is on the AC as a whole.

    Don't submit a proposal out of spite Whop. If your proposal idea is something that you believe in or you would like to see happen then that is another story but the "get back" things never seem to work out. How comfortable would you be testifying for something along these lines if it was a spite thing?

    Interesting that this topic was put on this forum with this heading when UCIDA had a letter to the editor in the Clarion today blasting dipnetting in general, hammering Rep. Seaton, and saying that commercial fishing is at risk in Cook Inlet unless something changes in regards to dipnetting regulations. Maybe someone that is better on the computer than I am could post this letter for those interested in what UCIDA thinks of dipnetting. UCIDA as in Upper Cook Inlet Drifters Association

  12. #12
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default I'm thinking which can be a bad thing...

    If dipnetters need a sportsfishing license, they must be considered sports fishermen. What is the difference if they get their kings by Rod or net? Only allowed so many from UCI anyway. What does gear have to do with it? Let us put more hydrocarbons into the rivers cause we are restricted by gear? That seems pretty stupid. Comfishers are not restricted from it, why are Dipnetters? Chinooks are considered sportsfish,.... Well, dipnetters have to have a sportsfish license so why are they not allowed to keep kings? Just another allocation grab. IMO
    Comfishers get a homepack, by net. No limit and specific gear is not specified except that it comes from a commercial fishery, and that a fish ticket must be filled out for those home packs.
    That said, This is not comfisher's verses dipnetters, this is greed, verses greed. Where does it all end? If this pans out, Some guides are saying that Local people cannot keep Kings from their back yard. Gotta have a pole to keep your lousy fish? I DON'T agree.
    The more I think of it, the less I want to even get into this petty allocation grab.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Thumbs up for

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Thoughts? I am asking for positions, where do you guys stand?
    I'd be "for" it. It helps to keep dipnetters' rights to keep king(s) with basically zero impact to the resource.

    Obviously there is some effort afoot to restrict dippers from keeping King(s), so maybe this is some middle ground that doesn't seem to hurt either side.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default Here it is.

    Here is the letter. I have some understanding with this issue and feel that a judge will have to rule on whether MS applies. I do not agree with all the rationales given for the suit. I also do not agree that the PU fishery is out of control in all areas of the State. There are issues with fisheries - all fisheries. What needs to be done is to apply leadership to solve these problems. I suspect UCIDA will have a number of proposals that are not going to pass and just cause problems. I have not seen any of them because frankly when I saw this letter I thought it was not in the best of interest of anyone to print it. However, Rep Seaton and the legislature was wrong to pass SJR22. Any citizen of this State should have the right to question federal law and state law and their applications.

    UCIDA was distressed to read in Rep. Seaton's recent newsletter that he voted in favor of SJR22, in opposition to the best interest of commercial fishermen in Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound and all of coastal Alaska.
    Commercial fishermen in Cook Inlet filed action with the Secretary of Commerce asking for relief from the State's mismanagement of salmon stocks. UCIDA and other commercial fishing organizations across Alaska are put in a difficult spot when it comes to objective, scientific management of fisheries. Here's why:
    Many years ago, the Federal Government transferred the day to day management of salmon to the State of Alaska. When this occurred, they said "here are the rules by which we want you to manage our salmon," and the State agreed. The rules are outlined in the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), specifically identified as "10 National Standards".
    1. Prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield;
    2. Use of best science available;
    3. Individual stocks of fish managed as a unit;
    4. Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states;
    5. Management measures shall consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources;
    6. Management measures shall take into account variations among fisheries;
    7. Management measures shall minimize costs and avoid duplication;
    8. Management measures shall take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to minimize adverse economic impacts;
    9. By-catch to be minimized;
    10. Promote safety of human life at sea.
    UCIDA is simply asking a judge to instruct the State and the Board of Fisheries (BOF) to manage salmon in compliance with Federal law.
    Cook Inlet fish stocks are in trouble and are producing harvests at or below territorial times. Applying the 10 National Standards is our only hope for saving our salmon, industry and economy.
    Rep. Seaton has mistakenly focused on National Standard No. 4, which speaks to non-discrimination between residents of different states. The Kenai and Kasilof River dipnet fisheries are out of control, with bag limits that are three times larger than the salmon harvested by an average family. Uncontrolled river access causes degradation of fragile dunes and grasslands and possible interference with historic beluga whale feeding patterns. The Kenai dipnet fishery remains open without sharing the burden of conservation or meeting of escapement goals.
    The primary concern of UCIDA is that the application of the Federal rules designed to achieve optimum yield are being ignored by the State. Huge overescapements and underescapements are now the norm when they should be the exception. Sustained participation and the economic livelihood of our fishing communities and families are clearly at risk.
    There are 2,500 commercial permit holders, crew and families on the Kenai Peninsula and many live in Rep. Seaton's district. Thousands of jobs and a huge sector of our local economy are currently at risk unless something changes.
    Roland Maw UCIDA Executive Director

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default follow up on ADF&G conversation

    I followed up on the conversations and like most conversations the language issue comes into play - people hear one thing and those saying things think something different. At this point I will say that there was a feeling that ADF&G wanted KAFC to put in a proposal. The local staff thought they were just questioning why KAFC would not put a proposal in on this given the Joe Fisherman status. So lets leave this at that and I will retract my comments in the interest of trying to give the benifit of the doubt to ADF&G.

    The title of the thread by the way is accurate. The guide representative on the AC and commercial set netters brought this to the table. They represent groups in general - but again in the interest of keeping the discussion on the topic of whether PU fisherman should retain chinook lets get off this and I will retitle it Some guides and commercial fisherman..." Does that help.

  16. #16
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Let me also be clear...

    I'm not saying "all" guides, just some, are advocating for non retention in the PU fishery, of king salmon. I just find it ironic that the AC actually put this one forward. I'm not sure this is reflective of the community as a whole, just some special interests on the AC itself.
    We all have seen it before and it will rise it's ugly head again. Special interests leading the pack.
    I'm almost completely convinced to take the high road and not put any proposals to counter this one. I think this one shows it's bias right off the bat and I don't need to give it any more credence then it should have. Which is just about "this".... Much!!
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  17. #17
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    I'm not saying "all" guides, just some, are advocating for non retention in the PU fishery, of king salmon. I just find it ironic that the AC actually put this one forward. I'm not sure this is reflective of the community as a whole, just some special interests on the AC itself.
    We all have seen it before and it will rise it's ugly head again. Special interests leading the pack.
    I'm almost completely convinced to take the high road and not put any proposals to counter this one. I think this one shows it's bias right off the bat and I don't need to give it any more credence then it should have. Which is just about "this".... Much!!
    Do you really think that Sport Fishing Guides are worried about the "few" kings caught in the PU fishery when throusands are caught in the Commercial Set net fishery.... This entire idea is just silly...

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

    Default Tynmon, it might be silly but who then?

    If not for some guides and setnetters, who would give this some support as a proposal? How could a 14-0 vote be construed as anything other than an assault on your average dipnetter,keeping a lousy king, per dipnet permit?
    I'm asking somebody that was there to chime in and give us a rundown or to those guys that are on the AC in question, to jump in and justify your vote with facts, not just hyperbole.
    A few of us are dissecting this but where are the major players that started this? I'm curious as to the justification of this.
    This is not Guides/setnetters verses dipnetters, this is neighbor verses neighbor. I find this very disturbing.
    Doesn't anybody else agree?
    What is next? Sunday fisher's verses Monday fisher's?
    Blue hatted fisher's verses red hatted fisher's? The cribs verses the bloods?
    With all the people that I know that guide, there has never been any animosity towards dipnetters, per say.
    What initiated this is beyond my simple comprehension. Anybody else feel the same way?
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  19. #19
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    ... I only imagine the kings firmly entrapped in my mesh as I pick it. That is what mesh is designed to do; not to have people picking fish out of it just to release them.

    I must admit that as a meat fisherman and former commercial fisherman, I have less problem with setnetters catching fish to eventually be eaten than I do with people catching and releasing fish for sport. I don't prescribe to that mentality.
    Good post sayak
    Whop easy on the proposals, good Lord man, give the politics a break and go fishin!
    Theres way too many setnetters, way too many guides and if whop has his way every man woman and child in this state is gonna be a dipper!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,079

    Default

    Nerka, the title is crap. When you say "Guides and Setnetters" the reader will assume the majority of both groups support it, which is untrue.

    The guides that I know, are against this and I think that is pretty obvious. This is the first I am reading of this and I will make some contacts and let that "representative" know that I and many others are very unhappy he would associate this proposal with guides. and if I don't get good answers I will do everything I can to make sure he is not elected again.

    There is a difference in staff at F&G, as you know there is management staff and research staff.

    Was KAFC approached by MANAGEMENT STAFF or RESEARCH STAFF? there is a difference

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •