Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59

Thread: Com vs Sportfish. May the fight last 100yrs

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default Com vs Sportfish. May the fight last 100yrs

    I hope some day my grandson is on this site and the comfish and sportfish guys are going at it over the salmon like there is no tomorrow. That means there will be salmon left to fight over and i would smile. One thing is for sure if the salmon go away its not because of comfish or sportfish or PU its because the habitat went away. A mine here, a few miles of salmon spawning ground here. Just a few hydro dams and before you know it the salmon are gone. the habitat is gone so no amount of closures will matter. One thing is for sure Comfish, Sportfish and PU need to unite with one voice to keep every inch of habitat intact. We cant be so busy fighting each other that we dont notice the loss of habitat. EVERY inch of river must be protected or one day PU, Sportfish and Comfish will be sitting in a bar talking about the good old days when they used to have salmon to fight over.

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Amen Brother, Amen!
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  3. #3
    Member FishGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fishing your hole before you get there
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    Well said, may we learn from the lower 48's mistakes.
    Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    I hope some day my grandson is on this site and the comfish and sportfish guys are going at it over the salmon like there is no tomorrow. That means there will be salmon left to fight over and i would smile. One thing is for sure if the salmon go away its not because of comfish or sportfish or PU its because the habitat went away. A mine here, a few miles of salmon spawning ground here. Just a few hydro dams and before you know it the salmon are gone. the habitat is gone so no amount of closures will matter. One thing is for sure Comfish, Sportfish and PU need to unite with one voice to keep every inch of habitat intact. We cant be so busy fighting each other that we dont notice the loss of habitat. EVERY inch of river must be protected or one day PU, Sportfish and Comfish will be sitting in a bar talking about the good old days when they used to have salmon to fight over.
    Not quite sure I get it...

    Fighting over salmon has done nothing but cause a shift from scientific and biological management to emotional and political management. Those willing to make sacrifices and the right decisions find themselves suffering the wrath of industries, special interests, economic priorities, and liberal interpretations of our fishery laws.

    I think we all know that protecting habitat and developing sensibly will maintain our salmon. However, one only need look to the Kenai River to see that it wasn't hydro dams, mines, or lost habitat that have turned what was the best King salmon fishery in the world into an over-commercialized joke, requiring high effort, and resulting in little dinks. It was a priority on economics.

    That one day when we are sitting in the bar talking about the good old days, is now. I was fishing the Kenai before Statehood. The Kings were bigger, 50-80 pounders were as common as dinks are now. They were plentiful enough that we caught them off the bank with Mepps and T-Spoons. Tributaries like Beaver Creek, Slikok, Funny River, etc. had significant returns. It became overfished because folks began fighting over the fish, and the hard decisions succumbed to the emotional and political one's. The recent issue with Slikok is a prime example. Folks would rather fight over the 3 Kings returning to Slikok than expand the closure area.

    It is only when folks stop the fighting that we can accomplish something. For example, when I see guides joining Joe Fishermen in begging the BOF to expand the closure area of Slikok to save those Kings, I might see hope.

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

    Default 100 year discussion starts with a single post

    KGPCR, I think you just got your wish. 100 years fighting just began.

    Some days there's just no need for delayed-gratification skills, are there?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    KGPCR, I think you just got your wish. 100 years fighting just began.

    Some days there's just no need for delayed-gratification skills, are there?
    not sure i understand your post but then again there is much i dont understand. One thing i do understand is 55 days and i am back home in AK with the best fishing i have ever seen. Salmon are truly incredible. Great fighters and better on the table. Great rivers to fish them in. I just does not get any better than that. Ok halibut are close but not quite. If i could only fish on fish in one state it would be reds in AK. What a treasure they are!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default just a thought

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    not sure i understand your post

    If i could only fish on fish in one state it would be reds in AK. What a treasure they are!
    Just a small reference to the post just before mine, and ... nuff said.

    Yes, reds are the best; what's not to love about'em?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default I would fish the Gulf

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Just a small reference to the post just before mine, and ... nuff said.

    Yes, reds are the best; what's not to love about'em?
    Having fished the Gulf where the oil spill is located I would pick a red drum over a sockeye any day of the week. I have never had a 7 pound sockeye strip line like a 7 pound red drum. It is a shame to watch the impact of the oil spill. I did my Masters on Marsh Island which is just west of the spill area.

  9. #9
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Nerka dissin' nerka?

    What's the world comin' to?

    Caught more than my fair share of reds.... never caught a redfish.... but enjoy eating them both!
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  10. #10
    Member kodiakrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kodiak, Ak
    Posts
    3,175

    Default I agree

    With the original post, I agree totally and completely, good one, kg
    Let's pay attention to the big picture, we have an incredible bunch of resource to steward here
    Ten Hours in that little raft off the AK peninsula, blowin' NW 60, in November.... "the Power of Life and Death is in the Tongue," and Yes, God is Good !

  11. #11

    Default Backsliding

    [QUOTE=Grampyfishes;738097]Not quite sure I get it...

    Fighting over salmon has done nothing but cause a shift from scientific and biological management to emotional and political management. Those willing to make sacrifices and the right decisions find themselves suffering the wrath of industries, special interests, economic priorities, and liberal interpretations of our fishery laws.

    Statement of opinion, observation, or what on the salmon management in the state. I guess without concrete examples of where the department and BOF is not operating on scientific and biological management, they are managing for biology and science and not on emotion and politics.

    I think we all know that protecting habitat and developing sensibly will maintain our salmon. However, one only need look to the Kenai River to see that it wasn't hydro dams, mines, or lost habitat that have turned what was the best King salmon fishery in the world into an over-commercialized joke, requiring high effort, and resulting in little dinks. It was a priority on economics.

    A science oriented perspective might look the Kenai compared to other river systems in the state to see if the shift in abundance and size is occurring for Chinook on other river systems, instead of a myopic view of just the Kenai. Ocean conditions have been noted in fluctuating size and age class for Chinook - might be in this case - or it might be a result of a selective fishing pressure on an age group.

    Early run Kenai River Chinook angling effort this past decade is trending significantly lower than in past decades - so the observation that angling effort this decade, which has been significantly less, is somehow impacting the size and age class structure of the early return, whereas more angling effort in past decades did not, does not make logical sense.

    That one day when we are sitting in the bar talking about the good old days, is now. I was fishing the Kenai before Statehood. The Kings were bigger, 50-80 pounders were as common as dinks are now. They were plentiful enough that we caught them off the bank with Mepps and T-Spoons. Tributaries like Beaver Creek, Slikok, Funny River, etc. had significant returns. It became overfished because folks began fighting over the fish, and the hard decisions succumbed to the emotional and political one's. The recent issue with Slikok is a prime example. Folks would rather fight over the 3 Kings returning to Slikok than expand the closure area.

    Spawning closures at the mouths of tributaries have been put in place over the past couple of decades - the good old days didn't have spawning closure areas at the mouth of tributaries. Fish hole up at the mouth of tributaries sometimes for days. Fish transit through the areas downstream of the mouth of the tributaries while milling at the mouth of tributaries - the effectiveness of closures works well in the milling areas at the mouth of the tributaries, and don't really make sense in the transit areas further below the mouths of the tributaries.

    So does the idea of an expanded closure area at the mouth of Slikok even make sense scientific sense here at all? The area that Chinook mill around in front of Slikok is already closed. Does the concept of extending it further downstream to encompass a transit area make any sense? Are Chinook returning to Slikok really milling in front of Poachers Cove, the graveyard or Sunken Island for days at a time before going upstream to Slikok, then hang in front of Slikok and milling around there before entering Slikok?

    Is the suggestion to extend the Slikok Creek tributary closure based on something scientific, or is this expanded closure area concept more of an emotional response cloaked as "common sense" that may not really have any impact on Chinook going back to Slikok Creek, cause they really don't spend very much time in the transit area you are suggesting extending as a closure area?

    It is only when folks stop the fighting that we can accomplish something. For example, when I see guides joining Joe Fishermen in begging the BOF to expand the closure area of Slikok to save those Kings, I might see hope.

    To paraphrase, only when people support my vision of the world will the world be OK. When you don't support my vision of the world, there is no hope.

    I guess that was OK in kindergarten, but I am not buying those sentiments in the adult world.

    Now, in the adult world, if one makes a claim that the quality of the escapement in terms of males and females and age class is important instead of just looking at total number of a return, that is a separate issue and there is lots of science in that type of discussion we can all focus on. Currently, early run Chinook on the Kenai is based on total numbers of returning fish in masse to all tributaries, not individual tributaries.

    Is Joe Fisherman suggesting we put an individual escapement goal for every trib on the Kenai system for early run Chinook? If so, all of them or some of them. If some, which ones?

    How long are the data sets for those suggested tribs? Anything significant changes over time - like halving the amount of the hatchery release of Crooked Creek Chinook on the Kasilof about a decade ago because of straying issues into Slikok Creek on the Kenai - which inflated the numbers of Chinook counts on Slikok Creek? Any science based qualms about comparing data sets when there has been contamination in the past due to hatchery strays, or is that something in science that we can just conveniently ignore?

    What if a tributary had a blocked culvert for much of the past decade, like Slikok Creek has had, and it was recently replaced a few years ago?

    Does that make any difference in how we interpret "low" returns to a tributary in subsequent years, or do blocked culverts not really have an impact on subsequent returns?

    Has the slot limit - a concept taken from management of freshwater resident species, which continue to live after spawning, and was overlayed onto the management of the anadramous salmon fishery, where adults die after spawning - has that had any type of impact at all on ASL of early run Chinook?

    Is the fact that angler harvest has shifted to more fecund females just down from the lower end of the slot limit a cause for any concern if you are interested in the number of females that make up the return of spawners? If Joe Fisherman is taking up the mantle of saying the number and size of spawning females is an important consideration for tributary spawners, are you going to take up the issue of how the early run slot limit has shifted angler harvests disproportionately onto fecund females?

    The science and biology of salmon and salmon management raises many interesting questions - however, the dictate that if only everyone agreed with my view of the world is not that interesting. As a fan of history, I read the impacts of that type of world view ad nauseam.

    You have a lot of good history and information to share on these subjects Gramps - just hate to see you backslide like that.

  12. #12
    Member Lake creek fishermen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Skwentna, AK
    Posts
    854

    Default

    Nice info!
    -Its better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees.
    -Put some excitment between your legs, ride a polaris!
    -Local 907 Riders Union
    http://www.youtube.com/user/AKMackdaddy?feature=mhee

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Nerka dissin' nerka?

    What's the world comin' to?

    Caught more than my fair share of reds.... never caught a redfish.... but enjoy eating them both!
    Too Funny!!!!!!Nice one Doc

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default this is by far the most convoluted post yet.

    [QUOTE=Vidalia;743421]
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Not quite sure I get it...

    Fighting over salmon has done nothing but cause a shift from scientific and biological management to emotional and political management. Those willing to make sacrifices and the right decisions find themselves suffering the wrath of industries, special interests, economic priorities, and liberal interpretations of our fishery laws.

    Statement of opinion, observation, or what on the salmon management in the state. I guess without concrete examples of where the department and BOF is not operating on scientific and biological management, they are managing for biology and science and not on emotion and politics.

    I think we all know that protecting habitat and developing sensibly will maintain our salmon. However, one only need look to the Kenai River to see that it wasn't hydro dams, mines, or lost habitat that have turned what was the best King salmon fishery in the world into an over-commercialized joke, requiring high effort, and resulting in little dinks. It was a priority on economics.

    A science oriented perspective might look the Kenai compared to other river systems in the state to see if the shift in abundance and size is occurring for Chinook on other river systems, instead of a myopic view of just the Kenai. Ocean conditions have been noted in fluctuating size and age class for Chinook - might be in this case - or it might be a result of a selective fishing pressure on an age group.

    Early run Kenai River Chinook angling effort this past decade is trending significantly lower than in past decades - so the observation that angling effort this decade, which has been significantly less, is somehow impacting the size and age class structure of the early return, whereas more angling effort in past decades did not, does not make logical sense.

    That one day when we are sitting in the bar talking about the good old days, is now. I was fishing the Kenai before Statehood. The Kings were bigger, 50-80 pounders were as common as dinks are now. They were plentiful enough that we caught them off the bank with Mepps and T-Spoons. Tributaries like Beaver Creek, Slikok, Funny River, etc. had significant returns. It became overfished because folks began fighting over the fish, and the hard decisions succumbed to the emotional and political one's. The recent issue with Slikok is a prime example. Folks would rather fight over the 3 Kings returning to Slikok than expand the closure area.

    Spawning closures at the mouths of tributaries have been put in place over the past couple of decades - the good old days didn't have spawning closure areas at the mouth of tributaries. Fish hole up at the mouth of tributaries sometimes for days. Fish transit through the areas downstream of the mouth of the tributaries while milling at the mouth of tributaries - the effectiveness of closures works well in the milling areas at the mouth of the tributaries, and don't really make sense in the transit areas further below the mouths of the tributaries.

    So does the idea of an expanded closure area at the mouth of Slikok even make sense scientific sense here at all? The area that Chinook mill around in front of Slikok is already closed. Does the concept of extending it further downstream to encompass a transit area make any sense? Are Chinook returning to Slikok really milling in front of Poachers Cove, the graveyard or Sunken Island for days at a time before going upstream to Slikok, then hang in front of Slikok and milling around there before entering Slikok?

    Is the suggestion to extend the Slikok Creek tributary closure based on something scientific, or is this expanded closure area concept more of an emotional response cloaked as "common sense" that may not really have any impact on Chinook going back to Slikok Creek, cause they really don't spend very much time in the transit area you are suggesting extending as a closure area?

    It is only when folks stop the fighting that we can accomplish something. For example, when I see guides joining Joe Fishermen in begging the BOF to expand the closure area of Slikok to save those Kings, I might see hope.

    To paraphrase, only when people support my vision of the world will the world be OK. When you don't support my vision of the world, there is no hope.

    I guess that was OK in kindergarten, but I am not buying those sentiments in the adult world.

    Now, in the adult world, if one makes a claim that the quality of the escapement in terms of males and females and age class is important instead of just looking at total number of a return, that is a separate issue and there is lots of science in that type of discussion we can all focus on. Currently, early run Chinook on the Kenai is based on total numbers of returning fish in masse to all tributaries, not individual tributaries.

    Is Joe Fisherman suggesting we put an individual escapement goal for every trib on the Kenai system for early run Chinook? If so, all of them or some of them. If some, which ones?

    How long are the data sets for those suggested tribs? Anything significant changes over time - like halving the amount of the hatchery release of Crooked Creek Chinook on the Kasilof about a decade ago because of straying issues into Slikok Creek on the Kenai - which inflated the numbers of Chinook counts on Slikok Creek? Any science based qualms about comparing data sets when there has been contamination in the past due to hatchery strays, or is that something in science that we can just conveniently ignore?

    What if a tributary had a blocked culvert for much of the past decade, like Slikok Creek has had, and it was recently replaced a few years ago?

    Does that make any difference in how we interpret "low" returns to a tributary in subsequent years, or do blocked culverts not really have an impact on subsequent returns?

    Has the slot limit - a concept taken from management of freshwater resident species, which continue to live after spawning, and was overlayed onto the management of the anadramous salmon fishery, where adults die after spawning - has that had any type of impact at all on ASL of early run Chinook?

    Is the fact that angler harvest has shifted to more fecund females just down from the lower end of the slot limit a cause for any concern if you are interested in the number of females that make up the return of spawners? If Joe Fisherman is taking up the mantle of saying the number and size of spawning females is an important consideration for tributary spawners, are you going to take up the issue of how the early run slot limit has shifted angler harvests disproportionately onto fecund females?

    The science and biology of salmon and salmon management raises many interesting questions - however, the dictate that if only everyone agreed with my view of the world is not that interesting. As a fan of history, I read the impacts of that type of world view ad nauseam.

    You have a lot of good history and information to share on these subjects Gramps - just hate to see you backslide like that.
    This is a pretty convoluted post but the answer is that the science is sound on the concept of tributary closures and not very sound on management of a system based on a single goal when there are multiple tributaries and mainstem spawning fish. It is important for a resource agency to not fall into the trap of saying a goal is met so things must be fine. It is important to monitor the distribution of the escapement and if things are getting out of wack to understand why and make corrections. Otherwise one will lose the less productive stocks. ADF&G assumes that distribution is fine and that is a mistake. Taken out of the Kenai and moving to the Susitna one must keep track of the individual systems - the debate over Alexander Creek is because monitoring of the tributaries was important. A single goal for chinook salmon or sockeye in the Susitna is not a wise decision. Niether is a single goal without distributional data a wise decision for the Kenai River chinook.

    Relative to Slikok Creek there were hundreds of fish spawning in the creek and now there are 16 females in 2009 and 24 in 2008. That drop is not due to strays from Crooked Creek. If you want the information I will send it to you but the stocking levels in Crooked Creek were cut in half not eliminated. But that really is not relevant. What is important is that those straying fish spawned and produced good returns. That shows the production potential of the creek and therefore this drop is not due to the elimination of Crooked Creek strays. In addition, the percentage of strays was estimated at 30 percent or less. That would still have hundreds of fish left even if they all the strays were removed, which they were not.

    On the issue of the culvert that is a red herring. Again using the stream counts the data shows that hundreds of spawning chinook salmon were produced when the culvert was in place. So the drop is not due to any culvert issue. The replacement of the culvert is a good thing - probably more so for coho salmon that chinook.

    Maybe you do not fish the river and cannot understand the concept of the downstream area closure. Slikok Creek fish do not just mill at the mouth of the creek. They hold, especially during low water, near Sunken Island. Even the guides posted on this forum to that fact. So yes the closure would protect Slikok Creek fish.

    What is really driving ADF&G on this is the issue of opportunity and not science. They have lost their mission in the need for funds and keeping some segments of the public happy. The local and regional biologists need to rethink why they got into the fish and game field in the first place. The resource should come first and yet they are the strongest voice against doing anything with only 16 females in the creek. It is a shame that they cannot see the forest for the trees.

  15. #15
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vidalia View Post

    Has the slot limit.... had any type of impact at all on ASL of early run Chinook?

    Is the fact that angler harvest has shifted to more fecund females just down from the lower end of the slot limit a cause for any concern if you are interested in the number of females that make up the return of spawners? If Joe Fisherman is taking up the mantle of saying the number and size of spawning females is an important consideration for tributary spawners, are you going to take up the issue of how the early run slot limit has shifted angler harvests disproportionately onto fecund females?
    While I have heard this "hen bashing" theory thrown about as if it were fact, the data says otherwise.

    akTally posted a link to the latest ER stock assessment thru 2006. In that document is a discussion about the effects of the slot limit in terms of shifts in exploitation across age-classes and sex.

    From page 25....

    "The proportion of female chinook salmon harvested in the sport fishery has remained stable (i.e. about 50% of the harvest) since 1986 (Fig 4). Implementation of the slot limit has NOT changed the proportion of female chinook salmon in the sport harvest."


    From page 14....
    "The proportion of female chinook salmon in the spawning escapement has been stable, with no clear trend in the last 20 years, and no discernable change since the inception of the 2003 slot limit (Figure 4)."

    Interesting that this argument was used to justify relaxing the slot limit to 46-55" in 2008. The idea was to free up the harvest of some bigger males to take the pressure off sub-slot females under 44".

    Not sure how that logic works when the very same females are STILL harvestable... PLUS all the MEGA-hens between 44 and 46 inches.
    Effectively the 46" limit puts 95% of all ER hens in the bonkable pool of fish.

    To a thinking man, that's a pretty dam stupid way to conserve hens, if that's really what the proponents of the theory were trying to achieve.

    What HAS actually changed in the sport harvest since the advent of the slot limit? Harvest selectivity across age classes.

    "Prior to the slot limit, age 1.5 chinook salmon were strongly selected for, and age 1.4 fish were weakly selected for. After the slot limit (2003-2006), age 1.3 fish were selected for, age 1.4 fish experienced neutral selectivity, and harvest selectivity for age 1.5 fish was estimated to be ZERO. Harvest selectivity for age 1.2 fish did NOT change as a result of the slot limit (Figure 9)."
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    While I have heard this "hen bashing" theory thrown about as if it were fact, the data says otherwise.

    akTally posted a link to the latest ER stock assessment thru 2006. In that document is a discussion about the effects of the slot limit in terms of shifts in exploitation across age-classes and sex.

    From page 25....

    "The proportion of female chinook salmon harvested in the sport fishery has remained stable (i.e. about 50% of the harvest) since 1986 (Fig 4). Implementation of the slot limit has NOT changed the proportion of female chinook salmon in the sport harvest."

    From page 14....
    "The proportion of female chinook salmon in the spawning escapement has been stable, with no clear trend in the last 20 years, and no discernable change since the inception of the 2003 slot limit (Figure 4)."

    Interesting that this argument was used to justify relaxing the slot limit to 46-55" in 2008. The idea was to free up the harvest of some bigger males to take the pressure off sub-slot females under 44".

    Not sure how that logic works when the very same females are STILL harvestable... PLUS all the MEGA-hens between 44 and 46 inches.
    Effectively the 46" limit puts 95% of all ER hens in the bonkable pool of fish.

    To a thinking man, that's a pretty dam stupid way to conserve hens, if that's really what the proponents of the theory were trying to achieve.

    What HAS actually changed in the sport harvest since the advent of the slot limit? Harvest selectivity across age classes.

    "Prior to the slot limit, age 1.5 chinook salmon were strongly selected for, and age 1.4 fish were weakly selected for. After the slot limit (2003-2006), age 1.3 fish were selected for, age 1.4 fish experienced neutral selectivity, and harvest selectivity for age 1.5 fish was estimated to be ZERO. Harvest selectivity for age 1.2 fish did NOT change as a result of the slot limit (Figure 9)."
    I'd have to agree with you Doc, This just doesn't make a lot of sense if you really analyze it. I would guess that the theory behind opening it up for the harvest for larger males is that people would release the hens to chase after that trophy buck to put on the wall. There is a certainly logic to this I suppose.

    However I would assume that due to human nature, most people who catch a nice king on the Kenai in the sub-trophy category get bonked and tossed into the cooler if legal to do so. Sure they would love a huge king, but releasing a really nice fish to MAYBE catch that trophy probably is not happening very often. You know, the old bird in the hand theory. Yet while I say that, I can think of a couple of friends of mine that hook 50 plus fish to get to the "right" one.

    Now, as far as what to do differently? Well, I think our friendly, likable, and highly knowledgable biologist (and others) will chime in and politely tell me I am wrong, but I say get rid of it entirely and do something else. For one, it is just confusing and there is some data suggesting it doesn't really conserve at all as DOC noted. Wouldn't it be easier to just say you keep the first one you catch under a certain size regardless? Don't like the little dink you caught today? Maybe you will have better luck tomorrow and catch a bigger one. Want a trophy? Too bad, we are trying to conserve a run, not decorate your wall. Perhaps this is the attitude Nerka was suggesting in his earlier post as to what Fish and Game should be doing.

    I concede that something like this wouldn't be popular, but it is likely far fewer fish would get hooked multiple times and would be able to sucessfully spawn. People will have to keep that 20 pounder and stop fishing for the day. No more playing out fish after fish out and thus basically killing them, in hopes of getting that monster fish. People that hooked into the fish of a lifetime would have to sadly release it no matter what so it can have at least a chance to spawn and preserve the run.

    Of course, these are just ideas that I think could work to preserve a special run of salmon. Some of you probably have better ideas. And without a doubt, many will find reason after to reason that it would cause more harm than good. And that is ok too as there is nothing wrong with a healthy discussion.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default tend to agree

    T. R. I tend to agree with you. Slot limits and other methods of trying to fix a skewed harvest by age class needs some good thinking. Frankly I like the idea as a biologist of keeping the first fish landed and that is it. I think that may help from a biological viewpoint but I assume the economics of the fisheries would yell about it. For example keeping a 1.2 male is probably not what the industry sells and in some years that would be a fair portion of the run.

  18. #18
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default YES... the slot limit works.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.R. Bauer View Post
    I say get rid of it [the slot limit] entirely and do something else. For one, it is just confusing and there is some data suggesting it doesn't really conserve at all as DOC noted.
    Detractors bash the merits of the slot limit concept for Kenai kings. Re-read the last quotation I posted from the paper. The slot limit IS producing good results.

    Before the slot, ADFG identified a worrisome decline in ER5-o kings. Since the advent of the slot limit, the harvest of ER5-o kings has dropped to virtually ZERO, and the 5-ocean age class has begun to trend upward. GOOD!

    Before the slot, the selective nature of the fishery to target large fish put a disproportionate exploitation on not only ER5-o's but also large ER4-o's. Since the inception of the slot, there is now neutral selectivity for this age class.... in other words 4-ocean fish are harvested in proportion to total run-size composition. GOOD!

    Is the slot the perfect silver-bullet? Of course not... but at the present time (well at least thru 2006), it appears to be achieving its intended objective without posing significant risks to other age classes.

    The slot has not appeared to change the harvest patterns on 2-ocean fish. That leaves the 3-ocean age class to absorb the transfer of exploitation that no longer occurs on 5-ocean fish. Fortunately, that "displaced" ER5-o exploitation is a small number of fish.

    It would be nice to see an increased exploitation on 2-ocean males. This age class is clearly trending upward.... probably from the cumulative effects of selectively harvesting large fish over the past three decades.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  19. #19

    Default

    Doc,

    Good to see it is working and I did see that last line. I think everyone likes to see the big ones return to spawn. I was just proposing something that would probably work better for all of the fish. And something that would be very simple to enforce for the law makers and something easy for the fisherman to follow. But, as Nerka did point out and as I noted in my posting, it would not be very popular. In fact, there would probably be some sort of an uprising....However, I tend to think that just keeping one and then you are done under a certain size would help to protect the fishery more than what we are doing now. I wasn't really trying to bash the slot limit at all and I don't think that you implied that I was, but I was just thinking that we could do more to protect this unique run of king salmon.

    I am curious, and this is not directly just towards Doc, what would folks down South think of this? If it went into effect what would people do? Would they not even come fish the Kenai? Would they go elsewhere instead? If so, where would that be? I know that there was some fallout in the SE because of halibut limits, but the Kenai is really special, you just can't go fishing on many other rivers to come close the experience. While I think there would be resistance at first, I think it would fade fairly quickly as the fishery returns to more of what Grampy described in a previous posting. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am the shortsighted on this. Like I said, it is all good discussion and all ideas are interesting to me.

  20. #20
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Why not BOTH?

    Just thinking out loud, here (no formal BOF proposal in hand, promise!).... but what about superimposing the two harvest paradigms? Perhaps a hybrid of the slot concept AND keep the first legal fish caught?

    Release all fish 46" or greater.... bonk the first under 46" and rack the rod.

    This would save BIG fish but would otherwise distribute the kill in proportion to age-class composition within the remaining harvestable pool of fish.

    ****

    The other concept I have proposed in the past is issuing a pair of special king salmon stamps... one stamp for each dead Kenai king an angler may legally take each season under current rules. Each stamp would be EITHER a kill stamp or a C&R stamp.... angler takes his/her pick at the time of purchase. A kill stamp allows the angler to bonk the first legal fish... DONE! A C&R stamp allows an angler to release perhaps 10-12 kings.... DONE!

    Choose two kill stamps and be prepared to bonk the first two legal fish you encounter for the season. Choose two C&R stamps and enjoy battling 20-24 kings for the entire season. Or choose one of each... giving you the opportunity to C&R up to 10-12 kings, but still leave you the option of tagging out a mortal bleeder with the kill stamp.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •