Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80

Thread: Is this real?

  1. #1
    Member RC23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    202

    Default Is this real?

    Anyone else heard about this?


    Set Net Fishery Targeting Russian River Early Run Sockeye Near the Kenai River Mouth Is an Unexpected, Unacceptable Practice


    The Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) approved set net fishing near the mouth of the Kenai River, as an effort to begin to raise $60,000 to fund a sockeye fishery assessment for the Upper Cook Inlet commercial fishing season in July. This "cost recovery" commercial fishery is operating this week, targeting Russian River early run sockeye and also impacting Kenai River early run kings.

    Set net fishing near the mouth of the Kenai River during a time of questionable salmon run strength raises serious, critical questions for and about ADF&G, especially considering the recent early run king salmon closure. Why are priority June sport fisheries are now being targeted specifically to fund a July commercial fisheries monitoring program?

    Cost recovery programs are discretionary in nature and could easily be conducted during the July sockeye commercial fisheries. Without ever having been addressed through the Board of Fisheries (BOF) public process, this action by ADF&G is a de facto reallocation of 6,000 fish away from the highly anticipated and popular June sport fishery of Russian River early run sockeye.

    ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division's lack of communication on this set net fishery is stunning in its arrogance. No one in the local community was notified about this controversial fishery prior to its execution at 12:01 am, Tuesday, June 15th, the precise moment the Kenai River reopened to retention of early run king salmon. The action of this set net "cost recovery" fishery is an unexpected, unacceptable practice. The bottom line is that it appears ADF&G has been and is allowing a cost recovery program to be operated by an independent contractor, with little or no oversight and with little or no apparent regard for well established Upper Cook Inlet salmon management plans developed through the BOF public process over many years.

    Since 1974, as outlined in the Russian River Sockeye Salmon Management Plan (5 AAC 57.150), the Russian River early run sockeye stocks have been managed as primarily a sport fishery, without directed harvest from any commercial fishery. Additionally, the Kenai River early run King Salmon Management Plan (5 AAC 57.160) states that the department shall manage the Kenai River early run king salmon primarily for sport and guided sport fisheries to achieve the optimal escapement goal. With set nets in the water near the mouth of the Kenai River throughout this week, for long hours unattended, incidental catch of Kenai River early run king salmon is unavoidable just as it is during other commercial set net openings.

    The cost recovery program is targeting 6,000 Russian River early run sockeye - it is uncertain at this moment how long the department will have to conduct this fishery until the harvest goal of 6,000 is reached. As of today, less than 500 sockeyes have reached the weir on the Russian River.

    As advocates for meaningful and predictable sport fishing opportunity, KRSA finds the situation wrong on many levels and asks that the department stop this discretionary set net "cost recovery" fishery immediately.

    We encourage you to contact ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division, the Governor's office, and your local legislators to voice your opinion on this important issue.

    PLEASE CALL:
    Director of Commercial Fisheries
    John Hilsinger: 907-267-2324
    Governor Sean Parnell: 907-269-7450
    Representative Mike Chenault: 907-283-7223
    Representative Kurt Olson: 907-283-2690

    Additionally, members of the Alaska Board of Fisheries can be reached through BOF Executive Director, Jim Marcotte at jim.marcotte@alaska.gov

    Thank you for your time and consideration of this important alert from Kenai River Sportfishing Association.

    View the current counts and projections for the 2010 Kenai River king salmon early run here...

    Remember to check KenaiRiverSportfishing.com or visit KRSA on Facebook for the latest news and updates.

  2. #2

    Default

    What the french toast? I hope it isn't, seems like someone would of heard of this before hand and made a stink about it before the nets hit the water. Wow

  3. #3
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    wait you mean we are actually gonna manage the early run now? About time...
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Member kenaibow fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    you know this is crap, they are really miss handling that river! They preach about how it is a "trophy" river, which I think we all can agree it is, and then rape and pillage it.
    The only reason it isn't managed as a "trophy" river is because of all the money the commercial guys would lose. That is who really ruins...ops I ment runs the river. If they really want to keep the fish around they better change their ways other wise there wont be any fish left!

  6. #6
    Member joefish00000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    510

    Default

    I sure as hell hope it isnt real, for the sake of the wonder that is the kenai river.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default read before you jump

    The information posted on this thread is false and a full discussion can be found on the thread called Commercial nets at the mouth of the Kenai.

    I can only say that people who posted this need to step back and take a deep sigh and relax.

    First, Russian River fish are not targeted, it is not a commercial fishery, it has been ongoing for years, the legislature approves it each year, a contract was put out for full review, and the cost recovery by ADF&G is vital to continue programs that benifit all users.

    Kenai River Sport Fishing Association is totally irresponsible for putting the action alert out with false and misleading information.

  8. #8

    Default

    If it's not commercial fishing,then those fish don't enter the commercial market, right? How do they sell them?



    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The information posted on this thread is false and a full discussion can be found on the thread called Commercial nets at the mouth of the Kenai.

    I can only say that people who posted this need to step back and take a deep sigh and relax.

    First, Russian River fish are not targeted, it is not a commercial fishery, it has been ongoing for years, the legislature approves it each year, a contract was put out for full review, and the cost recovery by ADF&G is vital to continue programs that benifit all users.

    Kenai River Sport Fishing Association is totally irresponsible for putting the action alert out with false and misleading information.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default wrong viewpoint

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    If it's not commercial fishing,then those fish don't enter the commercial market, right? How do they sell them?
    The context of commercial fishing implies that individual citizens of the State of Alaska have a permit issued by the State for the purpose of harvesting fish for commercial sale. Commercial fishing privilege in regulation means the privilege of participating in an activity for which a commercial fishing license is required and the privilege of obtaining a commercial fishing license;

    Commercial fishing means the taking, fishing for, or possession of fish, shellfish, or other fishery resources with the intent of them for profit, or by sale, barter, tard, or in commercial channels; to the failure ....

    In this case the State of Alaska, who's resources are owned in common, is harvesting fish they own and selling them to fund government of the people by the people. The fish are owned by the State/Federal government and therefore a license is not required by any of the participants and commercial fishing regulations do not apply. In fact, the fisherman on the beach is not required to have a commercial fishing permit when fishing for the State. He is not bound by commercial fishing seasons, regulations, or any other aspect of commercial fishing regulation.

    Therefore, in answer to your question the definition of commercial fishing and application of regulations makes what the State is doing legally not commercial fishing.

  10. #10

    Default If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

    Isn't F&G issued a permit card by CFEC, the same card any other commercial permit holder receives? Don't they use this card on Fish Tickets when they sell the fish to a processor? Are these fish included in the commercial harvest statistics for the area or do they go unreported? Does the processor who buys the fish and then sells them for a profit pay taxes on that income, the same as if the fish were bought from a commercial permit holder? With all the similarities to a commercial fishery, I guess I can see why there is confusion.

  11. #11

    Default

    But, they contract with commercial fishermen to do this cost recovery, right? Or are the ADFG employee's out there, fishing with ADFG gear, out of ADFG boats? How do those fishermen get paid? I'm assuming that get a "cut" of the money this is made from the sale of the fish? Or do they get a day wage?

    I'm having a very hard time seeing how this isn't commercial fishing. It's commercial gear, commercial boats, and the fish are sold on the commercial market, that compete with other commercially caught fish. (my real beef) More fish on the market, the less the price is. Supply/demand.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default try to think in terms of a state project

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    But, they contract with commercial fishermen to do this cost recovery, right? Or are the ADFG employee's out there, fishing with ADFG gear, out of ADFG boats? How do those fishermen get paid? I'm assuming that get a "cut" of the money this is made from the sale of the fish? Or do they get a day wage?

    I'm having a very hard time seeing how this isn't commercial fishing. It's commercial gear, commercial boats, and the fish are sold on the commercial market, that compete with other commercially caught fish. (my real beef) More fish on the market, the less the price is. Supply/demand.
    They actually contract with a fish processor. The processor can use whoever he wants. They do not have to be commercial fisherman and one year they were not permit holders. However, if you want to catch fish fast and have it done with experts using a person with commercial fishing experience in UCI makes sense. The fisherman have a contract with the processor. View them as sub-contractors if that makes it easier to understand.

    The ADF&G uses the CFEC card to keep track of the catch and it is added into the catch statistics. However, the code is for ADF&G and thus the catch can be separated out of the statistics.

    Actually the gear does not have to meet commercial gear requirements. They are not limited by any regulations on commercial gear. They can fish longer nets, more nets, whatever will get the job done quickly. Some contracts specify gear types and area to fish so as to have some control but it is not required.

    The boat does not have to be a commercial fishing vessel or licensed as one. Test fishing and cost recovery has been done by boats not licensed as commercial fishing vessels as this is not commercial fishing by definition.

    The processor does sell the fish on the open market but has paid ADF&G for them. So at this point possession of the fish is transferred to the processor and they own them. They have no obligation to sell them but they obviously want to profit from the contract.

    I know some would like to put this in a commercial fishing user group operation and therefore make it a sport fish vs commercial fisherman fight. But this is not anywhere close to this and remember the funds are being used to manage the resources of the State that are used by all user groups.

    So in summary the fisherman do not have to be commercial permit holders, the cfec card is used to track harvest but is not the same as a commercial fisherman limited entry permit, the gear is not limited by regulations, and the boats do not have to be licensed as commercial fishing vessels.

  13. #13

    Default

    So basically when the state catches fish for money, (don't want to use the forbidden "commercial fishing") they don't have to follow the same rules and regulations that they force us to follow. But their fish goes on the same open market that ours does. That's BS. The least they could do is follow the very rules they come up with. Lets see how many rules and regs they'd make if they would actually have to follow them.

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

    Default not bs at all

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    So basically when the state catches fish for money, (don't want to use the forbidden "commercial fishing") they don't have to follow the same rules and regulations that they force us to follow. But their fish goes on the same open market that ours does. That's BS. The least they could do is follow the very rules they come up with. Lets see how many rules and regs they'd make if they would actually have to follow them.
    This is not BS. The legislature has defined sources of money in this State for use by the citizens. In this case they have defined salmon as a revenue source. Since they own the resource they elected to use it in this way before making it available to individuals. To not have this program means taxes on other industries and the consequences of those taxes or not to have the programs. That is cutting ones nose off in my opinion.

    The program does not have to follow the regulations as the regulations are set to govern thousands of fisherman. The State is running a single small operation and the purpose is very different. The idea is to fish quickly and get out of the way of the general public. To limit them to the regulations puts them in direct conflict with that general public.

    This is a well thought out program. It has survived lots of questions and frankly the present mess is because KRSA put out an alert and members of KRSA posted on this forum misinformation. Now, instead of a good discussion in a calm environment we have Ricky Gease, excutive director of KRSA, on television spreading more misinformation to the general public last night.

    This is one reason ADF&G cannot get anything done in UCI - it is a culture of conflict started by KRSA in the early 80's and has finally resulted in a process that has made the whole system breakdown. Do you think after this that local biologist will want to put up with this BS. They will just manage in a different manner if they lose these programs. Frankly, there were times I said to hell with it and then realized that these programs are vital and I would have to put up with the BS to continue them for the good of all Alaskans.

    So let me ask you a question and others who oppose this. Are you saying you want to eliminate the programs? How are you going to fund them if you want them? The legislature does not increase ADF&G budget so something else has to go - what would you cut in ADF&G budget? How would you manage without any idea of what the sockeye return looks like in the inlet and still meet goals or do you not care about goals and sustainable fisheries?

    Answer those and then we can continue the discussion. Those are the questions the legislature looks at each year when they fund these programs and approve the methods.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Public Relations Nightmare

    I heard about the netting on the radio local news this morning - I'm sure everyone will be picking up on it soon. Although this practive may have been going on for years there certainly doesn't appear to be a lot of people aware of it. With the most dismal start for the Russian River reds in decades this story is going to explode unless the fish show up in large numbers in the next day or so. For the moment it appears that the early Russian run is being sacrificed so the comm guys won't have to give up any fish out of their quota later.

    Targeting the early fish that sport fishermen have waitied so long for certainly warrents some tough questions. It certainly gives the appearance that sport guys are paying the price for the research so the comm guys can make more money. Do we know for certain that a very limited number of Russian River fish are being caught or is this just an assumption at this point? - and will we only know after the damage has been done?

    Perhaps some good will come out of all of this - it may arouse enough public outcry that the sport sockeye fishermen will sway some of the balance back to their side.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  16. #16
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    One small group setnetting near the mouth of the river is not responsible for the low number of fish at the russian. Think about this for a minute, in some years the number of reds coming into the river is huge, and guess what, the comm guys are fishing at the same time the reds are being slayed inside the river by sport guys, and none of the sport guys say a word, they are as happy as can be, but then the next year, the fishing might be slow, and all of the sudden all these guys say well how could the fish make it in the river with all the commercial guys out there, it is all their fault.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post

    So let me ask you a question and others who oppose this. Are you saying you want to eliminate the programs? How are you going to fund them if you want them? The legislature does not increase ADF&G budget so something else has to go - what would you cut in ADF&G budget? How would you manage without any idea of what the sockeye return looks like in the inlet and still meet goals or do you not care about goals and sustainable fisheries?

    Answer those and then we can continue the discussion. Those are the questions the legislature looks at each year when they fund these programs and approve the methods.
    Pretty much the mantra of the .gov crowd, eh? Aren't you basically saying that because I call BS on the gov not playing by the very rules they created for us all, that I'm not for Sustainable Fisheries? Just like because I don't want socialized medical care, I must hate poor inner city kids? Or, because I'm for a secure border, I must be a racist?

    Come on.. You know better that that. But, the argument you just presented is sure getting used more and more these days. Sorry, but I don't fall in like with "the gov knows best, so you better fall in line" argument.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default did not say that

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Pretty much the mantra of the .gov crowd, eh? Aren't you basically saying that because I call BS on the gov not playing by the very rules they created for us all, that I'm not for Sustainable Fisheries? Just like because I don't want socialized medical care, I must hate poor inner city kids? Or, because I'm for a secure border, I must be a racist?

    Come on.. You know better that that. But, the argument you just presented is sure getting used more and more these days. Sorry, but I don't fall in like with "the gov knows best, so you better fall in line" argument.
    I did not say you were not for sustainable fishery management. I asked a simple question. How are you going to pay for the programs that provide for that? Also, government is of the people by the people. We have regulations via our representatives. So are you saying they are not "us" whatever that means. So again I ask - do you want the programs and do you want to pay for them and how will you do that. Plain and simple.

    If you do not like socialized medical care fine but you need to answer the question about how you would care for inner city kids or secure our borders. Without answering those questions you could be racist and against inner city kids. So if you are for sustainable salmon management what are you willing to fund, what will you give up to accomplish that, and what is the revenue source.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    I don't think anyone would object to the department doing a cost recovery fishery during a regular commercial opening. What has me hot under the collar is fishing on a stock that has been managed as as sport stock since at least 1984.

  20. #20
    Member RC23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    202

    Default a stamp?

    Would it be possible to fund it with a red salmon stamp requirement for the Kenai river? How much would they be to come up with $60k? I would imagine it wouldn't be much considering the number of persons participating in the fishery.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •