Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: 2011 UCI fishing proposals now on web/BOF website

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

    Default 2011 UCI fishing proposals now on web/BOF website

    Here is a link to all proposals that will be discussed and decided on this coming year. A lot of interesting ones, I must say.
    Reading some of these proposals, it looks like I need to Make UCIDA a possible honorary member of the dipnetters association, due to all the dipnet fisheries they want to create, across the state. On the other hand, the other half of their proposals are to limit dipnetting to just about every which way they can.
    It is interesting reading to those of us who it will affect, which is about half the state's population.
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/f...info/fprop.php.

    It will be an interesting one, I can tell you that, for all concerned.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    It is interesting reading to those of us who it will affect, which is about half the state's population.
    The other half of the states population will be trying to figure out what all the hullabaloo is w/ the BOF and whats with those long handled hoop thing-a-ma-jigs that are strapped on all the Dodge Neons and Honda Civics full of Asians that are racing down the Seward Highway and clogging the Kenai public use facilities.
    Last edited by fullbush; 07-27-2010 at 20:17. Reason: I couldn't resist ken

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

    Default

    Fullbush, so I see you have been down to the peninsula as of late! One good thing about all those Asians you talk about is they take all the flounder they and others catch. No one else wants them. They can have all of mine!!!
    About those Honda's and civics you talk about, I should have put in a proposal to ban those during dipnetting season, just like the two strokes on the Kenai!! That would have been a public service to all those 4-wheel drives blasting on down to dip.
    No matter what, it will be entertaining to say the least.
    Last edited by thewhop2000; 07-27-2010 at 21:58. Reason: Me too!!!
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

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

    Default

    whop, I am not anti-dipnetting. In fact I've done it myself. And I'm not a commercial fishermen, although I've done that too. I hope you can see it from both sides too.

    As it stands right now the dip net fishery in my community supports the entire population of the state of Alaska. If you disagree, then tell me what Alaskan can't come here and dipnet?

    Do you honestly think that's ok? Can the habitat, environment, and community support that (indicators say no). To what end? Or does UCIDA have a point?

    You have to realize that the dipnet fishery took allocation away from the commerical fishery. The commercial fishery is limited (can not grow) and commercial fishermen invested their livelihoods and large sums of money based on that allocation. Their fishery has been around since the 1880's. Then along comes the open-ended dipnet entitlement in 1982. No limit on growth. No end to the number of fish they allocate away from the commercial fishery. Dipnetting was thrown at the commercial fishing community without foresight, planning, or resources. On top of allocation concerns, it presented social, environmental, and economic burdens. It would be much different if the commerical guys could play by the same rules and have limitless growth and open-ended allocations...I'm sure the dipnetters would similarly be at the BOF's doorstep trying to put an end to that too.

    I could go on, but why wouldn't UCIDA try to protect their fishery? I mean they are limited already, and face more and more reductions and restrictions ever year. They are losing their allocation little by little, to no end. Yet they are trying to feed millions of people. The dipnet fishery is limitless, and open-ended on the amount of allocation they can take from the commercial guys. The commercial guys know dipnetting has become a recreational sporting event. And of course commercial fishermen sitting out their openers while dipnetters have been allowed to fish really chaps their hides.

    Considering your interests, I can see your point. But considering the commercial fishery's interests I can certainly see theirs.

  5. #5
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Spot on gramps. I don't listen to anything you have to say lightly. You live there and I do not.
    But the comfishers do not have an allocation limit.They have a time limit, just like dippers. EO's are just the cavier on the iceing. In 2004 UCI comfishers took over 5 million fish? Not poundage, fish. If I remember my numbers right. That was way and above the 20 year average. In 2008, dippers took @ 325,000 but that is also above the norm. Usually dippers take on average 225,000 fish which is what the sportes get in their take. so Comfishers get 85 percent of the sockeyes and sport/dippers get to split the 15 percent left over.All of this in UCI Please remember that UCI supplies @ 3 percent of all salmon statewide. Not a very big percentage.
    I try to be open minded and know we need commercial fishing in UCI. I am not part of the crowd that wants it strickly for sports/dippers.I am just saying that this fishery was created by the BOF and Fish and Game, and I have yet to see any agency try to take the bull by the horns and give some limitations to the dipnet fishery. I am all for protecting the habitat but very few org's are not stepping up to the plate for this. It is not about restricting allocation which UCIDA is attempting, but controlling the mass exodus to the fishery every July. Some sort of control should be in place but what? I don't know. Maybe a lottery or a fee above the fishing license. Might cut out some of the riff-raff. Then again, I might be considered riff-raff also.
    I appreciate what you say and respect you for it and even if we don't see eye to eye, on everything, we both have our hearts in on it. That is all any man can ask of others.
    Last edited by thewhop2000; 07-28-2010 at 00:42. Reason: cause I wanted to, that's why
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Whop, I didn't say the commercial fishers have an allocation limit (we all know allocation is based on abundance). I said they are losing allocation. I said their fishery is limited...no more permits will ever be issued...it can't grow. My point was that every sockeye a dipnetter catches is one the commercial guys don't, but used to catch. And every new dipnetter brings the commercial guys allocation lower, closer and closer to an allocation that no longer makes their fishery viable.

    Your harvest comparison doesn't make sense. Half of the last 30 years the Kenai has exceeded the top end of escapement goals. These were surplus fish that dipnetters and sportfishermen did not, and could not, harvest. It was lost yield to the commercial fishery, and pushing the boudaries of our State's Constitutional sustained yield principles. So while there is no question that the commercal fishery takes more fish (after all, they are the commercial fishery and authorized to do that), there has been no shortage for dipnetters, but rather a surplus. So while the dipnet/sport percentage is lower, they still can't harvest it all. Not to mention you are comparing the total UCI commercial catch (which would include all systems) to that of one or two systems where dipnetting is allowed.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Kenai, Alaska
    Posts
    195

    Default

    I have taken my first look at Kenai River sport fish king salmon proposals. I am not anti-guide by any means but I am absolutly astounded by the greed and ignorance evidenced by several of the proposals submitted by guides. Totally unbelievable! This is not going to help your reputation guides: Opening up known spawning and staging areas that have been closed for years; starting off the much distressed early run with the use of bait; doing away with the early run slot limit; allowing guided fishing 24 hours per day during parts of the season; allowing guided fishing on Sundays; and allowing the use of treble hooks. And there are more. The above are by individual guides and I certainly hope that the guides association takes a strong stand againt these.

    Thankfully there a couple guides out there who understand what is going on and have a concern for the resource. Kudos to you guys and your more consevative proposals, one which would introduce the slot limit to the late run.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000
    Looking at the take from the 1950's to the middle 2000's, commercials have taken about 2.5 million fish, average wise, every year so where is the lost allocation? Dipnetting numbers may grow but the commercials are still harvesting above the same. Look at this year's numbers. They will harvest over 2.5 million fish and this run was suppose to be less than 1.7 million. I think they still did alright.

    Whop, commercial harvest is based on abundance, not a set allocation, or limit. When abundance is high, commercial harvests are high. When abundance is low, commerical harvests are low. This year the sockeye run was excellent and has already it easily met goals. Commerical harvest reflects that, like it shoud've.

    With that said, regardless of abundance levels, there is only so much allocation. And when you introduce a new fishery (dipnetting), the allocation (based on abundance) is redistributed. So when the dipnet entitlement came along, allocation was redistributed...the commercial fishery lost fish that they would've normally harvested. And the bigger these entitlements get, and the more of them there are, the more allocation the commercial guys lose. Keep that in mind when criticizing their proposals which are nothing more than an attempt by them to protect what they already have. Keep in mind that the dipnetters are trying (taking) to get more of something they never had, from users who already had it. Think about it.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Unhappy facts are more boring than a good tale

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Whop, I didn't say the commercial fishers have an allocation limit I said they are losing allocation.
    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Looking at the take from the 1950's to the middle 2000's, commercials have taken about 2.5 million fish, average wise, every year so where is the lost allocation? Dipnetting numbers may grow but the commercials are still harvesting above the same. Look at this year's numbers. They will harvest over 2.5 million fish and this run was suppose to be less than 1.7 million. I think they still did alright.
    Whop, whop, whop.... facts like that pale in comparison to "the sky is falling" talk. C'mon now, would'ja?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan
    Whop, whop, whop.... facts like that pale in comparison to "the sky is falling" talk. C'mon now, would'ja?
    FamilyMan, facts don't mean a thing if you don't understand what they mean. And you obviously don't know the difference between abundance based harvest, and allocation.

    ...I see whop just deleted his last post.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    FamilyMan, facts don't mean a thing if you don't understand what they mean. And you obviously don't know the difference between harvest based on abundance, and allocation.
    Yep, I'm so "up in the night" on complicated stuff like that I won't even question your statement about commercial fishermen losing allocations of late. Instead I bow to your expertise on the subject - Go ahead and enlighten all, please.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    FamilyMan, I'm not surprised...you talk about the "facts", but can't discuss them. Go figure.

    Since you asked, I'll try to make it as clear for you as I can....

    A pie is cut into 6 pieces. 1 person eats the pie. The next day a pie is cut into 6 pieces, but 6 people each enjoy a piece. The original person gets less. The next day, another pie is cut into 6 pieces. But 7 people want some. So each of the 6 people must give a little of theirs for the 7th person. On some days there are 2 pies, maybe even 3, maybe only a half of pie. But now instead of cutting all those pies up for 1 person, the pie must be divided for 7. Eventually the pieces of pie get small and the guy with the big appetite begins to starve. To make it worse, the guy with the big appetite can't have a bigger share of pie, but the other 6 can. And slowly those other 6 like the pie more and more and take more and more, even when there is only a little pie.

    If you still don't get it, think of the pie as the abundance of harvest, the number of people eating the pie as user groups, and the amount of pie available to eat as the allocation.

    And that is the difference between abundance based harvest and allocation. You can't take a fully allocated fishery, add another user entitlement, and not have a redistribution of allocation.

    Give it a rest FamilyMan. Your sarcasm isn't contributing much here.

  13. #13
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    My keyboard aborted all my thoughts so I won't post again until I get done raping and pillaging the KPB, by Saturday night. Talk at you guys Sunday!!!
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default is this what you said?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    FamilyMan, I'm not surprised...you talk about the "facts", but can't discuss them. Go figure.
    Against my better judgment, I'll take one more stab at actual conversation with you gramps; after all, your forum name sounds like you're older than I (I'm not a grandpa) and my parents brought me up to respect my elders. Just ask ole' King.

    I think I hear you saying that the runs are larger, and commercial guys are getting more than before, and PU guys are getting more than before, and you believe that commercial guys should get more than they're getting.

    Of course with any simplification of words and rewording it won't have all the nuances and meanings you intended... but is my summary of what you're saying so very wrong from what you said? You tell me.

    Please be succinct.
    Last edited by FamilyMan; 07-28-2010 at 18:11. Reason: 'cause every word is agoin' to get torn to shreds, so get it as good as I can, I say.... :-(

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Not even close. But hey, I've done my best.

    As for "conversation"...that includes more than just making sarcastic innuendoes. It includes listening, comprehending, learning, and contributing something worthwhile.

    How's this for "succinct":

    You don't understand the difference between abundance based harvest, and allocation. So you hide behind sarcasm.

    You don't understand that we can't take a fully allocated fishery, add another user entitlement (dipnetting), and not have a redistribution of allocation (away from other user groups like commercial fishing). So you hide behind sarcasm.

    Anytime you want to stop the childish banter, and man up and explain what is wrong with my statement about commercial fishermen losing allocation to new user groups, I'll be waiting....

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    man up and explain what is wrong with my statement about commercial fishermen losing allocation to new user groups, I'll be waiting....
    Nothing wrong with that statement. But....as far as I am concerned and many others I might add, it has taken far too long for it to happen. For decades the "commercial fishermen" were the fat kids guarding the candy dish. They snuck so much candy that the candy dish went empty and they got fatter and fatter, right along with their appetite. Plumb empty. Then the other "user groups" got together, made some sacrifices and a few new laws and refilled the candy dish and decided they too wanted to guard it. So it was and that is truly why they are "losing allocation", isn't it? Simply put, they demonstrated they could not be trusted to guard the candy dish and should never be allowed to again.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default xmas come early for ya

    You'll be happy to know that I will now keep this exact trouble from bothering you in the future. This forum's EIL function works well. Carry on.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Nothing wrong with that statement. But....as far as I am concerned and many others I might add, it has taken far too long for it to happen. For decades the "commercial fishermen" were the fat kids guarding the candy dish. They snuck so much candy that the candy dish went empty and they got fatter and fatter, right along with their appetite. Plumb empty. Then the other "user groups" got together, made some sacrifices and a few new laws and refilled the candy dish and decided they too wanted to guard it. So it was and that is truly why they are "losing allocation", isn't it? Simply put, they demonstrated they could not be trusted to guard the candy dish and should never be allowed to again.
    Those are common emotions Akres. But Alaska's commercial fishery isn't of their own making and taking, like you imply. Since Statehood, the fishery has been dictated by management policy, and the enforceable statutes and regulations directing them. Not to mention no sportfishery or dipnet fishery existed. It was virtually a total commercial fishery, and full commerical allocation, up until about the 1980's. And whether you like it or not, the commerical fishery has sustained the same fishery that sportsmen and dipnetters enjoy today. If you have issues with the "candy jar", you should direct your frustrations to the managing agencies, not the commercial fishery.

    But you digress. My point was not about allocation battles between user groups. That argument will continue till the cows come home. All the fisheries are currently viable and have plenty of fish. In fact for half of the last 30 years on the Kenai, sportfishermen and dipnetters have had surpluses that they could not, and did not, harvest. These are sockeye exceeding the top end of goals...Lost yield to the commercial fishery. My point was to realize what's behind these proposals by UCIDA. They are simply trying to protect their fishery, and keep from losing more allocation. They apparantly see the writing on the wall, and the direction their fishery is headed.

    It's important we keep the commercial fishery, and all fisheries, viable and sustainable. There is a balance.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    You'll be happy to know that I will now keep this exact trouble from bothering you in the future. This forum's EIL function works well. Carry on.
    Great.

    You can have the last word...whatever it was. I'm not going any lower with you.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Maybe I can offer some help here as the abundance based allocation plans in UCI were part my idea. At the 1999 BOF meeting I proposed a management approach to some BOF members that they actually took to heart. That idea was that in small returns the commercial fishery needs a higher percentage of the return to be viable. In moderate runs they do not need as much and in large runs even the commercial fishery operating full out cannot control escapements (other limitations like processor capacity, fish quality, other stock strengths limit the fishery). So a variable allocation approach would be the best approach. That is why you see varying escapement goals for different Kenai River runs strengths. The dip net fishery was not part of those discussion and therefore what Gramps is saying is that they should be and not just a fixed allocation as different run strength have different impacts on users.

    Allocation is a complex issue. For dip net fisherman it is more about the number of fish and ease of getting them, for sport fisheman it involves those and more like the fishing experience (fly vs spin as an example) and for commercial fisherman is it lifestyle and money. These all vary with different run strengths and therefore if we reduce the discussion to just number of fish we cheat the valid concerns of other users who have more involved that just the number of fish.

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
  •