Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: fish meeting in the valley,Wednesday the 11th,7pm

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

    Default fish meeting in the valley,Wednesday the 11th,7pm

    There will be an informal meeting with Rep. Mark Neuman hosting, concerning the valley fisheries, this Wednesday evening from 7pm till 9pm. Fish and game sports and comfish will be there and possibly 3 members of the BOF. Discussion will be about this year's fisheries and the public should be able to weigh in on with questions for them. It will be held at the Wasilla fire department, off of Lucille.
    Come prepared with that ONE question you have just been dying to ask of them. Why is the sky blue does not fit into that category. You get the idea.
    Hope to see you there!!!
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  2. #2

    Default

    Good Luck with it. If it is anything like the one held recently at Sheep Creek, you better take some No Doze Pills and Some Topical Desynsitizer for the pain associated with biting your tonque. Same players. I have to say, that Dave Rutz appeared to be on the ball and the most knowledgable. He, imo, is a straight shooter and offers his findings, without the drama or doubletalk.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  3. #3
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    From seeing how he does not say hardly one word at these meetings or talking with him and the answers I have gotten from him, I find Dave Rutz to be spineless when it comes to speaking up for the sportfisherman.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by salmon_bone View Post
    From seeing how he does not say hardly one word at these meetings or talking with him and the answers I have gotten from him, I find Dave Rutz to be spineless when it comes to speaking up for the sportfisherman.
    Whoa!!! Way different expectations I suppose. I have never once gotten that impression. What I have seen him do and speak of is to tell it like it is. I get the sense that he has his priorities in the right spot and that priority is the Fish. But hopefully this meeting and future meetings won't be about anything but the Fish. I can appreciate Mr. Rutz' in not becoming some sort of "sportfisherman" mouthpiece within the dept. I am content with him accomplishing his duties as a bio. I shudder to think about the Palmer office emulating what has been happening in Kenai. Surely this is not what you would like to see. Is it?
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  5. #5
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. However, I am the only one to say it. And when I have seem him at meetings, he just sits there like a deer in the headlights.

    I understand being a biologist has not got to be easy, especially when your getting it in both ears, but, every time he has tried to talk, that I have seen, someone else at the "BOG BOYS TABLE" speaks for him, and he never is able to answer his own questions.

    And the people working in the Palmer ADFG office, well mom said don't say anything if you can say something nice.

    I stopped dealing the Palmer ADFG office 2 years ago.
    Anchorage office has people there that at least know the regulations,
    hahahahaha!

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Just for the record it is not a good idea to discuss individuals on this forum. That puts them in a spot light they did not seek or in some cases deserve. Now if they go public and take political positions in a non-department role that is a different story.

    Relative to area offices and what people know or do not know the general public really has little chance to evaluate that. This is one reason they are not asked to write the performance evaluations. Biologists have different areas of knowledge and training. In the case above the Palmer office historically has not understood the commercial fishery and it showed in some public comments. The reason is simple. They are far removed from it and have no day to day management authority over it. So asking them commercial fishing questions and expecting a good answer is not likely. I have been in lots of meetings with present and past Anchorage and Palmer sport fish biologists who just say things that are not true but that is the perception they have.

    On the other hand local knowledge of stream/river conditions, habitat changes, stock status as measured by escapements, and general area specific issues (local policies or culture for example) are known by the area staff better than other areas. That is why ADF&G has area offices - to better interact with the local population. That is a double edge sword as it can also lead to misinformation if they stray outside their area. So in UCI it is not unlikely and in fact appropriate for biologists to sit there and be silent if the topic is outside their area of knowledge.

    In UCI this is compounded since the commercial fisheries staff is located in Soldotna but the area extends to the whole Northern District. Budget cuts in the late 70's and early 80's removed a commercial fish research biologist from the Northern District to Soldotna and further budget cuts in the mid-80's reassigned work loads to other areas. Those budget cuts have never been restored and therefore the most knowledgeable group on the northern district systems for sockeye right now is Cook Inlet Aquaculture personnel.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Just for the record it is not a good idea to discuss individuals on this forum. That puts them in a spot light they did not seek or in some cases deserve. Now if they go public and take political positions in a non-department role that is a different story.

    Relative to area offices and what people know or do not know the general public really has little chance to evaluate that. This is one reason they are not asked to write the performance evaluations. Biologists have different areas of knowledge and training. In the case above the Palmer office historically has not understood the commercial fishery and it showed in some public comments. The reason is simple. They are far removed from it and have no day to day management authority over it. So asking them commercial fishing questions and expecting a good answer is not likely. I have been in lots of meetings with present and past Anchorage and Palmer sport fish biologists who just say things that are not true but that is the perception they have.

    On the other hand local knowledge of stream/river conditions, habitat changes, stock status as measured by escapements, and general area specific issues (local policies or culture for example) are known by the area staff better than other areas. That is why ADF&G has area offices - to better interact with the local population. That is a double edge sword as it can also lead to misinformation if they stray outside their area. So in UCI it is not unlikely and in fact appropriate for biologists to sit there and be silent if the topic is outside their area of knowledge.

    In UCI this is compounded since the commercial fisheries staff is located in Soldotna but the area extends to the whole Northern District. Budget cuts in the late 70's and early 80's removed a commercial fish research biologist from the Northern District to Soldotna and further budget cuts in the mid-80's reassigned work loads to other areas. Those budget cuts have never been restored and therefore the most knowledgeable group on the northern district systems for sockeye right now is Cook Inlet Aquaculture personnel.
    Disagree in part; Agree in part; As Usual;

    I think it important that we share observations and interpretations of our experiences with State Employees. Credibility to the Public is paramount when we interact with them. It is also important that those observations and interpretations be related specifically to the context in which they were perceived.
    Yep, to hold a meeting without including principle players is silly. But it happens with regularity, if looking for a Pep Rally!!!
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  8. #8
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    I guess we all expect different responses from the ones who plan the management.
    I wonder what we expect to hear from Jeff Fox this year...

    Here is the article for the meeting if needed...

    If you are wondering about the status of the salmon stocks around the area and how the management decisions Fish and Game made this past season regarding both commercial and sports fishing in Cook Inlet are affecting escapements in our river systems, you’ll want to attend a public meeting next week.

    This coming Wednesday from 7 to 9 p.m., Rep. Mark Neuman and the Mat-Su Blue Ribbon Sportsmen’s Committee will host a public meeting with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) representatives at the Mat-Su Public Safety/Training Building located on Swanson Avenue in Wasilla.


    The theme of the meeting, as specified in the flyer I just received, states the meeting will address: “The health and sustainability of Mat-Su salmon stocks: an appraisal and update on Summer 2010 assessments.” Neuman will chair the meeting and ADF&G staff attending will provide an oversight of how well both king and sockeye salmon returns to the Northern District fared this year.


    According to Neuman, “Residents of the Mat-Su are becoming increasingly concerned about the health and future sustainability of area runs. I encourage interested Valleyites to join us for this informational meeting with ADF&G officials.”


    ADF&G has received some prepared questions so they can come ready to address valley concerns about king salmon escapement numbers and how the Susitna-Yentna sockeye stocks are performing in light of the Stock of Concern status the Board of Fisheries (BOF) issued in 2008 for this stock. I expect members of the Blue Ribbon Committee will have further questions, as will other folks attending the meeting.


    I would expect to see both fisheries division directors (commercial and sports fish), the area managers from both divisions and possibly some regional management staff from Anchorage in attendance.
    The commissioner might even show up.

    I would also expect to see the majority of the Valley legislative contingent, possibly with some of the challengers for the seats up for election this fall present, along with some of the Anchorage legislators too. There will folks from the Blue Ribbon Committee, a few Mat-Su Borough Assembly members and representatives from the local Fish and Game Advisory Committees present as well. At least two BOF members have been invited to listen to the presentations and questions since this year’s BOF cycle includes addressing issues in the Cook Inlet salmon fisheries.


    If you have questions or concerns about the status of salmon stocks in the Mat-Su valley, I would strongly urge you to attend this meeting. You will be able to meet the folks responsible for managing the fisheries and hear their take on how well or how poorly things are going. You will also be able, time permitting, to ask that one question that’s been bugging you all year about why this or that was or wasn’t done.

  9. #9
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default Well........?

    I wasn't able to attend, and I have not heard anything on this forum about what exactly was accomplished at this meeting.
    However, I did find this article...
    Anymore input?
    Fishery meeting in Wasilla draws a crowd

    by Sue Deyoe ~ August 12th, 2010
    Over 30 people gathered in Wasilla to talk about fish data and allocations on Wednesday night. The Mat Su fishing community via Representative Mark Neuman, recently sent a letter to the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game. Sport fishers in the northern district of Cook Inlet want answers to a number of questions on the fishery.
    This July 4th brought king closures to almost every stream except for the Talkeetna river and clear creek. Limits for kings went down to one in those areas. Many B&B owners and guides asked area representative Mark Neuman and Senator Charlie Huggins for help. A meeting was held a couple of weeks ago at Sheep Creek Lodge with area biologist Dave Rutz in attendance to answer questions.
    The latest letter asked 9 questions – everything from the health and productivity of the northern district’s salmon species to genetic stock identification to weirs and Deshka river counts.
    Five Fish and Game officials and area legislators were at the meeting Wednesday held in Wasilla to answer those 9 questions. Bill Stoltze, Carl Gatto, Jay Ramras, Charlie Huggins and Mark Neuman listened intently to the crowd ask pointed questions about past Board decisions. The crowd added questions to the agenda as commercial fisheries division biologist Jeff Regnart and others tried to address concerns about the northern district fisheries.
    There was clearly animosity toward the commercial fish division AND fish and game biologists by some of the sport fishers of the Valley.
    The Governors’ assistant Cora Campbell who works with both DNR and ADF&G spoke at the end of the meeting and assured the group that their concerns were heard and were being addressed both in the legislature and at the ADF&G level. Most of the crowd didn’t seem assured that was happening. Answers to all of the questions had come briefly in written form by division directors. All answers referred to the upcoming Board of Fish hearings in Anchorage in February
    Bruce Knowles, chairman of the Mayors Blue Ribbon Sportsmans Committee encouraged and almost pleaded with attendees to show up at the Board of Fish hearings in February. Attendee Tom Peyton suggested that Alaska needs to do what other states have done and request that commercial fishers not be allowed to fish king salmon.
    Knowles said that the economic studies done almost 2 years ago, showed $750 million comes to the valley from sportfishing – from people using lodging, to fishing licenses, to use of boats and other transportation to get to fishing sites. Commercial fishing brings in only $35 million. He said those numbers can be used at the Board hearings to convince members that allocations and other rules need to change to protect northern district fisheries.
    The Board of Fish hearings for Upper Cook Inlet Finfish are February 20 thru March 5 at the Egan Center in Anchorage. The meeting for Lower Cook Inlet finfish is mid November in Homer.

  10. #10

    Default

    I expect the same, almost 30 people will show up to speak at the BOF Hearings. And.....they will hear the same rhetoric, again.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  11. #11
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,363

    Default

    The most telling thing that I heard at the meeting is that Fish and Game is managing Cook Inlet commercial fisheries based on the Kenai and Kasilof sonar numbers; the fact that Yentna/Susitna sockeye stocks were depleted enough to grant them a stock of concern status has little weight with the department. That is why in none of the commercial EO announcements is the possible Susitna/Yentna bycatch mentioned. The department gave no answer for what proactive steps they, as a department, are taking or planning to take to restore historic sockeye run strength in the Yentna/Susitna. They gave no answer to what actions they are taking to restore depleted chinook runs: 13 of 15 streams counted did not make escapements, even with the closure of sport fishing the final 2 weekends of season. The actions offered were further restrictions to sport fishing.

    The Department's Jeff Ragnar stated very clearly, many times over, that their management of the fisheries is dictated by the BOF, that they only do what is called for in the management plans. He would accept no responsibility for the implementation of the policies, which is what the Department is charged with doing.

    I was very dissatisfied with this response. In 2008, the department asked for, and was granted, much latitude in how they manage the commercial fisheries. Windows can be scrapped in years of high sockeye returns to the peninsula, EO hours were expanded, and they were given more tools to use inriver. The department did not credit the board for those actions. The department would only say that they only do what the BOF authorizes them to do, according to the salmon plans, and they seemed to be ok with how things are going up here. There didn't seem to be any hand wringing from the panel present about the present state of the fisheries. When asked what plan they follow, it was stated they follow the Kenai River plan (predominately.)

    So basically what managing to the plans gave the Valley this year was sport fish closures of all Parks Hwy streams to chinooks for the last two weeks of the season, in-season restrictions on the Deshka, and complete closure of the Chuit, Lewis, and Theodore for chinook. Very likely stock of concern status will be put in place for the entire Susitna and Yentna drainages for Chinooks. What I hoped to hear from the department is what their recommendations are for the upcoming cycle; tweak what we have, throw it out and start from scratch, leave it all alone and hope things even out, what?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Frankly willphish4food I think you reported what you heard but you did not understand the context of the discussion. For the record, ADF&G does manage under the plans and the law is clear they are to do that unless in-season information dictates otherwise. In that context, the Susitna/Yentna complex does not have in-season information but that does not relieve ADF&G from management for the individual stream goals. It just means they must adjust based on trends in escapement for those systems. So if they fail to meet the individual goals for a yield concern they will react. I have no doubt of that. You on the other hand and the valley folks are so jaded in your opinions that you cannot even make a true objective evaluation of the data or management approach. You do not want to hear that the BOF has heard your misguided pleas and have rejected them because they are not defendable. Therefore, you lump everyone as some evil group that is out to destroy resources. That is just not being rationale.

    Chinook and sockeye issues that do not involve the commercial fisheries are swept under the rug as they do not meet your biased objectives. You fail to discuss with ADF&G things that should be done that could built a unified approach on these other issues but instead take a negative approach. Valley folks also fail to understand that lack of chinook escapement is not due to any commercial fishery. The main harvester are sport fisherman and yet they are probably not the issue either.

    As far as the turn out - there are 50,000 people in the valley and Anchorage is close and you can only get 30 people out for the meeting. That is a dismal turnout for what you call a disaster in the valley. It looks to me that even the valley folks who fish and hunt understand that this issue is not what the 30 make it out to be.

  13. #13
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,363

    Default

    Its ok for you, Nerka. You live on the Kenai. You have your Slikok Creek, and are upset that it is where its at and management does not seem to be working toward recovery. I have the same concerns with the valley fisheries; but my concerns are just misguided, supposedly because I just don't understand. I think its mainly because I disagree with you on many things, so must be wrong on those things, and by association on anything else I say.

    But back to the meeting: I think it was a good thing, and hope that inside the department they are trying to work out the reasons our stocks are in decline now.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    willphish4food, how in the heck do you figure managing to the Kenai and Kasilof Plans gave the Valley closures? And how in the heck do you figure the commercial fishery is responsible?

    The UCI Management Plan, the Mixed Stock Management Plan, the Northern District King Salmon Management Plan, the Kenai/Kasilof Plans, and so on, are all very clear on how the salmon are to be managed. You should read them. The Northern District Salmon Management Plan clearly spells out how the Yentna escapements are related to the Kenai escapements, and how they will be managed. The Northern District King Salmon Management Plan clearly spells out how many Kings the commercial fishery can take (they don't take anywhere near that number), and that it will be closed if the Theodore, Lewis, Deshka, Chulitna, etc. are closed. The Mixed Stock Management Plan clearly spells out how the conservation burden shall be shared among users in proportion to harvest. You get the idea.

    So, if there are specific things in the Management Plans that were violated, please show us. Otherwise it looks like the Management Plans were implemented properly (closures, EO's, etc.). The only thing that seems to be screwing our fisheries up and undermining our Management Plans are the emotional, half-baked theories, witch hunts, lies, and misinformation that you post here. This continual axe you grind for the Kenai/Kasilof fisheries, commercial fishing, and the Management Plans, is nothing more than sour grapes. It's no wonder you are "dissatisfied" with the BOF...nobody is listening to your garbage anymore...you never legitimize your ideologies with any facts. Everything you spew is based on some theory of relationship between users.

    As for using Nerka's Slikok Creek issue as some analogy to your issues in the Valley...Apples and oranges. But you already know that, and instead want to work on people's emotions.

    So what's your solution to the Valley's problems willphish4food?...ignore our State's Constitution and its sustained yield principles for all systems south of you? Close commercial fishing? And will that really solve your problems? For how long? And if it does at what cost to other systems/fisheries?

  15. #15

    Default

    Misguided....my how that term gets thrown around an awful lot. IMO, "Misguided" would best be applied to those that Hang Their Hat on the "PLAN". Shootfire, we all know the "plan". Why is it so difficult for some to admit, that the "plan" ain't working and things need to change. That means changing the "plan". Brings us right back to the Simple Arithmetic Formula, that some have difficulty understanding.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Your plan of "Simple Arithmetic Formula" defines "misguided".

    Nothing about our vast mixed-stock, mixed-user, fisheries is simple or can be managed with simple math.

    The Management Plans are defendable with scientific rationale. Can they be improved and better funded?...Of course. But I'm not quite sure what you think about them isn't working?...I'm all ears.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Your plan of "Simple Arithmetic Formula" defines "misguided".
    There it goes again.
    Nothing about our vast mixed-stock, mixed-user, fisheries is simple or can be managed with simple math.
    How can you be so certain? It hasn't been tested yet.
    The Management Plans are defendable with scientific rationale. Can they be improved and better funded?...Of course. But I'm not quite sure what you think about them isn't working?...I'm all ears.
    So can The Theory of Evolution. Try your "scientific rationale" to PROVE anything. Good Luck It has never been done....EVER. Math has proven to be the one and only method to hold water. Are you listening?
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

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

    Default

    We already discussed last week how irrational your idea of managing our mixed-stock, mixed-user group fisheries by "simple fifth grade math" really is HERE

    Nobody said the scientific rationale supporting our fishery management "PROVES" anything. Science is an ongoing process that we use to continually learn and improve our fishery management. You can not manage a fishery, or do any fishery-related math, without it.

    But for the sake of entertainment, and to further define the term "misguided", please show us how you would use your simple fifth-grade math to manage Cook Inlet Salmon...how you would establish escapement goals, meet our Alaska Constitution's sustained yield principles, sustain all the mixed stocks throughout the Cook Inlet's systems, rivers, and tribs, satisfy all user groups, consider run timing, age class, brood years, productivity, and so on? You get the idea....

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Wasting your time with Akres Gramps. You cannot discuss rationale thoughts with a person who does not get to their position in a rationale way. So said a local Lutheran pastor with a scientific background on his trying to explain evolution to people who reject science and the factual basis for evolution, preferring instead an emotional responses to the discussion.

    Oh please do not let this start a thread on evolution. Please, please, please. Just had to use it as that was the context the pastor used.
    Last edited by Nerka; 08-19-2010 at 23:00. Reason: wrong word used

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Wasting your time with Akres Gramps. You cannot discuss rationale thoughts with a person who does not get to their position in a rationale way. So said a local Lutheran pastor with a scientific background on his trying to explain evolution to people who reject science and the factual basis for evolution, preferring instead an emotional responses to the discussion.

    Oh please do not let this start a thread on evolution. Please, please, please. Just had to use it as that was the context the pastor used.
    Said he that believes Darwin and rejects Einstein.
    Oh, and I believe it is 'rational way' as opposed to your use of the term "rationale way". e.g. "Rational number, a number that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers". Unless it is a 'scientific term' I am not familiar with.

    Easy as pi (pun intended) fella's. Count, add, subtract and deduce. Can't 'splain it better/easier than that.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

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
  •