Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50

Thread: BOF 2011 Kenai slot limit proposals

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default BOF 2011 Kenai slot limit proposals

    Choices... choices.... oh what's a guy to do?

    233 (Szczesny), 234 (Erickson) - Eliminate slot limit entirely

    235 (Brush) - Expand to a season-long slot limit thru July 31

    236 (Anderson) - Modified 21-day slot limit in July.

    I'll take door #2, please.
    "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

  2. #2

    Default

    +1 for door #2!

    How about we C/A that one....

    Carry the proposal, but amend it to say 41"-55". I think the 46"-55" protects the big males but leaves the same age class females open to harvest.

  3. #3
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    I'm just happy we have board members that don't sway to the masses. Thats why our system works so well. Keep up the fine work all of you involved w/ our precious fisheries. I know its a thankless job.... I commend you!




    On a side note could we visit the possibilities of giving the waters of Cape St Elias back to the Area E drift fleet? The Cape was wrongly taken away from the Cordova Fleet in '85 and I feel there is a lucrative resource that should be tapped, now that Cooks Inlet is a terminal fishery. BOF members PM me we can discuss this in detail
    Last edited by fullbush; 11-10-2010 at 11:51. Reason: wwwwhwhat?

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Charlie View Post
    I think the 46"-55" protects the big males but leaves the same age class females open to harvest.
    BINGO!

    46-55" is ridiculous to the point of being ... well... POINTLESS!

    We ain't gonna conserve crap if 95% of the hen population is in the bonakable pool of fish.

    The 46-55" slot conserves predominantly males... not at my home computer to get the exact ratio but it's almost certainly somewhere on the order of 7:1 or 8:1. There is virtually ZERO hen savings.

    It may turn out that NONE of these plans has a chance of passing as proposed, but the BOF has the discretion to amend or modify any of them once the discussion on the issue has begun.

    Hoping someone in that deciding body is reading this thread.

    Wouldn't hurt to review another modified July slot proposal as an alternative to season-long or 21-day. Here's one from the last cycle for a 14-day July slot.

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...enai-slot-plan
    "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

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    170

    Default

    I think the slot limit should be removed, the sonar project pulled, and the king fishery open "weekends only" from June 1 - July 31!

  6. #6
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Wouldn't it make just as much sense to make a sex specific slot limit? I am also curious if the science is there to support simply sliding the slot down to say 41-53.

  7. #7
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    In the last BOF cycle for Cook Inlet, ADFG staff opposed a proposal for a river-wide, season-long slot limit. Given the unexpected finding that 45% of late run kings fall within the 44-55” slot, staff cited the following reasons for their opposition:

    1) A lack of conservation concern for large late run kings.
    2) Excessive forgone harvest opportunity on healthy late run stocks.
    3) Disproportionate harvest preferentially targeting the younger age classes.

    As the author of that proposal, I must concede that these are all very valid concerns, yet I am perplexed that staff proposed no alternative plans to secure even some small measure of additional protections for troubled mainstem ER5-o spawners in July.

    I propose for your consideration a compromise slot plan that applies through July 14 in all areas open to king salmon fishing from the river mouth upstream to the outlet of Skilak Lake. Several key features of said plan will effectively address staff’s cited concerns.

    1) Historically only 30% of the late run enters the river by July 14. This plan would not affect the remaining 70% of the return from July 15 forward.

    2) Of the affected portion, only 45% would fall within the 44-55” size range. That means “unharvestable” slot kings would, at most, comprise only 14% of the late run. (0.3 x 0.45 = 0.135)

    3) All of these late run slot kings become available for harvest once again on July 15. That means the sport fleet has an additional 17 days to harvest them. Basically, these kings are only unavailable for harvest 14/31-ths of the month.

    Effectively, a mere 6% (0.30 times 0.45 times 14 divided by 31 = 0.06) of the late run is excluded from harvest under this proposal. It would still enable the fishery to liberally exploit the remaining 94% of this healthy stock. Because nearly the entire late run remains in the harvestable pool of kings, concerns about harvesting equally across all age classes become irrelevant. In essence, ALL of staff’s objections to the original proposal become non-issues.

    In addition, recent entry-pattern trends in the late run make it even less likely that any large late run fish would be affected by this compromise slot plan. In the past 5-6 years, the age-sex composition of the late run fish entering the river in the first 2-3 weeks of July has been predominated by small 1- and 2-ocean males. Very few large fish actually enter the river during this time period. Most of the large fish that are present in the lower river fishing zone at that time are actually mainstem spawners lingering from the early run. Since the bulk of large late run fish do not enter the river until well into the third week of July, extending the slot limit in the lower river during the first two weeks of July actually impacts exceedingly few large late run kings. It would however prevent many large ripening early run kings (all of which were fully protected just days earlier in June) from being mistakenly and irresponsibly harvested as “late run” kings in the lower river.

    By implementing this compromise proposal, the Board stands only to gain in terms of conserving ER5-o mainstem spawners. Conversely, the Board stands to lose almost nothing in terms of forgone harvest opportunity on a healthy late run stock. It is difficult to imagine a conservation plan with a better risk: benefit ratio.
    "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

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Wouldn't it make just as much sense to make a sex specific slot limit?
    It would make a whole lot MORE sense to just say ZERO hen retention.

    I am also curious if the science is there to support simply sliding the slot down to say 41-53.
    The shorter they set the lower limit of the non-retention slot, the more ER5-o kings are saved. But this occurs at the expense of forgone harvest opportunity on the ER4-o kings.

    The move to liberalize the slot from 44" to 46" freed up more ER4-o kings for harvest and was expected to reduce exploitation of sub-slot hens. Proponents argued that freeing up more large bucks for harvest would indirectly reduce pressure on hens in the 40-44" range (30-36# egg wagons). It was sold with the argument that if an angler were to catch and tag a 44-46" buck, he/she would forgo harvest of a 40-44" hen.

    Turns out the argument was full of crap. And here's why. The typical angler is simply going to tag the first legal fish caught. If it happens to be a 40-44" hen.... it's effectively a dead fish. Worse yet, if it happens to be a 44-46" hen, it's also a dead fish. Fact of the matter is that 95% of all ER hens in the river are under 46".... they're virtually ALL legally bonkable. And given the propensity for the typical angler to bonk the first legal fish, that's exactly what happens to virtually every hen caught on the mighty Kenai in May and June. If it bites, it dies!
    "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

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    It would make a whole lot MORE sense to just say ZERO hen retention.


    And given the propensity for the typical angler to bonk the first legal fish, that's exactly what happens to virtually every hen caught on the mighty Kenai in May and June. If it bites, it dies!
    Honestly, I know most of the people on here know the diff between a hen or buck Chinook, BUT, there are alot out there that don't.
    What would the consequences be to those who have no clue how to tell the diff between the 2 sexes?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    With the counts being to piss poor we should shut it down for a while or go to odd or even days fishing. It makes no sense to horse them to the boat get them to shore take a pic or twenty then release them and expect them to be in good shape to spawn. So the fish swims away and dies. Nothing was gained or preserved

  11. #11
    Member salmon_bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    It makes no sense to horse them to the boat get them to shore take a pic or twenty then release them and expect them to be in good shape to spawn. So the fish swims away and dies. Nothing was gained or preserved
    You got a point.
    Either put time manages on the run for harvesting, or do not allow CSR (catch-snap-release)

  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by salmon_bone View Post
    Honestly, I know most of the people on here know the diff between a hen or buck Chinook, BUT, there are alot out there that don't?
    Pretty dam easy if folks would look for ONE key feature.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 10-13-06 sea lice platinum hen.jpg  
    "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

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    With the counts being to piss poor we should shut it down for a while or go to odd or even days fishing. It makes no sense to horse them to the boat get them to shore take a pic or twenty then release them and expect them to be in good shape to spawn. So the fish swims away and dies. Nothing was gained or preserved
    Bingo!

    “...because we’re nice to the fish, releasing them ‘unharmed,’ we can receive both psychic dispensation and blessing. Needless to say, if you think about this relationship carefully, it’s not a comforting one, for it is a game of dominance followed by a cathartic pardons, which, as a nonfishing friendremarked, ‘is one of the hallmarks of an abusive relationship.’” —Ted Kerasote

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Bingo!

    “...because we’re nice to the fish, releasing them ‘unharmed,’ we can receive both psychic dispensation and blessing. Needless to say, if you think about this relationship carefully, it’s not a comforting one, for it is a game of dominance followed by a cathartic pardons, which, as a nonfishing friendremarked, ‘is one of the hallmarks of an abusive relationship.’” —Ted Kerasote
    Good to see you are still checking in Marcus!

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default From today's Peninsula Clarion . . .

    Sicko sport . . .

    An Outdoor View: In the name of sport
    By Les Palmer | Peninsula Clarion

    Every so often, we might want to think about some of the things we do for "sport."
    Take catch-and-release fishing. How sporting is it to purposely go out and catch and release trout all day, maiming and killing some of them in the process? If you fish the Kenai River much, you'll see trout with only one eye and with misshapen jaws, the result of being hooked and "played." Great fun, watching and feeling a trout frantically struggling for its life on the end of your line. Will we one day look back at catch-and-release fishing with the revulsion we now have for staged dog fights? We don't catch these fish for food, but just for fun. For sport.

    I often walk down to the Kenai River from my home in Sterling. On such a walk in July, I saw a king salmon lying on its side, dead. By king standards, it wasn't large, maybe a 20-pounder. It was fat, bright-silver, and it hadn't spawned. In its mouth was a size 7/0 Gamakatsu hook. This fish was likely a casualty of catch and release, fishing for sport.

    Salmon get but one chance to reproduce, so it's criminal to jeopardize that single opportunity by molesting them. According to Alaska's statewide sport fishing regulations, "molesting means the harassing, disturbing, or interfering with fish by any means, including the use of any missile or object not established as legal gear; molesting includes dragging, kicking, throwing, striking, or otherwise abusing a fish which is intended to be released." Yet, it's legal to molest salmon with legal gear, even to pull them off their spawning redds on purpose, in the name of sport.

    —more at the paper's Web site

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,079

    Default

    I have read that Les Palmer article before. If I remember correctly it was a year or two after that article Les wrote and article, I think in Fish Alaska Magazine, about a fishing trip he went on and talked about all the fish he caught and released. I will see if I can find it.

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    I have read that Les Palmer article before. If I remember correctly it was a year or two after that article Les wrote and article, I think in Fish Alaska Magazine, about a fishing trip he went on and talked about all the fish he caught and released. I will see if I can find it.
    Yes, yes, . Les did it, so that makes it okay? You can do better than that, yukon.

    But let's leave out personalities and ad hominem abuse. Let's speak instead to ideas, and the idea of abusing another sentient being for fun—for "sport"—unavoidably killing and maiming some and depleting the vigor of spawning fish is sicko. Moreover, what we do to the fish with such "sport" is as nothing compared to what it says about our humanity.

    From a Christian perspective, the fish belong to God. Is that then what He put them here for—to play with and maim?

    The Desert Fathers taught there are nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin.
    1. By Counsel
    2. By Command
    3. By Consent
    4. By Concealment
    5. By Defence of Evil Done
    6. By Partaking
    7. By Provocation
    8. By Praise
    9. By Silence

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

    Default

    It should be clarified that the intent of the non-retention slot is to protect the most depleted portion of the run from decades of disproportionate exploitation. The slot limit is just another variation of selective harvest practices that are being applied to fisheries statewide.

    If a king salmon fishery is allowed to take place at any level, these fish WILL be caught. Do you want them dead in a fish box with 100% certainty that their contribution to the gene pool is permanently snuffed out? Or would you rather take the chance that perhaps 1 in 32 might die if they are released to perpetuate their genetic fitness? It's clear to many of us that reducing the exploitation on this segment of the population is the way to go.

    The time to reverse decades of disproportionate exploitation is long past due.

    For the sake of the fish, let's just get it done.... and get it done RIGHT!
    "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
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Futile fixes . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    It should be clarified that the intent of the non-retention slot is to protect the most depleted portion of the run from decades of disproportionate exploitation. The slot limit is just another variation of selective harvest practices that are being applied to fisheries statewide.

    If a king salmon fishery is allowed to take place at any level, these fish WILL be caught. Do you want them dead in a fish box with 100% certainty that their contribution to the gene pool is permanently snuffed out? Or would you rather take the chance that perhaps 1 in 32 might die if they are released to perpetuate their genetic fitness? It's clear to many of us that reducing the exploitation on this segment of the population is the way to go.

    The time to reverse decades of disproportionate exploitation is long past due.

    For the sake of the fish, let's just get it done.... and get it done RIGHT!
    Hello, doc,

    I disagree. The slot limit's purpose is to allow catch & release fishing of sub-trophy kings while still allowing killing of the big ones. As Vincent-Lang summed it up:

    "It (catch-and-release) is a tool which enables managers to continue maximizing the opportunity to participate in recreational fisheries while reducing mortality to what can be termed 'catch-and-release mortality.' In this way, the economic value of recreational fishing is not jeopardized as the opportunity to participate is not reduced." — Doug Vincent-Lang, et al, "Mortality of coho salmon caught and released using sport tackle in the Little Susitna River, Alaska, 1992"

    And you are mistaken. A king salmon fishery could take place at some level without a slot limit, without c&r, and without disproportionate harvest. Such a fishery could be easily accomplished by mandating that an angler's first two kings, whatever their size, keep them or let them go—your choice, and you're off the river. But there's way too much money at stake to really reverse current "decades of disproportionate exploitation." No, Sport Fish Division, guides, and their supportive businesses are addicted to dollars so they sell "opportunity," and the thrill-seekers, the "size matters" crowd, are only too glad to acquiesce. It's the system that is rotten, doc, and no amount of fine tuning it will change things. The fish will continue to be caught, abused to the point where they can no longer spawn effectively, and the largest killed.

    What I'd rather, doc, is that everyone kinda "grow up," and stop abusing the fish simply for fun.

    "Though the fate of salmon rests in human hands, it is not clear that we will be able to save them even if our society wants to. Part of the problem lies in the conflict between the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences and the certainty demanded by policy makers when balancing natural resource protection against economic opportunities." (King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon, Montgomery, Westview Press, 2003)

    All human activity can be defined in economic terms—guided fishing, tackle sales, fun, thrills, etc.

    Nothing will change until the economics—fun and money—of the fishery changes. Bank on it. Trust me. Find another hobby. .

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    It should be clarified that the intent of the non-retention slot is to protect the most depleted portion of the run from decades of disproportionate exploitation. The slot limit is just another variation of selective harvest practices that are being applied to fisheries statewide.

    If a king salmon fishery is allowed to take place at any level, these fish WILL be caught. Do you want them dead in a fish box with 100% certainty that their contribution to the gene pool is permanently snuffed out? Or would you rather take the chance that perhaps 1 in 32 might die if they are released to perpetuate their genetic fitness? It's clear to many of us that reducing the exploitation on this segment of the population is the way to go.

    The time to reverse decades of disproportionate exploitation is long past due.

    For the sake of the fish, let's just get it done.... and get it done RIGHT!
    I would prefer that we did not molest them at all. If you really want to get serious about preserving them then leave them alone. I cant believe that the mortality rate is not high when the fish are so stressed to begin with. You are right Doc lets get it done. Lets just plain leave them alone. you think that would be hard on guides you are right but let them dissapear and then we will see how hard it is on them. Fishing on odd or even days would cut the pressure in half. It would be fine with me if we shut it down untill escapement is met

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
  •