Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Commercial vs. PU fishermen

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,077

    Default Commercial vs. PU fishermen

    Wow, looking through the proposal book and the staff comments. My first impression after looking through the first 50 pages or so is that the commercial fishermen really want to put the hammer on the dipnetters.

    Kinda seems to me the commercial fishermen would like the dipnetters, for one thing the sockeye the dipnetters catch are already by the commercial nets and the dipnetters are doing their part to preven overescapment. The commercial fishermen have been saying for years that the river has been overescaped with sockeyes, well, the dipnetters are doing their part in cleaning up a lot of the sockeyes that the commercial fishermen didn't catch.
    What is the big deal, the PU caught sockeyes are already past the commericial nets, the commercial fishermen should be thanking the PU fishermen for helping prevent overescapment.

    EDIT: Wow, basically 80 pages of Commercial fishermen trying to restrict dipnetting, then about 10 more pages of UCIDA wanting to open up more areas to dipnetting and the department opposing those areas due to biological reasons. I am trying to figure out UCIDA's angle in all of this, I didn't realize they were so concerned with dipnetting, I though they were commercial fishermen, not PU fishermen.

  2. #2
    Member TR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    391

    Default

    Go spend some time on the dipnetting forum. The comms are forever bashing the dippers.

    Their point is that they should be the mechanism to prevent overescapement. They don't get to fish all the time. Often only let into the terminal areas by EO.

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

    Default

    You have some good points. UCIDA wants the over escapement and then they can put in a proposal for a terminal fishery or at least, more EO's, just for the Kenai. Fish that get past them is just lost yield, per Grampyfishes, six months ago. Dippers and sport cannot be the only mechanism for over escapement but comfishers want to be able to fish earlier and more often, meaning more $$$ in their own pockets, if they can cut back yield from Dippers.
    I have a bullseye target which I am going to hold up during my testimony and say that it should be plastered on over 80,000 Alaskans backs, because of the 26 out of 28 proposals are to cut back or do away with the PU fishery. Those suggested new dipnet fisheries are just tongue in cheek proposals to just muddy the waters or get some people out of the Kenai/Kasilof PU fishery
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    You have some good points. UCIDA wants the over escapement and then they can put in a proposal for a terminal fishery or at least, more EO's, just for the Kenai. Fish that get past them is just lost yield, per Grampyfishes, six months ago. Dippers and sport cannot be the only mechanism for over escapement but comfishers want to be able to fish earlier and more often, meaning more $$$ in their own pockets, if they can cut back yield from Dippers.
    I have a bullseye target which I am going to hold up during my testimony and say that it should be plastered on over 80,000 Alaskans backs, because of the 26 out of 28 proposals are to cut back or do away with the PU fishery. Those suggested new dipnet fisheries are just tongue in cheek proposals to just muddy the waters or get some people out of the Kenai/Kasilof PU fishery
    Whop,
    As a ucida member I can tell you with some certainty that none of us want overescapement and the majority of us like neither the terminal fishery nor the e.o.'s which bottle us up in the corridor. You are right ,we would like to fish earlier and more often. Who wouldn't?
    And as far as the suggested new dipnet fisheries, why wouldn't you support them? Why should the Kenai, Kasilof, Fish Creek and Chitna be the only rivers open to dipneting? Why not the Taku? The Stikine? THe Unalakleet? The Karluk? If dipnetting is so wonderful why isn't every stream in Alaska that has a harvestable surplus open to dipping? I am not against dipping necesarily as a way to feed alaskan familys, but if you lived on the Kenai year round as I do you would realize that the majority of residents here would prefer to see the dipnet fishery eliminated. We are very aware of the swine like behavior, the greed, and the selfishness and inconsiderateness of many of the participants. It is unfortunate, because I am sure that the majority of the participants are law abiding alaskans that are considerate of the resource and it's environment but those that aren't are giving a black eye to the fishery that I can't abide

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Hmm, I live on the Kenai year round and I would have to say that most people I talk do not want to see the PU Fishery Eliminated.

  6. #6
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Gunner, every fishery has it's share of slobs. I am also aware that many families do not need the entire allotment. Yet, there are some families that do depend on this fishery to help make it through the year. Got to take the good and also the bad. I am, first and foremost a person that believes in people policing their own. If I see a violation, I try to just suggest that they are out of line and might be in a position to be cited. If they mouth off, a call goes into law enforcement and I tell them so. I don't pull punches. Idiots that make me and my fellow dippers look bad, we do not need. Same should go for Comfishers. Not all Law enforcement can monitor those fisheries either.
    In all fisheries, we have bad apples. Let us, both you and I, make a pact with ourselves, to point out the wrong and hope people just want to make it right, if they are in violation or just didn't know. Get a bad reception, just make a cell phone call and see what develops. As a 34 year resident and as a person wanting to help lead the younger generation, who could ask for anything more. Ken F.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    Hmm, I live on the Kenai year round and I would have to say that most people I talk do not want to see the PU Fishery Eliminated.
    Yea, iceblue and I agree on something.

    Here is the bottom line - the UCIDA proposals are statements of frustration and will be treated as such at the BOF meeting. They will go nowhere. However, the BOF should discuss the overall allocation of resources in UCI and personal use fisheries should be part of that discussion.

    I find it interesting that Yukon has diverted the discussion to PU vs. Commercial Fisherman when the guides have a proposal in to eliminate the retention of a chinook salmon in the PU fishery. Nice job Yukon.

    Just for understanding the faster the escapement goals are reached the faster the nets go back in the water. So if there was no PU fishery then commercial fisherman would harvest the surplus fish. So I know their position - pretty greedy if you ask me. On the other hand in a poor Kenai return of sockeye salmon the commercial fishery needs a basic amount of fish to maintain market share and profit. That level should be discussed and taken into account by the BOF in allocation decisions.

    The PU fishery provides about 18-20 salmon per household from my memory and this is an average. I do not believe that this is excessive. However, the boat fishery on the Kenai is getting to the point that it needs some adult supervision - so there are things to discuss at the BOF that have nothing to do with allocation per se.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    Hmm, I live on the Kenai year round and I would have to say that most people I talk do not want to see the PU Fishery Eliminated.
    Yup. Me too. I think the PU fishery is great.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I find it interesting that Yukon has diverted the discussion to PU vs. Commercial Fisherman when the guides have a proposal in to eliminate the retention of a chinook salmon in the PU fishery. Nice job Yukon.
    Nice try Nerka, the guide association is adamently against restricting the dipnnetters. There are a couple guides on the Soldotna AC that supported it along with the AC. It is not a guide proposal, the guides support the dipnetters. That is one proposal by the Soldotna AC, very misguided, IMO, it doesn't compare to the number of proposals put in by not only individual commercial fishermen, especially John McCombs, and UCIDA. They are really worried about the fish after they get past the nets.

    I have not participated in the dipnet fishery in 4 or 5 years, it is just too crowded for me, me and my family get the 50 or so reds my family needs for the winter with rod and reel throughout the season. But I see the benefit to a lot of Alaskan families everyday and I think the dipnet fishery takes a tremendous amount of pressure off the banks of the Kenai up river.

  10. #10
    Member MaximumPenetration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    374

    Default

    I agree with several people here. I live in Soldotna and have to deal with traffic each summer for PU/Sport fishing, but understand it is a great thing for the local economy and keeps the area thriving. As far as personal use boat fishery, I have taken part in it for the last 10 years each year. Last year wasn't the worst I've seen, but it was pretty congested and there are far too many "big" boat there. Guys with jet boats from Wasilla come down and power troll through all the smaller, slower moving boats, and if the people running the smaller boats look away for a second they could easily be run over. Frankly I think we need a horsepower restriction for the dipnet fishery.

  11. #11
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    And as far as the suggested new dipnet fisheries, why wouldn't you support them? Why should the Kenai, Kasilof, Fish Creek and Chitna be the only rivers open to dipneting? Why not the Taku? The Stikine? THe Unalakleet? The Karluk? If dipnetting is so wonderful why isn't every stream in Alaska that has a harvestable surplus open to dipping?
    Well, for one thing many areas outside of the road system allow subsistance net fishing through the Comm Fish division-not the Sport Fish. These are open to all Alaskan residents, at least the Kodiak one is. Hey! Did you know you can get a subsistance purse seiner permit? Finding out about subsistance is somewhat difficult, you have to contact the Comm Fish office in the area you want to fish. Fish & Game offices in Anchorage and Juneau will profess ignorance about the whole thing.
    I may be slow, but I get where I'm going!

  12. #12
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Thewhop2000 is extremely happy about this thread. We have both Yukon and Nerka agreeing on something I fight for. Yes, Nerka, it comes out to 6 fish, per person, per year. Not too excessive, IMO. Maybe a discussion on inboard verses outboard is warranted.
    Was anchored, near but not on the Kenai city docks, cause I stayed on my boat the night before, last year. I had come down from up river and was waiting for some friends to show up, to take them out for the day. I had my dipnet on top of my running canvas and was in the cabin making a pot of coffee off of my portable stove. It is like 5:00am and I'm half asleep. Here comes this wooldridge, inboard, which had just launched, puttering away from the docks. This guy gets about 25 feet behind me and then lets it rip, full throttle. Mind you I'm next to the first three comfishers boats, by the dock. The 3 foot wake hit my boat, my stove goes flying, coffee pot doing cartwheels, and my dipnet gets thrown into the drink. Short story long.. I lost my dipnet, my pot of coffee and could not really identify the idiot who operated the boat, nor the actual boat. Sure wish I could have given that guy a piece of my mind. Idiots like that just really kill me. He also could have damaged the bow pickers or stern pickers that were moored.
    MP, you might be right on that horse power thing. Anyone else want to chime in on this?
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  13. #13
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Hey Yukon,

    Good find. Look at what is happening with our southern brothers in Canada.

    Think this speaks to the greed of the commfish!

    "Individuals in the recreational sector, however, can lease quota from the commercial sector at market rates."



    http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/O...447/story.html

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    MP, you might be right on that horse power thing. Anyone else want to chime in on this?
    Boat length limitation: Class A (<16') 25HP max


    Just kidding.
    ~tr

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Going to be a hard sell limiting horsepower in this area due to the influx of commercial fishing vessels as the comm fish boats are unlimited in hp. Had the same problem when the Kenai went to four stroke/50 horsepower limits which is mostly why this restriction is in effect only in the Kenai River Special Managment Area from around the Warren Ames Bridge upstream to Skilak Lake.

    Be a shame to limit access to boats that participate in the dipnet fishery via restrictions aimed at one user group versus another. I would dislike seeing eveyone forced to dip from the shore as that would lead to another set of problems.

    At some point there is going to have to be some type of regulation in place that allows only so many boats at one time on the Kenai per area or zone. Mandate either a check in timeframe via internet or thru the city boat launch to keep the numbers in check and I believe that such a quota system would be doable in the dipnet fishery if you get the different agencies to agree.

    Boat use limits could be looked into for the fishing part of the Kenai as well. Participation is down in the inriver fishery but only a matter of time before that turns back around and it would be nice to be ahead of the curve for once. If something like this will not work then it is only a matter of time before more day or hour restrictions are put in place.

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
  •