Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Disappearing Kenai King Salmon.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Kg is right about paired restrictions kid. But I think the reason harvest was not restricted was more to appease the sportfishing side of things rather than keeping the setnets fishing.

    Comment


    • #32
      The ESSN large Chinooks Harvest was 972 based on in season length data. Of course it states all stocks. Since the ESSN harvest is primarily Kenai River kings to imply their harvest was insignificant in terms of the future of Kenai kings is a distortion of the data. This reminds me of some twisting of the data for personal benefit that people like UCIDA have done in the past. If the commies cared about the future of Kenai kings why did they sue to continue fishing despite the low returns? I am grateful for the paired restrictions and hope more restrictions are implemented in the future to protect the kings.

      Originally posted by smithtb View Post
      The ESSN harvest numbers you are referencing from the summary (2208 Kings of all sizes, 972 Large Kings) are clearly labeled "total chinook harvest", and "all stocks". The summary clearly shows the min, mean, and maximum estimated proportions of Kenai fish in that ESSN harvest as indicated by 2010-2018 genetic samples. Based on the mean (71%), projected ESSN harvest of Large Kenai Kings was clearly stated in that summary: 691.

      https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishC...nseasonSummary

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by kgpcr View Post
        Its all part of their management plan. Please do as there are tit for tat restrictions on the Kenai. If the King fishing is curtailed or shut down on the river it has a direct impact on the ESSN guys.
        Yes there is. I was told the plans are to keep everyone fishing all season long that is the goal they do not intend to close fishing of one group to benefit another this sort of thing is what the plan is suppose to do. The future for kings is not too bright just reinforced my belief that guides and commies are not killing off the king run. He also told me that if the river king fishing was closed and set nets was closed the run would still have not made spawner goal. The personal use fishing was no kings by emergency so he said it is zero for this year they don't look at it. that is how bad the run was also told me it was 6 days early in running time.

        Comment


        • #34
          Same smell 35 yrs after the fact....
          "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
          sigpic
          The KeenEye MD

          Comment


          • #35
            That's a good one Doc. Thanks. Seems like about the only things that are better for the river now, compared to then, are the requirement for 4-stroke outboards and restrictions on recreational developments, neither of which are directed specifically at king salmon management.

            Comment


            • #36
              Amazing! Thanks for sharing. I love that they used Hobo Jim's music. Kenai Kings controversy aside, that guy is a true Alaskan gem.
              My signature is awesome.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Gr is for Greg View Post
                Amazing! Thanks for sharing. I love that they used Hobo Jim's music. Kenai Kings controversy aside, that guy is a true Alaskan gem.
                I concur amazing I really like the aerial video footage looks like the area up stream of Soldotna that use to be part of the refuge and was sold off into subdivisions. Guess the talk in the video about better habitat protection did not quite workout because all those miles of riverbank have been developed pretty-much from Kenai Keys to eagle rock. Personally just shows me unfortunately that no matter what we know now, will not change the continued downhill run of the Kenai River for crowding habitat and quality fishing if you aren’t gonna use what they knew back 30 some years ago nothing could stop what happened.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by yamwrench View Post
                  As of 8/11/19 according to ADFG run summary the ESSN total Kenai king harvest was 2208 with 972 large kings while the creel harvest was 1652 total kings. This does not include kings caught by the drifters and gillnetters in Cook Inlet. The commie harvest is significantly higher than the creel harvest. As previously stated I also think there are way too many guides targeting Kenai kings.
                  Originally posted by smithtb View Post
                  The ESSN harvest numbers you are referencing from the summary (2208 Kings of all sizes, 972 Large Kings) are clearly labeled "total chinook harvest", and "all stocks". The summary clearly shows the min, mean, and maximum estimated proportions of Kenai fish in that ESSN harvest as indicated by 2010-2018 genetic samples. Based on the mean (71%), projected ESSN harvest of Large Kenai Kings was clearly stated in that summary: 691.

                  https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishC...nseasonSummary
                  Originally posted by yamwrench View Post
                  The ESSN large Chinooks Harvest was 972 based on in season length data. Of course it states all stocks. Since the ESSN harvest is primarily Kenai River kings to imply their harvest was insignificant in terms of the future of Kenai kings is a distortion of the data. This reminds me of some twisting of the data for personal benefit that people like UCIDA have done in the past. If the commies cared about the future of Kenai kings why did they sue to continue fishing despite the low returns? I am grateful for the paired restrictions and hope more restrictions are implemented in the future to protect the kings.

                  Haha - great response. Nearly the same response I got from Craig Medred over the same issue a couple weeks ago; I'm the liar.... How is pointing out your error amount to twisting the data? The numbers are clearly listed in the ADFG report you read. 691 Large Kenai Kings is not insignificant; it's the harvest estimate listed in the ADFG report.

                  I am not part of any lawsuit. I'm not part of CIFF or UCIDA. Commies come in all shapes, sizes, and walks of life, and they don't agree on everything. Your stereotyping and wholesale hatred of an entire user group is nauseating.

                  If folks wonder why I'm sensitive to this it's because leading anti-commie folks (Medred/KRSA et. al) make this exact sleight of hand every. single. year, despite all data showing that in fact every King caught in ESSN gear is not large or headed to the Kenai. At some point it should no longer be considered an honest mistake.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Smithtb, thanks for posting these numbers. As far as medred and krsa goes, they could care less about adfg data. Their goal is to eliminate commercial fishing in cook inlet, by hook or by crook. I find it astonishing that for the most part,the directors of krsa are pro pebble mine. My guess is that they are really more concerned about $$$ than the resource.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by gunner View Post
                      Smithtb, thanks for posting these numbers. As far as medred and krsa goes, they could care less about adfg data. Their goal is to eliminate commercial fishing in cook inlet, by hook or by crook. I find it astonishing that for the most part,the directors of krsa are pro pebble mine. My guess is that they are really more concerned about $$$ than the resource.
                      Just wondering but, IF the red run is decimated in the Bristol Bay area, how much more value would be added to Cook Inlet reds?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        Just wondering but, IF the red run is decimated in the Bristol Bay area, how much more value would be added to Cook Inlet reds?
                        Might have some impact on pricing. And eliminating the setnet fishery,which is krsa's goal, would certainly increase the harvest potential for the drift fishery in which I participate, at least in the short term. But I,and every uci fisherman that I know,do not want to profit from others misfortune or mismanagement. I don't roll that way and neither do the fishermen I associate with.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by gunner View Post
                          Might have some impact on pricing. And eliminating the setnet fishery,which is krsa's goal, would certainly increase the harvest potential for the drift fishery in which I participate, at least in the short term. But I,and every uci fisherman that I know,do not want to profit from others misfortune or mismanagement. I don't roll that way and neither do the fishermen I associate with.
                          I'm curious which has a larger commercial fleet and harvest, UCI or the Copper River fleet? I think it would put a strain on returns to both.....Also curious what that would mean for the subsistence guys/ dip netters?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by kenaibow fan View Post
                            I'm curious which has a larger commercial fleet and harvest, UCI or the Copper River fleet? I think it would put a strain on returns to both.....Also curious what that would mean for the subsistence guys/ dip netters?
                            Price at the dock and at the market of sockeye from other places would rise until it meets demand thatís what would happen without Bristol Bay sockeye. UCI and other places would not change much I donít think maybe more people on the river dipping nets and fishing on river but not sure how they can squeeze more in. Commercial sector would make more money.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Someday in the future, fishing or dipnetting on the Kenai might go like this. License ends in an even number? You can fish/dip on even numbered days. Same for odd. Or perhaps you list the days you plan to fish/dip (so many per year) and can only do it on those days. Think I'm wrong? (maybe I am) Transport yourself to the future and see. For sure things will change.
                              Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by SmokeRoss View Post
                                Transport yourself to the future....
                                If I could do that I'm not going to the mouth of the Kenai, I'm going to VEGAS!

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X