Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Keeping foul-hooked sockeye?

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

  • Keeping foul-hooked sockeye?

    Check it out: http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/...22new003.shtml

    There's a proposal out there suggesting that anglers be allowed to retain foul-hooked sockeye when fishing/flossing for reds. If passed, it's suggested that the new rules would get anglers off the river more quickly as their limits would be filled more easily, and the rule would ease fish abuse since foul-hooked fish could be retained rather than released.

    All methods and means stay the same. Anyone blatantly snagging would be subject to a citation.

    What does everyone think?

  • #2
    Two thoughts. First was that it opens a can or worms. How do you look for blatant snagging if keeping snagged fish is legal? And then the confusion it would cause allowing reds to be kept but not other species. What's the result? Will more fish be taken or will the total take remain approximately the same. Second thought was if it gets people off the river sooner, maybe it shoudl be looked at. Plus if you can dip net the reds what's the difference in snagging? Not "sport fishing" either way. So maybe it should be given serioius consideeration but I would probaably be 51% to 40% agains but that's just me and I could be wrong.

    Comment


    • #3
      Whether or not the proposal has merit, the concept of using it to reduce angling pressure will only work if folks have to quit at their limit rather than continuing to catch and release.

      Is there a provision for that in there?
      "Lay in the weeds and wait, and when you get your chance to say something, say something good."
      Merle Haggard

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with it. I suspect that after a long fight with a foul hooked fish that causes damage to the fish, the probability that the fish is going to die anyway are quite high.

        At least if you can keep a foul hooked fish, you won't be turning one loose that can't survive. Escapement numbers are meaningless if the fish turned loose can't survive the rest of the trip to the spawning area. To me the current rule is goobermint mandated wanton waste.

        Rotating anglers off the streams faster can't be a bad thing either.
        Now what ?

        Comment


        • #5
          if you are fishing sockeye..

          you are already blatantly snagging<grin>
          just hoping to blatantly snag 'em in the mouth!!!
          Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
          http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

          Comment


          • #6
            AGF&amp;G Advisory Committee Views...

            Interesting text.
            Reasonable views.
            Worth the dialogue.

            I would support anything that helps to preserve a fishing area or species based on reason.

            http:www.alaskanauthor.com
            "Two decades researching and defining fishing opportunities in the Last Frontier!"

            Comment


            • #7
              issues

              Here are a few issues on this proposal.

              1) the harvest of sockeye will go up significantly. Most anglers on the river do not even catch 1 sockeye and less than 10% catch 3 or more. Therefore, if anglers can keep snagged fish it is only logical that the harvest will go up.

              2) If the harvest increases above the sonar goal then the sonar goal will have to be adjusted upward. At low run strengths if the goal is adjusted upward it increases the probability of river closures - take this year for example. Therefore, this proposal should not be passed at all goal levels. It should only happen when the sonar count is projected to go over 750,000 sockeye.

              3) the reason people come to the Kenai is to catch sockeye so if the rate of return is increased then it is unlikely people will leave the river faster. They will stay to catch 3 or 6 fish when today most do not even catch 1 per day.

              4) More people coming to the Kenai means more bank damage and crowding at public lands. The assumption people will leave faster is built on a false premise.

              5) On large returns this proposal makes sense since fish should be harvested to maintain high sustained yields in the Kenai. However, controlling of people becomes a major concern to avoid the negative impacts.

              6) Relative to the ethics issue we have a split personality on snagging. As anglers we embrace it at the Homer lagoon but say no in the river. Not sure what that means.

              7) enforcement may not be an issue since protection officers cite people for snagging even if they do not catch a fish. They use the 180 degree rule. If someone is yanking so the rod goes through 180 degrees then they are snagging. The courts appear to accept this.

              Just a few issues that should be discussed. There have been proposals like this before the Board of Fish every Board session and they fail mostly because sport anglers do not want snagging in freshwater. Allocation issues also are discussed but today the existing sport fish allocation could handle the increase at high run strengths with no change in the plans.

              Comment


              • #8
                More thoughts. . .

                Nerka,
                1) I dunno, by far most anglers I've observed do pretty well.
                2) Maybe this proposal should become an management option when it's obvious the river will exceed escapement goals?
                3) Again, I dunno. We have the cooker/canner/freezer crowd, who will be neither deterred nor encouraged by such a proposal. Other visitors are usually limited by time.
                4) I think it's too early to call any of the proposal's assumptions or premises "false." Which premise? How false? People coming to the Kenai are and will be increasingly limited by space in which to fish.
                5) Again, why not just make it a management option? And should we be thinking about controlling people? Isn't controlling the resource itself, methods, limits, accessability, and means essentially controlling people's participation?
                6) Those opposed to snagging in the guise of sportfishing will remain opposed. Those who don't object to snagging as a means of harvest will remain unopposed.
                7) Enforcement will be freed from the Gordian Knot of trying to figure out where the hook engaged the fish and will be freed to concentrate on those doing the 180-degree "Kenai flip."

                Comment


                • #9
                  What about limiting hook size to go along with the regulation?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Personally, I would like to see this statewide. Let the meat hunters get their meat and go home. Harvesting salmon is just that, harvesting. Be it net or hook. The catch and release angler would see less crowding at times. Raising fuel costs make it seem smarter to raise the success rate in fewer trips. Fewer trips equal fewer anglers equal more open parking spaces equal less pollution equal less bank erosion etc...... Adjusting the quotas would allow the managers the tools to keep the fishery sustainable. Seems like a win-win to me. People fill freezer/planet less polluted/anglers less crowded/managers able to manage.
                    I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
                    Bill Hicks

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marcus View Post
                      Nerka,
                      1) I dunno, by far most anglers I've observed do pretty well.

                      ADF&G studies on angler success in the sockeye fishery has documented the figures I quote.

                      2) Maybe this proposal should become an management option when it's obvious the river will exceed escapement goals?

                      My thinking also.
                      3) Again, I dunno. We have the cooker/canner/freezer crowd, who will be neither deterred nor encouraged by such a proposal. Other visitors are usually limited by time.

                      The existing crowd may not care but we may create a new crowd of cooker/canner/freezers.

                      4) I think it's too early to call any of the proposal's assumptions or premises "false." Which premise? How false? People coming to the Kenai are and will be increasingly limited by space in which to fish.

                      The premise is that anglers will leave the river faster or that effort will go down. The data indicates that people will come and stay on the river bank if fishing is easy and the limits higher. The Russian River is a prime example. Why does ADF&G not go to 6 or 12 fish up there in large runs? The reason is that when they do people stay on the river and the campgrounds do not turn over. When they keep it at 3 fish people leave and more people have an opportunity to harvest fish. In addition, effort goes up when the paper says fishing is great. I believe that if snagging is allowed from the start of the season effort will increase, especially from non-residents who do not have refined technique for sockeye.


                      5) Again, why not just make it a management option? And should we be thinking about controlling people? Isn't controlling the resource itself, methods, limits, accessability, and means essentially controlling people's participation?

                      Controlling people is one issue but with large sections of private property, a sport fishing organization that wants to build boardwalkds along the whole river, and a tourist industry who likes more not less visitors I doubt that will happen via fishing regulations.

                      6) Those opposed to snagging in the guise of sportfishing will remain opposed. Those who don't object to snagging as a means of harvest will remain unopposed.

                      Only if the ethics of snagging is their main issue. However, some residents of this area may not like a full open snag fishery if it increases crowding on the river or in the community.

                      7) Enforcement will be freed from the Gordian Knot of trying to figure out where the hook engaged the fish and will be freed to concentrate on those doing the 180-degree "Kenai flip."
                      Actually, enforcement probably going away for a variety of reasons. At least seeing a fish foul hooked is easier to define than the arc of the set.
                      However, I suspect enforcement will use this regulation to pull people off the river since they really do not like to be out there anyway. Since enforcement went into the State Troopers the powers to be want more time on rape, crime, and other social issues than fish and game violations.

                      I still am having a hard time figuring out the quote buttons so sorry for the presentation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by yukon View Post
                        What about limiting hook size to go along with the regulation?
                        Hook size is already limited. A legal hook can't have more than a 3/8" gap between hook and shank if I remember correctly.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                          Here are a few issues on this proposal.

                          6) Relative to the ethics issue we have a split personality on snagging. As anglers we embrace it at the Homer lagoon but say no in the river. Not sure what that means.
                          Homer lagoon is a terminal fishery correct? That being the case why not allow snagging to harvest fish rather than pollute the water with carcasses from a fishery that we created. I can't think of a river that any salmon run in that is a terminal fishery. You couldn't possibly allow full fledged snagging in the rivers if you want to get any escapement that will amount to anything. My .02

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            the 3/8" gap is only a regulation in the fly fish only area I think.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes, yes and yes. Fully support this proposal. It would send a message to the entire world that we finally recognize our past digressions and are willing to do what is right. These fish are snagged, everyone of them. Tell the truth guys. Oh, I saw it strike the fly. BS, Yes I am calling you on that little tale.
                              "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
                              ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X