Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Late run Kenai kings -

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
    140 kings from the beach is HORRIBLE.

    I'll bet most were dinks.

    Catching in the river has been dismal… virtually ALL dinks with MANY sub-taggable runts (under 20"). Hard to believe that the river and its world renowned kings have come to this in my lifetime.

    A processor told me that 65% were jacks, heard about the same from the creel estimates. Have observed the same in my nets. Nothing new. Been that way for a few years. Luckily, I like the little guys!

    Comment


    • #17
      Well it looks like Mother Nature will once again save us from ourselves. The river is about to be blown out for a week or so . Almost all of the locals, including most long time guides, have given kings a pass this year. The only ones fishing kings right now are those too young or shortsighted to know better. I was once there, but not now. Until the numbers really improve, I will fish reds and trout . By the way, we caught as many sea run dollies last night as reds, so there are opportunities in the lower river other than kings. I love fishing kings on the tide this time of year but I haven't even looked at my king rods and gear. We lost the early run years ago, but it looks like we are losing the battle with the late run as well. I used to call reds Cook Inlet carp and most years, I didn't even bother with reds as I had all the king and silvers I could use.It's really sad that that is the only game left in town.

      Comment


      • #18
        What are you calling a "jack", tb?

        It's interesting how the "shifting baseline" phenomenon plays out in real life.

        When I was a kid, any Kenai king under 20# was considered a jack. I honestly can't remember ever catching a sub-20" "jack" before the year 2006.

        Now, we have 3 categories for such undersized fish.

        Dinks, rats, and "jacks"

        From the 70's - 80's perspective of what constituted a "jack"….

        Dinks = double digit jacks
        Rats = single digit jacks
        "Jacks" = sub-taggable micro-jacks
        "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


        • #19
          I've got to agree with you. I've only been here since 1985, but any king under 20.lbs. was a jack. I'm sure we caught a few " footballs" but they were something we shook off or put fresh on the grill. We didn't even mention them. Now, catching even a "football" jack is an accomplishment. You will even get asked what you caught it on! Sad days indeed.

          Comment


          • #20
            The data shows that our kings have been returning younger, but with exception to the last several years, does not back up the assertion that there are less and less of them. Returns have been very robust in the recent past, as demonstrated by escapement data and sport/commercial harvest data and CPUE.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
              Thanks for that update, tb...

              I salute all the guys "rolling" their LIVE kings.

              I believe it is the right thing to do, even though it may hurt those folks from an accounting perspective.

              The number of kings the gear encounters is much more important than the harvest figure.

              If half the fleet is "rolling" kings, then it stands to reason that perhaps there are twice as many encounters as would be reflected in the harvest.

              This number would still have to be adjusted to reflect subsequent encounters after release.

              Regardless, preliminary catch numbers in the inlet AND in-river point to a VERY poor run.
              fishNphysician - it may hurt folks from an accounting perspective? Really? Just who are those folks? I believe it is the users in the end. The short term zeal to get fish to the in-river sport fishery and the desire to fish commercially have combined to actually hurt the resource. If one does not know the production potential of the system and how it is changing then goals and management approaches will fail. No one has any idea how many of these kings make it to the river and if they die then the figures compromise the whole data sets used to set goals and evaluate what is going on. Someday I hope they start tagging chinook smolt and if those tagged fish are lost to misguided releasing of kings and their death then we will never advance our knowledge on these fish. In fact we may actually cause pain and suffering to the user groups because of poor management decisions.

              This is a perfect example of the lay public thinking they know more than the biologically trained staff. I keep hearing let the biologists run the fishery but in truth no one really wants that as they think they know best. Biologist have been telling the ESSN fisherman to sell their fish. If smithtb is correct then half the fisherman are ignoring this biological advice.

              If one wants a release program out of the nets then have ADF&G put in an evaluation program and tracking program to see just how effective it is and what type of mortality is taking place. Whether fish are making it to the river or not. Just running off and doing things on your own is not good for management and not good for the resource.

              But the public has been pretty stupid across the country when it comes to resource management, especially when money is involved so I suspect this will continue.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                fishNphysician - it may hurt folks from an accounting perspective? Really? Just who are those folks? I believe it is the users in the end. The short term zeal to get fish to the in-river sport fishery and the desire to fish commercially have combined to actually hurt the resource. If one does not know the production potential of the system and how it is changing then goals and management approaches will fail. No one has any idea how many of these kings make it to the river and if they die then the figures compromise the whole data sets used to set goals and evaluate what is going on. Someday I hope they start tagging chinook smolt and if those tagged fish are lost to misguided releasing of kings and their death then we will never advance our knowledge on these fish. In fact we may actually cause pain and suffering to the user groups because of poor management decisions.

                This is a perfect example of the lay public thinking they know more than the biologically trained staff. I keep hearing let the biologists run the fishery but in truth no one really wants that as they think they know best. Biologist have been telling the ESSN fisherman to sell their fish. If smithtb is correct then half the fisherman are ignoring this biological advice.

                If one wants a release program out of the nets then have ADF&G put in an evaluation program and tracking program to see just how effective it is and what type of mortality is taking place. Whether fish are making it to the river or not. Just running off and doing things on your own is not good for management and not good for the resource.

                But the public has been pretty stupid across the country when it comes to resource management, especially when money is involved so I suspect this will continue.
                Nerka, at this point two things are very clear.

                1. You do not agree with fishermen rolling kings.
                2. There is nothing you can do about fishermen rolling kings.

                You may think it's stupid, selfish, irresponsible, and a thousand other of the worst words you can think of, but comon man give it a rest. I think it's shortsighted as well, but no one is asking either of us.

                If the ESSN harvest data was so important to ADFG, they should have stood up and said so when it counted. Not the local biologists at a fishermen's meeting, but the big dogs, and when it counted.

                For the record, I have not heard any ADFG biologists tell fishermen not to roll kings. I have heard them say that it makes abundance estimates very difficult, but they have all reminded us that it is legal and a personal choice to release live kings.

                Don't worry, I'm sure Bfish is working on a mortality matrix as we speak. In my opinion, release mortality is nearly impossible to estimate, because as with all C&R, the result depends highly on the condition of the fish and the skill/care of the fishermen. I'm sure the estimate will be orders of magnitude higher than the 6-8% inriver B.S.

                At least fishermen are attempting to report them despite the lack of a system to do so, and only rolling live ones. We could have just pulled the drifter card - "Kings, what kings?"...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Without some data on rolling Kings out of the nets, Nerka is simply speculating, theorizing, and leaning toward accusations.

                  For decades ADFG has been aware that some ESSN Kings are released (rolled out of nets), both to survive and die. As smithtb reminds us, that is legal and part of the fishery. Heck even back in the early 1970's when I worked ESSN's we released every King we could. ADFG has also been aware that some Kings go unreported. Again, there are always a few bad apples in any fishery. But I bet even without hard data ADFG could probably come up with a rough margin of error to attach to the harvest number due to these factors (and maybe they do anyway). But realize this is just one indicator of the in-river return, not to mention the ESSN's harvest only a portion of the return. So one has to ask how many Kings are we potentially talking about here, and among all other indicators (test netting, sonar, sport harvest surveys, etc.) how much of an impact does rolling Kings really have.

                  If you ask me, in the big scheme of things all it might show is that the ESSN'ers are not keeping their Kings. Dah! Do you blame them? After all, management has set this one up for failure all on their own. Obviously the trend to roll Kings has increased due to the mounting pressure inflicted by the sport fishery and their political influence on the management process. Each King the ESSN's keep ends up working against them, pushing them closer and closer to losing their Sockeye fishery. These guys don't want Kings, or the turmoil associated with keeping them. They are fishing for Sockeye. Not to mention they have been burned by the whole counting/sonar/indicator/projection/forecast process anyway, as they watched the in-river sport fishery ruin a run of mighty Kings that they had always sustained.

                  Nerka, I agree with smithtb. If rolling Kings is so important, then ADFG has neglected to address it for almost half-a-century. And now, when it becomes more important, they still continue to do nothing. For them to rely so heavily on the voluntary actions of an ESSN for numbers (among all this political mixed-stock, user conflict, management mess), would be yet another management blunder. IMO given the situation ADFG should be enumerating each and every King, leaving no room for such ambiguity. So you can scold the ESSN'ers for rolling Kings, but really your frustration should be directed to ADFG who created the scenario.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
                    Without some data on rolling Kings out of the nets, Nerka is simply speculating, theorizing, and leaning toward accusations.

                    For decades ADFG has been aware that some ESSN Kings are released (rolled out of nets), both to survive and die. As smithtb reminds us, that is legal and part of the fishery. Heck even back in the early 1970's when I worked ESSN's we released every King we could. ADFG has also been aware that some Kings go unreported. Again, there are always a few bad apples in any fishery. But I bet even without hard data ADFG could probably come up with a rough margin of error to attach to the harvest number due to these factors (and maybe they do anyway). But realize this is just one indicator of the in-river return, not to mention the ESSN's harvest only a portion of the return. So one has to ask how many Kings are we potentially talking about here, and among all other indicators (test netting, sonar, sport harvest surveys, etc.) how much of an impact does rolling Kings really have.

                    If you ask me, in the big scheme of things all it might show is that the ESSN'ers are not keeping their Kings. Dah! Do you blame them? After all, management has set this one up for failure all on their own. Obviously the trend to roll Kings has increased due to the mounting pressure inflicted by the sport fishery and their political influence on the management process. Each King the ESSN's keep ends up working against them, pushing them closer and closer to losing their Sockeye fishery. These guys don't want Kings, or the turmoil associated with keeping them. They are fishing for Sockeye. Not to mention they have been burned by the whole counting/sonar/indicator/projection/forecast process anyway, as they watched the in-river sport fishery ruin a run of mighty Kings that they had always sustained.

                    Nerka, I agree with smithtb. If rolling Kings is so important, then ADFG has neglected to address it for almost half-a-century. And now, when it becomes more important, they still continue to do nothing. For them to rely so heavily on the voluntary actions of an ESSN for numbers (among all this political mixed-stock, user conflict, management mess), would be yet another management blunder. IMO given the situation ADFG should be enumerating each and every King, leaving no room for such ambiguity. So you can scold the ESSN'ers for rolling Kings, but really your frustration should be directed to ADFG who created the scenario.
                    Missed the point Funstastic. First, it is not speculation or accusation that they are rolling kings. Fisherman have testified to that this year to ADF&G on numerous occasions. At least one fishing famiily stood up in the KPFA meeting and said they were doing it. Also, another fisherman said it to Comm Fish staff and with just these two they represent 50 nets between them. Also, others have said as much. If you look at the catch data it is obvious as to where it is happening. The problem is that it makes the run look really bad and those who want more restrictions will point to this and no amount of claims by the ESSN that they have released fish will change that attitude without data. ESSN are only hurting themselves in total while the lower beach fisherman may benefit. Typical ESSN problem - no common ground or ability to work together for the good of the industry.

                    As for your claim of rolling kings in the past that is speculation relative to the degree then and now. Two different animals. The ADF&G did a study to see if kings were not being sold or reported and found they could not detect it. There was a time when some fisherman were doing it near the Blanchard line to see if it made a difference in the counts but ADF&G was made aware of it and the number of fish released. Could not detect it.

                    You worked the ESSN in the 70's - wow you get around with claims of all you experience around the inlet. However, I question why one would release kings in the 70's. There was no conservation issue as no one was counting them - did not start until 1985. There was no sport fishery or fishing group pushing for an allocation - Kenai River Sport Fishing with Penney started in 82. Sam McDowell was pushing for this and a management plan was written in 1978 but that was more to do with Susitna. The ESSN were fishiing two days a week and not a lot of extra e.o time as sockeye returns were poor. So just what drove you to release chinook? I started in 1980 and there was no indication that anyone was rolling chinook. Just the opposite. KPFA had won a court case saying they could sell kings when the BOF said they had to release them.

                    My frustration is unreported mortality and the impact on the data base. ADF&G has gone to great lengths to figure out catch and release mortality in the river so the same applies here. Until those studies are done fisherman should sell their kings. To do otherwise is irresponsible, especially when ADF&G Comm Fish staff asked them not to roll kings. Relative to the they cannot win either way - that may be true but also speaks to a culture of being a victim. They have options to fight these regulations in court but have taken a different route which so far is trying to live with them. That is the real issue here. The plans are not functional and should be thrown out. Proof of that point - Kasilof last year and this year. No need to speculate on that at all. The proof is in the escapement counts.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Nerka View Post

                      If one wants a release program out of the nets then have ADF&G put in an evaluation program and tracking program to see just how effective it is and what type of mortality is taking place. Whether fish are making it to the river or not.
                      Agreed.

                      I think you and I had a conversation 8-10 yrs ago about how any king that encounters setnet gear too far south of the Blanchard Line is statistically a dead fish. There are only so many possible fates with each encounter....

                      1) It either gets harvested outright
                      2) It becomes a dropout mortality, either random or intentional (i.e. rolling dead kings out of the net)
                      3) It escapes as a random dropout survivor
                      4) It is intentionally released ALIVE.

                      The issue for fates 3) and 4) is that those fish will statistically be subjected to another encounter… and yet another… and another… until it succumbs to either fates 1) or 2) during one of those subsequent encounters with the gear.

                      Statistically, they're virtually ALL dead before they can make it past the Kenai Section.
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                        Missed the point Funstastic. First, it is not speculation or accusation that they are rolling kings. Fisherman have testified to that this year to ADF&G on numerous occasions. At least one fishing famiily stood up in the KPFA meeting and said they were doing it. Also, another fisherman said it to Comm Fish staff and with just these two they represent 50 nets between them. Also, others have said as much. If you look at the catch data it is obvious as to where it is happening. The problem is that it makes the run look really bad and those who want more restrictions will point to this and no amount of claims by the ESSN that they have released fish will change that attitude without data. ESSN are only hurting themselves in total while the lower beach fisherman may benefit. Typical ESSN problem - no common ground or ability to work together for the good of the industry.

                        As for your claim of rolling kings in the past that is speculation relative to the degree then and now. Two different animals. The ADF&G did a study to see if kings were not being sold or reported and found they could not detect it. There was a time when some fisherman were doing it near the Blanchard line to see if it made a difference in the counts but ADF&G was made aware of it and the number of fish released. Could not detect it.

                        You worked the ESSN in the 70's - wow you get around with claims of all you experience around the inlet. However, I question why one would release kings in the 70's. There was no conservation issue as no one was counting them - did not start until 1985. There was no sport fishery or fishing group pushing for an allocation - Kenai River Sport Fishing with Penney started in 82. Sam McDowell was pushing for this and a management plan was written in 1978 but that was more to do with Susitna. The ESSN were fishiing two days a week and not a lot of extra e.o time as sockeye returns were poor. So just what drove you to release chinook? I started in 1980 and there was no indication that anyone was rolling chinook. Just the opposite. KPFA had won a court case saying they could sell kings when the BOF said they had to release them.

                        My frustration is unreported mortality and the impact on the data base. ADF&G has gone to great lengths to figure out catch and release mortality in the river so the same applies here. Until those studies are done fisherman should sell their kings. To do otherwise is irresponsible, especially when ADF&G Comm Fish staff asked them not to roll kings. Relative to the they cannot win either way - that may be true but also speaks to a culture of being a victim. They have options to fight these regulations in court but have taken a different route which so far is trying to live with them. That is the real issue here. The plans are not functional and should be thrown out. Proof of that point - Kasilof last year and this year. No need to speculate on that at all. The proof is in the escapement counts.

                        Then go ahead and sue if that's how you want to spend your time.

                        It is speculation on your part that this is some south beach conspiracy to hide kings and get more fishing time, as you have suggested multiple times. Rampant speculation which hurts the ESSN fishery more than rolling live kings ever will. I have stated it before and will do so again - the notion that fishermen in one user group or statistical area are somehow more or less honest than those in another is foolish. I have talked to many north beach fishermen who are rolling live kings as well. You are repeating things which you have heard second or third hand. You are quick to jump on everyone else when you don't think they know what they are talking about, so stop taking about what happened at the KPFA meeting - you were not there and thus are speculating. It was a membership meeting and you are not a member.

                        Your point that ESSN's are hurting themselves by rolling kings is valid, and you have clearly stated so multiple times. I happen to agree for the most part, but others do not and that does not make them evil, selfish, dishonest people. It does not make them ignorant fools either. It just means that they disagree with you.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by smithtb View Post
                          Then go ahead and sue if that's how you want to spend your time.

                          It is speculation on your part that this is some south beach conspiracy to hide kings and get more fishing time, as you have suggested multiple times. Rampant speculation which hurts the ESSN fishery more than rolling live kings ever will. I have stated it before and will do so again - the notion that fishermen in one user group or statistical area are somehow more or less honest than those in another is foolish. I have talked to many north beach fishermen who are rolling live kings as well. You are repeating things which you have heard second or third hand. You are quick to jump on everyone else when you don't think they know what they are talking about, so stop taking about what happened at the KPFA meeting - you were not there and thus are speculating. It was a membership meeting and you are not a member.

                          Your point that ESSN's are hurting themselves by rolling kings is valid, and you have clearly stated so multiple times. I happen to agree for the most part, but others do not and that does not make them evil, selfish, dishonest people. It does not make them ignorant fools either. It just means that they disagree with you.
                          First, I said it speculation on the motives of the lower beach fisherman along with other possible motives. However, I have had enough experience with fisherman to know that they can be innovative and frankly have seen some fisherman outright lie along with some guides and the general public along with ADF&G staff and Board of Fish members. Heck, you put all types of motives on Bfish and KRSA and the Board. I did not call anyone dishonest or ignorant fools. I said it was irresponsible. So if you are going to make up words make sure they are your words not mine.

                          I was not at the meeting but ADF&G staff reported what happened on this issue. Are you saying one individual did not stand up and admit to rolling kings. If so then ADF&G reported it wrong.

                          Relative to a law suit - not my concern as you lose money with these regulations. Just saying that what has been tried over the past three years has resulted in plans that are not working out for you. Do not sue - your choice but do not whine about a broken process or corrupt Board. As a minority user courts usually try to keep the majority from oppressing the minority.

                          Look smithtb - you know I have been an advocate for a diverse fishing community and a fair plan. So do not shoot the messenger when I express my frustration at a user group who right now appears to be fractured, incapable of a common goal, and are doing stuff that may hurt themselves and the resource.

                          But you are right. I have made my point so I will stop beating this drum.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post

                            I'll bet most were dinks.

                            Catching in the river has been dismal… virtually ALL dinks with MANY sub-taggable runts (under 20"). Hard to believe that the river and its world renowned kings have come to this in my lifetime.

                            http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-209043868.html
                            "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


                            • #29
                              Are you patting yourself on the back for that doc?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                                Missed the point Funstastic. First, it is not speculation or accusation that they are rolling kings. Fisherman have testified to that this year to ADF&G on numerous occasions. At least one fishing famiily stood up in the KPFA meeting and said they were doing it. Also, another fisherman said it to Comm Fish staff and with just these two they represent 50 nets between them. Also, others have said as much. If you look at the catch data it is obvious as to where it is happening. The problem is that it makes the run look really bad and those who want more restrictions will point to this and no amount of claims by the ESSN that they have released fish will change that attitude without data. ESSN are only hurting themselves in total while the lower beach fisherman may benefit. Typical ESSN problem - no common ground or ability to work together for the good of the industry.

                                As for your claim of rolling kings in the past that is speculation relative to the degree then and now. Two different animals. The ADF&G did a study to see if kings were not being sold or reported and found they could not detect it. There was a time when some fisherman were doing it near the Blanchard line to see if it made a difference in the counts but ADF&G was made aware of it and the number of fish released. Could not detect it.

                                You worked the ESSN in the 70's - wow you get around with claims of all you experience around the inlet. However, I question why one would release kings in the 70's. There was no conservation issue as no one was counting them - did not start until 1985. There was no sport fishery or fishing group pushing for an allocation - Kenai River Sport Fishing with Penney started in 82. Sam McDowell was pushing for this and a management plan was written in 1978 but that was more to do with Susitna. The ESSN were fishiing two days a week and not a lot of extra e.o time as sockeye returns were poor. So just what drove you to release chinook? I started in 1980 and there was no indication that anyone was rolling chinook. Just the opposite. KPFA had won a court case saying they could sell kings when the BOF said they had to release them.

                                My frustration is unreported mortality and the impact on the data base. ADF&G has gone to great lengths to figure out catch and release mortality in the river so the same applies here. Until those studies are done fisherman should sell their kings. To do otherwise is irresponsible, especially when ADF&G Comm Fish staff asked them not to roll kings. Relative to the they cannot win either way - that may be true but also speaks to a culture of being a victim. They have options to fight these regulations in court but have taken a different route which so far is trying to live with them. That is the real issue here. The plans are not functional and should be thrown out. Proof of that point - Kasilof last year and this year. No need to speculate on that at all. The proof is in the escapement counts.
                                Come on Nerka, why do you do that? I did not say it was speculation or accusation that they were rolling Kings. In fact, I said ADFG has been aware of it for decades (reference my second sentence). So it is you who misses the point: I was referring to your theories, speculation, and accusations about rolling Kings as an indicator issue, and how a false indicator may effect their fishery. Without some data, we really don't know. So the question isn't whether Kings are rolled or not...I told you I rolled them myself.

                                Also, I did not claim or imply that rolling Kings then vs. now was the same animal. In fact, I clearly said the trend to roll Kings has increased (second paragraph). Not sure why you want to concoct an argument about that.

                                Yes, I worked the ESSN in the 70's. I also owned a drift boat (a aluminum 1962 Motsumoto Bird boat - one of the original cannery fleet boats), and I long-lined out of Homer and also via a skiff at Deep Creek long before IFQ came in. I also potted, crabbed, and seined in other areas of Alaska. FYI, fishing like that was what Alaskans like me did before you arrived. I don't expect you to understand or know what went on before the 80's, but trying to diminish me personally for my experience would be ignorant and unwise. If you want specifics, I can PM you them. Just say the word.

                                As for releasing Kings: The commercialized in-river King sportfishery was well under way in the 70's. Kings, lots of big Kings, were already the target for sportfishermen from around the world. Guides were already uniting, and already trying to impose regulations, licensing requirements, and forming an organization (now transformed to what's called KRSA). Both governors Bill Egan and Jay Hammond were involved politically in getting a handle on the growing situation on the Kenai River. In fact I spoke personally with Jay Hammond on several occasions about the growing situation. Without guide regulations, some commercial fishermen were capitalizing on the in-river King fishery as well, making a buck wherever they could. So there was incentive to put Kings in the River. As for keeping or releasing Kings, it has always been an issue throughout CI. Regulation in the late 70's early 80's you talk about was the result of that. While it may be hard for you to understand, commercial fishermen in my day had foresight and knew that conservation of the resource meant a sustained livelihood...we knew where our bread was buttered. We could see far, far ahead - even in the 70's, where the King fishery was headed. And here we are. Go figure. Yes, even back in the 70's there was talk, and user group conflict, about retaining Kings in the commercial fishery. So FYI we released Kings not only for conservation, but because they would tear our nets up. Back then, Kings were generally over 45 pounds, and many in the 60-70 pound range. It was not worth letting one rip up a perfectly good net when it could be released to spawn and return two more. In fact many times we hung on the buoy just so we could release (roll) one as soon as it hit. Our target was sockeye, just as it is for the ESSN now.

                                I understand your frustration with unreported mortality. However in the big scheme of things where sonar counts are bogus, a true in-river C&R mortality is unknown, the PU fishery is releasing Kings at unknown mortality, King sport harvest surveys are vague, imposing simple conservation measures in-river are like pulling teeth, ADFG has been aware of rolling Kings for half a century and done nothing, and the ESSN'ers are screwed if they keep and screwed if they don't, I don't believe your speculations hold water.

                                If ADFG has great concern over rolling Kings, they should deal with it through the process...regulation. Given the venom in this fishery, the wounds from past efforts of cooperation, and what's at stake, it would be ignorant to ask ESSN'er to do something they don't have to...something in their minds will backfire on them and only benefit the commercialized sportfishery. It wouldn't take much for ADFG to regulate rolling Kings. And that is where your efforts should be - encouraging ADFG to get on the bandwagon.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X