Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stick a fork in it!

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Chez View Post
    Open up a rainbow season and cull them back a little, it couldn't hurt
    The territory of Alaska offered a bounty on trout at one time. They also paid a bounty on Bald Eagles. Neither worked.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by tvfinak View Post

      The territory of Alaska offered a bounty on trout at one time. They also paid a bounty on Bald Eagles. Neither worked.
      Seals too, but, I'm not sure you are right about weather or not they worked. Bounties did work but they would never fly today. It's a non-starter.

      Comment


      • #18
        With the current state of affairs, I think it would be a fair thing for the state to offer compensation to the set-net site holders, to get out, as way to recoup their investments rather than let them titer on king salmon or other salmon runs. I do not live in AK but I do pay property tax to the Soldotna borough. I live in southern CA and in 1993 inshore gillnetters we forced/bought out through state legislation. The sooner a gillnetter took the deal the more they got in compensation. The compensation was paid for by a limited time fishing license stamp. All I can say is after nearly 30 years, fishing has really improved! This buy-out was a citizens initiative, someone in AK needs to start thinking outside of the box.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by river mist View Post
          With the current state of affairs, I think it would be a fair thing for the state to offer compensation to the set-net site holders, to get out, as way to recoup their investments rather than let them titer on king salmon or other salmon runs. I do not live in AK but I do pay property tax to the Soldotna borough. I live in southern CA and in 1993 inshore gillnetters we forced/bought out through state legislation. The sooner a gillnetter took the deal the more they got in compensation. The compensation was paid for by a limited time fishing license stamp. All I can say is after nearly 30 years, fishing has really improved! This buy-out was a citizens initiative, someone in AK needs to start thinking outside of the box.
          There is no such thing as the Soldotna Borough, there is the Kenai Peninsula Borough that property holders pay property taxes to.

          I'm not sure how the permit structure is set up in California, but here in Alaska these permits are limited entry and when this system was put in place in the 70's people were granted permits for free based upon previous years fishing activities. Since limited entry took place the permits are allowed to be bought and sold on the limited open market, the permit prices are now subjected to market forces of supply and demand as well as the value of the fishery itself. Legislation has been bandied about for a number of years to buy out setnetters for well over 10 times the going rate of a permit. I've considered buying a permit or two just to play the buyout lottery.
          I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. Physicist ― Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #20
            Sorry, you are right. my taxes go to the Kenai Peninsula borough and I got them dated 7/1 and paid them in full! And yes it's called Limited Entry and Transferable and considered a commodity but still controlled by the state. Lobster permits in my region are the same but if the state wants to change the system they can so what is you point!

            Comment


            • #21
              Patsfan54, I spoke to soon my billing date was 6/22/21 and it came in a green envelope. Lets get back to the business of fish politics.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by river mist View Post
                Sorry, you are right. my taxes go to the Kenai Peninsula borough and I got them dated 7/1 and paid them in full! And yes it's called Limited Entry and Transferable and considered a commodity but still controlled by the state. Lobster permits in my region are the same but if the state wants to change the system they can so what is you point!
                Point is, why should government pay for something that they gave out for free and the recipients of this free restricted limited market were allowed to profit off of a common property resource for decades? If you as a permit holder are allowed to take a resource that belongs to everyone but not everyone can take and monetize, why should government then have to pay you so you cannot take that common property resource anymore? The permit grants you the ability to take something that belongs to everybody and make money off of it, it does not grant a set amount of money in to your pocket.
                I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. Physicist ― Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • #23
                  I agree with you, we should not have to buy them back but the process has gone too far through the years since it started. Sites have been bought and sold and I do not want people to lose on sites they inherit or invested in. The financial loss to the state is nothing in the scope of things for buy backs of east side set netters. Pass the cost to non resident fishing license buyers like myself, I don't care, just happy to enjoy good fishing. And ***, why did the state lower my license cost by $40 for a non resident annual license. I'm happy to pay the money. Someone from above has to make some real decisions for the good of Alaska fisheries.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by river mist View Post
                    I agree with you, we should not have to buy them back but the process has gone too far through the years since it started. Sites have been bought and sold and I do not want people to lose on sites they inherit or invested in. The financial loss to the state is nothing in the scope of things for buy backs of east side set netters. Pass the cost to non resident fishing license buyers like myself, I don't care, just happy to enjoy good fishing. And ***, why did the state lower my license cost by $40 for a non resident annual license. I'm happy to pay the money. Someone from above has to make some real decisions for the good of Alaska fisheries.
                    Those who bought should have been aware what they were buying...caveat emptor. They bought a chance to catch a common resource property, those who inherited a permit aren't out anything since it didn't cost them or their forebearers anything. I'm all for charging nonresidents as much as we can to support the cost of enforcement, if you are willing to pay more I'm sure the state will accept a check. It kind of seems like there are real decisions being made, whether you agree with them or not is a different story.
                    I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. Physicist ― Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mark knapp View Post

                      Seals too, but, I'm not sure you are right about weather or not they worked. Bounties did work but they would never fly today. It's a non-starter.
                      What was found was that the trout were actually eating stray eggs, often with parasites. Likewise, eagles the eagles weren't eating enough fish to even matter. Nature has an excellent record of balancing things out without man interfering. Don't know much about the seals, but I suspect they don't eat that many fish either.
                      Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
                      ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tvfinak View Post

                        Don't know much about the seals, but I suspect they don't eat that many fish either.
                        Watch the lower Kenai on an outgoing tide late in the season. Seal after seal floating down, and every one has a silver. I suspect the seals catch more Coho on the Kenai than what fisherman do. I'm all for thinning the herd. Federal protection has allowed their numbers to explode.
                        Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by tvfinak View Post

                          What was found was that the trout were actually eating stray eggs, often with parasites. Likewise, eagles the eagles weren't eating enough fish to even matter. Nature has an excellent record of balancing things out without man interfering. Don't know much about the seals, but I suspect they don't eat that many fish either.
                          Yes, seals eat a lot of salmon (Having been a commercial fisherman). That doesn't make them evil, just seals.

                          On a resent fly fishing trip to Dillingham, and several others, the most effective fly (almost the only effective fly) was a streamer that specifically imitates salmon fry. Salmon fry and smolt are a huge pray species for trout and char. Ever hear of fishing the smolt run. At the outlet of Paxson lake, and others, it's a huge deal. We use smolt patterns there to catch rainbows and lakers.

                          All you have to do is spend a little time on a salmon spawning bed to see how many salmon (both spawned-out and not yet spawned salmon) eagles eat. Go to the mouth of the Ninilchik River (and others in the area) at low tide and watch the king salmon make runs through the shallows while eagles wade among them and catch them.

                          We are not just talking about how many eggs rainbows eat. They eat salmon, a lot of them, throughout their life cycle (up to about six inches long, eagles, bears and seals take over from there).

                          I'm not sure where you are getting your information but anyone who says rainbows (eagles and seals) don't eat a lot of salmon in one form or another is being either naive, misleading or disingenuous.

                          "Natural Balance" is a myth. There is no balance in nature, it's a boom and bust cycle of predator and pray species. Civilized man has balanced out these cycles (where we can) through modern game management.

                          Your suspicion that seals don't eat many fish leads me to wonder how informed you are. Seals eat primarily fish. Now that we have way too many sea otters, eating up all the clams, crabs, sea urchins, abalones etc. fish make of a larger proportion of the seals diet.

                          I am not advocate of bounties. I am an advocate of management and balance. I would prefer that management and balance be achieved through regulated sport hunting and fishing.

                          I'm convinced the main problem with king salmon populations in Kenai and most other fisheries is from high seas bi-catch and intercept fisheries, not terminal fisheries. I don't see any easy solutions to that problem.
                          Last edited by mark knapp; 09-23-2021, 11:01.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            tvfinak, I do not think trout are a problem and if they were salmon would have been gone long ago since they are the temporary residents. SmokeRoss, seals are major pain and I do not like them but they are not responsible for decreasing salmon runs, they definitely can do a lot of damage where fish are concentrated in small areas like the base of a salmon ladder. Patsfan, you like to over simplify everything which ultimately leads to philosophical arguments but you offer no real solutions. Mark, I think you hit the nail on the head "nets". Not sure which ones, set, inshore drift, offshore drift, factory trawl or maybe all of the above. Well, until the decision makers start to act on the good of a resource nothing is going to change.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Imagine if you would, a nation or several nations, that send 'research' vessels out to track the various salmon runs in the Gulf and the North Pacific. They capture some and fit them with tracking devices. Much like we have done with sharks, mammals and, all manner of things. They learn where these schools go, and when. Now they can target them with their fishing fleets. Hmmmm. Maybe WE should do this so we know where to intercept the interceptors. Especially since apparently we are the only ones that don't know where these schools spend their time in the ocean. Beat them at their own game.
                              Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                SmokeRoss you are know thinking outside of the box and that is what needs to be done. I know it does not pertain to the Kenai but hatchery fish from the Kasilof could be implanted with micro chips, maybe this could be done with juvenile kings in the Kenai before the enter back into the ocean. In the years to follow commercial bycatch could be assessed for possible clues to where these fish spend their lives before returning to their river of origin. Don't tell me this cannot be done because it's done where I live and paid for through an "ocean Enhancement stamp" that is a mandatory part of both sport and commercial licenses. In CA I pay $57.17 for my commercial stamp and $5.97 for my recreational. This money goes to ocean hatchery and research programs. If AK truly wants answers it's going to take money and opening and closing fisheries based upon numbers is not going to solve anything and I do not know why the states managers have not come to this conclusion. It's not an in-river problem it's an out of river problem and it's time to get serious about figuring it out!

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X