Kenai king run... late or weak?

[fishNphysician]

Some sort of in-river restriction is probably warranted if we can’t get at least 1000/day average over the next 5 days counts. It’ll just be that much more difficult to make up the deficit in the remaining days of the season.

With the last 5 days counts averaging solidly above 1000 fish/day (1925, 2266, 1116, 1207, and 1307), it looks like we dodged a major bullet in having to restrict the king fishing to C&R. The lower end BEG is certainly within reach now. With half the run historically in-river by July 19, the current projection stands at about 34K. FYI that stands solidly as the third worst late king run in the 20 years that counts have been tallied.... mind you, three other years are tied for that distinction with final run-sizes at 34K. With exploitation running in the neighborhood of 35%, things are tracking toward an escapement of about 22K, solidly in the prescribed BEG range.

Amazing what a few net-free days can bring into the river!

FYI a silver was caught in tidewater this morning by one of the guide boats. With the netting effort being curtailed, I wouldn't be surprised to see them hit the river next week in numbers reminscent of the late 70's and early 80's. My kids are gonna have a blast!

 

[Marcus]

Amazing what a few net-free days can bring into the river!

At what cost, doc? At what cost to resident dip-netters, the area's economy, the Kenaitze educational fishery, and so very much more? Lord forbid the king fishery should need to be restricted.

Does the selfishness ever end?

 

[fishNphysician]

At what cost, doc? At what cost to resident dip-netters, the area's economy, the Kenaitze educational fishery, and so very much more? Lord forbid the king fishery should need to be restricted.

Does the selfishness ever end?

In this case, NO cost whatsoever, Marcus. Your argument is irrelevant!

The extra kings coming to the river right now are merely a serendipitous windfall to the unfortunate measures required to conserve Kenai sockeye.

Heaven forbid that by sheer blind luck we conserve a few kings along the way! Had this sockeye run not been in jeopardy, it would be business as usual for the nets, with 800 kings a day disappearing before they ever hit the river.

Take 800 a day off those counts I posted above and you would get a VERY different escapement projection. Can you say below BEG? In that scenario a closure of the beach nets would have been mandated by the management plan anyway.

Find a more selective way to harvest and the vast majority of all the user squabbling would quickly end.

 

[Nerka]

facts or fiction

facts or fiction

Doc, you state the obvious - If a fishery does not operate then yes the whole return will enter the river - duh. However, the lack of a fishery did not make the chinook BEG this year. I asked the Department what the projection was today and they indicated near 40,000. Therefore, this is not a conservation issue as you imply. If it was then the fisheries would close. For the record the BEG range represents the escapement range that ADF&G thinks the maximum sustained yield in within. There is nothing better about 22k vs 17.5k or 30k. The data do not allow that level of precision.

When the set nets are not fishing this community suffers just like the local stores suffer with a sport, PU, and educational fisheries closure. Anyone who is enjoying this year with glee because more chinook are in the river should examine their priorities in life. Having others suffer for one's enjoyment is not very polite. I heard some chinook guides today say they wished this happened every year - I felt bad for them.

 

[Marcus]

What fun. . .

What fun. . .

Find a more selective way to responsibly harvest sockeye and the vast majority of all the user squabbling along these lines would quickly end.

Sorry, doc, but that dog won't hunt. All the selfish "selective harvest" euphemism above means is "Give the king lobby what it wants and the vast majority of all its complaining would quickly end."

That dog won't hunt any more than will your "800 kings disappearing" nonsense. This isn't the Twilight Zone — those 800 kings would have supplied income to the gill-net industry, fed the Kenaitze tribal fishery, fed the state's coffers, been shared with consumers, and much more.

As you happily observe, it's "Amazing what a few net-free days can bring into the river!," but the cost is pretty high. Enjoy. . .

 

[Marcus]

Chortling with glee. . .

Chortling with glee. . .

When the set nets are not fishing this community suffers just like the local stores suffer with a sport, PU, and educational fisheries closure. Anyone who is enjoying this year with glee because more chinook are in the river should examine their priorities in life. Having others suffer for one's enjoyment is not very polite. I heard some chinook guides today say they wished this happened every year - I felt bad for them.

Well said, Nerka. If there is an upside to the calamitous sockeye fishery this year it's that the character and motives of the various user groups are being exposed to the light, out in the open for all to see.

 

[Hunt-n-Fish]

Irrational banter

Irrational banter

It is amazing to me that no one seems to place any dollar value to a sport caught fish to the local community. Those dollars turn over and over and over. Doc, I am surprised you haven't given up on these guys. It doesn't really matter what you post, they are all over it like stink on s...!

 

[Nerka]

reality vs fiction

reality vs fiction

I do not believe anyone has said that the sport fishery for chinook is not valuable. What a number of people in this community know is that all fisheries can function and contribute to the area. However, this discussion of what fishery is better is pretty simplistic.

All fisheries can co-exist - the Board of Fish over the last 40 years has realized this and made management plans that speak to these social issues. As I have stated in other post the commercial fishery only takes 25% of the return so a complete closure at best will put 25% more fish in the river. However, the economic value of doing this vs the loss in the sockeye fisheries makes this a losing position. The Department of Fish and Game knows this, the Board of Fish knows this, the local business leaders know this, and most residents know this. That is why it has not happened.

Doc has purposed a radical change in the way the fisheries operate (fish traps) to put more chinook in the river. He speaks with authority but the facts do not support his position on this issue and on a number of other issues. In the above post he used average run timing to make a forecast of chinook and then came to the conclusion that if the commercial fishery had fished the inriver return would not make the biological goal.

In reality the forecast models for escapement of chinook are made based on historical entry data when the commercial fishery was fishing (thus with the fishery not fishing his estimate should have been higher). In addition, he failed to apply any timing criteria to his estimate - if the run is late then his estimate would be low. That is why the Department is indicating a total run of 40K and there is no conservation concern at this time. These estimates are just that estimates. Drawing conclusions on estimates about the impact of a fishery vs hard defendable data is not good science. These discussions are best made after the season when all the counts are in.

For the record this is not personal against the Doc. In science it should not be personal but based on the data that supports one's arguements. So saying to give up on these guys is not the correct answer. The correct response is for Doc to present data that supports his position - answer the questions that come up with data - and let everyone see which positions are most defendable. To me the problem of UCI fisheries issues is that facts and science are not in the debate - it is more personal opinion that may or may not be defendable.

 

[Marcus]

It is amazing to me that no one seems to place any dollar value to a sport caught fish to the local community. Those dollars turn over and over and over. Doc, I am surprised you haven't given up on these guys. It doesn't really matter what you post, they are all over it like stink on s...!

Hunt-n-Fish: I have repeatedly affirmed the huge dollar value of sport caught fish, especially sockeye, to the local community. That is not what's being contested.

What is being contested is the myopia of a small user group, of which the doc is a very vocal component, whose field of vision is circumscribed by their narrow self-interests and economics. Simply put, they want 100% of the second run of Kenai and Kasilof kings devoted to the mostly-commercial sport fishery. They currently get 100% of the first run of kings and 75% of the second run.

In order to get that additional 25% currently and historically taken by the gill net industry, the doc advocates the institution of fish traps in Cook Inlet and the complete socialization of that industry, which in turn would constitute a narrowing of the area's economic base, loss to the native Kenaitze educational fishery (a euphemism for their historic use of the resource), and so much more often noted on the forum.

The sheer selfishness and greed of the doc's advocacy is stunning. For no better reason than a self-confessed obsession (in an article he wrote for Salmon, Trout, Steelheader) to angling for big fish, he advocates that 100% of second-run Kenai kings devoted to his preferences and his preferences alone — to the total exclusion of all others. His intended use of the resource embraces no sharing, only selfishness. Far from a keen-eyed vision, such a position is gross near-sightedness.

 

[AkHunter45]

I don't care what the rest of these guys say, Doc, your help is very much appreciated with all the up to date reports. Good job!!

 

[Nerka]

back in high school

back in high school

AKHunter45 - thought I was back in high school when I read your post - "I don't care what you say- no I don't care what you say" I thought maybe we could elevate this to a higher plane.

So here are some more data. The average eastside set net harvest of chinook is about 10,000 fish (1966-2003). The in-river sport fishery takes about 25% of the fish entering the river so that is 2500 fish added to the catch. That is spread over 30 days or an average increase of 84 fish per day in the harvest.

The average eastside set net sockeye harvest is about 1 million fish. The average weight is about 6 lbs and the value to fisherman is about 8 million dollars at today's prices.

I keep hearing the value of a sport caught chinook is 1000 dollars so at a catch of 2500 additional fish that would be 2.5 million.

There are over 50 processors in UCI (10 major) and 700 set net permit holders. To harvest as Doc suggest, so the economic loss above will not be realized, a social program that distributes money and fish to this group would be required. As a society we have rejected that concept as socialism at best or communism at worst.

I also would point out that traps used in UCI would probably not save fish - historically in order to remove fish from the traps they were confined to a small area and off loaded into boats - to try and separate chinook out is not that easy given the tide only allows one hour of work.

If one wants to do something like this in the river the processing industry cannot handle the volume of fish in the short time period they enter and quality of fish is significantly reduced - no premium quality fish for the market

In addition to these considerations more catchable fish may or may not put more pressure on the river depending how the fishery is structured. If everything else stays the still then impacts may be less. However, if an attempt is made to harvest all of the 10,000 fish a new fishery would be required. Given the impacts of boats on the river today that could be self defeating. Ten thousand gallons of gas go into the river in July right now, crowding is an issue, local residents and guides are in conflict over fishing methods, means, and times, and bank erosion is still a major issue from boat wakes.

I guess given all of the above the trade-offs tend to favor a mixture of users.

If you would like to respond to these positions with data great. If not I understand why.

 

[AKCheese]

Commercial Kenai Fishery is a Dinosaur

Commercial Kenai Fishery is a Dinosaur

Managing the Kenai River for as a commercial priority is a joke

Those fish are MUCH more valuable to the people who own them (the citizens of Alaska) as sport catchable fish.....be they kings, reds silvers or pinks.

The commercial fishery benifits a very very very small number of people and only a small percentage of that tiny number actually make a substantial portion of their income off of it.

If you don't believe me challenge any commercial fisherman to show his tax return and see what the net profit is from commercial fishing in lower cook inlet in any given 5 year period.............

for most it's either a hobby, something they enjoy doing and part of a family tradition, or a tax dodge.....i.e. they write off their boat(plus a skiff or two), a couple trucks, a couple 4 wheelers, (and every drop of gas, maintenance and insurance applies to those vehicles, thier second home or fish camp, maybe a RV or trailer (or two), everything and anything they buy all year that can be remotely tied to fishing including a lot of clothing, general outdoor and boating equipment and travel throughout the year


Nothing wrong with any of those but lets not say the sky is falling just because this hobby fishery is having a bad year .......... bottom line it the permits should be bought out by the state and the fishery closed......

Then the river can be managed as a wild salmon run not some put and take commercial business

BTW I am not linked in ANY manner to commercial OR sport fishing (commercially) on the Kenai, I can count on both hands the number of times I have gone sport fishing on the Kenai in the last 27 years.........so I don't really have a horse in this race........

I just think the resource should be managed for the greatest benefit of the owners of those fish ( by the state constitution the fish and game of alaska belong to the citizens) and that means they should be managed for the commercial and non commercial sport fishing sector

 

[Marcus]

Funnier and funnier. . .

Funnier and funnier. . .

1) Managing the Kenai River for as a commercial priority is a joke

2) Those fish are MUCH more valuable to the people who own them (the citizens of Alaska) as sport catchable fish.....be they kings, reds silvers or pinks.

3) The commercial fishery benifits a very very very small number of people ...

4) .......... bottom line it the permits should be bought out by the state and the fishery closed......

5) Then the river can be managed as a wild salmon run not some put and take commercial business

6) . . . the resource should be managed for the greatest benefit of the owners of those fish ( by the state constitution the fish and game of alaska belong to the citizens) and that means they should be managed for the commercial and non commercial sport fishing sector

Beginning with point 1 above, where are the data, the supporting studies, the economics, the law, anything that would elevate such wild and foolish assertions to the realm of intelligent and rational discussion? How can such unsupported, opinionated nonsense be taken seriously?

The sociology of this thread — on both sides of the issue — could furnish the material for a doctoral dissertation on the inability of impersonal dialog to resolve social conflict.

 

[Nerka]

the public has spoken AKCheese

the public has spoken AKCheese

AKCheese - just a clarification. The resources of the State are held in common and are to be used for the maximum public good. Therefore, even my 4 year old grandson has ownership. So you are correct there.

However, you are incorrect when you say "those fish are much more valuable to those who own them" I am not sure what this means. The public has spoken via elected officials, ballot measures, and appointments to the Board of Fish that the greatest value, including social and economic is to have a viable commercial fishery. The creation of limited entry was a general public vote that required a change in the State Constitution. Therefore, your position is not defendable based on the historic record of decision making relative to fish allocation. That can change in the future but their is no data to support your position, especially when you include pink salmon in the discussion (over 30 million pink salmon went into the streams of UCI in 2004 without a significant harvest by anyone).

Second, the commercial fishery is a major tax source via processor and secondary cycling of money to the KPB. To imply that only few commercial fisherman make a living or benifit is not correct. That is too simplistic in my opinion.

Finally, most UCI fisherman are not hobby fisherman. If you look at the CFEC permits most UCI fisherman fish halibut, groundfish, some crab or shrimp, and other species. Some even charter their boats for sport fishing in August. A poor return makes a signficant impact in the overall cash flow. If someone said to you - take 20% off your income for next year - I suspect you would react the same way commercial fisherman are reacting.

For the record, a single poor year does not create a need for government aid. Good years should balance bad years - in fact there are more good years than bad years.

If people like yourself cannot see the value of a commercial fishery in UCI to the citizens of UCI then what can those of us who know the facts and figures say to convince you of that importance? If nothing we should just stopped this thread and go on to something else?

 

[wildog]

Late Sockeye Run?

Late Sockeye Run?

Any Chance This Run Of Sockeye Is Just Very Late? Does That Ever Happen?
The Reason I Ask Is Because I Just Spoke To A Man That Flew His Plane In From Kodiak. Apparently You Can See The Fish From The Air? He Said There Were Five Miles Of Solid Fish.
This Is Just A Report From One Person I Got Today. I Guess With The Closures It Doesn't Much Matter At This Point, But We'll Know In The Next Month If It's Late Or Not Really There At All. I Remember Last Year They Continued To Come In Strong Through Much Of August, Right? Can Late Runs Be Due To Changes In Ocean Currents?

 

[AKCheese]

Ask the public now *lol*

Ask the public now *lol*

Nerka you brought up some valid points as to the history of the establishment of the limited entry system , but I have a feeling the public would overwhelmingly opt to dismantle the UCI commercial limited entry system if it ever came up to a vote again, and it would never be established in the first place these days.

The decision making process you site occured decades ago and things have changed a LOT since then.......the commercial fishing interests are still pretty strong though so they maintain a disporportionate level of clout on the fish board.........

I don't think you'll see the general populace get that excited about the issue anytime soon to dismantle the system

You're saying I don't know "the facts" but you haven't presented any either *lol*............ I know MANY UCI permit holders (of which there are a finite number) and I stand by my assertion that it is generally a hobby fishery and the economic impact would be MINIMAL if it went away.........especially as compared to the tourist industry/"commercial" sport fishery.........

there are economic impact studies out there that basically say exactly that.......I've read them and anyone else can if they care too........

really a moot point as far as assessing this years red run because I don't think commercial harvest or non harvest had much of anything to do with it........it's just a cycle

long term though it's pretty silly to continue to "sell" our Kenai salmon via commercial fishing for what........ 50 cents to a buck a pound GROSS????.........when the same fish is worth MANY times that as a sport fish

like you said.......... things can change and they probably will........ this whole thing started with a gripe that F&G had ruined the run by letting too many fish in the river..........that's just nonsense.......

 

[AKCheese]

Ask the public now *lol*

Ask the public now *lol*

Nerka you brought up some valid points as to the history of the establishment of the limited entry system , but I have a feeling the public would overwhelmingly opt to dismantle the UCI commercial limited entry system if it ever came up to a vote again, and it would never be established in the first place these days.

The decision making process you site occured decades ago and things have changed a LOT since then.......the commercial fishing interests are still pretty strong though so they maintain a disporportionate level of clout on the fish board.........

I don't think you'll see the general populace get that excited about the issue anytime soon to dismantle the system

You're saying I don't know "the facts" but you haven't presented any either *lol*............ I know MANY UCI permit holders (of which there are a finite number) and I stand by my assertion that it is generally a hobby fishery and the economic impact would be MINIMAL if it went away.........especially as compared to the tourist industry/"commercial" sport fishery.........

there are economic impact studies out there that basically say exactly that.......I've read them and anyone else can if they care too........

really a moot point as far as assessing this years red run because I don't think commercial harvest or non harvest had much of anything to do with it........it's just a cycle

long term though it's pretty silly to continue to "sell" our Kenai salmon via commercial fishing for what........ 50 cents to a buck a pound GROSS????.........when the same fish is worth MANY times that as a sport fish

like you said.......... things can change and they probably will........ this whole thing started with a gripe that F&G had ruined the run by letting too many fish in the river..........that's just nonsense.......

 

[wildog]

I guess the guy was right...

I guess the guy was right...

Any Chance This Run Of Sockeye Is Just Very Late? Does That Ever Happen?
The Reason I Ask Is Because I Just Spoke To A Man That Flew His Plane In From Kodiak. Apparently You Can See The Fish From The Air? He Said There Were Five Miles Of Solid Fish.
This Is Just A Report From One Person I Got Today. I Guess With The Closures It Doesn't Much Matter At This Point, But We'll Know In The Next Month If It's Late Or Not Really There At All. I Remember Last Year They Continued To Come In Strong Through Much Of August, Right? Can Late Runs Be Due To Changes In Ocean Currents?

I guess this was an acccurate report I got that day...

 

[Marcus]

Mistaken identity. . .

Mistaken identity. . .

wildog: At the time, Fish and Game said the guy was seeing pinks. Talked to a biologist at the Soldotna office today, trying to find out how long friends of ours can expect days like yesterday when they all got limits in less than 30 minutes of fishing. According to F&G, the reds were two to four days late, and the run is weak.

However, they are expecting large runs of pinks and silvers this year, both of which are showing up in the Keani right now. Hard to identify fish species from the air.

 

[wildog]

How Do They Tell The Difference On Sonar?

How Do They Tell The Difference On Sonar?

wildog: At the time, Fish and Game said the guy was seeing pinks. Talked to a biologist at the Soldotna office today, trying to find out how long friends of ours can expect days like yesterday when they all got limits in less than 30 minutes of fishing. According to F&G, the reds were two to four days late, and the run is weak.

However, they are expecting large runs of pinks and silvers this year, both of which are showing up in the Keani right now. Hard to identify fish species from the air.

They got their limits of reds in 30 minutes? Makes sense with those numbers on that chart, but how do they tell the difference between reds, pinks, and silvers from the sonar counts then, by commercial net ratios?