Well they shut down Kings on the Kenai for the first run. It should have never opened! No bait so far for the late run. Why not just shut it down and let it rebuild? OH YEAH the set netters would not be able to fish so its going to open! Why does the US wait until a fishery is destroyed before they act ? east coast cod fisher, Bycatch in AK killing salmon runs. Wait until the fish are gone then act!
WHY?
- Thread starter kgpcr
- Start date
iofthetaiga
Well-known member
Good question.
kwackkillncrew
Well-known member
pressure from guides and commercial guys i would guess. how much set netting actually happens on the first run of the kings?
mark knapp
Well-known member
Dept. of fish never listen to guides. I know.
Pressure from guides? Have you been on the Kenai lately? I spoke with the on water ADFG creel guy and the most boats he counted on a single day was 8. He’s been out counting boats since May 16th and I talked with him on June 7th. The king fishery is dead and so is the commerce conducted out there.
kneedeep
New member
I think kgpcr's suggestion was to also shut down the second run but doing this would close set netting. My prediction is the second run will be poor and get closed again.
King fishing on the Kenai should have been completely shut down YEARS ago. We all know it. They know it. Everyone knows it. But we have to keep the guides and lodges in the money. Keep those tourist dollars coming.
river mist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2020
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 12
I do not see the king salmon numbers ever coming back, just going to get worse in my opinion. I'm sure they will keep the late run open to C&R as long as possible to keep set netting open.
River mist.
I appreciate your concern about decreasing returns of chinook to the kenai, but you could not possibly be more wrong as to the reason that adfg keeps the second run open. This administration,after receiving a several hundred thousand dollar donation from Bob Penney,who is well known advocate to eliminate commercial fishing in uci,appointed a commisioner that is a puppet to bob. The river is kept open so guides andlodges can continue to work the river. Adfg has already announced there will be NO SETNETTING on the east side beaches this year unless by e.o.
I appreciate your concern about decreasing returns of chinook to the kenai, but you could not possibly be more wrong as to the reason that adfg keeps the second run open. This administration,after receiving a several hundred thousand dollar donation from Bob Penney,who is well known advocate to eliminate commercial fishing in uci,appointed a commisioner that is a puppet to bob. The river is kept open so guides andlodges can continue to work the river. Adfg has already announced there will be NO SETNETTING on the east side beaches this year unless by e.o.
river mist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2020
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 12
Thanks gunner, I appreciate your insight.
4merguide
Well-known member
Yes, MANY years ago, ie, as soon as they saw that the runs were decreasing.
river mist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2020
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 12
Gunner, thanks again for the UCI district commercial advisory that came out 6/3 and states that the maximum set netting fishing period will still be 24hr/week allowed only by E/O, and there will be a mandatory 36hr closure that will start the earliest on Thursday 7:00pm and latest Friday 7:00am/per week. Correct me if I'm wrong.
We can see how bad the king hatchery returns have been on Ship Creek, the Kasilof and Ninilchik rivers. A freshwater solution to an ocean problem isn’t going to fix the Kenai king problem.
In all of the cases you mentioned, stocking kings has added additional fish to the king run. If the comm, sport and personal use fishers threw their money at stocking kings instead fighting each other, there would be more kings.
Granted, it's not solving whatever the underlying problem is, but it would be putting more kings into the Kenai River fisheries.
One of the biggest reasons against stocking the Kenai has always been the loss of that large fish genetics, but since that is now pretty much gone, why not give it a shot??
Granted, it's not solving whatever the underlying problem is, but it would be putting more kings into the Kenai River fisheries.
One of the biggest reasons against stocking the Kenai has always been the loss of that large fish genetics, but since that is now pretty much gone, why not give it a shot??
kwackkillncrew
Well-known member
is there really any difference between a wild and a stocked king other then a clipped adipose fin? I cant imagine they would taste any different.
Yes, a HUGE difference. The answer is genetics. Pretty much everywhere, where stocking of kings have been used to mitigate habitat loss, stocking has been unsuccessful in helping kings recover to the point that stocking can be ceased. I'm highly doubtful that stocking could solve the Kenai's woes without the painful changes required in management.
Cohoangler
New member
No. Just no. Stocking hatchery Chinook salmon on the Kenai River would completely kill the wild stocks. There is a genetics argument, but the genetic effect would only be indirect. There is a much more direct effect: increasing harvest.
If hatchery Chinook are planted, those fish will return in large numbers, as they normally do. Given that, the Kenai would now have lots of adult Chinook. As such, getting an increase in harvest on those hatchery fish is almost a no-brainer given the numbers of adults and the potential for adverse genetic effects between hatchery and wild adults on the spawning grounds. However, wild fish can’t take the increased exploitation. Even with C&R on wild (unclipped) fish, the increase in mortality will likely be significant. Over time, the wild fish disappear, and the only adults that return are hatchery fish.
This scenario has been repeated hundreds of times across the PNW, California, and BC. And it will happen in Alaska too, if they take this path.
If hatchery Chinook are planted, those fish will return in large numbers, as they normally do. Given that, the Kenai would now have lots of adult Chinook. As such, getting an increase in harvest on those hatchery fish is almost a no-brainer given the numbers of adults and the potential for adverse genetic effects between hatchery and wild adults on the spawning grounds. However, wild fish can’t take the increased exploitation. Even with C&R on wild (unclipped) fish, the increase in mortality will likely be significant. Over time, the wild fish disappear, and the only adults that return are hatchery fish.
This scenario has been repeated hundreds of times across the PNW, California, and BC. And it will happen in Alaska too, if they take this path.
mark knapp
Well-known member
I did not say there is no pressure form guides on the Kenai, I said guides have no clout there, nobody listens to them.
The problem with kings is not just a Kenai thing. We are learning it's a statewide problem so, in my opinion, shutting it down would have not helped change things much. It's a much bigger issue. As far as I know there isn't a king fishery that does not have problems, For sure none of them are as good as they used to be and some of the terminal fisheries have never been fished by anybody but bears and eagles. I know because I've spent thirty eight years going to these places.
As always, subsistence users blame, sport guys, sport guys blame commercial, set netters blame drifters and drifters blame high seas intercept and by-catch.
If the problem is more than the terminal fishery, then the blame has to aimed at more than just the terminal fisherman.
Things come and they go. In my opinion, all are part to blame. Or maybe they all just helped evolution along some.
This subject has come up over and over on this forum, none of it helps. I concentrate my efforts where it's not a problem and I come home with fish if I choose to.
