Here's the proposal book for upcoming meetings of the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
This meeting cycle includes statewide Pacific cod, Chignik finfish, Lower Cook Inlet finfish, Kodiak finfish, Upper Cook Inlet finfish, and statewide king and Tanner crab.
Obviously, the marquee meeting is Upper Cook Inlet finfish. Should be a real cage match, as always.
Deckboss spent a couple of hours this morning looking over the proposal book, which packs 367 offerings.
Here's a quick and rather random sampler:
Proposal 45 — Require 100 percent observer coverage on groundfish trawl vessels in state waters of the Cook Inlet, Kodiak and Chignik management areas. Sponsor: Alaska Marine Conservation Council and others.
Proposal 52 — Prohibit catch-and-release fishing for salmon in all Cook Inlet fresh waters. Sponsor: Central Peninsula Fish and Game Advisory Committee.
Proposal 126 — Prohibit permit stacking in the commercial set and drift gillnet fisheries in Upper Cook Inlet. Sponsor: Kenai River Sportfishing Association.
Proposal 285 — Prohibit dipnetting from boats in the Kenai River personal use fishery. Sponsor: United Cook Inlet Drift Association.
Proposal 348 — Increase harvest limit for Aleutian Islands golden king crab. Sponsor: Golden King Crab Coalition.
Check out the proposal book for more details on these and other proposals. The book also has meeting dates and locations.
It's interesting to note how many proposals KRSA has in that negatively affect commercial interests, and not one proposal in that objectively curtails their own access to resources.
ReplyDeleteOriginally when commercial salmon fishing went limited entry across this state, it was decided how many effective permits each region could sustain. This number has not changed much in any region. What has changed is massive increased pressure by the sport industry, particularly on the Kenai. The original intent of the law to only allow one limited entry permit per commercial fisherman was to allow as much access by a wide field of users as possible. It was never implemented as a means of capping a fishermen's level of productivity. In today's age of low salmon prices vs. expenditures, it makes sense to allow permit stacking in some areas. It allows for a fisherman who is willing to work harder to make more money. It does not add, or subtract from the original number of limited entry permits that were allocated for each region, it only allows for them to be more useful. KRSA's attempts to hamper permit stacking across this state are nothing more than an obvious attempt to hold their competition back, so they can have more fish. They focus on permit stacking "bringing back latent permits." When the reality is, these permits are only latent because at today's current price to expense ratio, there's not that good of a living in it. Permit stacking isn't an attempt to bring back latent permits, it is an attempt to make foundering fisheries sustainable for those who are willing to work harder. It does not increase the allocated percentage of salmon taken by commercial harvesters, it only allows them a more reasonable access. This gives KRSA the heartburn simply because,,,these are fish they want for themselves. There is still plenty of fish to go around. However, if you really want to boil it down to who's needs should be met first...Should it be 50,000 visiting sportfishermen intent on over filling their coolers to help finance their trip? Or should it be the 2,000 commercial fishermen who's fish go to feed 2,000,000 people who can't afford to come here? If were going to fight over who's fish they should be, let's try to remember all those who can't make it to the meeting.
ReplyDeleteTimes have changed. The population has tripled in the last 40 years. The fish resources belong to all Alaskans, not just the commercial fishers. History of use now requires us to look at sports users because there are so many of them. And that is only fair. Better get with the program or someone will be trying to eliminate part of the commercial fishery entirely. These constantly attacking blogs just fuel the fire insuring that there will be no cooperative effort to find room for everyone. And to say there is not much of a living in it is so ignorant to almost be unbelievable. Who but the most greedy would think that for the price of a permit and some gear that you should be able to make a living. It was never intended to be something that would pay the bills for a year. Some have multiple permits and expensive sites and they and others claimed to be losing $20 to 30 thousand a day. Sounds like they are making a living at the expense of others not being given an opportunity to enter the fishery. When the BOF bans stacking it will help. The Board has already done so in Kodiak and BB. Think it won't happen in the CI? Think again.
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting to note that a single UCI drift net fisherman who has historically submitted many proposals in the past , has submitted a lot this time too. and like KRSA he has not submitted a single one that would curtail his access to the resource. they all take away from PU (dip net ) or sports fisheries. So even though his name cannot be posted it is only fair that all readers understand. also interesting to note that this gentleman has never had a proposal adopted.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the pictures of the dipnet and sportfishery on the Kenai in the papers, one has to wonder, do you REALLY enjoy that? Do your clients?? Every summer the banks of the kenai become the second largest population in Alaska. Motorhomes and coolers lined up by the thousands, endless piles of tangled up fishing line and garbage. There's how many rivers in Alaska? Don't you think maybe it's time to spread some of the weight out a little bit? Commercial bit the bullet and went to limited access years ago, maybe it's time personal use and sport should do the same.If you did so, you would all have a much more enjoyable time, and you could stop the ceaseless attempts to blame commercial harvesters for the unhealthy status of the king salmon you have over sold and high graded for years. Even if you wiped out all the commercial folks, which you won't, the river is doomed to fail with the over bearing pressure your putting on it.
ReplyDeleteWhatever, I don't care, I don't live there. Just stop trying to shoot down permit stacking across the state.Most of us don't have your congestion problems, and find it to be a very useful tool at times. We stay out of your fights, and you stay out of ours, remember? Unless you'd like it the other way?
Permit stacking as passed by the Alaska legislature was supposed to be a method to consolidate gear by having two permits fish on one and half sets of gear.
ReplyDeleteThe permit stacking in Cook Inlet and as purposed by a UCIDA proposal is to allow one permit holder to fish two permits, with two full compliments of gear.
Permit stacking as configured and proposed in Cook Inlet puts more gear in the water, not less.
When other areas of the state, such as SE seiners and BB drifters are looking for ways to reduce gear, does not it seem strange to go the opposite direction in Cook Inlet? Cook Inlet commercial salmon fisheries are already fully allocated and the rate of latent permits for unfished permits is the highest in the state.
To 11:35. Actually people do really like the PU fishery. They plan vacations around it and rich or not so rich they do it because they love it. And you forget, that it is the "only" sockeye fishery that one can drive to and catch some for the freezer. Would you have everyone pay for an expensive airplane trip to harvest sockeye for food. That really makes sense, huh? And you want the residents of alaska who depend on the fish for their winter food to become part of a limited entry system? Same for resident sports fishers? You got to be kidding! And please you don't need to tell us how to enjoy ourselves. And, also, perhaps you forgot that the PU fishery did not have the opportunity to harvest ANY kings. For someone that doesn't "live there" you sure have a lot of opinions on how people who do "live there" should live their lives. Stacking is doomed on the Kenai. Get used to it. It puts more gear in the water and makes the problem of King intercept worse. And I am not sure what you meant by saying that we should stay out of your each other's fights, "unless you would like it the other way" What is that about? No, the proper thing would be to find solutions. Not to accuse others or take what you think is the moral high road.
ReplyDeleteyou are wrong about ucida permit proposal. please read it. then comment
ReplyDeleteI have read the proposals that deal with stacking. Double the gear for one person who owns two permits is "stacking" Period. It appears that the drift fleet wants it. And the set net fleet already has it.
ReplyDeleteFor the UCIDA proposal, sorry for not being clearer.
ReplyDeleteThe original legislation authorized by the State Legislature allowed two permit holders in the Bristol Bay fishery to economize and reduce gear in the water by fishing one and one half compliments of gear.
This is currently also allowed in Cook Inlet.
The UCIDA proposes to allow one permit holder to hold two permits and fish one and one half compliments of gear.
Currently there are latent permits in the Cook Inlet drift fishery.
One permit holder can only fish one compliment of gear.
The end result of the UCIDA proposal is that it will put more gear in the water as it will bring in latent permits.
Considering their actions over the last year (including the shameful attack on Vince Webster that was revealed to be a complete fabrication), it will be interesting to see what weight KRSA's endorsement has on any BOF proposal.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't get any lower than that. Will they now be rewarded for their unethical conduct or not?
Your schools have an air an space studies building, we in the bush struggle to have teachers. Cheap electricty, cheap natural gas, and cheap groceries. You know nothing 7:37, about "depending on fish for the winter." There are many other rivers than the Kenai you can drive to. You simply cant heap the whole weight of Anchorage and all it's visitors on to one river, its not a sound use of resource, nor is it fair to all the other users, just because ypur to lazy to drive a little further. I am a lifelong resident, as are most commercial fisherpeople.
ReplyDeleteyour idea of "solutions " and "compromise "means i need some of your stuff cause ive out grown mine, simple as that.
What i mean by staying out of other people's battles is, KRSA needs to quit with the statewide agendas. You want to duke it out over stackimg in your area, have at it, but leave the rest of us out of it. King salmon management too. You keep rolling fishermen in as one and attacking us all, and your going to habe a lot more enemies at the meetings. Some of us avoid fights, but it doesn't mean we will forever. The attack on Webster was the last straw for your crooked outfit. There can ne no bargaining with the liles of KRSA. You cant be trusted.
I love the term "latent permits ". Where did that come from? A permit is a permit. Period. Onee is valid as the next. You can wish there wasnt as many as there is, but a wish is just a wish. Fact is, the number we have is what was determined long ago to be viable. Doesnt matter who fishes them, there can only be so many.
ReplyDeleteHook and release mortality has killed what few kings the draggers let through. Go check out a clear water river that is heavily sportfished, you'd be horrified by all the dead fish rolling down the river. Build a road with all the millions youve robbed from all the villages. A road to Illiamna. Then you can have all the sockeye you want.