The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has posted an interesting set of frequently asked questions on Kenai River king salmon management.
The concise, four-page FAQ focuses on the 2013 season, and delves into issues such as escapement policies, how fish are counted, and research projects.
Of course, low king returns to the famed Kenai have caused a lot of angst for all user groups in recent years.
The department's FAQ comes in advance of the state Board of Fisheries meeting on Upper Cook Inlet finfish, starting Jan. 31 in Anchorage. That could be a brawl.
Deckboss himself learned a lot from the FAQ, and highly recommends you read it.
As a sample, here are a couple of questions from the report:
Q23: How many late-run Kenai River king salmon were harvested inriver in 2013?
A23: Inriver sport fishing mortality was 1,620 late-run Kenai River king salmon, including 1,578 fish harvested and 42 fish from release mortality.
Q24: How many late-run Kenai River king salmon were harvested commercially in 2013?
A24: An estimated 2,256 late-run Kenai River king salmon were harvested in the Upper Subdistrict set gillnet commercial fishery in 2013. This estimate is based on the total harvest of king salmon in the fishery and genetic stock identification data collected from harvested king salmon. A total of 426 king salmon were harvested in the Central District drift gillnet commercial fishery.
Unfortunately this Q & A document leaves a lot to be desired. When the Dept. assesses hook and release mortality for the sport and guided sport, that is fair. We all know there are some Chinooks that die after being caught and released. The question is why doesn't the Dept. assess a drop-out mortality for the net fishers. Everyone knows that Chinook fall out of nets, get wrapped up in them and and roll out when the net is being brought on board. They are more often dead than not. These fish are part of the Chinook mortality encountered when fishing for sockeye. And they should go into the harvest column for the net fishers, especially the ESSN group. How many nets are in the water when there is an opening? nearly a thousand different nets including inside and outside. Take a guess at the number of drop-outs. Also, why doesn't the Dept. assess a number for under reporting. Everyone likes to dance around this subject, but we know that it happens. It should not take an observer program to be able to make an estimate for this harvest. Add these potential numbers from drop-outs and under reporting and it will show that the net fisheries contribute far more to the mortality of Chinooks than The Dept. comes up with. This will be made quite clear at the next BOF meeting by many of people like myself who used to be ESSN fishers and will admit to under reporting.
ReplyDeleteGet over yourself, you pompous blowhard.
ReplyDeleteSo, you're going to admit you broke the law to BOF? Then after you've admitted your dishonesty, you'll expect them to believe your current argument while claiming to be truthful. That sounds like a great plan!
ReplyDeleteDrop outs. That explains everything. And i always assumed that the sport fishery had something to do with the king problem. I welcome the new scientific method to finally fix Cook Inlet/Kenai River problems.Thanks!
ReplyDeleteDid you guys run that one by a focus group to see how it played out? Did you ask the same people how they felt about a no boat no fishing sanctuary on the Kenai for spawning kings? How about another drift boat only day on the Kenai. Better get on over to the advisory board meeting to load the board with pro motor boat guys. More $$ for you asshat.
And what's wrong with a pompous blowhard, every voter knows one, or two, or maybe even three.
ReplyDeleteFishin for Tuition?
http://ltgov.alaska.gov/treadwell/services/alaska-constitution/ordinance-no.-3.html
Chinook mortality by dropout is very low. The chinooks do not gill in sockeye nets because the mesh size is too small. Most mortlity in gill nets comes when a fish is gilled, dies and then drops out has a lot of scale loss from going thru the net.
ReplyDeleteNow a bloodied, tired, fish that has been released from a hook is another matter that should be further studied.
Wow! Someone comments on an issue that at least needs to be examined and the book is thrown at him. He is now a "pompous blowhard". I note, however, that no one has denied his assertions. Why not? Instead of acting like adults he is called names and the finger is pointed elsewhere. Productive to a solution? Not.
ReplyDeleteRead the latest AJOC article on kings. Hook and release mortality in saltwater 20-25 percent. That is a very realistic number. Hook and release mortality in freshwater on kings ripped from the spawning bed is double that percentage at least.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that the ESSN fishery has not changed for 30 years since limited entry. No wait I am wrong the ESSN has lost more and more fishing time and opportunity while the in river commercial sport fishery has grown and expanded. Its pretty sick to see the charter industry go to the BOF and claim there is no fish while at the same time they are at the Sportsmen shows all around the country telling and showing potential clients a river full large kings. To sit in the river and point their finger at the ESSN and drift fishery is insulting to anyone who has basis knowledge of the Kenai.
ReplyDeleteLots of claims being tossed around, but little science to back them up. The only real study done on the Kenai was performed in the 90s showing a hook and release mortality of between 5 and 10 percent. And that was using multiple hooks and bait. And this study was performed under the supervision of the Dept using radio transmission devices. All the rest is pure speculation. and to rely on a study done by the director of UCIDA claiming high mortality is like relying on the fox to guard the hens. I believed that the point made by an earlier poster was that there should be some accounting for drop out mortality if there is to be accounting for hook and release mortality. sounds fair to me. And i am pretty sure that the issue of under reporting will be addressed in some fashion at the next BOF meeting. Time IS growing short for the ESSN fishers. There will be an opportunity to find some compromise. Better take advantage and come up with some solutions rather than continue with the bashing.
ReplyDeleteAnd the same fact remains, that 41 years ago when the voter enacted Limited Entry, as the report mentions under Article VIII, this fishery was designated "distressed" with quite a few others across Alaska.
ReplyDelete54 years ago Paul Shadura had his Fish Trap on the Inlet, put out of business by the Voter, in Ord #3.
At least we all know, that if your NOT on Governor Bill Egan's Distressed Fishery List, that was mailed out to thousands of fishermen after that vote, you can get the fleet reduction plan.
I guess the Valdez Church Bill Egan attended, was quite a bit different than model in St. Petersburg, as explained to Judge Holland, after that FBI team did a little Fishin, at UFA headquarters.
All the King's Horses, and All the King's Men, never could read that English again...
Basic Knowledge 9:48?
Just point the finger at yourself. You got exactly who you voted for, and now the consequences of ignoring the true issue for over 40 years is coming back to bite a few who've been sleeping with an enemy for decades.
WHY can't any person, read english. Bong Hit's for Jesus; Juneau's Favorite, with 11 long haired friends of Tromley', on a chartreuse microbus.
Spell Article VIII? Just never tell the NMFS, or some imbecile running Fish and Game.
Got Permit, flunked 6th grade?
§ 17. Uniform Application
Laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.
Wes,
ReplyDeleteToo bad you didn't notice or learn that ADFG can't count kings - Kenai early-run kings by sonar or with netting numbers compared to actual weir counts by only a few tributaries; i.e., US Fish and Wildlife counted twice as many as ADFG and several tribs weren't included on counts. The late-run two sonar's don't match either; i.e., a lot of smaller kings weren't counted. Gee, jacks are counted in the commercial yet ADFG can't count em inriver. What the heck Wes - the Q and A mentions it - ADFG can't count small kings worth a damn but managing for three goals and two are sockeye goals when ADFG can't count kings similarly.
The posting of commercial catch vs. sport is another bait and switch number. What part don't you or anyone else get? The inriver sport selects larger kings while setnets select smaller kings. Oh by the way - if the eastside sent all the smaller kings inriver - most of which wouldn't be counted by ADFG since the sonar only counts kings bigger than 30 inches in length. Didn't you notice ADFG can't explain the two sonar numbers on smaller kings?
Learn anything yet? - you did notice ADFG won't adjust their sonar to actual fish counted in the tributaries? Wrong numbers are OK if ADFG says so?
All the bs on dropouts is bait and switch by a sporty who fishes for 4 months on kings 7 days a week - cry me a river dance.
ADFG drops thousands of kings OUT by their counting methods (lower sonar site and ADFG's lousy 60 foot net samples during one outgoing tide for a few mintutes in the water can't count less than 30 inch kings). Thousands aren't counted during high tides and thousands more on less than 30inches in length are excluded by sonar. The netting program missed 2,000 kings in the early-run alone or half the counts - if the sonar counts them their sockeye by the netting program. Believe in the counts during the late-run?
ADFG counted half the number of kings in 2012. ADFG counted half the early-run kings in 2013 and knows it but won't correct their numbers. ADFG numbers are a joke compared to the Feds weir data.
ADFG won't count fish counted by another agency on actual fish weighed, measured, and sexed. What a joke ADFG has become - no wonder the Feds put in the weirs to check on ADFG's counter and management of Kenai kings going into the tribs.
And, since the early run is caught in the late-run during July - ADFG puts down early run harvest numbers as late-run fish because of a calendar date is more reliable on opportunity than genetics.
And the finger pointing goes on. " Bait and switch" comment does nothing to help. It is just insulting. And STILL no answer to the question of whether there should be some parity in how harvests by in river and ESSN are calculated. Some might disagree with claims there is almost no drop outs. But with the number of nets in the water the number might be quite high.Who knows. I am not claiming that it is evil to catch kings in a net. It is perfectly legal. The question I pose is simply: how many are lost because they drop out and are not recovered? The Dept may be making mistakes, i have no doubt. The in river fishers may be fishing in the wrong areas. Catch and release may be higher than thought. all valid points. But in order to find out what harvest levels are actually occurring, we must know the drop out numbers and assess a percentage to under reporting. Claiming there are no drop outs or everyone reports 100 % accurately is pure fantasy and everyone knows it. Why get angry when legitimate questions are asked? There is a good opportunity coming up in Feb to work all this out to the satisfaction of the majority of users. Don't screw it up with insults. A good result from that BOF meeting would likely nullify the initiative effort. Do you really want to take a chance that the initiative will not take place. And BTW, the Attorney General's office will not make the final decision on whether it gets on the ballot. It will be left up to the State Supreme court. Want to take that chance? Because if it gets on the ballot, that is all she wrote for the EESN. Given the chance, the hundreds of thousands of Alaskans that sports fish and dip net on the Kenai will overwhelmingly support a set net ban. So, enough with the insults. Time to kiss and make up. It's the only solution.
ReplyDelete7:15 er:
ReplyDeleteDear Ms. KRSA plesse send photo for kiss-and-tell...
We now see the snake rear it's ugly head, KRSA is here offering their solution, the initiative process.So the deal is kill the commercial setnet fishermen and gillnets which operate in the entire state for a few, wealthy so called sport fishermen who have the funds to mount a political and sensless legal campaign to satisfy Bob Penney's "bucket list". Look at the AFCA list of initiative sponsors, look at the KRSA board members, directors past and present and the Kenai Guides. Now who do most of us really relate to as Alaskans? The rich, arrogant who care less about you living the Alaskan way of life or the commercial in-river guides who have been stealing the "hens from the henhouse for years". You want to talk about that, I didn't think so.
ReplyDeleteMost of the comments I read about ESSN seem to indicate that ESSN aren't interested in a solution to eliminating their Chinook catch. I wonder.....Don't you think that they have been thinking about how to do that for many years and if there were a good solution out there it would have been thought of, tried and found to be successful by now? What would happen if the groups who are complaining about the 13% of Chinooks that the ESSN harvest were to add their contributions what ESSN has already done towards more R & D of an effective way to get the job done. I hear a lot of TALK about all working together. This is a great opportunity to actually "Put your money (and your knowledge resources) where your mouth is," instead of trying to eliminate a sector of the local economy.
ReplyDeleteDecember 31, 2013 at 12:03 PM
ReplyDeleteAgain, why do you speak in riddles? I am sure you have all the answers in your head. Please enlighten us with words that convey a message that all of us can understand. Your comments are like a private joke that only you get! What a bummer I am completely depressed after reading your dribble but some how I thing that is your intent. Have a great day.
Why would so many interests invest so heavily in not counting salmon?
ReplyDeleteEnough with the insults?
ReplyDeleteKiss and Make up?
It's the only solution?
Yes Insult the Voter, that always helps!
Survey Says, the last one passed.
Requirements for Initiative & Referendum
Article XI, Section 3
HJR 5 (2004)
149,236 Yeas to 139,642 Nay's?
http://ltgov.alaska.gov/treadwell/services/alaska-constitution/amendment-summary.html
"It will be left up to the State Supreme court?
ReplyDeleteKiss and make up?"
Insult Article VIII, and the "distressed fishery" designation of Bill Egan's, tell us about the only Governor born in Alaska too?
Dropouts, or Valedictorians; you be the Judge, on sustained yield. And ask SEAS, and the UFA, and the NMFS, about their program of discrimination, due process and both state and federal constitutional questions., as the Court discusses clearly, in a set net case.
Get out and Vote, many Judges did.
Save a King Salmon, kill a set net fishery, and insult the Court, you can make President of the S.E. Seiners too. Buybacks for no-one, except for our High School dropouts on a S.E. Seiner.
Supreme Court of Alaska
Feb. 2 1990
Matson v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Jean Matson, a setnetter, was denied a limited entry permit for the Southeast Alaska drift gill net fishery ("gill net fishery") after the Board of Fish and Game closed the Southeast Alaska set net fishery ("set net fishery")...
In 1973, the Legislature enacted the Limited Entry Act ("Act"), AS 16.43, "to promote the conservation and the sustained yield management of Alaska's fishery resource and the economic health and stability of commercial fisheries in Alaska by regulating and controlling entry into the commercial fisheries in the public interest and without unjust discrimination."
In 1974, the Commission designated the gill net fishery a "distressed fishery" under the Act. 20 AAC 5.300. Because the Board of Fish and Game closed the separate set net fishery in 1972, the Commission promulgated an emergency regulation pursuant to AS 44.62.250 on April 7, 1975, consolidating the two fisheries. This regulation allowed Southeast Alaska setnetters to apply for gill net entry permit...
Both the setnetters and gillnetters were competing for a limited number of entry permits in one fishery. Gillnetters highly dependent upon income from fishing would experience relatively more hardship by virtue of exclusion than setnetters who were less dependent upon income from fishing. The challenged regulation is closely related to "the legislative purpose of preventing unjust discrimination because it seeks to protect those having the most to lose by exclusion from the fishery." Apokedak, 606 P.2d at 1268. Because the challenged regulation is closely related to an important state interest, it does not deny equal protection under the Alaska Constitution.ts based upon their participation as set netters...
http://ak.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19900202_0003.AK.htm/qx
to 4:23: I am sure that the EESN people have given lots of thought to somethings that might take them off the kings.Right! But it is just thoughts. What have they come up with? WHat have they tried? Really nothing. When the task force was created, one of the primary purposes was to get some creative thinking started. That got pushed to the side and forgotten quickly. No one wanted to and still doesn't want to think out of the box. Who would have thought that dip net fishing on the Yukon would have been so successful for the first year and will be even better in the future. Seines are being considered on the Yukon. When will the ESSN people start becoming creative. How about shallower nets, less near beach fishing and use of more outer sites. One net instead of two. Staying out of the hot areas. These are all possible solutions, but for some reason are not mentioned. Why is that? The problem is that you are short sighted and angry. Do you ever see the other side's point of view, ever? We are all going to have to give. Those of us on the river understand that we are part of the problem as well. You will see that at the BOF meeting. What will we see from you?
ReplyDelete@Jan 1 7:15 am said
ReplyDelete"Given the chance, the hundreds of thousands of Alaskans that sports fish and dip net on the Kenai will overwhelmingly support a set net ban"
That, dear poster, is nowhere near a certainty as you claim. It would be a brutal battle, with lots of money wasted, but I think it is highly likely an initiative would be defeated. See Oregon, as an example.
1/1 @ 7:15...why would the dipnetters particularly care about the setnet ban? Are you saying the dipnet association supports the ban?
ReplyDeleteHmmm...long, rambling posts with random links and obscure legal references...it looks like an old favorite is back on the keyboard (and the bottle). Step away from both, please.
ReplyDeleteDear Sporty Guide a.k.a. KRSA clone.
ReplyDeleteI assume your a guide with the intitiative by your threats towards ESSN. Get real. You guys all on your own ruined the early-run culling large hens - you're a directed king fishery and with that comes responsibilty to solve your own problems in-river - your worldwide roadies campaign screwed the residents out of 90% of all kings harvested - pair of pants has two legs - how are gonna give up the other 40 percent to residents on early-run to make the goal?
In the late-run you're iconic sleds whacked too many 1.4 females year after year including putting your clients on redds. Now your bagging money for sockeye trips by screwing the ESSN over sockeye harvests.
Your mirror on the wall has a crack in it with 7 years of bad luck attached - you've denied over escapement as a problem when it's real.
Your Save the King campaign uses false numbers that illustrates your dishonesty to say and write anything. Your writing a Q and filling in A propoganda is stylistic of Mussolini kisses.
You and yours have fought every Slikok king measure in front of the board of Fish for years while your buddies took hundreds of staged chartreuse kings with your microbus filled with world class roadies. You keep forgetting the world record king was caught in May. Your release a hawg campaign was a joke. Your denial of gasoline hydrocarbon levels went on for years as well as your denials over bank erosion. Your July boat-a-thon silt mixing machines has created another water quality issue. On and on you guys talk the talk but can't walk the walk. You and Joe C. can walk the plank into a drift boat.
It looks like another one may be biting the dust at KRSA, no not the patriarch, one of the henchmen has been rumored to be forced out of the redd. Something about not being as effective in spreading propoganda for the rich cronies who are propagating the AFCA/KRSA agenda. All they have to do is fool the public into thinking that king salmon production is everyone elses fault but their own. Maybe he should book passage to Hawaii like the last front guy. Read Les Palmers article, someone has definately come to confession and clearly aknowledges the real transgressors.
ReplyDeleteEasy solution: Eliminate setnets.
ReplyDeleteSetnets were never intended to be a commercial fishery.
Illegal stackings and co-ops make them inordinately profitable ventures.
Sell your setnet permits and buy a drift permit.
What is going on with the 34,000 chinook harvest this year in Kodiak?
ReplyDeleteTo: January 2, 2014 at 1:21 PM-
ReplyDeleteDear Emporer With No Clothes; funny how your context centers around everybody else but you with the same jack-in-the-box spawned Mr. Fix-its I'll try to help you think outside of your own box.
You go to drift only one way downstream and fish in lower section until further notice.
You go to 2-day fishery on early run. You commercially guide in late-run when eastside fishes.
You fish in commercial guide boats with two clients per boat.
You fish with 50 pound test for release of kings.
You fish in one-half of the river downstream of the lower sonar site to avoid hot holes.
You can only catch as many kings as residents.
You can use a braided 24 by 24 in. dipnet for personal use fishing - it won't cost you anything just use your king net.
You can register for guiding in one location and can't move in June or July and limited to either Kasilof, Kenai, or lower Marine, Westside or Northern streams. No fly-out guided fishing trips once registered, exception: when you guide out-of-state.
That history lesson on the Task Force meeting was a real winner. You know a lot more than the L.A. Hillbilly on reality TV. Some don't however, since you brought it up and spun it - ADFG finally put out the real 2012 king numbers at the Task Force meeting and the ESSN would have fished a normal season in 2012 instead of loosing 25 million dollars if ADFG Sport Fish Division counted kings - they doubled the king counts from 14,500 to 29,000 inriver - goal met inseason but ESSN got screwed over false king numbers. Your claim of coming up with solutions was a real hit - claims of harvest loss over going from mutilple hooks to single hook in sport fish regulation put in years ago was cause for a KRSA "solution" to only open ESSN two days a week - That was one of your guys solution for your king fishery - ESSN don't fish because you fish 7 days a week with single hooks put in regulation by Sports Fish Division a decade ago???? All of your "solutions" were tossed off the table by two BOF members. You probably just forgot to write that part down. Meanwhile try to slow down the Bong Hits now that your homestate went legal - maybe the memory will come back in time for the board meeting. I say that because you failed to mention or must of forgotten that your other "solution" was to kick Vince Webster off the board because your organization felt your so-called "solutions" wasn't being "heard" at the Task Force meeting, according to your organization's legislative rant letter, although Mr. Webster gave your group more time than anybody else on the Task Force committee. That was a "solution" on your part by thinking "outside of the box"...