Current weather

  • Clear sky
  • 27°
    Clear sky
  • Comment

Tough year, lingering effects

Economic loss from king closure felt immediately, may have further repercussions

Posted: August 11, 2012 - 7:37pm  |  Updated: November 27, 2012 - 7:44pm
Back | Next
Taylor Hanley cleans halibut Friday afternoon at Custom Seafood Processors in Soldotna. Owner Lisa Hanson said that while the king closure had an affect on her business, the company has worked over a period of years to diversify itself by processing all types of fish and game.  M. Scott Moon
M. Scott Moon
Taylor Hanley cleans halibut Friday afternoon at Custom Seafood Processors in Soldotna. Owner Lisa Hanson said that while the king closure had an affect on her business, the company has worked over a period of years to diversify itself by processing all types of fish and game.

It was a tough year for Dave Blackley.

He guided dipnet fishing trips, sockeye and trout fishing trips, anything he could do to accommodate clients who wanted to catch king salmon. 

He still lost a third of his bookings.

While it’s hard to pinpoint exactly how much money a king salmon fisherman spends in local bait and tackle shops, at lodges, hiring guides or buying groceries and fuel, local business owners said the loss of tourism money was substantial and painful. 

The step-down system that eventually led to the fishery’s closure began on the first day of the season when sport fishermen started with no-bait. Alaska Department of Fish and Game officials issued another emergency order restricting the king fishery to catch-and-release and trophy king retention a week later. 

On July 19, with about two weeks left in the season, the river was closed to fishing for kings.

At the time, Fish and Game area biologists said their projections showed a run that could be the lowest on record.

While those projections have since changed, due to an unexpected push of late-run kings in August, the economic impact of a king fishery closure has been felt throughout the commercial and sport fishing industries.

For Steven Anderson, it was $50,000.

“How much of that money would have gotten spent locally? The majority would go to guides, there’s lunches, fishing licenses, fish shipping boxes, welcome gifts that we supply, all that stuff,” said, Anderson, owner of the Soldotna Bed and Breakfast lodge. “That’s probably about $40,000 out of that $50,000. That’s what I can measure that I know we lost. But what about stuff that I can’t measure that we’ll never know because those people never came?”

Anderson said he also wouldn’t be doing any renovations this year.

“I was going to buck the trend and expand my property but I can’t do that. I’m not going to spend any money. I was considering spending about $200,000 in improvements this winter, I canned all that.”

Blackley, who runs Caribou Run Alaska Fishing Adventures with his wife, said he was in a better position than some other guides because he doesn’t live entirely on the money he makes through guiding.

“We thought we would be able to crunch the numbers, we thought we would be able to make enough from guiding and lodging to be able to not have another job,” he said. “We found out that it wasn’t as easy as it looks.”

In an effort to keep from hemorrhaging clients when the king fishery closure was announced, Blackley said he talked people into sport fishing for sockeye instead.

“It’s like, you know, you’re coming and this is what we can do. You know, it’s either that or we’ve got to give you your money back and most people want to go fishing,” Blackley said. “You kind of just hope that they’ll stick with you.”

According to the Kenai Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council, sales tax data indicates area guides made close to a million dollars in taxable sales in the third and fourth quarters of 2010. Those quarters see the most local tourism and tourist revenue, said KPTMC Executive Director Shanon Hamrick.

That revenue, while a boon for the area, can be a double edged sword when it dies down, she said.

“When tourism takes a hit, everyone feels an impact,” Hamrick said.

 

Painful perceptions

Greg Brush, owner of EZ Limit Guide Service, is immediately defensive when people use the phrase “Kenai River closure” to describe this year’s king fishing season. 

“We haven’t been shut down,” he said. “There hasn’t been a river closure. There was a closure to king salmon fishing in July. The river is open and we can sockeye fish, we can trout fish.”

The perception difference between a king closure and a river closure can have a severe economic impact, he said.

While he lost a few clients, Brush said people who had already bought their plane tickets usually came anyway and he arranged other types of fishing for them. 

“Where it really hurts is ... people from Anchorage and Wasilla didn’t even come down,” he said. “As word gets out and people are worried about the health of the king fishery and future restrictions, then you wonder what’s going to happen down the road.”

Anderson said his lodge has been taking phone calls all season from people who hear the Kenai River is closed. 

“They hear the Kenai River is closed and they figure it’s for the next 10 years,” he said. “It’s only through the month of July, they don’t know that. People who are calling us already have reservations in August and September. Then I think about people who don’t call, who don’t come, don’t consider coming because they’ve heard the Kenai River is closed.”

The loss in revenue from tourists who decide to go elsewhere is immeasurable. 

“An area like ours does have a reputation and people come here to fish,” Hamrick said. “When it has closures, it affects people’s decisions to come here.”

When the marketing council goes to trade shows, Hamrick said educating fishermen is part of the job. 

“They’re aware of some of our issues but they’re not necessarily getting all of the facts,” she said. “For instance with the halibut fishery there are a lot of people nationwide who believe that the Cook Inlet is a one fish fishery because that’s how it is (elsewhere).”

Anderson said people are starting to notice a trend of king restrictions and he’s not sure if offering other fishing or activity options will entice them to continue vacationing in the area. 

“People are getting cold feet. This is not the first time this has happened, it happened last year. Most people in the know, already know in June its primarily catch and release for kings. June is a very, very hard sell. Its only going to get harder. This July is going to become a harder sell.” 

 

A growing problem

Custom Seafood Processors owner Lisa Hanson was not surprised when the king fishery closed. 

“This isn’t something that happened overnight. This has been in gradual decline for the last five to eight years,” she said. “To say, ‘Oh my this is a surprise’ is not right. We’ve over fished the king fishery for years.” 

Hanson estimated that 95 percent of her business came from processing sport-caught fish. However the company also processes game and buys and prepares commercial fish.

Through 17 years, Hanson has seen ups and downs, and a steady income is hard to find with such a fluctuating market and resource.

She said the last few years of strong sockeye runs are a good example of a boom cycle for fish, one she has used to supplant the income lost from declining revenue for king processing. 

“You don’t plan your finances on a boom year and then have a feeling of entitlement, like, ‘I deserve this all the time,” this is a give-and-take thing; it’s a resource and it fluctuates,” she said.

For Custom Seafoods, which charges by the pound, the loss of king revenue comes down to weight. Sockeye usually weigh about six pounds while kings are the largest of all the pacific salmon and typically weigh about 36 pounds, according to Fish and Game. 

“It is an absolute loss. Ten years ago we used to catch 60-80 pound kings all day long, I mean dozens,” Hanson said. “Now it’s a rare thing even before the closures and whatnot. So our big fish are in absolute peril.”

While she does feel the loss to her business, Hanson said she’s lucky that she can diversify and appeal to sport fishermen who target other kinds of fish. 

“I am one of the fortunate people and I consider myself blessed beyond measure because I have the red season run and the halibut fishery with local people and tourists getting those two fish that are basically the bread and butter of my business right now,” Hanson said. “I’m able to absorb the loss of the kings much more successfully than some of the guides or the bed and breakfasts.”

 

What happens next

Fish and Game estimates more than a quarter of the run has entered the river since the season closed July 31. Based on passage estimates, there may be enough kings in the river to provide for an adequate spawning escapement.

According to the department, between 10-16 percent of the late run of king salmon pass its sonar site in August so the run-timing is later that usual.

Other fisheries may have been able to soften the economic blow as well.

Hamrick said she’d heard anecdotal evidence of significant economic boosts in the halibut fishery. 

“I’m very curious to see what the sales tax come back as this summer and how they compare to the previous year,” she said. “While there was some people who cancelled their trips, most people still came and did different activities. That doesn’t help at all the guides on the Kenai River, but it might not be as big of an impact on the Peninsula as a whole in regards to sales tax.”

Hanson added a 1,500 foot freezer into her plant after she was so swamped by last year’s banner sockeye salmon run. She also had to close her doors for a few days.

“If you can’t capture the income from that high volume — and it’s so very short then it’s gone — you missed the boat,” she said.

This year’s strong sockeye run again swamped her processors. But Hanson said with the new freezer she was able to run for a full 24 hours with a second crew to keep up with the demand.

“A few people looked at me like I was crazy with the kings closing down, but it was a big investment totally based on faith,” she said.

Hanson said she’d gladly give up any income she got from processing kings if it meant the fishery would stay healthy. 

“If we don’t handle it well and we over fish an area it will go away,” she said. “We can mess things up that nature has provided and we can mess it up so badly that we ruin it.”

While the king run may prove healthier than expected, Brush said he would still change the way he runs his business. 

He said he is only going to book catch-and-release king fishing trips next year.

“My clients will no longer be killing Kenai kings,” Brush said. “That’s one thing that a local can do is he can voluntarily release what king salmon he catches. That’s not something that everybody’s going to do but it’s a small step that we can do to educate others and conserve the resource.”

Rashah McChesney can be reached at rashah.mcchesney@peninsulaclarion.com

  • Comment

Comments (51) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Carver
1195
Points
Carver 08/12/12 - 06:27 am
5
1
Pure malarkey . .

Brush's quip that his “. . clients will no longer be killing Kenai kings,” is pure BS. Catch-and-release kills one of every 12 Kenai kings caught and released.

Moreover, c&r stresses and depletes the spawning vigor of 100 percent of kings caught and released.

radiokenai
562
Points
radiokenai 08/12/12 - 09:02 am
1
0
What a load of crap...
Unpublished

The MAJORITY of the Guides live outside. They pinch every penny they can. Those big ole lunches they talk about are bologna sandwiches, a small bag of chips and a can of generic pop.

Get use to going bust all you Guides, you have a hand in fishing the river into oblivion. Don't whine to me because you exploited to river beyond capacity!

I am GLAD you LOST MONEY!

KMarx
181
Points
KMarx 08/12/12 - 01:42 pm
4
1
And just how does this

And just how does this compare to the economic impact of the complete closure of the sockeye fishery to 400 east-side sernetters? Pretty small potatos. Was the article ghost-written by Ricky Gease the executive director of the Kenai River Sportfish Association? Additionally, catch and release kills far more than 1 in 12.

Carver
1195
Points
Carver 08/12/12 - 01:52 pm
4
1
Good question . .

". . how does this compare to the economic impact of the complete closure of the sockeye fishery to 400 east-side sernetters?"
****************

No doubt the Clarion will now print an article answering your question . . wait for it . . but don't hold your breath.

The current article shows only one side of the picture and a poor one at that.

julie
135
Points
julie 08/13/12 - 07:03 am
3
0
End Salmon & Halibut Bycatch Petition

Please think about the trawling boats of pollock. They are still fishing. They are still killing all the kings that are the problem why none of us can fish whether sport, subsistence, or commercial here in Alaska. We're all affected and need to get the trawlers to stop ALL BYCATCH. Please sign this petition . We are going tot he NWPFM meeting in Oct and presenting our petition & talking to them. Also this is going to the governor. He is in control and is selling us all down the river for his own pocketbook. It's important to get signatures. Please sign & forward to all.http://signon.org/sign/end-salmon-halibut-bycatch

5akman
60
Points
5akman 08/13/12 - 02:18 pm
3
1
Wish I could feel bad for him.....

I flew 4 guys up here to set net for 6 weeks. Promised them a minimum wage, which I did not make with our 2 days fishing in the Kenai district before we pulled our gear. Its not like guides are the only ones who missed out on fishing, they did by the way, get 19 days to fish kings prior to the river being shut down. They can also fish for other species where as I can not. You fish over the spawning beds and keep the biggest in the gene pool, you suffer the consequences.....

David Basher
5
Points
David Basher 08/13/12 - 05:11 pm
3
1
money lost

We set net on South K-Beach. We pay property taxes,Airport Rentals $5,000.00, Fuel $4,000.00, Food $1,700.00, Building Materials $2,200.00, Auto Parts $1,300.00, Snug Harbor Seafoods $1,711.82, Crew License $600.00, Sporting Goods,Life Vest,GPS, etc.$600.00, Permit fee's and related cost $1,350.00, River and Sea Marine $250.00, Moose is Loose $125.00, Sweeney's $215.00, Kraxberger Drilling $7,500.00,HEA $6,000.00, Alaska Airlines $ 4,000.00, Grant Aviation $400.00, Movies,Fred Meyer, Trust Worthy, AIH, the list goes on. Lets not forget 86% of the 447 permit holders who are east side set netters live in ALASKA. Over 50% on the Kenai Peninsula. I am surprised that the merchants in Kenai and Soldotna think that there only income is from the tourist. Really? Who buys Christmas gifts in town? Set Netters thats who.

Kapco
148
Points
Kapco 08/14/12 - 05:08 am
1
1
kings

First off, the Clarion states that this is a series of articles on this subject so there will most likely be something on the impact on set netters. Second, the set nets have been taking huge numbers of kings in by-catch for years--just look at what is reported on the ADFG website as reported king numbers--pretty large and many times more if not quite a bit more than the sport take. So, if the people fishing "over the spawning beds" have to "pay the price", well, maybe, so do the people that have been profiting heavily for killing an unintended species. The bottom line is, we are all fighting over leftovers that the draggers are so nice to leave for us. Until we get at least a reduction in salmon by-catch out in the Gulf and Bearing Sea, we are just going to stay mired in the mud of our petty finger pointing. Every single Alaskan resident, no matter what their perspective should be outraged that this practice continues and should be singing petitions and getting to meetings and writing letters. Kings are definitely a cornerstone species for ALL of us. Uniting to a common cause would sure be nice, wouldn't it?

KenaiKardinal88
517
Points
KenaiKardinal88 08/15/12 - 12:54 am
2
1
Ruining Sockeye Fishery Too

I was disgusted this summer when the fishing guides "plugged" us several times when fishing for sockeye.

Has it gotten so bad that you have to dump your clients on top of us when we're shore fishing.

You've ruined the king runs along with the commercial boys, now you want to destroy what little fun Alaska residents have?

Kenai Guides - you lost me as an advocate this summer.

Carver
1195
Points
Carver 08/15/12 - 06:46 am
2
1
Hope so . . .

". . the Clarion states that this is a series of articles on this subject so there will most likely be something on the impact on set netters."
******************

Certainly hope so.

If not, I will assuredly cancel my subscription.

spybot
98
Points
spybot 08/15/12 - 08:58 am
2
1
East side set netters - largest harvester of kings this year

The final numbers are in for the local commercial fishing season, and the east side set netters were once again the largest harvester of king salmon bound for the Kenai River.

Set netters harvested three times as many kings as the drift fleet: set nets caught 585 kings, 95,000 sockeye with 990 total deliveries, while the drift nets caught 191 kings, 2.9 million sockeye with 6,587 total deliveries. The in-river sport fishery harvested 103 kings, and had a catch and release mortality of less than 40, with a season total of less than 150.

The escapement numbers to the Kenai and Kasilof rivers will be within their respective escapement goals. The Kenai River had a final escapement of 1.5 million - once the in-river harvest is subtracted it will be between 1.1 and 1.2 spawners, within its goal. The Kasilof River had 371,000 spawners, within its goal.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/15/12 - 01:10 pm
2
1
So Who Really Killed All The Kings?

The information a reader should take from this issue is that Cook Inlet, East Side Setnetters, even while basically SHUT DOWN, were still the MAJOR "LOCAL" killer of Kenai River king salmon. The East Side accidently killed these kings with by-catch. This is the same kind of by-catch the trawlers do down in the Gulf of Alaska. There is zero allocation of kings to gillnets or the trawlers but they still kill the bulk of the kings which die each season. It is time to end all commercial fisheries by-catch.

Below is a copy of a petition to end the by-catch killing of marine life by removing the profit resulting from it. This is why I created a petition to The Alaska State House, The Alaska State Senate, Governor Sean Parnell, The Alaska Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Please sign this petition? http://signon.org/sign/stop-the-profit-in-by?source=c.em.cp&r_by=4973638

We desire that our representatives move immediately to reduce the by-catch of all accidentally killed marine life within our commercial fisheries. Our Alaska Department of Fish & Game can only point to a snowstorm of data and grafts, which leaves the viewer even more confused about our fisheries by-catch problems. We believe that we must reduce commercial fisheries from profiting when killing non-targeted marine life as by-catch. We believe that commercial fisheries should be held accountable for the marine damage they cause while conducting a business within the salt water. We ask that these commercial fisheries be required to retain and process all by-catch and then donate it to a charity or food bank. This means that if you "by-catch kill" a beluga whale calf or a seal; you are forced to retain, process and donate it to a charity or food bank. If you "by-catch kill" a king salmon: you must retain, process and donate it to a charity or food bank. We believe this change alone; over time would eventually resolve most of Alaska's current fisheries by-catch problems. We believe that this change would eventually force commercial fisheries to at least begin thinking about avoiding non-targeted marine life by-catch. We believe that our king salmon by-catch issue is 100% about money and that if you can make by-catch non-profitable, commercial fisheries will eventually find a way to prevent the financial drain. We believe that doing nothing about the by-catch issue will result in us permanently losing many marine specie and fisheries in the very near future. We believe that as long as commercial fisheries are allowed to profit from by-catch, the issue will never go away and therefore all our Alaskan natural resources and fisheries will go on suffering forever. We request that the new commercial fisheries reality be that by-catch is going to cost you. We believe this to be a very reasonable change to pursue in resolving this very unreasonable by-catch waste of our common natural resource heritage.

1coldalaskan
35
Points
1coldalaskan 08/16/12 - 04:55 pm
2
1
Tough year for guides?

What Mr. Brush says is true, the river for guides was NOT shut down. He and others still managed to serve their clients and MAKE MONEY. The East side set net industry on the other hand is where the real tough year is to be found. They WERE shut down for the majority of their season. They are seriously operating in the red.

Even more important is to note that on a set net permit holders card, it says salmon fisheries. That means that a king IS NOT by catch. They can legally catch and sell them.

Beach Boss
124
Points
Beach Boss 08/17/12 - 12:18 am
2
1
Tough year for Setnetters

Mr. Kenai123 lets clarify few things. Eastside setnetters have a permit that allows them to harvest ALL species of salmon. So the king salmon we catch is not a "by-catch" because we sell them to a market. Yes believe it or not our king salmon we catch feed lots and lots of people, not just to fulfill a fun adventure for someone. Yes you are true in that we "target" reds and have an "incidental" catch of kings, silvers, pinks, flounders, dipnetters garbage etc. That is the nature of the fishery we are in. The only user group that "targets" kings are the inriver user group. So I guess your reds, trouts, silvers, pinks you catch on the river when fishing for kings is a "by-catch"????

Let me ask you this. IF eastside setnetters are wiped away for good do you think that is going to fix our king problem 10 years down the road?? One would have to just look at the history of the early king run (eastside setnetters nets are dry) to come to the conclusion NO. Year after year we keep getting stepped down and stepped down and now this year 99% of our season is gone. Don't you think if we were the problem you would start to see some positive results??

Around 80% of the late king run enters the Kenai without passing through the setnet district. So the in river user group has primary opportunity to 80% of the kings and a secondary opportunity to the remaining 20% of the run. So lets get this straight. In river users have 100% opportunity of first run kings and 80% primary opportunity of late run kings. AND THATS NOT ENOUGH?? They want more and more but want no responsibility in shouldering the conservation. Time to put some limits on whats happening in river before its to late!!!

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/18/12 - 09:48 am
1
1
Beach Boss, biig difference between allocation common use.

Beach Boss, there is a big difference between the terms "fisheries allocation" and "fisheries common use".The general public has been grants general "fisheries common use" by the Alaskan Constitution and commercial fishermen have been granted a limited entry sockeye priority allocation by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. To mix up "common use" with "limited entry" is fisheries sacrilege. The Alaska Board of Fish specifically allocated a commercial gill net sockeye priority onto Cook Inlet's sockeye runs. The board did not allocate anything else to this commercial use, no halibut, no trout, no kings and no silvers. What do you think the definition of the term by-catch is? By-catch is a commercial fisheries term; NOAA Fisheries terms it "Discarded catch of any living marine resource plus retained incidental catch and unobserved mortality due to a direct encounter with fishing gear". The incidental catch part refers only to our commercial fisheries targeting and non-targeted fisheries stocks. All other users are common use protected therefore they do not function within the targeted and non-targeted terminology. Since the by-catch term is only a commercial term it cannot be cross applied to any other user group. Common users by definition are specially granted access to ALL state fisheries with a harvestable surplus, they therefore target ALL fish in general. Commercial fisheries specifically target & non-target fish stocks, therefore the term "by-catch" has only been directly attached to the term "non-targeted" and therefore only commercial fisheries. The main reason commercial fishermen are confused about common use and limited entry is because they used to have common use access to our fisheries before 1973 and limited entry. Alaskan commercial fishermen voluntary surrendered their fisheries common use rights in 1973, in exchange for "possible limited entry fisheries access granted by the Alaska Board of Fish." I say "possible" because that is why commercial fishermen keep losing litigation claiming that the board can't prevent them from accessing some fish stock. The board can legally grant it all or take it all away from commercial fishing because they lack common use protection. Commercial fisheries gave up their common use for "target & non-target access" which is really " catch & by-catch access". The general public does not operate within "catch and by-catch" because all common use fisheries are "catch only" if there is a harvestable surplus. This is the difference between a commercial fishermen and all other fisheries user groups. So the bottom line is that you can only be guilty of by-catch if you are a commercial fishermen and you can only be a commercial fishermen if you catch a fish and then directly sell it. For all those confused commercial fishermen out there; who think dip-netters or guides can be commercial fishermen, you are incorrect. You can only become a commercial fisherman when you first directly catch and then sell a fish. Nothing else counts. It doesn't matter how much you hate the other users groups, they are not commercial fishermen no matter how much you want to wish them away. They are still fully guaranteed common use access to Alaska's fisheries.

Also Beach Boss, regarding our eastside set-netters going away and us still having a king problem. You are correct; I calculate that Cook Inlet gill-nets are only about 10 - 30% of the incidental, by-catch of king problem. The real damage is being done by the trawlers down in the Gulf of Alaska who are destroying our king salmon everyday they are allowed to go on fishing with the gear they are currently using. To compare it to drug dealing; the trawlers are the big cartel boys, out there doing most of the damage. Our own Cook Inlet set-nets are the local drug dealer on the street corner as they come in and heap even more damage on our kings as they do the same by-catching of kings.

The main problem commercial fishermen are having is as they try to understand freshwater fisheries; they fail to comprehend the non-efficiency of freshwater anglers. Commercial fishermen operate on a plain of high efficiency where you throw a net into the water and it pretty-much grabs everything there. The difference between the fisheries is so dramatic that it is like stopping cars on a highway. Gill nets are like a couple of troopers blocking the road with their cars. Rod & reel fisheries operate like a guy hitchhiking on the same road, while trying to stop the same cars. The guy holds out his thumb and hopes someone likes him. The difference is so dramatic that commercial fishermen have a hard time understanding why a half a million anglers can descend on the same river and beat down all the grass chasing the same fish and still never catch that fish! The difference between the gear types is so extreme that in reality you cannot even compare them to each other. So for all you commercial fishermen out there who think you are going to solve anything by only addressing anglers, you are wrong. The tail does not wag the dog and the dog is definitely the commercial fishing industry. It is NOT time to address any freshwater fishery; it is time to totally over-haul our commercial fishing regulations and our ADF&G management because buddy both have floundered. Our sockeye management plan was designed to only allow two days per week access to commercial gill nets in Cook Inlet but then the big-headed ADF&G and commercial fishermen decided we should go with defective sonar counters and continuous emergency openers for gill nets. Those poor decisions and others years ago cost the eastside set nets their fishery in 2012. It was not some other user group, it is the poor decisions made by our ADF&G and commercial fishing industry back between 1980 - 2002. Both group descended into a Cook Inlet Fishermen's Hell as they decided that they could burn both ends of the candle at the same time. They casually tossed 7,000,000 liner feet of gill nets out into Cook Inlet each year and arrogantly supposed that everything trying to survive around those sockeye salmon would still do okay. Well they were wrong and now everyone has to pay for their arrogant decisions.

Beach Boss
124
Points
Beach Boss 08/17/12 - 11:32 am
2
1
Where to begin Mr. Kenai123.

Oh man Mr. Kenai 123 where do I begin. Yes the corrupt board of fisheries that has been bought and paid for by Mr. Penny himself is the one that has determined that king and silvers are allocated for the in-river user group. The one difference you keep forgetting is my permit card says I can catch ALL species of salmon, just like the fisheries common use. There is a market for ALL species of salmon I catch, we DO NOT discard our catch. You know when those tourist are on your boating raving about the awesome $50 king salmon dinner they ate at Louies, you should tell them thank a commercial fisherman.

I think we need to clarify a few things. What is the role of the cook inlet commercial fisherman?? To harvest the surplus of salmon to provide FOOD for many countries around the world.
What is the role of the sportsman fisherman? Fishing done with a rod and reel for SPORT or RECREATION.

We don't casually toss 7,000,000 liner feet of gill nets out with NO PURPOSE. We are trying to get salmon to a commercial market to feed the world. Did you know that 7,000,000 liner feet of gill net spread out over hundreds of miles catches the same amount of kings as the in-river user group in 82 MILES, and they are using ROD AND REELS. That's pretty impressive. Is a sportsman fisherman supposed to be as effective as a commercial fisherman??

Yes I do agree with you, we do need to look at the trawlers. BUT this is the TIME to address what's happening in our OWN freshwater fishery. We need to make sure the king salmon that do return are able to spawn in that 82 miles. I do believe that half a million anglers in 82 miles fishing day in and day out over these king salmon spawning beds are having an effect on why there is a low return on kings. LETS CLEAN UP OUR OWN BACKYARD. Its not the tail wagging the dog to look at where these fish are spawning.

I DO NOT want to see any user group be eliminated. Each and every user group has a purpose and importance. I just want limits put on every user group so that we can have a healthy river.

Did you really compare commercial fisherman to drug dealers? Come on Mr. Kenai123, you can do better than that.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/20/12 - 04:58 am
1
1
Beach Boss, Yes I agree; the board of fish is corrupt.

Beach Boss, Yes I agree; the board of fish is corrupt. That being said; so is the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, NPFMC. I believe that the NPFMC is the real problem when it comes to Alaska's king problems; they have been trying to fool everyone for a long time now as they pretend to manage the trawlers. The one thing that should come out of all of this is that you cannot expect CEO's and the heads of monster fishing companies to somehow make resource based decisions. These guys might be able to see the forest if their nose wasn't so tightly pressed up against their own greedy little tree. We would no doubt do a lot better by just firing both the NPFMC and Alaska Board of Fish; then we could start over with new members, WITHOUT giant greedy axes to grind.

Beach Boss, you keep referring to your fisheries permit and it stating that "it is for all salmon species, just like fisheries common use." I don't think you are understanding what limited entry really is. Limited Entry is ANYTHING that the Board of Fish wants it to be; and that specifically means that common use is NOT involved. Limited Entry guarantees "everything and nothing" all at the same time. This means that if the Board does not want commercial fishermen catching kings in Cook Inlet; that it can legally prevent them from catching kings. The way the Board does this is by fisheries allocations. Fisheries allocations are constructed with targets and non-targets, which become catch and by-catch. This is how kings became by-catch and sockeyes became catch. The reason Cook Inlet Eastside Set Netters were shut-down in 2012 was because they are our number one by-catchers of Kenai River king salmon, in a season which had to few king salmon.

I never claimed that any Cook Inlet gill netters "discard their catch". The NOAA by-catch definition takes in the term "incidental catch" and this catch is sold on fisheries markets. Again; By-catch is a commercial fisheries term; NOAA Fisheries defines by-catch as "Discarded catch of any living marine resource plus retained incidental catch and unobserved mortality due to a direct encounter with fishing gear". The incidental catch part refers only to our commercial fisheries targeting and non-targeted fisheries stocks. Read the definition, it specifically states "plus retained incidental catch".

Regarding thanking Louies for the $50 salmon dinner; if that king salmon, which was gill netted within a meat fishery, had been allowed to access freshwater and be chased by tourists, the state of Alaska would have been able to get a thousand tourist to spend $10,000 each, in order to chase after it within a recreational fishery. Instead it ended up generating maybe max. a couple hundred dollars. That's $10,000,000 worth of state income or a couple hundred for a salmon dinner, which would have tasted the same if it would have been sockeye instead. The reason a set netter cannot see this huge state income benefit here is because of his special interest sun glasses. His nose is so tightly pressed up against his own personal gill net greed tree, that he cannot see the state wealth he is turning down. It is the same reason the fish trap people could not see banning fish traps and using thousands of little gillnets all over the place. The fish trap guys had their noses so tightly pressed up against their own personal fish trap greed tree, that they could not see the benefits to having thousands of locals running little gillnets all over the place.

Regarding the role of commercial and recreational fisheries; Alaska is not under some kind of mandate to feed the planet with fish. The role of commercial fisheries is purely to utilize our "excess harvestable fisheries". The word excess pre-supposes that the Alaskan public need for fish has been TOTALLY satisfied prior to the states commercial fisheries being allowed access these fisheries. This is the way limited entry was setup within our state constitution, that is why subsistence is the first thing you see at the beginning of all our salmon management plans. Basically you are asking an allocation question. Who should get our salmon resource? Commercial or Recreational fisheries? The correct answer is so easy that most people get it instantly but not if you have a personal ax to grind. Say we have a million salmon of any species migrating up Cook Inlet and (buyer A) offers two dollars per pound and (buyer B) offers $200,000 per pound. Who do you sell the salmon to? It is a no-brainer right? You sell to the highest bidder.... unless you happen to be the lower bidder and you are able to work the system so you can make more cash under the table accepting the lower bid. This is basically what commercial fishing in Alaska is doing today, they are making more cash manipulating the system in their favor, rather than allowing the state to realize the tremendous income benefits of allowing thousands of people to chase after the same fish as part of recreation. All commercial fishermen know this illustration is true but they will never admit it.

Regarding "7,000,000 liner feet of gill net spread out over hundreds of miles, catching the same amount of kings as the in-river user group in 82 MILES"; this is a total fabrication of reality. Please ask yourself why set netters basically report the same number of kings caught every season, regardless as to how good or bad the season may be? If you can answer that question, then maybe you can also answer the question as to how many gill-netted kings now do not make it to the cannery's and are flown directly to the east coast? You believe the cannery king catch numbers, I do not.

Regarding; "we do need to look at the trawlers. BUT this is the TIME to address what's happening in our OWN freshwater fishery". What good does it do to send a million soldiers out the door to attempt to fight your battles if the enemy is waiting just outside the door, ready to mow them down? The trawlers must be addressed first and they should be jointly addressed by ALL Cook Inlet fisheries period. The main reason eastside setnets were locked out in 2012 is because the trawlers killed and dumped most of the kings, which were necessary to keep them fishing. Those trawlers shredded the very item which is necessary to keep the setnetters fishing and you want to stick your head into the sand and say "let's just see what's happening in our OWN freshwater fisheries?" Are you kidding? A guy drives by and throws a bomb into your store and you try resolving the situation by up-grading your insurance plan? These trawlers come in and destroyed our giant ball of 2 - 7 year old king salmon swimming the Gulf of Alaska; and you want to place a magnifying glass on the 10 - 20% of the ball of kings which attempt to migrate to freshwater each year? I have to say your reasoning is typical commercial fishing greed. Don't worry about the ocean shredding, lets just take a look at the freshwater. This is like the goose laying the golden eggs and you're trying to just gather the eggs while forgetting to feed or take care of the goose! FOR YOUR INFORMATION; all over Alaska the freshwater is coming up short on their escapement requirements for king salmon, all river, all streams, rivers with lots of anglers, rivers with no anglers, they are not coming back statewide. Did you hear that? They are not coming back statewide! This is not a "let's study the freshwater or Kenai River issue". It is a statewide non-returning king salmon problem. We have rivers with zero anglers fishing them and rivers with many anglers fishing them; both are experiencing the same king salmon decline. Our latest solution has been to just lower our king salmon escapement requirement numbers. Great solution right? If the real numbers in the books don't say what you want, you just cook the books? Didn't Wall Street just try that? Did you see where it got them? A better solution can be found within Proposal #217 in our Alaska Board of Fish Proposal Book, it's under Statewide Finfish for 2013, set to be addressed Mar. 19 - 24 , 2013, Anchorage. Proposal 217 is about reversing our crazy priority on only sockeye's and helping the kings out a little bit. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fisheriesboard.main But it you guys want to waste your time talking about meaningless issues and cooking the books; just state it up front but do not expect recreational fisheries to take you seriously.

Regarding: "I just want limits put on every user group so that we can have a healthy river. " Really, limits on every user group? How would you feel about limits on gill nets which prevent king salmon from entering them? Believe it or not such net do exist but I wonder why commercial gill netters just roll their eyes when such an idea is generated? You say the words but do not mean them if they mean limiting gill nets. We are right back to allocation again and you're again trying to restrict some other user so you can catch MORE FISH. All gill netters are 100% in favor of limits for others but when it comes time to actually doing something to prevent them from killing kings and costing them a single dollar, that is the end of the desire for limits. Commercial fishing is a business with the ability to totally destroy all of our fisheries without a whole lot of effort. Commercial fishing is like using nuclear fuel in a reactor; it has the potential to cause a lot of things to happen. It is all about money and we all know how crazy folks can get when its comes to money. Just look at what Wall Street did to make a buck? Would you shoot yourself in the foot to make a buck like Wall Street? No way right? Business is business and a commercial fisherman may see the long and short terms but that short term pays the electric bill so it's a lot more important to most.

Regarding; "comparing commercial fisherman to drug dealers?" I view limited entry as another form of socialism and therefore illogical, destructive and anti-American. The Soviet Union tried socialism for 70 years and then finally discovered it to be illogical and destructive, so they gave it up. Their are many reasons they gave it up but the main one was because of its ANTI-FREE ENTERPRISE, anti-private ownership, anti-democracy and that is illogical because when you remove the competitive spirit you stagnate and eventually die. It is illogical to desire to die, right? It would be like removing the wolves and letting the weak calf caribou survive, therefore breeding other weak caribou. Socialism is a system built to fail and so is limited entry. When you limit entry to our fisheries you remove competition between commercial fishermen, therefore they are not able to see, let alone find, a reason to prevent accidentally killing king salmon. Open entry fisheries would have produced someone, somewhere attempting to build a better mouse trap and thus preventing kings from being accidentally gill netted. Limited entry produces nothing but lazy gill netters with no reason to even think about building a better mouse trap. In 1973 we did not have the ability to manage all the people who wanted to commercial fish but today we do. Our state currently forces a giant book of regulations onto hundreds of thousands of average fishermen and somehow the regulations just seem to get followed. We do not need limited entry anymore, it is illogical, destructive and anti-American; therefore the drug dealer comparison.

So the bottom line is that commercial fishermen say that they want to get rid of the Board of Fish and NPFMC but they then go out and spend MILLIONS jamming their own commercial fishing special interest person into those seats so they can be granted as much fisheries access as possible. Commercial fishermen claim to have been allocated king salmon in Cook Inlet but fail to understand the (minimizing by-catch intent) found within our salmon management plans. Limited Entry Socialism then adds to this understanding failure by completely removing any competitive incentive to actually minimize the accidental king by-catch. It does not seem to matter what the subject commercial fishing raises; they all appear to be meaningless in actually resolving general fisheries problems. What appears to be very meaningful is any subject which directly increases or decreases commercial fisheries profits, therefore in my next posting I will outline a specific "profit orientated" by-catch change petition.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/18/12 - 09:12 am
1
1
Petition to end the by-catch killing of marine life.

Petition to end the by-catch killing of marine life by removing the profit from the resulting by-catch. That's why I created a petition to The Alaska State House, The Alaska State Senate, and Governor Sean Parnell. Will you sign this petition? Click here: http://signon.org/sign/stop-the-profit-in-by?source=c.em.cp&r_by=4973638
A copy of the petition is listed below.

We desire that our representatives move immediately to reduce the by-catch of all accidentally killed marine life within our commercial fisheries. Our Alaska Department of Fish & Game can only point to a snowstorm of data and grafts, which in the end leaves the viewer even more confused
about our fisheries by-catch problems. We believe that we must reduce commercial fisheries from profiting when killing non-targeted marine specie as by-catch. We believe that commercial fisheries should be held accountable for the marine life they injury or kill while conduction a business within the salt water. We ask that these fisheries be required to retain and process all by-catch and then donate it to a charity or food bank. This desire means that if you "by-catch kill" a beluga whale calf; you are forced to retain, process and donate it to a charity or food bank. If you by-catch kill a king salmon: you must retain, process and donate it to a charity or food bank. We believe this change alone, over time would eventually resolve most of Alaska's current fisheries by-catch problems. We believe that this change would eventually force commercial fisheries to at least begin thinking about avoiding non-targeted marine life by-catch. We believe that our king salmon by-catch issue is 100% about money and that if you can make by-catch non-profitable, commercial fisheries will eventually find a way to prevent the financial drain.
We believe that doing nothing about the by-catch issue will result in us permanently losing many marine specie and fisheries in the very near future. We believe that as long as commercial fisheries are allowed to profit from by-catch, the issue will never go away and therefore all our Alaskan natural resources and fisheries will go on suffering forever. We request that the new commercial fisheries reality be that by-catch is going to cost you. We believe this to be a very reasonable change to pursue in resolving this very unreasonable by-catch waste of our common natural resource heritage.
http://signon.org/sign/stop-the-profit-in-by?source=c.em.cp&r_by=4973638

Seafarer
1147
Points
Seafarer 08/18/12 - 09:17 am
2
1
To kenai123

Your posts would be easier to read if you used paragraphs. It looks like a rant, and it is nothing but a rant. You think commercial fishermen are the enemy. They do what the ADFG say they can do. If you must blame someone, blame the managers, not the commercial fishermen.

Beach Boss is correct. He/she said it perfectly, but unfortunately, it falls on deaf ears and blind allegiance to the KRSA, which is the most corrupt of any organization in this state.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/18/12 - 09:40 am
0
0
.

.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/20/12 - 05:20 am
1
1
Seafarer, what do you mean by CORRUPT?

Seafarer, what do you mean by CORRUPT? I am not a member of the KRSA but I have observed them since their creation and have not noted any corruption. Maybe you have a different standard for what corruption actually is? I call corruption when you say one thing and do another, double talk. I have also observed commercial fishermen as a group during this same time and have discovered many times when double talk is all I have heard from them. Sure most of it came from Cook Inlet, East Side Set Netters but I believe that there must be something about being a commercial fisherman that brings out the really crazy in a person. I don't know what it is; maybe just seeing all those helpless fish frantically flopping around, it must get a guy so worked up that they just sort of freak-out or get so plain spoiled that they can never do any normal fishen. I guess it must be something like the look that comes from Dr. Jeckyle's eyes as he turns into Dr. Hyde. It must be the direct attachment of fish to money, it must makes them go sort of crazy; crazy enough to smash sportfish signs and try to block access to sportfish businesses. I call trying to destroy their neighbors businesses crazy but I know the only reason they do it is because they have directly attached money to fish. Since "the love of money is the root of all evil", then it only follows that the love of fish can lead a commercial fishermen into that same evil. There are all kinds of evil but "fish evil" is a special kind of evil. It's the kind of evil that compels a guy to look another fishermen right in the eye and lie, double cross, cork screw and backstab his way to the front of the fish line, so he can get his.

Seafarer you say that I should blame the fish managers and you may be right but I don't hear the double talking "fish evil" coming from them. I hear it coming from those making the most cash.They seem to be willing to say and do anything to get theirs. In general I have never seen any kind of recreational user willing to commit the kind of destruction the set netters are willing to commit to make a buck. Never seen recreational rioting on the rivers, lakes or oceans with their boats like the set netters do. Never seen recreational users openly lie to our managers like I have seen set netters do. I don't know if it's the money or the fish, maybe the combination.

The KRSA corrupt? Now that's the kettle calling the pot black. I would not even go so far as to label an entire set net associations as being corrupt but I would claim to say that many of their members are totally corrupt. I claim they are corrupt because I have directly watched them double talk their way through countless issues and then at night plan to destroy recreational user businesses. Is that evil or corruption? Well they do it, I have seen it. I have never even heard of a single account of a recreational user doing the same to them. Recreational may think it; they may even talk it but I have never seen them carry it out. I have seen set netters think it, talk it and do it. These are the actual facts as I have seen them over a span of thirty years of observations. Gill netter should never point a corruption finger because they have about a thousand of them pointing back at them.

TheKenaiKid
126
Points
TheKenaiKid 08/18/12 - 12:24 pm
1
1
TheKenaiKid
126
Points
TheKenaiKid 08/18/12 - 12:20 pm
2
1
Utter nonsense

Wow. So the East Side setnetters lose 90 percent of their harvest and the Clarion runs a feature-length story on how rough it's been for the guided sport community?

The Clarion should stop putting its cub reporters on the most controversial and difficult-to-cover beat. Someone new to this issue is too easily manipulated by Ricky Gease's flock and doesn't have the proper perspective to understand the complexities of this issue. Frankly, to hear how difficult it's been this summer for the poor, poor fishing guides — who admit they've had other opportunities — is offensive. Not quite as offensive as the guides' claim they're actually helping the kings by ripping their lips off over and over again, but still pretty offensive...

CFFL
83
Points
CFFL 08/18/12 - 01:06 pm
1
1
Kenai123

Kenai 123 you are good at twisting things to your perspective. I do not think that anyone will disspute the fact that the trawler issue needs to be addressed. With that being said I do not feel that there is any way what so ever, that you can say that none of the king issues effecting the Kenai River are in river user issues.

You stated yourself that commercial fishing in cook inlet went limited entry in 1973. That means there are no more operating commercial gill net permits now, than there was 39 years ago.However in 1985 the number of guides on the kenai river was 160 and by 2006 there were 396. Are you really gonna sit there and say that the number of guides and in river pressure has nothing to do with the Kenai River King issues??

On the catch numbers I believe you are correct they are skewed. However not the way you insinuated with set net caught kings, "being flown directly to the east coast". The harvest numbers between in river and commercial were basically an even split. However the commercial catch numbers for kings comprise every king caught, including kings under 20", which by the way last year comprised 43% of the commercial king harvest. Sport guides, we will go ahead and call them "commercial" guides since by definition commercial means, "having profit as primary aim", do not have to report 20" and under jacks.

Do you really believe that there are set net fisherman willing to risk there family traditions,there way of life,and the possibility of permit, lease, and equipment confiscation to sell a king salmon?? You must know Mr. Brown.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/20/12 - 07:49 am
1
1
CFFL, this is not a time to study the flowers on the Kenai River

Regarding "twisting the perspective on issues," If I have twisted the prospective on any issue please list the issue specially and how it was twisted.

Regarding " nobody will dispute the fact that the trawler issue needs to be addressed". I will make a direct prediction, when the trawler issue hits our Board of Fish or North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the Cook Inlet Commercial Fishermen will not vote or speak against the trawlers. If commercial fishermen do anything well; it is form ranks and lock arms, no matter what the issue. It is the same for common users they also understand the power in numbers.

Regarding you claiming that I believe "none of the king issues effecting the Kenai River are in river user issues." Another non-issue, but I never said this. If you are expecting me to research all possible freshwater issues which could be effecting king returns; again you are, as usual, attempting to get the tail to wag the dog. Please listen; there has been a great deal of money and resources spent to collect data on our non-returning kings. The data collected shows a statewide king salmon problem. This means that we must target our solution resources on the saltwater with regard to our kings return problem. It would no doubt be nice to throw a couple million dollars where-ever, to study whatever a commercial fishermen wants but while you are hovering over all that stuff, you will by neglect, be condemning all of our king runs to a miserable death by neglect. With regard to the Kenai River, once that death happens it will be most spectacular because the river basically has only wild runs of salmon and without hatcheries to fix the mess, it will take decades to fix. The Kenai River is a very complex river and fishery, there are many minor issues which could be addressed right now but if we were to attempt to address them, major "river killer issues", like the trawler by-catch issue, would not be resolved thus forcing additional decades onto a real solution. This is not a time to study the flowers on the Kenai River.

Regarding your claim that "There are no more operating commercial gill net permits now, than there was 39 years ago but in 1985 the number of guides on the Kenai river was 160 and by 2006 there were 396". This is again meaningless chatter because we all know that the permit numbers are not the issue; the issue is the fact that all the permits moved towards the Kenai River and limited entry never took that into consideration when it assigned its permit numbers to Cook Inlet. The real issue is the permit movement is in fact the same thing which happened to fish traps; traps became so effective that they were able to totally wipe-out areas. I directly claim that this permit movement to the Kenai River, is in effect a GIANT fish trap off the Kenai River and therefore also banned by our Constitution. So the issue is not limited numbers of permits, it is actually the fish trap effect produced by the movement of commercial fishermen within Cook Inlet. That movement has produced a fish trap effect and should also be banned, forcing all permit holders back to their original 1973 positions and locations. So please stop attempting to convince the world that everything is just so stagnate with limited entry permits in Cook Inlet. If this permit movement were considered when calculating permits in Cook Inlet, they would have no doubt issue half the permits. So who wants to give up their permit to fix the mess we have now?

Regarding you saying that "Kenai River guides grew from 1985 the number of guides on the Kenai river was 160 and by 2006 there were 396". Another non-issue; again you fail to understand the difference between limited entry and common use. Limited entry was designed to remain the same, common use was designed to constantly grow.
Do you understand this difference? Common use fisheries are designed to constantly expand as populations grow, therefore whatever number of common users you see today, you will no doubt see more tomorrow. And guess what? Sport Fish Guides are common users. This is how Alaska decided to share its fisheries resources within our constitution. So who is a common user? Anyone without a limited entry permit.

Regarding your claim that "Sport guides, we will go ahead and call them "commercial" guides since by definition commercial means, "having profit as primary aim".
You are way off base on the legal definition of "commercial" and your confusion here no doubt relates back to your confusion over your distain in seeing common users numbers expand while commercial fishermen numbers are forced by law to remain constant. You may be confusing the term commercial within the wonderful world of business and the term commercial within our fisheries. Within our fisheries a "commercial fishermen" is not legally defined as "having profit as primary aim". A commercial fishermen is legally defined as any person who catches a fish and then sells that fish. Just because we have people who sell "commercially" that has nothing to do with who is and is not a commercial fishermen. You are attempting to use smoke and mirror to burr the dramatic legal separation between commercial fisherman and a sport fish guides. Your attempt here appears to be to divide common users.

Regarding your question "Do I believe there are set net fisherman willing to risk it all to sell a king salmon outside the system?" Please take a look at the official record as to how many citations the state issues to commercial fishermen each season. There may be many reasons for the tickets but among them, do you see any commercial fishermen attempting to get away with anything? I claim that statewide many people attempt to get away with many things relating to our fisheries. These events happen everyday and very few of those involved stay awake at night contemplating the end of the world as they know it. Most probably believe they are doing good, correct or meaningless acts. My direct response is that I believe the average set netter would have very little trouble justifying jamming those ten or twenty kings into his personal freezer or shipping them to where ever. I do not believe that average set netter would sit back and contemplate "losing it all", mainly because that is just not reality today. Today you can commercially do a ton of illegal stuff and still be out there fishing away the next day. I do wish you were correct regarding the world ending but the sad case is that the same is happening out there with regard to murderers and thieves, they do their evil and get slapped on the wrists, do it again and get slapped again, on and on it goes. So no, I do not believe that the average set netters contemplate their world ending as they fail to report the king salmon they jam into their freezer outside the data collection system.

What I see within your comments CFFL, is that you appear to be mis-directing and confusing issues by accident or intent. If the reason is accident; it goes to a real lack of understanding of the dramatic differences between common users and limited entry users. Our constitution mandates unlimited numbers of common user have access to our surplus fisheries, it also mandates that we share equally in that access. That same constitution mandates limited numbers of persons possessing limited entry permits, thereby setting up "a limited class of users against an unlimited class of users". I believe that you sense this mandated difference. But rather than directly addressing difference, you instead attempt to only address every possible issue outside of that issue. This choice appear logical in that it would be a waste of your time to debate these constitutional requirements. So here we are wasting our time debating "every other issue out there" other than the one that is non- debatable.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/20/12 - 09:05 am
1
2
TheKenaiKid and manipulation.

TheKenaiKid, you appear disturbed because a news article referenced financial loss within our recreational community? You also over state the set netter loss at 90%. If I normally earned $100,000 per season set netting and a season came along where I made $190,000; then the next season I made $10,000, how much would I have really earned each of the two seasons? The correct answer is that my income has not changed, it is $100,000 per season. This is what really happened to the set netters. In 2011 Cook Inlet set netters made double what they normally made because of the unusual number of sockeyes which attempted to return to the Kenai River. So if a set netter normally earned $100,000 before 2011, and he made $190,000 in 2011. I directly claim that these set netters made their 2012 income in 2011, therefore your claim that their was a 90% loss is a complete and total fabrication. The reality of the situation is that the additional set net fishing in 2011 actually caused a huge financial loss to the guided sport community because of all the king salmon it wiped out. Where was that 2011 story about the guided sport community being unfairly impacted by the excessive set net fishing? I hope everyone can see that we have set netters willing to say and do anything to make a buck.

TheKenaiKid, you state that "Someone new to this issue is too easily manipulated by Ricky Gease's flock". I directly claim that it is you who is attempting to manipulate readers when you claim substantial financial loss within the the Cook Inlet set net fishery. If you are a set netter; let us hear the $$ numbers of what you normally earn per season and how that compared to what you earned in 2011? If you are honest; you would be forced to reveal that you earned double in 2011 therefore making any loss in 2012 meaningless. But instead of telling readers this reality truth you hammer away at false claims of somehow losing income which was in fact realized in 2011. Why would you do such a thing? Complete and total manipulation.

TheKenaiKid you say that "hearing about the poor fishing guides is offensive". Well I find it "offensive" to listen to a person accuse people of manipulation, while they themselves are attempting to manipulate those same persons with the above half truths and omissions.

TheKenaiKid you also say that "you are offended hearing about hook and release fishing". Millions of dollars have been used to study hook and release fishing and it has been proven to be a "NON-ISSUE" within the list of issues effecting our fisheries. For you to broadcast your distain for it is illogical when we have much bigger issues out there. How about the issue of beluga whale calf's getting fouled within your set nets and drowning, as its mother frantically attempts to push it towards the surface? Why didn't you bring up that meaningful issue TheKenaiKid? Oh I guess you just kind of forgot about that one. Well for your information there are a lot of people out there trying to figure out where our beluga whale calf's are going also. Maybe you should have tried the issue about the 150,000 kings slaughtered every year up in the Bering Sea, by the trawlers as they slice & dice them up and dump them dead back into the sea. Or maybe the one about the 60,000 kings the trawlers sack-grind and dump back into the Gulf of Alaska each season? How could anyone just forget these major issues and instead dribble on and on about a 90% lie or how much they dislike Ricky Gease's? I hope people are starting to see the true manipulation which is going on here.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/21/12 - 07:10 pm
1
2
Carver, the 90% closure really never happen.

TheKenaiKid, you appear disturbed because a news article referenced financial loss within our recreational community? You also over state the set netter loss at 90%. If I normally earned $100,000 per season set netting and a season came along where I made $190,000; then the next season I made $10,000, how much would I have really earned each of the two seasons? The correct answer is that my income has not changed, it is $100,000 per season. This is what really happened to the set netters. In 2011 Cook Inlet set netters made double what they normally made because of the unusual number of sockeyes which attempted to return to the Kenai River. So if a set netter normally earned $100,000 before 2011, and he made $190,000 in 2011. I directly claim that these set netters made their 2012 income in 2011, therefore your claim that their was a 90% loss is a complete and total fabrication. The reality of the situation is that the additional set net fishing in 2011 actually caused a huge financial loss to the guided sport community because of all the king salmon it wiped out. Where was that 2011 story? The story about the guided sport community being unfairly impacted by the excessive set net fishing? Knowing these facts; how can any person attempt to claim a loss when in reality the average east side set netters income remained constant?

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 08/20/12 - 09:27 am
2
2
Carver, the economic impact.

Carver, I will tell you how this compares to the economic impact of the complete closure of 400 east-side set netters. The reason the Clarion has only printed one side to the issue is because there really is only one side. In general 2011 Cook Inlet set netters made double their normal annual income because of the unusually high number of sockeyes attempting to return to the Kenai River. So if a set netter normally earned $100,000 before 2011, and he made $190,000 in 2011, then he only earned $10,000 (10%) in 2012, I directly claim that these set netters made their 2012 income in 2011. It is for this reason I suggest that any claim of loss is a complete and total fabrication. The reality of the situation is that the additional set net fishing in 2011 actually caused a huge financial loss to the guided sport community because of all the king salmon it wiped out. Where was that 2011 story about the guided sport community being unfairly impacted by the excessive set net fishing? I hope everyone can see that we have set netters willing to say and do anything to make a dollar. If anyone doubts what actually happened between 2011 and 2012 just find a Cook Inlet east-side set netter and get his actual income figures. Add the numbers up and in general you will find that they made about double in 2011 and 10% of normal in 2012. In the end it averages out and this is what most east-side set netters know, some years are real good and some are real bad. You have to save it up during the good to survive the bad. It is the nature of the fishery. Believe it or not the same applies to any private business which is based on a natural resource.

Beach Boss
124
Points
Beach Boss 08/20/12 - 11:10 am
1
0
Last time Kenai123

This is the last time I will address your rants Kenai123. You bring up one point I would like to address.
"Limited entry was designed to remain the same, common use was designed to constantly grow." Do you not see a problem with that sentence? When you have a valuable resource you can not just expect it to keep producing for the constantly growing population. More and More pressure on king spawning beds from this growing "common use group" is killing the run by not allowing these fish to spawn!! You just have to look at the first run of kings. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT MR KENAI123.
Yes we do need to look at the trawlers king by-catch. BUT you are automatically assuming that ALL those kings caught from the trawlers are from the Kenai River. What if they aren't. Do you still think its the tail wagging the dog to look at what's happening over the spawning beds on the KENAI RIVER.
I won't even begin to address your comments about fisherman and their annual income. Come on Mr.Kenai123 is that all you can think about is $$$$. Why don't you try to FOCUS on the resource and look at solutions instead of worrying about all these millionaire fisherman. Unlike you most fisherman want a healthy river so that EVERY user group can benefit from it.
One last comment that I want you to think about. 80% of the late run king salmon enter the Kenai river UNTOUCHED by setnetters. Is the solution to eliminate the user group who only has access to 20% of the run??
I'll end it on where we can agree..There were some POOR political (management) decisions made this year that affected ALL user groups. Did you know that this years king run was not a TRAGIC king run. It was just a LATE run. In fact this is a better king run than 2010, and 2011? So I want to know who is going to be held responsible for this seasons decisions. IF the king salmon is not even a stock of concern and they have damn near the upper limits of the escapement for kings WHAT DID THEY GAIN by shutting down 2 industries and overescaping the reds??? This river and resource will have devastating effects after a year like this. Who is going to be held responsible??

CFFL
83
Points
CFFL 08/20/12 - 11:44 am
0
0
kenai 123

You said it and this is the issue,"Common use fisheries are designed to constantly expand as populations grow". They removed cook inlet gill netters from the early run of kings totally and look what has happened to it. Set netters and drifters did not wipe out the early run of kings. Population growth and the increased number of in river users did. You can not have an unlimited amount of users harvesting a limited resource!!!

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS