Current weather

  • Clear sky
  • 18°
    Clear sky
  • Comment

Setnetters sue for extra fishing hours

Posted: July 18, 2013 - 7:59pm  |  Updated: July 20, 2013 - 3:40pm
Photo by Rashah McChesney/Peninsula Clarion  Several of the Smith's 270 fish tumble into a tote at Doug Blossom's Icicle Seafood's receiving station Thursday June 27, 20130 south of Clam Gulch, Alaska.
Photo by Rashah McChesney/Peninsula Clarion Several of the Smith's 270 fish tumble into a tote at Doug Blossom's Icicle Seafood's receiving station Thursday June 27, 20130 south of Clam Gulch, Alaska.

Editor's Note: A paragraph in this article incorrectly stated that the Kenai River had met the lower end of its escapement goal. While several hundred thousand sockeye salmon have been counted by the Kenai River's sonar, that count is not the final escapement as significant harvest of the run happens upstream of the sonar. 

A coalition of commercial fishermen have sued the Alaska Department of Fish and Game over its management of the 2013 sockeye run and requested that the court compel the Fish and Game commissioner to allow up to 51 hours of extra fishing periods for Upper Cook Inlet setnetters.

In its 19-page lawsuit the Cook Inlet Fisherman’s Fund — a commercial fishing advocacy group — accuses the commissioner of Fish and Game of reallocating fish from the commercial groups to other user groups by refusing to allow commercial setnet fishermen extra hours of fishing during the heaviest portions of the sockeye salmon run.

Setnet fishermen stand to lose between $20,000 to $30,000 a day when shut out of the fishery, according to the lawsuit.

Two affidavits filed by local setnet fishermen estimate losses of more than $200,000 during the 2012 season when setnet fishermen on the east side of Cook Inlet were largely kept out of the water.

Mark Ducker, a longtime commercial setnet permit holder and vocal advocate for commercial fishing, accused Fish and Game of targeting setnet fishermen for closure again during the 2013 season, while allowing other user groups to fish on what is shaping up to be near record runs of sockeye on the Kenai and Kasilof rivers.

By Wednesday more than 363,000 sockeye have been counted in the Kasilof River — exceeding the river’s biological escapement goal; on Tuesday more than 240,000 sockeye swam past the sonar on the Kenai River. 

Ducker estimated that he lost between $300,000-$400,000 during the 2012 season while Doug Blossom, a setnet permit holder and president of the Cook Inlet Fisherman’s Fund, estimated his losses at more than $200,000 last season.

According to the affidavit, Ducker saw drift gillnet fishermen near the Kasilof fishing close to his beach setnet sites when he was kept out of the water.

“I watched as drift gillnet boats fished directly next to my set gillnet buoy. In fact, drift gillnet boats were seen fishing inside the set gillnet boundaries,” Ducker wrote in his affidavit. “The Commissioner prevented set gillnet permit holders from fishing out of fear for king salmon, but drift gillnet fishermen — using the same nets I use — fished within inches of my site.”

A hearing has been set for Tuesday at 9 a.m. at the Nesbett Courthouse in Anchorage.

 

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

  • Comment

Comments (32) 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.
kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/19/13 - 04:42 pm
3
3
These set-netters are honestly clueless.

Well now those set-netters can finally use all that legal research they paid for last winter. They were so mad about the 2012 season that they fumed all winter about it while paying their attorneys big bucks $$ to generate a legal action against the ADF&G (if they tried to stop them from wiping out everything in Cook Inlet in 2013). This is the equivalent of the timber industry DESIRING to chop down 2,000 year old redwoods back around the turn of the century. They just HAD to be allowed to chop down all those giant redwoods! It was there right! So lets chop them all down!!!

Cook Inlet set-netters have zero idea what they are doing to the genetics of our salmon. You cannot wipe out 90% of anything (every year) and be left without some kind of giant long term negative result. In the case of our giant Kenai kings, there is excessive set-net impact on our larger kings which are all male and carry the large dog-fanged teeth hanging from their jaws. Females and smaller kings do not have these huge fangs. This characteristic alone causes practically all giant kings to be (so gill net tangled) that they have no chance of escape like some smaller kings have. Most of our giant Kenai kings are now gone but this is the kind of stuff we get from the commercial set-net fishing industry. With redwoods you might be able to cut some smaller trees and leave the larger. With commercial set gill-nets you must chop down the entire forest just because of the gear type. If this gear type wants to catch a bunch of sockeye (and a bunch of kings get in their way) the kings are all dead meat. They KILL THEM ALL and let the cannery and the ADF&G worry about anything going wrong later! This is what big industry always wants to do; it wants to "wipe out" while calling it "harvest". It wants to "destroy" and spin it as "reallocating". These set-nets may want sockeyes but they are willing to deliberately destroy our giant kings to get at them.

Cook Inlet's fisheries are run by commercial fisheries who are basically honest people but they are deceived into believing that they are maintaining a sustainable fishery on both our sockeyes and giant Kenai kings. Many set-netters actually believe that they are "doing no harm" to our salmon genetics or nature itself. Unfortunately, they are honestly wrong. When you see a 10,000 year old strain of wild giant kings being ripped to shreds by commercial fishing businesses who have barely existed for maybe 80 years, while claiming they are sustaining the environment, you got to wonder if something is seriously out of wack. How did these giant kings come from the past to us today and show up this large, only to be allowed by the state to be snared, killed, packed off to a some fish processor and eliminated? The answer is that it may have taken thousands of years to build these salmon genetics but our Alaska Board of Fisheries and commercial set-net industry has managed to rip those genetics to shreds within just a few short decades.

Now our Cook Inlet commercial set-net industry desires to "harvest" our giant Kenai kings, right along with our sockeyes, like industry tried to "harvest" our giant redwoods back a hundred years ago. We can today see how foolish this was to destroy those giant old trees back then. Can we convince the Alaska Board of Fish that we really do want these giant Kenai kings to be around for the future? Today we see the historic industrial attempt to wipe out our old giant redwoods as being clueless. Do we see the same for the industry which is currently trying to wipe out our giant kings?
I call this industrial attempt honestly clueless.

Suss
3917
Points
Suss 07/19/13 - 07:29 pm
2
0
A Little Harsh

If the commercial salt fishery fished as often as the in river commercial fishery fished, I might think you were on to something. Let us just agree that some kings must have somehow got into the river or the guides would have been out of business many years ago. What happened to the early run of kings? The kings will return, give them another 20 to 30 years.

spwright
1376
Points
spwright 07/19/13 - 07:53 pm
2
0
Same Ole Same Ole FISH WARS

7/19/13 Same Ole Same Ole FISH WARS.
One user group assigning blame & BackStabbing each other.

These Fishermen could not agree If it is Night or Day.

This has continued On & On for generations now.

Enough already. SPW

borninak
657
Points
borninak 07/19/13 - 07:56 pm
3
0
Clueless On The Kenai

Clueless is 123 targeting big Kenai River Kings for out of state clients to put on their walls, pocketing the money, and then hypocritically blaming setnetters for all the problems he has caused. Guides have destroyed 2 runs of Kings now and still want to blame ESSN for the early run they don't even fish on! Who is Clueless?
I don't agree with the setnetters who have decided to sue the ADF&G for more fishing time because our biologists due a fantastic job managing a very complex resource, however the exceedingly unintelligent, clueless blather constantly coming from 123 is always so inflamatory and prejudice that at times it warrants a response.

robert white
378
Points
robert white 07/19/13 - 08:56 pm
0
0
resourse

Need to manage where it benefits the most, look around town people!

KenaiKardinal88
474
Points
KenaiKardinal88 07/20/13 - 06:38 am
0
1
Greedy Jerks

To hell with the average Alaskan, let's continue to destroy the king and red salmon runs so that the comm fishers can steal more of the state's "shared" resource.

Whining, greedy, babies.

kenairiverbandit
65
Points
kenairiverbandit 07/20/13 - 07:37 am
2
0
When the numbers are low

When the numbers are low everyone should take it upon themselves to help improve matters. One thing I have always found interesting, is when Bob Penney's shindig is about ready to kick off, nature mysteriously fixes itself for that short period. Really though it can be looked at from a greater distance...for example, hybrid vehicles and wind/solar energy. Both cost more at the checkout stand versus continuing with the same lifestyle and would be better for the earth and its inhabitants. Face it mankind hasn't proven itself capable to take proper care of its home. Sue and complain all you want. The rewards will be short lived and we can all tell our kids what we are leaving them and how to maintain the the downhill pace. Oh, and by the way, the state of affairs isn't exclusive to one particular place on earth.....It is everywhere.

cormit
231
Points
cormit 07/22/13 - 07:38 am
1
0
harvest opportunity

Both the Kenai And Kasilof Rivers have had exceptional sockeye runs this summer. Harvesting the surplus is an important part of maintaining healthy future returns, it is also an important part of our local and state wide economy.

Dip-netters and hook and line fishermen have been turned loose on both rivers with increased bag limits ...... they have been doing very good.

Cook inlet drift boats have been given lots of extra fishing time ...... to try to slow the rate of sockeye entering both rivers. Over escapement serves no purpose, puts stress on spawning and rearing areas and results in economic loss.

Cook Inlet set-netters have not been included in much of the extra harvesting opportunity this summer. Those same set-netters sat out most of last season as well ...... because of low king salmon concerns. The lost income is devastating to the families and businesses dependent on that income and hurts the local economy too.

The reason for not allowing more fishing time for set-netters this summer is to reduce the harvest of king salmon, which are not returning as strong as sockeye. Kenai River fishing guides are still fishing for kings ...... which is why it is unfair to deny reasonable fishing opportunity to set-netters. This is why they are suing and they are right to do so.

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/22/13 - 08:26 am
0
1
Time to rethink the paradigm

Cormit,

The only reason that the guides are still fishing is because it allows the set netters to fish. They both should be closed because the new SEG is biologically unsustainable .

As for the ESSN fishery, I don't understand the love and chest pounding for it. It brings in very little money to the local economy in comparison to the Sport and Personal use fishery and benefits very few users overall.

Sports and personal use fisheries bring 620 million to the local economy where as the total UCI commercial fishery brings in just 30 million.

http://www.housemajority.org/coms/jcis/pdfs/JCISTF_Incomplete_Draft_Repo...

As for the over escapement myth, its being debunked by scientist all over the world with regards to salmon.

"―Higher levels of nutrients (from increased numbers of decaying
carcasses) support more juvenile salmon. More younger salmon survive,
and more salmon eventually come back and die, releasing more nutrients.
This positive feedback can increase the carrying capacity of the freshwater
system."

From NOAA scientists.

The bottom line is that there are thousands of Red runs across the Pacific that produce fish for the market.. And there are 2 runs of Kings in the world that produce kings over 80lbs currently (the Kenai and Skeena) which do you think is deserving of protection?

pengy
256
Points
pengy 07/22/13 - 08:48 am
0
1
Over escapement is a myth.

Over escapement is a myth. The strong runs of sockeye the last few years have come from "over escaped" years.

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/22/13 - 09:06 am
0
1
cormit - your wrong

http://www.housemajority.org/coms/jc...aft_Report.pdf

The damage to the local economy by the loss of sportfishing dollars is much greater than the loss from a few commercial fishermen. ESSN permit holders have the highest average secondary income of any permit holders in the state.

First off MSY has been proved wrong by many scientists and is myth used to push for the continued pillaging of the resource.

Secondly, what makes the secondary income of roughly 100 ESSN permit holders take precedence over one of the greatest King runs on the planet.

cormit
231
Points
cormit 07/22/13 - 09:49 am
2
0
harvest opportunity

To WRO ...... While sport fishing dollars may have been a bigger economic contributor during the height of a booming economy .. it is certainly much less so in our community today.

A current economic study of the value of Cook Inlet commercial salmon can be found here:

http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/July-Issue-1-201...

Stop making it a war between users. Every store in town benefits from "all salmon harvesters." Each one is important to our economy.

The dip net crowd drives many of us nuts. Do they leave lots of money behind? They sure do.

Set netters are one of the highest "local resident" groups of permit holders in the state. They live here and shop here all year long. Set netters and their families are the ones still here in November buying new trucks from stanley Ford and building packages from Spenard Builders.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/22/13 - 11:25 am
1
3
Suss

"If the commercial salt fishery fished as often as the in river commercial fishery fished, I might think you were on to something. Let us just agree that some kings must have somehow got into the river or the guides would have been out of business many years ago. What happened to the early run of kings? The kings will return, give them another 20 to 30 years."

You are correct, some kings did get into the river. Just enough to breath life into a giant guided sport fish king salmon industry. In other words this (king salmon, east side gill net wipe-out) caused the sport fish guide industry. Why would anyone hire a guide if you could catch kings like sockeye's? Want to get rid of sport fish guides? Just get rid of the east side set nets, then you would be left with just sport fish anglers catching kings like sockeyes. These two users groups may appear to "war" with each other but in reality they function together as one king killing machine. Remove the guides and kings will be doomed by only set nets but remove the east side set nets and guides would fade away as unnecessary agents. Allow anglers, set nets and (commercial trawler by-catch in the Gulf of Alaska) to operate and our king runs are history until we fix them.

You want to know what happened to the early run of kings? Lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak commercial fisheries guard the front door to all of our Cook Inlet fisheries. In 1980 lower Cook Inlet / Kodiak commercial fisheries harvested approximately a 1- 2 thousand king salmon annually. By 1990 these same commercial fisheries increased that king catch to 10 - 20 thousand kings annually. By 2000 these fisheries ramped this impact up to 80,000 kings annually. We really don't know what the real numbers are today because once Kodiak got wind that people had started looking over their shoulders, they began under reporting. Guess when this commercial fishery begins each year? Within the first and second weeks of June. THESE ARE ALL FIRST RUN KINGS. Call your local ADF&G, they won't have the Kodiak data but you can request that they contact Kodiak and get it.

"The kings will return, give them another 20 to 30 years." You are also correct on that one.
If we depend on nature to fix our king problem it will take 20 - 30 years, maybe 5 - 10 years if we stopped commercial fishing statewide right now. Our herring and crab production needs to be restored first. Closing commercial fisheries on these stocks needs to happen first. Then at least all commercial salmon set net fisheries need to be severely restricted or even closed to allow time for our runs to rebuild. If we closed all commercial fisheries for 5 - 10 years our kings would likely rebound. Left the way things are we are looking at 30 years worth of on/off fisheries restrictions before we can even hope to see our king runs rebound.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/24/13 - 01:46 pm
1
4
borninak

"Guides put kings on the wall and money in the pocket? Anglers hypocritically blaming set netters for all the problems anglers have caused? Guides destroyed 2 runs of Kings now and still want to blame ESSN for the early run they don't even fish on? I don't agree with the set netters suing the ADF&G for more fishing time but you don't like the clueless blathering?"

Sport fish anglers were officially allocated these king salmon within a very complex and comprehensive salmon management plan. Both guides and set nets "gave and took" within the resulting allocation deal. Guides gave up fisheries to gill nets to get kings and then those kings were "accidentally" caught and sold for cash by set gill nets. Guides do get money in the pocket just like gill netters, it is correct in both cases. Guides gave up fisheries A to get fisheries B and then set gill nets openly took fishery A while manipulating their way into also taking fisheries B. Both users earn money but only guides stuck to the deal they made. Set netters just don't like the deal they made and now then want to have a "do over". They call it "rewriting the plan". Both may make a buck but only guides stuck to the deal they made. So in reality set netters and guides are not comparable. Guides are not taking the bulk of the sockeyes from gill netters but gill netters are taking the bulk of the kings from guides.

Anglers are not hypocrites, anglers did not cause the fisheries problems you are referring to. Anglers impact our fisheries by less than a 10% factor, commercial fisheries impact our fisheries by a 90% factor. It is a fact of life that anytime you kill off 90% of anything annually, that you are going to eventually have a giant problem somewhere along the line. Use your common sense. Fisheries problems do not result from the public nipping around the edges of a resource at a 10% factor, problems happen when you industrially kill off 90% of any resource EVERY YEAR.

Sport fish guides did not destroy any runs anywhere and by the way, that is pure blather coming from you. Sport fish anglers take less than 10%, guides only represent a small percentage of that small percentage. Neither group is even capable of destroying any runs, anywhere. You claiming this is pure blather.

"ESSN dont' even fish the early king run?" For your information... You want to know what happened to our early run of kings? Lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak commercial fisheries guard the front door to all of our Cook Inlet fisheries. In 1980 lower Cook Inlet / Kodiak commercial fisheries harvested approximately a 1- 2 thousand king salmon annually. By 1990 these same commercial fisheries increased that king catch to 10 - 20 thousand kings annually. By 2000 these fisheries ramped this impact up to 80,000 kings annually. We really don't know what the real numbers are today because once Kodiak got wind that people had started looking over their shoulders, they began under reporting. Guess when this commercial fishery begins each year? Within the first and second weeks of June. THESE ARE ALL FIRST RUN KINGS. Call your local ADF&G, they won't have the Kodiak data but you can request that they contact Kodiak and get it.

"You don't agree with the set netters suing the ADF&G for more fishing time and you don't like the clueless blathering?" For someone who doesn't like clueless blathering, you sure do a lot of clueless blathering!

Blathering infers that we lack a right or wrong to an issue, thus resulting is only conflict. There is a right and wrong within these fisheries conflict issues. Money is the problem here. It has been incorrectly attached to fish. Since it is impossible to have to much money and money equals fish within commercial fishing, then it is also impossible to have to much fish within commercial fishing. This then must result in a NEVER ENDING commercial appetite for more and more fish, on into infinity. If you look at our fisheries past you will see that this is in fact precisely what has cause 100% of our fisheries collapses. Excess lust for money, equals excess lust for fish, equals fisheries failure after failure. Try something constructive, locate a single 10% public fishery which has caused a single fisheries collapse. I DARE YOU! You will NEVER find it because it has NEVER happened. I can list 14 major fisheries which were collapsed by commercial fisheries and most of them never recovered. This is not blather, there is a truth here and there is a lie here. Commercial fisheries are lying. They will not admit that money blinds them to good fisheries management.

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/22/13 - 12:45 pm
0
1
ESSN

My link to the commission findings is dead now. The report did state that the 1/3 of the ESSN permits are not fished annualy, also of alaska permit holders, ESSN fishermen hold the highest paying non commercial fishing group.

Every group needs be held accountable, the set netters refusal to do so is sad.

"Stop making it a war between users. Every store in town benefits from "all salmon harvesters." Each one is important to our economy."

Unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of salmon are harvested by one small group of people (roughly 3% take 82% of the salmon) That group also supplies a small amount of economic benefit in comparison to the amount of salmon they take. Generally the jobs provided for by the commercial fishing industry are low paying seasonal processing jobs and deckhand jobs, of which most of that money leaves the state. Whereas sportfishermen travel in with the goal of leaving money in the state.

As for your study, look at the source. It'd be no different than me posting a study from KSRA and trying to pass it off as fair and balanced.

borninak
657
Points
borninak 07/23/13 - 10:11 am
1
0
WRO

WRO, your view of the Commercial Fishing Industry is way off. Commercial fishing throughout Alaska is a multi billion dollar industry that with oil, has been a main stay of the Alaska economy for decades. The State of Alaska set up commerical fishing with the intent of harvesting surplus resources via limited entry permits. You can be a fool and try to diminish the importan ce of commercial fishing to the state economy with your lies and distortions or you can do some research and you will discover inconvenient facts like the annual seafood export for Alaska in 2010 alone was 4.2 billion. . http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell_media/resources_files/alaskaexportcharts20...

It is estimated that the seafood industry’s $3.6 billion in wholesale value generated an additional
$2.2 billion in indirect and induced economic output for a total contribution of $5.8 billion to
Alaska’s economic output. The seafood industry also generated a total of 78,519 direct, indirect and
induced jobs and $1.75 billion in direct, indirect and induced payments to labor and income.
http://www.housemajority.org/coms/jcis/pdfs/Seafood_Industry_Impact_Stud...

Are these the insignificant numbers you speak of?

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/23/13 - 10:36 am
0
1
Missed the point

I should have qualified my comments, they are all directly relating to the Upper cook inlet fishery, of which the ESSN's play a relatively small role economically. With regards to southcentral AK, specifically the peninsula, Commercial fishing is absolutely dwarfed in both economic impact and users by the sport and personal use fishermen.

I don't have a problem with commercial fishing overall, I grew up around it and participating in it. (set net hand, tender, etc) What I do have a problem with is non selective fishing (ESSN's and Trawlers) are two prime examples of that. Where their bycatch of non targets species is much higher than say drifters, pot cod fishermen, trollers etc. These fisheries generally get a much higher percentage of their targeted species and with the exception of the drifters, all have the opportunity to release non target species alive.

borninak
657
Points
borninak 07/23/13 - 12:32 pm
2
0
Off Again

VRO,

Your views of the southcentral (Upper Cook Inlet) obviously are very different from mine, and I suspect your views are formulated around your being a Kenai River Guide?Your assesment of the economics is skewed and you have nothing to back it up. And by the way, your dead wrong about "bycatch" and "non targeted species". East side set netters catch sockeye and king salmon and it is completely legal. Show me where the State of Alaska says that setnetters are not to catch Kings and sell them when they renew my Limited Entry Permit Card every year. You can't show me that because we have legally caught kings, silvers, pinks, and sockeye for over 100 years now and the State isn't calling it bycatch. You came up with that nonsense up by reading way to much of Kenai123's rants.

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/23/13 - 04:14 pm
0
0
Back up information

http://www.housemajority.org/coms/jcis/pdfs/JCISTF_Incomplete_Draft_Repo....

This is where the majority of my information comes from (directly from the draft report from the alaska state legislature)

You should read it..

This little gem is in there, you may not agree with it..

"In light of current grossly disproportionate salmon allocations in Cook Inlet, with 82% of the resource allocated to less than 3% of the users, it‘s hard to imagine That‘s especially true when one considers the equally disproportionate economic benefit currently being generated by the two segments of the fishery ($630 million sport - $31 commercial)."

If I am dead wrong, why are the beaches covered in dead starry flounder? Why when I picked set nets, did we catch flounder, halibut, and pretty much any fish that ran near shore? Where as when I pitched drift boat holds, its was always 99% plus sockeyes (the target species) and not much else. The dirty little secret that most of you don't want to talk about is fall out, big kings are not secured in the net well, hence why a disproportionate number of large hooked nosed bucks are caught in ratio to other sexes and sizes. A lot of hens and smaller kings fall out dead when the tide slacks or nets are flagged for picking during mid tide closures, because set nets are not made to hold them. Why is it the drift netters can catch 1000 sockeye for every king they catch where as the Set netters are 1/10th that ratio. Yes, I know its legal for you to catch them, but in these times of low abundance, no one is willing to give up their sheckel to protect them.

I am not a kenai river guide and my dislike for their lack of ethics with regards for Catch and Release and refusal to do what's right for the resource is well known. If you want to argue this, I have plenty of studies showing that it works for Kings.

Kenai
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/fedaidpdfs/FDS91-39.PDF

Kings in Oregon
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/willamettesalmonidrme/sites/default/fil...

My biggest gripes at the end of the day is the new lowered SEG, that as one dissenting biologist said, may as well be 0. Which leaves the river and ESSN's open for harvest of one of the greatest runs of king salmon in the world. The fact is, it wouldn't have been lowered, if it wasn't for commercial influence on the Alaska Department of Fraud and Greed board. As outlined in the study above, it's pretty much unconstitutional what is happening with the UCI fisheries with regards to benefits to all user groups based on maximum benefit.

akal
252
Points
akal 07/24/13 - 09:25 am
2
0
commercial

when people take fish because they are making money this IS commercial . Guides are in it for the money, this makes them commercial, this is money driving their activities. they should be controlled so the greed won't destroy the fish. think about it.

borninak
657
Points
borninak 07/23/13 - 10:29 pm
1
0
Not Fooling Anybody WRO

First of all, the beaches are not covered in dead starry flounder. You're a liar and saying that you have lost ALL credibility. You never worked a day on a beach site or in fish hold so save the bull for someone that believes it. Second, you conveniently didn't address the bycatch point I made because you don't even know what the definition of bycatch is. So it doesn't really matter whether ESSN catch big bucks, small kings, hens, bent noses or anything else because its our legal right to catch them, sell them, and report them unlike sportfisherman. If I want to use large heavy king gear and target Kings, I could do that too because my limited entry salmon fishing permit doesn't say sockeye only on it.
Finally, aren't you the one that said this in an earlier post. "As for your study, look at the source. It'd be no different than me posting a study from KSRA and trying to pass it off as fair and balanced." Then you post a link to a bunch of politicians from the valley trying to close down ESSN so more fish get North by presenting a bunch of bogus economics. Get real.

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/24/13 - 06:53 am
0
1
In case you missed it

Definition of Bycatch

Catch which is retained and sold but which is not the target species for the fishery
Species/sizes/sexes of fish which fishermen discard
Non-target fish, whether retained and sold or discarded
Unwanted invertebrate species, such as echinoderms and non-commercial crustaceans, and various vulnerable species groups, including seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals and elasmobranchs (sharks and their relatives).

Kings would definitely not be considered the target species for the UCI fishery. Every Emergency Order directly addresses sockeye as the target fish. As for the flounder, I've seen hundreds of them dead on the beach in my life time, not an area of concern, but they are what would be considered by catch.

As for attacking my credibility, I really don't care what you think, I pitched salmon on skiff tenders at Inlet salmon in the 90's, worked the slime line in 92, and worked on Osamars site in the 90's as well. I also personal use fished the beaches south of the ditch when they were open as well.

Commercial whalers had a right to kill whales for 200 years, Market hunters had the right to use punt guns for a 100 years,
Go ahead and keep preaching about your right to kill whatever King you want in times of low abundance..

As for your suit, I don't think you'll win simply because in precedent has been set in other cases in Alaska that the conservation of the species is more important than the user groups. Something ADFG should try..

One thing you still failed to comment on is, how is it fair that 82% of the resource goes to 3% of the users? The study did address both study put out by the commercial fishing lobby and the sports fishing lobby and was reviewed by a professor from UAA that specializes in fisheries economics. The valley legislators should be looking out for their constituents and fisheries, because ADFG and the UCI commercial fishermen sure aren't..

borninak
657
Points
borninak 07/24/13 - 08:56 am
1
0
Spin It Again WRO

I love the way you pick and choose your "references" to spin your distorted views, but your fooling nobody.

DEFINITION OF BYCATCH:
The definition of bycatch, as stated in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which can be seen clearly on the NOAA Fisheries Website. WRO, does your definition trump the definition put forth by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act? http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_whatis.htm

"Fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are NOT sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. Such term does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program."

You want me to address your "fairness" hangup? Talk about being clueless. Every man, woman and child in the State of Alaska couldn't store Alaska's Seafood exports in 1,000 garages if we wanted to make sure and distribute "fairly". The State of Alaska has thrived economically from Commercial Fishing for Decades by harvesting the surplus of fish and exporting them and you want your fair share? Go down to the Kenai River, put your dipnet in the water and in a couple of hours you will have more fish than your family can consume for years. Still not enough for you? Come see me and I will give you some fish so life can be fair for you.
Finally, I'm not involved in the law suit in any way because I don't support it as I stated before. I respect the authority of The Department of Fish & Game, I fish legally when they say I can, I respect their decision to stop fishing when needed (like they just made us do yesterday), and I don't berate their professionalism like you and your friends do because you can't manipulate the fishery to your liking.

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/24/13 - 09:11 am
0
1
Bobbing and weaving..

I think its pretty obvious that my comments are directly addressing the UCI fishery, if I was addressing the state fishery the skew would be somewhere in the 99% to 1% Com fish to all other users.

As for my definition, the NOAA definition is pretty narrow, If you research it, there are several sources that use the definition I mention. Even with that, flounder, fall out, and other species are still considered bycatch of the ESSN fishery.

"I respect the authority of The Department of Fish & Game, I fish legally when they say I can, I respect their decision to stop fishing when needed (like they just made us do yesterday), and I don't berate their professionalism like you and your friends do because you can't manipulate the fishery to your liking."

Really? The lowered SEG this year for the late run kings was directly due to the pressure put on ADFG by the set netters and com fish lobby. The ending of the late run Kasilof king research (3 years in to a 5 year study) to set an SEG for the late run kings came due to pressure from the COM fish lobby.

borninak
657
Points
borninak 07/24/13 - 09:37 am
1
0
Flounders Are Bycatch

Flounders are bycatch alright. We can agree on one thing. And according to your assessment, the beaches are "covered" with them. Maybe you're onto something here.....
Didn't like the definition of bycatch put forth by the Magnuson Stevens Act? The primary law governing marine fisheries management in the United States. So you sought out some irrelevant definition that suits your views better. Who's bobbing and weaving?

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/24/13 - 03:01 pm
0
0
Your right

Obviously by that definition, Kings aren't bycatch. They are just the limiting factor in your opportunity to fish.

Anyways we'll never agree on this or pretty much any fisheries issue.

Hopefully for both our sakes, conservation will take precedence over greed in all user groups and in our lifetimes we'll both once again be able to harvest a few Kenai kings without feeling like we are trying to kill the last Buffalo.

Thanks for the offer on the Reds, too many years of freezers filled with Reds has burnt me out on them. If I never eat another one or catch another one, my life will still be complete.

borninak
657
Points
borninak 07/24/13 - 10:03 am
0
0
Conservation

I'm all for conservation, so we do have common ground. I just think that we need to have a neutral party telling everyone when everyone can fish and when they can not. That has to be the Department of Fish & Game. Everybody wants to accuse them of being lobbied, sold out, biased, blah blah blah, but they are good honest ethical people doing their part in the process. I don't like the lawsuit because it attempts to force commercial fishing when the time for some conservation is necessary and I can't support that. I won't be the one to kill the last buffalo.

WRO
116
Points
WRO 07/24/13 - 10:28 am
0
0
ADFG

I disagree with your take on ADFG being responsible.

Look at the last round of emergency openers for the Kasilof. They in no way take into account the late run kings, which to my knowledge are not abundance managed and have no SEG in place. (same goes the lack of management of the sport fishing on the second run as well) They manage the commercial fishery there for a red run that was heavily hatchery augmented by cook inlet aquaculture until just a few years ago. I still don't think they know what the appropriate SEG is for the river as they have nearly tripled it in the last 20 years.

The Kenai King run has been tracking significantly below even last years numbers, yet they chose to wait until the season was almost over to take any measures to conserve it. In addition they have continued to lower the SEG on both runs instead of bumping up conservation methods and taking a tough stand.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/27/13 - 03:29 pm
0
1
borninak

borninak, believe's WRO view of the Commercial Fishing Industry is way off? borninak, incorrectly believe's that because we are able to generate a ton of cash from our fisheries that we automatically should do it.

I agree 100% with WRO, the lowering of the Kenai River king SEG was the direct result of ADF&G and Board of Fish corruption. That biologist was totally correct, lowering the SEG is the same as wiping out the kings because that is precisely what it will cause in the end. Try using the brain for a second; if nets get shut-down early because of a lack of kings and you reduce your king expectation so you can keep the nets fishing, what is going to stop you from reducing your king expectations again later as the downward king spiral continues. It is a completely corrupt process and has resulted in an unconstitutional maximum benefit to the least number of users. Rarely do we every get a glimmer of the true fall-out from these east-side set nets. The fisheries destruction is indeed massive. We feel the king destruction as we fish for them in our rivers but the environmental damage beyond the kings is truly unbelievable.

As I run the Kenai River I see many state agencies checking lots of resident sport fisherman, to make sure they have correctly list things like the date they harvested a fish on their fishing license. These personal are hanging all over the river and hiding behind every leaf or tree. Is there even one agency or person out there walking the beaches of Cook Inlet and counting the massive destruction falling out from these set gill nets? No there isn't, they are all busy enforcing sport fish regulations on the public. The public impacts the resource at 5 - 10% while a commercial fishing is impacting the same resource at 90%, which is being completely ignored.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 07/27/13 - 02:57 pm
1
0
borninak, believes WRO view of the Commercial Fishing

borninak, believes WRO view of the Commercial Fishing Industry is way off? borninak incorrectly believes that because we "could" generate a ton of cash from our fisheries, that we automatically must do it. Our constitution requires that our natural resources be used to benefit the maximum number of residents, NOT the minimum number of residents, like we get within commercial fishing. Commercial fishing basically take 90% of our fisheries and sells it for cash which goes to about 3% of our residents. This is a completely unconstitutional use of our fisheries. This is precisely why the state had to get a specific constitutional amendment to allow such an unconstitutional and unfair way of using a public resource.

I agree 100% with WRO, the lowering of the Kenai River king SEG was the direct result of ADF&G and Board of Fish corruption. That biologist was totally correct, lowering the SEG is the same as wiping out the kings because that is precisely what it will cause in the end. Try using the brain for a second; if nets get shut-down early because of a lack of kings and you reduce your king expectation so you can keep the nets fishing, what is going to stop you from reducing your king expectations again later as the downward king spiral continues. It is a completely corrupt process and has resulted in an unconstitutional maximum benefit to the least number of users. Rarely do we every get a glimmer of the true fall-out from these east-side set nets. The fisheries destruction is indeed massive. We feel the king destruction as we fish for them in our rivers but the environmental damage beyond the kings is truly unbelievable.

As I run the Kenai River I see many state agencies checking lots of resident sport fisherman, to make sure they have correctly list things like the date they harvested a fish on their fishing license. These personal are hanging all over the river and hiding behind every leaf or tree. Is there even one agency or person out there walking the beaches of Cook Inlet and counting the massive destruction falling out from these set gill nets? No there isn't, they are all busy enforcing sport fish regulations on the public. The public impacts the resource at 5 - 10% while a commercial fishing is impacting the same resource at 90%, which is being completely ignored.

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