Current weather

  • Few clouds
  • 34°
    Few clouds
  • Comment

Op-ed: UCIDA proposals would hurt personal-use, sport fishing

Posted: December 22, 2013 - 4:54pm

The United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA), the industry organization that represents the Cook Inlet commercial drift gillnet fleet, and a number of UCIDA members acting as individuals have launched an all-out attack on personal use and sportfishing in Cook Inlet through a series of nearly 50 proposals submitted to the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF). The BOF will meet to deliberate these proposals and others in Anchorage January 31 through February 13, 2014.

High stakes meetings of the BOF and headline news are nothing new to the “fish wars” in Upper Cook Inlet. Each side has aggressively sought to defend or gain share over the years. But UCIDA’s current attack on personal use and sportfishing is one for the books.

Four user groups compete for five abundant but fully-allocated salmon species: commercial (drift and set net), sport (unguided and guided), personal use and subsistence. Upper Cook Inlet is home to over 375,000 Alaskans or 60 percent of the state’s population. The complex mixed stock nature and competing user demands of its fisheries are unique among all those regulated by the Board of Fisheries.

The Board of Fisheries attempted to bring some order to the chaos in 1977. Policy 77-27-FB allocated fish “primarily” to sport users prior to July 1, commercial users from that date to August 15 and sport again after that. Department was also directed “to manage the upper Cook Inlet commercial fisheries to minimize the incidental take of “Susitna coho”, “Kenai king” and “early Kenai coho”, all of which are present in the marine waters during the July 1-August 15 time period. This policy stands today as 5 AAC 21.363.

The term “minimize” was also addressed in the later versions of the Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management Plan by providing prescriptive directions for the in season management of Northern District coho, late-run Kenai king and early-run Kenai coho. Now these prescriptive management directives are found in the various sockeye, king and other step-down management plans for various drainages.

UCIDA and others begin their attack with Proposal 136 seeking to strip the Drift Gillnet Management Plan of 35 years of directives which have evolved over the years to ensure adequate escapement of salmon into the Northern District Drainages and minimize the harvest of Northern District and Kenai coho salmon in order to provide sport and guided sport fishermen a reasonable opportunity to harvest these salmon stocks over the entire run.

UCIDA seeks to remove the “conservation corridor” adopted into regulation in 2011, which provides the department specific instructions how to allow salmon into the Northern District. In place of the corridor, UCIDA seeks to remove other sub-district designations requested by ADFG and add weeks to its fishing season. UCIDA also asks to lower the number of sockeye salmon required in the Kenai River so as to allow even more fishing time for the drift gillnet fishery. In a year of average abundance, this proposal would result in at least 500,000 fewer sockeye, coho and chum salmon reaching streams and rivers that support the personal use and sport fisheries of Upper Cook Inlet.

UCIDA and UCIDA members continues their attack with a series of proposals that dictate what they think the world should look like for personal use and sport fishermen. First, UCIDA seeks to reduce the limit for personal use by at least 50% and prohibit dip netting from boats. They then want to prohibit catch and release of all salmon all the time, prohibit bait and require barbless hooks. UCIDA follows up with a proposal to prohibit sport fishing for coho salmon on the Little Susitna River on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays. UCIDA, the working folk love this one.

There are more, in fact almost 40 more, that seek to expand UCIDA’s opportunity or dramatically reduce the opportunity for personal use and sport fishermen. UCIDA might have chosen to forward a progressive suite of proposals to optimize fishing opportunity and economic value for its members while also acknowledging the legitimate but competing values of personal use, sport and other commercial fisheries. Instead, UCIDA proposes to have it all.

Kevin Delaney is a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Director and is currently a fisheries consultant for the Kenai River Sportfishing Association. To learn more and write a letter to the Board of Fisheries go to www.krsa.com.

  • Comment

Comments (38) 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.
smithtb
240
Points
smithtb 12/24/13 - 12:26 am
4
1
Hmmmmmm...

Mr. Delaney,

I see you've chosen to lump together proposals by UCIDA itself, and proposals by UCIDA members "acting as individuals" as though they've all come from the same group.

I get that.

So, how can I continue to believe the Executive Director of your employer, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, when he claims that KRSA isn't involved in the Setnet ban initiative that he himself sponsored? In fact, 8 of the 18 current KRSA board members sponsored this initiative. I'll bet that's a majority of the Alaskan residents on the "nonprofit" board that writes your paychecks.

Could you tell me again who is launching an all-out attack?

Paul Dale
69
Points
Paul Dale 12/25/13 - 06:50 pm
1
0
Proposals

Kevin, it would take little imagination and effort to write a similar article featuring wildly unlikely proposals by KRSA and friends. It would take imagination and fabrication of tremendous proportion to come up with a commercial fish comparable of the set net ban your group formed and is advocating. There is no inclusiveness in the set net ban. I don't find the proposal process the board uses to be productive, your article demonstrates why, and I mean no disrespect to UCIDA, KRSA, or you when I say that, we are all participants in a process that is simply not up to the task.

Seafarer
1147
Points
Seafarer 12/26/13 - 12:32 pm
2
1
Comic Relief!

Your letter gave me a belly laff, Delaney! Thanks! Your cover-up is utterly ridiculous as to be deliciously comical.

Just seeing KRSA is enough for a lot of people. Your Penney-run organization seeks to eliminate all Commercial Fishing. I got news for you cowboys...Commercial Fishing is older than any of you. It will continue no matter how you try and spin, disguise, bribe, or threaten. We, Alaskans, are on to your inhumane efforts.

KenaiKardinal88
512
Points
KenaiKardinal88 12/26/13 - 01:31 pm
1
5
Kevin Delaney - A Hero For The Average Alaskan

Thanks a million to Kevin Delaney. One of the few people qualified to speak about Alaska's salmon fisheries.

Now the greedy commie fishers attack him. All Delaney has done is point out what the commie fishers are doing - ruining the prospects for the average Alaskan family to share in a public resource - salmon.

Shut down the commie fishers, harvest at the stream mouth and put the revenue in the state bank accounts, quit funding these hateful people; many aren't even residents.

Norseman
3616
Points
Norseman 12/26/13 - 04:31 pm
1
1
commie fishers? really?

commie fishers? really? kinda sounds like the McCarthy era.

LHART11
75
Points
LHART11 12/26/13 - 08:54 pm
5
0
Ignorance is Bliss.

Dear KenaiKardinal88, Kevin Delaney's allocation mongering makes him no more qualified to speak about Alaska's salmon fisheries than any other pandering, agenda-driven solicitor.

His obvious scorn against the commercial fishery, aligned with KRSA's and your own hatred, exemplify why our fisheries are in jeopardy. It is despicable to call someone a "hero" who is tied to an organization that is selfishly trying to ban another user group.

As an average Alaskan myself, I disagree with your vision that "prospects for the average Alaskan family" mean the ridiculous sport and personal use fisheries currently taking place; from the Kenai dipnetting circus and gunnel-bumping King fishery, to the Northern District's production problems due to predation.

I don't blame UCIDA for fighting to keep what they have, and refusing to go down with the sinking ship the sport and personal use fisheries have imposed on them. You can't honestly expect Alaskans to sit back and be steamrolled.

Remember, when you speak of "revenue", "hateful people", and "residents", the organization Kevin Delaney works for wants to end all commercial fishing in the Cook Inlet - an economic disaster for all Alaskans, especially those local Alaskans where commercial fishing has long been a way of life, family, and community.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/27/13 - 04:01 am
1
3
Process not up to the task? Fish Wars?

The process is not up to the task because we are allowing people to directly sell fish commercially. When you directly connect money, fish and humans, there is no such thing as enough fish because there is no such thing as enough money. When asked how much money was enough, Howard Hughes responded, "just one more dollar". How much fish is enough fish? Just one more fish.

You cannot resolve this fisheries problems as long as our government allows people to directly catching & sell fish and then sit on our fisheries boards and committees. This kind of a feedback loop allows commercial fisheries profits to be funneled back politically into allowing ever increasing commercial fisheries profits, along with the resulting user conflicts and negative environmental impacts.

This is what happened back in 1959 when commercial fish traps were allowed to wipe out our salmon. It also happened on the west coast when commercial fisheries profits looped back politically to allow increased commercial access, until the resource collapsed. It also happened on the east coast within their cod fishery.

Have all the board meetings or fish wars that you like; as long as you can directly sell a fish and then politically manipulate future fisheries management with the profits, it is just a matter of time before Alaska duplicates the fisheries mistakes made in the lower 48 eight.

We all know that the process is not up to the task. But that is what you get as long as you allow fisheries profits to manipulate THE PROCESS. As long as Alaska allows this "conflict of interest management connection" the process will always be handicapped.

LHART11
75
Points
LHART11 12/27/13 - 11:26 am
4
1
Kevin Delaney & KRSA = Allocation Grabbers

kenai123, you are confusing your concern for conservation, with allocation grabs.

Kevin Delaney represents KRSA's selfish notion of allocation grabbing; where one user group must surrender their allocation to another user group. In this case shifting more fish to the sportfishery so they can just catch them in-river. Funny how Delaney does not speak of proposals by his own peers to completely BAN the commercial fishery, or the havoc his open-ended, unlimited commercial sportfishery has imposed on our resource. It is Delaney and KRSA who you should ask about "user conflicts", "negative environmental impacts", "profits", and "how much is enough" - look no farther than the Kenai River they exploit to no end.

The sportfishery is a commercial fishery too; one dominated by unlimited commercial guides, economic-driven commercial groups like KRSA and KRPGA, advertising propaganda and hyped solicitations, political lobbying, emotional pandering, and so on - all selling out the resource for money. If you are still in denial, please revisit Bob Penney's (KRSA) comment about filling the Kenai River with Kings for the purpose of an economic engine run hard - that is the agenda here.

For over a century, UCI commercial fishing (selling fish for money) has sustained our runs, economy, and community. Unlike the sportfishery, that fishery remains limited, heavily regulated, and restricted, unable to grow. In fact for decades most of it has been completely closed to allow Early Run Kings in the Kenai River, and Northern District passage, yet the sportfisheries still killed them off in-river until the sportfishing was so poor management was forced to close it.

Fish traps? A moot subject. They are illegal today, and runs flourished and sustained themselves under the current commercial fishery methods we have today....until the sportfishery arrived. Lower 48? Dams, urban development, lack of regulation, etc...nothing Alaska has. Also, if what happened to fisheries in the lower 48 is supposedly happening to Alaska, then why support Kevin Delaney and KRSA?...they are trying to take more fish for themselves...exactly the greed that happened in the lower 48!

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/27/13 - 05:31 pm
1
3
LHART11, you are wrong but we don't blame you.

LHART11, basically everything you posted is incorrect but you are not to be blamed for this lack. You have been blinded by (fish & money and money & fish). Because of your blindness you cannot see the fisheries destructions going on around you. I would compare your fisheries blindness to a person addicted to alcohol or drugs. When confronted with their addiction they point to everything around them as being the reason they are in their current problem condition. Today you are pointing at Kevin Delaney, tomorrow it will be me or someone else. Belive it or not everyone around the commercial fishing industry is not the problem, the problem is a commercial industry which purely exists from "monetary profit gained DIRECTLY from the sale of a fish". This problem specifically results only within the DIRECT sale of a fish, not someone catching and eating a fish, not tourists watching bears feed on fish, not guides helping a person catch a fish, not hardware stores selling gear to a person who is going fishing, not gas stations selling gas to someone going fishing, not restaurants providing a meal to someone going fishing. The problem only results when a human DIRECTLY catches and then sells the fish. This DIRECT connection is the first negative domino to fall in a series of domino's which then must also fall. The sequence is roughly catch, sale, profit, reinvestment, lobbying, political appointments, fisheries manipulations, increased commercial access, increased commercial catch, increased commercial sales, increased commercial profits, increased commercial reinvestment, increased lobbying, increased commercial political appointments, increased fisheries manipulations. On and on and on.

The end results is always resource collapse and is always started by the DIRECT sale of that first fish. So far... none of the other INDIRECT revenue producers have attempted to make this kind of DIRECT ever increasing dooms-day progression, only commercial fisheries. So you may complain as much as you like about INDIRECT fisheries sales but the facts are very plain. INDIRECT fisheries sales did not destroy our east or west coast fisheries, DIRECT fisheries sales were responsible for these disasters. Maybe someday INDIRECT users will become as bad as commercial fishing but that is not today.

None of the commercial fishermen involved within these destroyed fisheries saw what was coming but they themselves were the seeds of their own destruction. They all innocently began the commercial catch & sale cycle and they were all out of business within a few short decades. 100% of these commercial fisheries claimed that what they were doing was part of their heritage, rightfully theirs forever and that everything was just fine. 100% of their fisheries then collapsed. East coast fishermen then moved to west coast fisheries. West coast fisheries collapsed so they then moved to northwest fisheries and now we have to listen to you LHART11, telling us that it's not commercial fisheries, it's everyone around them....

So you're not alone LHART11, you're in the good company of many a commercial fisherman who also never saw and continue to not see "it coming". None of you guys are responsible for anything so we don't blame any of you for your lack of fisheries wisdom, well at least not any more than we blame the 4th street alcoholic begging for a quarter for his next bottle.

borninak
661
Points
borninak 12/27/13 - 03:58 pm
4
1
LHart11 is 100% Correct

LHart you are 100% correct in Everything you said. Kenai 123 has a long track record of being a complete hypocrit and now he fancies himself a psychologist to boot. You see Kenai 123 is motivated by his commerical guide fishing greed and has the audacity to blame everybody, including the Department of Fish & Game, for his failure to enrich himself. Therefore he hates anything and everybody that doesn't go along his narrow minded view of the fishery. He especially hates our State Biologists because after 25 years of trying, he has failed to convince Fish & Game of anything.
The fact is that Kevin Delaney works for KRSA and they are working hard to allocate all the fish away from commercial fisherman and into the hands of commercial boys like Kenai 123 who is a Kenai River Fishing Guide. Therefore Kenai 123 will say and do anything, point to the evil and greedy and gillnetters, refuse to acknowledge he has dipped heavily into the resource, but NOBODY will be fooled by his hypocrisy.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/27/13 - 06:17 pm
1
4
LHART11 & borninak are both wrong.

borninak, basically has no track record on any issue but if you would like him to say the color is black you need only say that it is white. It does not take a psychologist to see that human greed can lead to some pretty bad stuff. When you connect catching and selling a fish to a dollar bill that stuff is fisheries destruction. Both LHART11 and borninak appear to be part of or related to the bunch who destroyed our east coast fisheries, moved onto our west coast fisheries and is now targeting our Alaskan fisheries. Bank account MAXIMUM fisheries resources minimum.

borninak why should you care who Kevin Delaney works for? Why should you care who he is able to allocate fisheries to or away from? All Delaney is doing in this case is turning on a spot light to what the commercial drifters have been up to in their dark smokey back rooms where the general public cant see. He is just saying hey look at that Proposal 136 where the drifters want to strip a three decade old fisheries management directive which attempts to allow a few fish to ACTUALLY escape into the Northern District Drainage's. borninak and LHART11 are looking to intercept those fish and take great offense to Delaney highlighting the 136 issue to the public. This pair would rather that Delaney shut-up and allow the public to be caught unaware of this nasty UCIDA proposal until it rests before the board of fish.

Why would anyone be soooo concerned with or against this kind of free speech? Why would any poster claim Delaney, the KRSA or any of its friends have no right to publish what these commercial fishermen are up to? Think for a second people, why would these commercial fishermen desire to prevent you from understanding what is being done to your own public fisheries and out of the view of the general public? borninak and LHART11 both want Delaney and all connected to the KRSA to go away and not speak about Proposal 136. Think for just a second , why do you think they would want to do that?

LHART11
75
Points
LHART11 12/28/13 - 02:32 pm
5
1
Wrong?..Right?..Blaming?..How About We Just Call a Spade a Spade

I can respect your biased opinion kenai123, but here is where you are wrong:

First, I am not a commercial fisherman, nor do I have anything to do with commercial fishing. I am a local sportfisherman who is ashamed of what folks like you, Kevin Delaney, and KRSA have done to my fisheries. I have no agenda, other than bringing back our once magnificent fisheries so our future children can experience them. You simply represent your own agenda - a commercial sportfishing agenda.

Second, one need look no further than the exploited sportfishery to recognize the theme of, "fish and money", blame-games, allocation grabs, and all those other domino effects you mentioned. I will step up to the plate and admit I do not condone everything about the commercial fishery, however I will not tolerate folks like yourself who are blinded by, support, and hide, certain sportfishing organization attempts to selfishly exterminate other user groups - your agenda: BAN commercial fishing.

Third, it is dishonest to say the "DIRECT" sale of fish is the problem. We know the early run of Kenai River Kings is not fished by the commercial set nets - it's been closed for decades. Yet ridiculous in-river sportfishing pressure (mostly unlimited commercial sportfishing pressure) continued relentlessly, until that sportfishery became so dismal it had to be completely closed. At best it suffers from selective harvest issues. So perhaps it's time to put your blame-game aside, and call a spade a spade. Remember, the UCI commercial fishery has a long history of sustaining runs, and it has not been able to grow for decades due to limited entry permitting. Our sportfishery?...NOT.

Directly selling them or not, fish are in fact exploited by our sportfishery, particularly the commercial sportfishery (guides). We sportfishermen fish to catch fish, as evidenced by advertisements, brochures, hype, and sportsmen shows soliciting us to come catch them. We've all seen the pictures and wall-hangings. If you disagree that our sportfishery is not exploiting fish "directly" for money, then I contend the sportfishery needs no fish, and this entire allocation issue is moot. Of course that is not reasonable...just like banning the commercial fishery is not reasonable. See, direct or not, the fish still get exploited for money.

Fourth, comparing today's commercial sale of fish in the UCI to what happened on the east/west coasts is apples and oranges. Today's UCI commercial fisheries are managed completely differently, under completely different sustainable policies, statutes, limits, regulations, and enforcement. Not to mention the fisheries, stocks, and waters themselves are of a completely different animal. Where the system fails is succumbing to the likes of social-economic pressure and emotion-based management, which you represent. I'd like to say we can't blame you for your ignorance, but that would be a cop-out.

Finally, yes kenai123, we predicted what folks like you, Kevin Delaney, and KRSA were going to do to our fisheries. And now here you are grabbing for more allocation at the expense of the resource, economy, and the decimation of another user group - all under the notion that you should have all the fish and Joe who buys it at the store should have none. Well, the gig is up. The public is seeing through your antics. You've driven the sportfishery into the ground, and now it's time to pay the Piper. I see no reason to take the healthy, sustained UCI commercial sockeye fishery down with your sinking ship. After all, for over a century they've been putting enough fish in the rivers to sustain runs.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/29/13 - 03:32 pm
1
5
LHART11 you are incorrect.

First, LHART11 is incorrect regarding "agendas" because every person including LHART11 has an agenda. I suggest that the LHART11 agenda is for him to act like smoke or communications disruption before a large battle. In his case half-truth and misinformation. The large battle being our coming Upper Cook Inlet Board of Fish meeting in late January. Since LHART11 and everyone else has an agenda, it is just a matter of figuring out what that agenda might be. My agenda is fisheries reality and truth along with majority rule.

LHART11 mis-spoke about me, Delaney or the KRSA doing anything to HIS PERSONAL FISHERIES. All three of these elements are anglers and anglers represent only about 5-10% of any fisheries impacts, thus not a major factor when considering what has happened to LHART11 PERSONAL FISHERY. Also if LHART11 really desired to bring back our once "magnificent fishery", he would be logically directing 90% of his fisheries concerns toward the 90% limited entry commercial fisheries industry, which is the major player impacting HIS PERSONAL FISHERY. Instead LHART11 major concern is the minor player, which makes his words completely illogical. These illogical words therefore call into question his claim to "not have anything to do with the commercial fishing industry." A vote for LHART11 being a commercial fisherman

Second, LHART11 does not support "everything" about the commercial fishery but he can't tolerate people working to remove other user groups? Another illogical point since (as pointed out above) LHART11 is a commercial fisherman and the commercial fishing industry does actively work to remove the sportfishing industry. This means LHART11 is either a commercial fisherman or completely insane.

Third, LHART11 believes that "the early run of Kenai River kings is not fished by the commercial set nets because it's been closed for decades." This is a complete mis-fact and it reveals that LHART11 has an extremely restricted amount of knowledge regarding the many problems Kenai River king's encounter during their lives. Kenai king's must survive from the river to the Gulf of Alaska and back, Kodiak Island set and drift commercial gill nets alone begin impacting early run Kenai kings around the first week of June each year. LHART11 is pretending to understand the many factors which could severely impact Kenai kings but he is obviously unaware of one of the first and basic commercial fisheries which has been impacting them. This is a typical commercial fisherman's prospective because most commercial fishermen have very little knowledge regarding elements outside their local area. Another vote for LHART11 being a commercial fisherman. LHART11 also claims that the Kenai River was closed to early run king sport fishing because of in-river angler pressure. This is also untrue simply because most in-river king sportfisheries statewide were also closed for a lack of king salmon at this same time. This statewide disruption of our king salmon fisheries speaks directly to this problem originating beyond in-river elements and within the ocean. LHART11 not understanding the statewide nature of our lack of king salmon and instead redirecting his attention to other locations, is a typical commercial fisheries tactic. Another vote for LHART11 being a commercial fisherman. LHART11 also then claims to not be blaming anyone within this issue but then he states that the commercial fishery has not increased in size but the sportfishery has. Most readers will see this as him blaming the sportfishery. The facts behind the LHART11 blaming claim are also incorrect. The total number of gill nets off the mouth of the Kenai River has increase by over 1000% since 1980. These mobile commercial gill nets came from all over Cook Inlet because of high commercial catch rates off the mouth of the Kenai River. This is a typical commercial fisheries mis-statement which attempts to deceive the reader into actually believing the number of commercial nets off the Kenai River have not increased. The truth is that these nets have gone from few to very many and have severely impacted the escapement of wild king salmon into the Kenai River. Another vote for LHART11 either being a commercial fisherman or a very ignorant fisherman.

LHART11 claims that "DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY catching a fish is meaningless because all user groups need fish to survive". LHART11 has missed the DIRECT / INDIRECT point within the catching illustration because all he is concerned with is WHO ENDS UP WITH THE FISH. Anglers are less connected to requiring that they end up with THE FISH, Commercial fishermen are only concerned with WHO ENDS UP WITH THE FISH. Another vote for LHART11 being a commercial fisherman. LHART11 claims that because the sportfishery requires some fish to survive, DIRECT or INDIRECT catching is meaningless. This claim is also false for the same reason aspirin is legal and heroin is not. Small inconsequential drugs are not the source of our drug problems just like sportfish anglers are not the source of our king problems. This reality squarely points at the commercial fishing industry. Both direct and indirect fisheries catch fish and make money but they do not equally loop back their profits into promoting themselves. The difference is that a minority of indirect angler users make this financial loop back but a majority of direct commercial users make this loop back. LHART11 ignores this dramatic user difference and instead focusing only on WHO ENDS UP WITH THE FISH; again displaying an extreme commercial fisheries prospective. Another vote for LHART11 being a commercial fisherman.

LHART11 is claiming that "banning commercial fishing is not reasonable and that (direct or indirect fish sales) are meaningless". Is it reasonable to assume there are no differences between aspirin and heroin sales? Both aspirin and heroin are drugs, so should they both be legal? One causes massive negative fall-out and the other does not, so they are not treated the same. The same is happening within our fisheries. Commercial fisheries have historically produced intense financial and political feed back loops, which have resulted in much negative fall-out within our fisheries. It might be possible for any user group to do this same thing but in general only the commercial fishing industry has done this. I therefore claim that DIRECT fish sales are NOT the same as INDIRECT fish sales because they are fundamentally different in the way they effect the world around them. Claiming no difference between DIRECT and INDIRECT fish sales is about as ignorant as claiming aspirin and heroin are the same. LHART11 "no difference claim" on this point is illogical and pointing to him not being an honest person.

LHART11 claims that "banning the commercial fishery is not reasonable". His claim is unreasonable because nobody is attempting to ban any user or fishery. They are looking to ban a gear type. ANY GEAR TYPE which begins causing the above financial / political feed back loop should be banned! It does not matter what it is. If they had a machine able to cut so many trees and make so much money that the excess cash got funneled back politically to allow more tree cutting, THE MACHINE SHOULD BE BANNED! Most fisheries user groups funnel back some money to affect politics but very few succeed in changing the direction of our fisheries management. Historically only our commercial fisheries have been able to make this financial feed-back connection in a large enough way that it causes fisheries resource devastation. In 1959 "outside fish canneries" claimed that it was "not reasonable" to ban fish traps because the economy of Alaska would collapse. Well the state banned fish traps anyway and prove that it is reasonable to ban commercial fisheries gear and practices when they become destructive. Because of the way they have been managed, Cook Inlet commercial set gill nets have become as destructive to kings as fish traps. I claim that it is just a matter of time before they meet the same fate as fish traps. It is therefore completely reasonable to ban any Cook Inlet gear type. Why would LHART11 claim people are attempting to ban a fishery when they are clearly trying to ban only a gear type? Commercial fishing gear types have been legally banned in the past? Why would LHART11 attempt to confuse what is really going on here? Could he really be that confused on the issue?

Fourth, LHART11 claims that "our current statewide king fisheries problems cannot be compared to the failed historic fisheries on both the east/west coasts." LHART11 cites that "our fisheries today are managed more intelligently with sustainable, statutes, limits, regulations and enforcement, therefore they cannot fail like these historic fisheries. LHART11 claims "the only way our fisheries could fail now is if we were to manage using social-economic-emotion pressures." It is completely illogical to claim that today's fisheries management practices will prevent the lost of our king runs, considering that WE HAVE LOST OUR KING RUNS! This resource loss itself proves that our current "intelligent fisheries management practices" have preformed precisely the same as these failed "unintelligent fisheries management practices". Historic unintelligent fisheries management practices produced just as much devastation as today's intelligent management practices with the current statewide loss of our king runs. LHART11 is claiming that you can't compare failed historic fisheries management to ours because we are "so intelligent" that ours can't fail. HELLO! OUR KING RESOURCE HAS FAILED!

LHART11 claims that "anglers are grabbing for more fisheries allocation, which could only cause the resource, economy and other users to fail." As was stated earlier anglers are a minority player in this situation, impacting our runs by about 5-10% of the harvest-able surplus. As a 10% player, anglers have had 100% of their access removed while commercial fisheries are still harvesting at their normal 90% level. The non-limited entry (common user public) owns 100% of the harvest-able surplus but is only allocated 10% of it. The limited entry commercial fishery owns 0% of the harvest-able surplus but is allocated 90% of it. LHART11 is claiming that if common users ask for 11% of the surplus, that the resource, economy and other users would fail. LHART11 does not understand that the Alaska Constitution was constructed to allow that 1% common user allocation increase, to be subtracted from the 90% limited entry allocation. This is how limited entry and the Alaska Constitutional were designed to function but LHART11 does not understand this, so he theorizes that the universe will implode if common users allocations are increased. The truth is that the universe would not implode and the constitution was constructed to allow for this kind of a change. Only a commercial fisherman would make such an outrageous claim.

LHART11 claims that anglers are demanding "all the fish and that retail fish buyers should have none". As stated previously anglers harvest less than 10% of our fisheries leaving 90% for retail fish buyers. Even a 50/50 allocation would be generous to retail fish buyers therefore LHART11 is again just making outrageous claims because anglers are not even asking for a 50/50 allocation.

LHART11 claims again that "anglers have driven the king fishery into the ground". LHART11 again fails to understand that we have a statewide king problem, therefore his Kenai specific rantings lack any science to back them up. Our current science is claiming that we have a very large problem in our ocean and it is reducing our king runs statewide. We have rivers in Alaska which HAD great king runs, with ZERO anglers fishing them historically but their king runs are also gone. Please try doing just a little reading LHART11.

LHART11 claims that Upper Cook Inlet has a "sustainable sockeye fishery". Notice that he does not include king salmon within this sustainable reference. He deliberately excludes all the other fish that those nets catch. He fails to reference these wild runs because wild is not really relevant to him. He pretends that the sockeye masses and the additional gill netting necessary to catch them, has no effect on our wild king salmon. It is a scientific fact that this extra amount of gill netting does have a very real effect on our kings. It would be nice if LHART11 would define what he really means by "sustainable" but he does not.

Imagine a Cook Inlet with only 100 wild sockeyes and 10 wild king salmon returning annually. What do you think would happen if you dumped 1,000,000 hatchery sockeye smolt in there and allowed them to migrate back along side the 10 wild kings, while you use commercial gill nets to try and catch the extra hatchery sockeyes. What kind of additional gill netting effort would be necessary to catch those extra sockeyes? Regardless as to the actually extra effort, it is safe to say that those 10 wild kings don't stand much of a chance making it back to their native rivers. This is the enhanced mix stock/gill net harvest nightmare which has been created by the State of Alaska. The last time the state tried to solve this commercial harvest problem they did it with fish traps and totally destroyed all of our salmon resources. Now with set gill net tactics the state is basically doing the same thing as with fish traps only at a slower pace. A sockeye might believe this kind of management to be "sustainable" but I doubt that a wild king would. I claim that any fisheries management policy is only "sustainable" if it DOES NOT work to reduce weaker wild stocks. Therefore Upper Cook Inlet DOES NOT have a "sustainable sockeye fishery" while using set gill nets. The UCI has a commercial sockeye fishery which uses the set net destruction of wild stocks as fuel to catch maximum sockeyes. The State of Alaska is voluntary sacrificing UCI kings to advance sockeye stocks for commercial fisheries. This policy may be sustainable for sockeyes but not for kings and that is why LHart11 does not include kings within his "sustainable" reference.

Currently Cook Inlet salmon management plans abuse wild king salmon with set gill nets when they are abundant and assists in their destruction when they are not. Fisheries management "sustainability" is not measured by how well a single enhanced stock performs, while weaker wild stocks are being destroyed. LHART11 intense focus on his "sockeyes" at the expense of wild kings reveals his truly conflicted logic. LHART11 is claiming to love his "magnificent wild king fisheries" while at the same time supporting the destruction of that fishery within his "magnificent sockeye fishery". I cannot follow that kind of convoluted logic.

In conclusion I find that LHART11 is either a commercial fisherman who won't admit it or a commercial fisherman and doesn't know it. I also find that the LHART11 agenda is one of fisheries information confusion prior to our Board of Fish meetings. If anyone out there is wondering why all the confusing fisheries information, it is because of the coming Board of Fish meeting in January. UCI commercial set net fisheries are sensing "blood in the water" regarding their historic abuse of king salmon during this time of low statewide king abundance and they are running an "information confusion campaign" to prevent the public from achieving a clear single-minded focus to ban their king abusive set net gear type.

My agenda is fisheries truth and majority rule and I request that you show up and speak your mind at our coming Alaska Board of Fisheries meeting in Anchorage January 31 – February 13, 2014. At this meeting limited entry commercial fishermen like LHART11 will have an agenda to prevent the public from telling the board that the common user public desires increased fisheries allocations and reduced commercial set net gear in the water. This board of fish will also be addressing our king salmon problems so are you going to show up and tell the board what you think or just accept the mis-information confusion posted here by LHART11 and his commercial set net friends?

borninak
661
Points
borninak 12/29/13 - 07:39 am
4
1
Sad Commentary

123 we're all very sorry that you and your commercial fishing guide friends over capitalized on a very limited resource on a very fragile habitat and destroyed it, but everyone knew that the day would come. Your greed for money and delusional denial of participating in the destruction of the Kings is sad. The years of combat fishing has forced every local angler off the river and you no longer have their support either. The tourists will no longer come to fish the Kenai because the combat fishing is out of control and you have nothing left to offer but your pitiful attempts to blame it all on commercial fishing who fished the Cook Inlet for over 100 years and sustained the runs. I know that fact is an inconvenient reality for you and you will attempt to spin it a million ways, but nobody is fooled by you so write another book. Oh and I will be at the board of fish meetings because eventually we get to hear from some reasonable people with actual biology backing them up and lunatics like you are quickly silenced. Its worth the trip just to watch your "proposals" go into the trash can.

19581958
77
Points
19581958 12/29/13 - 01:17 pm
3
1
Kenai 3,2,1 Gone

Thats whats going to happen to the Kenai Sport Fishery ASS. Thats correct so get use to it. The Upper Cook Inlet Commercial fishery has been around a hell of lot longer and the families involved have been able to maintain the runs with help from the fish biologist. Ever since the In River fishery has been exploited by tourist/money hungry buisness people this fishery has gone down hill. Its a fact so live with it or down size it. This subject is all about common sense, and things we learned from the West coast In River sportsfishery that is all over.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/29/13 - 05:39 pm
1
5
borninak - sustained THE RUNS?

borninak people like yourself who post fisheries mis-information are writing the book. I am just responding in an attempting to clear the air which you and your friends work over-time to fill with smoke.

borninak it must be nice to have a selective memory. I wish I could get one of those. Where did you get yours anyway? Seven Eleven, The Dollar Store? Anyway it must be great during tax time or when the relatives come over... Anyway you stated that "commercial fisheries have fished Cook Inlet for over 100 years and sustained THE RUNS". Does your 100 year reference also include the 1959 total wipe-out destruction of 100% of our salmon runs by commercial fish traps? You would think having a little feather in your hat like that would slow down 100 year blanket sustained runs statements. Does your blanket reference also include the more recent destruction of our king salmon runs because commercial fisheries are also responsible for that as they have over-harvested our kings right along with our crab and herring resources? You claim to have commercially sustained THE RUNS for 100 years but reality shows that all THE RUNS were commercially wiped off the map just 53 years ago. You claim to have sustained THE RUNS but just thirteen years ago in 2000 our king runs statewide began descending into the non-sustaining mode while your 7,000,000 liner feet of gill nets strained UCI waters each year. Now with two very large commercial salmon meltdowns in your past, you press the selective memory button on your forehead and claim to have sustained THE RUNS for the past 100 years? How much did that selective memory cost ya anyway?

borninak
661
Points
borninak 12/29/13 - 05:21 pm
2
1
123 sure brings drugs into everything... Strange

123 you can't seem to remember all your lies and your continued reference to drugs leads me to the conclusion that you are in fact a user. You need to get help. In earlier rants you asserted the ocean was the problem and kings were dieing at sea because of no crab larvae. But then you got back on your drugs kick and commercial gillnetters are the problem. And finally, I've told you before but your not intelligent enough to get the fact that commercial fisherman did more than anyone else to rid the state of the Fish Traps at statehood that were monopolized by mostly out of state big business fish processors. You continuing association of commercial fisherman and fish traps makes for great propoganda, but is far from true and only serves to show how completely ignorant you are of our fishing history. This isn't surprising however as you are completely ignorant on most everything to do with fishing in the state of Alaska.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/29/13 - 05:46 pm
1
3
borninak desires fish trap proof?

borninak we are dealing with reality here. You claiming that "commercial fisheries did more that anyone to rid the state of fish traps" is a complete fabrication. Do you really want me to go on an internet link search to display your ignorance?

borninak
661
Points
borninak 12/29/13 - 06:13 pm
2
1
Your not smart enough to

Your not smart enough to display anything to anybody. Everyone already knows that. But here, I'll help you out with your ingnorance. The following clearly shows how commercial fisherman felt about fish traps back then and were instrumental in getting them banned. Spin it any way you want, but the facts are clear and the Alaskans that were against fish traps back then weren't a bunch of Kenai River Guides, they were commercial fisherman or folks that wanted to see the resource back in the hands of Alaskans.

"Alaskans viewed the fish trap not as a valuable labor-saving device, but as a contraption that unfairly eliminated fishing jobs by catching fish that would otherwise be caught by fishermen in boats. Fish traps were also blamed for damaging the fisheries and sending a fortune to the Outside owners of the canned salmon industry, instead of to Alaskans who wanted to earn a living as fishermen. The fish traps worked round-the-clock and could wipe out the salmon in an area.

A small number of large companies owned most of the traps, which became a symbol of Outside control of Alaska. One accounting in 1944 found that 396 of the 434 fish traps were in the hands of Outside firms.

In 1956, when Alaskans approved the proposed state constitution, they also adopted a law that banned fish traps by a margin of five-to-one. It took effect with statehood. "

http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=137

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/29/13 - 07:07 pm
1
3
borninak - Fish Traps

borninak the anti-fish trap movement was both supported and resisted by the commercial fishing industry. Local commercial fisherman resisted lower 48 commercial fishing interests here so they were against the traps in order to remove the non-local commercial fishing competition. Non-local lower 48 commercial fisherman were in favor of the fish traps because they were getting rich operating them. So it just depends on which commercial fishermen you are referring to. Non-local commercial fishermen loved the traps and local commercial fishermen wanted to get rid of traps to get rid of non-local commercial competition. Anyway it took a vote of the people, as usual, to settle the matter and not some regulation or board that could be controlled by commercial fisheries.

"When in 1948 the cannery interests saw a new state with full control over its fisheries looming on the horizon, the commercial fisheries cannery interests launched an all-out effort to have the federal government issue formal 15-year leases to their currently occupied trap sites. The voters of Alaska countered with a 1959 statewide referendum that drew the largest voter turnout on record to support the abolition of fish traps by an eight to one margin. The leasing measure failed, as similar measures had failed for years." (Page 14)

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0SO80X_3sBSMwoAj.NXNyoA/SIG=1c7a8vhcc/EX...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

borninak
661
Points
borninak 12/29/13 - 07:07 pm
3
0
123 for the first time ever I

123 for the first time ever I am not going to disagree with your post. Factually accurate. But it dosn't support your claim that what I said was a "complete fabrication" in any way. Its really not fair for you too keep asserting that local commercial fisherman wiped out the fish with fish traps when you know that isn't true based on your last post. Lets just both be happy that we don't have Fish Traps any more otherwise we might not have anything to argue about any more.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/29/13 - 09:15 pm
1
4
boninak - types of commercial fishermen

borninak local vs non-local commercial fishermen may be highly relevant to you but they are not to me. The geographic home of the guy running the trap or the net is meaningless when it comes to losing a run of salmon. What if a bunch of tourist rod & reel anglers descended on a river and wiped out 100% of the returning salmon so none spawned thus ending the run? Would you feel any better about the situation if a bunch of local rod & reel anglers wiped out the same run?

Commercial fishermen destroyed our salmon runs back before 1959 and it doesn't matter if they called themselves local or non-local. I have never asserted a local or non-local context to the great 1959 commercial fisheries salmon wipe-out. If that great destruction would have been caused by non-local rod & reel anglers commercial fisheries would not allow me as an local rod & reel angler to hide behind the geographic camouflage. Commercial fisheries would attack the rod & reel gear type and declare it to be responsible for the destruction. And that brings us back to fisheries gear types, not where people live.

I have nothing to do with the KRSA but I do understand their desire to ban UCI set net gear. That gear type has been abusing our king salmon. To be clear, I do not believe the removal of ANY UCI gear type or user group would resolve our statewide king problems. We could ban all commercial and sport fishing in and around UCI and those troubles will go on because the roots of those troubles reach far out to sea in and around the Gulf of Alaska. I would be willing to close down all UCI users if it met also closing down all users out in and around the Gulf of Alaska. Decades worth of excess commercial harvest out there has pushed our ocean to its knees. Our local fisheries users may add to the problem but they are not the source of the problem. I may support short term local closures occasionally but I do so knowing that they should be part of a master king salmon recovery plan which includes all users from our nursery lakes, rivers and stream to the Gulf of Alaska.

borninak
661
Points
borninak 12/29/13 - 07:56 pm
4
1
The point that you

The point that you conveniently overlook is that once the Fishtraps were banned, local commercial fisherman fished from 1959 until the Kenai River Guides came in heavy in the mid 1980's. 25 years later and guess what, surprise surprise there is quite a tremendous run of King Salmon for the Tourism industry to exploit. I thought gill netters killed them all and sustained nothing. And for another 15 years (until 2000 according to you) there are plenty of king salmon for everyone. Then suddenly there is a problem and its all because of gill nets. Go figure. Then you assert its because of no king crab larvae and then drugs. Your accusations are getting incredibly lame. The evidence is clear that supporting a set net ban will do nothing to save king salmon and is nothing more than an allocation grab and its not fooling anyone with any common sense.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/30/13 - 05:08 am
1
3
borninak you have blurred the issues

borninak has completely blurred all of the issues and possible solutions. He is like a person picking up one piece of a jigsaw puzzle and freaking out because it makes no sense. You have to line up more of the pieces to see the picture. We have a very complex and sensitive marine eco-system which was magically producing a long list of fisheries products for a long list of fisheries users. That marine eco-system has been compromised and those changes have left all users groups pointing fingers at each other.

borninak is correct when he claims that supporting a set net ban won't do much to save king salmon but closing sport fishing on the Kenai River for a lack of king escapement won't do much either but we still do it. We are shutting down a lot of things that really won't do much to save kings but we are still shutting them down. This is all being done mainly because we just can't seem to address the source of our king problem, which is the commercial fishing industry in and around the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea.

borninak is incorrect about it being an allocation grab. Most of these anglers are mainly concerned about losing the last place on earth where giant king salmon still survive. These incredible kings have been wiped from the face of the earth outside the Kenai River and the Gulf of Alaska. They are seeing these kings last remaining ocean feeding and migrations grounds being compromised by commercial fisheries. They are confused & angry and like a momma bear they are ready to strike out at any thing that remotely appears to threaten what they hold precious. UCI set nets are just the latest and nearest viable target they can locate right now. Who knows what will be next, I can only hope that it is the Gulf of Alaska but that might take another ten more years.

LHART11
75
Points
LHART11 12/29/13 - 10:03 pm
1
1
kenai123, in your response to

kenai123, in your response to me you've exposed the same type of desperate straw man tactics, libelous quotes, false presumptions, personal attacks, and deceptive lies that your selfish commercial sport fishing groups have become famous for. That gig is up.

It is not worth the arduous effort to correct all the lies, deceptions, and garbage spewed - they number too many.

Fortunately the failures of kenai123’s merits are borne out in their own vitriol, lack of context, conflicting data, and an obvious lack of comprehensive understanding for our fisheries. More importantly they epitomize the situation of our fisheries. Only the most uniformed would not recognize that – obviously who kenai123 is pandering to.

After being targeted for extermination by commercial sport fishing groups, and having their season closed due to the in-river sport fishery’s own implosion, it is not surprising UCIDA is fighting to keep what they have and regain what they’ve lost. Of course the allocation grabbers don’t like that.

It is time we sport fishermen rise above the pathetic, dividing tactic that Kevin Delaney presents in his article. It is time to expose the kenai123’s of the world for what they bring – problems, not solutions. We must look for ways to work with other user groups, support our management, and extinguish the emotional-political-economic pressure that has consumed our management priorities.

My larder is chucked-full with various kinds of sport-caught salmon, from waters all over the UCI - Kings, Silvers, Sockeye. Shall I blame the commercial fishery for that too....

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/30/13 - 05:34 am
1
1
LHART11, yes yes, it's coming into focus,

LHART11, yes yes, it's coming into focus, yes I can him clearly now, it is, it is the desperate straw man and his desperate straw man tactics. He is sitting there typing his desperate libelous quotes, false presumptions, personal and alienating attacks, monsterous mis-information, overbearing omissions, ranting raves and most of all, the deep dark deceptive lies, oh the lies, I just can't stand the lies.

Wow is that really what it's like LHART11?

pengy
258
Points
pengy 12/30/13 - 06:57 am
0
0
Here's what gets me about all

Here's what gets me about all the user groups: we finger point at each other all the while missing out on the real culprit. Folks, we are only allowed to do what ADF&G/BOF allows us to do. It's not Joe 6 pack that decides whether or not he can use bait, treble hooks, or release fish in a slot limit. It's not Joe Setnetter who decides if he can fish for more than 12 hours on a Monday or any other openers/closures during the season.

If there is a failure it lies in the lap of the stewards of the resource: ADF&G/BOF. They are responsible for the management of our salmon runs.

LHART11
75
Points
LHART11 12/30/13 - 09:37 am
2
0
Proof is in the Pudding

Kenai123,

Yes, there are at least 15 straw man arguments in your lengthy response to me - where you concocted your own scenarios and then argued against them.

There are at least 15 libelous quotes - putting your words in my mouth just to prop up your own argument.

You made at least 5 personal attacks exposing vitriol - calling me a liar (since edited), insane, not honest, ignorant, etc.

There are at least 30 examples of deceptive lies and bogus data that don't hold up to simple fact checking - some blatant whoppers.

Your false presumptions number so many I lost count - starting with your false notion that I am a commercial fisherman. I am not.

Again, it is not worth the arduous effort to correct your mess and put it back into context. It fails on its own merits.

So yes kenai123, that's really what it is like. Unfortunately folks like you are pressuring our management to succumb to your garbage, and unfortunately it is our fisheries and other users that ultimately suffer.

kenai123
1312
Points
kenai123 12/30/13 - 12:20 pm
1
3
LHART11 complaints

"Yes, there are at least 15 straw man arguments in your lengthy response to me - where you concocted your own scenarios and then argued against them."
(In other words I have an opinion which LHART11 does not like. LHART11 argument fails.)

"There are at least 15 libelous quotes - putting your words in my mouth just to prop up your own argument."
(In order for any comment to be libelous someone would have to prove the comment is not true. LHART11 cannot prove anything I have said is not true so his claims fails immediately . Therefore LHART11 libelous claim is exposed to actually be his personal disagreement with the information presented and not libelous. LHART11 argument fails again.)

"You made at least 5 personal attacks exposing vitriol - calling me a liar (since edited), insane, not honest, ignorant, etc."
(I said that LHART11 is either a commercial fisherman or completely insane. This is only a choice in logic given the limited choices and not an attack. LHART11 argument fails again.)

"There are at least 30 examples of deceptive lies and bogus data that don't hold up to simple fact checking - some blatant whoppers."
(Lies, bogus data or facts would have to be listed and proved one way or the other, since they are not listed they cannot be addressed. The bottom line is that I have an opinion which LHART11 does not like and that proves nothing. LHART11 argument fails again.)

"Your false presumptions number so many I lost count - starting with your false notion that I am a commercial fisherman. I am not."
(I said that only a commercial fisherman would make such outrageous claims and that I vote for LHART11 either being a commercial fisherman or a very ignorant fisherman. This leads the reader to a choice in logic from the words LHART11 posted. My words do not lead to presumptions or notions they lead to an opinion or a choice in logic which LHART11 does not like. LHART11 argument fails again.)

"Again, it is not worth the arduous effort to correct your mess and put it back into context. It fails on its own merits."
(There would not be an arduous effort if LHART11 did not take arduous effort to publish so much incorrect fisheries information, therefore LHART11 caused the arduous effort which he is now complaining about. Actually this lines up well with the rest of LHART11 postings. Since IHART11 fails to list the words which upset him, there is no viable way to address the merits of those words. LHART11 argument fails again.)

"So yes kenai123, that's really what it is like. Unfortunately folks like you are pressuring our management to succumb to your garbage, and unfortunately it is our fisheries and other users that ultimately suffer."
(I am not able to pressure our fisheries management to succumb to anything, be it "garbage" or enlightenment. I am just one Alaskan angler wandering within our fisheries management darkness, attempting to shine a light on the great amount of fisheries information which is out there. The fact that LHART11 does not like or agree with what I shine my light on, is really not relevant.)

LHART11
75
Points
LHART11 12/30/13 - 03:36 pm
2
1
Nice Try - I Can't Stoop Any Lower

Concocting straw man arguments is not opinion. It is the misrepresentation of an opponent's position - using superficial context, fallacious reasoning, and a distorted version of what was said.

Falsely quoting someone with words they did not say, to attack them, is libelous. That can be proven by simply reviewing the posts here and comparing what was actually said, to what was falsely quoted.

Calling someone a liar, not honest, insane, ignorant, etc. is not a "choice in logic." It is a choice in personal attacks.

Deceptively submitting false statements as fact, is not opinion. It is lying. Especially when surrounded by bias, vitriol, and a complete lack of reference.

Stating, "LHART11 is a commercial fisherman" is a false presumption - one example among many (kenai123's 4th post, 3rd pp).

No one causes a dissertation of erroneous, tiring, laborious statements and straw man arguments that require an arduous effort to correct and put back into context...except the poster himself.

Kenai123 claims he is not able to pressure management, yet oddly he posts his agenda to do just that, and solicits others to do just that; to show up at the January meeting and press the Board to increase his allocation by exterminating the set net fishery (kenai123's 4th post).

Kenai123, I welcome your opinion, and what you shine your light on. In fact the more you post, the clearer the problem becomes.

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