VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:12:17 10/16/10 Sat
Author: Don Johnson
Subject: What's happened to our kings?

Keep kings in the Kenai
I would like to applaud Dwight Kramer's opinion piece in Voices of the Peninsula (Oct. 13, 2010) 'What Happened to Our Kings?'
It should be read by all and discussed at length as I feel he made some excellent points for returning our kings to the Kenai River.
We have very little power to effect what happens once the smolts leave the river, but we should do ALL we can to
improve in-river survival of the kings from eggs to adults. We should enact his five main points. It's time to act.

http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/101510/new_721011918.shtml
-------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Story last updated at 10/13/2010 - 12:53 pm
Voices of the Peninsula: What's happened to our kings?
By Dwight Kramer | Peninsula Clarion

Most anglers on the Kenai are very concerned about the health of our Kenai River King salmon fishery.
Most agree that there are fewer fish returning and the fish are smaller than ever before. Scientists tell us that the low numbers of
King salmon are a widespread phenomena occurring throughout most of Alaska and probably caused by rearing conditions in our oceans,
but the size of the fish is probably an in-river issue that has allot to do with selective harvest of larger fish over time.
Up until about 7 or 8 years ago most of us felt that if we didn't come home with at least one 50 - 60 pounder in the boat it was
a bad day on the water. Nowadays, these fish make front-page headlines in the local paper. The large "world famous" Kenai King was much
sought after for wall mounts, photo-ops, and general bragging rights among anglers. And folks, therein lies the problem.
We have been extremely effective harvesters of these bigger fish. Through years of selective harvest we have changed the
ratio of returning age classed fish and thus suffered a reduction in the overall quality of this great fishery.
We must remember that this fishery is only about 30 years in the making and the cause and effect of our zeal to harvest big Kenai Kings
makes it incumbent on ourselves to try to fix what we have damaged. We have a large in-river commercial guiding component
and an equal amount of private anglers vying for these fish. It is not hard to understand how the harvest potential could be damaging to these stocks.
On an average day in the last two weeks of July we probably have well over 500 boats on the river throughout the day.
With an average of four fishermen per boat that means that there are roughly 2,000 rods per day trying to catch a Kenai King.
The second run creel survey data tells us that the average guide harvest this season was about 1 fish per trip and most likely
that fish was less than 25 pounds. I would think it would become more and more difficult to entice return clients to the Kenai
unless we can recover this fishery. Is it to late to rectify this situation? Perhaps not, but it's going to take sacrifices by all user
groups and a commitment by the responsible State and Federal agencies to admit there is a problem and address these issues. I believe,
with the current concern in the angling community, the time is right to come together for this common cause.
Can we continue applying this type of pressure to the resource and still further our cause for recovery of these stocks?
Perhaps, if we change the manner in which we prosecute the fishery itself. Additionally, Fish and Game is going to have to improve
the way they enumerate these stocks so that we can have more confidence in the data as the season progresses.
This year the late run sonar count was around 45,000, but after the season ended and the department considered the low test net figures
combined with the low harvests in both the commercial and sport fisheries they adjusted that figure to around 28,000.
Quite a disparity, and this figure is only a rough estimate. Nobody really knows for sure exactly how many fish actually entered the river
or made it to the spawning grounds. I would like to offer the following suggestions as a starting point for discussion on ways to help
this valued resource start to recover:
* Set up alternating spawning conservation zones on the river to provide undisturbed spawning areas.
I would set up four conservation zones. Zone 1 - the mouth to Rm19 Slikok Cr. would be open to fishing annually.
Zone 2 - RM19 Slikok Cr. to Rm30 Funny R., Zone 3 - Rm30 Funny R. to RM40 Bing's Landing and Zone 4 -
Rm40 Bing's Landing to Rm50 Skilak Lk.. Zones 2, 3 and 4 would be closed to fishing for King salmon in alternating
years to provide undisturbed spawning protection. Additionally, all other existing closed areas would remain in effect.
* Insist that State and Federal agencies responsible for managing this resource develop and employ the most accurate field
equipment to enumerate these stocks in both the mainstem and tributary waters.
Accurate in-season information is a vital part of insuring adequate escapement objectives.
* Return the slot limit to the pre 2008 measurements of 44in. -55in. and leave the slot limit in effect throughout the
King season above the Soldotna Bridge. Most of the larger fish are females and this measure would help insure that these
larger fish have a greater opportunity to spawn.
* Apply the slot limit regulation to the PU fishery. All in-river user groups should share in this burden of recovery.
* Add a second drift boat day per week that would be open to both guided and unguided anglers.
This would allow another day of the week where fish could move more freely up-river without outboard disturbance
and turbid conditions associated with heavy powerboat use.
As Kenai area residents we share in the pride of our famous river known mostly for its large King salmon.
If we fail to act soon we may further sacrifice the uniqueness of this great resource.
We cannot rely on our agencies to do it for us. Their current mandates seem to be more about providing access and opportunity,
and less about maintaining the quality of our fisheries. It is incumbent on us as anglers and conservationists to do so for the resource
and future generations to enjoy in the same manner we have been afforded.
Dwight Kramer is a Kenai area resident and a concerned private angler.
http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/101310/ope_719777005.shtml
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They Died In Silence

Okay, I'll Discussed At Length Dwight.

Dear Dwight,

Dwight has asked us “What's happened to his kings?
His question is really a lot like a bank robber asking who robbed the bank?
Sport fish anglers have been telling Dwight for decades that we cannot
continue to recklessly slaughter hundreds of thousands of our king salmon
within the "incidental by-catch" of our commercial fisheries.
Anglers have been telling Dwight for years that our commercial gill netters are
specifically targeting the very largest kings in the saltwater, simply because
the larger kings have "dog fanged teeth" hanging within and outside of their mouths,
thus virtually guarantying that they stand less of a chance of escaping a gill net.
Dwight has been informed of this selective gill net by-catch factor for years but to date
he has never referred to it within any of his public statements.
Why would anyone list every possible in-river negative factor to king survival
and then always fail to mention any possible commercial fishing by-catch factor?
These are valid questions and they deserve valid answers.

Dwight openly states that "scientists tell us that the low numbers of king salmon
are a widespread phenomena occurring throughout most of Alaska and
probably caused by rearing conditions in our oceans" but then he can't help
himself as he claims that the reduced fish size is "probably" self-inflicted wounds
by anglers only killing large kings. Again Dwight has taken a little of what
science has to offer and then twisted it for his own purposes by avoiding
even the mention of "any possible commercial by-catch factors". Dwight's fisheries
bias is so obvious that it is a wonder that he does not proclaim his commercial
fishing connections. Instead he sits back and try's to make folks believe that
he is some kind of open minded, neutral party.
I am a sport fish guide, at least I openly announce it. Everyone knows where I am
coming from when I address a fisheries issue but Dwight try's to play both sides of
all issues with readers, by trying to make them believe that he has no ax to grind
on these fisheries issues.

Then Dwight states that "it's anglers 30 year love affair with killing only big kings
on the Kenai River, which has taken them all away". What about Dwight and his commercial
buddies 30 year love affair with deadly commercial gill nets? How many giant kings do you think
they have "taken away" in the last 30 years? I claim that the largest and most magnificent
of our kings have been pitifully suffocated to death within the silence of Cook Inlet's waters.
They could of went out in a blaze of glory, fighting with some unlikely angler and
now be hanging on their wall forever enshrined. But alas they ended up in one of the
millions of cans of salmon, only leaving the diner to wonder where the meat came from.
Cook Inlet's commercial gill nets have robbed many a monster king salmon from finishing its life
with a spectacular ending. That ending could have been a crescendo as they spawned, battled it
out with an angler or maybe another king. Instead they died in silence as they struggled
to escape the inescapable.

Then Dwight claims that "It is not hard to understand how the harvest potential could
be damaging to these stocks with 2,000 rods per day trying to catch a Kenai King."
Again, how did Dwight manage to forget the approximate 2,000 Cook Inlet, commercial
gill netters out there who each may have dozens of nets and sometimes get to fish those nets
around the clock. How does anyone just conveniently forget the commercial gill net factor
which is admittedly able to kill off three quarters of ANY run of fish which dares to try
to migrate up through Cook Inlet? 2000 fishing rods or a 20,000 gill nets, which would
you think impacts our king salmon more?
How does anyone just OMIT that commercial by-catch factor, and then instead
slashs away at only public fisheries as they stand there with a single rod and reel,
fishing a single hook, trying to convince a single salmon to bite a single bait?
I think I can tell you how; the same way commercial hunters blamed the Indian's
for wiping out the buffalo. It was those nasty hand made bows, arrows and spears
that did it! Not the commercial buffalo hunters trying to make a buck!

Then Dwight claims that our Kenai River sonar is totally messed up; well we can
all agree on that one. Unfortunately we do not agree as to why the sonar is messed up.
I claim its messed up because Comm. Fish cares very little about king salmon and
a great deal about sockeye salmon. This confused management technique results in
rocket science sockeye management beside caveman king salmon management.
Some might think this to be a slight conflict but somehow the ADF&G seems to
work it all out on paper each year, maybe the kings aren't really there but the paper
says they are. Maximum science for sockeyes and commercial fishermen and minimum
science for everything else and the public. With these kind of intense sockeye management
methods one might wonder how anything could survive along side a fish like the sockeye?
The answer to that question is, eventually just about nothing can!
You think 28,000 kings was bad this year? I expect to see even lower sonar count
figures as the years go by, unless people like Dwight begin to see the true by-catch
devastation be done by our commercial fishing industry. The paper may say that we
had a bumper crop of kings but nobody will be able to catch one.
Our commercial fisheries used to by-catch a very small percent of our king salmon
before 1980 but then commercial gill netting, seining and trawling EXPLODED.
A few commercial nets turned into thousands of nets. The king salmon by-catch numbers
then exploded into a major issue but Dwight still doesn't see this by-catch issue, he instead
suggests that we resolve our commercial king salmon by-catch issues by shutting down
our public sport fisheries with alternating spawning conservation zones. These zones would
supposedly then allow the last remaining kings, which made it through the commercial
by-catch gauntlet, to some how spawn without the public disturbing them.
What a simply marvelous and fair solution Dwight! Close down public access and pedel to
the metal with all commercial fisheries!
Then Dwight claims that we need more (in river only) king salmon slot limits along with more
restrictive slot limits. No changes within any commercial by-catch fisheries but plenty
of shut-down on any public users trying to access their own fishery on the Kenai River.
What about commercial fishing king salmon slot limits? Why only in river king slot limits?
Dwight states that all in -river user groups need to share the burden of king salmon
recovery and then he writes a free ticket for all of our commercial fisheries.
Why don't you hear Dwight proposing king slot limits for commercial fisheries?
Why don't you hear Dwight proposng a ban on the commercial sale of all king salmon?
Have you figured what is going on here yet?

Then Dwight goes and commit the ultimate sin and claims that "we cannot rely on our
agencies to do it for us, their current mandates seems to be more about providing
access and opportunity, and less about maintaining the quality of our fisheries."
Dwight, the reason our agencies are so concerned with providing fisheries access and opportunity,
is because IT IS WRITTEN INTO ALL OF OUR LAWS ALONG WITH OUR
CONSTITUTION! Our Constitution doesn't mandate "quality fisheries" because
some smart folks knew that someone might try to create a really great fishery
with zero public access, they wanted NOTHING to do with that.
Commercial fisheries see this "public access and opportunity mandate" as an
obstacle to them making a buck, much like the commercial buffalo hunters
saw the Indian's as an obstetrical to them making a buck. So they got rid of the Indian's,
wiped out the buffalo and move on to the next wipe-out plan. Well the next wipe-out
plan is right here in Cook Inlet and our king salmon are in the cross-hairs.

Dwight, you asked "What's happened to our kings?"
The answer is that you netted them, sold them all over the world and now you want them back.
http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/101510/let_721011693.shtml#mdw-comments

Don Johnson
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
ccpwow@gci.net

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.