Keni River Closure [Archive]

willametteriveroutlaw

06-11-2002, 02:57 PM

The problem with the Kenai River is us as both tourists and fisherman. Many of us who fish down here have no problem releasing a large wild chinook in our costal streams, where as in the when we go visit the Kenai we feel it necessary to take these fish home. I lived on that river for 5 years and most tourists will keep any King and every King no matter how dark :mad: . There are close to 500 guides on that river and countless locals with boats hammering those fish, its no wonder there having problems :whazzup: . Anyone heading up there this summer should think about that if there chasing kings on the Kenai.

fishbait

06-11-2002, 04:59 PM

Coho, I agree with you 100%. Seldom do I keep any of these kings, and when I do I keep a smaller one. However, if I ever get a true trophy, 80+, it's dead and on my wall. Last trip released 2 over 60, one 65-68, chrome to the bone and she had sealice, magnificant fish...... This river has almost "reputationed " it's self out of a fish run. Shame to take all these fish out of the gene pool............

rob allen

06-11-2002, 05:14 PM

Catch and kill and a no longer sustainable fishery hmmm imagine that..

How many times do we have to here this same thing over and over and over and over and over.. If you kill too many fish from any given river the wild fish there will stop sustaining themselves. It is simple and that is the way it is. There are too many people wanting to catch and kill fish and fewer locations to do that. Fewer locations mean sthat thoes locations will get hit harder and harder. It's time for salmon and steelhead anglers to give up the idea of killing any wild fish PERIOD! This is no longer a matter of opinion. If you want there to be fish to catch in 20 years then release the wild fish you catch no matter where you catch them! If you do not then you do not care about the future of wild fish. You cannot have it both ways. Actions speak louder than words.
Just to put this in perspective. The very best trophy chinook run on the planet has just been closed!

Killing wild fish is wrong Period end of story there will never be enough wild fish anywhere in the world again to support a harvest fishery. As I said this is no longer a matter of opinion if you disagree with me you are wrong. If that offends you i am sorry I just call it like it is.

Thumper

06-11-2002, 05:25 PM

"As I said this is no longer a matter of opinion if you disagree with me you are wrong. If that offends you i am sorry I just call it like it is."

No arrogance here!

rob allen

06-11-2002, 05:30 PM

Not trying to be arrogant Thumper just saying how it is. If anyone kills a wild fish that by deffinition means they do not care about the future of the resource Period!!!! thats all there is and their ain't no more. You cannot say you care then go kill one. 30 years ago yea sure but not anymore.

Ramstrong

06-11-2002, 05:58 PM

I think you're making to broad and sweeping of a statement there Rob.

There are runs that have definately been over fished. However there are still rivers that have plenty of wild fish and can sustain harvest.

The run of Chinook on the Harrison river in BC can total over 80,000 fish and hardly anyone fishes for them because they are the white fleshed variety. I don't think that if you were to harvest a fish it would be a grave detriment to the run.

The kenai is overfished because of it's reputation for big fish. I bet if you kept a fish from a river like the Nush it wouldn't make much of a difference, at least not now.

If a river gets the press, it gets the pressure. But to say the level of pressure on all rivers is too great and if you keep a nate you don't care about the fish is arrogant at best. Most likely ignorant.

[ 06-13-2002, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Ramstrong ]

fishpatrol

06-11-2002, 06:03 PM

The Kenai guides have had their "catch and release" program for a while. Any fish let go over 50" gets a 500$ credit toward a glass mount from Ninilchick mounts. Guess they should have stuck to the program. Now all the big fish are gone, I'm guilty too.

Joe Schwab

06-11-2002, 06:57 PM

Having guided on the Kenai for four years I can relate to the problem. Don't hang it all on the catch and kill crowd. When ADF&G stops the commercial take of Kings in the setnet fishery off the mouth of the Kenai, then the sports can assume the responsibility. I have seen 50 pound Kings in the box for sale for $1.00 per pound wholesale. That's obscene!
There is a unacknowledged black market in Kings off the beach available to anyone who has the cash to buy.
The money fish to the gillnetters on Cook Inlet is sockeye and the only limiting factor to catching more sockeye is the incidental catch of Kings. Do you see the hidden agenda?
While I agree we should not be targetting native fish on the spawning grounds there are plenty of healthy runs that will support catch and keep in the estuaries and oceans.

Fishplay

06-12-2002, 11:34 PM

It's just plain sad when a persons knowledge is limited but their closed mind is made up! One righteous catch n release fishermen can do more damage to a fish run than ten catch n eat fisherman can in one outing. I've seen it myself. The catch and eat group gets there limit and goes home and the catch and release guy can't get enough. They over play, mishandle, hook deeply, ect. nearly every one of the fish they catch. Most of those fish never spawn due to stress or death. They weren't doing it for sustinance.....but rather the fun of it. But hey! They released it and then went home feeling good about themselves.
This IS a matter of opinion that is substantiated with proof. I witnessed it. Just calling it as I see it.
I'm not narrow minded enough to make bold unsubstantiated claims that all catch and release fisherpeople simply don't care about our fish runs. However; I beleive a good percentage have no clue of the damage they cause to the resource.

Troller

06-13-2002, 06:16 AM

I agree with fish play totally. I can remember barely the first couple of big kings I caught and I kept them. I can not find fault in someone catching their first maybe only big fish of a lifetime and wanting to keep it. Personaly I only keep hatchery fish and only what I plan to eat in a day or two. But to say that If someone else Keeps a wild fish that they dont care thats bull. If the wild fish are in danger (they are) the people we pay to manage the fisheries should change the rules to say release all wild fish. But as long as it is legal to keep them it is personal choice. Just like alcohol and tabacco May not be the best choice but as long as it is legal it is up to the individual. Beer, single malt scotch, copenhagen and release wild fish are my choices .

rob allen

06-13-2002, 07:47 AM

fishplay.. That is BS. I don't know where you are fishing and seeing these things but I never see that anywhere. The only fishery where I have seen a lot of caught and released fish mishandled was the columbia river spring chinook fishery. specifically by boaters.. I applaud thoes who handle there fish well but most of the fish I saw released were netted, brought into the boat, dropped on the bottom of the boat, then thrown (dropped) back into the river.

I primarily fly fish and only keep hatchery fish . Most steelhead i land within 5 minutes regardless of the gear I use. Doesn't take any less time with a fly rod as with a casting rod.

Like I said I don't know where your fishing where you see all this abuse but it does not happen on a large scale anywhere where I fish

Lured In

06-13-2002, 08:11 AM

Rob I believe you are getting off into the broccoli patch here. Although I am no expert on the Kenai, there were two issues of STS that covered the Kenai situation in good detail and addressed both the "trophy" sport fishery and the "by catch" commercial fishery. There were years where the "by catch" on the nooks exceeded the total return to the river itself.

This is not a new issue and has apparrently been going on for at least the last 10 years. ADFG has been aware of this and again, apparently has not made the necessary efforts to protect the fishery. This would include both commercial "by catch" and sport "trophy" fishing.

IMO the only thing that needs to happen are harvest guidlines and slot limits that protect both the total return of fish and the gene pool that creates the monster chinooks.

As far as catch and keep for "trophy" fish, I will pass on the Kenai. It is obvious that this gene pool is nearly devistated specifically from this practice. In other areas, say the Columbia, the larger genes have already been depleted and we see the results. If I hooked a 80 pound fall run in the Columbia I wouldn't think twice about taking it home. If I want to the chance to catch a 80 pounder, I would go to the Kenai try to catch one and let it go if I did.

Perhaps that sounds somewhat hipocritical, but the fact is that there are not enough of the large genes in the Columbia to recover that fish stock. Look at the state record steelhead for WA and ID, both caught in the Clearwater the same year. More than likely this was the last of the "giant" steelhead as that record has stood for a few decades. (Of course the Clearwater issue seems to primarily stem from the Dworshak Dam.)

Anyway enough babbling on my part. Save the Kenai and give up the trophy catch and keep fishery.

rob allen

06-13-2002, 09:22 AM

Lured in

Point taken .. however the states are never going to take the necessary measures to protect our wild fish, the commercial fishermen certainly are not going to do it. The only people that can have a positive impact is sport anglers and the only way they can do it is by choosing not to kill wild fish. THE STATE AGENCIES WILL NOT DO IT!!!! even when it is clear cut issue like on the Olympic Penninsula in Washington. If I make enemies on this issue so be it but damn it I am right. There may be exceptions where it would be ok to kill wild fish but for how long???

Put it this way Anyone who intentionally kills a wild steelhead in Oregon Washington or Idaho even if it is legal to do so has absolutely no regard for the future of our runs or has any respect for other anglers. ( I deleted what i really think) Same goes for Coho and Chum and Chinook.

C&R

06-13-2002, 10:59 AM

FP,

I've been fishing C&R for a many years. Regarding overplaying fish yes, but it is usually the catch and kill anglers during the C&R season. Common phrase is fight/play him, Most true C&R anglers want the grab and then let the fish battle, tire a little and winch it in to be revived. Regarding hook deeply really how often are fish hooked deeply gear/fly vs bait? So you are fishing for subsistance and not the fun ? Please don't cloud the waters our fishiers are in enough danger not to have miss information spread.

monoman

06-13-2002, 11:00 AM

Rob
You are not right! My guess is you fly fish for steelhead not salmon, or a least mainly for steelhead. By stating "all wild fish must be released" you don't even take in the upriver brights, which we will chase here in just a few weeks. What about those that fish at Gold Beach? I could raise many rivers and runs that are wild and can be fished.
Your tone sounds like the same music OR Trout sings, take away theirs but leave mine! Knowing you are the one that is always right, period, I'm sure helps you sleep.
We should manage fish runs by basin. Blanket statements have got us here, lets work to get better. Our fish will not be saved by nonfishermen, they are not cute, soft or fuzzy. Only those who chase them will save them, that includes nonflyfishermen.

rob allen

06-13-2002, 11:41 AM

cutthroat there is not one healthy wild run of steelhead or coho or chum anywhere in Washington oregon or Idaho that can sustain any type of harvest fishery. Chinook have very little interest to me as an angler so I don't know anything about them. With so many hatchery fish around why the hell would anyone want to kill a wild fish??

TheRogue

06-13-2002, 11:54 AM

Killing wild fish is wrong Period end of story there will never be enough wild fish anywhere in the world again to support a harvest fishery. As I said this is no longer a matter of opinion if you disagree with me you are wrong. If that offends you i am sorry I just call it like it is. Put it this way Anyone who intentionally kills a wild steelhead in Oregon Washington or Idaho even if it is legal to do so has absolutely no regard for the future of our runs or has any respect for other anglers. ( I deleted what i really think) Same goes for Coho and Chum and Chinook cutthroat there is not one healthy wild run of steelhead or coho or chum anywhere in Washington oregon or Idaho that can sustain any type of harvest fishery. Chinook have very little interest to me as an angler so I don't know anything about them. With so many hatchery fish around why the hell would anyone want to kill a wild fish?? But, you constantly preach that we have got to get rid of hatchery fish!!! Let's face it, Rob, you're an anti-fish-killer, period. You have a completely different point of view than 99% of the people on this board. Many people (even me) read your posts, and gather information from them. I also enjoy arguing :grin: However, all you've done in the last few weeks is make most of the people that I know completely discount you as a radical, bordering on maniacal.

Obviously, you know nothing about wild populations of steelhead on the Southern OR coast, and you consistently lump in the thriving wild populations of North Coast fall chinook with your "not enough to harvest" statements.

bigshark

06-13-2002, 01:14 PM

These strong opinions expressed here are not a bad but health thing. We can all learn something from time to time from such exchanges. In this case I would like to point out the merit of re-reading Capt. Hooks comments. If you have been there much, you know he's right. I will now get myself into unpopular water. I'm of the opinion that you could combat fish the Kenai 24-7 and not hurt that run one bit "IF" there were no nets at the mouth and "IF" you could stop the upriver bait fishing that take these spawners. It seems to me that if a fish can make it through all that pressure, once it is on it's spawning grounds it is off limits. It also seems to me that letting a wild fish go can't hurt anything even if all don't spawn. Then there is the issue of the personal permits. It is difficult for me to understand why a guy with an Alaska plate on his 40 grand SUV
needs put a gillnet out and afterwards go to Louie's for a slab of prime rib at 33 bucks. This is what is called subsistance? I don't think so!
There are those who do need to take fish and there are those who take that do not need to.
It isn't perfect anywhere, not there or here in our own state. I hope you guys keep up the debates, even arguements. You care! That's a hell of a lot more than I can say about my generation. With you guys, the resourse may have a chance to survive.

TheRogue

06-13-2002, 01:26 PM

Rob..........

06/04/2002 I love eating salmon and steelhead as much as anyone but with the eventual hatchery closures the days of consumptive salmon and steelhead fishing will be over. It is time for all steelhead sport anglers to embrace the idea of catch and release just like our brothers to the North have on almost every river in Canada. And that's not C&R, no hatchery??

06/04/2002 A lot could be improved in our hatchery systems to make things better for everyone including wild fish. However we should not consider hatcheries as the answer for sustainable fisheries... But yet, you say no to harvesting wild fish, which means, with no hatcheries, no harvesting fish!!

06/05/2002 I'll tell you one more thing I want better fishing in my future. it is becoming ever so clear that current hatchery practices are not and cannot provide that for me. In fact hatcheries make my steelhead fishing worse because they kill off wild fish. Sounds pretty anti-hatchery to me!!

5-10 fish days on the Rogue and Umpqua are common during the height of the winter steelie season by guides and yokels alike. I had a 7 fish day a few years back plunking off the bank. The wild to hatchery fish ratio has been running 9:1 to 12:1. That is wild:hatchery!!!! A one-per-day, five-per-year limit is in place on the south coast, even though nearly everyone is in agreement that a more liberal bag limit is do-able.

kyle

[ 06-13-2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

boater

06-13-2002, 04:55 PM

[ 06-13-2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: boater ]

Fishplay

06-13-2002, 05:50 PM

Rob it's not BS Iv'e watched in numorous places over the years. The chum runs of the Miami and Kilches, steelhead laying on reds on the Tucker and Salmon, Trout at various eastern and central locations. The most recent was a couple of guides fishing oversized sturgeon just out from the ramp below the Dalles dam less than two weeks ago. They were fighting these fish to the point of exhaustion then not giving the fish time to recover before releasing. The fish were floating by us belly up! Both guides were reported ( cell phone) but we watched them fish all day before the law showed up.
C&R
Yes, I fish for sustinance. And I also fish for enjoyment. You can have both contrary to Rob A's opinion. I've probally been practicing C&R as long as anyone. I was catching and releasing trout behind my house when I was 8 years old. I only kept the fish that wouldn't make it if released. I was turning steelhead loose on the tucker at the power lines long before it was popular......or even acceptable by some. Boy some people get mad when you let go what they just can't seem to catch.
Something else I'm aware of because of my exposure to the hatchery process is that many of the fish Mr. Allen beleives to be wild are in fact not. If it were not for hatchery fish his fishing days would already be over. Ive seen the science. I know there are contradicting theories. These guys contradict each other as well as Rob contradicts himself every time he posts. I know about the large percentage of hatchery fish released unclipped. Where do you think all those "native" coho came from last year on the Columbia and in the ocean. Native I doubt unclipped certainly.
As for being mad. I don't think anyone is mad we just dissagree. I know political rehtoric when I see it! :grin:

tailchaser

06-13-2002, 08:13 PM

There was a great article in Salmon Trout Steelheader magazine here around the first of the year emphasizing the toubles that loom for the Kenai fishery if something isn't done quickly precisely for all of the reasons people have mentioned in this post. I'll see if I can find it, but in the meantime I'm sad to see a river I planned on fishing in the future has gone so sour. When I first went to Alaska 14 years ago I traveled past the Kenai and vowed to test the famous waters someday. It's a slap of reality however to all of us who don't look towards our future runs of fish and what can happen. :depressed:

tc

KilgoreTrout

06-13-2002, 10:41 PM

I too read the STS article and was amazed that a fishery could be managed this poorly and decline this quickly (at least in terms of trophy sized fish). The article did not say they were have problems with the sizes of the run (as they are having this year) - just that the larger fish are no longer present in any numbers. As usual Greed is the culprit. I'm fairly certain that neither the commercial fisherman, guides or locals wanted any restrictions as they all have to make a living. If the past 100 years of fishery mismanagement has shown anything is that we will fish an area to death. The grand banks off Canada's east coast are a prime example. I have only lived in Oregon 2 years but I still do not understand why they allow commercial fishing for Salmon and Sturgeon on the Columbia. It makes no logical or economic sense to me. I understand the Indians must be allowed to get their allocated fish, however they should just let them net the hatchery fish as they come out of the Bonneville dam, thus reducing the impact to wild fish. I assume the Kenai guides would not have as much business if Joe Schmo from Kokomo can not take home his fish of a lifetime. But guess what, they are going to lose business now anyway and it may not be coming back.

Dave

rob allen

06-14-2002, 12:27 AM

Rogue as you'll notice i kinda retracted my statement about chinook because i know almost nothing about them. Secondly I never said I wanted to get rid of all hatchery fish. I never once said that and I never eluded to it. In fact I never elude to anything ever I say exactly what I mean. The things I say end in what I say. They cannot be added to, elude to something else or have any meaning beyond the exact words I write. I do not want to get rid of all hatchery fish. The only thing I have ever said like that are 1. that there are some places that should never be planted and 2. we have to eliminate hatchry fish from our rivers before they spawn in the wild.

I am sorry that me spouting my opinions and whatI I see as absolutes makes people mad. Maybe they shouldn't be in love with the idea of killing everything they catch. Here in the states there are 10 times as many hatchery fish as there are wild fish with so many hatchery fish no one needs to kill wild fish for food or for sport. ESPECIALLY STEELHEAD. Anyone one who kills a wild steelhead even where it is legal is a selfish person who has no regard for the furure of our fish and fisheries. Not one river down here or in Canada for that matter can sustain a harvest fishery. NOT ONE!!!!! No rivers in Oregon can sustain a harvest fishery on wild coho. No river in Oregon can sustain a harvest fishery for Chums. And I'll have to take other peoples words on Chinook.

Giving up the retention of wild salmon and steelhead is as small of a gesture as an angler can possibly make for the future of our fisheries and if that is not a sacrifice they are willing to make volentarily well then expect bad fishing in the future...

Ok we have drifted far enough off the topic.. MY point is that the Keni the greatest chinook salmon fishery in the world is now closed because it cannot sustain a harvest sport fishery.
regardless of the reasons why the run is in the tank. It is my understanding that some nearby rivers are being closed because people want to go to then to bonk a huge native chinook and thoes rivers cannot
support such a fishery. How long until the most remote areas can no longer support a harvest fishery????

In my opinion you have to be blind to not see where this is heading yet catch and release of wild fish populations sustains healthy, popular and economically viable fisheries all over the world.

[ 06-13-2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: rob allen ]

Chris Sessions

06-14-2002, 07:56 AM

There are two separate runs of kings on the Kenai and it's no big surprise that this first run of Kings had to be protected by this closure. It's more like business as usual and different forms of protecting and trying to rebuild this run have been in place for several years. I haven't booked the first run for several years and will not fish on a depressed run of salmon. I do book for the second ,(July) run and according to the ADFW is in reasonably good shape and escapement, and yes, they do monitor this very closely. The second run of Kings do get hammered by the set nets as Capt. Hook mentioned but I'm not sure we can hang the responsibility for the demise of the first run, as far as I know they don't put their nets in till July when the bulk of the reds arrive. As far as Wild verses Hatchery, The Kenai is the best salmon hatchery on the planet. No, there are no man-made hatcheries on this river, as there are no hatchery salmon but when allowed to spawn naturally in a healthy Kenai eco system, human hatcheries can't compete.
Chris

cosmo

06-14-2002, 10:42 AM

It seems to me like sport fishermen give themselves way too much credit for being able to catch fish. Fellas, were just not that good. Look at the Oregon coast. On a solid average, sport harvest of fall chinook is 25,000 coastwide, including river basins. This year, and in many years past, the commercial troll fleet will catch 250,000 chinook. What's worse is that troll catch targets multiple age classes, not simply the present year's spawners, as sport fishing primarily does, whcih means they take from future years returns before we even have an expectation of what that return will be.
It is amazing to me that everyone so quickly accepts sport fishing as a massive problem in Alaska or Washington or Oregon. Do you know how many commercial salmon it takes to feed Japan? Try this on for size. In 2000 (closest information at hand) the projected return of sockeye salmon to Bristol Bay Alaska was 24.3 million fish. The commercial quota in the salt, before susistance or otherwise, was 15.6 million fish---2/3 of the run. It may feel like sport anglers take a toll on runs because for the most part all we see is what finally enters the bay or river, but those are simply the leftovers of previous huge take. I urge anyone interested in the truth about harvest to subscribe to Alaska Fisherman's Journal or Pacific Fishing. Sport anglers weigh fish in pounds, in these mags they weigh fish in metric tons, thousands of them.
I applaud the effort to be part of the solution but I see it as simply picking the low hanging fruit. Sports have always been easy. We'll regulate ourselves off the water long before the the commercial fleet ever has the true coming-to-jesus it needs. Hydropower, logging, and ag, are all the same too. Float the Wilson from ten-mile down on the first fall rain and let me know how much mud comes off the newly logged slope right above the river. Run an acre-foot of water through your sink at home and see what your bill comes to.
I give on one fishery where sports can really have an impact, ocean coho. In the boom years of the mid-eighties with unreal catch and a heavily geared ocean fishing sport community we did some damage. Beyond that, for the most part it's not there, but for Oregon Trout and some managers, it sure reads well.

rob allen

06-14-2002, 10:52 AM

Cosmo.

You make an excellent point. The only thing I would say is that we know that nothing is going to be done about commercial fishermen or any other major impacting factor. However we still make an attempt to fight for the fish. All I am saying is that sport anglers should strive to not be any part of the problem. By the time our wild fish get back to the river we need every single one of them to spawn. We are the ones who claim to care about the resource and it's very easy not to kill the wild ones thats all I am asking anglers to do. To me that seems like an extremely tiny sacrifice.

Chris Sessions

06-14-2002, 02:22 PM

Good points cosmo. Has there ever been a fishery depleted or wiped out with hook and line, or has it always taken a net or fish wheel? One thing I think fisheries managers have learned, as a general rule, there is no general rule. Helpful recovery efforts for some rivers / basins /areas, may be the kiss of death for others.

Unfortunately, because of the Kenai's popularity, when it does shut down to sport fishing, it puts extreme sport pressure on neighboring streams such as the Kasilof resulting in more emergency regs.

cosmo

06-15-2002, 12:22 AM

Rob, I totally disagree. On the Kenai, sport anglers should wack every fish they can. You are either the problem or you are not. The Kenai run is measured by underwater sensors that fish trigger as they pass upstreeam. What are measured are fish that have passed the commercial fleet. Based on escapement, the river opens or closes to sport angling. Openings and closures are not based on the sport community itself. Take out the sport anglers, and the fish they would have caught get rolled into commercial catch in the future. I'm sorry but you are trying put a band-aid on a compound fracture.
As soon as harvest drops off the table, so does the need for true recovery. We can wipe all harvest out and maintain museum runs of salmon and steelhead for future generations. That's great, no fishing at all, but hey, we've got these fish in the creek to look at.
I don't want just wild fish. I want harvestable populations of wild fish. Forget the need for harvest and you've just lowered the bar of recovery dramatically.