Rules

Discussion area for political and legal issues affecting Alaskan salmon fisheries.
Post Reply
carojae
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:45 am

Rules

Post by carojae »

Although I didn't make this years meetings, there were a couple of issues brought up at the troll Spring fish port meetings that are kind of dumbfounding, according to dock talk.

Rods and reels are no longer legal on a commercial boat. Really? No more halibut fishing in style I guess..this borders on childish rigmarole. I sure would like to hear the reasoning behind this.

Homeshore and chum fishing is of issue because "the commercial guys" might catch King Salmon? Wasn't limited entry and this treaty bs suppose to solve these type issues? Does this mean we are growing King Salmon for the sporty now?

What happened to the great minds in charge?
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Rules

Post by Salty »

Carojae, just goes to show how screwed up the information recovered in "dock talk" can get.
carojae
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:45 am

Re: Rules

Post by carojae »

Either that or communication by teleconference.
What's the real story?
Once and Future
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: Rules

Post by Once and Future »

Carojae did a good thing here. He is trying to find out if there is any truth to some rumors that he has heard. Will someone who knows for sure give provide him (and us) a solid answer? Killing false rumors is important work, and I tend to respect honest questions.
curmudgeon
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:57 am
Spammer?: No

Re: Rules

Post by curmudgeon »

As usual it's nearly impossible t navigate the ADFG website to find the statute regulations, but they are online here: http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats ... ion120.htm

And taken directly from the port-meeting handout:
6. Regulatory language in 5 AAC 29.120. Gear specifications and operations is clarified now reads: “from each power troll gurdy: only one line to which multiple leaders and hooks may be attached; a person may not use hand troll gurdies or fishing rods to take salmon commercially on board a registered power troll vessel.” This additional language does not change the regulation but instead clarifies what is currently in regulation.

Taken together my assumption is that the section from the handout will be added as paragraph under (b) (1) of section 120 above.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the key here is in the wording "...to take salmon commercially on board a registered power troll vessel.”
So our sport fishing on days we don't fish commercially is still preserved (and Salty can still have his rod-and-reel aboard to retrieve his tag-lines! <grin>)
Kelper
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:04 am
Spammer?: No
Location: Craig

Re: Rules

Post by Kelper »

Yeah, the rod regulation isn't new, they were just cleaning up the language on that one.

I never did understand that rule. If a guy wanted to work harder with hand gurdies, or catch less fish with rods, why is that prohibited? I sure there is some rational or history behind that rule, I just can't figure it out.
ata
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Re: Rules

Post by ata »

Hi All:

Just saw this topic line or would have responded sooner - sorry, it's crazy busy in Juneau. I completely agree with Once and Future - it's important to nip dock rumor in the bud, so questions are always good - thanks Carojae. Just remember that some answers and discussion are best handled offline.

>>>>Rods and reels are no longer legal on a commercial boat. Really?

Nope, not really. Looks like crumudgeon helped by providing language, but in case anyone's still confused, ADFG just wanted to clean up the existing regulation to make it clear that you can't use a sport rod for power trolling. Clarifying language - without changing the intent of a regulation - is a common thing at Board of Fisheries meetings.

>>>>Kelper... if I understand what you wrote, you wondered about why it matters if a power troller uses HT gear(?)

First, not all trollers hold both permits. And, you can't have two units of gear onboard and fishable at the same time. And, what about your numbers - you going to display HT#, but actually be PT'ing... with HT gear? Enforcement would probably go nuts and hassle you no end - trying to sort out who is doing what, with what. Probably simpler on everyone's head just to stick to one prescribed type of gear at a time. Now, hopefully, everyone knows better what that is, thanks to the ADFG clarification.


>>>>Homeshore and chum fishing is of issue because "the commercial guys" might catch King Salmon?

Juneau area sport fishermen aren't saying we shouldn't catch any king salmon, but expressed concern at the recent Board of Fisheries meeting that juvenile king salmon might be negatively impacted by the new Chatham chum fishery. As most of you know, this fishery is relatively new and considered 'experimental', because ADFG and the BOF still want to review it for any problems. Hopefully with a bit more time ADFG will see that any impacts on king salmon in this fishery are minimal.


>>>>Wasn't limited entry and this treaty bs suppose to solve these type issues?

No. This issue doesn't have anything to do with either of those things. We have been given an opportunity to catch DIPAC chums in an area that's pretty important to the sport fishery. Some anglers are concerned that we might harm Taku king salmon as they out-migrate or return home. Chum trollers in the area report very low incidence of king salmon presence or catch, so hopefully this will be recognized over time and the fears expressed by some anglers will be put to rest.


>>>>Does this mean we are growing King Salmon for the sporty now?

Actually, the beef in Chatham is over wild salmon, but maybe I should also state that none of our 3% money goes to DIPAC. DIPAC is not part of the regional aquaculture program paid for by commercial fishermen. However, all hatcheries do count with respect to commercial hatchery allocation. Over the years we have invested treaty mitigation funds in DIPAC, and NSRAA has occasionally loaned them money for specific projects. Just be careful not to claim that the commercial fleet pays for all the hatchery fish in the region. We pay for most of them, but not all. And, no matter who pays, once they go in the water, they become part of the common property fishery.

Hope that helps.

Dale
ATA
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Rules

Post by Salty »

Thanks all and I apologize for being flippant. One of the changes in Icy Straits was to clarify that the hatchery access Chinook fishery would not be closed in the unlikely event the hatchery chum troll fishery needed to be closed to protect wild chum. The retention of chums would be prohibited in that unlikely event.
Thx Dale and others for spot on clarifications.

I go to the meetings as much as possible, check with both ATA and staff regularly, and follow both BOF proposals and actions. I am still unsure many times exactly what has been amended, added, or the effect. Last thing I want to do is discourage questions and clarifications.
John Murray
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: Rules

Post by John Murray »

There's a number of ways to contribute to the process.If you wait for the great minds to do it for you,you might get side tracked by the hot shot.
carojae
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:45 am

Re: Rules

Post by carojae »

What's that mean John? If you are implying I don't do my part, you are dead wrong. You don't know me or what I've done or what I've contributed. And yes, I contribute monetarily to my association from 2 different sources that I am a part of.

Hot shot? Nobody is side tracked by a hot shot on this side. How 'bout you?
Post Reply