We posted this on March 18, taken verbatum from the Deckboss blog. There have been 110 hits on this article from folks scrolling back to March to read it on our website so we thought we'd haul it out to the front page.
Just so you don't have a Orson Wellesian World at War breakdown, this is about a meeting that happened LAST March, not this coming March. Naturally SEAS has had alot to say about the USFS's ability to manage Alaska's state marine waters salmon fisheries, but you'll have to go elsewhere to find those opinions as this is just a direct haul off the Deckboss website.
Deckboss on Angoon and Comments
Southeast seiners face a subsistence fight
The Federal Subsistence Board, at a meeting set for March 21-23 in Juneau, will consider a petition seeking to close or curtail commercial salmon fishing in Southeast Alaska.
Kootznoowoo Inc., the Native corporation for the village of Angoon, submitted the petition to the federal government.
The petitioner asks the feds to exercise "extraterritorial jurisdiction" to protect the subsistence priority for Angoon residents. It contends the state-managed commercial fisheries have interfered with subsistence fishing for sockeye.
Kootznoowoo wants commercial fisheries in the waters around Angoon closed or restricted. This includes fishing districts in Chatham, Icy and Peril straits.
The Native corporation also recommends reducing the harvest area adjacent to Hidden Falls Hatchery, located across Chatham Strait from Angoon.
In advance of the meeting, the Federal Subsistence Board has posted a staff report that looks at the petition, area salmon runs, Angoon subsistence practices and fishery management.
The report concludes by saying "not enough information" is available to know if a total closure of commercial purse seine fisheries would meet all of Kootznoowoo's stated needs.
The report adds, however, that it "appears more likely than not that the commercial purse seine fishery is reducing the number of sockeye salmon returning" to federally managed waters.
To see Kootznoowoo's petition and supplement, go to the Federal Subsistence Board website.
Kootznoowoo Inc., the Native corporation for the village of Angoon, submitted the petition to the federal government.
The petitioner asks the feds to exercise "extraterritorial jurisdiction" to protect the subsistence priority for Angoon residents. It contends the state-managed commercial fisheries have interfered with subsistence fishing for sockeye.
Kootznoowoo wants commercial fisheries in the waters around Angoon closed or restricted. This includes fishing districts in Chatham, Icy and Peril straits.
The Native corporation also recommends reducing the harvest area adjacent to Hidden Falls Hatchery, located across Chatham Strait from Angoon.
In advance of the meeting, the Federal Subsistence Board has posted a staff report that looks at the petition, area salmon runs, Angoon subsistence practices and fishery management.
The report concludes by saying "not enough information" is available to know if a total closure of commercial purse seine fisheries would meet all of Kootznoowoo's stated needs.
The report adds, however, that it "appears more likely than not that the commercial purse seine fishery is reducing the number of sockeye salmon returning" to federally managed waters.
To see Kootznoowoo's petition and supplement, go to the Federal Subsistence Board website.
WTF - what does the above rant have to do with whether or not a state commercial salmon fishery is negatively impacting a Federal subsistence salmon fishery?
There are many CFEC permit holders who are Alaska Natives, and there are quite a few non-Alaska Natives who are federally qualified rural subsistence users.
The Federal Subsistence Board has been extremely hesitant to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction on salmon issues. The Yukon River is a good example, where the same plea was put forth to close or reduce salmon bycatch in federal fisheries in the Bering Sea, and to force a change in the mesh size in the lower river commercial king fishery.
In both instances the isue was taken up in the appropriate fishery management venue, the NPFMC and the BOF.
The tribe should be instructed to work through the public petition process established by the BOF - they just wrapped up there annual three year cycle in the SE finfish meeting where this issue more appropriately should have been discussed and deliberated.
There are many CFEC permit holders who are Alaska Natives, and there are quite a few non-Alaska Natives who are federally qualified rural subsistence users.
The Federal Subsistence Board has been extremely hesitant to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction on salmon issues. The Yukon River is a good example, where the same plea was put forth to close or reduce salmon bycatch in federal fisheries in the Bering Sea, and to force a change in the mesh size in the lower river commercial king fishery.
In both instances the isue was taken up in the appropriate fishery management venue, the NPFMC and the BOF.
The tribe should be instructed to work through the public petition process established by the BOF - they just wrapped up there annual three year cycle in the SE finfish meeting where this issue more appropriately should have been discussed and deliberated.
WTF - what does the above rant have to do with whether or not a state commercial salmon fishery is negatively impacting a Federal subsistence salmon fishery?
There are many CFEC permit holders who are Alaska Natives, and there are quite a few non-Alaska Natives who are federally qualified rural subsistence users.
The Federal Subsistence Board has been extremely hesitant to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction on salmon issues. The Yukon River is a good example, where the same plea was put forth to close or reduce salmon bycatch in federal fisheries in the Bering Sea, and to force a change in the mesh size in the lower river commercial king fishery.
In both instances the isue was taken up in the appropriate fishery management venue, the NPFMC and the BOF.
The tribe should be instructed to work through the public petition process established by the BOF - they just wrapped up there annual three year cycle in the SE finfish meeting where this issue more appropriately should have been discussed and deliberated.
There are many CFEC permit holders who are Alaska Natives, and there are quite a few non-Alaska Natives who are federally qualified rural subsistence users.
The Federal Subsistence Board has been extremely hesitant to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction on salmon issues. The Yukon River is a good example, where the same plea was put forth to close or reduce salmon bycatch in federal fisheries in the Bering Sea, and to force a change in the mesh size in the lower river commercial king fishery.
In both instances the isue was taken up in the appropriate fishery management venue, the NPFMC and the BOF.
The tribe should be instructed to work through the public petition process established by the BOF - they just wrapped up there annual three year cycle in the SE finfish meeting where this issue more appropriately should have been discussed and deliberated.
I get that subsistence is a way of life, and I love that about Alaska. But nobody is entitled to catching all the fish they 'need', in one small stream, which clearly cannot support the needs of the whole town. Perhaps Angoon should diversify as the elders did and spread the fishing effort over a greater area, and take a few more cohos instead of expecting 100% sockeye.
Trying to shut down an entire fishery in Chatham Straight Just to have a monopoly on one small sockeye run is not a good solution to this issue. That would be very costly and wasteful, and benefit a select few who have opportunities to fish elsewhere, just like the rest of us who do not fish Kanalku.
Shutting down the north end to get a higher limit in an already weak run just doesnt make sense.
Trying to shut down an entire fishery in Chatham Straight Just to have a monopoly on one small sockeye run is not a good solution to this issue. That would be very costly and wasteful, and benefit a select few who have opportunities to fish elsewhere, just like the rest of us who do not fish Kanalku.
Shutting down the north end to get a higher limit in an already weak run just doesnt make sense.
2 biggest years on recorded history on kanalku were 2009 when there was a robust seine fishery.
And 2010 when there was no fishery.
Explain. As for the harvest of Kanalku sockeyes, there has not been a single tag or fish sampled to determine that even a single fish was caught in the seine fishery. That fishery is closed for a 9 mile stretch of beach outside of Angoon.
ADFG has managed the Chatham Strait Corridor so well that 2011 was the #1 season EVER. EVER. For pink salmon. And being that a year and 2 years after the largest ever escapement to Kanalku. What seems to be the problem here.
And 2010 when there was no fishery.
Explain. As for the harvest of Kanalku sockeyes, there has not been a single tag or fish sampled to determine that even a single fish was caught in the seine fishery. That fishery is closed for a 9 mile stretch of beach outside of Angoon.
ADFG has managed the Chatham Strait Corridor so well that 2011 was the #1 season EVER. EVER. For pink salmon. And being that a year and 2 years after the largest ever escapement to Kanalku. What seems to be the problem here.
Clearly our resources cannot survive all Alaskans taking what they need....which is why Kanalku has reasonable limits in place to keep the fishery from crashing again. What s so wrong with a limit based on what that fishery can support?
If you limit out, then you go fish a different creek. I can catch enough fish for my family for a year (and we eat it nearly 5 days a week) in 4-5 days of hard work per year. why then, do some Angoon residents (no names here) feel they are entitled to take far more than the biologists say the fishery can support all from the run, that's historically collapsed from overfishing before?
And they want to protect this "right" by closing fisheries that have never caught a single fish from that run, in all thousands of scale samples that they take?
The problem with Kanalku is a big waterfall, and overfishing on the spawners in the creek. Seiners targeting pinks are clearly not the issue here.
If you limit out, then you go fish a different creek. I can catch enough fish for my family for a year (and we eat it nearly 5 days a week) in 4-5 days of hard work per year. why then, do some Angoon residents (no names here) feel they are entitled to take far more than the biologists say the fishery can support all from the run, that's historically collapsed from overfishing before?
And they want to protect this "right" by closing fisheries that have never caught a single fish from that run, in all thousands of scale samples that they take?
The problem with Kanalku is a big waterfall, and overfishing on the spawners in the creek. Seiners targeting pinks are clearly not the issue here.
1968
First fed study and partial removal of kanalku blockage
First fed study and partial removal of kanalku blockage
2002
Removal of large tree blockage in kanalku
2004
Removal of large tree from usfs 1950s logging blocking kook lake
Wonder why the sockeye are 100% now and weren't doing well in 2002 or 2004?
Duh!!!!!
Removal of large tree blockage in kanalku
2004
Removal of large tree from usfs 1950s logging blocking kook lake
Wonder why the sockeye are 100% now and weren't doing well in 2002 or 2004?
Duh!!!!!
2009-2010
Largest kanalku runs on record
Think kootznawoo or the fed can do better
Think again
Largest kanalku runs on record
Think kootznawoo or the fed can do better
Think again
Maybe if Senator Kookesh and his buddies wouldn't overfish the runs and harvest more than the bag limit, the numbers of Sockeye would not be a problem. We have bag limits for a reason.
And bag limits aren't a native/non-native thing. The Tlingits had people who "took care of" the salmon runs and defined the bag limits. Even then, way back in the day, there were still people who overfished the runs. Those folks were then ostracized... put on the canoe and told to paddle someplace else...
Senator Kookesh should have been given that treatment. instead, Sealaska stepped in with lawyers and funds for legal fees and the state allowed him to break the law.
And bag limits aren't a native/non-native thing. The Tlingits had people who "took care of" the salmon runs and defined the bag limits. Even then, way back in the day, there were still people who overfished the runs. Those folks were then ostracized... put on the canoe and told to paddle someplace else...
Senator Kookesh should have been given that treatment. instead, Sealaska stepped in with lawyers and funds for legal fees and the state allowed him to break the law.
I am a native of south east alaska, I am also a commercial fisherman! I find this post rather disturbing because the commerical seine fishery is being targeted!
I come from a small village, and we here also have a small dwindling sockeye run do to OVER FISHING by SUBSISTENCE USERS! yet the commerical fleet gets the blame! Im sure you will not say you have ever over fished it though, you dont want to admit that, its easier to do the blame game! Just saying, I know how it is too!
I come from a small village, and we here also have a small dwindling sockeye run do to OVER FISHING by SUBSISTENCE USERS! yet the commerical fleet gets the blame! Im sure you will not say you have ever over fished it though, you dont want to admit that, its easier to do the blame game! Just saying, I know how it is too!
Right on!
No comments:
Post a Comment