Progressive Alaska noted at the end of 2007 that the continuing decline of Matanuska-Susitna Borough salmon stocks should be regarded as one of the top ten Mat-Su stories of 2007. For some reason, this important issue didn't make it onto the radar of the ADN's Valley bureau. Nor onto the screen at the Frontiersman, as far as I've been able to determine. I can remember when fishing in the Upper Inlet was a lot better than it now is. The last time I talked to Sarah Palin's dad was when his canoe and mine were a couple of lengths apart in the mouth of Fish Creek, the stream that drains Big Lake into Knik Arm. We were dipnetting in one of the last seasons of that fishery. My daughter and I caught 36 Sockeye in 45 minutes.
I can remember when Jim Creek was far more viable as a Silver fishery, when I could easily catch Coho on eggs or lures near the mouth of Cottonwood Creek, and when twice to three times as many Sockeye and Coho spawned at the upper end of Cottonwood Creek, where we live, on Neklason Lake. Every Valley fisher has similar stories - or worse.
There is no rational reason for this seemingly inexorable trend toward extinction. Alaska is the only place in the world where salmon stocks remain fairly vital overall. The Upper Cook Inlet stocks are a glaring exception to this generality. I've been asking my local, state and Federal-level politicians about why this has to happen for the past 25 years. I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.
Craig Medred, the Anchorage Daily News Outdoors Editor, tried to tackle this issue today, in a column suggesting that the regional ADF&G office in Soldotna should be moved to the ADF&G HQ on Raspberry Road, in Anchorage:
Move the decision-making power for Cook Inlet commercial fisheries out of the Soldotna office.
Put it in the regional office in Anchorage, and give all the biologists involved, from both the commercial and sport divisions in Kenai and Mat-Su, a seat at the table.
I'd add - Fire all the GOP politicians in the Upper Inlet who have let this valuable resource for our community and our locally-based tourism industry wither, one run after another, through the entire period - from 1994 on - of GOP dominance of the Valley political structures. They have utterly failed to do their job on this. Completely.
photo of unknown happy guys with their Steelheads on the Little Susitna from the 3 Rivers Fly & Tackle trophy page
4 comments:
Medred is full of biased crap, as usual. Blaming the geographic location of the professional biologists who manage the fisheries for the perception that his special constituency (and yours, apparently) are being unfairly treated is slanderous and stupid (but typical Medred scat).
And the GOP politicians in Southcentral have always had, as their special constituency, the sport fishers who play with the resource for some atavistic thrill. We should all rejoice that they have not been able to substitute their politically-motivated biases for sound scientific management.
The commercial guys fish for me and my family, and I appreciate their efforts. Too bad they can't engage in an orderly, sustained-yield fishery without putting up with so much crap from the likes of Medred and (it seems) you.
So, f of f, what you recommend be done to stop the decline of salmon in the upper Inlet?
I'm not saying Medred has THE SOLUTION. But the decline isn't solely due to the increasing habitat of Pike, for instance.
First, I recommend that the public stop villifying the professionals and suggesting that relocating them is some sort of "solution."
Second, I recommend that those with unfettered access to newspapers and blogs cool their rhetoric and let the professionals undertake the following inquiry:
a) What is the problem?
b) Is the constituionally mandated sustained yield of the biomass threatened?
c) To what extent, if at all, is the "problem" caused by (or even exacerbated by) overfishing -- and, if it is, is the problem system-wide or local?
d) If the problem of overfishing is system-wide, what sector of fishers (commercial or sport) is causing the problem; alternatively, if it simply local depletion, which sector is causing that problem?
e) To what extent, if at all, is the "problem" caused by habitat issues (alterations to spawning habitat, invasive species, systemic or endemic disease, etc.)?
f) Any other concern that the professional believe are pertinent to the inquiry.
When the scientific inquiry is complete, appropriate solutions can be devised, peer-reviewed, tested, and recommended to the Department and the Board of Fish. That is the responsible way to proceed.
But it is entirely irresponsible to leap to a political conclusion to satisfy some short-term appetite for more fish for any one sector or another. As I recall, that's one of the reasons we were fighting for statehood 50 years ago -- to "get politics out of fish management." F-of-F
A Dozen Suggestions:
1. In terms of the ADF&G budget, treat the Susitna River drainage with the same degree of seriousness and professionalism as the Kenai River. This is where elected officials can help, in ADF&G budget allocations. Phillip was asking about the upper Sustina drainage, so that a leading question is, do we have enough ADF&G budget and manpower to answer the scientific questions about management?
2. Escapement goals come first.
3. As escapement declines, more control over harvest is required. There will need to be a discussion about which controls are most effective, and that discussion will impact allocation choices.
4. The allocation discussion is always the most difficult, and is always enhanced by as much quantitative data as possible. The allocation of harvest discussion ought to have some quantitative grounding in measurements of utilization and demand by the different user groups, and in comparisons of allocations with other geographic areas with similar problems, and in its enforceability.
5. Allocation is, by its nature, a political discussion. The key is good leadership at the Advisory Committee level, keeping a focus on positive politics. No user group should feel disenfranchised by polarized committee leadership. There is no such thing as "keeping politics out of allocation."
6. The quality of Advisory Committee meetings, especially contentious meetings, is enhanced by Roberts Rules, and by reinforcement of positive interaction. Respect for all is the rule. There should be low levels of tolerance for bashing of others in any form.
7. Allocation is like a budget - the process is enhanced by a plan. A long range plan for fisheries management of the drainage can be a big help.
8. The best Advisory Committees conserve the credibility of their fisheries biologist. On escapement issues, the biologist is the authority. The biologist makes the run forecast and sets the escapement goals, and these data must be respected. On allocation issues, the biologist is a consultant. To the extent possible, the Advisory Committee seeks a quantitative grounding in social, cultural, and economic data about users, historical data about how their allocation plan worked in the last few years, and seeks alignment with a long range management plan for the drainage.
9. The best allocation plans have clarity for the user. The less ambiguity the better. The fewer the rules, the better.
10. The best Advisory Committees work at user education, hand-in-hand with ADF&G, in schools, comm fish organizations, sport user groups, and public relations campaigns.
11. Enforcement programs for sport fishing should have a positive component that rewards users for good conservation choices. To the extent possible, you want the willing cooperation of the public and especially of young users growing up. In my opinion, to the extent possible, there ought to be 10 instances of positive user reinforcement for every citation - more if possible.
12. Fisheries biologists should not be authorized for enforcement. This is a confusion of roles which eventually detracts from the ability of the biologist to do good scientific work.
And one more. I think it is helpful when the Advisory Committee adopts a seasonal round of meetings which separates the committee membership process and from the seasonal allocation meetings.
Post a Comment