Alaska's Kenai River is 82 miles long. The river's volume output averages about 6,000 cubic feet per second. The combination of location, salmon abundance and natural beauty combine to make the Kenai River Alaska's most popular sports fishing destination.The river is so important that the salmon fisheries of both lower Cook Inlet, of which the Kenai is a part, and upper Cook Inlet, are managed primarily in relation to how Kenai River sustainability and use can best be accommodated.
This Kenai River-centric fishery management history is one of the main reasons the salmon fisheries of upper Cook Inlet have slowly withered over the past generation or so. Kenai and Soldotna-based politicians and businesses have benefitted from the Kenai River-centric fish management and business paradigm.
Alaska's national congressional delegation, and such past governors as Tony Knowles, Bill Sheffield and Frank Murkowski have all supported this model, at the expense of the upper Cook Inlet's salmon stock sustainability.The Kenai River's two Sockeye salmon runs are well-known, as are the river's Rainbow trout and Coho salmon runs. But the Kenai River Kings are one of Alaska's most famous fish. Only a few streams in Alaska boast larger average return weights than the Kenai. Those streams are quite small, though. About 65,000 King Salmon return to the Kenai River each year, making the return there the third largest among Alaska rivers.
The Copper River, with its annual commercial catch of around 40,000 Kings, and total return of around 70,000 or more, is the second biggest river in Alaska for Kings.
By far, the river with the largest return population of salmon has historically been the 2,300 mile-long Yukon River. But that has changed dramatically over the past decade or so. A river that recently saw returning King salmon populations in the hundreds of thousands, will most likely be closed this year.
Sadly, it has been reported, that already in 2009, by-catch of Yukon River-bound Chinook (King) salmon in the Bering Sea already (in February!) has surpassed what will be the allowable catch of the entire Yukon River subsistence and commercial fisheries:
Already in 2009, bycatch numbers are climbing, according to reports from crew members out West, for salmon and halibut.
Imagine how Alaskans would react if, year after year, a Seattle-based, partially foreign-owned fleet came into the bottom of Cook Inlet, and dragged up over 75% of the salmon coming into Cook Inlet. Imagine if this fleet wasn't even there to fish salmon. Imagine if the crewmen either brought these Anchor, Kasilof, Kenai, Susitna and Deshka River-bound King salmon back to Seattle to go to the Salvation Army, or - if they needed all the space in the hold left, for more Pollock - threw the valuable Kings overboard while the observers aboard their ships were kept out of sight.That is what has been happening in the Bering Sea for decades. It has gotten to the point that the Seattle-based trawlers are taking so much of the Yukon, Kuskokwim and other river-bound salmon in their by-catch, that there might well not even be a Yukon River season in 2009. Or 2010. Or - ever again.
Could this happen to the Kenai River? Not likely. If the salmon runs on the Kenai will die, it will be from other kinds of greed and hyper-development. We've seen how much resistance some user groups of the river and property along the river have taken to sound policies and initiatives designed to improve salmon habitat.Why, then, are rivers closer to the Bering Sea being allowed to wither away, allowing communities that have survived, even thrived there for twice or three times as long as there has been an English language, to die? Or to be relocated to Palinesque strategic hamlets, to be called "Cluster Villages," where kids would be trained to perform for tourists.
No doubt, one of the song-and-dance routines would be about the salmon that used to come up the river. You can go watch Native American songs and dances like that already, down on the Klamath, Columbia, Snake and Fraser Rivers.
I'm not sure whether the Yukon and Kuskokwim cultures are being allowed to die almost as fast as Gaza more because they are non-White, or because they are out-of-sight, out-of-mind.
images:
Upper Kenai River
Sen. Lisa Murkowski with trophy King
Abandoned gillnetter near Nunam Iqua
riverside housing development near Kenai
11 comments:
A tragedy in our own backyard.
This should never be allowed to happen.
A very complex situation. But, bottom line, the in river fishers simply do not have the political clout.
Phil, thank you for this well written story.
Robert
A tragedy in our own backyard.
This should never be allowed to happen.
A very complex situation. But, bottom line, the in river fishers simply do not have the political clout.
Phil, thank you for this well written story.
Robert
Excellent story Phil.
George Bush thinks he will go down in history as one of the greatest American presidents because he was unpopular (as he claims Lincoln was) while serving.
Unlike Lincoln, the human and non- human damage Bush has done to our world is remarkable-- everything from our prosperity to our natural surroundings-- even the fish in our rivers may not survive the consequences of Mr. Bush.
Perhaps the problem you describe here is not a direct consequence of Bush, but we should never underestimate. What if Gore had been our president?
Now that Bush is finally gone, is there any hope for the Yukon? Or is this primarily a State of Alaska fiasco?
anon @ #4 - there is more than enough blame to go around.
Riki Ott has brought up in her new book, "Not One Drop," the fact that there isn't enough science being done that isn't industry-owned, industry-controlled, or free from government strictures on revealing the science's worth publicly. Most of the important science learned from the Exxon Valdez spill on PWS is still unavailable in raw form. Gov. Palin refuses to release raw science on Polar bears done by one set of State of Alaska scientists to another set of State scientists, unless the second set pays an absurd amount of money for the info.
The only set of agencies that can cut the Gordian knot on the problems with Yukon River return and escapement levels are the Feds. They could force the state and industry and other groups to comply to new strictures.
BTW - I'm learning enough about mesh sizes on the Yukon River to feel this has an important and measurable adverse impact on river survivability of Yukon Kings.
This is just so sad.
Ah, Phil, let's be clear, don't confuse the Kenai River in-river sport and personal use fisheries with the central district commercial salmon fisheries who harvest 98% of the commercial catch in Upper Cook Inlet through the drift gill net and east side set net fisheries. That is more than 80% of all salmon harvested in Cook Inlet.
The Kenai River centric salmon management is a commercial oriented fisheries priority on sockeye salmon, and it wags the dog on all other salmon fisheries management in Upper Cook Inlet.
On average 50% of the Kenai River late run Chinook salmon ARE annually harvested in those east side set nets.
On average more than 50% of Cook Inlet cohos ARE sucked up by the drift fleet.
The central district comm fishery is an intercept fishery of northern distict sockeye salmon, and northern bound sockeye comprise a comparable percentage of the overall commercial harvest as Kasilof bound sockeye salmon do.
Sockeye conservation concerns in the northern district undoubtably has a commercial harvest component to it, no matter how many times the commercial fishery choral sings its favorite aria of Beavers and Pike.
At least in the Bering Sea there is an economically (maybe crashing)robust pollack fishery that generates a billion in economic values to Alaska, and is the biggest dog in the state's seafood industry.
In Upper Cook Inlet, the commercial salmon fishery produces about 1% of the overall seafood values in Alaska, whereas sportfishing in Cook Inlet produces about $1 billion in values to Alaska, about 70% of all such activity in the state.
Sportfishing generates half of all the spending by non-residents in Alaska. More than 20,000 households put meat in their freezers through the personal use fisheries on the Kenai. The in-river fisheries of Cook Inlet are the big dogs - maybe some day the salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet will be managed with that in mind.
And in terms of salmon habitat on the Kenai River, the Cost Share habitat program in the last decade has rehabilitated an estimated 98% of the identified degraded habitat along the middle and lower Kenai River, which was estimated to be 20% of the habitat area between Skilak and the mouth prior to the 1995 flood.
Though not perfect by any means, there are successful habitat measures taking place on the Kenai River.
anon @ #7 - I really appreciate your comment, and wish you had taken the time to create a pseudonym. Maybe later.
You're absolutely right about the in-Inlet commercial catch. I left it out to simplify the metaphor.
Speaking of simple metaphors, I love the concept of a "beavers and pike aria." heh...
And thanks for pointing toward ongoing habitat restoration efforts in the Kenai.
I only meant to compare the Kenai to the Yukon for the reasons stated in my essay, but your comment has me thinking of more comparisons. Thanks!
Phil Munger said, "you're absolutely right about the commercial catch:"
Phil says this without fact checking the numbers, or the unfounded, unsourced claims of an anonymous and obviously biased commenter.
I'm not going to bother correcting all the factual errors presented, I'm just going to point out that for you to endorse undocumented opinion is not very responsible.
You do a disservice to any public debate on the resource by endorsing false propaganda.
If you're going to try to cover the issue, do it responsibly or don't do it at all.
More misinformation won't help.
anon @ #9 - I have no idea what you are writing about.
Like that excuses your endorsing comments you don't bother to fact check?
If you have no idea, as you claim, why do you say the previous commenter is 'absolutely right about the commercial catch'?
The previous commenter's comments about the commercial fisheries in Upper Cook inlet is full of false and misleading information.
You endorsed that false and misleading information when you say the commenter is 'absolutely right'.
Like I said, you have done a disservice to others as well as discredited your own so called aims to present a reality based view of Alaska politics.
Surely you should be held to at least the standards you claim to be able to scrutinize others with?
'...you have no idea what I'm writing about', yep, that's the kind of weaseling that I've seen from another quadrant, it's not any more credible when it's tried out then either.
Post a Comment