No victory for Kenai kings

By Frank Mullen

Mark Hamilton, president of the Kenai River Sportfishing Association recently opined that the Board of Fish meetings had produced a clear victory for Kenai kings.” I disagree, and believe that any objective person would disagree as well.
Many have suggested that the blame for lack of kings lies with the offshore fisheries. Scientific studies show that minimal interception actually occurs. (Google: NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-244). Others suggest Cook Inlet set-net interception is the culprit, but science does not support this theory either: ADFG statistics illustrate that Cook Inlet set netters catch less than 13 percent of the second run and 0 percent of the first run. This leaves reasonable observers with one rational conclusion: In-river habitat of Kenai kings may be stressed to a near breaking point.
A recent study, (Google: Turbidity Monitoring on the Lower Kenai River), illustrates clearly that turbidity caused by power boats elevates water quality to unacceptable state and federal standards. This fact was ignored by the board. Dirty water is bad for salmon — especially kings that, for the most part, spawn in the main stem of the Kenai.
The banks of the Kenai have been chronically eroded over the past 30 years as a direct result of wakes generated by up to 600 boats per day. This powerful fleet of commercial guides has targeted kings on their spawning beds for more than 30 years. Thousands of hooks per day are deployed directly on spawning beds for most of the summer. The attendant noise pollution, exhaust and wakes do not contribute to a successful spawning experience for kings.
The BOF could have taken some steps in the right direction to improve the quality of life for kings in the river. They could have implemented more “drift-only” days, or provided for spawning sanctuaries. They did not. The reason? Mark Hamiltons’ KRSA lobbied the board to deny these actions. Does this sound like a conservation group to you?
The BOF process has been lauded by some as an open and democratic process. Sure, everyone is allowed to speak, but the lobbying happens behind the curtain and most actions are predetermined prior to the obligatory public testimony. In essence, KRSA and their paid staff — in collaboration with a cooperative BOF — control the details of the commercial fisheries management plan in Cook Inlet; a commercial fishery that provides 5 percent of the global production of wild sockeye. Raise your hand if this makes any sense to you.
You may have heard about the proposed initiative that, if approved by the courts, would eliminate set netting in Cook Inlet. This is the initiative brought forward by KRSA founding father Bob Penney that would, if passed, eliminate more than 500 working families in Cook Inlet. This initiative was sponsored by many KRSA present and past board members, including current president Mark Hamilton. Eliminating set netters will never solve in-river habitat problems.
The Endangered Species Act, in federal law, is designed to take action to protect a species when one or more of the following factors exist: 1. Damage to, or destruction of, a species’ habitat; 2. Over-utilization of the species for commercial, scientific, or educational purposes; 3. Disease or predation; 4. inadequacy of existing protection; 5. other natural or manmade factors that affect the continued existence of the species.
I believe most of these five factors exist, and have existed on the river for many years.
With awareness that the early king run in the Kenai has been virtually decimated without any interference whatsoever from commercial fishermen, perhaps it is time to look beyond the BOF process for meaningful relief for Kenai River king salmon. Putting political considerations ahead of sound scientific management is morally, scientifically and intellectually wrong. In the final analysis, the Kenai kings may pass onto the endangered species list at the hands of those who have created the illusion that they are protecting them.

Frank Mullen is an Alaskan, a longtime commercial fisherman and businessman and former Kenai Peninsula Borough Assemblyman. He lives in Homer.

Contact the writer
Posted by on Mar 11th, 2014 and filed under Point of View. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Responses for “No victory for Kenai kings”

  1. Jeff P. says:

    Sounds like more finger-pointing. Everyone is blaming everyone else. Only one thing is for certain: No one knows what’s really going on. Anyone who says they know what’s causing the decline has a horse in this race.

    Mullen’s write-up ignores two facts: 1) The Kenai isn’t the only river with a distressed king salmon population. Chinook stocks in almost every river are suffering badly, including those that receive heavy pressure and those that don’t. 2) ADF&G biologists — as well as other scientists — have verified that the number of outbound juveniles from the Kenai has remained stable (relative to the number of returning fish). In other words, biologists have ruled out in-river habitat and conditions as the cause of the decline in Kenai returns. That’s not to say that the habitat couldn’t or shouldn’t be improved. But a sea-faring commercial fisherman (and ex-politician) blaming in-river sport fisherman is nothing new, nor is the argument credible. Such finger-pointing and political deflection does nothing but shifts everyone’s attention from the real problems at hand.

  2. I can remember 40 yrs ago taking our little boat on the river…long before the days of this fishing madness on the river…with my daughter and her friend…they would fish from the boat and I would sit in the boat and paint all day my miniature oil scenes…we would not see 1/2 dozen boats all day long…I think Mark’s views are well worth consideration…

Comments are closed

Like us on Facebook