Crowding and management issues in Mat-Su king salmon fisheries

One day since June 1, I guided a morning and afternoon fishing trip on the Deshka River and enjoyed a relatively uncrowded and pleasant fishery. It was a most enjoyable experience, but a far cry from normal for the 2016 season. As more Mat-Su king salmon anglers have returned to the few easily accessible boat fisheries where wild king salmon harvest is allowed there has been a significant increase in competition for the better fish catching spots.

On Little Susitna River some of the developed campsites upstream from the boat launch have people competing to camp on the better fishing holes. While there is a fee for camping in the road accessible Little Susitna River campsites — there is no fee for using the developed campsites along the river and taking ownership of some of the river’s best fishing spots.

On Deshka River there has been extreme pressure to get to the better holes early. Those at the holes early in the morning want to make a claim to the best holes as first there. Anglers arriving a bit later, but perhaps well before legal fishing starts at 6 a.m. also want their own opportunity to catch king salmon from the same spots. Some arriving after other anglers are already fishing, have simply driven their boats into the very places earlier arriving anglers have their lines in the water.

In a crowded fishery like the Deshka in 2016, what should determine who gets the better spots?

Some aggressive anglers, willing to get up extra early or camp on holes, make an argument that they were there first and should therefore have the privilege of fishing without competition until they are ready to call it a day. Other anglers who may have been fishing the exact same spot for 30 years or more, also feel they are entitled to the same spot as longer-time users. Then there is the issue of catch and release. Some would like to catch and release as many king salmon as they can all day from this popular fishery, while others would simply like an opportunity to catch and harvest one king salmon.

Should any type angler have priority?

Or should there be exclusive fishing opportunity in the better spots, for as long as they want?

Although Mat-Su king salmon fisheries have experienced crowding for years, the huge reduction in places where sport king salmon harvest is allowed for the past five years has forced all Mat-Su king salmon anglers in to much less locations and exacerbated the issue. I would call for at least some future limited wild king salmon harvest to be allowed in most of Mat-Su Valley’s wild king salmon sport fisheries. For example harvest opportunity could be provided during times of the season when king salmon are present in less than peak numbers. This is an adaptive management practice the Department of Fish and Game could easily employ if the public was to make it a priority.

If king salmon numbers are limited to the extent anglers may only harvest a total seasonal limit of two king salmon from most Mat-Su Valley king salmon fisheries still remaining open to harvest, is it acceptable for those same anglers to catch and release as many king salmon as possible during a two month long season?

What are the biological implications for so much catch and release by a relatively few individuals? Is it socially acceptable to most anglers to allow such a practice — especially considering that most Mat-Su anglers purchasing a king salmon stamp, even during good times, harvest less than one king salmon per year?

How successful has the practice of allowing relatively unrestricted opportunity for catch and release king salmon fishing in Unit 2, Unit 3, Unit 5, and Unit 6 of the Susitna River drainage been in restoring king salmon numbers and harvest opportunity to these areas?

Absolutely zero legal harvest for the past four years, and no foreseeable future harvest opportunity should have the Department of Fish and Game seriously questioning this strategy — if the Department is truly seeking to manage the fishery for maximum benefit as called for in the State Constitution.

My wife took a phone call from an individual earlier this summer who wanted to take a charter trip where he could harvest a king salmon. Our charters at that time were already full, but this individual told of his experience where a total of seven anglers caught and released about 100 king salmon at one location along the Parks Highway. That number of anglers could only be classified as extremely low in a road accessible king salmon fishery, however, the number of fish caught per angler, and the impact per angler on a limited king salmon resource was likely quite high, and likely higher on a per angler basis than most fisheries where king salmon harvest is allowed. Is this really a socially acceptable use of the very valuable Mat-Su king salmon resource?

Is this really how the public believes most Mat-Su king salmon fisheries for wild fish should be managed?

The desire of the public to participate in king salmon fisheries where harvest is allowed can easily be seen in anglers numbers on both the Little Susitna River and Deshka River fisheries compared to catch and release Mat-Su king salmon fisheries, although some of the better catch and release opportunities have definitely gained some popularity. Management of Mat-Su king salmon fisheries has great financial impact for many Mat-Su Valley businesses and can generate substantial government revenues through fishing license and king salmon stamp l sales and through federal tax revenues collected on the sale of fishing tackle, boat gas, and outboard motor sales.

Biological science of salmon management does not dictate what are regulations are socially acceptable.

What are your views on how the wild Mat-Su king salmon resource should be managed?

Andy Couch is a member of the Matanuska Valley Fish and Game Advisory Committee and the Matanuska Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission. Management questions posed in this article are his own. This column is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman or its parent company, Wick Communications.