Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: yesterdays bof decision

  1. #1

    Unhappy yesterdays bof decision

    Can someone please explain the shenanigans that took place with the bof yesterday? Paging Nerka?

  2. #2

    Default

    Can you tell us what shenanigans took place?

  3. #3

    Default

    I am a bit in the dark myself, that is why I was seeking an explanation. My understanding is that at a special meeting of the bof yesterday requested by mat su and kenai sportfish the board rescinded actions that took place during their regularly scheduled meeting. No public testimony was allowed.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    I am a bit in the dark myself, that is why I was seeking an explanation. My understanding is that at a special meeting of the bof yesterday requested by mat su and kenai sportfish the board rescinded actions that took place during their regularly scheduled meeting. No public testimony was allowed.
    The Board reaffirmed the actions they took in the UCI drift fishery earlier this year to protect northern inlet fish. The regulatory language drafted by the Department did not match the earlier Board action. The Board corrected the language by emergency action.

  5. #5
    squab (probably of Scandinavian descent; skvabb, meaning "loose, fat flesh") is a young domestic pigeon or its meat

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    The Board reaffirmed the actions they took in the UCI drift fishery earlier this year to protect northern inlet fish. The regulatory language drafted by the Department did not match the earlier Board action. The Board corrected the language by emer
    ency action.
    What was the emergency that the department was oblivious of?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    The Board reaffirmed the actions they took in the UCI drift fishery earlier this year to protect northern inlet fish. The regulatory language drafted by the Department did not match the earlier Board action. The Board corrected the language by emergency action.
    This is a compete misrepresentation of what happened at the special meeting. KRSA, of whom Bfish works for, realized that the BOF at the Feb meeting made a huge error by allowing a wider corridor. I have spoke to this numerous times. When this came to KRSA attention they filed a petition to change it. The petition violates the BOF own policy but with this BOF it makes little difference as to ethics and procedure. BOF members Jensen, Morris, and Webster pointed out in the transcript exactly what they passed in Feb. which was what ADF&G had written into regulation.

    Also, the Department of Fish and Game maintains that they looked at the transcripts and wrote exactly what the BOF passed. Now Johnstone, Brown, Smith, and the valley representative wants to rewrite history and they did it. They basically said the ADF&G, on purpose, did not write the regulation correctly and wanted a do over. They prevailed for the time being.

    What is really upsetting is not that KRSA has no ethics in this issue, I expect that, but that the Commissioner of ADF&G hung out her staff by remaining silent when Johnstone attacked the staff. She lost her staff with this silent response. Politics rules in UCI.

    What is really funny is all this means nothing relative to fish management. The BOF only dealt with a couple of regular periods but left all the unstated EO periods alone - meaning an 8 mile corridor. Also, ADF&G has full authority to override the regulations to meet escapement goals. So this whole process by KRSA and the BOF really means little except for KRSA and the four BOF members to try and save face since their representatives and some consultants at the meeting failed to see the forest for the trees.

    The loser in all of this - the general public as they should have lost trust in the whole process. If ADF&G was wrong that means that the regulation specialist failed, that the ADF&G management staff who met on this issue failed, that the AG office failed in its review, and that the Lt Gov failed in his job of review. Or the BOF rewrote history. You make the choice.

  8. #8

    Default

    Nerka, this is utterly false. The record and written transcripts from the BOF meeting are crystal clear. Peddle it somewhere else.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Seems to me from reading a variety of threads that f&g has gone downhill since nerka retired........

  10. #10

    Default

    What's the big suprise here? KRSA owns this corrupted process they created. They own the BOF, ADF&G Commissioner, and the governor. Follow the money....go to any BOF meeting anywhere, anytime and you will find KRSA there to wine & dine. You will also find them in Juneau most of the session for the same purposes. Watch who comes to the Classic from the Gov's staff, commissioners office and the ADF&G management. It's all a sad commentary on a system "for the people" gone wrong and it won't change until we get a governor that's tired of politics as usual. It's a microcosm of what's wrong in America today. Happy Fourth of July folks!!!!!!

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Seems to me from reading a variety of threads that f&g has gone downhill since nerka retired........
    Yes...we now find ourselves swimming in a sea of mass confusion...

    The BOF acted appropriately and simply clarified the written record, so even a layman could understand...sometimes, even then there are a couple of folks that just Don't Get It..
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  12. #12

    Default

    I too listened to the meeting and read the information provided on the web site and have to disagree with Nerka's summary. Johnstone read from the transcripts and other board members repeated that the corrections were what they had intended to pass.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    Nerka, this is utterly false. The record and written transcripts from the BOF meeting are crystal clear. Peddle it somewhere else.
    Not true Bfish. I read the transcripts as did ADF&G and their evaluation and mine are the same. Also, three BOF members, one of who made the motion told the other members that he changed his mind from his original point two days earlier. Johnstone cherry picked his statements and when caught got upset with Webster. So what is more and more true here is that KRSA and their paid consultants have the ethical laspe not me or the general public. I peddle it for free you do it for a price- who is gaining here you or me?

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Just a follow up. The main point of discussion should be that the BOF had to meet months after the meeting because they failed to be professional in the Board meeting and thus the confusion. The fact that Webster as BOF chairman reviewed the regulations written by ADF&G and approved them prior to the Lt. Gov signing speaks volumes to this issue. There are other issues with this BOF and they have yet to come to light. We should be demanding that the BOF process be cleaned up and that buying influence should be stopped. Our resources are too valuable to have these representatives making the regulations.

    I believe strongly based on observations and conversations with past BOF members that certain organizations provided housing, food, and wine/drink plus fishing trips/cabins/supplies for BOF members/staff in the past and present. Maybe a legislative hearing and people under oath would be a good start to get this sorted out. I think I will talk to some people about this idea. What groups would join in that request - KAFC would, UCIDA maybe, KPFA probably, UFA no, but what about KRSA, KPGA, the Mat/Su blue ribbon committee, any comments???

  15. #15

    Default

    Let's not lose track of the facts in all of this:

    1. Numbers and yields of Susitna sockeye have declined.

    2. The 2008 Board designated Susitna sockeye as a yield concern.

    3. Genetic sampling indicates that exploitation of Susitna sockeye is significant in the mixed stock central district drift net fishery (more in some years than others).

    4. Fishery restrictions to protect Susitna sockeye were inconsistently applied from 2008 and 2010. (In fact, recent drift openings are even more liberal than when Nerka worked for comfish as he can attest.)

    5. The old goals based on the Yentna sonar were set aside. New goals based on weir counts for several of the stronger populations in the system were still not consistently met.

    6. The 2011 Board passed mandatory restrictions to the drift fishery in order to increase delivery of Susitna sockeye to both northern district commercial fisheries and to escapement. Area was reduced in the middle inlet where Susitna fish are presumably more abundant, and area was added in the corridor in an attempt to make the fishery more terminal on Kenai and Kasilof fish.

    7. Because there is no means to monitor Susitna sockeye escapement in-season, the only choice is to adopt precautionary limits on effort by time and area.

    8. Drift restrictions will also benefit coho escapements and sport fisheries in the northern inlet.

    9. Drift restrictions passed by the 2011 Board are acutually rather modest as Nerka has pointed out due to the corridor expansion.

    10. Actual benefits remain to be seen. The expanded corridor is intended to concentrate on the abundant Kenai and Kasilof sockeye runs but whether this is the effect will not be known until genetic data are analyzed.

    11. Drift net restrictions adopted by the Board are actually potentially harmful to Kenai River personal use and sport fisheries because they increase delivery of sockeye to the east side set net fishery and increase the likelihood of additional set net emergency openers including windows set-aside in order to control escapement.

    12. At the same time the Department effectively reduced the top ends of the escapement goal tiers for Kenai sockeye in the sonar changeover which also increases the chances for out-of-plan actions in the east side set net fishery.

    No charge.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    All true Bfish but you cannot fix a stock of yield concern by fishing less when the cause of the decline is not overharvest but pike predation and beaver dams. So while the list of statements you made it true I maintain that the BOF is wasting everyones time. They should be talking with ADF&G about 110 lakes with pike or the fact that returning adults are dying by the thousands at beaver dams in some years. Also, they should be concerned that the genetic data is not useful for Susitna because of the error bounds. Also they should try to figure out why micromanage has never worked in UCI. The valley folks and KRSA has for years made more and more restrictions and failed to accomplish any meaningful actions. Rather than restrictions maybe the BOF should provide guideline harvest numbers and let ADF&G figure out how to reach them or provide an exploitation rate and let ADF&G manage for it without restrictions. As you pointed out KRSA provided for windows to get fish to PU fisherman but turn around and take those fish away and increase east side set net time - remember goals rule the decisions which you failed to mention in your list.

    It is time to recognize that KRSA wants the commercial fishery to die from a thousand cuts but that will not happen given escapement goal management.

  17. #17
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    I believe we are in a rather sad state of affairs currently in which politics overrules science and ethics. The state of Alaska royally screwed up after statehood in not following the advice of Dr Ira Gabrielson, given to the constitutional convention in 1955-56, that fish or wildlife boards or commission be comprised of a bi-partisan membership in which no governor could appoint and stack the boards based on his or her agenda. That tends to make politics more influential than science and prudent mgmt decisions, forces a pendulum effect type mgmt scenario in which another party comes into power and does the same thing except has an opposite agenda, and it allows for a powerful few politically connected orgs to have much more influence than they should have.

    To be fair, I have seen in the past where Board actions and policies have not been correctly applied in regulation. In this case, however, no one looks competent, and for me it smacks of the perception that things are not being done in a fair and ethical manner.

    For years now I have asked the Boards support staff to post all the recorded audio from the meetings on their website. They have had the technology to do so for a long time and the meetings are recorded. I have been getting copies via dvd disc, and I appreciate support staff supplying those at my request, but the entire process needs to be much more transparent to the public at large, I would also like to see transcripts done. Then we could all go back and see what the truth is in situations like this.

  18. #18
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    I don't know if it's related to the Board's emergency action or something else, but UCIDA and some others have filed suit. Anyone know the argument(s)?

    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2011/07...-board-of.html

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    I don't know if it's related to the Board's emergency action or something else, but UCIDA and some others have filed suit. Anyone know the argument(s)?

    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2011/07...-board-of.html
    Have not seen it but I assume it has to do with process for the emergency regulation and recent BOF actions. Remember the Chairman of the Board and Jensen made comments that there action was not an error in regulation and a new regulation that was punitive. Also, I know they question the tier goals and the goal for Kasilof. We will not see what a judge thinks.

    Mark your comments are spot on

  20. #20

    Default Court Rules In Favor of the BOF

    THe 9th circuit court ruled in favor of the Board of Fisheries, sending the drifters back to their crying towels. IT is time that they learn that a new day has dawn in fisheries managment. "The most inmportant salmon is the salmon laying eggs in our rivers!!!!" When that happens every thing that relies on salmon benifit.


    Big Fisherman

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •