Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 452

Thread: Nonresident annual limits

  1. #1

    Default Nonresident annual limits

    Today's peninsula clarion had an article by Les Palmer titled -The Canadian Way. I think he's on to something here.

  2. #2
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Interesting idea.
    Might this be a way to go with Halibut also? Might help in staving off the catch sharing plan or other restrictions.
    Her is a link to the article in question:http://peninsulaclarion.com/outdoors...e-canadian-way
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  3. #3
    Member Gerberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Soldotna AK, Eugene, OR
    Posts
    612

    Default

    How about those of us who have a place in Alaska, pay property taxes, burough sales taxes,support the community, bought all the goods to build the place with, but live most of the year outside??

  4. #4
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gerberman View Post
    How about those of us who have a place in Alaska, pay property taxes, burough sales taxes,support the community, bought all the goods to build the place with, but live most of the year outside??
    what about it?
    you are a NON-RESIDENT... no grey area... there is RESIDENT and NON-RESIDENT.... so sorry, too bad.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  5. #5
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gerberman View Post
    How about those of us who have a place in Alaska, pay property taxes, burough sales taxes,support the community, bought all the goods to build the place with, but live most of the year outside??
    I'm with Dave on this one.
    If this passed where would you draw the line? it would have to be Resident and Non-Resident. Only way it would work is with a clearly defined line.
    You already pay higher license fees and aren't allowed to dipnet. You are already subject to all the Non-resident limits on hunting (Seaduck annual limit etc.) and such so you are already in a different catagory.
    You could always stay year round like all Alaska residents and end the issue if this were to ever pass.And you would also be entitled to a PFD check.
    I am beginning to like the sound of this proposal.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gerberman View Post
    How about those of us who have a place in Alaska, pay property taxes, burough sales taxes,support the community, bought all the goods to build the place with, but live most of the year outside??
    You are the exact folks the proposal is intended to control.

    A lot of non-residents think that because they've been coming to Alaska since 1969, own some land, built a cabin, and spend money here, that they deserve to supply the lower-48 with an unlimited number of fish. I disagree.

    I have a neighbor that comes up every summer from Texas. He leaves with a chest freezer full of halibut in his pickup, one in his RV, and his crew cab filled to the brim with canned salmon. It's enough fish to feed an entire community. All legal. He calls it a free-for-all and makes fun of how stupid Alaska is. He says when he fishes Walleye in Minnesota he can only get a possession limit across state lines, and even that is a major ordeal.

    Homework assignment: Go ask ERA or Alaska Air how much fish they transport to the States. Mind-boggling.

  7. #7
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gerberman View Post
    How about those of us who have a place in Alaska, pay property taxes, burough sales taxes,support the community, bought all the goods to build the place with, but live most of the year outside??
    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    what about it?
    you are a NON-RESIDENT... no grey area... there is RESIDENT and NON-RESIDENT.... so sorry, too bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    I'm with Dave on this one.
    If this passed where would you draw the line? it would have to be Resident and Non-Resident. Only way it would work is with a clearly defined line.
    You already pay higher license fees and aren't allowed to dipnet. You are already subject to all the Non-resident limits on hunting (Seaduck annual limit etc.) and such so you are already in a different catagory.
    You could always stay year round like all Alaska residents and end the issue if this were to ever pass.And you would also be entitled to a PFD check.
    I am beginning to like the sound of this proposal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    You are the exact folks the proposal is intended to control.

    A lot of non-residents think that because they've been coming to Alaska since 1969, own some land, built a cabin, and spend money here, that they deserve to supply the lower-48 with an unlimited number of fish. I disagree.

    I have a neighbor that comes up every summer from Texas. He leaves with a chest freezer full of halibut in his pickup, one in his RV, and his crew cab filled to the brim with canned salmon. It's enough fish to feed an entire community. All legal. He calls it a free-for-all and makes fun of how stupid Alaska is. He says when he fishes Walleye in Minnesota he can only get a possession limit across state lines, and even that is a major ordeal.

    Homework assignment: Go ask ERA or Alaska Air how much fish they transport to the States. Mind-boggling.
    Sums it up pretty well.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  8. #8
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Now if we can address the Non-Resident "Alaskan" guides as well......Set number of days they can operate?

    "Non-Alaskan-Guide Wednesday" has a nice ring to it.......
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  9. #9
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    hmmmm... -3* here, 45* in Eugene.
    we keep the cow all year, you come up to skim the cream in the summer.
    don't look for any sympathy.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    499

    Default

    I would support nonresidents annual limits fully in watersheds that flow into Cook Inlet. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but aren't nonresidents the same as residents in the 5 kings per year in UCI? I would even support nonresidents being reduced to 2 or 3 kings annually per year. I'm also in favor of fishing violations in Alaska being much steeper penalties and fines like in Minnesota. 1,000 dollar fine for a fish if it's not marked on your dipnet card and I guarantee you will see the hundreds of people reported in the troopers section in the Peninsula Clarion each summer for not marking their fish on their dipnet card reduced immensely.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Every one complains about the NR people taking fish but they dont complain about them leaving behind all the money. I think the guy in Texas is way out of line but really blaming NR for the problems. I take Reds and some halibut home. I fish hard for two weeks and let go the one king i did catch in the saltfishng silvers but hey you can blame me for what ever problem this would solve.

  12. #12

    Default

    We will keep the fish and you can keep the money,sounds like a fair deal to me. How many reds do you take home? At $7 to $ 10. per pound I am sure that you come out ahead for the cost of your lic.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Wow you guys sure hate NR fishermen.

  14. #14
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    Wow you guys sure hate NR fishermen.
    I've not seen anyone say that. But many of us have seen stacks and stacks of boxes at the airport, or the rows of RV's that stay for the max limit of 2 weeks in campgrounds (before moving 15 miles down the road and repeating the pattern), complete with smokers, vacuum packers and chest freezers, etc. We've heard folks like this brag about visiting Alaska "on the cheap" and then scurrying South with hundreds of pounds of processed fish to give away to friends or family, or in some cases to SELL for profit.

    Not every non-resident abuses the resource and many are a true pleasure to visit with. However the resource DOES get abused and it's not an isolated incident but one that needs to be addressed and rectified.

    Our fisheries are unlike any other in the Nation, and we are trying to preserve them for future generations of both residents and visitors. Every little bit helps.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  15. #15
    Member Blue Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North of Anchor Pt
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Where do I sign up to support this non-resident management idea. This should also apply to shell fish, as I personally know of large quantities of canned and frozen shell fish that are take to the lower 48. We may loose some of the non-resident money (but I'm sure not all) and I would rather have our natural resources. I think a true non-resident sportsman would under stand the problem and support this change. If not they can stay home as we do not need the money from these greedy non-residents.

    Now for a few of the residents that take more than their fare share, you need to think about what the consequences are of taking more than you need or can use. This kind of practice is as bad as and has the same effect on depleting our natural resources as the over indulgence of the non-resident. Not pointing fingers or trying to step on anyones toes, just want our natural resources to last a long time.
    Retirement Plan - Having Fun and Still Learning

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Well, I will be the voice of dissent. First, salmon are federally owned and therefore the NR and Alaska resident own them equally. Therefore, both should be treated the same unless there is a shortage of fish. In that case the courts have ruled that resource allocation can be implemented along various lines.

    It appears to me that the dislike of NR has some other foundational reason. Competition for space on the river bank or on the river, disruption of one's lifestyle choice for living in Alaska, something other than resource use.

    While there are lots of people who take lots of fish outside I also know lots of residents who ship volumes of fish to their friends and relatives outside. What is the difference - Alaskans do not own the salmon or migratory species like halibut. Want to limit the trout limit it may fly.

    Finally, we need to make sure the brand Alaska is selling to the world is not compromised unless one wants to change the brand and message to the visiting public. That may be what some want but Alaska has weathered the present economic storm because we have some diversity in industries. I would not jump off a cliff when one can get all the fish they need in the present system - even in Cook Inlet.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Nerka, you keep on keepin' on. Your viewpoint has not been expressed before that I read, and I think is likely way-more-righter than those posts made before you.
    Last edited by Brian M; 11-26-2011 at 17:11. Reason: forum rule violation

  18. #18

    Default

    [QUOTE=Grampyfishes;1041447]He says when he fishes Walleye in Minnesota he can only get a possession limit across state lines, and even that is a major ordeal./QUOTE]

    In Minnesota, the limit and possession is 6 walleyes. If you have three in your freezer and you keep four on a fishing trip you are over your limit. Six is six, pretty simple stuff. Ontario is worse when it comes to possession. Even if you eat fish during a shore lunch it's counted towards your daily possession limit. It's not until the next day that you can replace the fish you consumed. Never could figure out how they knew what was in your stomach but that's the way it goes.

    I always felt that the powers to be in Alaska must feel that the fishing public would not have a signficant impact on the salmon runs (except kings) and that's why there isn't a possession limit. Looks like the times could be a changin'.

  19. #19
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Well, I will be the voice of dissent. First, salmon are federally owned and therefore the NR and Alaska resident own them equally. Therefore, both should be treated the same unless there is a shortage of fish. In that case the courts have ruled that resource allocation can be implemented along various lines.
    If all of us own the salmon equally why is it we can have a regulation that does not allow nonresidents to dipnet?
    I realize this has been challenged in court but so far we still do not allow them the right of dipnetting. I know this is just one example.
    Are there any other Resident only fisheries in Alaska?
    I suppose an argument could be made that this is an issue of methods and means of harvest but there are greater limits for dipnetters.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  20. #20
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcman View Post
    I always felt that the powers to be in Alaska must feel that the fishing public would not have a signficant impact on the salmon runs (except kings) and that's why there isn't a possession limit. Looks like the times could be a changin'.
    We do have possesion limits. They just allow for you to preserve your fish so that they are no longer part of your possesion.

    possession limit means the maximum number of unpreserved fish a person may have in possession.

    preserved fish means fish prepared in such a manner, and in an existing state of preservation, as to be fit for human consumption after a 15-day period, and does not include unfrozen fish temporarily stored in coolers that contain ice, dry ice, or fish that are lightly salted.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

Page 1 of 23 12311 ... 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
  •