Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Do we really want this guy on the board of fish?

  1. #1

    Default Do we really want this guy on the board of fish?

    http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-...oard-chairman/

    Anybody else have any concerns about this?

  2. #2
    Member ret25yo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Unit 13
    Posts
    1,471

    Default

    nope..and maybe

    If you cant stand behind the troops in Iraq.. Feel free to stand in front of them.

  3. #3

    Default

    No we don't.... He has shown his brand of favoritism towards certain powerful sportfishing groups that lobby for the guide industry to the point where scientific review of the issues have little value in the discussions anymore where Cook Inlet issues are concerned. It was so obvious at the 2011 BOF meeting that it was an embarasment to Chairman Webster and the board process. He is a big part of the ethical lapse this board is suffering under. Along wth three other members who also take orders from Penney and the boys. He is a liability to the BOF and has got to go if there is any chance of starting to bring any legitimacy back to the process.

  4. #4
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Much ado about nothing.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Much ado about nothing.
    Really? You think someone who doesn't live in Alaska being on the Alaska Board of fish is much ado about nothing? Maybe we should get a few Texans on the Board too. Gearge Bush isn't doing anything any more.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  6. #6
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    This issue is two-fold... I cannot for the life of me understand why we allow anyone to be gone from Alaska that long to be eligible for a PFD, tax exemption, or be on a State board. My folks benefit from the first two of these and I make it well known with them that I think it's crap. To be a resident you should be here a minimum of 300 days a year unless your job, the military, or education take you away for longer than that.

    The second issue is that it would cost $200 to clear that driveway. $300 tops. They should tell him to plow the **** thing and stay in his own friggin' house.

    Where is Cora in all this. Her silence in this and that stupid SFW proposal to privatize game on private land really doesn't give me any confidence in her. Not that I had any to begin with.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    I gotta agree. I'm not an Alaska resident but how is it that some folks can live in Alaska between Memorial Day and Labor Day and still qualify for residency? How can someone be an Alaska resident but never have to shovel snow out of their driveway? All the good folks who live in the Great Land year 'round gotta be wondering the same.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Yes, major concerns! We need a new appointee on the Board of Fish to replace the current Chairman. I attended a BOF meeting for the first time last year just to see how the process worked. It was very disturbing and I could not believe how rude this Board member was towards private citizens taking part in the process. It was obvious to everyone that Mr. Johnstone is in this only for special interest concerns, it was also very obvious this man cannot stand commerical fishermen and due to that reason alone should not be allowed to represent the fisheries board in any way. There are two interests in this resource sport and commercial, both groups deserves a fair representation on these boards. Both groups have invested their time and money in making a living at this and there is enough resource for both if managed based on scientific data and research rather then politics.

  9. #9

    Default

    Akbell.... Very observant, for only one meeting no less. Imagine what the rest of us have been going through for years. The sad part is that Johnstone does not speak for the entire sport fishing community. He is completely compromised by the guide Industry lobby and in doing all he can for them he doesn't care if his vote hurts the private mom and pop folks or even the resource itself. And your right, his demeanor towards anyone how disagrees with him, and sometimes the ADF&G staff, is often rude and uncalled for. He has got to go, and if Gov. Parnell retains him after all of the criticism he has garnered over the years then I would say the Gov. himself is also compromised by all the big money and power that the guided sportfish lobby throws around in Juneau. It's a bad situation and makes the BOF process look extreemly flawed. Lets hope the Gov. does the right thing and starts to turn this mess around.

  10. #10

    Default

    recently viewed some Alaska public record e-mails concerning travel arrangements to the bof meetings in Cordova,between a.d.f.g. staff and bof members. All of these e-mails were from board members or staff with the exception of one. This was from a long time sportfishing advocate who formerly sold mobile homes in anchorage and real estate to U.S. senators, urging the others to heed the advice of chairman Johnstone concerning air and ground travel to Valdez due to weather conditions. One of the directors responded that he had a little different take on the weather than the chairman had"from the golf course". Something stinks very badly in the greatest, most beautiful state in the nation. All of this is public record, I just am not computer literate enough to reference it.

    Sportfisherman, commercial fisherman, p.u. fisherman-- Guide, sport hunter,subsistence,trapper--All of us have our own agendas. But we need board members who are fairminded and have the resource as their primary concern. I think the chairman should not be reappointed and I hope enough of you agree with me to contact your governor and legislators

  11. #11

    Default

    Well , the governor reappointed Johnstone. I consider this disrespectful to all of us Alaska residents. Confirmation hearings tomorrow if anyone is interested in submitting testimony.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    I have been out of touch for a few months and must have missed the election of people to speak for all resident Alaskans. I, a resident for nearly 70 years, was pleased that judge Johnstone was re-appointed.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    I have been out of touch for a few months and must have missed the election of people to speak for all resident Alaskans. I, a resident for nearly 70 years, was pleased that judge Johnstone was re-appointed.
    Gusdog- I am not sure if I understand your post. If you mean that I think I speak for all Alaskans,sorry if I came across that way. If you mean that you approve of someone who resides out of state for more than half the year serving on the board of fisheries,then I do think I speak for the majority of Alaskans when I say this is unacceptable, and should be prevented by statute or other means.

  14. #14
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunner View Post
    ...Sportfisherman, commercial fisherman, p.u. fisherman-- Guide, sport hunter,subsistence,trapper--All of us have our own agendas. But we need board members who are fairminded and have the resource as their primary concern. I think the chairman should not be reappointed and I hope enough of you agree with me to contact your governor and legislators
    Respectfully speaking, Gunner, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. (Based on your conclusion which I've quoted.) I've worked with the board process nearly ten years now, attending every SouthCentral meeting and a few work sessions during that time. I have found Mr. Johnstone to hold the health of the resource above any of the other interests involved. His legal expertise has been very beneficial during deliberation of proposals before the Board. I have felt that the Board's legal expert, with a strong background in Commercial fisheries, saw the law through commercial colored glasses, and it was very refreshing to hear his counsel questioned sharply by another law professional. In one notable exchange the legal expert did not want to give an opinion when asked, saying he was unable to give an opinion in that instance, and Johnstone responded with something like Well, thats what you're paid to do, so we'd like to hear an opinion.

    In my opinion, past boards have ignored Alaska's sustainable fisheries management policy, and when forced to address it, have treated it as a pesky road impediment to be brushed aside rather than the Statute that it is, and following it as required by law. I and several other individuals worked very hard to bring attention to this, and as a result you will see much more reference made to the SSMP made at fisheries meetings. Johnstone has treated this statute with the respect due any legal statute when putting proposals into law. I very much appreciate that.

    Johnstone testified before the Senate that he meets residency requirements for the dividend and the Board. I thought it was very satisfactory testimony. There are many Alaskans who leave the state for a portion of the winter, many of whom are long time Alaskans whose older bodies don't handle the long winter as well. I don't hold it against them that they are able to afford to spend time in a warmer clime... and I know a lot of younger Alaskans who spend much of their winter "Outside," too, because they like to fish open water year round. In my eyes this doesn't make them less Alaskan, just more devoted to their favorite means of pescatorial pursuit.

    He also testified that he resided in the state beginning in the early 60's, and has held several different commercial permits during that time. I would hazard to say he has seen more of Alaskan fisheries than many of us, based on his longevity within the state. He's not a Johnny come lately.

    Most interesting of all was the lack of testimony opposing him in yesterday's Senate hearing. Only one major Cook Inlet commercial fishing group testified, and their testimony was neutral- neither for nor against Johnstone, but encouraging transparency in the process. Only 2 commercial fishermen testified in opposition. This was very, very unusual. There was overwhelming support from the public who testified, and it was reiterated over and over again that he comes into meetings very well prepared, which includes reading all the papers beforehand.

    I don't begrudge the man for accepting per diem and hotel accomodations while in Anchorage. If you've ever attended a board meeting, you will know why. Board members spend a long day in scheduled meetings, usually 8-5, with a one hour lunch and a couple breaks, have breakfast before the meeting with special interests and individuals, have dinner afterward with more special interests, then study all the papers submitted during the day; these sometimes number in the hundreds of pages. By not going home, even in Anchorage, a board member gives himself an extra hour and a half to two hours a day to conduct business or sleep; both very important things during the board meetings!

  15. #15
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I have felt that the Board's legal expert, with a strong background in Commercial fisheries, saw the law through commercial colored glasses, and it was very refreshing to hear his counsel questioned sharply by another law professional.
    You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree that Lance views things with a commercial tint. What commercial background are you referring to?

    In my opinion, past boards have ignored Alaska's sustainable fisheries management policy, and when forced to address it, have treated it as a pesky road impediment to be brushed aside rather than the Statute that it is, and following it as required by law.
    I share your frustration that the Policy is sometimes ignored or viewed as inconvenient by the board and department. However, it is not a law/statute. It's a regulation.

    I don't begrudge the man for accepting per diem and hotel accomodations while in Anchorage. If you've ever attended a board meeting, you will know why. Board members spend a long day in scheduled meetings, usually 8-5, with a one hour lunch and a couple breaks, have breakfast before the meeting with special interests and individuals, have dinner afterward with more special interests, then study all the papers submitted during the day; these sometimes number in the hundreds of pages. By not going home, even in Anchorage, a board member gives himself an extra hour and a half to two hours a day to conduct business or sleep; both very important things during the board meetings!
    Agreed. I did the same thing some of the time while I was on the Board. Sometimes it was out of my own pocket, sometimes it was paid by the State and sometimes I stayed at home. I preferred meetings when they were out of town so I could concentrate fully on the issues at hand.

  16. #16
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    "You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree that Lance views things with a commercial tint. What commercial background are you referring to?"
    I'm sorry I can't footnote this reference to his commercial law background. I've just seen it reported in several articles by the Daily News. I tried finding his resume or ethics statement with no luck. Perhaps someone else can verify it...

    I do think he generally gets things right and provides good counsel. However it was very refreshing to see another legal expert question him. All too often people think that when they hear a lawyer say something its the final word, because, after all, he's a lawyer and knows the law as his job. They forget that every case has two or more sides, with lawyers for each side. If every lawyer was right all the time, there would never be a verdict in a case!



    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    "I share your frustration that the Policy is sometimes ignored or viewed as inconvenient by the board and department. However, it is not a law/statute. It's a regulation."
    I apologize. You're right, it is a regulation, codified as 5 AAC 39.222, not a statute. As a regulation, though, it should still be treated with the same respect that the fishermen testifying before the board must give the regulations regarding them. It would be neat to see that, don't you think? Like if I ignore the regulation to only keep one king salmon a day, I get a fine, possible confiscation of gear, possible loss of fishing privilege. Why have a regulation with no teeth? Perhaps the board could pursue this...

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
  •