Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: house bill 18

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default house bill 18

    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/28/Bills/HB0018A.PDF


    I hesitate to start this thread given the recent tone in some other threads. However, this is a really intersting situation regarding fishery management on so many different levels I had to post it. I think it can generate some very interesting posts. I'd ask folks to keep it positive however, factual, and with respect to all. What do you think about house bill 18 and this method of setting natural resource policy?

    "An Act providing priority to personal use fisheries when fishing restrictions are
    2
    implemented to achieve a management goal."
    3
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
    4
    * Section 1. AS 16.05.251 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:5 (j) Except as provided in AS 16.05.258, when the harvest of a stock or species6 is limited to achieve a management goal, the Board of Fisheries shall place restrictions7 on all other fisheries before restricting personal use fisheries. In this subsection,8 "management goal" means the escapement or estimated population size of the9 exploited stock that provides the greatest potential for sustained yield as established by
    10 the board.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default As 16.05.258

    Might as well post a link to AS 16.05.258 while you at at it, or I'll look it up later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/28/Bills/HB0018A.PDF

    I hesitate to start this thread given the recent tone in some other threads. However, this is a really intersting situation regarding fishery management on so many different levels I had to post it. I think it can generate some very interesting posts. I'd ask folks to keep it positive however, factual, and with respect to all. What do you think about house bill 18 and this method of setting natural resource policy?

    "An Act providing priority to personal use fisheries when fishing restrictions are
    2
    implemented to achieve a management goal."
    3
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
    4
    * Section 1. AS 16.05.251 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:5 (j) Except as provided in AS 16.05.258, when the harvest of a stock or species6 is limited to achieve a management goal, the Board of Fisheries shall place restrictions7 on all other fisheries before restricting personal use fisheries. In this subsection,8 "management goal" means the escapement or estimated population size of the9 exploited stock that provides the greatest potential for sustained yield as established by
    10 the board.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default found it...

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...ubsistence.pdf

    I'm assuming this still the current version.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  4. #4

    Default house bill 18

    The personal use fishery is classified as a sport fishery. It is given a different name so as not to be confused with traditional sport fisheries due to the increased efficiency of the gear used. I believe I read this in BOF language, or the AAC code, not sure which. My point being, why the special treatment? This isn't a subsistence fishery, because that would mean that geography and tradition would be taken into account. As a sport fishery, it should treated as such. Due to the increased harvest efficiency, wouldn't it make sense to shut down the PU fishery BEFORE the inriver sport fishery?

    It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to separate private anglers from commercial fishermen. Why are private anglers shut down at the same time as the commercial inriver operations?

    Bottom line, a lot of people depend on this fishery, and that's not a bad thing. It's just too bad that we can't spread the load out a little - it would be easier on the rivers and the communities around them if we didn't have everyone flocking to just a few rivers. Maybe we could have limited dipnetting on all Alaskan rivers.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default fish give away..

    Why doesn't the state just buy reds at wholesale dock prices and sell them cheap or give them away in Anchorage and the valley to residents? At the same time we could eliminate the personal use fishery altogether. People could sign up in advance and give a deposit so fish won't be wasted. Perhaps our senators could get us a federal grant also to cover some of the cost.

    It would save gas, lives, minimize the impact on the environment, and provide many more benefits. The state and feds provide all sorts of subsidizes to those that live in rural areas, they should do something for those of use that live in urban areas also. For instance, the feds are subsidizing some rural residents $75,000 for each internet line! Over 40,000,000 people are on food stamps; don't know how many of them are in Alaska but I'd bet there are plenty.

    Sounds far out, but it could work to everyone's advantage. With the high cost of gasoline, parking, etc. I would save money paying even above dock prices for my 35 fish.


    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    The personal use fishery is classified as a sport fishery. It is given a different name so as not to be confused with traditional sport fisheries due to the increased efficiency of the gear used. I believe I read this in BOF language, or the AAC code, not sure which. My point being, why the special treatment? This isn't a subsistence fishery, because that would mean that geography and tradition would be taken into account. As a sport fishery, it should treated as such. Due to the increased harvest efficiency, wouldn't it make sense to shut down the PU fishery BEFORE the inriver sport fishery?

    It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to separate private anglers from commercial fishermen. Why are private anglers shut down at the same time as the commercial inriver operations?

    Bottom line, a lot of people depend on this fishery, and that's not a bad thing. It's just too bad that we can't spread the load out a little - it would be easier on the rivers and the communities around them if we didn't have everyone flocking to just a few rivers. Maybe we could have limited dipnetting on all Alaskan rivers.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  6. #6

    Default

    Interesting to say the least... I just read Les Palmer's article in the Clarion on this subject and I thought it interesting that both KRSA and AOC are in support of this bill. Lets see, would'nt that mean that the PU King harvest would then take priority over the private sport fishermen and guided sport industry? And would'nt it sound reasonable that the PU fishermen should be granted the same 2 fish bag limit the sport fishermen get??? Now how is that going to square with the guide industry when the PU fishery priority is going to be getting in their financial nickers just like it has been with the commercial industry for years??? This is a mess and KRSA should rethink their stand since they are the frontmen for the guided sport industry.

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Les Palmer's column in today's Clarion addresses the issue:


    How will anglers who prefer to catch their sockeyes with rod and reel feel about dipnetters having a priority over them? How might fishery management decisions be affected if this bill passes? Will supporters of personal-use fishing overcome the reluctance of legislators to jump into the fish-allocation fray?

    I don’t know. What I do know is that the last time the Board of Fisheries addressed Upper Cook Inlet fin-fish proposals, at its Feb.-Mar 2011 meeting, they looked at 28 proposals to limit or restrict personal-use fishing.

    Despite this showing of opposition to personal-use fishing, the board rejected all 28 of those proposals, leaving personal-use fishing unscathed.

    Whether or not HB 18 survives and becomes law, the discussions about it are certain to be many and spirited.

    —more at the link

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Actual language in regulation:
    (4) it is necessary to establish a fishery classified as "personal use" because

    (A) since the sale of fish is not appropriate or permissible, this fishery cannot be classified as commercial;

    (B) since the use is not a customary and traditional use, this fishery cannot be classified as subsistence; and

    (C) since the gear for this fishery is often different from that historically associated with sport fishing, this fishery should not be classified as a sport fishery, to prevent confusion among the public.



    So it is not classified as a sport fishery.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    The Kenai and Kasilof dip-net fisheries should be reclassified as "fish processors" which is what they really are


    For all the mewling and puking complaints we hear about wascally and villainous fish processors wantonly polluting Alaska's pristine waters with plumes of fish offal, where's the corresponding outrage over dumping the waste from half a million fish, not into the river where it would contribute vital nutrients to the sacred ecosystem, but into the waters of Cook Inlet where it will cause untold damage?


    Make dip-netters subject to all the fees, rules, and regulations to which other fish processors are subject.


    That'll teach 'em some respect for the environment.


    Another option for the dipnet fishery

    By John McCombs
    Ninilchik
    On dipnetting I am voting for option 7. A dipnetter would purchase a dipnet permit for $200. Upon completion of harvest the head/backbone for each fish would be delivered to the grinding station. The parts would be ground to 1/4 of an inch, consistent with current DEC regulations. At this point their individual harvest report would be completed and turned in. A chip would then be issued. The chip could be returned for a refund or retained and later presented for a new harvest card the next season. The result: clean beaches, accurate harvest data, free fertilizer, and no brown bears roaming subdivisions in the summer.

    The Board of Fish and state has created an unlimited expanding fishery that rewards people from all over the world with red salmon yet encumbers a municipality with tons of bio-waste and undesirable human behaviors. Mayor Porter and Manager Koch should call Dan Coffey in Anchorage and thank him personally as he was the board of fish chairman that escalated this fishery. Then fix it!


    —from today's Clarion: http://peninsulaclarion.com/opinion/...dipnet-fishery



  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    First off, this bill would change BOF regulations, that is what AS 16.05.251 covers. As far as using this "method" (legislation) to enact natural resource policy, I don't see how it falls outside the norm really. There are three methods to use, the BOF, the courts, and the legislature. All have been tried already as far as this topic on "personal use" fisheries.

    I gather this will have more traction than HB 266 with the change in our legislative members after the election. But I can't quite figure why KRSA would support this (if they are) new version. I mean, if Stoltze intends to make some of the same arguments as with 266, basically placing a lot of blame on the inriver sport fishers and guides, those nasty nonresidents and aliens who "take" our fish...that is the opposite of what KRSA has stood for. The only explanation I can think of as to why KRSA would support something like this is that they believe the BOF would always first limit the commercial guys off shore and thus there would be more inriver fish for everyone. But take a closer look at the wording of the bill, it says that the BOF "shall place restrictions on all other fisheries before restricting personal use fisheries."

    That could be a mistake in language by Stoltze's staff that will be noticed and possibly changed, but man, in reading this if I were a Kenai guide and/or member of KRSA I would be supremely ticked if KRSA supported this.

    On its face, it's as bad as HB 266. It's a backdoor because the BOF and courts have already determined that PU is not subsistence and thus can be restricted. But again, it isn't like backdoor methods haven't been tried time and time again. I get why it would have AOC support...but for the life of me if KRSA supports this I think a lot of members are gonna leave in outrage.


  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    . . But I can't quite figure why KRSA would support this (if they are) new version. . .

    Does whatever it is you're referring to hurt/hinder/restrict/etc. Cook Inlet's gill-net industry?


    It's my impression that KRSA's long-term goal is the complete destruction of commercial fishing in Cook Inlet.


    Bob Penny's testimony to House Committee on Economic Development and Trade/ The Economics of Sportfishing
    April 24, 2007
    The problem with cook inlet, even though we're the middle of the population, we have only allowed fifteen percent of the harvest. There's 216,000 licensed anglers in southcentral; we get fifteen percent of the harvest. The commercial fishermen take eighty-five [percent]. Now, you want to see something change? Then see that take place, make that accessibility [sic] for the public. There is a move on now, and it's going to the Board of Fish, and it will be in the legislature in an initiative or referendum that this will have to be take place. That the way the fisheries manage [sic] should be turned around one-hundred eighty degrees in Southcentral like it has to the rest of the United States, and that is, the public should have the first right to allocation for the fisheries they need. Your family, my family, people that live there should have the amount of the fish that they need for their own needs. And the tourists should. Then, whatever is surplus to our needs could be commercially harvested. That's the way the fishery's got to be changed and it's going to be coming down to see you in some manner in the next few years because the public's gonna wanna see that done.

  12. #12
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    My point though John was that while it could/would certainly hinder the commercial guys, it would also impact the inriver sportfishers and guides the way the bill is written. These board regs are often complex, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty law stuff, KRSA may want to get the wording changed to take out the "all" part of all other fisheries will be restricted <grin>.

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    My point though John was that while it could/would certainly hinder the commercial guys, it would also impact the inriver sportfishers and guides the way the bill is written. These board regs are often complex, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty law stuff, KRSA may want to get the wording changed to take out the "all" part of all other fisheries will be restricted <grin>.

    Dunno, Mark, too deep, too devious for me. Maybe KRSA's willing to take a short-term hit for long-term gain?


    In my opinion, KRSA's (sycophants, commie-haters, et al.) target (read "money") species has always been chinook, and sockeye are simply a means to that end . . more sockeye in the river = more kings in the river.


    So what if the king fishery takes a hit for a couple/few years . . it's likely to in any event, and, hey, who was it said "never let a good crisis go to waste"?


    Penny/KRSA gave that testimony to the House just five years ago . . does anyone imagine Penny/KRSA are dancing to a different tune these days? I know Bret Huber used to be pretty thick with AOC . . how about Ricky?

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    267

    Default

    [QUOTE=aktally;1230112]Actual language in regulation:
    (4) it is necessary to establish a fishery classified as "personal use" because

    (A) since the sale of fish is not appropriate or permissible, this fishery cannot be classified as commercial;

    (B) since the use is not a customary and traditional use, this fishery cannot be classified as subsistence; and

    (C) since the gear for this fishery is often different from that historically associated with sport fishing, this fishery should not be classified as a sport fishery, to prevent confusion among the public.



    So it is not classified as a sport fishery.

    I have a question about (B) in the post. How long does an activity have to occur before it becomes a customary and traiditional use? I am curious how part of the copper river fishery is subsistence and part is personal use, but all of the cook inlet dipping is classified as personal use?

  15. #15

    Default house bill 18

    Oops. My mistake. Personal use is not classified as a sport fishery. To prevent confusion.

    It's unfortunate that at a time when it's abundantly clear this fishery needs some responsible limits, our representatives are pushing in the opposite direction. I get seperating residents from nonresidents and businesses, but not with gillnets in only a few Alaskan rivers.

  16. #16

    Default

    I am not a fan of this bill. Let's be honest here, Stoltze proposed this bill to be effective statewide, but he's really just concerned about the Kenai River (and maybe the copper/chitina to a lesser extent).

    Stoltze represents Eagle River. 90% of the Kenai dipnet fishery is by Anchorage and Mat-Su Valley residents. This bill will reallocate fish from the existing priorities (sport, commercial and personal use) to Stoltze's constituents in Anchorage Mat-Su area.

    There's nothing wrong with being from Anchorage or Mat-Su, but isn't 25 reds already enough for a family? That's nearly one fillet a week for an entire year, if you don't catch any other fish whatsoever for the rest of the year. Throw in a few bag limits of sport-caught fish and you have more than most folks will ever eat.

    Does that really warrant legislative action that would affect all fisheries statewide to further increase the personal use access to the fishery at the expense of the other users? This bill is like trying to operate with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, because it changes the management of all fisheries statewide, when it's really being motivated by just a couple of river systems close to population centers.

    I would prefer a different way of handling this myself, like working to change the allocation mix instead of making a new statewide law that would complicate management of the fisheries.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Why doesn't the state just buy reds at wholesale dock prices and sell them cheap or give them away in Anchorage and the valley to residents? At the same time we could eliminate the personal use fishery altogether.

    It would save gas, lives, minimize the impact on the environment, and provide many more benefits.
    Sounds far out, but it could work to everyone's advantage. With the high cost of gasoline, parking, etc. I would save money paying even above dock prices for my 35 fish.
    yeah but what about this. It would sure take the fun out of it.
    I was amazedby these pictures
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re.../pc7-final.pdf

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by fishguts View Post
    I was amazedby these pictures.

    And I was sickened . . talk about out-of-control . . .

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default look at the author/source

    Of course, you do have to look at who put the photo album together - it was not an unbiased publication but rather the worse of the worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by fishguts View Post
    yeah but what about this. It would sure take the fun out of it.
    I was amazedby these pictures
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re.../pc7-final.pdf
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Lots of different issues here. Probably none of which are suitable for comment by an out-of-stater like me, but that hasn't stop me in the past.......

    Those pics are certainly graphic. Not an Alaskan experience by any means. However, the issue of overuse by humans is an easy problem to solve - reduce the daily bag limit to 2-3 fish per day. That will certainly reduce the amount of fish taken and disposed of on any one high-tide cycle. Also, a small daily bag limit would likely deter most folks from Anchorage. I don't have anything against the good folks from the big city, except there are too many of them in a small area like the Kenai and Kasilof. A much smaller bag limit would not prevent those folks from coming down, but if they did, their bag limit would be the same as everyone else (2-3). In addition, the locals would still be able to fill their freezer with sockeye, although it might take more time than it does now. But they would only have to drive a few miles each day, as opposed to driving from Anchorage.

    HB 18 seems to be asking a different question than is being discussed here. It asks whether it is in the interest of the people of Alaska to carve out a PU priority where none exists now. As I understand it, this is not a subsistence use since that already has a preference, although I'm not sure it applies to the KP since many areas of the KP are not "rural" enough to have a subsistence designation. So should the PU fishery have preference? I will let the good folks from the Great Land answer that question. However, I would note the "Law of Unintended Consequences". What starts out innocently enough sometimes turns out much worse than anyone would have expected. The KP is full of examples of that. So be careful what you ask for. You just might get it........

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
  •