Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: ADN: Fish fight: Western Alaska group objects to McDonald's marketing

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default ADN: Fish fight: Western Alaska group objects to McDonald's marketing

    from the ADN today (1/26/13 http://www.adn.com/2013/01/25/276612...ska-group.html

    This is reported to be a $1,000,000,000 a year fishery yet the state receives little if anything in taxes from it. At the same time, the state suffers from a lack of king salmon that is reported in the story to be a result of by-catch. What is wrong with this picture?
    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

  2. #2
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    This is reported to be a $1,000,000,000 a year fishery yet the state receives little if anything in taxes from it.

    You're making sh*t up again, tv.
    Tsk, tsk, tsk.
    Not surprising, though.

    BTW, thanks for not calling the western Alaskan subsistence fishermen freeloaders (this week).
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

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

    Default really!

    Care to embarrass yourself by telling just how much the pollock industry pays in taxes to the state of Alaska? Without looking it up I'd guess a percent or two at most.

    Remember that I've already provide the link to the state publication that shows exactly what the whole fisheries industry pays to the state.

    Perhaps the best indication of the low taxes is that I've never seen anywhere that they have complained about the taxes they have to pay!

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    You're making sh*t up again, tv.
    Tsk, tsk, tsk.
    Not surprising, though.

    BTW, thanks for not calling the western Alaskan subsistence fishermen freeloaders (this week).
    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
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down

    Attachment 67608
    ...............

  5. #5
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    landing tax is 3%
    fishery business tax is 3-5%
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default for Alaska landed fish...

    Good for fish processed or landed in Alaska only: http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/p...dex.aspx?60620 For fish processed outside the 3 mile limit and never brought to Alaska it appears the tax would be 0%.

    Also find that the $1,000,000,000 figure is apparently based on the fish products - not the value of the fish caught. Another misleading figure published to inflate the value of the Alaska fisheries. http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_pro...ka_pollock.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    landing tax is 3%
    fishery business tax is 3-5%
    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

  7. #7
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Good for fish processed or landed in Alaska only: http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/p...dex.aspx?60620 For fish processed outside the 3 mile limit and never brought to Alaska it appears the tax would be 0%.
    I don't believe very much (or any?) of the pollock isn't taxed. In fact, there are specific provisions in AK tax statutes regarding it's applicability to the American Fisheries Act (the Fed law that frameworks the pollock fishery).

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Also find that the $1,000,000,000 figure is apparently based on the fish products - not the value of the fish caught. Another misleading figure published to inflate the value of the Alaska fisheries. http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_pro...ka_pollock.htm
    YOU are the one that tossed out the $1 billion figure here, tv. Not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Care to embarrass yourself
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  8. #8
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    The original article in the ADN quoted the 1 billion dollar figure. The NOAA article tv referenced states "The 2010 pollock catch from the Bering Sea was valued at more than $282 million. Products made from pollock were valued at $1 billion." 6% of 1 billion is roughly 60 million, and 17 million from a catch of 282 million. (note this is stated as "Bering Sea." not sure what GOA numbers look like, or if they were included.) Not chump change; but is it worth depleting chinook salmon stocks statewide to earn those taxes? Does the processing industry bring in enough money and instate jobs to make it worthwhile? In my world, the answer is a resounding no. There is not enough money to make wiping out a fish stock worth while. If the fishery has to be scaled down to a half billion a year fishery to keep from decimating other stocks, then let it do so. If the fishery believes its practices, worth hundreds of millions annually aren't a factor in the decline of incidentally caught species, then they need to pony up the money to identify the fish being caught, and prove they are coming from areas with harvestable surpluses.

    I am glad to see that some progress has been made in reducing bycatch. I just question the effectiveness of the limits placed on the numbers. As a percentage of the total harvestable surplus of Alaska's chinook population, 40,000 may be much higher today than 110,000 half a decade ago, and if so, is pretty meaningless to the overall health of the chinook population.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default

    "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to will phish4food again"

    Using the 1 billion dollar figure certainly make the industry look more important than it is, and this misrepresentation appears to be pretty common in reporting on commercial fishing in Alaska. To keep things in perspective perhaps we should value the oil exported at the price of gasoline rather than crude oil?

    In any event, the taxes paid to the state for an industry as large a commercial fishing are really pretty pathetic - only a few percentage points. Indeed, they are so low that no one even complains about them! I posted the link to the state tax revenues publication on another thread; I'll look it up and post it here also. It is always beneficial to keep that information posted so everyone knows who pays what to keep Alaska running.



    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    The original article in the ADN quoted the 1 billion dollar figure. The NOAA article tv referenced states "The 2010 pollock catch from the Bering Sea was valued at more than $282 million. Products made from pollock were valued at $1 billion." 6% of 1 billion is roughly 60 million, and 17 million from a catch of 282 million. (note this is stated as "Bering Sea." not sure what GOA numbers look like, or if they were included.) Not chump change; but is it worth depleting chinook salmon stocks statewide to earn those taxes? Does the processing industry bring in enough money and instate jobs to make it worthwhile? In my world, the answer is a resounding no. There is not enough money to make wiping out a fish stock worth while. If the fishery has to be scaled down to a half billion a year fishery to keep from decimating other stocks, then let it do so. If the fishery believes its practices, worth hundreds of millions annually aren't a factor in the decline of incidentally caught species, then they need to pony up the money to identify the fish being caught, and prove they are coming from areas with harvestable surpluses.

    I am glad to see that some progress has been made in reducing bycatch. I just question the effectiveness of the limits placed on the numbers. As a percentage of the total harvestable surplus of Alaska's chinook population, 40,000 may be much higher today than 110,000 half a decade ago, and if so, is pretty meaningless to the overall health of the chinook population.
    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

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default "Billion-Dollar Fish: The Untold Story of Alaska Pollock"

    Looks like someone has written a book on this fish (note the billion dollar figure again).

    Brief note in the Deckboss on this and some interesting comments: http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2013/01...llar-fish.html
    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

  11. #11

    Default ADN: Fish fight: Western Alaska group objects to McDonald's marketing

    TV,

    The only thing interesting that I noticed about the comments after that article is that nearly all of them were purely emotional, completely unsubstantiated, and lacked any real facts. I see your attraction...

    I am no friend of the Trawl fishery. I have 0 ties to it, and the only thing that moves me to write any comments at all is the sour taste that I get from watching people blame the next person downstream for catching "their" fish. So the Bering and Gulf trawl fisheries catch X amount of Chinook. As these fish are bound for river systems all over the western side of this continent, what real effect does this have on any one system? What is their exploitation rate of say, Kenai, Kasilof, or Deshka bound Chinook? Could it be more than a couple %? No doubt we should insist that this information be gathered and closely monitored. I would love to see the number of Kings that they catch and dump be 0, but how feasible is that? Is there any way that these fish could be harvested and not just dumped? TV, are you recommending any solutions other than the complete closure of this fishery? What effect will suddenly not harvesting Millions of Pollock have on the ecosystem? Have you even thought of that? Have you heard of the food chain? Butterfly effect? Mushrooms?... oh wait, yeah, probably.

    I don't feel that I have adequate knowledge of this fishery to effectively criticize it or offer solutions. The only thing I am sure of is that I probably know more about it than TV. Ha.

  12. #12

    Default ADN: Fish fight: Western Alaska group objects to McDonald's marketing


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

    Thumbs down New forum needed . . .

    . . purely emotional, completely unsubstantiated, and lacked any real facts. I see your attraction...

    These one-act-dog-and-pony-show threads have nothing to do with facts. Any so-called "facts" therein are nothing more than emotionally-driven spin.


    These threads, one after the other in an endless parade, are nothing more than a compulsive, obsessive need to smear Alaska's seafood industry and Alaska's commercial fishermen.


    Sickening. Forum authorities, if they're willing to indulge this sort of tripe, might consider starting a whole new forum where such trash can be deposited without polluting rational discussion.


    Suggested title for a new forum: Why I Hate Commercial Fishing.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default interesting...

    Not sure why you feel a need to wage personal attack, but unfortunatly that seems to be a common trait amoung those blindly supporting all phases of commercial fishing - sort of like commerial fishing is a sort of deity to many, at least on this forum.

    I'm not offering solutions to solve the problems of by-catch - I'm just asking questions, posting relevant articles from different sources, and posting clear and obvious facts, like the taxes paid by the commerical fishing industry and the small part they play in supporting essential state services. Yes, I know the tax information is very embarassing, but it a published fact and undeniable. Likewise for the low average wages paid in the industry, the conditions and 16 hr days on the slime lines, the hiring of desperate aliens instead of American citizens, high accident rates etc.

    I think it is important that the average Alaskan be aware of both sides of the commerical fishing - as well as the two sides of every other industry in Alaska. Taxes paid, employment, impact on the enviornment, costs and inconvience to the public, contributions and costs to the United States etc. are all importart knowledge that need to be known. With that knowledge we can make the important decisions that must be made.


    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    TV,

    The only thing interesting that I noticed about the comments after that article is that nearly all of them were purely emotional, completely unsubstantiated, and lacked any real facts. I see your attraction...

    I am no friend of the Trawl fishery. I have 0 ties to it, and the only thing that moves me to write any comments at all is the sour taste that I get from watching people blame the next person downstream for catching "their" fish. So the Bering and Gulf trawl fisheries catch X amount of Chinook. As these fish are bound for river systems all over the western side of this continent, what real effect does this have on any one system? What is their exploitation rate of say, Kenai, Kasilof, or Deshka bound Chinook? Could it be more than a couple %? No doubt we should insist that this information be gathered and closely monitored. I would love to see the number of Kings that they catch and dump be 0, but how feasible is that? Is there any way that these fish could be harvested and not just dumped? TV, are you recommending any solutions other than the complete closure of this fishery? What effect will suddenly not harvesting Millions of Pollock have on the ecosystem? Have you even thought of that? Have you heard of the food chain? Butterfly effect? Mushrooms?... oh wait, yeah, probably.

    I don't feel that I have adequate knowledge of this fishery to effectively criticize it or offer solutions. The only thing I am sure of is that I probably know more about it than TV. Ha.
    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

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    . . the sour taste that I get from watching people blame the next person downstream for catching "their" fish. . .

    Nor are you alone, smith, I too get sick of the whining, the blame, the false accusations, the endless stream of unsubstantiated, vitriolic, ignorant abuse heaped on Alaska's commercial fishing and commercial fishermen.


    These threads consist of baseless innuendo, no solutions, no verification, simply throw out a wad of opinionated crap and see what sticks.


    Envy, hate, prejudice, and bigotry . . over and over and over . . nothing constructive, nothing of substance . . ad nauseam . .

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post

    These one-act-dog-and-pony-show threads have nothing to do with facts. Any so-called "facts" therein are nothing more than emotionally-driven spin.


    These threads, one after the other in an endless parade, are nothing more than a compulsive, obsessive need to smear Alaska's seafood industry and Alaska's commercial fishermen.


    Sickening. Forum authorities, if they're willing to indulge this sort of tripe, might consider starting a whole new forum where such trash can be deposited without polluting rational discussion.


    Suggested title for a new forum: Why I Hate Commercial Fishing.
    We could start another called "Why I hate Kenai River Guides"

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Hate?

    Who hates anyone? "Hate" is a harsh work that is usually reserved for really, really bad people or things. Certainly river guides or commercial fishermen aren't bad people; most are just ordinary good guys and gals trying to make an honest living. Same can be said for the workers in just about any industry - even the oil industry so many Alaskans like to demonize.

    Industries are not people however. One must judge an industry by the benefits it offers versus the toll it takes. The benefits and costs can be evaluated on a personal, local, state, national, or international level. Since I'm not involved in the business of commercial fishing I tend to look more at the benefits from a state and national level; those involved in or personally benefiting from the business tend to take a more personal or local view.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Charlie View Post
    We could start another called "Why I hate Kenai River Guides"
    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

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

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Charlie View Post
    We could start another called "Why I hate Kenai River Guides"

    Yeah, that one's seen its share of ranting and raving too, Charlie, but while our current piss-on-commercial-fishing threads are long on spiteful abuse and short on substantial suggestions, the guide threads were short on abuse and long on substantial suggestions. And unlike the current diarrheic stream of crap being dumped on commercial fishermen, even the most dedicated anti-guide voices recognized the need for guides . . heck, even Alaskans use guides. It wasn't "guides" per se that was/is the problem, it's their numbers.


    For the time being, the animosity toward the guides seems to have subsided a bit . . some of us actually feel sorry for them given the current economic climate.


    And for the time being, the animosity toward commercial fishermen continues unabated . . no solutions, no substance, no suggestions . . just more abuse, abuse and abuse.

  19. #19
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Yeah, that one's seen its share of ranting and raving too, Charlie, but while our current piss-on-commercial-fishing threads are long on spiteful abuse and short on substantial suggestions, the guide threads were short on abuse and long on substantial suggestions. And unlike the current diarrheic stream of crap being dumped on commercial fishermen, even the most dedicated anti-guide voices recognized the need for guides . . heck, even Alaskans use guides. It wasn't "guides" per se that was/is the problem, it's their numbers.




    For the time being, the animosity toward the guides seems to have subsided a bit . . some of us actually feel sorry for them given the current economic climate.




    And for the time being, the animosity toward commercial fishermen continues unabated . . no solutions, no substance, no suggestions . . just more abuse, abuse and abuse.

    Now, that gives me an idea....<grin>
    “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."

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
  •