Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: Fine kettle of fish

  1. #1
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

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

    Default "strip mine the ocean"

    As long as we continue to allow the trawlers from Seattle to "strip mine the ocean" (see article) off Alaska we shouldn't be surprised at such stores.

    Even worse, we don't even demand a royality for the fish caught off our shore - but we sure have our hand out for any oil produced off-shore in federal waters.

    People though the VECO mess was bad - I think we would all be shocked if we knew what went on with the politicans and commercial fishing.

    A fine kettle of fish indeed.

    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
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Tv do you ever make sense? Or do you just make vague accusations and slander?

    AkGramps, what was your point in the link? That some salmon get donated to food banks? I'd be interested to know.


    Personally, I think it's not a bad use of the bycatch. I think it's a PR move, but it ends up doing good work.

  4. #4
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    Tv do you ever make sense? Or do you just make vague accusations and slander?

    AkGramps, what was your point in the link? That some salmon get donated to food banks? I'd be interested to know.


    Personally, I think it's not a bad use of the bycatch. I think it's a PR move, but it ends up doing good work.
    Donating bycatch is not bad, perhaps it could be donated to the people of Alaska, particularly to those that are most affected by trawlers. Maybe you didnt read the whole story....?
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Even worse, we don't even demand a royality for the fish caught off our shore
    TV, I believe that I already corrected you on this. It's bad enough to be a broken record, but it's even worse to be wrong over and over again...
    "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

    The pollock fishery now provides an almost insignicant 3% tax on unprocessed value (as you have pointed out before).

    I'm suggesting a royality similar to what we charge the oil industry for oil produced on state lands.

    I haven't found any info on what taxes they pay on by-catch like the subject king salmon. Like we do the oil industry, we should be regualting the by-catch by fining them heavily.

    Regulation by taxing work for other industries - it would work for the trawlers also.



    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    TV, I believe that I already corrected you on this. It's bad enough to be a broken record, but it's even worse to be wrong over and over again...
    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
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    So the referenced article has this: "Many Alaskans would like to see it reduced to zero, but they have little control over the federally managed trawl fisheries. Flora noted that the state House can pass all the resolutions it wants, but none of them have the power of law. They are purely advisory."

    Any chance of keeping the discussion focused on Alaska? You want to pound on the Feds, have at it, but Alaska does not get a Royalty from production on Fed holdings, including the ocean. Some things are under the control of Alaska and some belong to the Feds. Learn the difference. It will improve your acceptance, and reduce your appearance of irrelevant.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default fed waters

    Lisa is already hard at work to get a state royality on oil that will be produced from federal offshore leases. Her work with the senator from LA was in the news several months ago.

    Those that are opposed to Shell drill offshore in federal waters are quite vocal in the their opposition and demands for stricter regulations. I wish many of the protestors would work as hard to get protective regulations on the rest of the ocean.

    It is hardly out of line to demand more revenue from our offshore fisheries and more regualtions to protect our fisheries. In the case of the king salmon, these fish should certainly share in state regulation since they are indeed "our" fish.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tee Jay View Post
    So the referenced article has this: "Many Alaskans would like to see it reduced to zero, but they have little control over the federally managed trawl fisheries. Flora noted that the state House can pass all the resolutions it wants, but none of them have the power of law. They are purely advisory."

    Any chance of keeping the discussion focused on Alaska? You want to pound on the Feds, have at it, but Alaska does not get a Royalty from production on Fed holdings, including the ocean. Some things are under the control of Alaska and some belong to the Feds. Learn the difference. It will improve your acceptance, and reduce your appearance of irrelevant.
    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

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    AkGramps, I did read the entire story.......but it's just that a story. Medred isn't known for writing facts or analysis, but stories. So while I tend to agree that those fish should go to western Alaska, I see the point made in the article that they ship to Seattle. I'm happy it goes somewhere that there is need, much like you. However to equate the 10,000 or so fish with the demise of the Yukon Kings is a bogus strawman. That imo is what Medred tried to do in that article. Get people riled up that those fish are not eaten in Alaska, and then bring up bogeymen to scare people. I am not sure what good it does.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Snivel away, they are the Feds jurisdiction. Royalties are a price paid to the owner of the rights. In Lieu are payments to states instead of taxes for development activities by the Feds on property owned by the Feds within the States boundaries. The State has 3 mile, the Feds have 200 mile jurisdiction. Carry on, mindlessly as is customary.

  11. #11
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Okay, lets indulge the theory that salmon caught offshore should be taxed when sold/used out of State. Who's the poor schmuck gonna be that has to separate "our" Alaskan Salmon from the Canadian, Russian, and Pacific Northwestern U.S. Salmon?
    “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."

  12. #12
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    AkGramps, I did read the entire story.......but it's just that a story. Medred isn't known for writing facts or analysis, but stories. So while I tend to agree that those fish should go to western Alaska, I see the point made in the article that they ship to Seattle. I'm happy it goes somewhere that there is need, much like you. However to equate the 10,000 or so fish with the demise of the Yukon Kings is a bogus strawman. That imo is what Medred tried to do in that article. Get people riled up that those fish are not eaten in Alaska, and then bring up bogeymen to scare people. I am not sure what good it does.
    Yes, the news media has a habit of playing on emotions, I try not to get drawn into that morass.........but it can be difficult to glean the facts. That's why I posted here...not necessarily to stir the pot. But to get the opinions of others, I am not a big fan of trawlers, all of our resources are limited and should be used wisely and treated with respect.
    I know its a efficient way to harvest, but even the term "Bycatch" denotes waste....

    It certainly would have helped if those fish had been donated to the folks of western Alaska......if in fact they would take them.....?
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default whose fish?

    If our AK F&G hasn't went to the trouble to sample some of the fish and see their origin - then some schmuck should be out of a job - or perhaps someone doesn't want us to know?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    Okay, lets indulge the theory that salmon caught offshore should be taxed when sold/used out of State. Who's the poor schmuck gonna be that has to separate "our" Alaskan Salmon from the Canadian, Russian, and Pacific Northwestern U.S. Salmon?
    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

  14. #14
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    My opinion is that those fish should go to Alaskans in need before it goes to Seattles homeless.
    Although I am not totaly against trawlers I do believe they need to find more ways to eliminate bycatch.
    We shut down our setnetters because of bycatch but let these trawlers continue on.
    I know they have reduced bycatch some but more needs to be done.
    We shut down one fishery for catching kings yet let another keep on going regardless.
    "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"

  15. #15

    Default

    I wonder how the Homer sport King fishery (of which I am a participant) would fit into this discussion. A large number of the Kings caught in this fishery are from Canada (although little data is retrieved from this fishery). TV, if you were to brave the roads to Homer to participate in this fishery, would you be willing to pay a tax to Canada to harvest these fish? With the amount of complaining I have read in past posts about the costs, risks, and ineffectiveness involved in securing your yearly catch, I doubt it.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default better use..

    Seattle gains way too much from Alaska's fisheries as it is without giving our fish away.

    If the desire is to feed the homeless a better solution would be to sell the kings and buy much less expensive food for the homeless. Why should the homeless eat better than those that are working hard to support themselves and their families and can't afford king salmon?


    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    My opinion is that those fish should go to Alaskans in need before it goes to Seattles homeless.
    Although I am not totaly against trawlers I do believe they need to find more ways to eliminate bycatch.
    We shut down our setnetters because of bycatch but let these trawlers continue on.
    I know they have reduced bycatch some but more needs to be done.
    We shut down one fishery for catching kings yet let another keep on going regardless.
    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

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink Them wascally commies . . . again . . .

    Tee Jay and BrownsFan make good points.


    All human harvest and use of the earth's resources engenders some degree of "bycatch"—combines kill rabbits, the timber industry destroys bird nests, wheat fields destroy wildlife habitat, oil wells spill gunk, and so on. Who knew? Boring.


    Rather than seeking and encouraging productive means to mitigate inevitable waste, demagogues and petty partisans instead use "bycatch" issues to smear and besmirch one industry or another in order to promote a narrow-minded, self-serving agenda.


    Nothing new here . . same ol', same ol' . . .


  18. #18
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Glad to see hungry people anywhere getting fed; food banks are a great help to struggling families, seniors, and others who might otherwise face malnutrition. The Washington trawlers pay federal taxes, guess where lots of that money finds its way back to eventually? ADFG is doing what it can in its own jurisdiction to rejuvenate the king runs....last thing we want to see is Alaskan salmon on the endangered species list.....
    "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  19. #19

    Default

    If they can cap it at 25k, and keep it under that (legit), then the trawlers are doing OK as far as king salmon go. 25k from a mixed stock isn't really that much. When they had those years of 120k-ish, then it was a concern. The fact they are only catching 12k, is an indictation that stocks are down. I doubt they are doing much different in the way they fish. The year they caught the 120k, there were kings all over the place. Easy year to be a guide. When abundance roars back in Alaska, you'll see some high bycatch numbers again.

    The "homeless" is a dog & pony PR show.. Good for them to at least make an attempt to look like they care about something, and the homeless gets to eat some mashed up salmon, that wasn't bled/gutted/gilled. Probably a reason they are giving it to the homeless. I'm thinking they aren't "feasting", as the emotional Medred says.. more like getting some stinky salmon patties that they "think" are kings. My wife did a missions trip down to haiti. The big pharms all "donated" meds to haiti, for the tax benefits and PR. Problems was those meds expired pretty much they day they hit haiti, and had to be burned.. a regular occurance. Corporations are corporations.

    Halibut (under 32" inchers) and habitat destruction is more of a concern than the kings, IMO for the trawlers. Alaska kings are in a big down cycle. WA/OR/CA are in a big up cycle.

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down More like an ice cream sundae of junk food . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    Glad to see hungry people anywhere getting fed; food banks are a great help to struggling families, seniors, and others who might otherwise face malnutrition. The Washington trawlers pay federal taxes, guess where lots of that money finds its way back to eventually? ADFG is doing what it can in its own jurisdiction to rejuvenate the king runs....last thing we want to see is Alaskan salmon on the endangered species list.....

    Sounds right to me . . .


    The Dispatch piece, as I read it, is partisan propaganda, a thinly-disguised smear job of the trawl fishery. Even though Medred can bring himself to admit:


    There is no scientific evidence to support the belief that bycatch in the trawl fisheries is to blame for the widespread decline in Alaska king salmon stocks. The number of kings reported as bycatch in the trawl fisheries barely puts a dent in the number of kings missing from Alaska streams this summer.

    Medred follows that bit of candor with, "Kings for the poor of Seattle while we're deciding if we want to play "catch and release" with barbless hooks in order to save the run?" asked Rod Arno of the Alaska Outdoor Council. "I wonder what Alaskan in-river anglers would think of this disturbing news?"


    Well, which is it, Craig? No scientific evidence or the politics of envy?


    Disgusting bowl of special-interest pleading topped with cherry-picked "facts" and dripping with envy. God forbid the poor should benefit.

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
  •