Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 88

Thread: Food security, lies, and the responsibility of a board of directors

  1. #1

    Default Food security, lies, and the responsibility of a board of directors

    Ok, so a couple students and profs at UAA did a bunch of research and interviews with members of our community last summer, and put together a study on food security on the Kenai Peninsula, and how our fisheries help provide it.

    http://ine.uaf.edu/accap/documents/L...rityReport.pdf

    Of course, KRSA put their tilt on it and touted it as one more example of how important sport and personal use fishing is for Alaskans.

    http://www.krsa.com/blog/krsa-fish-b...skan-families/

    Well, apparently that wasn't exactly the conclusion that the researchers drew. Here's the UAF prof's response (from UCIDA FB page):

    Hello Audrey, Roland, et al.

    I saw your recent repost of KRSAs interpretation regarding the food security report recently published by my research group. I wonder if you could pass this response along to your membership as well?

    I think... it is important to understand that KRSA has drawn conclusions from our report that we ourselves did not make and with which we do not agree. First of all, the finding of our report is that ALL fisheries in Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula are important to local food security. Diversity is a premise of regional resilience and sustainability, and it is our contention that robust local commercial fisheries are an important component of that diversity for the Kenai Peninsula. Note that, while 56% of local residents identify personal use / subsistence as their primary means of acquiring local seafood, and 36% cite sport-fishing (not just on the Kenai), 27% of our respondents report getting fish via barter, trade, or sharing as their primary means; more specifically, barter and trade is especially important among low-income households, and by law barter and trade can only be done with commercially-caught fish. Likewise, I regret that we omitted a figure from our report that showed that nearly 14% of households in the peninsula have a member which participates in some aspect of commercial fishing -- thus an important economic contribution to the region in its own right.

    More importantly, however, we disagree with KRSA's contention that strengthening individual access to local fisheries over commercial interests could also be a pathway to greater regional food security. In fact, we have an academic paper about to be published (an unedited proof is attached here, please do not distribute) which finds the opposite - that individual access to local fisheries in this region is overdeveloped at the expense of local commercial markets and local food security. Individual access is very important, but for people without the time, means, or inclination, it leaves local seafood out of reach. We argue that only increased access to commercially-caught fish will increase the social justice of the Kenai food system. We also note that many commercial fishermen are already taking this social justice responsibility upon themselves, by experimenting at much cost to themselves with alternative direct-marketing approaches to bring seafood to local consumers. This story at AlaskaDispatch describes just one example: http://alaskadispatch.com/article/20130417/expanding-program-brings-southeast-catch-direct-anchorage-homes

    We are very interested in learning from all commercial fishermen about what barriers exist to bringing more commercially caught seafood to local markets, and this is an ongoing research problem for us.

    As you know, we undertook this research with no agenda by way of supporting or detracting from any of the local fisheries, but are interested in supporting only the health and sustainability of Kenai Peninsula communities and fisheries resources. It is a challenge of all research to present data in a way that minimizes how it will be co-opted to particular sectoral agendas, and hopefully we can address any of your concerns by maintaining open communication.

    Please let me know if you have any additional questions, and thank you for your continued support!

    Phil Loring

    --
    Philip A Loring, PhD
    The Human Dimensions Lab @ WERC
    and the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks


    Seriously? Ok, we've established that the Executive Director of KRSA has no shame and will say anything. But what about the board of directors? How does Gary Turner, Director, Kenai Peninsula College or Mark Hamilton, Retired President of UAA feel about KRSA's misrepresentation of acedemic reports produced by the University? Are they ok with that? How does Lisa Murkowski feel about the recent political tactics of the organization her husband sits on the board of? Is this her vision of the political future for our state? Do the district manager of Home Depot and the President of Alaska USA Federal Credit Union condone business practices that include eavesdropping on the competition? Does the retired VP of Alaska Airlines realize how many millions of pounds of commercially caught seafood were shipped on his airlines during his tenure there? KRSA's Excutive Director is an employee of these men that make up the board of directors. Does Kenai River Sportfishing Association's board of directors condone this action or is this the result of a couple of runaway board members and a truley shameless executive director? If so, show us by taking some flipping action on this total crap!!!

    Please board members, someone say something before we all start banking at a new bank, buying lumber somewhere else, flying a different airlines, and shipping our kids to out of state universities!!!

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default commercial bias, showing?

    I have a little trouble with this part:

    "Individual access is very important, but for people without the time, means, or inclination, it leaves local seafood out of reach. We argue that only increased access to commercially-caught fish will increase the social justice of the Kenai food system."

  3. #3
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    I have a little trouble with this part:
    "Individual access is very important, but for people without the time, means, or inclination, it leaves local seafood out of reach. We argue that only increased access to commercially-caught fish will increase the social justice of the Kenai food system."
    And then they throw in this.... "We also note that many commercial fishermen are already taking this social justice responsibility upon themselves,"...
    Yep , Sounds like our educational system, all right.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    If I recall correctly, wasn't there a court case involving someone in the Fairbanks/interior that traded sport or personal use harvested game for goods and the case resulted in allowing a certain amount of bartering of game. I will see if I can find the case, maybe someone here knows about it.

    27% of our respondents report getting fish via barter, trade, or sharing as their primary means; more specifically, barter and trade is especially important among low-income households, and by law barter and trade can only be done with commercially-caught fish.


    *EDIT*
    I looked around and it looks like the word "barter" was dropped by the Board of Game but it still is in effect by the Board of Fish as I could find nothing of them changing the wording, illegal yes, does it happen....probably

    Troopers Sgt. Scott Quist says the Board of Game during its meeting in Anchorage last week removed the word "barter" from a state law that prevents people from selling game meat and other parts.

    Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/01/19/227188...#storylink=cpy

  5. #5

    Default

    So it's ok for people to completely misrepresent this acedemic report becuase you think the author, who works at an inland university, is biased towards commercial fishing? Geeze, sounds like those broke setnetters have bought off everyone in the state! This report and its authors appear to support a healthy, DIVERSE Cook Inlet fishery. That's not biased. Our 'sportfish reps' do not support our diverse fishery. They are trying to eliminate a user group. That's biased. They are also not telling the truth. That's lying.

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs down KRSA's agenda . . .

    Nothing new here. KRSA's agenda is and always has been summed up in Bob Penny's testimony to a House committee:


    ". . you put the fish in the river . . and you give the opportunity for the public you'll see the economic engine run hard." —Bob Penny

    In other words, pack the Kenai with more fish, put more boats in the water, put more fishermen on the banks, kill the drift-net fishery, kill the set-net industry, kill the fish processing industry, etc., etc., and our economy will explode like gangbusters.


    To that end, KRSA uses its dollars, distorts facts, manipulates data, publishes false information, and more.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    So it's ok for people to completely misrepresent this acedemic report becuase you think the author, who works at an inland university, is biased towards commercial fishing? Geeze, sounds like those broke setnetters have bought off everyone in the state! This report and its authors appear to support a healthy, DIVERSE Cook Inlet fishery. That's not biased. Our 'sportfish reps' do not support our diverse fishery. They are trying to eliminate a user group. That's biased. They are also not telling the truth. That's lying.
    Between the seine, gillnet, and troll fisheries around the state of Alaska, there is no shortage of salmon hitting the market. Nobody is "wanting" when it comes to commercial access to Salmon.. unless you live in an area where there is no market for it, like Alaska, as we have access to harvest our own, and 15.99 for previously frozen sockeye just doesn't get the wallet out. Most of this this fishing takes place in areas that the majority of P/U fishermen and Sport Fishermen have no reasonable access to. When I travel the "lower 48", I alway am at fish cases looking at what costs what. They always have ample amounts of alaskan sockeye, where ever I have gone.

    Cook inlet, and the Kenai specifically is smack dab where the majority of residents of Alaska, and they have reasonable access to it. So, the question is.. with ALL the commercial salmon fishing that takes place in Alaska, why can't we have 1 area (cook inlet) that is managed for a healthy sport and PU fishery? Is that reasonable to ask that?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Nothing new here. KRSA's agenda is and always has been summed up in Bob Penny's testimony to a House committee:





    In other words, pack the Kenai with more fish, put more boats in the water, put more fishermen on the banks, kill the drift-net fishery, kill the set-net industry, kill the fish processing industry, etc., etc., and our economy will explode like gangbusters.


    To that end, KRSA uses its dollars, distorts facts, manipulates data, publishes false information, and more.
    You yourself are making a huge assumption about the motives of the KSRA. 1 quote, from 2007, is all you can come up with? That is a complete hack job you are doing, Marcus. It's funny that you have to say "in other words" to show your obvious bias and agenda as you go on to misrepresent what the KRSA is about. If the quote don't say it, don't summerize it in language to fit your agenda.

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

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    . . with ALL the commercial salmon fishing that takes place in Alaska, why can't we have 1 area (cook inlet) that is managed for a healthy sport and PU fishery? Is that reasonable to ask that?

    And who says that isn't the case right now? Cook Inlet is in fact already managed for a healthy sport and PU fishery as well as for a healthy gill-net fishery.


    What exactly is being suggested here? That Alaskans and our economy forego the harvestable surplus of our fisheries in order to inundate sports and PU user groups with more salmon than they could ever hope to harvest? To further pack our already abused rivers with even more fish and fishermen? More boats? More bank destruction?


    C'mon . . does anyone actually believe our sport-fisheries are understocked at present?

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Exclamation Not so . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    You yourself are making a huge assumption about the motives of the KSRA. 1 quote, from 2007, is all you can come up with? That is a complete hack job you are doing, Marcus. It's funny that you have to say "in other words" to show your obvious bias and agenda as you go on to misrepresent what the KRSA is about. If the quote don't say it, don't summerize it in language to fit your agenda.

    Not even wrong, ti. I am assuming nothing!


    I am using Bob Penny's own words to describe KRSA's motives and agenda. When have they ever disowned Penny's goals as described in his own words?


    As for "in other words," the implications of KRSA's agenda is obvious—the destruction of Cook Inlet's gill-net industry, a narrowing of the area's economic base, and increased exploitation of our fresh water rivers and ecosystem.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Cook inlet, and the Kenai specifically is smack dab where the majority of residents of Alaska, and they have reasonable access to it. So, the question is.. with ALL the commercial salmon fishing that takes place in Alaska, why can't we have 1 area (cook inlet) that is managed for a healthy sport and PU fishery? Is that reasonable to ask that?
    Good point. In the article smithb posted the good professor says that 14% of the households have ties to commercial fishing. 14%? Wow, with the screaming that goes on in this forum you'd swear 90% of the peninsula's households had ties to commercial fishing. Commercial fisherman and their supporters are the vocal minority, folks. Anybody have the statistics of how many fishing licenses are held on the peninsula? How many nonresident fishing licenses are sold on the peninsula? How about dipnet permits? I once heard that 70% of all sport fishing effort that occurs in the state is in UCI. Anybody know how much UCI contributes to the total commercial fishing harvest? I don't but common sense says it's a lower percentage than the sport effort.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    Cook inlet, and the Kenai specifically is smack dab where the majority of residents of Alaska, and they have reasonable access to it. So, the question is.. with ALL the commercial salmon fishing that takes place in Alaska, why can't we have 1 area (Cook Inlet) that is managed for a healthy sport and PU fishery? Is that reasonable to ask that?
    That was not the question or intent of this thread, but I will answer it. That may sound like a reasonable question for someone from, say, Fairbanks, who's life and community is not negatively affected by that decision. If you ask that question of a local, costal community that depends on a healthy, diverse fishery for economic stability (which both ADFG and the BOF are supposed to help protect), the answer is a resounding "NO!!!".

    BTW, you can score very fresh unfrozen, locally caught seafood for WAY less than $15.99 a pound. PU/Sport fishing requires dipnets, permits, waders, gas, coolers, ice, (beer), camping gear, parking fees, possibly a boat, etc. This stuff is spendy, as is spending the weekend MAYBE getting fish. Spending a few bucks a pound for fresh caught premium salmon is a better deal for many people - especially those without the means for the substantial initial investment of money or time to get started fishing for themselves. I don't understand why this position is viewed as biased - it makes perfect sense. It's cheaper to buy eggs at the store than it is to have chickens. Most hunters spend more on big game hunts that they ever would buying beef at the store. Heck, if food security is an issue, go down and buy Humpies from a commie for pennies a pound!

    It doesn't matter if this report suggested that we would be better off to dump Rotenone in Kenai lake and eat canned Tuna instead, it is still wrong to misrepresent what was contained in it - that was the point of this thread. Seems many are ignoring this fact.
    Last edited by Brian M; 05-06-2013 at 12:27. Reason: referenced deleted post

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

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    . . I once heard that 70% of all sport fishing effort that occurs in the state is in UCI. Anybody know how much UCI contributes to the total commercial fishing harvest? I don't but common sense says it's a lower percentage than the sport effort.

    There is no doubt that much if not most sport fishing in Alaska takes place in Upper Cook Inlet, and that fact is due to nothing more than accessibility by means of the road system. Sport fishing is dependent upon the infrastructure paid for and maintained by all Alaskan residents.


    It's also true that in terms of numbers of participants, there are more sport fishermen plying the waters of Upper Cook Inlet than there are commercial fishermen—unless, of course, one counts the commercial sport fishing effort on rivers like the Little Su, the Kenai, the Kasilof, and more. Then the numbers would have to be somewhat adjusted.


    Howeverrrrrrrrr . . . the percentage of harvest of Upper Cook Inlet's fish resources by the gill-net industry dwarfs the harvest of all sport fishing combined.


    What is being implied here, I'm afraid, is that all Alaskan residents should forego the benefits of commercial harvest of Upper Cook Inlet's salmon resources to the benefit of all Alaskans simply for the benefit of tourist, sports, and PU user groups. That all the income and economic input to the area's and state's economies should be sacrificed for the benefit of a few that can never hope to harvest the surplus of available fish.


    No, no . . where is this insanity coming from if not from KRSA's relentless campaign to destroy Cook Inlet's gill-net industry?


    Make no mistake—KRSA knows what's being posted here on these fora, and they are free to jump in and deny or clarify anything with which they disagree. But they don't. They stay away. Silence is tacit agreement.

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KRSA
    KRSA applauds the groundbreaking research provided in the report that details the importance of Alaskan residents having access to local harvests of seafood.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Loring
    it is important to understand that KRSA has drawn conclusions from our report that we ourselves did not make and with which we do not agree.
    Somebody should pass that on to KRSA, maybe they would take their blog post down.

    And again, I can respect and understand those who would like to see more fish for non-commercial harvest, to a degree. It's just that using disingenuous or dishonest tactics, things like this, misrepresenting a report...is not the way to go about it. I read the report yesterday, don'g have it up anymore, didn't it say 6 million pounds of fish went to the sport and PU fishery? That's still quite a lot of fish.

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

    Cool Silence is tacit agreement . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Somebody should pass that on to KRSA, . . .

    It's absolutely impossible for me to imagine that KRSA is not totally aware of everything that is being posted on these fora . . one member even stated that he was sending Ricky an invitation to jump in.


    But whatever . . KRSA is free to and indeed should participate in these discussions. In fact, to not participate here is, in my mind, irresponsible . . what have they to hide?


    KRSA should participate here and defend themselves, their statements, and their agenda against all the negative material posted in opposition to them. If all the negativity posted here is not true, why will KRSA not join in the public dialog?


    Silence is tacit agreement.

  16. #16

    Default

    So, has anybody actually read the 42 page report? If there was ever a case for making PU/Sport fishing a priority, the "findings" section sure makes it. 89% of people got their salmon from a PU/Sport source.

    Now the discussion section is filled with the conflict perspective to fit their agenda. "Clearly, Alaskans do not currently have equitable access to Alaska’s seafood resources."

    The conclusion section is a similar disaster. They talked earlier in the paper about there basically being no local market for the fish, and a a result, fishermen don't waste their time/efforts selling locally. Makes sense, right? But, in the conclusion section they say "It is our firm belief that it is possible to build community food security through the proactive local marketing of locally caught seafood in Alaska in a way that enriches our peoples and strengthens our communities, without sacrificing responsible management or important commercial activities. " Umm.. what are they going to do, put a gun to peoples head, and force them to buy local caught fish? Believe me, if local fishermen could market/sell fish, they'd do it. I'd do it. I'd have my wife during the summer selling salmon out of the back of my pickup truck, if we could get more money for them. Just ain't no market.

    So, if you look at the "findings", you could find ample evidence to support the KSRA's mission. But, the discussion and conclution are obviously written from the conflict perspective, which lends very little, in my opinion, to reality.

    I would have taken the "findings" and come to the conclusion that for food security in Alaska, and in the KP, that priority should be given to very healthy king/sockeye runs in all the rivers, since very little commerically local caught seafood is demanded by the local population. And, the group they are so concerned about, the unmotived/poor who can't get a dipnet and go fishing.. stick with food stamps.

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

    Thumbs down Shameful . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    . . If there was ever a case for making PU/Sport fishing a priority, the "findings" section [of the report] sure makes it. . .

    That is most emphatically not true.


    As the author of the report said:


    I saw your recent repost of KRSAs interpretation regarding the food security report recently published by my research group. I wonder if you could pass this response along to your membership as well?

    I think... it is important to understand that KRSA has drawn conclusions from our report that we ourselves did not make and with which we do not agree.

    Philip A Loring, PhD
    The Human Dimensions Lab @ WERC
    and the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks




    Upper Cook Inlet is a mixed-stock fishery that must be, as with all our state's fisheries, managed for the benefit of all Alaska's residents, not just one, small segment of the state's population.


    Is KRSA and those who parrot KRSA's agenda to turn the entirety of Cook Inlet into a Sport/PU fishery so selfish and self-centered that they are not willing to share the fishery and its economic benefits with their fellow Alaskans?


    Shame . . shame . . shame . . .


  18. #18

    Default

    [QUOTE=Marcus;1279834]
    What is being implied here, I'm afraid, is that all Alaskan residents should forego the benefits of commercial harvest of Upper Cook Inlet's salmon resources to the benefit of all Alaskans simply for the benefit of tourist, sports, and PU user groups. That all the income and economic input to the area's and state's economies should be sacrificed for the benefit of a few that can never hope to harvest the surplus of available fish. [/quote]

    It is not clear how allowing more gillnetting is going to help more people than allowing more sportfishing. I'm not sure you can draw a logical conclusion to that. IE if the health of the run is threatened and you have to greatly restrict sportfishing so that you can allow gillnetting, how does that help more alaskans?



    Make no mistake—KRSA knows what's being posted here on these fora, and they are free to jump in and deny or clarify anything with which they disagree. But they don't. They stay away. Silence is tacit agreement.
    I don't speak for them...not sure they care what one person or two on a message board is saying, and just because you say they have to come here and defend themselves doesn't make it true. Further, them not wading into this argument with someone like you that can't really ever be reasoned with is a waste of time for them and certainly doesn't mean they agree with you.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    I don't speak for them...not sure they care what one person or two on a message board is saying, and just because you say they have to come here and defend themselves doesn't make it true. Further, them not wading into this argument with someone like you that can't really ever be reasoned with is a waste of time for them and certainly doesn't mean they agree with you.
    350 views on this thread..

    Over 8,000 on the related thread below it...

    Someone is reading this.

    Pretty sure there are several paid KRSA employees/consultants that regularly comment on this forum. They have stayed pretty silent since the Webster thing...

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

    Smile Come on in . . the waters fine . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    It is not clear how allowing more gillnetting is going to help more people than allowing more sportfishing. I'm not sure you can draw a logical conclusion to that. IE if the health of the run is threatened and you have to greatly restrict sportfishing so that you can allow gillnetting, how does that help more alaskans?

    I don't speak for them...not sure they care what one person or two on a message board is saying, and just because you say they have to come here and defend themselves doesn't make it true. Further, them not wading into this argument with someone like you that can't really ever be reasoned with is a waste of time for them and certainly doesn't mean they agree with you.



    Dave, thanks, but there must be some confusion here. No one is advocating increased gill-netting . . quite to the contrary, what's being advocated by KRSA and some few others is less gill-netting and more sport-fishing.


    As for KRSA's participation here, that's their choice, but anyone who imagines that these fora constitute "one person or two" on a message board is sadly and badly mistaken.


    KRSA's unwillingness to engage public discussion has long been a sore point with me. During the two years I served on the Kenai/Soldotna ADF&G Advisory Committee, the most notable thing about KRSA was their absence. To the credit of the guides and their organization, Kenai River Professional Guide Association (KRPGA), they were always in attendance, well represented on the AC, and more than willing to engage in open discussion. That was not the case with KRSA. KRSA saved their participation for Juneau and the Board of Fisheries. In fact, it is near universal perception here in Soldotna that KRSA is opposed to BoF meeting here just because a local BoF meeting would mean greatly increased local participation. Not many Joe Fisherman types can afford to take the time off and endure the expense of attending an out-of-area BoF meeting, while lots of those KRSA "conservation" dollars are spent in political pursuits.


    No, KRSA should be here, and one member even posted he would send Ricky an invitation to join the discussion. KRSA is, supposedly, part of our community. Past time they started acting like it.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •