Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Sockeye Stamp

  1. #1

    Default Sockeye Stamp

    There has been some serious talk behind the scenes lately about instituting a Sockeye stamp. It was a subject taken up recently by the KRSMA board (brought up by their legislative liaison), and I keep hearing tidbits about it, but can't exactly pin down what it would consist of or where the money would go. My best assumption is that it would be similar to the King Stamp?

    I thought a good first step would be to look at where the money from the King stamp has been spent, and how that has helped the resource. All I've found so far is that it is spent on things like habitat restoration, and often used to match federal funding for habitat projects and things of that nature. All of a sudden it makes perfect sense to me why some Non-Governmental Nonprofits are pushing hard for a Sockeye stamp - would it replace lost funding from reduced King stamp sales?

    All I can do is guess, and I'm sure that someone has a little more info than me on this subject. As we would all pay this extra tax, (yes, I am a commercial fisherman, but I'm pretty sure I have bought a King stamp every year it has been required, and I would no doubt also have to buy a sockeye stamp) it would be good to examine where this money would go, and the best indicator is to look at where it's went in the past.

    To be honest, I'd be supportive of this stamp if the money went to help fund the required riparian habitat assessment studies that ADFG is NOT doing - I've heard funding is an issue. Something tells me, however, that the money may get diverted to some NGO's such as the "Educational Nonprofit" that produced the most recent Kenai River habitat report, which does nothing more than outline many of the federally funded habitat restoration projects they have conducted on the Kenai. I'll bet my king stamp fees helped fund this organization, their projects, and probably some of their employees' six-figure salaries.

    But like I said, I'm speculating. Anyone have any info on this?

  2. #2
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    I brought this up a number of years ago but getting the funding put into one place where it would do the most good is up to the legislature, not my hooks or grannies. It is all up to the general fund if not designed for a better place, My understanding...
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  3. #3

    Default

    TW,

    Do King stamp revenues go to the general fund?

  4. #4
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    A sockeye stamp, huh? Will my govt sockeye stamp leave me/us to the same fabulous results that their King Salmon stamp did ?? Answer.... Probably! So, no thanks on the stamp issue.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!

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

    Default Why???

    I can maybe see a stamp on the dip netters - they get a significant number of fish, but a stamp similar to the king stamp for the rod and reel guys is beyond belief.

    If we need some fund we need to take those who benefit the most financially and harvest the most fish - obviously the commercial guys. Right now the taxes on the commercial sockeyes caught in UCI is almost nothing. And always remember- the run is managed primarily for commercial harvest - let the commercial guys pay for maintaining and managing it!


    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    There has been some serious talk behind the scenes lately about instituting a Sockeye stamp. It was a subject taken up recently by the KRSMA board (brought up by their legislative liaison), and I keep hearing tidbits about it, but can't exactly pin down what it would consist of or where the money would go. My best assumption is that it would be similar to the King Stamp?

    I thought a good first step would be to look at where the money from the King stamp has been spent, and how that has helped the resource. All I've found so far is that it is spent on things like habitat restoration, and often used to match federal funding for habitat projects and things of that nature. All of a sudden it makes perfect sense to me why some Non-Governmental Nonprofits are pushing hard for a Sockeye stamp - would it replace lost funding from reduced King stamp sales?

    All I can do is guess, and I'm sure that someone has a little more info than me on this subject. As we would all pay this extra tax, (yes, I am a commercial fisherman, but I'm pretty sure I have bought a King stamp every year it has been required, and I would no doubt also have to buy a sockeye stamp) it would be good to examine where this money would go, and the best indicator is to look at where it's went in the past.

    To be honest, I'd be supportive of this stamp if the money went to help fund the required riparian habitat assessment studies that ADFG is NOT doing - I've heard funding is an issue. Something tells me, however, that the money may get diverted to some NGO's such as the "Educational Nonprofit" that produced the most recent Kenai River habitat report, which does nothing more than outline many of the federally funded habitat restoration projects they have conducted on the Kenai. I'll bet my king stamp fees helped fund this organization, their projects, and probably some of their employees' six-figure salaries.

    But like I said, I'm speculating. Anyone have any info on this?
    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
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    I would go for a sport sockeye stamp, and a higher cost for a dip netters stamp, as for the commercial fishermen, they pay a landing tax and pay a fee every year to renew their permit. Just one time can you not bash commercial fishermen? It makes you look like the south end of a north bound horse!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I can maybe see a stamp on the dip netters - they get a significant number of fish, but a stamp similar to the king stamp for the rod and reel guys is beyond belief.

    If we need some fund we need to take those who benefit the most financially and harvest the most fish - obviously the commercial guys. Right now the taxes on the commercial sockeyes caught in UCI is almost nothing. And always remember- the run is managed primarily for commercial harvest - let the commercial guys pay for maintaining and managing it!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default bashing???

    Not bashing anyone - just stating the obvious! The sport fishermen currently pay for their license and catch a relatively small number of fish per dollar spend on licenses/ permits. The dip netters do currently get free ride of course and catch a significant number of fish - I'd hit them first.

    If we want to be "fair"- how about a flat tax per fish to be paid for each and every sockeye caught and retained by every one in every group - would you go for that? With a flat tax those catching the most fish and therefore benefiting the most would pay the most. We could start with the current landing tax paid for the commercial guys. So I if catch my limit of 3 fish I would owe how much based on the current landing tax paid by the commercial operators?


    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    I would go for a sport sockeye stamp, and a higher cost for a dip netters stamp, as for the commercial fishermen, they pay a landing tax and pay a fee every year to renew their permit. Just one time can you not bash commercial fishermen? It makes you look like the south end of a north bound horse!!!!!!
    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

  8. #8

    Default

    Ok, we're getting off topic a little, but oh well. I was hoping someone could fill me in on where to look to find how proceeds from the King Stamp are spent - I really don't know. But given the history of the group of people who are pushing the hardest for a Sockeye stamp, something tells me that I wouldn't like where this money would go...

    TV, welcome back. PU fishing requires a sport fish license.

    Ahh, yes, the tax argument. Nothing like riding a one-trick pony until its little legs snap. As if the only way industry can benefit people is through directly funding the gub'ment.

    You claim to value your right to harvest these fish. Have you ever stopped for a second to think about what might happen to your access to this public resource if taxes on fish harvesters and processors was raised? (Yes, they do currently pay taxes to the state).

    Take ADFG, for instance. It has two divisions. Comm fish and Sport fish. Comm fish is funded through the legislature. They do not benefit from increased harvest or opportunity by commercial fishermen - their mission is to manage to our escapement goals. Sport fish division, on the other hand, is funded through sport license sales (Dingle Johnson). They directly benefit from increased opportunity through increased license sales. Their mission is to promote sport fishing and sport fishing opportunity. One only has to look at the most recent ADFG UCI BOF proposal comments to see this - dept. comments on comm fish proposal are neutral on allocative proposals. Dept. comments on Sport fish proposals take sides on proposals that affect angler opportunity. Many people feel that the fact that Sport fish is funded through license sales can lead to a conflict of interests when it comes to things like habitat research and protection - an area where ADFG and other state agencies are failing miserably. There is no incentive to establish any sort of healthy limit on sport fish participation.

    Which leads me to my point - if we increase taxes on fishing, and all of a sudden the state coffers see significant additional revenue from commercial fishermen - who harvest a much greater volume of fish much more efficiently than sport or PU fishermen, how do you suppose that might affect your opportunity?

    You can't just mosey into your back yard, drill a well, and start pumping natural gas or oil can you? Nope, the state went ahead and stripped all individual mineral rights from our land.

    Be careful what you wish for. And find a new pony.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    I am good with a landing tax on sport caught fish. That could be done by the same rate as commercial on a 6.5lb fish. A dip netter would pay for a 25 fish harvest card plus any extra for household member fish. A sport angler could pay for a 15 fish harvest card, and after it is full they could buy a new card. To make sure we keep from being a welfare state each card would have to include the cost of printing and management cost plus enforcement. So how much would that be TV? Oh the commercial would stay the same because we are on line up and running and have been for years

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Worst fishing there is. Tax it.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    What is your point?
    Quote Originally Posted by mike h View Post
    Worst fishing there is. Tax it.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    723

    Default

    It's bad fishing.

    Let the thousands of tourists that come up here and snag fish and think they're "fishing" buy a stamp. It's a great idea.

    Better I suppose if it's only for non-residents, but that's probably illegal or something. (Although AK does that for some bears, right?)

    I get "fishing" for them as part of subsistence, but as sports fishing it's got to be the worst or near worst form.

  13. #13
    Supporting Member Hoyt-Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Mat-Su Valley
    Posts
    449

    Default

    We broke away from England over 200 years ago because of tyranny and over taxing, now all that can be heard is the cry for more taxes. What is wrong with you people?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If you think you're free, there's no escape possible.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Without representation.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoyt-Hunter View Post
    We broke away from England over 200 years ago because of tyranny and over taxing, now all that can be heard is the cry for more taxes. What is wrong with you people?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Until ADF&G has some accountability for their actions I am not for spending one more dime with them. They got 1.8 million to move the Didson sonar and continue studies and yet in the face of failure refuse to discuss it, they spend 600,000 on an eastside chinook project that got results from 7 fish that headed to the Kenai and they did not tag fish in proportion to abundance - failure, they refuse to deal with northern pike in a meaningful way, we do not know anything about juvenile rearing of chinook salmon in the Kenai River, they dropped Crescent River sonar but have a huge staff going to Board meetings to sit around and play on smart phones, they have hatcheries costing millions that are having serious problems with too warm of water, they support HB77 and have not spoken out against a coal mine that will destroy 12 miles of stream, and they support a road in the Susitna drainage and the only comment is that it may cause more sport fishing regulations - nothing about habitat issues with a road. No, it is not a money issue it is an allocation of money issue to projects and priorities. When habitat comes first and opportunity comes last then I will get on board. Also, the tax breaks to oil companies need to be seriously reduced and that money allocated to resource agencies.

    Yes Sport Fish is suffering from lack of lic. sales but they are need to get their act together before anyone bails them out. They need to make the hard decisions on what their mission is. At a recent meeting of staff after the habitat presentation was given one or more staff members asked why they were even giving a presentation to the Board of Fish. Opportunity at all costs right now because of budget issues. Not the way to run an organization.

    tbsmith, you can look at ADF&G budget online and their should be a listing of projects and funding sources. GF is general funds and that is where the stamp money is pooled with all other general funds. Or you can email the Commissioner.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    At the current tax rate each sockeye is 30 cents. So it would be $6.00 for a 20 fish card plus the cost for printing and the state management cost. So the total cost would be around $15.00 to $20.00. The landing tax I paid last year was $1,401.96 so feel free to pay your part TV!

  17. #17
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    At the current tax rate each sockeye is 30 cents. So it would be $6.00 for a 20 fish card plus the cost for printing and the state management cost. So the total cost would be around $15.00 to $20.00. The landing tax I paid last year was $1,401.96 so feel free to pay your part TV!
    Now now, we all know TV don't wanna share the burden, she just wants to play the victim and reap the rewards of others hard work.....
    “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."

  18. #18
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    I caught double my household dipnet permit with a rod and reel upriver last year, feel free to tax the PU guys all you want

    sent from my igloo

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_cowboy View Post
    I caught double my household dipnet permit with a rod and reel upriver last year, feel free to tax the PU guys all you want

    sent from my igloo
    Awesome!!

    I myself choose not to dipnet, as I've likewise always been able to fill the freezer and smoker just fine with a flyrod, and had way more fun in the process.
    “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."

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default a bargain...

    $.30 a fish tax is nothing for a fish that is worth $10- $20 at the dock and $30 - $50 in the stores. I can't think of anything else that is taxed at such a low rate except for perhaps timber or minerals in Alaska. You can bet the oil companies would love to only pay a tax of only $3 to $6 for a $100 barrel of oil produced - every company in the world would be producing Alaska and the pipeline would be full.

    Let's raise it from $.30 to at least a $1 or more. The tax could be paid when the harvest card is turned in like is required for the dip netters. Apply the tax to everyone equally - commercial, dip netters, rod and reel guys, and subsistence users alike. Charge for the fish actually caught like the commercial guys do - the license pays for the opportunity and privilege of fishing; the tax is on the success.


    Quote Originally Posted by MGH55 View Post
    At the current tax rate each sockeye is 30 cents. So it would be $6.00 for a 20 fish card plus the cost for printing and the state management cost. So the total cost would be around $15.00 to $20.00. The landing tax I paid last year was $1,401.96 so feel free to pay your part TV!
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •