Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Are the proposals now law?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default Are the proposals now law?

    I read about the 40+ proposals that the BOF passed. Are they now law?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    No, they are not. The AG office has to review the regulatory language to make sure they are legal and then the Lt. Gov has to sign them. If you remember a decade or so ago Lt. Gov Coghill (Ithink this is the right name) refused to sign a trucking regulation and it did not go into law.

  3. #3
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    MEETING SUMMARY: ____________________

    Still blank on the BOF website.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    MEETING SUMMARY: ____________________

    Still blank on the BOF website.
    O.K I cannot pass this one up - they were blank at the meeting.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Good on you Nerka lightening things up a bit. Gotta watch that BP, man.

  6. #6
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    MEETING SUMMARY: ____________________

    Still blank on the BOF website.
    Blank no longer.

    Here it is...

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f/...i_soa_2014.pdf
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Interesting, most proposals either carried 7-0 or failed 7-0, not many split decisions. Seems the board was pretty united, even with the make up of the board coming from commercial fishing backgrounds, sportfish backgrounds and subsistence background.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Interesting, most proposals either carried 7-0 or failed 7-0, not many split decisions. Seems the board was pretty united, even with the make up of the board coming from commercial fishing backgrounds, sportfish backgrounds and subsistence background.
    My experience with Boards suggest that vote trading is going on when votes go like this. Rarely do issues have these types of votes unless back room deals have been made. We know that some commercial representatives up for confirmation expressed concern about confirmation. The vote on reconsideration on the king salmon plan was 3-4 and that was at the end of the meeting when some on the Board felt they made a bad vote earlier. So votes do not mean much unless they are split or the issue is cut and dried. Controversial issues should not be 7-0 in an objective open process.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    My experience with Boards suggest that vote trading is going on when votes go like this. Rarely do issues have these types of votes unless back room deals have been made. We know that some commercial representatives up for confirmation expressed concern about confirmation. The vote on reconsideration on the king salmon plan was 3-4 and that was at the end of the meeting when some on the Board felt they made a bad vote earlier. So votes do not mean much unless they are split or the issue is cut and dried. Controversial issues should not be 7-0 in an objective open process.
    We also know that threats were made throughout the process to board members with regards to confirmation or future reappointment/confirmation. The pressure was obvious, especially on that last 3-4 vote. The crew in the back corner of the room (yeah, the ones that showed they controlled the process with the whole Webster thing) huddled up with board members on the break before the vote, then broke out the video camera for the vote itself, no doubt for use in Juneau. I've heard a lot of conspiracy theories throughout the years about this process and the power players involved, but always dismissed many of them. After watching the process first hand, no more...

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
  •