If the fishermen win, what will it accomplish? If the state wins, what will it mean?
If the fishermen win, what will it accomplish? If the state wins, what will it mean?
The 51 hour part was amended and he did not even recognize that. The commercial fisherman knew they could not win that one as ADF&G can alter the plans in-season to meet goals.
So what does this all mean if the fisherman win? Simple. If a management plan exists then the Department must follow that plan unless the Department cannot meet the BEG or SEG goals with the options in the plans. In that case they can use their emergency order authority to alter the plans.
So the pre-season deviations from the plans in 2012 prior to the season would not happen. The issue in 2012 was the plans said for the Kenai late run if the sport fishery closes then the commercial fishery closes. ADF&G closed the commercial fishery without closing the sport fishery which was in conflict with the plan and yet ADF&G indicated the goals would be met by having the sport fishery fish. The Board did not write that plan and it was highly allocative which the PMA case says the ADF&G cannot do without new and significant information that they will not meet the goals. So in short, this case will help resolve the balancing of the PMA case and the Departments E.O authority. The judge in his ruling basically threw out the PMA case which the Supreme Court ruled on so the appeal.
If the State wins it means the Board of Fish plans have little teeth. ADF&G can basically do what it wants when it wants to do it- preseason or not.
I would think all groups would want the fisherman to win since allocation should not be in the mix for ADF&G. One part of the case not mentioned in the news article is that ADF&G closed the retention of chinook salmon in the PU fishery for the express purpose of making the sport fishery opportunity better (this is state in the e.o). That rationale had nothing to do with conservation or meeting goals. So the court will have to look at that and see if ADF&G can do that. The judge did not discuss that part of the lawsuit and just gave summary judgement. I really think the judge took the easy route. He knew both parties would appeal so he wrote a one page finding and sent it on to the Supreme Court.
Doesn't this go against what you (Nerka) have wanted? You shared your displeasure with the BOF process and some of the members of the board, as well as particular sportfishing groups that partake in the BoF process. I thought you wanted professional managers to have the freedom to manage as runs materialize? The commercial fishery has always used preseason forecasts to manage the sockeye fishery then they make inseason adjustments. The new part of F&G using preseason forecasts to make management decisions took center stage last year when F&G start the ER kenai king season with c&r. To my knowledge that was the first time, or one of very few, preseason actions were taken based on a forecast.
Next, I do want the managers to manage as the run materializes - that is not in dispute by the commercial fisherman in the law suit. They are asking for the same thing only that the flexibility come when the goals will not be met not before anyone knows that preseason, which is consistent with my position. Even the BOF wants that and stated it in the regulations. So in-season adjustments are not in dispute only that those adjustment be based on meeting goals not allocation by ADF&G.
The commercial fishery has not always used preseason forecast to manage sockeye in UCI - that is a total fabrication. For 40 years pre-season forecast were used by the industry to plan and ADF&G managed based on in-season run strength - only starting in the last decade did the BOF set allocation based on pre-season run strength and those allocations could be changed based on what the run actually was. Just look at the fishing pattern to verify this. The season always starts with the regular periods and then is adjusted. Only in 2012 has the season not been allowed to start based on a preseason forecast.
Yukon, where were you in 2012 for the late run management of chinook. It did not start last year and of course pre-season actions have taken place in the last decade in other areas of the state and UCI.
Where was I in 2012, not suing f&g, I was busy taking phone calls for cancellations, and I was busy asking f&g to shut the sportfishery down to conserve kings. And in 2012, if memory serves, the restrictions in July started out as extension of ER restrictions to conserve fish still in the lower river, then as the inseason numbers came in from the all the indicators, sonar, test net, set nets, catch rates etc.....f&g kept the restrictions and expanded them. So it would be a total fabrication to say the restrictions were based on a forecast
Did you ever check your "sources" with f&g? they gave you some bad information which you posted on the other thread.
I will check on Monday on the other issue.
What data do you have that says it is not correct?
Not a big fan of lawsuits. Also not a big fan of people bend rules or breaking management plans only when it suits them, their influential friends, or their retirement plans.
The commercial fishermen must be making a lot of money, how many lawsuits have they been involved with the last few years?
They have been involved in 4 suits in the last few years. The M/S case by UCIDA, a UCIDA suit on the Commissioner using emergency regulations to implement a BOF directive illegally which they won, and the suit of this thread which is not over as it is on appeal. On a statewide level UCI fisherman are defending themselves from the likes of Joe Conner and Bob Penny on the set net lawsuit.
Also, for the record they do not have lots of money for suits but if a suit cost 200,000 and they win the State must pay court costs. If they lose they pay the State so they do not enter these without a high expectation they will win. Also, if an illegal action costs them more than 200,000 then they are ahead if they win as an illegal regulation is year after year if they do not challenge it.
I might point out that some of the past lawsuits brought by commercial fisherman have kept the process as clean as possible. They challenge procedure as that is what courts rule on not the technical specifics of management or lost money because of ADF&G actions. Cleaning up procedural errors by Boards and Departments is a good thing as it benefits all. Only those who want to misuse the system win if no one challenges them.
So in short your comment about having lots of money is way off base relative to the lawsuits. A lot of people are hurting here because of 2012 and 2013 and you should be sensitive to that. Hurt is not just about money. It includes a sense of being violated or not being treated fair. The set net ban push is a violation of both of these and when a Board chairman refers to them as entry level fisherman or recreational fisherman it makes they angry and they take action for redress for the bias expressed. As a guide I would have thought you would be sensitive to this type of attack.
One must be very careful when suing the state expecting to win and getting the State to pay their legal fees, just ask Vic Fischer and Mrs. Hammond.
I am not involved in any lawsuits. Not a fan of them. Was totally opposed to all of them... until I got a little closer look at how this whole process works. Went to the BOF meeting this winter and saw just how dirty the whole process is. Yuk. It was pretty clear that those who control the process will do whatever they want - legal or not - until someone shuts them down. Yeah, I can't give a BOF member a piece of paper unless it is public record but the chairman can watch the Super Bowl in the C.C. Penthouse with the Penny loafers while planning their next move. No one even knows what the schedule is, but somehow these guys always have perfect timing - have their RC's submitted just at the right time - breaks are conveniently taken any time something isn't going their way, allowing them to conspire with and threaten whoever they must to "get it done". Gag me with a spoon.
Yukon, you don't have much room to throw stones - your user group is running with some dirty dogs who are pulling their own legal stunts - and doing whatever they have to - legal or not - to win. Time for the local guides to distance themselves from the Penny loafer crew BY THEIR ACTIONS. Call them on their BS. Just because your name isn't on the lawsuit or the petition and you're not paying for the legal fees out of your own pocket doesn't mean your user group isn't involved.
Speaking of legal battles, how's the fight going to limit the number of Kenai guides? I keep hearing that you guys are working on that, but in the last couple decades haven't seen a lot of results. Maybe you should get Ricky-Bobby and smilin' Joe on it
Yukon posted "Did you ever check your "sources" with f&g? they gave you some bad information which you posted on the other thread."
Checked with three staff and all had the same general comment. However, as I mentioned they did not attend the meeting. But McClure (of the Guide Association) was at the teleconference along with KRSA representatives--according to one individual. The others were not sure of who was there but the jist of the conversation was that if the sport fishery could not be at catch and release then the test net program should not be operating as they kill the same number of fish. As one staff person told me he did not have time for this and thus local staff did not participate in the meeting.
I got the impression that this was a push by some guides to get back out on the water for catch and release fishing.
KRPGA is not against the test nets nor is it asking for the nets to be closed down and fishing opened up.
McClure asked for clarification on the increased netting. F&G has increased their netting of the river, netting much further up river than in years past, places such as Eagle Rock, with more shifts catching more fish. There was concern that the increased netting would kill more fish, as we heard multiple times from F&G and the Board, "every fish counts". KRPGA has not asked for the river to be opened and the nets closed.
Do any of these folks realize that if you want to manage a fishery, you need a consistent sampling platform. Since fish interview very poorly, you are forced to capture, measure, tag and recapture them if you want to know how many there are. Everybody screams for better science, more timely management with real numbers, then balk at the means required to do exactly that. Y'all can have that dang river, it makes monsters out of all sides.
As for the cancellations you're complaining about...nothing guaranteed your bookings in the first place, and you knew the resource wasn't unlimited.
As for asking ADF&G to shut the fishery down and conserve Kings in 2012, after the fishery was already decimated...you are only flattering yourself, as some of us have been doing that for 30 years.
Catch It, the management problem on the Kenai isn't necessarily poor sampling, or even managing fish. It is managing people, politics, power, and money...starting with KRSA and their guide entourage like yukon - the worst thing to ever happen to the River.
Been following this thread.... Now everybody needs to back off just a little. If not maybe you guys could meet behind Fred Myers and just duke it out. Heck, I'll come down and referee it need be
If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?