Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57

Thread: Do Dipnetters Support SCADA?

  1. #1

    Default Do Dipnetters Support SCADA?

    Ok, so to start - I will be the first to say that I think the PU fishery on the Peninsula needs a few changes - that said I support the fishery - I have tons of friends and family who benefit from it. In fact I have friends and family who depend on all of the Peninsula's fisheries. I depend on and participate in several of them myself, and believe that with proper management they can all continue to thrive and coexist as they have for decades.

    I have seen sensible discussions of reasonable change in our fisheries squashed and/or perverted by the powerful Sportfishing organizations for one reason - they want to kill the Cook Inlet commercial fishery and continue to profit from our rivers at all costs. Imagine my surprise to learn that the President of SCADA (the Southcentral Dipnetter's Association) is also on the board of Bob Penney's new organization (AFCA), which seeks the abolition of setnets (and likely after that, all forms of commercial fishing in Cook Inlet). Oh, yeah, and the vice president of SCADA is also the vice president of AFCA (and the father of the Kenai River Sportfishing Association's Executive Director). So safe to say, the leadership of SCADA is actively seeking to eliminate other user groups and directly linked to KRSA and AFCA.

    On top of that, I noticed comments from the SCADA president below the linked article (which is mostly a tit-for-tat, typical "fish wars" exchange) in which he expresses his hate for non-resident fishermen of all types.

    http://www.adn.com/article/20140926/...ref_map=%5B%5D

    Do dipnetters support these guys? Do they support SCADA, or is this just another shell organization for this Sportfishing Syndicate? Is this really what our fishery has become? Maybe I'm being sensitive or petty, but to me this stinks. Comon Alaskans, either change this board, pull your membership, or form an organization with some educated, reasonable individuals to represent you.

  2. #2

    Default

    after reading the comments in the above referenced article, I am sure there must be some mistake. The comments attributed to the president of scada must have been posted by an imposter trying to make this "elected" officer look bad.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    401

    Default

    I would say embarrassment.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    211

    Default

    I used to PU set net the north beach, and I still participate in the PU fishery, when convenient, but I do not support the advocacy groups. Admittedly biased, with a NIMBY attitude, I do not like what it has become. And at this point I would reluctantly give it up rather than continue down the status-quo road.

  5. #5
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    I have been dipnetting now for over 15 years. Ever since I became a resident.
    I have never seen the need for joing a group like SCADA. I'm not even sure what exactly they do.
    I know they claim to represent all 30,000+ dipnetters but do they really? Not all dipnetters share the same views on the PU fisheries so.... Hmmm.....
    I am guessing they will not disclose how many members they really have but I am sure it isn't but 250 at most.
    Then again it is often a numbers game. When talking to the board of fish it sounds better to say you represent all 30,000+ South Central dipnetters than to say you are president of a club with 200 members that like dipnetting.
    The reality is anybody can form a group and then say they represent all the people who participate in the activities related to what they do.
    I am also of the opinion that this fishery need serious change or I too would rather see it end rather than continue on as it has the last few years.
    "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"

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,037

    Default

    I am a dipnetter who DOES NOT support SCADA, and who DOES NOT want to be represented by SCADA.

    Those comments by SCADA's leader Ken Federico were filled with vile that no dipnetter would want to be associated with. It's bad enough Federico has decided to align with the dark side - Bob Penney, and Dennis and Ricky Gease, who represent organizations that are the most divisive, political, and harmful to our fisheries. All have agendas to exterminate other users...commercial fishermen today, dipnetters tomorrow. Wake up dipnetters, and take note from what happened to the sport fishermen when they supported the same dark side...they ended up losing their King fishery.

    Fellow dipnetters, just say NO to SCADA - the fish will love you for it, and along the way you can make friends instead of enemies.

  7. #7

    Default

    I'm trying to find out more info on this organization - typically these are nonprofits with a board elected by the members. I can't find a website, or even a state record of a nonprofit with this name. Am I missing something? I know they've collected dues in the past...

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,037

    Default

    Surely SCADA is registered?...Federico recently posted here that he collected money and has 200 members....

  9. #9
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    OK SmithB and fantastic, Since I have a thread directed specifically at me, I will respond in a short way. I stopped collecting dues 3 years ago because it was like pulling teeth. I have learned since 2006 that fishermen do not support fishing like hunters do. They are somewhat loners and if you don't get it by now, you never will.
    Just cause commercials rally around their cause, most dippers do not unless there is a threat to dipping.
    SmithB, don't worry your pretty little head on SCADA, all dues were paid taxes on cause I screwed up filing my paperwork on a non profit. I still maintain my membership but it is now free gratis, rather than asking for $$$, I just now pass along information and use my e-mail list for that.
    The older I get and the more pain meds I take, make me a jaded person. I have evolved and the longer into this mess, the jaded I got.
    Did you really think what I posted on Medred's piece was all what I thought? Looks what what I wanted happened, to stir the pot, and you fell for it.
    I cancelled the website because I have other things going on in my life but just because you don't like my opinions does not mean they are not Valid to me, you have yours. You were never a member so don't sweat it, it's not like you have lost something. I post to get a rise and yes you and others did. I play this like I play a fish... Sucker on the line.
    D. Gease is a friend of mine, an old friend and I don't deny it. You might not like our positions but it is what it is. Don't believe everything you read on the internet is true. The salmon might be a national resource but when I am up here fighting for access, I have out of staters chiming in and telling me where to go? After 36 years I think my voice should be heard, being here that long. Yet, Sally or whoever is telling me to shut up? Come on. Anyway, news at 11:00
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  10. #10
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    Lmao. Who would take the leader of any organization seriously that likes to stir the pot? Shouldn't leaders v take it a little more serious than that.
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  11. #11

    Default

    The Whopp,

    Yes, I mentioned you in this thread - not by name, but by title - as you claimed - as the head of SCADA. I thought - at the time of the post - that SCADA was its own entity, but alas, it is just you. I am sorry that others brought up your personal life, I could care less about your personal life.

    So, long and short of it (and the only reason I care) is that you and Mr. Gease sell yourself as the chair and vice chair of an organization that doesn't exist, and you pretend to represent a user group that you do not represent. You advertise this position in your online posts, and more importantly on the ANTI COMMERCIAL FISHING AFCA website where both of you are board members and pretend to represent the dipnet community. Just one more lie told by your Syndicate. You are responsible for drumming up the commercial vs. dipnet talk that need not exist if people knew the facts rather than the B.S. that your group spreads.

    Again, I don't care about your personal life. I also don't care how many years you have lived here - I know you are really proud of it, but it doesn't make you any more Alaskan than anyone else. Especially those of us who have known no other home... I'm sorry you don't like people rolling into town and thinking they have the same rights as you, but that's the way it goes... How mad would you be if they left fish guts and poop in your yard?

    Sounds like I got what was looking for out of this thread. No, not many people support SCADA because IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! You do not represent the views of all, most, or even some dipnetters. You represent your view and have a mailing list, and apparently some people still send you money. Sweet retirement fund.

  12. #12
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Dipnetting is seen as a threat by many in the commercial industry, as it adds a group which demands allocation to the already muddied waters of Cook Inlet and other areas of the state. Instead of simply being Set vs Drift vs Sport, now its Set vs Drift vs Sport vs PU, and the pie gets split in smaller pieces.

    To me its very amusing when commercial fishermen rail against PU fishermen for whatever reason they give. The end result of whatever issue they raise is less allocation to PU fishermen; which by proxy would result in more for them. Why is it amusing? Because the commercial lobby has for years shouted about the threat of overescapement of sockeye salmon into the Kenai and Kasilof, and petitioned the Board to be allowed to fish more to limit the dread spectre of "overescapement." Their claim was that it was a biological issue that was of concern to them. Too many sockeye returning will flood the spawning beds, lower smolt size, reduce return per spawner ratios, and overall be bad for future fisheries. So their answer to the board was always allow them more fishing time, more fishing area, more gear, deeper gear, etc, as they were the most effective tool available to deal with the dread spectre of "overescapement." Well the board is listening to them now. That's whats so funny!

    Sport fishing is a tool that can somewhat reduce the numbers of sockeyes that make it to spawning grounds. Raise the limits, both day and possession, and more sockeye will be kept, and more people, hearing of the increased limits, will migrate south to catch them. But this is still limited to a couple hundred thousand fish extra, at best. Overescapement is very scary, though, and catching another 100,000 fish can't hardly be counted upon to make a dent in a huge overescapement year, can it?Enter PU. Here is a tool that can take half a million fish, if the limits, methods, times and areas are tweaked a little. Now you have two more tools in your tool belt that can fight that dread spectre of "overescapement," and do it at the terminal end, where only the species in question will be caught, and no collateral catch of fish bound to other systems that aren't in danger of overescapement!

    But the commercial lobbies scream bloody murder now about the PU fishery, claiming it to be a new fishery, and an unfair allocation. Why would that be, if they are just another tool to prevent a biiological calamity, the dread boogeyman of "overescapement?" Shouldn't they be lauded as partners in this war against the possible calamity that is "overescapement?" The lack of this speaks volumes, and clarifies what the comfish lobby really means when it references "preventing overescapement." It turns out that there are two definitions of the term, with one being overlaid upon the other to muddy the waters. The "overescapement" boogeyman so dreaded by the comfish lobby and touted so strongly at board of fishery meetings has nothing at all to do with biology, and everything to do with Money! Yup, that's right, the big green. Overescapement is just a shorter term for "lost economic opportunity." Every salmon that passes a fisherman's net is lost opportunity to him. If any fish beyond the minimum needed for spawning enter the river to either spawn or provide opportunity for other users, those fish cannot be caught and sold by the commercial fisherman, nor processed and sold by the processors, so they are lost economic opportunity to the commercial fishing lobby.

    So all the PU fishermen really have going for them is their own, small, individual, puny voices at BOF meetings, and a very loosely knit organization run by an every day joe who receives no pay for his efforts, but is passionate about his beliefs and what he perceives to be his rights as an Alaskan resident. Arrayed against them are some extremely powerful, well funded lobbying groups that represent various aspects of the commercial fishing industry. Standing somewhat with them are a few sport fishing groups, not nearly as well funded nor well established, but who are here to stay and do represent the interests of many sport fishermen. Is it any suprise to hear a couple fellas from the com side trying to drum up support against SCADA, or the individual Alaskans who have benefited from its efforts at the BOF meetings?

  13. #13

    Default

    Thank you Willphish for providing a shining example of the misinformation that this (VERY well organized and funded) group spreads. Yes, commercial fishermen are concerned about the PU fishery - they would be fools not to be.

    I don't know if you realize this or not but Sockeye production in the Kenai/Kasilof WILL drop. It happens. But this time it happens, there will be plenty of misinformed people quick to jump on the anti-commercial bandwagon when you and this Syndicate point the blame at them. You won't blame Skilak production for the decline, you'll just focus on the "Curtains of death". It's not just the few "average joes" that concern me or who will lead the charge, its the Blue-Ribbon, Matsu Delegation, KRSA, KRPGA, AFCA, and numerous powerful legislators, individuals, and organizations who will lead the charge (supposedly in "our" best interest), using the next cycle of low Sockeye abundance to deal UCI commercial fisheries the death blow.

  14. #14
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    No SmithB, SCADA is just not me but a lot of others, even if you post otherwise. Just because I stopped collecting dues does not diminish the fact that many people support dipping and SCADA. I have always told the membership that I would rather have their e-mail address than dues. I still stand by that. I would rather be an advocacy group than a for profit or a not for profit. Still does not negate the fact that almost 30,000 Alaskans get a dipping permit.
    Don't think saying I am SCADA when many of us are. I find it kind of funny that all the negative posts are from the Soldotna area. Where have we heard this before,? Every dipping season, mostly from people that commercial fish, in fact 99% are.
    As for your statement as being a sweet retirement fund... You are so wrong. The membership paid for gas to all BOF meetings while I took time off from my job to testify. Unlike you I don't make $50 grand in a 4 week period. I work year round as a carpenter. That being said...I poll my membership before decisions are made. I go with the majority that responds. It is a collective agreement. But alas... I remember you are not a member so why should I even bother to explain? I'm glad this forum gives you a soapbox and probably for me too. That is why it is called a forum.
    Opinions are just that, thank you very much. Tootles, have bigger fish to fry
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  15. #15

    Default

    Why do you say I am not a member? My family dipnets, and you just said you don't charge dues. Do YOU decide who is a member? Or Ricky? You want my email address?

    Many of the negative views towards dipnetting are from the people who live near the fisheries - for good reason. It is unique in many ways. They are not all from commercial fishermen. Not even close. As for my comments, while I have acknowledged the need for change, I have tried to keep a positive attitude towards the dipnet fishery in general. My negativity is focused squarely on your Syndicate and their disgusting tactics, agenda, and CONSTANT lies.

    As for how much money I make or how hard I work, I will say I have tried very hard to keep personal lives out of it. You should do the same. I work very hard all year long at a job which depends on a healthy local economy - no small part of which is the sportfish/hospitality industry - so I can take a few weeks off in the summer and fish with my family - something we've done for 4 generations. Yes, it paid for my college education and is a boost for both my family, countless others, and the local economy. It also helps breed tough Alaskans. I have no dreams of making millions from this fishery, and believe anyone who does is seriously misguided. What I would like to see is for the setnet fishery to continue - there is no reason it cannot coexist with yours. I know many dipnetters (unlike you) feel the same way. It is a positive, defining factor in my community. Spend a little more time here and start looking around at how many houses have commercial gear in their yards. The rest likely have river/guide boats. This is a fishing community and it is my home. Don't act like just because I fish with a net for a few weeks a year, I don't care about my access to recreational fishing. Nothing could be more boneheaded or further from the truth.

  16. #16
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    SmithB, Why I keep responding to you is my own shortcomings. I just can't resist. Fun too. You guys kill me. A forum is where people agree to disagree. Don't like my take, so what. Just keep digging and digging and digging. I really don't care. You guys can argue with me till the cows come home, good enough but just DON'T belittle the hundreds of people that do agree with me.
    I don't fish for King Salmon after 30 ago when I saw a decline. I push for a no retention in the PU fishery if the run is in peril. If setnetters could be bought out, it is just more in river estimates. Dynamics have changed. If one King Salmon is saved by buying setnetters out, I'm all for it. It took me 13 years to net a King and I released it cause Reds were all over. Does it make me a conservationist? Not by a long shot but since the guides are here to stay, something has to give. The river dynamics has changed and sometimes changes are good, sometimes bad. I don't deny that.
    Live and learn and adapt
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  17. #17
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    SmithB, Why I keep responding to you is my own shortcomings. I just can't resist. Fun too. You guys kill me. A forum is where people agree to disagree. Don't like my take, so what. Just keep digging and digging and digging. I really don't care. You guys can argue with me till the cows come home, good enough but just DON'T belittle the hundreds of people that do agree with me.
    I don't fish for King Salmon after 30 ago when I saw a decline. I push for a no retention in the PU fishery if the run is in peril. If setnetters could be bought out, it is just more in river estimates. Dynamics have changed. If one King Salmon is saved by buying setnetters out, I'm all for it. It took me 13 years to net a King and I released it cause Reds were all over. Does it make me a conservationist? Not by a long shot but since the guides are here to stay, something has to give. The river dynamics has changed and sometimes changes are good, sometimes bad. I don't deny that.
    Live and learn and adapt
    The guides are here to stay, so get rid of the set nets? Is that your stance? Just proves that the push for set net ban is about allocation and not conservation.
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  18. #18
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    it is about allocation and conservation. We used to churn butter in a butter churn.... I'm thinking it does not happen anymore.
    Maybe you can convince me I'm wrong. The kings are not returning. We need to cut back on guiding too. Don't assume just because I make a sentence on my own is a commitment from any Org I sign on to. This is why I really like the forum, you get painted with a really strong brush' anytime you post just the smallest infraction. Go figure. When I post it is as the whop, no one else. Don't paint SCADA as such. I poll the membership. Period. We are two separate entities
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    SmithB, Why I keep responding to you is my own shortcomings. I just can't resist. Fun too. You guys kill me. A forum is where people agree to disagree. Don't like my take, so what. Just keep digging and digging and digging. I really don't care. You guys can argue with me till the cows come home, good enough but just DON'T belittle the hundreds of people that do agree with me.
    I don't fish for King Salmon after 30 ago when I saw a decline. I push for a no retention in the PU fishery if the run is in peril. If setnetters could be bought out, it is just more in river estimates. Dynamics have changed. If one King Salmon is saved by buying setnetters out, I'm all for it. It took me 13 years to net a King and I released it cause Reds were all over. Does it make me a conservationist? Not by a long shot but since the guides are here to stay, something has to give. The river dynamics has changed and sometimes changes are good, sometimes bad. I don't deny that.
    Live and learn and adapt
    Yeah, kings haven't been declining for 30 years. Not even close. And just because guides are "here to stay" does not mean that other fisheries cannot exist. Dynamics have not changed THAT much - other than in the dipnet fishery, which has grown with very little limits or regulation - your Syndicate has made sure of that. Yes, some changes will be necessary to ensure all user groups get a chance at harvest, but none need be eliminated. And stop talking buyout - you are pushing for a take-away.

    I am belittling no one - in fact I keep trying to make this NOT personal. Yes, the point of view you represent is selfish, nonsensical, and founded on misinformation. Your posts give me a perfect chance to point that out, so thanks for the discussion.

    A word of caution though - the people you run with tend to eat their own if they consider them a liability. Don't know if you've noticed, but while many of them admittedly read, most of them don't have the stones to post - probably for that reason.

  20. #20
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    it is about allocation and conservation. We used to churn butter in a butter churn.... I'm thinking it does not happen anymore.
    Maybe you can convince me I'm wrong. The kings are not returning. We need to cut back on guiding too. Don't assume just because I make a sentence on my own is a commitment from any Org I sign on to. This is why I really like the forum, you get painted with a really strong brush' anytime you post just the smallest infraction. Go figure. When I post it is as the whop, no one else. Don't paint SCADA as such. I poll the membership. Period. We are two separate entities
    I'm not saying you are speaking for all of scada, because it's clear you aren't. I am saying that you share the same point of view with those that wish to abolish commercial fishing in order to reallocate this fish to other groups
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

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
  •