Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Sb 42

  1. #1

    Default Sb 42

    Any thoughts on SB 42? Priority to personal use in times of conservation?

    Link: http://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/detail/29?Root=SB42

    Sponsor statement: https://www.alaskasenate.org/2016/fi..._Statement.pdf

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Wonder what Cotten thinks of this bill introduced by the senator representing Chugiak?
    "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

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    If there is any sense left in the legislator this will never come to a vote. It makes no sense from a fishery management viewpoint or an economic viewpoint.

    I must say it would really be fun to see it pass as it would also ensure that the federal government would take over management of the fisheries. It is in direct violation of Mag/Stevens as salmon are owned by all the citizens of this country and thus under federal authority. Fun only in the perverted sense that the legislature was so concerned about federal management that they would pass something that would make the lawsuit valid and thus create their own bed to lay in.

    Next, there would be no closure on Kenai River chinook in the PU fishery. So now when chinook are in low abundance and restriction on sport and commercial are in place the PU fishery cannot retain a chinook. With a priority they would be allowed, in fact the law would require, that they could not be restricted first. So all sport fisherman should be very concerned about giving a priority to this user group.

    Relative to economic impact a sport caught fish or commercial fish is much more valuable to the State than a PU caught fish. PU fish which are taken by Alaska residents bring no new money to the State. At least commercial and sport fishing brings in new money. So when stocks are down then it would be wise for the Board of Fish to make the call on what is the best option for the good of the public as required by our Constitution.

    Next, the language is vague as to what a priority means. We have all seen the subsistence mess with priority language and concern about a single gill net in the Kenai. What is there in this law that says the same debate will not happen to a PU priority. How does one define priority and need to achieve that priority. Bag limits and time and area restrictions are all on the table for a PU fishery today. With this law would the Board have to define need and then provide for it.

    Stolze is a nut case and deserves no respect for even suggesting this legislation. He has tried to do this for years and it goes nowhere. Lets hope that pattern continues.

  4. #4

    Default

    A similar type of law was overturned long ago in Bristol Bay. Nerka is spot on. Especially that last paragraph.

  5. #5

    Default

    What I don't understand is how this bill would work from a practical standpoint. The PU fisheries are primarily freshwater, where the commercial fishery and much of the sport fishery is in the salt. Kinda hard to restrict all the saltwater fisheries until the PU fishery closest to the spawning grounds has gotten all it needs.

    This bill is like to trying to stop a bullet after it's out of the gun. I don't understand how you can restrict fisheries that take place in saltwater until after the PU fishery has received priority. By then it's too late to catch any fish in the salt anyway.

  6. #6

    Default

    The personal use I can think of in the salt would be shrimp and crab. They lowered the "sport" limits on both of them to cut back on non-resident take, and then kept personal use the same to not restrict AK residents.

  7. #7
    Member akshootnscoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    The personal use I can think of in the salt would be shrimp and crab. They lowered the "sport" limits on both of them to cut back on non-resident take, and then kept personal use the same to not restrict AK residents.
    Shrimp and crab were not even on the radar of the authors if this bill. Guaranteed.

  8. #8

    Default

    I think it's important to mention that subsistence already gets priority. So, rural residents get priority over personal use, sport, and commercial. Now, the author of this bill wants to give all Alaskans priority over commercial and non-residents.

  9. #9

    Default

    Someone should propose an addition to this bill stating that during times of congestion, all other highway users are to be restricted before residents in personal vehicles. Sure would help with the traffic problem in the summer. They're our roads, right?

    Other states could follow suit, and our transportation woes would be solved - unless we travel or do business in another state and wish to be treated equally on the federal highway system.

    This bill reminds me of the Seagulls in "Finding Nemo".

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Someone should propose an addition to this bill stating that during times of congestion, all other highway users are to be restricted before residents in personal vehicles. Sure would help with the traffic problem in the summer. They're our roads, right.
    I thought I was the only one who thought this way.

    The only thing I would add is they need to put a cap on the runaway commercial trucking industry. Too many trucks!

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    I thought I was the only one who thought this way.

    The only thing I would add is they need to put a cap on the runaway commercial trucking industry. Too many trucks!
    Yes, it would be much more efficient and environmentally friendly if we all drove our pickups to Anchorage twice a week to get the goods we depend on those trucks to provide... Have you seen what those Semis do to our squirrels? Indiscriminate killing machines... 18 wheels of commie death if you ask me...

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penguin View Post
    I thought I was the only one who thought this way.

    The only thing I would add is they need to put a cap on the runaway commercial trucking industry. Too many trucks!
    It is the LAST FRONTIER. Conestoga Wagons from the Port of Anchorage to Freddy's would be more in keeping with the motto. Mail via Pony Express. Bag the internet and telephone, telegraph. Back to the future.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Cooper Landing is looking into a drawbridge with a toll fee of $5 North bound lane, and $500 South bound lane. KP residents get 10 free round trip passes per year

  14. #14
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    If there is any sense left in the legislator this will never come to a vote. It makes no sense from a fishery management viewpoint or an economic viewpoint.

    I must say it would really be fun to see it pass as it would also ensure that the federal government would take over management of the fisheries. It is in direct violation of Mag/Stevens as salmon are owned by all the citizens of this country and thus under federal authority. Fun only in the perverted sense that the legislature was so concerned about federal management that they would pass something that would make the lawsuit valid and thus create their own bed to lay in.

    Next, there would be no closure on Kenai River chinook in the PU fishery. So now when chinook are in low abundance and restriction on sport and commercial are in place the PU fishery cannot retain a chinook. With a priority they would be allowed, in fact the law would require, that they could not be restricted first. So all sport fisherman should be very concerned about giving a priority to this user group.

    Relative to economic impact a sport caught fish or commercial fish is much more valuable to the State than a PU caught fish. PU fish which are taken by Alaska residents bring no new money to the State. At least commercial and sport fishing brings in new money. So when stocks are down then it would be wise for the Board of Fish to make the call on what is the best option for the good of the public as required by our Constitution.

    Next, the language is vague as to what a priority means. We have all seen the subsistence mess with priority language and concern about a single gill net in the Kenai. What is there in this law that says the same debate will not happen to a PU priority. How does one define priority and need to achieve that priority. Bag limits and time and area restrictions are all on the table for a PU fishery today. With this law would the Board have to define need and then provide for it.

    Stolze is a nut case and deserves no respect for even suggesting this legislation. He has tried to do this for years and it goes nowhere. Lets hope that pattern continues.
    Are you sure, Nerka? Under the state of Alaska's constititution, salmon are an Alaskan resource and Alaska's resources are to be managed for the maximum benefit of the people of Alaska. The state constitution says zippo about managing for the needs of the masses in the lower 48 or elsewhere in the world. Oh, I know that's a silly ridiculous question... of course you're sure. You always are.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Are you sure, Nerka? Under the state of Alaska's constititution, salmon are an Alaskan resource and Alaska's resources are to be managed for the maximum benefit of the people of Alaska. The state constitution says zippo about managing for the needs of the masses in the lower 48 or elsewhere in the world. Oh, I know that's a silly ridiculous question... of course you're sure. You always are.
    Actually, Alaska's constitution says that:

    The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resourcesbelonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.

    and:

    Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.

    and:

    Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.

    I can't find where the state claims ownership of all salmon. Perhaps I missed something. Please tell me or PM me if I did.

    Our Alaska constitution also says:

    No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State.

    Additionally, federal law, under the MSA act, recognizes salmon as valuable national resources, and claims sovereign fishery management management rights to all fish within the EEZ, and all anadromous species (salmon) throughout the entirety of their migration. In short, very much a national resource.

    Not quite sure why you think this law is needed - it's my experience that PU fisheries in my area are already managed as a priority fishery.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Are you sure, Nerka? Under the state of Alaska's constititution, salmon are an Alaskan resource and Alaska's resources are to be managed for the maximum benefit of the people of Alaska. The state constitution says zippo about managing for the needs of the masses in the lower 48 or elsewhere in the world. Oh, I know that's a silly ridiculous question... of course you're sure. You always are.
    You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Look at federal law and see who owns the resources - some of this law was determined decades ago so willphis4food again you show your lack of effort in researching this subject.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Actually, Alaska's constitution says that:

    The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resourcesbelonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.

    and:

    Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.

    and:

    Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.

    I can't find where the state claims ownership of all salmon. Perhaps I missed something. Please tell me or PM me if I did.

    Our Alaska constitution also says:

    No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State.

    Additionally, federal law, under the MSA act, recognizes salmon as valuable national resources, and claims sovereign fishery management management rights to all fish within the EEZ, and all anadromous species (salmon) throughout the entirety of their migration. In short, very much a national resource.

    Not quite sure why you think this law is needed - it's my experience that PU fisheries in my area are already managed as a priority fishery.


    Yup. Smithtb, we should have a beer together sometime. It seems as though you have quite a good grasp on reality, unlike many who troll here...

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seinerman View Post
    [/B] unlike many who troll here...
    Hey! I resemble that remark........


    Back on topic...... Take a close look at the wording in red above. The framers of the Alaska Constitution carefully inserted the words "belonging to the State" repeatedly when defining the relationship between the people and the natural resources found within the State. They knew then, as now, that the State can only control what it owns. The question of 'who owns what' is another question for another day (State or Feds or private). But once the State "belongs" to those resources, the concepts in the Alaska Constitution apply.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Hey! I resemble that remark........


    Back on topic...... Take a close look at the wording in red above. The framers of the Alaska Constitution carefully inserted the words "belonging to the State" repeatedly when defining the relationship between the people and the natural resources found within the State. They knew then, as now, that the State can only control what it owns. The question of 'who owns what' is another question for another day (State or Feds or private). But once the State "belongs" to those resources, the concepts in the Alaska Constitution apply.

    The devil is in the details. SB42 just might force the issue of who owns the salmon resource. I suspect many in Alaska will be disappointed if that happens. Anyway, its been nice chatting with you guys. I'm off to Kodiak to spend the next 8 weeks fishing and bear hunting, then on to PWS for the rest of the summer. Everybody play nice

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seinerman View Post
    The devil is in the details. SB42 just might force the issue of who owns the salmon resource. I suspect many in Alaska will be disappointed if that happens. Anyway, its been nice chatting with you guys. I'm off to Kodiak to spend the next 8 weeks fishing and bear hunting, then on to PWS for the rest of the summer. Everybody play nice
    Have a safe trip

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
  •