Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Who's Bob Mumford

  1. #1
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default Who's Bob Mumford

    What's everyone opinion on our new BOF member?
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  2. #2
    Member hogfamily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Suburbanites, part time Willowbillies, Appleseeds, and Weekend Warrior Turquoise Miners!
    Posts
    1,094

    Default

    Robert Mumford - Anchorage


    Robert (Bob) Mumford of Anchorage is a retired Fish and Wildlife Trooper who has lived in Alaska for over 37 years having resided in Anchorage, Palmer/Wasilla, Sand Point, Kodiak, Fairbanks, Coldfoot and the Kenai Peninsula. Since his retirement as a trooper, he has worked briefly as an assistant guide on the Alaska Peninsula; he was also employed as a commercial pilot surveying wildlife from Prudhoe Bay to Barrow. He has worked seasonally in Tok as a pilot transporting sportsmen in the field. Bob has been a volunteer Alaska Hunter Education Instructor for five years and has memberships with: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, APHA, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association, NRA, Alaska Airmen Association, Fraternal Order of Alaska state Troopers, and the Alaska Peace Officers Association. Prior to the Board of Game, Bob served on the Big Game Commercial Services Board over five years, and now serves as the Board of Game representative on that board. Bob is an avid wildlife photographer and outdoorsman. Bob is married and has a 14 year old son.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoose35 View Post
    What's everyone opinion on our new BOF member?
    His experience at prosecuting fishing violations wiil
    certainly help him in evaluating the impact of regulations
    and whether they can be circumvented
    by unethical users. Will come in handy in UCI matters.

  4. #4
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    By the lack of responses, he seems relatively unknown to many on this forum, me included. I'm certainly willing to give him a chance and hope he does a good job for all Alaskans, not just the ones in the valley, Anchorage, and kenai peninsula
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  5. #5
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    I would like to know a bit more about his fishing resume. It seems like that is information that is pertinent to a discussion about whether or not a person is qualified to adjudicate Alaska's varied fisheries.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I would like to know a bit more about his fishing resume. It seems like that is information that is pertinent to a discussion about whether or not a person is qualified to adjudicate Alaska's varied fisheries.
    Of course you would...how else can you assign motives, determine partisanship, and create scapegoats. Problem is, your divisive ideology is exactly why our State Statutes do not consider someone's fishing resume pertinent to whether or not they are qualified to serve on the BOF....

    AS 16.05.221

    ...The governor shall appoint each member on the basis of interest in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the field of action of the board, and with a view to providing diversity of interest and points of view in the membership. The appointed members shall be residents of the state and shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation or geographical location of residence...

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I would like to know a bit more about his fishing resume. It seems like that is information that is pertinent to a discussion about whether or not a person is qualified to adjudicate Alaska's varied fisheries.
    Why does he need to be a fisherman?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Exactly smithtb, maybe a good economist would serve the Board well, a lawyer, and the list could go on. We have a Board of Fish that needs some serious adjustments.

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Ah, yes... flame on. What a ridiculous idea, to wonder what a guy's fishing resume looks like who will be overseeing multi billion dollar fishing industries. But its what I expect from the self appointed commie goon squad.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Ah, yes... flame on. What a ridiculous idea, to wonder what a guy's fishing resume looks like who will be overseeing multi billion dollar fishing industries. But its what I expect from the self appointed commie goon squad.
    Willphish - The question was not ridiculous. It's legitimate. We've debated this issue on this BB many times. Those discussions and those questions are not coming from some "self appointed goon squad" (your words, not mine). The reasons these questions arise is because the candidates for the BoF/BoG too often get categorized based on their interests, background, and livelihoods. It is presumed then, that a BoF/BoG member will make decisions based on their personal interests, their connections (e.g., family) or potential future earnings if they re-engage in the fisheries business in the future. But that premise is highly misguided. BoF/BoG members should never make decisions based on their own personal or professional interests, such as fishing. And nobody should be asking them to do that. As such, it's not a factor.

    As you've pointed out, the primary responsibility of the BoF is to allocate the benefits for Alaska's multi billion dollar fishing industries. Their job is NOT to determine the amount of fish that each fishery has available for harvest. That's the job of ADF&G. The background of the BoF members is important, but being a recreational angler or a PU fisherman, or a commercial fisherman ought not be overly relevant. In my view a background in micro/macro economics or sociology would be much more valuable for a BoF member than would say, fishing.

    My view is that allocation decisions need to be made based on what's best for the people of the State, as a whole. The specific interests of user groups must be considered, but the overriding factor in decision-making is to do what is the overall public interest, as determined by the deliberations and decisions of the BoF/BoG.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Ah, yes... flame on. What a ridiculous idea, to wonder what a guy's fishing resume looks like who will be overseeing multi billion dollar fishing industries. But its what I expect from the self appointed commie goon squad.
    Commie goon squad... Really? As if it isn't possible for reasonable non-commercial fishermen to disagree with you.

    You never answered my question - which was honest, polite, and asked in a way which gave you adequate opportunity to explain yourself rather than labeling and calling names. How does fishing experience of one kind or another help someone "oversee multi-billion dollar fishing industries"?

    IMO that would be like evaluating coaches or officials based on how good they are at playing a sport. Not very important when compared to qualities like decision making, critical thinking, or leadership skills.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    You never answered my question - which was honest, polite, and asked in a way which gave you adequate opportunity to explain yourself rather than labeling and calling names. How does fishing experience of one kind or another help someone "oversee multi-billion dollar fishing industries"?
    There is an element of understanding gained from participation that should help the BOF provide guidance on the practicality of gear restrictions, technique restrictions, duration of openings, bag limits and by-catch limits. For example, it's probably good that some people on the board have fished for Reds on the Russian before contemplating appropriate definitions and restrictions related to snagging.

    But I fully agree that a few more economists and habitat experts on the board would be a good thing.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    I must admit that I kind of chuckle to myself when willphis4food wanted to know Munford fishing experience. That is not an unusual question and the Legislature used it to reject Ruffner. However, what is funny to me is the following. For a sport fisherman here are some of the issues a single representative must deal with:

    1. catch and release vs retention
    2. fly fishing vs. spin fishing
    3. snagging vs. ethical concerns over snagging
    4 guided angler vs. non-guided angler
    5.. enjoying combat fishing vs. hating it.
    6 preferring one species over all others
    7. bank anglers vs boat anglers
    8 lake fishing vs stream fishing when stocks traverse both in a system
    9. fishing on spawning grounds vs. not fishing on spawning grounds
    10. wanting a priority fishery vs sharing with other user groups
    11. supporting increased access and infrastructure vs not supporting unlimited growth/opportunity
    12 increased fees vs not increasing fees.
    13 horsepower limitations vs no limitations or drift only fishery

    I could go on but I think the point is made. No individual can represent sport fishing "interests". What a person who is a good Board member can do is listen to all sides of an issue and put their bias aside and make a good decision for citizens of the State of Alaska. They can evaluate data and think critically about what their actions mean. They have the ability to see unintended consequences of an action. I believe that is why the founders of this State made the selection of a Board member not have geographic or user group criteria. They were looking for a quality person to serve not some of the personalities present Board members have. The founders had wisdom - today the present process shows a total lack of wisdom and willphish4food is just part of that herd mentality.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Ah, yes... flame on. What a ridiculous idea, to wonder what a guy's fishing resume looks like who will be overseeing multi billion dollar fishing industries. But its what I expect from the self appointed commie goon squad.
    Sour grapes.

    Alaska's State Statute is quite clear about what the qualifications must be. A fishing resume is NOT one of them. Get over it.

    Fishing resumes come into play when divisive folks want to assign motives, and which side of the isle they sit on in the fish war games. Meet our most recent victim, Robert Ruffner.

    An Upper Kenai River trout fisherman does not have to participate in the Bearing Sea King crab fishery to manage that fishery anymore than a Cook Inlet Herring seiner has to participate in the Kobuk River Sheefish fishery to manage that fishery anymore than a West Side Razor clam digger has to participate in the Prince William Sound Cod pot fishery to manage that fishery anymore than a Kasilof River dipnetter has to participate in the Copper River subsistence salmon fishery to manage that fishery....you get the idea. If there is a resume to look at, it should be about one's ability to understand the State's diverse fisheries, without prejudice toward any of them, or their users.

    Oh, BTW willphish4food, as for your "commie goon squad".... I'm not a commercial fisherman, but my freezer is full of sport-caught Chinook.

  15. #15
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    Sour grapes.

    Alaska's State Statute is quite clear about what the qualifications must be. A fishing resume is NOT one of them. Get over it.

    Fishing resumes come into play when divisive folks want to assign motives, and which side of the isle they sit on in the fish war games. Meet our most recent victim, Robert Ruffner.

    An Upper Kenai River trout fisherman does not have to participate in the Bearing Sea King crab fishery to manage that fishery anymore than a Cook Inlet Herring seiner has to participate in the Kobuk River Sheefish fishery to manage that fishery anymore than a West Side Razor clam digger has to participate in the Prince William Sound Cod pot fishery to manage that fishery anymore than a Kasilof River dipnetter has to participate in the Copper River subsistence salmon fishery to manage that fishery....you get the idea. If there is a resume to look at, it should be about one's ability to understand the State's diverse fisheries, without prejudice toward any of them, or their users.

    Oh, BTW willphish4food, as for your "commie goon squad".... I'm not a commercial fisherman, but my freezer is full of sport-caught Chinook.
    Yeah, but a rod and reel fisherman from the matsu valley with a hatred towards any sort of commercial fishery would automatically make the best candidate, regardless of any other qualifications.
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HikerDan View Post
    There is an element of understanding gained from participation that should help the BOF provide guidance on the practicality of gear restrictions, technique restrictions, duration of openings, bag limits and by-catch limits. For example, it's probably good that some people on the board have fished for Reds on the Russian before contemplating appropriate definitions and restrictions related to snagging.

    But I fully agree that a few more economists and habitat experts on the board would be a good thing.
    I get it and agree, but understanding of one fishery does not necessarily help in understanding many other fisheries. Of course the unfortunate thing here is that many of Alaska's most diverse fishermen likely have participated in both sport and commercial fisheries - which according to some people instantly makes them part of the commie goon squad - forever in the pocket of only commercial fisheries, completely unable to be objective or fair, and prone to dangerous, violent outbursts.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    This tread ask "who's Bob Mumford"? My feelings are along the lines of, I don't care who he is as long as it is right for the fish! If he does what is right it will be good for all user groups.

  18. #18
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Transferee from BOG. How long was he on the BOG again?
    Cause nobody better could be found in the entire state of AK?

    More of the same. Professional political appointees managing your game and fish.

  19. #19
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    Why is fishing resume important? Same reason legal resume is important for Supreme Court justices. Because of little things known as "conflicts of interest." Cook Inlet fisheries are very important to me, and to the state as a whole. Over half the money generated from sport fishing statewide comes from Cook Inlet fisheries, around 800 million dollars. The Cook Inlet commercial fisheries also contribute millions to the state economy. I want to know if potential board candidates will be conflicted out of discussions on Cook Inlet fisheries. For instance, a Kenai sport fish guide would be conflicted out of allocative discussions on Kenai River salmon. A Cook Inlet processor owner would be conflicted out of just about any Cook Inlet allocative discussions, as changes in allocation directly affect his income.

    Anyone saying these things are not important is either an idiot or very dishonest. You may not want to highlight them or make them a big issue, but solely on the legal basis of whether or not an individual will be able to rule on the issues he's been appointed to rule on, they are very very important. Fun, you're wrong again. While the fishing resume isn't required in statute in order to serve, it is required in full disclosure to determine whether conflicts exist. Board members grill each other on their fishing resumes; Howard Delo was questioned for hours over his mother in law's latent set net permit. I won't "get over it," because it is an important issue.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,959

    Default

    Willphish, Not one BOF member has been or will stopped from ant discussions due to a conflict of interest! A member should not vote when they have a conflict of interest, but that never stopped a past BOF member. It would be good to hear from Questairtoo on this, but I am sure he has his hands full trying to get a budget passed!

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
  •