Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 216

Thread: Kenai Peninsula ordinance to repeal 50 foot buffer

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default Kenai Peninsula ordinance to repeal 50 foot buffer

    I know Fun will not agree in total here but thought people should be aware that a repeal of the 50 foot habitat buffer on all streams except Kenai and Kasilof Rivers is up for a vote on June 16th. If anyone wants to comment they should send letters to the Kenai Peninsula Clerk at

    Assembly / Clerk KPB
    FAX# 714-2388
    Assembly Members
    Johni Blankenship, Borough Clerk
    jblankenship@kpb.us (907) 714-2160
    144 Binkley Street
    Soldotna, Alaska 99669

    I do not know the deadline but the sooner the better.

    I was on a commission that spent over 9 months dealing with this and made compromise after compromise to those who wanted repeal or modification. In the end the repeal group just will not accept a buffer on streams or lakes and the assembly members Wolfe, Bagley, Wells, and Ogle are pushing this effort. So if you want to protect salmon habitat for the future and maintain a minimum 50 foot buffer along salmon streams send in your comments. I believe this all comes down to some who feel private property should not be impacted. The real estate industry is pushing this for what they feel are obvious reasons. Fred Braun was on the commission and he pushed for no buffer expansion. Of course one can drive out Buoy Lane off K-Beach and see his sign selling lots that are under two feet of water from high ground water table. They called it a subdivision and now the KPB is spending lots of money to try and protect homes built in a swamp. To me that speaks volumes to privatize the profit and socialize the cost.

    So far as I know the 50 foot buffer is working with most homeowners and should be maintained. Oil and gas development on the westside of UCI is accelerating and thus without some protection clearing of vegetation can take place right up to the river banks. The lower peninsula streams would not be protected.

    This repeal effort is bad for salmon so I hope most will write and tell the other assembly members to reject this effort.

  2. #2

    Default

    I hope that they are smart enough to sort the letters into two piles. First pile: Letters from property owners on the Kenai Peninsula. And second pile from the people who live elsewhere, but are HELLBENT on telling other people what they can do with their private property. Then burn the second pile, before reading.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    I hope that they are smart enough to sort the letters into two piles. First pile: Letters from property owners on the Kenai Peninsula. And second pile from the people who live elsewhere, but are HELLBENT on telling other people what they can do with their private property. Then burn the second pile, before reading.
    AGL4now most of the people who testified for the existing ordinance came from local residents. Next, property owners are not the only owners of the resources. Therefore, when a property owner impacts go off their land and impact something owned by all of us then they should be accountable. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Further, property owners have no right in a society to not have some restrictions on use. Use is restricted all the time - the cities have zoning and the KPB has ordinances that limit use patterns that impact adjacent lands. The property owner in this case is really not impacted that much as the uses allowed are pretty liberal which includes boardwalks, docks, removing vegetation for safety, minor clearing, float plane accommodations, and the list goes on.

  4. #4

    Default

    Did you just make that up......or is that in the Bible. Did GOD say that..........????

    Here is an Idea.........If you truly LOVE the fish with all of your heart.........Never ever fish. It might be fun for you, but it is "HELL" for the fish.

    You want to tell me what I can do with my land.........it is easy, just buy my land for cash.

    You people are selfish and greedy. You want what is not yours. You want a 50' Buffer.........buy it with your money.

    You don't like set-netters.........buy all the set-net sites and permits. You don't like driftnet fisherman.......buy all the drift permits.

    NOTE: Sometimes I am a little shy about speaking how I truly feel. If you are unclear about my position on this 50" Buffer, feel free to request further clarification..........



    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Further, property owners have no right in a society to not have some restrictions on use.

  5. #5

    Default

    Here is a good idea.......all Anchorage and Valley properties need a 50' Buffer. Yes, a 50' Habitat Buffer. We will call it "The 50' Habitat for Humanity Buffer". And homeless people or anyone from out of town, can camp in the 50' Buffer area. They can poop and pee in the 50' Habitat Buffer, but they should dig up some of the owners lawn to cover the poop.

    As Nerka said, "property owners have no right in a society to not have some restrictions on use".

  6. #6
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quoting Nerka...."So if you want to protect salmon habitat for the future...." Blah blah blah. Sign this petition. Do it for the children. Save the poor needy animals. Sheesh.
    Lets clarify this repeal a bit. This repeal STILL leaves in place protection for both the Kasilof and KENAI RIVERs. Both of these rivers have motor uses on them. (Perhaps these rivers are somewhat overused and impacted somewhat more by land use.) But all the other rivers have NO motor use and extremely limited property development. I see no instances of even casual impact to the river by property owners on the river I live on. I'm betting my river is quite similar to the other small rivers and creeks down here. These small rivers/creeks change and adjust naturally year after year thru normal vegitation growth and natural erosions and logjams etc.
    I'm with AGL on this one. You want to save the salmon, Nerka? Stop fishing them. Anyone else who really wants to save all the salmon, same thing. Don't fish em. Just think how noble not fishing salmon will make you feel. (Don't take these comments as a slap to regular Joe fishermen. But to those feel gooder, do gooder, know better than the rest of us, socialists.) Fact is, these other waterways don't need intrusive laws like this. I am a typical property owner who bought riverfront many yrs ago BECAUSE I so loved this land and river. I scrimped and saved and now want to fully enjoy MY property without someone else giving ME permission to do something on MY land. It's insulting.
    Maybe Fish and Game needs to further restrict fishing on the rivers if The salmon are so threatened. (Oh yeah, like they saved our Kenai kings. )
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!

  7. #7

    Default

    Maybe we make it that you can only fish the Kenai River once every four (4) years. That should help. The Fishermen are the problem, NOT the land owners.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I know Fun will not agree in total here...
    That's right.

    The current Ordinance should be repealed. It goes way too far, painting every single anadromous water on the Kenai Peninsula with the same broad brush. Many of those waters are remote, inaccessible, undevelopable, uninhabited, and already under protection by other agencies.

    The original Ordinance had merit, and it was created to address much-needed habitat issues on the popular, commercialized Kenai River. But some saw that Ordinance as a opportunity to impose those same Kenai River requirements on every anadromous water within the Kenai Peninsula (like 800 of them), all under the moniker of saving the salmon. Emotional analogies to the Columbia River and the Lower-48 were used. So here we are with government control of 50' of each side of every anadromous water on the Peninsula. More private and public access and lands taken away.

    The truth is, no data suggests this Ordinance has saved a single salmon. In fact the 50' requirement caused some property owners to stop stewarding the anadromous waters adjacent to their property, which I will assume hurt the salmon. For Nerka to say he knows the 50 buffer is working, leaves me a little perplexed. As I have seen no data supporting that. Enforcement and monitoring is all but absent. In fact I saw no supporting data showing it was not working, only presumptuous conjecture based on other areas in the Lower-48.

    I call bunk on Nerka's tactic that this repeal is driven by real estate and its association with Fred Braun. I hate it when someone assigns motives. I've known Fred for decades and he is a real Alaskan outdoorsman, who hunts and fishes with passion. He believes in public access, public use, and private ownership. He'd be the first to want to protect salmon.

    The subdivision land off Buoy Lane you mention was approved by both the Borough and State for development. Soil sampling and water table testing are part of that process. So the KPB is spending lots of money to protect homes there because they know they screwed up in allowing that subdivision to be developed in the first place. They said go for it, we want the tax income. Fred Braun didn't say go for it. His land investment is sinking right along with the Boroughs dimwit approval to develop it. To me, that speaks volumes to governmentalized profit and its cost to private citizens. BTW, I'd like to know where all this oil and gas development on the west side is clearing vegetation right up to the river banks? Are you saying my State's clean water regulations, etc. are being violated by oil/gas development?

    I would like to see this repeal passed. While a few systems in it have merit, the vast majority is nothing more than unnecessary, unjustified, government control of public and private land use. Want to save a salmon?...stop catching them.

    And for the record, I bet I am more passionate about protecting our salmon than most.

  9. #9
    Member Akheloce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    What gets me even more mad about the buffer is that it uses a list defining anadromous waters is either grossly flawed or out of date. Caribou lake- salmon spawning? Gimme a break. The people who proposed this ban originally are either disingenuous, ignorant, or at the very least inept.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    Fun - would love to take you on again on this as your comments are easy to refute. However we have had that dance and not going to change your position or you mine.

    I was glad to see the responses here as they prove my point. Self interests, private property take priority over civil society, no responsibility to future generations, ignoring the science behind the buffer, calling for proof when the proof has been demonstrated time and again on salmon stream around the country and in Alaska... all have been debated and refuted easily. You see those who accept the need for a buffer have no motive other than to maintain salmon habitat next to salmon streams. Those who post the above have motives that go in other directions.

    As far as Fred you and I will have to disagree Fun. In my opinion he was not honest with me and other commission members when he constantly refused to look for compromises and solutions to make the buffers work. He said and did things that caused me to question his ethics. Your comment about the KPB is just wrong. There is no KPB zoning or restrictions on selling land and thus it is buyer beware as the Mayor has stated.

    Prove it saves one salmon.? That makes agencies and others have to show harm before an action can be taken. How about you proving it has not saved one salmon? You are making the claim it is not needed. Stop fishing- wow that is an intelligent comment. Harvest is the least of your worries. If habitat is in place then harvest restrictions will work. No habitat no fish.

    Akheloce - your knowledge of this is unbelievable since you want to call names. The State and the KPB went back through all the records and documented every system - those that were in question were removed from the list so the anadromous waters list is not the list used in the ordinance. Speak from knowledge and stop calling people disingenuous or ignorant or you will get called on it.

    Cod your land? I love that type of comment. You own it for a generation or maybe two and yet you feel you can destroy a resource that is dependent on land next to the river being in a near natural state. You can do anything you want and if it causes harm off your property - not my problem - bullcrap. That type of private property rights is arrogance at its best. Most civil societies did away with that thinking years ago and Alaska is no exception. All major cities have limited private property uses and I bet if a oil well fracking company came in next to your property you would give up the " I can do anything with my property I want".

    Anyway, give you testimony either way and we will see who prevails- In the long run I am not sure 50 feet will do any good as it is a minimum buffer width and is less than that recommended by the American Fisheries Society, the Department of Fish and Game in a number of states including Alaska, the USFWS, the major fishing organizations in the State and nationally and the scientific communities from major universities including the University of Alaska.

  11. #11
    Member Akheloce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post

    Akheloce - your knowledge of this is unbelievable since you want to call names. The State and the KPB went back through all the records and documented every system - those that were in question were removed from the list so the anadromous waters list is not the list used in the ordinance. Speak from knowledge and stop calling people disingenuous or ignorant or you will get called on it.

    .
    http://www2.borough.kenai.ak.us/Asse...20Appendix.pdf

    Little help for ya... Line 321

    Which of my names are you?
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  12. #12
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Fun - would love to take you on again on this as your comments are easy to refute. However we have had that dance and not going to change your position or you mine.

    I was glad to see the responses here as they prove my point. Self interests, private property take priority over civil society, no responsibility to future generations, ignoring the science behind the buffer, calling for proof when the proof has been demonstrated time and again on salmon stream around the country and in Alaska... all have been debated and refuted easily. You see those who accept the need for a buffer have no motive other than to maintain salmon habitat next to salmon streams. Those who post the above have motives that go in other directions.

    As far as Fred you and I will have to disagree Fun. In my opinion he was not honest with me and other commission members when he constantly refused to look for compromises and solutions to make the buffers work. He said and did things that caused me to question his ethics. Your comment about the KPB is just wrong. There is no KPB zoning or restrictions on selling land and thus it is buyer beware as the Mayor has stated.

    Prove it saves one salmon.? That makes agencies and others have to show harm before an action can be taken. How about you proving it has not saved one salmon? You are making the claim it is not needed. Stop fishing- wow that is an intelligent comment. Harvest is the least of your worries. If habitat is in place then harvest restrictions will work. No habitat no fish.

    Akheloce - your knowledge of this is unbelievable since you want to call names. The State and the KPB went back through all the records and documented every system - those that were in question were removed from the list so the anadromous waters list is not the list used in the ordinance. Speak from knowledge and stop calling people disingenuous or ignorant or you will get called on it.

    Cod your land? I love that type of comment. You own it for a generation or maybe two and yet you feel you can destroy a resource that is dependent on land next to the river being in a near natural state. You can do anything you want and if it causes harm off your property - not my problem - bullcrap. That type of private property rights is arrogance at its best. Most civil societies did away with that thinking years ago and Alaska is no exception. All major cities have limited private property uses and I bet if a oil well fracking company came in next to your property you would give up the " I can do anything with my property I want".

    Anyway, give you testimony either way and we will see who prevails- In the long run I am not sure 50 feet will do any good as it is a minimum buffer width and is less than that recommended by the American Fisheries Society, the Department of Fish and Game in a number of states including Alaska, the USFWS, the major fishing organizations in the State and nationally and the scientific communities from major universities including the University of Alaska.
    Twenty some years ago, I spent the fall seasons along streams in WA, OR, ID explaining very politely to Bubba why he couldn't "warsh" his "rig" on the sandbar in the "crik" right behind the interpretative sign about the very sensitive redds belonging to the salmon which were on the endangered species list.... Bubba would spew all manner of vile insults at me, physically and verbally threaten my wellbeing, and rant about government overreach and grand conspiracies to thwart his God given right to trash the "crik" as he saw fit. Sadly, it'll never change. It's virtually guaranteed that Alaska is doomed to repeat same.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  13. #13
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    [QUOTE=Nerka;1483289

    Cod your land? I love that type of comment. You own it for a generation or maybe two and yet you feel you can destroy a resource that is dependent on land next to the river being in a near natural state. You can do anything you want and if it causes harm off your property - not my problem - bullcrap. That type of private property rights is arrogance at its best. Most civil societies did away with that thinking years ago and Alaska is no exception. All major cities have limited private property uses and I bet if a oil well fracking company came in next to your property you would give up the " I can do anything with my property I want".
    .[/QUOTE]

    Glad u bit, Nerka. I knew someone like you would jump to those conclusions with zero proof or knowledge.
    Yes, MY land! Bought and paid for by KPB and other govt rules that you seem so quick to praise and endorse when they fit your (socialist govt) ideologies. Who's land do YOU think it is? You don't believe that the general public owns the land to which I hold deed to, do you? Why would you feign astonishment that I call MY property, "MY property? It's just a fact, whether you like it or not.
    You make statements claiming I said that 'I can do anything I want with my land (and will) and to hell with everyone else.' Fact is, I didn't say that. You just like to portray property owners along a river as irresponsible landowners. Shame shame shame!
    The 'arrogance' you speak of is the arrogance you portray every time you claim you and/or the govt know what is best for everyone else. If you so like civil societies that seize control over property rights, why not take your arse to some commie country?
    Your portrayal of landowners actions,words, and deeds are pure BS! And I hope these gentle readers can see the clear difference between how YOU portray things and what reality actually is.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!

  14. #14
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Twenty some years ago, I spent the fall seasons along streams in WA, OR, ID explaining very politely to Bubba why he couldn't "warsh" his "rig" on the sandbar in the "crik" right behind the interpretative sign about the very sensitive redds belonging to the salmon which were on the endangered species list.... Bubba would spew all manner of vile insults at me, physically and verbally threaten my wellbeing, and rant about government overreach and grand conspiracies to thwart his God given right to trash the "crik" as he saw fit. Sadly, it'll never change. It's virtually guaranteed that Alaska is doomed to repeat same.

    I hope you're not suggesting that all those rivers in those states are devoid of salmon due to Bubba's washing their rigs near the 'criks'.
    Now I will agree that our population explosion has impacted our environment, yes. But without a doubt most people that own property along watersheds greatly value its existence. That's why most of us secured funds to bless ourselves with it.
    Inteesting that those of us who secured the watershed lands are called greedy when it is others who have nothing invested in those lands think they somehow should control their use. Maybe THEY are the greedy ones.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!

  15. #15
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cod View Post
    I hope you're not suggesting that all those rivers in those states are devoid of salmon due to Bubba's washing their rigs near the 'criks'.
    Now I will agree that our population explosion has impacted our environment, yes. But without a doubt most people that own property along watersheds greatly value its existence. That's why most of us secured funds to bless ourselves with it.
    Inteesting that those of us who secured the watershed lands are called greedy when it is others who have nothing invested in those lands think they somehow should control their use. Maybe THEY are the greedy ones.
    Oh, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just recalling an experience. Bubba denied any culpability too. His family "had homesteaded the area for generations, and cared for the fish far more than I did..." blah blah blah. Who was I to tell him he couldn't warsh his rig in the crik? (Nevermind the fact that he had never heard of a redd, didn't believe that "they even made it up that far...", and apparently was unable to read the signs). Nope, not suggesting anything. Just saying that I've seen and heard all this same crap before.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Fun - would love to take you on again on this as your comments are easy to refute. However we have had that dance and not going to change your position or you mine.

    I was glad to see the responses here as they prove my point. Self interests, private property take priority over civil society, no responsibility to future generations, ignoring the science behind the buffer, calling for proof when the proof has been demonstrated time and again on salmon stream around the country and in Alaska... all have been debated and refuted easily. You see those who accept the need for a buffer have no motive other than to maintain salmon habitat next to salmon streams. Those who post the above have motives that go in other directions.

    As far as Fred you and I will have to disagree Fun. In my opinion he was not honest with me and other commission members when he constantly refused to look for compromises and solutions to make the buffers work. He said and did things that caused me to question his ethics. Your comment about the KPB is just wrong. There is no KPB zoning or restrictions on selling land and thus it is buyer beware as the Mayor has stated.

    Prove it saves one salmon.? That makes agencies and others have to show harm before an action can be taken. How about you proving it has not saved one salmon? You are making the claim it is not needed. Stop fishing- wow that is an intelligent comment. Harvest is the least of your worries. If habitat is in place then harvest restrictions will work. No habitat no fish.

    Akheloce - your knowledge of this is unbelievable since you want to call names. The State and the KPB went back through all the records and documented every system - those that were in question were removed from the list so the anadromous waters list is not the list used in the ordinance. Speak from knowledge and stop calling people disingenuous or ignorant or you will get called on it.

    Cod your land? I love that type of comment. You own it for a generation or maybe two and yet you feel you can destroy a resource that is dependent on land next to the river being in a near natural state. You can do anything you want and if it causes harm off your property - not my problem - bullcrap. That type of private property rights is arrogance at its best. Most civil societies did away with that thinking years ago and Alaska is no exception. All major cities have limited private property uses and I bet if a oil well fracking company came in next to your property you would give up the " I can do anything with my property I want".

    Anyway, give you testimony either way and we will see who prevails- In the long run I am not sure 50 feet will do any good as it is a minimum buffer width and is less than that recommended by the American Fisheries Society, the Department of Fish and Game in a number of states including Alaska, the USFWS, the major fishing organizations in the State and nationally and the scientific communities from major universities including the University of Alaska.
    Nerka, red flags go up when you have to assign motives to those who disagree with you, portraying them as selfish, irresponsible, non-scientific bad guys who don't want to protect salmon habitat. That is simply not true, but it does play into the emotion your side wants to create.

    As for a civil society, private property is a core concept of a civil society. As for self-interest, most preservationists have it. As for responsibility to future generations, we have a responsibility to keep private property (less than 1% in Alaska) in the hands of our future generations, not our future government. As for ignoring science, not hardly. We are actually wanting science that shows salmon are being saved on the Peninsula, so we can justify such monumental government land ownership. And sorry, but the vast majority of the approx 800 anadromous salmon streams covered in the Ordinance are nothing like those in the Lower-48...most are remote, inaccessible, undevelopable, uninhabited, and already protected by other agencies. Your proof is spoof.

    I am sorry you feel Fred Braun is dishonest and unethical. That is the opposite of my experience with him, and I have known him for 45 years. Perhaps given your preconceived mindset and self-interest on this issue, you assigned motives to Fred just like you have to those of us here who disagree with you, and he did not appreciate it. I too question your judgment on the commission, given your bias comments and one-sided opinions here.

    My comment about KPB is not wrong. The KPB approved that land for development. That approval, through the KPB Plat and Planning process requires soil and water sampling. Had the KPB not approved that land for development Fred Braun would not be trying to develop or sell it. When the KPB approves land for development, developers assume it is suitable, and land and homebuyers assume it is suitable. The KPB development approval process is specifically designed to eliminate these types of buyer beware scenarios, no matter what the Mayor tells you.

    No, I did not make the claim the Ordinance is not needed. After all, it never existed in the first place. It is you who wants to impose it, and therefore it is you who needs to justify it. you're the one who claimed the Ordinance was working and repeal would be bad for the salmon. Not me. So it is you that should show us the data. As I said before, I think the Ordinance has some merit on a few popular systems, but not approx 800, most of which are remote and undevelopable.

    No need to insult my intelligence Nerka (you should know better). If your objective is to save a salmon in anadromous waters, then stop catching them in anadromous waters. See, not everyone agrees that giving up private property to the government is a better answer. There may very well be some trade-offs to habitat, whether the preservationists like it or not. In fact I'd like to see private land owners steward their habitat, through education, youth work groups, and tax incentives - a win-win...something KPB is certainly capable of doing.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akheloce View Post
    http://www2.borough.kenai.ak.us/Asse...20Appendix.pdf

    Little help for ya... Line 321

    Which of my names are you?
    Line 321 has been reviewed by the KPB and the State for records documenting salmon in that system. There was a process that took months to complete. Your statement that there is no salmon in that system was not proven by the data in the files, reviewed by two agencies, and accepted. However, there is a process to challenge each line of the ordinance if it is wrong.

    I took exception to your saying the anadromous listing by the State is in the ordinance which it is not. It was in a first draft but because of questions of documentation the KPB reviewed every file and made their own listing based on testimony and records. So I am not either of your names and you should understand the history and process before making claims. Calling people disingenuous or ignorant flies in the face of the record on the listings. You should do some homework before making those claims.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cod View Post
    Glad u bit, Nerka. I knew someone like you would jump to those conclusions with zero proof or knowledge.
    Yes, MY land! Bought and paid for by KPB and other govt rules that you seem so quick to praise and endorse when they fit your (socialist govt) ideologies. Who's land do YOU think it is? You don't believe that the general public owns the land to which I hold deed to, do you? Why would you feign astonishment that I call MY property, "MY property? It's just a fact, whether you like it or not.
    You make statements claiming I said that 'I can do anything I want with my land (and will) and to hell with everyone else.' Fact is, I didn't say that. You just like to portray property owners along a river as irresponsible landowners. Shame shame shame!
    The 'arrogance' you speak of is the arrogance you portray every time you claim you and/or the govt know what is best for everyone else. If you so like civil societies that seize control over property rights, why not take your arse to some commie country?
    Your portrayal of landowners actions,words, and deeds are pure BS! And I hope these gentle readers can see the clear difference between how YOU portray things and what reality actually is.
    Cod, talk about jumping to conclusions. Commie country and socialist agenda and the rest. Really? So if a city zones a piece of property it is wrong and part of a socialist communist plot. I hope the readers of this forum read your comments. They make no sense. One reason zoning happens is that a number of individuals are not responsible for their actions. Zoning comes about when the other private property owners want to protect their investments. So cities set up commercial vs residential area, different types of businesses in various commercial zones, width of driveways in Soldotna, the height of buildings so views are not obstructed, and the list goes on. All of these impact private property and as I said are usually the outcome of individuals who are impacted by the irresponsible actions of other individuals. So for the salmon streams in the KPB a minimal 50 foot buffer is required to protect the resources owned by the citizens of the United States.

    Relative to how things really are just drive down K-Beach road and take a hard look at how responsible individual property owners are. We have junk yards, clear cutting right up to the road, storage yards, auto repair shops, a landing strip, heavy equipment, and all are degrading the value of the adjacent landowners. Residential homes that were purchased when none of this was in place are devalued by the action of others in the absense of planning.

    So cod I will not take my arse to some other place but will stay here as I have for 40 years and continue to cry foul on those who want to make this area a pig pen. If you fit the bill then so be it. If not you should be supporting planning in the KPB.

    Fun, there is a philosophical difference in our approach. You agree that buffers are needed on the Kenai and Kasilof but not on the Anchor or other streams until they are stressed to the point action is needed. I tend to felt that taking action now is more appropriate because as development takes place it is harder and harder to get regulations in place. The Kenai is a perfect example. Lots of damage to the river banks before action was taken. You appear to be willing to allow that damage before reacting. I believe that is a failed approach in most salmon producing areas of the world.

    Fun, the 50 foot is not going into the government hands or out of ownership by the property owner. It just has restrictions on development. That is also a core concept of civilized societies. Why did you go off on government taking land. This is not a taking by any measure of law.

    Relative to data on showing the value of riparian areas for salmon production the scientific literature is very extensive. Reference after reference was provided to the KPB and citizens in the hearing process. You just have to google riparian buffers to see the value of these area. So to claim it has not been proven is just factually incorrect. In addition, where riparian areas have been degraded salmon production has decreased - the problem is that when it gets to this point it costs lots of dollars to restore habitat. I am going to try and send you a talk by a former Commissioner of Washington State Fish and Game that speaks to this point.

  19. #19

    Default

    Indisputably, naturally vegetated shorelines are best for wild salmon production. Legally/socially a dedicated buffer is analogous to ROWs and easements and as such is no big innovation. Bottom line: Wild salmon production requires adequate habitat and that habitat must be retained.

  20. #20
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    I will say though I am a borough property owner I do not own property on an anadramous stream.But I am against this ordinance.
    I feel it does need repealed.
    While they claim you may still mow your lawn and put out a dock etc. etc. The reality is they only allow those now and some landowners have been told those activities are not legal on their property but the Borough would let it slide for now. This was on Daniels lake I believe.
    So while you say these are allowed activities that isn't entirely true. many of these land uses are allowed only by permit. Permits they do not have to give.
    I feel they will allow these activities for a few years then revoke these property owners rights. I mean how can we trust the government not to do so?
    They said gold panning and other activities would not be effected but I fail to see how that is true. How does one pan for gold without disturbing the habitat? We can easily do it with out destroying the habitat.
    I see land owners and gold claim owners becoming criminals in a few years just for maintaining their property or using their gold claim in a safe environmentally friendly manner.
    Say a tree falls in my friends yard on one of these streamside properties. "Oh you need a permit to cut that tree that is leaning on your garage" "Give us a few months to think about it"
    I don't trust the government not to end up this way.
    So to ordinance 2011-12 no thanks please repeal it!
    "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"

Page 1 of 11 123 ... 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
  •