Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 226

Thread: Urban Set Net ban iniative Pros and cons?

  1. #1
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    801

    Default Urban Set Net ban iniative Pros and cons?

    http://www.adn.com/article/20150610/...ers-signatures

    Being as I know there are many on here that like to freely voice their opinions I thought this would be a conversation starter. Not just should ballot initiatives be used for allocation? Is this allocation? Why not state wide? etc????

    Or it may be a non issue as it works its way through the courts.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Well, I for one appreciate that Bob Penney has clarified that he strongly supports commercial fishing. I figure that a man's word is his bond, so if Bob says so it must be true.

  3. #3
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Words & Wordsmithing

    "Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance." "Predatory" setnets. I gotta hand it to Bob & Crew, they have it down pat.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    "Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance." "Predatory" setnets. I gotta hand it to Bob & Crew, they have it down pat.
    They might be cunning linguists
    but their actions stink
    like so many rotting pinks
    at low tide.
    ...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

  5. #5

    Default

    http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-...ng-signatures/

    VERY interesting article. It shows a very clear KRSA-AFCA link. Thank you AJOC for keeping up on this stuff.

  6. #6
    Member akshootnscoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Nice quote, Joe... "They are more appropriate for rural subsistence fishing because there is less pressure on the resource"

    How about reducing the in-river pressure that has grown unchecked for decades? There were a few other doozies in there, but I don't feel like going through the effort at this point.


    Also a question for the group... Are any of the nets below the "rural/urban divide"?

  7. #7
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    The connection between KRSA and AFCA is obvious. Same players, but each organization serves a different purpose. The greed and corruption of the members of said organization knows no bounds
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  8. #8
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. If our AK Supreme Court allows this initiative to go forward, it will have far ranging implications in setting a precedent others can use on both the fish and game side. It's about a method and means. Ostensibly not allocative in nature. "Walls of Death." "Indiscriminate Killers." Yet somehow when we are closing even subsistence fishing because of poor returns and real conservation concerns, these indiscriminate killers are okay. "Less pressure" and all that. Sure.

    Frankly, I'm getting old and I'm just tired of Alaska allowing this bs to continue to happen. I'm hugely disappointed in our state. In our voters. In the Bob Penney's and those who have shown in their words and deeds that the bottom line for them is the almighty dollar.

    It just seems so obvious to anyone involved ... yet it continues. I just hope the Supreme Court sees through it.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default both sides..

    The commercial fishermen and processors do a pretty good spin job also!

    How many Alaskans are aware of the primarily aliens working the slime lines,the massive tonnage of by catch, and the very small amount commercial fishing contributes to the state coffers in taxes.

    Yet we constantly hear about the large numbers of jobs commercial fishing / processing creates, the "small" percentage of by-catch, and the huge economic values of the catch.

    Perhaps Bob and crew are just trying to level the propaganda field?


    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    "Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance." "Predatory" setnets. I gotta hand it to Bob & Crew, they have it down pat.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  10. #10
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    If this were to pass(I hope not) would this also affect the PU setnet fisheries? There is one in Homer for Silver Salmon and one on the Kasilof for Red Salmon. Or is this worded to just ban "Commercial" setnets?
    Or what about the Kenaitze Educational net near the Kenai river mouth or the Ninilchik tribes inriver subsistence net?
    Since Ninilchik is considered rural and has a subsistence prefference does that mean the commercial setnets can be used there as it is not considered Urban by the feds?
    These might be other user groups who need to help fight this one. If this doesn't effect them this time around maybe they are next in the line of fire?
    "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"

  11. #11

    Default

    Just commercial setnets in UCI. But it's not local or special legislation...

    From the AJOC:

    “AFCA was formed with conservation in mind,” Penney said. “In fact, it’s part of our middle name.”

    Oh, that explains it. Carry on then.

    and:

    “It’s time for setnets in urban Alaska to go away. Setnets are decimating other fish species in Alaska. They are more appropriate for rural subsistence fishing because there is less pressure on the resource.”

    Buuut, it's not about allocation.

  12. #12
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    I think Bushrat has it right!
    The biggest issue here is allowing ballot box biology.
    The state hires trained and experienced biologists as well as appointing a board of fish and a Board of game to make these kinds of decisions.
    The vast majority of the general public and obviously those signing this petition are not educated enough to make these kinds of decisions.
    They are more likely to vote based on emotions and not on science or facts.
    Get a few people who value photography of wildlife over hunting of wildlife and here we go again.
    Get a group who want to close down dipnetting or some other form of fishing and here we go again.
    Let's leave these decisions to the trained professionals that were hired and have the education and experience to make the right decisions the majority of the time. Otherwise we have to ask ourselves why do we have these people in the first place?
    "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"

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    I agree that placing this issue on the ballot box is not how resource management decisions should be made. I don't recommend sending this to the ballot box. However, there is a counter-argument.

    That is, who decides which issues should go to the voters and which decisions should be made only by the government (local, State, Federal)?

    My sense is that the voters would say that the vast majority of issues can be decided by the ballot box, even though they (taxpayers/voters) have put government agencies in the position to make those decisions. Alot of folks who believe in democracy also believe the government works for them, not the other way around. The government is the servant, not the master. As such, if the people (voters/taxpayers) want to make decisions for themselves at the ballot box, the government is in no position to tell them otherwise.

    In this instance, the voters may have the opportunity to make a decision that is usually made by government agencies (ADF&G/BoF). Should the government tell the people they have no business making those decisions? If so, the servant is now the master. And the former master gets to mop the floor.....

    My sense is that voters don't like being told they can't make decisions, but the government can.

  14. #14
    Member Grayling Slayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    728

    Default

    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
    "I'd rather be fishing!"

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    And freedom is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote......

    But on a lighter note...... From one of my favorite authors:


  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    I agree that placing this issue on the ballot box is not how resource management decisions should be made. I don't recommend sending this to the ballot box. However, there is a counter-argument.

    That is, who decides which issues should go to the voters and which decisions should be made only by the government (local, State, Federal)?

    My sense is that the voters would say that the vast majority of issues can be decided by the ballot box, even though they (taxpayers/voters) have put government agencies in the position to make those decisions. Alot of folks who believe in democracy also believe the government works for them, not the other way around. The government is the servant, not the master. As such, if the people (voters/taxpayers) want to make decisions for themselves at the ballot box, the government is in no position to tell them otherwise.

    In this instance, the voters may have the opportunity to make a decision that is usually made by government agencies (ADF&G/BoF). Should the government tell the people they have no business making those decisions? If so, the servant is now the master. And the former master gets to mop the floor.....

    My sense is that voters don't like being told they can't make decisions, but the government can.
    Must disagree on this one. They like to complain but when it comes to voting on issues - turn out figures show that the average voter stays away. We are lucky to get 20 percent out for a local election. So people really do not want to make the decisions they just want to moan and groan when someone else makes the hard call. Call me old and out of touch but that is how I have seen it over my life span.

    If you looked at people signing this petition to get it on the ballot they had no idea what they were signing. i bet 95% of those who signed never asked a question or thought about it. They just signed on the way into the post office and then will not show up to vote. A minority group who gets out the vote will decide the issue if it gets on the ballot.

  17. #17
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    If you looked at people signing this petition to get it on the ballot they had no idea what they were signing. i bet 95% of those who signed never asked a question or thought about it. They just signed on the way into the post office and then will not show up to vote. A minority group who gets out the vote will decide the issue if it gets on the ballot.
    Yup.......
    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    They were inside the arctic entry of the Fairbanks 99708 Post Office today (Saturday, 7 February). The spiel was "...please, save the fishes; sign our petition to ban the use of gill nets in our area." I asked "our area...?" and he said "well, I'm from Anchorage..." People were mindlessly signing in droves, without reading it, without asking questions.
    ...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

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

    Default

    A couple responses.

    Presumably the people signing the petition were NOT deciding whether to ban setnets in urban areas of the State. They were signing the petition that would seek to ask the voters whether they wanted that outcome. Refusing to sign only means they don't believe voters have a right to make those decisions. But signing the petition says NOTHING about whether they agree or disagree with the intent of the petition. It only means that, as citizens of the State, they have the right to make their own decisions, via the ballot box. It would be inaccurate to conclude that anyone signing the petition thinks setnets should be banned from urban areas. It could be just as likely that they believe setnets are just fine, they should be allowed where they are now, and that they, as citizens of the State, have the right to make that decision.

    I agree that voter turnout in many areas (including SW Washington) can be miserable. But that does not mean voters agree that government agencies have rights to make decisions that voters do not have, irrespective of the number of folks who actually show up to vote. I believe most voters think just the opposite. That is, they have the right to make all the decisions, but they entrust the government agencies to make decisions on their behalf, especially when those decisions are highly technical. But if the voters want to make those decisions for themselves, (even if it's only 20% of them), they have the right to wrest those decisions away from the government agencies. Again, the government is the servant, not the master.

    But my experience is that the many independent-minded folks in the Great Land don't need that lecture from me......

  19. #19
    Member Grayling Slayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    728

    Default

    How many rights do you think could be lost to a 51% majority.

    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
    "I'd rather be fishing!"

  20. #20
    Member Mkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    anchorage
    Posts
    748

    Default

    I hate the citizen's ballot initiative method, regardless if I agree with the initiative. It lets off our elected official from doing their job. Half the time the way the initiative is worded you can't tell if you are supporting or disagreeing with the initiative. The people collecting the signatures, other than a handfull of zealots, don't even know what they are asking people to sign cause they get paid per signee. I trust the crooks we send to Juneau alot more than the citizens I see at Carrs.
    My child was inmate of the month at Mat-Su pre-trial Correctional facility.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... 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
  •