Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: One step closer to the 2016 BALLOT....

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default One step closer to the 2016 BALLOT....

    "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

  2. #2

    Default One step closer to the 2016 BALLOT....

    One step further from responsible resource management.

    Great picture in the article. Couldn't help notice the Atec boat, built by a local business. Likely the motor, nets, and rigging all came from local businesses as well, and all the fish caught likely went through several local business, all of which made profits and paid bills and wages from the activity.

    Despite nets being in the water, sockeye fishing is still superb, sockeye goals met or exceeded, and ADFG is wringing their hands because they are only projecting enumerating around the MIDPOINT of a very defensible King goal with a counter which seems to be counting a bit light compared to our weirs.

    Ya, we'd better ban setnets. You know, for conservation purposes...

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    One step further from responsible resource management.

    Great picture in the article. Couldn't help notice the Atec boat, built by a local business. Likely the motor, nets, and rigging all came from local businesses as well, and all the fish caught likely went through several local business, all of which made profits and paid bills and wages from the activity.

    Despite nets being in the water, sockeye fishing is still superb, sockeye goals met or exceeded, and ADFG is wringing their hands because they are only projecting enumerating around the MIDPOINT of a very defensible King goal with a counter which seems to be counting a bit light compared to our weirs.

    Ya, we'd better ban setnets. You know, for conservation purposes...
    Tic tock. Time is running out. Time to start talking with one another.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    Tic tock. Time is running out. Time to start talking with one another.
    Time is indeed running out. What's the next BS campaign going to be?
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  5. #5
    Member Trakn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    241

    Default

    This is all so wrong hopefully people wake up and stop the nonsense. I still remember the wolf snaring ballot box biology crap that tore threw the state. Some peoples money and greed has no bounds.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    Tic tock. Time is running out. Time to start talking with one another.
    About what?

    "Hey-ya guy how's it going? Say, nice gun you have to my head there. Oh, sure you can borrow my wallet and cell phone. No big deal."

    I'll talk to my friends and other reasonable people, but sometimes you just have to tell people to suck it.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default for everyone or ???

    Would the dip netters and the fishermen on the upper river agree that fishing was/is "superb" - or just the commercial guys?

    Just raising the question - because those guys and their friends are the ones that will be voting next year.


    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post

    ......Despite nets being in the water, sockeye fishing is still superb,....

    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

  8. #8
    Member Trakn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    241

    Default

    I would say we did as good as always as an average over the last 25 years.Red fishing at our camp was so so, King fishing was great that last week, and there slaying the reds on plugs at the Skilak outlet as we speak. So ya this year was better than the last few have been for sure.

    The commercial fishing in cook inlet has not been all that great from what I here. I think there's a lot of mis information out there. The run was not that big and we always meet escapement goals. Thank god we did'nt go over by some crazy number this year which should be good for years to come.

    Some people will always want more. Its a shelfish world we live in always wanting what our neighbor has. I hope everyone enjoys there summer it's been great.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Would the dip netters and the fishermen on the upper river agree that fishing was/is "superb" - or just the commercial guys?

    Just raising the question - because those guys and their friends are the ones that will be voting next year.
    Only the ones who actually went fishing...

    The 25 dipnetters camped across the street from my house did great, as all of the reports on this forum confirm. My buddies have been pulling (liberalized) sockeye limits after work on the reg - still, and some of them have yarded in double digit numbers of Kenai Kings this summer. A steady flow of sockeye and Kings into both rivers this year has provided many days of solid fishing.

    TV, simply look at the results of the statewide harvest survey. More fish are being harvested on the K rivers than ever.

    I hope everyone votes - just not on this initiative because it should never be allowed on the ballot per our state constitution.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    It might be time for the ESSN permit holders to consider how to achieve a buy-out. It would seem only fair that they be compensated if a majority of their opportunity was taken away. License fees might be a good place to start. Part of these funds have been earmarked for other expenditures and have worked to achieve laudatory results in the past. Don't know what formula could be used to compensate for different operations. The permit is just a piece of the operation, with the leased site making up most of the value in some cases. Might be hard to figure out a formula for that aspect. But using earnings per permit might be a useful tool in evaluating the value of any permit. If the supreme Court allows the matter to go to the voters, right after if not before, would be the time to look into how to fund a large scale buy-out. There could be some issues with the very nature of limited entry permits. I seem to remember that they have always been considered a license or permit and not a property right. I don't believe that they are considered an asset in a bankruptcy, or capable of being sold to satisfy a judgement. However i believe that they can be seized by the feds to pay off a tax lien and by a court to satisfy child support obligations. So, there is precedent to argue that under some circumstances they are a piece of property that might be condemned by an initiative. Kind of like eminent domain where the property owner is entitled to the fair market value of the property taken. That normally applies when a governmental agency takes property. In this case it would be the the Alaskan voter making the decision, which is a little different. Just some things to think about while there is still time. Might also be a good time to pick up a second drift permit, or put one in a family member's name. Perhaps not to fish but on spec. What do you think will happen to the price of those permits if the Court allows the vote to take place? How about if the voters ban the use of gill nets?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    I just don't believe for a second that this ballot initiative can pass. The guide industry is hoping that the environmentalists join their cause, but have y'all ever gone to Salmon Stock? Enviro-Hippies in this state have far more sympathy for folks earning a living with their net in their water than they do an industry centered on sport fishing by Outsiders.

    I for one don't normally get super involved politically, but if this ballot measure makes it to the election I've promised to actively campaign against it, and I'm friends with a bunch of folk who I think the Guides are hoping to fool.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    It might be time for the ESSN permit holders to consider how to achieve a buy-out. It would seem only fair that they be compensated if a majority of their opportunity was taken away. License fees might be a good place to start. Part of these funds have been earmarked for other expenditures and have worked to achieve laudatory results in the past. Don't know what formula could be used to compensate for different operations. The permit is just a piece of the operation, with the leased site making up most of the value in some cases. Might be hard to figure out a formula for that aspect. But using earnings per permit might be a useful tool in evaluating the value of any permit. If the supreme Court allows the matter to go to the voters, right after if not before, would be the time to look into how to fund a large scale buy-out. There could be some issues with the very nature of limited entry permits. I seem to remember that they have always been considered a license or permit and not a property right. I don't believe that they are considered an asset in a bankruptcy, or capable of being sold to satisfy a judgement. However i believe that they can be seized by the feds to pay off a tax lien and by a court to satisfy child support obligations. So, there is precedent to argue that under some circumstances they are a piece of property that might be condemned by an initiative. Kind of like eminent domain where the property owner is entitled to the fair market value of the property taken. That normally applies when a governmental agency takes property. In this case it would be the the Alaskan voter making the decision, which is a little different. Just some things to think about while there is still time. Might also be a good time to pick up a second drift permit, or put one in a family member's name. Perhaps not to fish but on spec. What do you think will happen to the price of those permits if the Court allows the vote to take place? How about if the voters ban the use of gill nets?
    Q - You're counting your chickens.......

    A similar ballot initiative was put on the ballot in Oregon twice in the past 10 years. Both times, it went down in flames. It was badly beaten.

    This was in Oregon. That would be liberal leaving, tree-hugging, waffle stomping, green loving, carbon hating, pot smoking Oregon. Twice.

    This time it's in Alaska. That would be conservative leaning, tree-cutting, steel-toe shoe stomping, working class, blue-collar, dyed in the red, chain-smoking Alaska. And you think it has a chance?

    I don't.......

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Q - You're counting your chickens.......

    A similar ballot initiative was put on the ballot in Oregon twice in the past 10 years. Both times, it went down in flames. It was badly beaten.

    This was in Oregon. That would be liberal leaving, tree-hugging, waffle stomping, green loving, carbon hating, pot smoking Oregon. Twice.

    This time it's in Alaska. That would be conservative leaning, tree-cutting, steel-toe shoe stomping, working class, blue-collar, dyed in the red, chain-smoking Alaska. And you think it has a chance?

    I don't.......
    Not counting chickens. Just suggesting something that might become worth considering. Does not hurt to be prepared for the unexpected. Have to agree with you on the demographics of Alaska voters. Except you left out "sport fishing, serious dip netting, subsistence harvesting Alaskans" Hiker D may be right.,who knows? But I have not heard but a few people outside of this forum or the commercial fishers say they opposed the ban. Big majority of anglers and dip netters are saying they favor it. The Dip Net has a very strong political base and will likely turn out in big numbers. And every dip netter is a resident and legally qualified to vote, unlike some of the night non ree permit holders and some crew members.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    Not counting chickens. Just suggesting something that might become worth considering. Does not hurt to be prepared for the unexpected. Have to agree with you on the demographics of Alaska voters. Except you left out "sport fishing, serious dip netting, subsistence harvesting Alaskans" Hiker D may be right.,who knows? But I have not heard but a few people outside of this forum or the commercial fishers say they opposed the ban. Big majority of anglers and dip netters are saying they favor it. The Dip Net has a very strong political base and will likely turn out in big numbers. And every dip netter is a resident and legally qualified to vote, unlike some of the night non ree permit holders and some crew members.
    It is a statewide vote so not sure if Anchorage/Valley dip netters will vote as a block. They probably will not given the nature of the ballot and kicking people out of their jobs.

    Questairtoo - buying out permits under existing regulations must be by other permit holders and following an economic reason to do so relative to the commercial fishery. So unless the legislature changes the criteria a buy out is questionable. Also, it does not fix a problem. The management of sockeye without the ESSN would be seriously compromised. The drift fleet cannot handle the volume of fish unless they are allowed on the beach which defeats the purpose of the ban. The ban says nothing about not allowing the drift fleet to fish on the beach. Only set nets are banned.

    Next, what problem is being solved here. Most years the late run chinook goals are met, the plans are working, and sockeye are not being harvested at MSY but close to it. So we give up millions of dollars in sockeye harvest to appease the greed of Bob Penney? I believe the citizens of the whole state will see this for what it is and reject it. However, I have at least a 50/50 reason to believe the court will rule it invalid.

    One final point. The State will oppose it, Native groups will oppose it, Environmental groups will oppose it, the KPB and cities will oppose it, and if I was the City of Kenai (which relies on commercial tax dollars to a good amount) I would say pass this and we close the beaches to dip netting. Lets see how hard ball this will get if it goes forward. It only takes a couple of council members to change and that could happen. ESSN fisherman would run and keep running until they controlled the council. Vengeance is not pretty.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    It is a statewide vote so not sure if Anchorage/Valley dip netters will vote as a block. They probably will not given the nature of the ballot and kicking people out of their jobs.

    Questairtoo - buying out permits under existing regulations must be by other permit holders and following an economic reason to do so relative to the commercial fishery. So unless the legislature changes the criteria a buy out is questionable. Also, it does not fix a problem. The management of sockeye without the ESSN would be seriously compromised. The drift fleet cannot handle the volume of fish unless they are allowed on the beach which defeats the purpose of the ban. The ban says nothing about not allowing the drift fleet to fish on the beach. Only set nets are banned.

    Next, what problem is being solved here. Most years the late run chinook goals are met, the plans are working, and sockeye are not being harvested at MSY but close to it. So we give up millions of dollars in sockeye harvest to appease the greed of Bob Penney? I believe the citizens of the whole state will see this for what it is and reject it. However, I have at least a 50/50 reason to believe the court will rule it invalid.

    One final point. The State will oppose it, Native groups will oppose it, Environmental groups will oppose it, the KPB and cities will oppose it, and if I was the City of Kenai (which relies on commercial tax dollars to a good amount) I would say pass this and we close the beaches to dip netting. Lets see how hard ball this will get if it goes forward. It only takes a couple of council members to change and that could happen. ESSN fisherman would run and keep running until they controlled the council. Vengeance is not pretty.
    There are an awful lot of me me, mine mine residents in this state. I would like to think that the majority of the residents in this state would see this initiative for what it really is, but I have a hard time believing they will. The me me, mine mines will see it the same as the ones who started it, Bob Penney, krsa, and company. They see it as a way to get more, eliminate the competition. The power of lies and manipulation of several members of our state's government, such as bill stoltze, is pretty strong. The public is, and will be fed a bunch of bogus, just like any other political campaign. Facts, data, science, common sense doesn't not matter to people like that. Hopefully people aren't manipulated into believing their lies. It would be a shame to put families out of work in the name of sport, thrills, and greed.
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    If the supreme Court allows the matter to go to the voters, right after if not before, would be the time to look into how to fund a large scale buy-out.
    Right. Just like a less-than-ethical resource development corporation would say "when the state decides that eminent domain is justifiable, that would be a great time for us to discuss buying your land." This goes back to the gun-to-the-head discussion, and my telling you where to go and how to get there because I'm stubborn and you don't scare me, and even if you did I would not admit it but rather tell you that you gun is small and your breath stinks...

    Quest, you are not talking about negotiation. You are talking about extortion. Interesting how you constantly blame the sarcasm of people like me for stifling constructive discussion, but expect that the threat of an initiative should foster discussion.

    There has been much discussion about gear reduction in UCI. I support the concept, and have some decent ideas. I will not discuss it with those who want nothing but the elimination of commercial fishing in Cook Inlet. There is no need to involve KRSA or AFCA in these discussions. They have nothing to offer but dishonesty and partisan politics. More and more people are realizing this.

    Anyone who is interested is free to PM me on the issue.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,037

    Default

    It looks like we will exceed sockeye escapement and meet King goals. It was one of the best King sport fishing seasons in years, with full-on bait. and everyone's larders are full of sockeye (50,000 hit the River Wednesday - we caught 12 off the bank). The ESSN even got to fish.

    Questairtoo, what exactly is your objective with this ESSN ban? What exactly do you want to negotiate?

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    It looks like we will exceed sockeye escapement and meet King goals. It was one of the best King sport fishing seasons in years, with full-on bait. and everyone's larders are full of sockeye (50,000 hit the River Wednesday - we caught 12 off the bank). The ESSN even got to fish.

    Questairtoo, what exactly is your objective with this ESSN ban? What exactly do you want to negotiate?
    my post Was not intended to suggest that ESSN folks negotiate. That opportunity is probably gone. I simply was suggesting the possibility of a fair buy out as an option to an out right ban with no compensation. i know that the concept is already being explored by the more level headed fishers. And why not? What's the harm in exploring all reasonable options? I would wait until the Court makes its decision because it could go against the ban and make it totally unnecessary. Smithtb suggests that is like holding a gun to his head. I say it is the only time to work on the matter. Enormous money will be spent on the campaign all of which could be avoided with a fair buy out. If the permit holders don't want to explore that option, that is their choice. Smithtb's comments about this season need to be tempered with the knowledge that it is only one year and the optimistism shown earlier for perhaps reaching the top of the Chinook goal was a bit premature. Now it looks like the projection is in the high teens which has resulted in fewer hours for ESSN fishers. The choice to open the river to bait was not good for the Chinook. Allowing all the hours after Aug 1, results in the big females being harvested. These are the kind of management decisions that will be the subject of criticism in the months leading up to any potential election.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    Smithtb's comments about this season need to be tempered with the knowledge that it is only one year and the optimistism shown earlier for perhaps reaching the top of the Chinook goal was a bit premature. Now it looks like the projection is in the high teens which has resulted in fewer hours for ESSN fishers. The choice to open the river to bait was not good for the Chinook. Allowing all the hours after Aug 1, results in the big females being harvested. These are the kind of management decisions that will be the subject of criticism in the months leading up to any potential election.
    We have made or exceeded all goals in the K rivers every year, and sport harvest has consistently been very good for everything but kings the last few years. South beach King harvest has picked back up meaning there are more coming, and Kenai King sonar counts are increasing again with the neap tide set. There are LOTS of fishing opportunities on the Peninsula, and those of us who live here enjoy having those opportunities. Too bad you are attempting to limit those opportunities due to your own greed.

    The "choice" to open the river to bait was made in concert with the management plan - a management plan that many feel is very flawed, and one that your organization KRSA was instrumental in getting passed. They own this one.

    You don't like the baited bonkfest that took place inriver? Give Ricky, Rueben, Kevin, and Ray a call and tell them that their management plan sucks.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    my post Was not intended to suggest that ESSN folks negotiate. That opportunity is probably gone. I simply was suggesting the possibility of a fair buy out as an option to an out right ban with no compensation. i know that the concept is already being explored by the more level headed fishers. And why not? What's the harm in exploring all reasonable options? I would wait until the Court makes its decision because it could go against the ban and make it totally unnecessary. Smithtb suggests that is like holding a gun to his head. I say it is the only time to work on the matter. Enormous money will be spent on the campaign all of which could be avoided with a fair buy out. If the permit holders don't want to explore that option, that is their choice. Smithtb's comments about this season need to be tempered with the knowledge that it is only one year and the optimistism shown earlier for perhaps reaching the top of the Chinook goal was a bit premature. Now it looks like the projection is in the high teens which has resulted in fewer hours for ESSN fishers. The choice to open the river to bait was not good for the Chinook. Allowing all the hours after Aug 1, results in the big females being harvested. These are the kind of management decisions that will be the subject of criticism in the months leading up to any potential election.
    There is no biological basis for the comment about fish harvested after August 1 relative to large females. The commercial fishery does not target these fish because of the gear selectivity.

    Also, level heads and a buy out - no Questairtoo - panic commercial fisherman who are at retirement age and seeing a life investment maybe go away that would pay for retirement. They are deparate. Level heads would reject the whole concept of a set net buy out and fight like heck against it. Even if it passes I am sure a federal court will stay it under Mag/Stevens until the Federal courts can rule. Harm to commercial fisherman is obvious there is no harm to the supporters of the ban.

    But you never answer the question - are you in favor of the ban and why? You keep saying or at least imply that it will solve some conservation issue and I have yet to hear any facts to support that position. Doing away with ESSN does not remove the drift fleet and fishing on the beach with the drift fleet. The Board of Fish could keep them off but then there is the issue of sockeye goals and the ability of the Commissioner to over-ride any management plan to meet escapement objectives. In summary, this whole ban is a punitive action against a group of people because Bob Penney is not a nice person and thinks winning is more important than being a compassionate human being. It is about a person who hates losing over three decades and cannot die to until he wins this one. I am hoping he loses his bet and goes to hatti.

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
  •