Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: KRSA/AFCA Pushing Setnet Permit Buyback

  1. #1

    Default KRSA/AFCA Pushing Setnet Permit Buyback

    Surprise, surprise.

    A small group of UCI setnetters are pushing full steam ahead for a buyout/buyback. These are some of the same people who dealt with KRSA on the 29 mesh deal at the last BOF, only to get bent over the barrel at the 11th hour. They got screwed so hard even Kevin Delaney felt bad for them. Apparently they do not learn because they formed a nonprofit (like we need another one of those) to examine the issue, and are actively engaged in negotiations with politicians and ..... KRSA and AFCA who is apparently claiming they can bring money to the table. Supposedly KRSA/AFCA claims they can raise a significant amount of money from philanthropist donors like Patagonia, and corporate sponsors like Chevron. Someone should tell these donors that while this type of buyback might benefit some individuals, there is no justifiable conservation value to it. This is not some mine or dam or unmanaged commercial fishery at the remote tip of South America. This is a closely managed and historically very sustainable salmon fishery which helps feed the world, while providing more sport and personal use opportunity than our rivers can handle.

    I support the idea of gear reduction in UCI simply because I think less nets could catch just as many fish. I do not support KRSA/AFCA having any part in it - ESPECIALLY with this ridiculous ballot initiative still on the table. I'd rather have my permit taken from me than make a deal with a gun to my head. I also do not support these few setnetters speaking for the whole industry - I fear they are only in it for themselves.

    Anyways, I've been holding fire on this issue, but it sounds like the talks are continuing and it's time for cooler heads to get involved. So now everyone knows. Call Ricky and get the scoop. Sounds like he and one of his board members who also happens to be the the AFCA treasurer are right in middle of it.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,033

    Default

    This is one of Bob Penney's tactics...to create divisiveness among the set netters themselves. It is sad, but predictable.

    What I find odd is why these small handful of panicked set netters don't just sell and get out. They can do that now, to anyone, without all the shenanigans. Heck, Bob himself could just buy them. When this ridiculous ban BS blows over, those permits would be worth much more to whomever bought them. I also want to point out that unless all the set nets are bought out, those left remaining will just get to fish more, and catch more fish. A same-same scenario.

    These limited set net permits were issued under a State statute and program. I'm not sure any approved buyout could be sponsored by non-profit organizations like KRSA/AFCA or large corporations. Wouldn't any compensation have to come from the State?

    If only folks put as much effort into reducing and limiting Kenai River commercial sport fishing guides. But of course, then we could buyout their permits.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    This is one of Bob Penney's tactics...to create divisiveness among the set netters themselves. It is sad, but predictable.

    What I find odd is why these small handful of panicked set netters don't just sell and get out. They can do that now, to anyone, without all the shenanigans. Heck, Bob himself could just buy them. When this ridiculous ban BS blows over, those permits would be worth much more to whomever bought them. I also want to point out that unless all the set nets are bought out, those left remaining will just get to fish more, and catch more fish. A same-same scenario.

    These limited set net permits were issued under a State statute and program. I'm not sure any approved buyout could be sponsored by non-profit organizations like KRSA/AFCA or large corporations. Wouldn't any compensation have to come from the State?

    If only folks put as much effort into reducing and limiting Kenai River commercial sport fishing guides. But of course, then we could buyout their permits.
    Divide and conquer. Yes, classic tactic.

    To be blunt - they don't sell out because no one will pay what they think their businesses are worth. Their benchmark is the relatively short period of time in the mid-eighties when fishing was unbelievable - in their mind this is what their businesses are worth. Since they do not harvest at that rate any longer, they will not be happy unless compensated with large amounts of money. The KRSA crew are the only ones willing to entertain the delusion, since they are never bound by their word...

    Yes, Bob could simply buy down permits. They are very affordable right now. Someone should ask him why he has not done that. Permits only are listing at $15K. He just paid a contractor $100,000 to get signature for his silly initiative, and has sunk millions into this fight.

    And yes, there are all sorts of legal hurdles to a buyout like this. But the KRSA/AFCA leadership obviously thinks that the "rule of law" Quest referred to does not apply to them.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Yes, Bob could simply buy down permits. They are very affordable right now. Someone should ask him why he has not done that. Permits only are listing at $15K. He just paid a contractor $100,000 to get signature for his silly initiative, and has sunk millions into this fight.
    Because there is a bigger agenda. It started with the local and non-guided sporties getting steamrolled by the guides. Now the set netters. The commercial drifters will be next. The syndicate's goal is to covet every last fish for themselves. Look what that did to our Early Run.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default

    Ken Coleman who is part of the sell out discussion is selling alright - selling out the whole set net fishery and commercial fisheries of UCI. He should be run out of town for this. It is about me me me. Ricky is playing him like a fish. First start the process, then if the set net ban goes forth, Ricky can say they are working on a buyout with some set netters but the other set netters will not cooperate so the ban must pass. Then when the ban passes (which they are counting on) no need to buy out. It is a tactic and Coleman is a fool for buying into this ploy. He also stabbed the commercial fishing industry in the back when the March meetings took place on kings a year ago. So anyone who thinks this is going to solve anything is delusional.

    If you have escapement goals for sockeye then reducing fish power somewhere means it has to be made up somewhere else. Plain and simple math.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,033

    Default

    What am I missing? How do Coleman and KRSA/AFCA cut the State out of any buyback? Those are State issued permits with State statutes in effect. Wouldn't a buyout have to be between the State and all the set netters? Even if KRSA/AFCA and a handful of set netters could convince the majority of the Senate to pass legislation approving a buyout, wouldn't the Governor have veto power? I agree Nerka, the buyout is a distraction...an attempt to win over set netters and then slit their throats. The fact KRSA/AFCA is involved at all in any buyout goes to show how far their slimy, corrupt tentacles reach. It never seizes to amaze me how a handful of rich people in this cliquey syndicate can have so much influence of the people's fishery. So sad for our fisheries.

  7. #7

    Default

    There are CFEC and constitutional issues with a buyback. It is difficult and complicated - essentially it is not legal unless the remaining permit holders pay for it. I'll bet the thinking is that the lobbying power of KRSA combined with a whole bunch of money can supersede those pesky legal issues. That's how these boys roll... After all, they'll probably just try again to eliminate CFEC altogether.

    There is quite a bit of money left over from the Cook Inlet disaster relief fund. I heard the buyout people have their eyes on that funding also. What a shame. I've heard others pushing for this money to go into an independent review of our Kenai sonar project. I think that is much more appropriate and in the best long-term interest of our community, and ADFG for that matter.

  8. #8

    Default

    http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-...k-law-changes/

    Was looking into legal issues of a buyback, and found this article. In it:

    "Rep. Eldon Mulder, an Anchorage Republican, said he supported the bill because a buyback would be a "self-funded effort," and fishermen would not be looking to state coffers to pay for the program."

    Now KRSA, of which Mulder is Board Chair, is looking to use state/borough funds to facilitate a buyback....

  9. #9

    Default

    This gives a pretty good overview of the legal aspect of any permit buyback program. The way I read it, any involuntary buyback program must be deemed necessary by the CFEC or approved by a 2/3's majority of active permit holders in that fishery. Absent of those two, I don't see how this would work other than a large grant to the nonprofit, and a voluntary buyback program with that money.

    http://www.alaskajournal.com/October...mic-Report.pdf

    I know that KRSA would not put time and effort towards a voluntary buyback, and I'd bet they know they will not get 2/3's of setnetters to vote for a buyback they orchestrated. CFEC will likely not deem a buyback necessary in this fishery. So my money is on this being a disingenuous effort, intended to help KRSA look less shameful in the midst of this initiative. All so Ricky can tell Channel 2 "we are working with setnetters".

    Or, they will attempt to orchestrate some legislative action to swoop in and screw all of the setnetters... My, how cynical I've become...

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    "Rep. Eldon Mulder, an Anchorage Republican, said he supported the bill because a buyback would be a "self-funded effort," and fishermen would not be looking to state coffers to pay for the program."

    Now KRSA, of which Mulder is Board Chair, is looking to use state/borough funds to facilitate a buyback....
    Another amazing example of how deep the political corruption runs in KRSA. Add it to the list.

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
  •