Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: Money talks...

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Money talks...

    Pretty much sums it up.... http://www.adn.com/article/20160105/...n-alaskas-fish

    As stated, the 2% of the fish the rest of us catch can be sold off to the special interests that don't even have to pay any meaningful taxes to the state.

    Seems like some things never change....
    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

  2. #2

    Default

    Medred is a tool. He blamed the railroad for his trespassing. Got himself mauled by a bear by being an idiot. He fails to point out that Bob Penney has spent more money than everyone else combined to ELIMINATE another user group. He fails to point out all the other fishing opportunity available to all Alaskans (salmon fishing in plenty of areas has a six fish daily limit, Kodiak subsistence is open to all Alaskans with virtually NO LIMIT), or the simple fact that he could, if he wanted, buy a setnet site, or a drift boat, or a seiner, jig boat, longliner, or dig clams, dive for cukes, or any other commercial fishery and become part of the "2%" who make up the largest private workforce in the state. Medred is a self-serving idiot. I have nothing else to say about his waste of ink on paper.​​

  3. #3

    Default

    I've disagreed with Medred's opinions in the past, but on this issue he is just plain wrong on the facts. The courts did not grant anyone ownership of the resource. Salmon are considered a state asset. Recognizing setnets as a distinct user group when compared to sport fishermen or hunters using specific tactics or gear simply means that gear type or methods/means is more of a defining factor in the commercial fisheries than in sport - due in large part to limited entry laws. I.E. - setnetters are a distinct user group, drifters are a distinct user group, sportfishermen are a distinct user group. Sportfishermen who user fly rods are not a distinct user group from those who use bait casters, and I doubt many sport fly fishermen have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in gear specific to fly fishing, and depend on it to pay rent. Guides maybe, and I bet if someone tried to eliminate them with a ballot initiative the court would establish much of the same precedent for them, although now it might seem that their lack of something similar to limited entry might be a weak point for them...

    No part of this decision says or means that anyone owns this resource. Simply that ballot initiatives cannot be used to circumvent the legislature and appropriate this resource by appealing to the self interests of users.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Although Nerka disagreed with my earlier statement on this issue, it's easy to see why this issue can be confusing. I do NOT believe the court is saying that the set netters are a distinct user group as a matter of constitutional law, as Mr. Medred seems to believe. Set netters are a distinct user group because either the BoF or the CFEC has made them a distinct group, due in part to the logistics and economics of operating a set net fishing operation. If the Board or the Commission made a different policy decision on the set netters, or any other group, that decision WOULD be consistent with existing law. The court was just reflecting policy decisions already made (by either the BoF or the Commission). They are not saying the set netters own the fish, nor are they carving the set netters allocation in stone. But the wording of the opinion makes it easy (and erroneous) to arrive at that conclusion.

  5. #5
    Member SkinnyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    20B
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    When did Medred start writing for the ADN again and why did he take the long hiatus?
    Passing up shots on mergansers since 1992.


  6. #6
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinnyD View Post
    When did Medred start writing for the ADN again and why did he take the long hiatus?
    Money talks, he paid then to publish his garbage probably

    Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,036

    Default

    Medred has completely lost it. He writes that garbage because there are still guys like tvfinak who believe it.


    Medred lies right off the bat by saying set netters have "ownership of Alaska's salmon", "guaranteed access", and "special treatment"...

    While the Alaska Constitution at Article VIII Section 15 authorizes limited entry permits, it does not give exclusive rights and privileges:

    "No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State. This section does not restrict the power of the State to limit entry into any fishery for purposes of resource conservation, to prevent economic distress among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood and to promote the efficient development of aquaculture in the State."

    Alaska Statute at AS 16.43.150(e) also makes it clear that a set net permit is only a privilege to use Alaska's resource, and it can be taken away at any time without payment.

    "An entry permit constitutes a use privilege that may be modified or revoked by the legislature without compensation."

    Additionally, Alaska has addressed concerns with the open fisheries and common use clauses through the Supreme Court, one such case imposing the optimum numbers provision.


    Medred continues his lies when he says the set netter's right to fish rises above the suffering Kenai King Salmon...

    Not only have set netters been excluded from fishing the suffering Early Run of Kenai Kings while sport fishermen continue, but Alaska Constitution at Article VIII Section 2 and 4, Alaska Statute at AS16.43.10, Alaska Administrative Code at 5AAC 21.359 and 5AAC 21.310, are all examples where set netting is not prioritized over protecting Kenai Kings...

    "a)...The department shall manage late-run Kenai River king salmon stocks primarily for sport and guided sport uses...
    (3) if the projected inriver return is less than 17,8000 king salmon, the department shall
    (C) close the commercial set gillnet fishery in the Upper Subdistrict of the Central District
    (4) if the inriver sport fishery is closed under (2) of this subsection, the commercial set gillnet fishery in the Upper Subdistrict shall be closed"

    "(a) It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the conservation and the sustained yield management of Alaska's fishery resources and the economic health and stability of commercial fishing in Alaska by regulating and controlling entry of participants and vessels into the commercial fisheries in the public interest and without unjust discrimination."

    Medred also lies when he claims bycatch of Kings has been marginalized...

    First, Kings caught in set nets are not bycatch - set netters are in fact allocated Kings, and although they don't target them, it is perfectly legal to catch them. His lie becomes more obvious due to the fact that set nets have been restricted from fishing the early run for several decades, and there has been a progressive mountain of restrictions and regulations since. Medred ought to try imagining the fishery without limited entry!

    Medred inserts another lie when he says the court ruling suggests that the personal use dip net fishery would close. Pure scare tactic that panders to the uniformed public. Shame.

    Medred really steps in it when he says because of commercial fishermen Alaskans only get 2% of the scraps. He must be a very poor fisherman...

    Over the last 15 years, the in-river sport fishery has accounted for about 50% of the Kenai Kings harvested - about the same as the set nets. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishC...nseasonSummary. The salt water King fishery is so good that it's not uncommon to catch up to 20 or 30 in a morning. Set nets continue to pass gross over-escapements of sockeye into the Kenai and Kasilof...so many that Alaskans can't harvest them all, even with dip nets, snagging techniques, and liberalized limits. Coho and Pinks are bountiful beyond any fisherman's dream.

    Medred lies when he blames the Supreme Court's ruling on money and politics. That's a cop-out. It was based on law. If Medred has proof our Court engaged in corruption, then I suggest he post it. Funny thing is, in it's decision the Court denied the very corruption of our fisheries by money and politics that Medred speaks of (KRSA, Bob Penney, etc.).

    Medred has no credibility. This one sunk him.

  8. #8

    Default Money talks...

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinnyD View Post
    When did Medred start writing for the ADN again and why did he take the long hiatus?
    I heard there were some differences in opinion over quality of content, resulting in a "you can't fire me because I quit" scenario. Not quoting anyone directly - those quotation marks were to indicate spoken text. For practical purposes, I think it was called a leave of absence. Who knows - this is an opinion piece, maybe he wrote it for free. Perhaps I shall respond in kind...

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Although Nerka disagreed with my earlier statement on this issue, it's easy to see why this issue can be confusing. I do NOT believe the court is saying that the set netters are a distinct user group as a matter of constitutional law, as Mr. Medred seems to believe. Set netters are a distinct user group because either the BoF or the CFEC has made them a distinct group, due in part to the logistics and economics of operating a set net fishing operation. If the Board or the Commission made a different policy decision on the set netters, or any other group, that decision WOULD be consistent with existing law. The court was just reflecting policy decisions already made (by either the BoF or the Commission). They are not saying the set netters own the fish, nor are they carving the set netters allocation in stone. But the wording of the opinion makes it easy (and erroneous) to arrive at that conclusion.
    cohoangler - niether CFEC or Board of Fish can just eliminate set nets. There are laws in place that require a procedure that is not arbitrary. The Board tried to eliminate a user group back in the 80's - subsistence fisherman on the eastside beaches. The courts ruled they could not eliminate this user group just because they wanted to do it. The PU fishery came out of those court cases.

    In the case of the CFEC they must do studies to reduce permits in UCI. They cannot eliminate all set net permits because the reduction is to make the remaining permits economic viable. All of this is set up in laws passed by the representatives of the people or the people directly. So both of these organizations have serious limits on their authority.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    cohoangler - niether CFEC or Board of Fish can just eliminate set nets. There are laws in place that require a procedure that is not arbitrary. The Board tried to eliminate a user group back in the 80's - subsistence fisherman on the eastside beaches. The courts ruled they could not eliminate this user group just because they wanted to do it. The PU fishery came out of those court cases.

    In the case of the CFEC they must do studies to reduce permits in UCI. They cannot eliminate all set net permits because the reduction is to make the remaining permits economic viable. All of this is set up in laws passed by the representatives of the people or the people directly. So both of these organizations have serious limits on their authority.
    Nerka: some might disagree with you statements. For example does not the BOF have the authority to change the classifications of PZu and Subsistence users? Provided of course they do so with proper regulations and after a good record has been established. This happened on the Copper River several years ago. And I disagree with your statement that the BOF cannot take set nets away. They have done just that in the Yukon and replaced them with dip nets, somewhat successfully, or so I have heard. And I seem to remember something similar on the river Bethel sits on. Does the court decision on the initiative impact those fisheries? Doesn't the board rely on state lawyers to tell them when they are about to break the law. And couldn't the board simply close the beaches to any gill nets for conservation reasons and then reopen the beaches using an alternative gear that does not present the conservation issues as did gill nets. That would not be a permanent elimination but could go on for season after season if needed which has the practical affect of elimination. Where am I going wrong here?

  11. #11

    Default

    I was under the impression that the BOF could simply allocate fish away from a gear type, but as Seinerman pointed out, they had no authority to limit entrants into the new fishery they created - that is CFEC'S job. Just because they did it doesn't make it legal. I thought that was the funniest part of Medred's piece - he should be the one upset that he was prevented from participating in the new Yukon dipnet fishery. I will have to read more on the court case you referenced Nerka, sounds interesting, and it sounds like it suggests the BOF can't just arbitrarily eliminate a usergroup. I wonder if that would extend to the legislature as well?

    Quest, it's called the Kuskokwim....

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I was under the impression that the BOF could simply allocate fish away from a gear type, but as Seinerman pointed out, they had no authority to limit entrants into the new fishery they created - that is CFEC'S job. Just because they did it doesn't make it legal. I thought that was the funniest part of Medred's piece - he should be the one upset that he was prevented from participating in the new Yukon dipnet fishery. I will have to read more on the court case you referenced Nerka, sounds interesting, and it sounds like it suggests the BOF can't just arbitrarily eliminate a usergroup. I wonder if that would extend to the legislature as well?

    Quest, it's called the Kuskokwim....
    Perfect cast! Smithtb: I will try my best to release you unharmed. Whoops!

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,036

    Default

    The BOF has no authority to eliminate a user group. At best the Commissioner can only petition CFEC to reduce or increase permit entries in order to optimize the fishery. However, the BOF does have authority to change a user group's gear type (what we saw on the Kuskokwim), as well as open and close fishing for conservation purposes (which set netters already experience). It's all in Alaska Statutes Title 16.

    As Nerka points out, the CFEC cannot eliminate limited entry fisheries. It can only increase or decrease the number of permits to optimize the fishery - and that requires extensive justification. Again, it's all in Title 16.

    Elimination of a limited entry fishery is left to legislation - in this case a re-write of the Alaska Constitution and related Statutes. That should raise red flags all over the place. Rightfully so...changing laws so one group can take allocation from another by eliminating them is destructive to Alaska.


    Quest, your beef is purely an allocation issue, not a conservation issue (the set net fishery is already shut down by Management Plan when conservation issues arise). Alaska's Constitution and it's subsequent Statutes and Codes are simply not intended to shift allocation from one user to another by exterminating them. You are trying to pound a square peg in a round hole there. The whole point of the Limited Entry commercial fishery was not just to sustain and conserve fish under the sustained yield principle, but to sustain and conserve the commercial fisheries themselves. Sustaining our commercial fisheries is good for Alaska, and it has been accomplished for almost half a century now.

    Taking allocation from other users by exterminating them does not work. The Supreme Court made that clear.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    The BOF has no authority to eliminate a user group. At best the Commissioner can only petition CFEC to reduce or increase permit entries in order to optimize the fishery. However, the BOF does have authority to change a user group's gear type (what we saw on the Kuskokwim), as well as open and close fishing for conservation purposes (which set netters already experience). It's all in Alaska Statutes Title 16.

    As Nerka points out, the CFEC cannot eliminate limited entry fisheries. It can only increase or decrease the number of permits to optimize the fishery - and that requires extensive justification. Again, it's all in Title 16.

    Elimination of a limited entry fishery is left to legislation - in this case a re-write of the Alaska Constitution and related Statutes. That should raise red flags all over the place. Rightfully so...changing laws so one group can take allocation from another by eliminating them is destructive to Alaska.


    Quest, your beef is purely an allocation issue, not a conservation issue (the set net fishery is already shut down by Management Plan when conservation issues arise). Alaska's Constitution and it's subsequent Statutes and Codes are simply not intended to shift allocation from one user to another by exterminating them. You are trying to pound a square peg in a round hole there. The whole point of the Limited Entry commercial fishery was not just to sustain and conserve fish under the sustained yield principle, but to sustain and conserve the commercial fisheries themselves. Sustaining our commercial fisheries is good for Alaska, and it has been accomplished for almost half a century now.

    Taking allocation from other users by exterminating them does not work. The Supreme Court made that clear.
    thank you for a cordial response. To be clear, are you saying that the BOF can take away a gear type, i.e: set gill nets from the ESSN fishers on grounds of conservation, and allow another gear type in order to provide opportunity? How is that different from what was attempted with the initiative? The voters would have decided whether it was allocative or based on conservation by their vote.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    thank you for a cordial response. To be clear, are you saying that the BOF can take away a gear type, i.e: set gill nets from the ESSN fishers on grounds of conservation, and allow another gear type in order to provide opportunity? How is that different from what was attempted with the initiative? The voters would have decided whether it was allocative or based on conservation by their vote.
    The BOF can. However, if it gets challenged an injunction would likely be issued and the regulation overturned. If it isn't challenged, that's a different story. Sometimes the BOF tries again anyway and gets reprimanded by the Supreme Court. Grunert II comes to mind....

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    thank you for a cordial response. To be clear, are you saying that the BOF can take away a gear type, i.e: set gill nets from the ESSN fishers on grounds of conservation, and allow another gear type in order to provide opportunity? How is that different from what was attempted with the initiative? The voters would have decided whether it was allocative or based on conservation by their vote.
    The difference is that the voters were going to be able to vote on an appropriation, not conservation.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    421

    Default

    An editorial in the AK Journal of Commerce http://www.alaskajournal.com/2016-01...nst-setnetters

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Questairtoo View Post
    Perfect cast! Smithtb: I will try my best to release you unharmed. Whoops!
    Quest, I'm as confused by these laws as you apparently are, but am genuinely trying to understand them. My post was a question as much as a statement, and yet another attempt to engage in constructive conversation. I'm not sure why you feel you've caught or hooked me. Maybe it was just a bad joke. I guess you and I share differing senses of humor. Whatever. Carry on.

    I'm in Anchorage today - want to grab lunch?

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tee Jay View Post
    An editorial in the AK Journal of Commerce http://www.alaskajournal.com/2016-01...nst-setnetters
    *wild applause* and the fans go wild!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    384

    Default

    [QUOTE=smithtb;1519101]Quest, I'm as confused by these laws as you apparently are, but am genuinely trying to understand them. My post was a question as much as a statement, and yet another attempt to engage in constructive conversation. I'm not sure why you feel you've caught or hooked me. Maybe it was just a bad joke. I guess you and I share differing senses of humor. Whatever. Carry on.

    I'm in Anchorage today - want to grab lunch?[/QUOTE
    Ah shucks. I am scheduled to get my nails done followed by my monthly ear hair cut and cleaning. Maybe next time.

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
  •