Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Are You Willing to Pay to Dipnet?

  1. #1
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default Are You Willing to Pay to Dipnet?

    UCIDA's proposal to pair an increase in fishing license cost with a $30 fee for a Personal Use Permit:

    http://www.ucida.org/wp-content/uplo...ysis-final.pdf

    "In 1996, the UCI sport and personal use sockeye harvest was 368,367. In 2014, that
    number had grown to 904,064 sockeye salmon. That number is greater than the
    harvest of the commercial set netters and was 60% of the commercial drift gillnet
    harvest.
    Most of this increase in the sport and personal use salmon harvest has been taken
    directly out of the commercial harvest with no financial compensation to the CFEC
    permitted users, aquaculture associations or State and municipal governments that
    receive shared tax revenues. The commercial industry loses the economic benefit of
    this salmon harvest and the State loses revenue. These losses have never been
    accounted or considered."


    What say ye????
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  2. #2
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    I think at least a $5 or $10 fee to cover administrative costs is needed, and I testified as such before my legislators on Tuesday. And yes, I would pay $30. With our fees being matched 3-1 with the P-R funds we've already paid in taxes on ammo and tackle, it's more than worth the cost.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Soldonta, Alaska
    Posts
    315

    Default

    I think they should charge $50 for Personal Use Permit. Leave the fishing license cost alone.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Valdez
    Posts
    5

    Default

    i agree with chinookee. a small fee for dipnet permit is ok. leave license alone

  5. #5
    Member Mkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    anchorage
    Posts
    747

    Default

    Yep. No problem.
    My child was inmate of the month at Mat-Su pre-trial Correctional facility.

  6. #6
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    .....Ditto
    ...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

  7. #7
    Member Akheloce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    At the very least, I agree with a municipal fee to pay for enforcement (garbage etc) and cleanup.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  8. #8

    Default

    I think there should be a toll booth at Ingram Creek.........five dollars per vehicle plus two dollars per occupant.........

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    UCIDA's proposal to pair an increase in fishing license cost with a $30 fee for a Personal Use Permit:

    http://www.ucida.org/wp-content/uplo...ysis-final.pdf




    What say ye????
    I disagree with the premise posited by UCIDA. That the state owes them a certain allocation of resources because they bought a permit to harvest a board determined percentage of catch. This is not shrined in state statute nor constitution. Every Alaskans access to the resource, ergo co ownership of the state's resources, is written in our state's constitution. In 1995 the population was 604,000. Today it is 737,625. The resident population has grown tremendously, and their demand on the resource has grown as well. Even with increased personal use consumption, ex vessel value of UCIDA member catches are still very nice historically.

    That said, administrative costs can be borne by the user. A small license fee for the dipnet permit that is commensurate with administrative costs is reasonable. I would expect $5-10 would more than cover it.

    Like I said: users should pay for the costs of administering their programs. I am so glad UCIDA is promoting this. I am sure their membership will gladly pay an additional $50 million in taxes next year- because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? I will happily pay my share of dip net administrative costs, since the commercial fishing industry is so concerned about tax equity and sharing the tax burden equally.

  10. #10
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I disagree with the premise posited by UCIDA. That the state owes them a certain allocation of resources because they bought a permit to harvest a board determined percentage of catch. This is not shrined in state statute nor constitution. Every Alaskans access to the resource, ergo co ownership of the state's resources, is written in our state's constitution. In 1995 the population was 604,000. Today it is 737,625. The resident population has grown tremendously, and their demand on the resource has grown as well. Even with increased personal use consumption, ex vessel value of UCIDA member catches are still very nice historically.

    That said, administrative costs can be borne by the user. A small license fee for the dipnet permit that is commensurate with administrative costs is reasonable. I would expect $5-10 would more than cover it.

    Like I said: users should pay for the costs of administering their programs. I am so glad UCIDA is promoting this. I am sure their membership will gladly pay an additional $50 million in taxes next year- because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? I will happily pay my share of dip net administrative costs, since the commercial fishing industry is so concerned about tax equity and sharing the tax burden equally.
    Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner!! Spot on, man, good job. Yes let's pay a fee...but only to enhance our own fishery!!! Not so the commies can harvest an extra $20 million dollars worth of "surplus" salmon...amongst 500 permit holders!!!! This is why PU fishers in UCI need representation....
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  11. #11

    Default

    I feel user groups should at least pay a large chunk of expenses incurred from their activity & regulation.

    Why are we pointing fingers about allocation even when writing a report on how to increase State Revenue through more fees/taxes. This is more a question of should user groups pay for the government management of their activities or Should everyone chip in through general taxes (income/sales/business).
    This reminds me of a report on the costs & revenues of the refuge cabins and if the program was to collect in cabin fees all that was spent on it, that it seemed the prices would be on par with a hotel room.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    211

    Default

    A small fee would certainly help ease the financial burden created by a growing fishery. Paying for a permit may also psychologically affect users and improve some of the loathsome issues that are often debated.
    I'd pay to play.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I disagree with the premise posited by UCIDA. That the state owes them a certain allocation of resources because they bought a permit to harvest a board determined percentage of catch. This is not shrined in state statute nor constitution.
    I agree with your above statement, but the rest of the UCIDA quote is pretty accurate. The Kenai/Kasilof sockeye fisheries were fully allocated when the PU fishery was created, and the sport/PU harvest has increased drastically in recent years. While you are right that the state doesn't "owe" UCIDA a certain percentage of the fish, the state is required to protect existing fisheries from new and expanding fisheries, and is charged with protecting the best interests of Alaskans and Alaskan fishing communities. Undoubtedly this means a diversity of user groups and economies. We should support balance. Doubling allocation and river traffic in a few short years in an already fully allocated fishery is not balance, IMO. Especially given the habitat concerns which have not been properly addressed - despite the management plans requiring it.

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Like I said: users should pay for the costs of administering their programs. I am so glad UCIDA is promoting this. I am sure their membership will gladly pay an additional $50 million in taxes next year- because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? I will happily pay my share of dip net administrative costs, since the commercial fishing industry is so concerned about tax equity and sharing the tax burden equally.
    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner!! Spot on, man, good job. Yes let's pay a fee...but only to enhance our own fishery!!! Not so the commies can harvest an extra $20 million dollars worth of "surplus" salmon...amongst 500 permit holders!!!! This is why PU fishers in UCI need representation....
    You are correct. Commercial fisheries should pay more taxes.

    Your own fishery? You should look into the budget numbers a little more. The abundant runs you are harvesting have long been managed and paid for by "commies". That's right - the incredibly successful Kenai and Kasilof Sockeye management and sonar has always been funded through ADFG commfish. Like many, many commfish programs around the state, they benefit all users, and other industries like tourism. We are ALL lucky that our commercial fisheries management has largely been efficient and successful over the years.

    Oh, and IF the "commies" harvest another $20 million dollars worth of 'surplus' salmon amongst 500 permit holders, most economists agree that it translates into somewhere around $120 million dollars into the local economies. It's generally accepted that there is a 6X turnover from dockside values - substantially more economic benefit than dipnetting provides our community.

    Go, dipnet, be happy. Just stop the hatin'. And pay $20-30 for the license, with the understanding that if you don't turn it back in with a harvest report, no dubbin' next year.

  14. #14
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I agree with your above statement, but the rest of the UCIDA quote is pretty accurate. The Kenai/Kasilof sockeye fisheries were fully allocated when the PU fishery was created, and the sport/PU harvest has increased drastically in recent years. While you are right that the state doesn't "owe" UCIDA a certain percentage of the fish, the state is required to protect existing fisheries from new and expanding fisheries, and is charged with protecting the best interests of Alaskans and Alaskan fishing communities. Undoubtedly this means a diversity of user groups and economies. We should support balance. Doubling allocation and river traffic in a few short years in an already fully allocated fishery is not balance, IMO. Especially given the habitat concerns which have not been properly addressed - despite the management plans requiring it.





    You are correct. Commercial fisheries should pay more taxes.

    Your own fishery? You should look into the budget numbers a little more. The abundant runs you are harvesting have long been managed and paid for by "commies". That's right - the incredibly successful Kenai and Kasilof Sockeye management and sonar has always been funded through ADFG commfish. Like many, many commfish programs around the state, they benefit all users, and other industries like tourism. We are ALL lucky that our commercial fisheries management has largely been efficient and successful over the years.

    Oh, and IF the "commies" harvest another $20 million dollars worth of 'surplus' salmon amongst 500 permit holders, most economists agree that it translates into somewhere around $120 million dollars into the local economies. It's generally accepted that there is a 6X turnover from dockside values - substantially more economic benefit than dipnetting provides our community.

    Go, dipnet, be happy. Just stop the hatin'. And pay $20-30 for the license, with the understanding that if you don't turn it back in with a harvest report, no dubbin' next year.
    I do understand how commfish have enhanced salmon fishing opportunities in CI, and I'm not hatin...not only do I have friends amongst the high mucky mucks of ucida, I have done a fair bit of work on their houses and vessels, so I understand the trickle down economics of commfish quite nicely. What I don't get is where the parity is in the report...charge sport/ PU an extra cool mil a year and they get nothing but the status quo? Dirty pool.
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Besides a few game tags that are free permits are usually more than just the cost of a normal license. I have heard rumors the reason there is not an additional fee for dip netting by permit is that it is a legal problem tangled with subsistence that was replaced by personal use. I don't know if that is true or coffe shop talk and the more likely outcome is to not even require a sport license to get a permit card. I think this is just wrong and there should be an extra cost to have a permit.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    27

    Default

    I would gladly pay for a PU permit. This is a complex subject though. I used to be a "commie" but not in CI.

    I was born and raised here (Anchorage) and I own property and consequently pay property taxes in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. What is my right to the resource compared to a non-resident CI set or drift permit holder? Just looking for opinions.

    -Ben

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
  •