Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 141

Thread: Sockeye stamp not for PU -- what the heck?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default Sockeye stamp not for PU -- what the heck?

    The sockeye stamp of 15 dollars is only for sport fishing but cost of pu fishery and damage is from pu fishery. How is this fair? It is not. Again Stoltz is running fish issues in Legislature. He excluded it. So Kasilof will have no money to deal with issues and upriver Kenai issues caused by pu will be paid for by sport fisherman. Not to late to act. Call your representatives ifbyou think this wrong.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The sockeye stamp of 15 dollars is only for sport fishing but cost of pu fishery and damage is from pu fishery. How is this fair? It is not. Again Stoltz is running fish issues in Legislature. He excluded it. So Kasilof will have no money to deal with issues and upriver Kenai issues caused by pu will be paid for by sport fisherman. Not to late to act. Call your representatives ifbyou think this wrong.
    How would it be applied? If you need to buy a sockeye permit when you buy your recreational fishing license, it would cover PU fisheries since PU fisheries also require a recreational license (as I understand it). But if they're separate, then you're correct. It is unfair.

    It also sets a difficult precedent if User Group A has to pay for the sins of User Group B. Regardless of what User Group you are, the shoe could be on the other foot someday.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Senator Stoltze just e-mailed me this reply (to the objection of the stamp excluding personal use dip netting)...

    "I agree This stamp fee/tax is promoted by the Comm fishing industry. I'm a no vote on the whole Bill. (HB 137)"


  5. #5

    Default

    Well, I'm afraid Sen. Stoltze is once again trying to blame the Comm. industry for something they had nothing to do with. He really needs to dump his hatred of the comm. industry because he is supposed to be impartial. It was actually the Kenai River Special Management Board (KRSMA) that promoted this idea, however, their proposal included the PU fishermen as well and was a fairer approach to raising money to help offset recent funding shortfalls in ADF&G and DNR.

    Now ADF&G has determined that the language of HB137 does not include the PU fishermen. As a sport fishermen I object to having to pay all the tab for both fisheries, especially since the recent funding needs fall heavily on the PU fishery. For instance, we have the new 3 million dollar Kasilof River project for road construction, parking, camping and dunes protection. There is no money for future site maintenance, toilets, fish waste removal or garbage pickup. That will all be an additional charge to the state once the project is completed. Then there is the additional ongoing costs for toilets, garbage pick up and maintenance at the S. Kasilof parking area and the Warren Ames Bridge parking area. Additionally, the river bank area just below the bridge have been badly damaged by dip netters over the years and are going to have to be mitigated with raised walkways and stairs at an estimated cost of 2.4 million. There is also additional costs now at the Pillars and Eagle Rock boat launches because of the increased PU impacts on launching and parking.

    All this adds up to a huge financial tab for the state to support a 3 week long PU fishery. I would hope that everyone sees the injustice in all this whereby, the sport fishermen are being asked to pony up all the financial burden to cover these huge costs generated by the PU fishery. Please contact your legislator and ask them to oppose this measure unless it incudes the PU fishermen as well.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Stoltze - and this guy is a lawmaker. God help us.

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

    Default please don't tax them..

    Please remember that all the commercial fishermen pay only a bit less into the AK general fund than all the cigarette smokers pay. You certainly won't want those poor commercial fishermen to pick up their share of the taxes would you?

    Instead, those of us trying to catch a few for our freezers should pick up the tab. Don't you understand?


    Quote Originally Posted by AKPacman View Post
    Well, I'm afraid Sen. Stoltze is once again trying to blame the Comm. industry for something they had nothing to do with. He really needs to dump his hatred of the comm. industry because he is supposed to be impartial. It was actually the Kenai River Special Management Board (KRSMA) that promoted this idea, however, their proposal included the PU fishermen as well and was a fairer approach to raising money to help offset recent funding shortfalls in ADF&G and DNR.

    Now ADF&G has determined that the language of HB137 does not include the PU fishermen. As a sport fishermen I object to having to pay all the tab for both fisheries, especially since the recent funding needs fall heavily on the PU fishery. For instance, we have the new 3 million dollar Kasilof River project for road construction, parking, camping and dunes protection. There is no money for future site maintenance, toilets, fish waste removal or garbage pickup. That will all be an additional charge to the state once the project is completed. Then there is the additional ongoing costs for toilets, garbage pick up and maintenance at the S. Kasilof parking area and the Warren Ames Bridge parking area. Additionally, the river bank area just below the bridge have been badly damaged by dip netters over the years and are going to have to be mitigated with raised walkways and stairs at an estimated cost of 2.4 million. There is also additional costs now at the Pillars and Eagle Rock boat launches because of the increased PU impacts on launching and parking.

    All this adds up to a huge financial tab for the state to support a 3 week long PU fishery. I would hope that everyone sees the injustice in all this whereby, the sport fishermen are being asked to pony up all the financial burden to cover these huge costs generated by the PU fishery. Please contact your legislator and ask them to oppose this measure unless it incudes the PU fishermen as well.
    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

    Default

    Tvfinak is clearly representative of the idiotic mentality that comprises Stoltze's constituent base. No sense in even responding to his jihadist posts.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    ...but it does give a small glimpse into the twilight zone.

  10. #10

    Default

    I'm still coming up to speed on exactly what this bill is/says/does. A couple things I got from reading it:

    King stamp fee increase also, however from the wording it sounds like the King stamp applies statewide? I always thought it was just Cook Inlet.

    $15 fee for Chitina PU permit.

    I could not find anywhere that spelled out were these funds were to be spent. I seem to remember having the same problem when researching how King stamp revenue has been spent. Would like to learn more about where the money for these stamps goes and how is has been spent.

    NO mention of fee for Kenai/Kasilof PU permit. I was told most are pushing for that, but the babbling Bills were against a fee for this fishery. As I've said before, this is their Robin Hood issue. So the below response is no surprise. Stoltzie isn't really one to let the truth get in his way. Probably why he gets along so well with Ricky and the boys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    Senator Stoltze just e-mailed me this reply (to the objection of the stamp excluding personal use dip netting)...
    "I agree This stamp fee/tax is promoted by the Comm fishing industry. I'm a no vote on the whole Bill. (HB 137)"
    That is complete B.S.

    One thing I can say for sure is that the sockeye stamp is the brainchild of the KRSA crew and Connors/Wellman from KRSMA. They have been lobbying for it for years. I've observed it at public meetings. Heck, Ricky was pushing for it while lobbying at the RDC breakfast like 3 years ago. In fact, when I applied to the KRSMA board several years ago, my opinion of the sockeye stamp was one of the questions asked in the interview. Apparently they didn't like my response - that how it's spent is a huge deal to me, as I don't particularly want more boardwalks and AK Park brochures with KRSA logos on them, thank you. Oh, I forgot - that's "habitat protection" and "education".

    The Kenai/Kasilof Sockeye stamp is (from what I read) the only part of this bill that applies fees regionally. The rest either applied statewide, or to a specific license or permit. So there is nothing to prevent future separate fees for the Ninilchik/Anchor, Susitna, West Side, etc, etc, etc.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Please remember that all the commercial fishermen pay only a bit less into the AK general fund than all the cigarette smokers pay.
    Whacko comparison - cigarettes aren't even a natural resource.

    Tobacco use costs Alaska an estimated $370 million in direct medial expenditures and an additional $231 million in lost productivity due to tobacco related deaths (2012). This sums to an astounding $601 million, yet it underestimates total costs to Alaska; lost productivity from tobacco-related illness and costs due to second-hand smoke exposure-related illness or death are not included.
    http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Chronic/Documents/Tobacco/PDF/2015_AKTobaccoFacts.pdf
    http://www.acscan.org/pdf/tobacco/reports/Tobacco-taxes-report-AK.pdf

    On the other hand, Alaska's commercial fisheries generated $6.8 billion in economic output and 2.2 billion in labor income within the State (2011). It generated $15.7 billion in economic output and $6.4 billion in labor income in the U.S.

    http://pressroom.alaskaseafood.org/w...act-Report.pdf

    Now that the troll has been caught...back to the topic: The sockeye salmon stamp.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default $ for $

    The $ for $ tax comparison is quite simple - the commercial fishing industry pays less in taxes than the cigarette tax raises - or in simple terms: for an industry with "$6.8 billion in economic output and 2.2 billion in labor income within the State" is pays almost nothing taxes! Does that clarify the matter significantly?

    And yet someone wants to tax the poor PU guy trying to get some salmon to feed his family for the winter! Sure sounds like some the commercial fishing industry would try - more fish and less taxes for them - what a deal!


    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    Whacko comparison - cigarettes aren't even a natural resource.

    Tobacco use costs Alaska an estimated $370 million in direct medial expenditures and an additional $231 million in lost productivity due to tobacco related deaths (2012). This sums to an astounding $601 million, yet it underestimates total costs to Alaska; lost productivity from tobacco-related illness and costs due to second-hand smoke exposure-related illness or death are not included.
    http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Chronic/Documents/Tobacco/PDF/2015_AKTobaccoFacts.pdf
    http://www.acscan.org/pdf/tobacco/reports/Tobacco-taxes-report-AK.pdf

    On the other hand, Alaska's commercial fisheries generated $6.8 billion in economic output and 2.2 billion in labor income within the State (2011). It generated $15.7 billion in economic output and $6.4 billion in labor income in the U.S.

    http://pressroom.alaskaseafood.org/w...act-Report.pdf

    Now that the troll has been caught...back to the topic: The sockeye salmon stamp.
    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

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Tvfinak mak are you off base. The concept did not come from comm fish but krsa along with dnr and adfg support. Stoltz is a liar and has no ethics. We saw that with ruffner nomination. You my friend live in a delusional reality

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The $ for $ tax comparison is quite simple - the commercial fishing industry pays less in taxes than the cigarette tax raises - or in simple terms: for an industry with "$6.8 billion in economic output and 2.2 billion in labor income within the State" is pays almost nothing taxes! Does that clarify the matter significantly?

    And yet someone wants to tax the poor PU guy trying to get some salmon to feed his family for the winter! Sure sounds like some the commercial fishing industry would try - more fish and less taxes for them - what a deal!
    That's clueless.

    The tax comparison is not the same because, even as astronomical as the tax is, the cigarette industry costs the State $600 million in things like Medicaid and so on. This gap cannot be made up by the cigarette industry's economic output.

    On the other hand, the commercial fishing industry produces $6.8 billion (with a B) in economic output. $2.2 billion (with a B) in labor income. It's small tax gap is easily made up for in beneficial economic output.

    So try to comprehend...tax does not make an economy. The ability to produce, compete in markets, provide jobs, and create other sectors does.


    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    And yet someone wants to tax the poor PU guy trying to get some salmon to feed his family for the winter! Sure sounds like some the commercial fishing industry would try - more fish and less taxes for them - what a deal!
    Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. As mentioned by others, the stamp tax originated from KRSA, KRSMA, ADFG, DRN, not the commercial fishing industry.

  15. #15
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,750
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  16. #16

    Default

    Gimarc is an online hack promoting an agenda. Read the comments. No need to waste another minute on his tripe.

  17. #17
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seinerman View Post
    Gimarc is an online hack promoting an agenda. Read the comments. No need to waste another minute on his tripe.
    Interesting...but one could say the same about Wesley Loy, could they not? Info is info...it's more about how it makes you think and what you do with it then who wrote it....geez now I sound like Donald trump lol

    More:

    http://www.adn.com/article/20131212/...-use-and-sport

    http://m.homernews.com/homer-news/bu...alks#gsc.tab=0

    And for the record, commfish HAS asked for increased personal use fees....ucida wanted it at $30....
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    Interesting...but one could say the same about Wesley Loy, could they not? Info is info...it's more about how it makes you think and what you do with it then who wrote it....geez now I sound like Donald trump lol

    More:

    http://www.adn.com/article/20131212/...-use-and-sport
    Loy pretty much just regurgitates other news. He doesn't push an agenda. Delaney is an even bigger hack. Sorry, can't engage with jihadists.

  19. #19
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Funstastic View Post
    That's clueless.

    The tax comparison is not the same because, even as astronomical as the tax is, the cigarette industry costs the State $600 million in things like Medicaid and so on. This gap cannot be made up by the cigarette industry's economic output.

    On the other hand, the commercial fishing industry produces $6.8 billion (with a B) in economic output. $2.2 billion (with a B) in labor income. It's small tax gap is easily made up for in beneficial economic output.

    So try to comprehend...tax does not make an economy. The ability to produce, compete in markets, provide jobs, and create other sectors does.


    Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. As mentioned by others, the stamp tax originated from KRSA, KRSMA, ADFG, DRN, not the commercial fishing industry.
    The commercial fishing industry according to you produces 9 Billion dollars a year, yet only pays a third of the cost to administer the programs. Is subsidized about $50 million a year. Why? If it is so productive to the state, why are all residents of the state asked to subsidize it? Let it pay for itself, at least! I have nothing against paying for administrative fees. The same commercial fishermen screaming foul if anyone mentions raising their taxes to actually zero out the books are cheering loudest for fees on other users. How is it any different than oil or movie tax credits? If this salmon tag will pay for costs associated with sport and PU fishing, and work to improve and better those programs, then bring it on! At the same time, while tightening its belt and cleaning up the waste, the state should target the thousand pound gorilla in the room, too.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The $ for $ tax comparison is quite simple - the commercial fishing industry pays less in taxes than the cigarette tax raises - or in simple terms: for an industry with "$6.8 billion in economic output and 2.2 billion in labor income within the State" is pays almost nothing taxes! Does that clarify the matter significantly?

    And yet someone wants to tax the poor PU guy trying to get some salmon to feed his family for the winter! Sure sounds like some the commercial fishing industry would try - more fish and less taxes for them - what a deal!
    the poor PU guy? Are you serious? PU fishing is not a cost effective way to get salmon to feed yourself over the winter. I am really happy the winters are getting shorter so hope to see less and less and less of you.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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
  •