Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: New Salmon Group Formed??

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,062

    Default New Salmon Group Formed??

    I was approached by a signature gatherer to sign a petition from a group called "stand for salmon". I looked up the groups website and could't find much information. There was only an email for contact and no information about the group or the people behind it.

    Does anyone know about the group?

    www.standforsalmon.org

  2. #2

    Default

    First I've heard of them. They seem to recognize the importance of salmon to many different users, which is good, but pretty hard to get a bead on what they consider reasonable resource extraction/development. Hard to know much without knowing who is involved. Unfortunately this seems to be an increasing trend - lots of different fish groups but harder and harder to find out who is actually running them. Also seems to be an increasing trend to have calls to action consisting of a pre-written form letter to express someone's interest in a subject, or their dissatisfaction with policymakers or decisions. I'm not sure that represents genuine concern.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,062

    Default

    I don't trust a group that doesn't have any name or address attributed to them. They should have a board of directors or executive director or some point of contact besides an "info@" email address. From some of the claims made by the representative I would think someone on this forum would know something about them.

  4. #4
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,295

    Default

    I'm not sure if it's the same group or not, but last night at the Anchorage AC we had a presentation from some folks who are working on one of the non-regulatory proposals that's on the BOF's worksession agenda -- item N on this list:
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...on/non_reg.pdf

    They're asking the Board to ask the Legislature to strengthen habitat-related language in the ADFG Commissioner's permitting authority under Title 16. They provided a nicely printed brochure that is still vague in some ways about what, in particular, they would like to see changed but quite specific in others. In some of their specifics, they want to take a bunch of the habitat protection language from the sustainable salmon fisheries policy and place in into statute under AS 16.08.871 (fish habitat permitting).

    There were some other bits, and one of their other recommendations I liked is that all waters should be presumed to be anadromous unless/until proven otherwise.

    It would be nice if permitting could be strengthened in a way that would give concerned fishery stakeholders more faith in the process while still allowing those seeking to develop our resources a fair shake in that same process. That doesn't seem to be the case right now.
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,062

    Default

    Yep, that sounds like them. Did they say anything about who formed the group or what "groups came together" to from the group. The signature gatherer had a lot of nice catch phrases but new nothing about who the group is made of, who the board is or where they get their funding. There is not one single contact person or name on their website. When a group is that secretive I am very suspicious of their true intentions.
    Interesting names on the list, looks like a lot of people from KAFC, I am not sure about the others. I would think someone on the forum would know more. I don't see why they wouldn't put their names on the website, nothing to be ashamed of, if that is the same group.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,062

    Default

    Mr. Fish

    Does the informational brochure presented at the AC look anything like the pictures and information located at www.standforsalmon.org ?

  7. #7
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,295

    Default

    No, there was a longer list of names of the sponsors of the BOF proposal in the brochure they handed out. Nothing they talked about, and nothing in their materials has anything to do with allocation. They seem to be all about habitat protection and the fish habitat permitting authorities.
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    No, there was a longer list of names of the sponsors of the BOF proposal in the brochure they handed out. Nothing they talked about, and nothing in their materials has anything to do with allocation. They seem to be all about habitat protection and the fish habitat permitting authorities.
    The stand for salmon salmon group seems to be all about habitat as well. I find it interesting that nobody on here or that I have asked knows anything about www.standforsalmon.org yet the group is paying people to get a petition signed. The signature gatherer did say that the group had a BOF proposal and where using the BOF to force the legislators to protect habitat.

  9. #9
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Mr. Fish

    Does the informational brochure presented at the AC look anything like the pictures and information located at www.standforsalmon.org ?
    Not similar looking, and their brochure doesn't have any organization's name or logo on it...just the proposal co-authors listed inside where their BOF proposal is also reprinted. But the website's petition language talks about the same things that are in the brochure's introduction. What made me think of this thread is the brochure also reprints several of the recent op/eds that are linked on the website.
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  10. #10

    Default

    I also saw the proposal Mr. Fish mentioned, and it also reminded me of this thread. It is proposal "N" linked below:

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...on/non_reg.pdf

    The stand for salmon effort seems like a coalescence of anti-Pebble/Chuitna mine/Susitna dam efforts, but that might be assumptive of me. I support clean water and resource development, and it seems like middle ground is awful hard to find.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I also saw the proposal Mr. Fish mentioned, and it also reminded me of this thread. It is proposal "N" linked below:

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...on/non_reg.pdf

    The stand for salmon effort seems like a coalescence of anti-Pebble/Chuitna mine/Susitna dam efforts, but that might be assumptive of me. I support clean water and resource development, and it seems like middle ground is awful hard to find.
    Could very well be, I wish they had an address, a phone number or a list of a board or an executive director, something. They have enough money to hire signature gatherers. More info would be good.

  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I also saw the proposal Mr. Fish mentioned, and it also reminded me of this thread. It is proposal "N" linked below:

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...on/non_reg.pdf

    The stand for salmon effort seems like a coalescence of anti-Pebble/Chuitna mine/Susitna dam efforts, but that might be assumptive of me. I support clean water and resource development, and it seems like middle ground is awful hard to find.
    If a group doesn't start advocating for more stringent and comprehensive habitat protections, Cook Inlet's salmon producing arteries will fall victim to the same "permitting" blunders that doomed salmon runs here in the PNW.

    Sustainable salmon begins and ends with habitat.
    "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

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    If a group doesn't start advocating for more stringent and comprehensive habitat protections, Cook Inlet's salmon producing arteries will fall victim to the same "permitting" blunders that doomed salmon runs here in the PNW.

    Sustainable salmon begins and ends with habitat.
    I'm admittedly under-informed on permitting standards, but I'm not sure about that. We've learned a great deal since some of the blunders in the PNW. I give Alaska more credit than that. Cautiously, and knowing that there is lots of room for improvement.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,858

    Default Paid?

    One would hope most - if not all - of the signature gather's are unpaid volunteers. At least that is the case with most of the gather's I've spoken with from other organizations.

    In any event- more information would be most helpful.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Could very well be, I wish they had an address, a phone number or a list of a board or an executive director, something. They have enough money to hire signature gatherers. More info would be good.
    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

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I'm admittedly under-informed on permitting standards, but I'm not sure about that. We've learned a great deal since some of the blunders in the PNW. I give Alaska more credit than that. Cautiously, and knowing that there is lots of room for improvement.
    Permitting standards or no - on site law enforcement is practically nonexistent and perhaps the weakest link. I give Alaska a near zero success score in that respect. There are ample excuses that are now further bolstered by the State's financial condition.
    I once asked a dedicated and respected Wildlife Trooper, right in the midst of a packed public meeting regarding the Knik R. Watershed, if I could quote what he just said. "Yes" was Lt. Tory Oleck's (now retired) reply. Here is the quote, " It is impractical to enforce stream crossing permits."
    To understand fully what this means to prime fish habitat, one needs look no further than my thread in this Fisheries Management Forum:
    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...tat-Conditions
    There exists no crossing permits on the route in question, yet degradation runs rampant.

    We are still losing fish habitat hand over fist in the Mat Su. USFWS has documented the score in Knik, by example. We have not yet seemed to have learned well enough from others like the PNW. In fact, we seem to be decades behind in establishing responsible on-the-ground management, in spite of bright, dedicated biologists giving their all. They face ridiculous political pressures from the top, even though good people do exist at all levels.

    My two cents on the multitudes of 'saving salmon groups' - they need to coalesce under one very effective umbrella in order to have the membership numbers and $$ to knock attention into the powers that be. There are too many going their own way. Generally , I have found conservationists to not be aggressive enough as well. Most are gentle people.
    The message and job of maintaining intact ecosystems is far more multifaceted than the butt simple message of 'my rights to do whatever the h__ I want in the Last Frontier' sold to low information types by aggressive fundamentalists that we keep accommodating by writing new management 'plans' to please. These 'plans' usually take years to write and cost bucket loads of money ('make work') and end up compromising habitat with fish dying all the while. Ironically, enforcing the habitat protections in the original plan, rather than caving to special interest compromises could have been the better option in some cases. A good portion of the plans have habitat protections in no uncertain terms. Rather than have the State (or anyone) jump up each time and say we need a new plan every 10 yrs., 'this one is old and appeasements are pressing', I would be ecstatic to see plans written with it mind to protect known valuable habitats long term.


    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knofler

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
  •