Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 161 to 179 of 179

Thread: A conservation LOSS for MatSu at yesterday's BOF deliberations

  1. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I know history very well and your post shows you are a fringe element in our society. God given rights are pure bs but go ahead believe fairy tales to justify illegal acts. I really do not care. But your pfd example is just wrong. Elections can change that outcome but you want to chase ghosts. Also I have dealt with people like you. They usually end up in jail.
    Funny how you don't seem to know your American history very well. And how the fringe thinkers think I am a fringe element. I have never been in legal trouble and won't be.

    The post after yours explained it well - "endowed by our Creator" is not BS. It's just BS to people like you who don't believe in a Creator, I suppose. And just moments after your final breath, you will find out all about what was BS.

    And if you think my thought process concerning guns and harvest of game is fringe, you didn't pay attention in November.

  2. #162
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,833

    Default

    It's Inalienable Rights, not Unalienable....

    Nerka, you do realize it's hard to win a debate with an intelligent person, but impossible against an ignorant one, I'm sure....
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  3. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    It's Inalienable Rights, not Unalienable....

    Nerka, you do realize it's hard to win a debate with an intelligent person, but impossible against an ignorant one, I'm sure....
    So I am ignorant for believing I have rights I am born with, not only those given by whatever governing body presides over the country I am living in?

    It must be sad to think like you guys do.

  4. #164
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    So I am ignorant for believing I have rights I am born with, not only those given by whatever governing body presides over the country I am living in?

    It must be sad to think like you guys do.
    No, you are ignorant because, well, you are ignorant


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  5. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoose35 View Post
    No, you are ignorant because, well, you are ignorant


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying. LOL

  6. #166
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,118

    Default

    Let me lend some civility to this discussion, if I may…..

    Neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence was handed to us by the Creator. They were both written by humans. Thomas Jefferson held the pen (quill) at the time. So there is nothing in those documents that cannot be changed. Indeed, the Constitution contains very specific provisions for making whatever changes are necessary by future generations, including us. If someone wants to change any of the Constitutional amendments (including the Second Amendment), they just need 2/3’s of the House, the Senate, and the States to agree. Heck, they don’t even need the President’s approval! Would there be a revolt? Perhaps, but probably no more so than say, health care………

    The Inalienable Rights penned by TJ spoke to “Certain inalienable rights including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. You can interpret that phrase however you want, but the Declaration of Independence is not a document upon which the government is established. That’s the role of the Constitution. TJ was just reiterating the views of the Founding Fathers on why independence from England is a good idea. It’s a nice historical document, but it has no legal significance today.

    The purpose of having laws and a legal system is to ensure a civilized society that is based on the rule of law. Without it, we descend into anarchy. Look no farther than this forum. If the Sheriff (Brain M) doesn’t keep a close eye on us and enforce the rules, look at the depths we descend (personal attacks, threats, and retaliation), and how fast we get there.

    So if we all took the same path in society that Ak Ex seems to be suggesting he would take, the result would be chaos and lawlessness. That is, if we don’t like the laws, we are free to do something different because it’s our “right” to do so. I disagree with that view. But I understand lots of folks in the Great Land see things that way. Fair enough. I don’t interpret that to be ignorant; it’s just a different point-of-view, largely basely on the society they live in. And it’s really different than the society I live in. So despite their independent opinions, I presume the citizens of Alaska will remain a peaceful and law-abiding bunch of folks.

    Unless somebody tries to take away their health care…… (LOL, just joking).

  7. #167
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,833

    Default

    Stating that Hunting, or Fishing, is a Right, is ignorant.
    Terms like "Walls of death", in reference to the commercial fleet, is ignorant.
    Claiming some mythological bogeyman endows folks with rights that supersede our laws, is ignorant.
    Revisionist history that claims slavery had no influence over the escalation that led to the Civil War, is ignorant.

    Nowhere did I call anyone, specifically, ignorant, but it sure seems we have a Professional Victim in our midst.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  8. #168
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Let me lend some civility to this discussion, if I may…..

    Neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence was handed to us by the Creator. They were both written by humans. Thomas Jefferson held the pen (quill) at the time. So there is nothing in those documents that cannot be changed. Indeed, the Constitution contains very specific provisions for making whatever changes are necessary by future generations, including us. If someone wants to change any of the Constitutional amendments (including the Second Amendment), they just need 2/3’s of the House, the Senate, and the States to agree. Heck, they don’t even need the President’s approval! Would there be a revolt? Perhaps, but probably no more so than say, health care………

    The Inalienable Rights penned by TJ spoke to “Certain inalienable rights including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. You can interpret that phrase however you want, but the Declaration of Independence is not a document upon which the government is established. That’s the role of the Constitution. TJ was just reiterating the views of the Founding Fathers on why independence from England is a good idea. It’s a nice historical document, but it has no legal significance today.

    The purpose of having laws and a legal system is to ensure a civilized society that is based on the rule of law. Without it, we descend into anarchy. Look no farther than this forum. If the Sheriff (Brain M) doesn’t keep a close eye on us and enforce the rules, look at the depths we descend (personal attacks, threats, and retaliation), and how fast we get there.

    So if we all took the same path in society that Ak Ex seems to be suggesting he would take, the result would be chaos and lawlessness. That is, if we don’t like the laws, we are free to do something different because it’s our “right” to do so. I disagree with that view. But I understand lots of folks in the Great Land see things that way. Fair enough. I don’t interpret that to be ignorant; it’s just a different point-of-view, largely basely on the society they live in. And it’s really different than the society I live in. So despite their independent opinions, I presume the citizens of Alaska will remain a peaceful and law-abiding bunch of folks.
    Oh, sure, try and inject logic into this.....

    Good post.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  9. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    Stating that Hunting, or Fishing, is a Right, is ignorant.
    Terms like "Walls of death", in reference to the commercial fleet, is ignorant.
    Claiming some mythological bogeyman endows folks with rights that supersede our laws, is ignorant.
    Revisionist history that claims slavery had no influence over the escalation that led to the Civil War, is ignorant.

    Nowhere did I call anyone, specifically, ignorant, but it sure seems we have a Professional Victim in our midst.

    Well, now....I disagree about the slavery. It was a major issue, but not THE major issue. The larger (or equal) issue was states' rights and to this day I'm not sure we got the upside of that one.

    If the rest of your moronic ramblings are why i am ignorant, I will accept it. Nobody is going to tell me I don't have a right to live off the land, including fishing and hunting and nobody is going to convince me that when the nets are out it doesn't stop the fish - they are quite literally a wall of death for fish. As for your bogeyman, well, we shall see who is ignorant of the larger issue. I am safe either way.

  10. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    Nobody is going to tell me I don't have a right to live off the land, including fishing and hunting
    This is not a foundation for sustainable fisheries in a world containing 7.5 billion people.

    Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is fishing. There are rules.

    Man, you guys are way down the rabbit hole. It's beautiful outside - go catch some vitamin D. You are allowed as much of that as you want!

  11. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    This is not a foundation for sustainable fisheries in a world containing 7.5 billion people.

    Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is fishing. There are rules.

    Man, you guys are way down the rabbit hole. It's beautiful outside - go catch some vitamin D. You are allowed as much of that as you want!
    I agree about the rabbit hole. I tried to end it, but they felt the need to start calling me names.

    As for your response, I didn't say there isn't a need for regulations - but telling everyone they can't hunt or fish at all is hardly a foundation either. I just said they can't do it.

    I mean, okay, if they get rid of all commercial fishing and there still aren't enough fish to allow people to fish, I would understand the need to stop. I would also go somewhere else to live because something would be terribly wrong, LOL. But as long as there are boats pulling in millions of fish, there should never be an issue about the right of the people to harvest their own.

    Would any rational person really be okay with the state ever putting a ban in place on fishing for us while still allowing any commercial boats to operate? I mean, this whole rabbit trail just seems so simple to me but we've got people on here who just think it's crazy to question authority.

  12. #172

    Default

    But back to the point: I think the article was right in the OP and the MAtSu got screwed by the board. They are not managing things well for the MatSu or Kenai, and it just got worse.

  13. #173
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    I agree about the rabbit hole. I tried to end it, but they felt the need to start calling me names.

    As for your response, I didn't say there isn't a need for regulations - but telling everyone they can't hunt or fish at all is hardly a foundation either. I just said they can't do it.

    I mean, okay, if they get rid of all commercial fishing and there still aren't enough fish to allow people to fish, I would understand the need to stop. I would also go somewhere else to live because something would be terribly wrong, LOL. But as long as there are boats pulling in millions of fish, there should never be an issue about the right of the people to harvest their own.

    Would any rational person really be okay with the state ever putting a ban in place on fishing for us while still allowing any commercial boats to operate? I mean, this whole rabbit trail just seems so simple to me but we've got people on here who just think it's crazy to question authority.
    I bet you would be totally fine with a ban on commercial fishing in order to allocate to you though?. Population is screwing the Mat su, not the bof.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  14. #174

    Default

    I wouldn't think banning commercial fishing would be necessary or economically beneficial.

    That said, if anything needs to be reduced first for conservation and preservation reasons, I do think it should be commercial fishing, not personal use or sport fishing. But I feel that way about everything. Private citizens' rights and opportunities should trump any commercial or business interests if there is an issue that necessitates limits.

    And the population isn't the problem - the population will ebb and flow, but the management should adjust alongside it. If there are more people harvesting fish, more fish should be allowed into the rivers. It isn't a difficult concept, although many on here fail to grasp it.

  15. #175
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    But back to the point: I think the article was right in the OP and the MAtSu got screwed by the board. They are not managing things well for the MatSu or Kenai, and it just got worse.
    You claim people are unfairly calling you names and then you make a post like this and it proves their point. Just tell me how the Mat Su resources or people got screwed given more coho are headed toward those streams according to ADF&G. At a minimum there was no loss. So explain again how that hurt the Mat Su populations?

    Relative to Kenai who got screwed? Mat Su residents who fish down here? Local do very well with all the fisheries operating. Of course we live here and understand the nature of these fisheries. The resources are doing fine with the exception of early run chinook and the BOF took action there to relieve stress on this population.

    I understand your firm conviction in your positions and being unwilling to even think you could be wrong but given the testimony of ADF&G and others you should rethink your position or the labels on your position may be correct. When the majority of those with knowledge disagree with my position I tend to rethink my position. Why you cannot do the same is baffling given the data presented to you, the articles referenced for you to read, and the testimony of others who have fished the same fishery as you but came to a different conclusion.

    Relative to the civil war you claim states rights. That is true but the foundation of the state rights issue was the economic and political impacts from the movement to abolish slavery. Slave states wanted control over the issue of slaves and wanted westward expansion of slave states. It was slavery that drove the State's rights issue and saying it was not a major factor is just plain wrong. Slave states saw with the Republican party in Lincoln a loss of power over this issue and exclusion from the political system and economic system they wanted. Without the issue of slavery the State rights issue would probably not have resulted in civil war. They had argued State rights for 60 years but had that had not resulted in civil war. The loss of slaves and expansion of slave states was the major factor.

  16. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    You claim people are unfairly calling you names and then you make a post like this and it proves their point. Just tell me how the Mat Su resources or people got screwed given more coho are headed toward those streams according to ADF&G. At a minimum there was no loss. So explain again how that hurt the Mat Su populations?

    Relative to Kenai who got screwed? Mat Su residents who fish down here? Local do very well with all the fisheries operating. Of course we live here and understand the nature of these fisheries. The resources are doing fine with the exception of early run chinook and the BOF took action there to relieve stress on this population.

    I understand your firm conviction in your positions and being unwilling to even think you could be wrong but given the testimony of ADF&G and others you should rethink your position or the labels on your position may be correct. When the majority of those with knowledge disagree with my position I tend to rethink my position. Why you cannot do the same is baffling given the data presented to you, the articles referenced for you to read, and the testimony of others who have fished the same fishery as you but came to a different conclusion.

    Relative to the civil war you claim states rights. That is true but the foundation of the state rights issue was the economic and political impacts from the movement to abolish slavery. Slave states wanted control over the issue of slaves and wanted westward expansion of slave states. It was slavery that drove the State's rights issue and saying it was not a major factor is just plain wrong. Slave states saw with the Republican party in Lincoln a loss of power over this issue and exclusion from the political system and economic system they wanted. Without the issue of slavery the State rights issue would probably not have resulted in civil war. They had argued State rights for 60 years but had that had not resulted in civil war. The loss of slaves and expansion of slave states was the major factor.

    1. I don't trust the BoF, so what they say doesn't hold much weight

    2. "No loss" isn't exactly praise-worthy - and since escapement is not regularly met in the MatSu, there should have been no more harvest allowed at all. And as has been noted, IF numbers were good enough to allow more harvest, the limit should have gone up for sport fishermen first, not just opened up more to commercial guys

    3. I said slavery was a major issue....just not the end-all, be-all issue - and there was a lot more to states' rights than just slavery....the South did not believe in one unified federal government, but rather than each individual state had an agreement with the others in the form of our Constitution. The North favored one, unified nation, and secession was not allowable under their view. Trade was also a huge factor since the South traded with Europe heavily as well as other nations, whereas the north did not and wanted taxes and tariffs. Again, slavery was a big issue, but not the only one by a long shot. And as I said, I think we may have all lost on the states' rights front. How much better would it be if the states were separate partners and there was no huge federal government?

  17. #177
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    1. I don't trust the BoF, so what they say doesn't hold much weight

    2. "No loss" isn't exactly praise-worthy - and since escapement is not regularly met in the MatSu, there should have been no more harvest allowed at all. And as has been noted, IF numbers were good enough to allow more harvest, the limit should have gone up for sport fishermen first, not just opened up more to commercial guys

    3. I said slavery was a major issue....just not the end-all, be-all issue - and there was a lot more to states' rights than just slavery....the South did not believe in one unified federal government, but rather than each individual state had an agreement with the others in the form of our Constitution. The North favored one, unified nation, and secession was not allowable under their view. Trade was also a huge factor since the South traded with Europe heavily as well as other nations, whereas the north did not and wanted taxes and tariffs. Again, slavery was a big issue, but not the only one by a long shot. And as I said, I think we may have all lost on the states' rights front. How much better would it be if the states were separate partners and there was no huge federal government?
    So if the data shows you are wrong and the experts in the field and the BOF after hearing all the testimony does not agree with your emotional position you do not trust or believe them. Made my point about being a fringe element which is sad because if one cannot see the fallacy of their position they are stuck in ignorance or stupidity.

    No net loss means exactly that - no additional coho are going to be harvested. I know you do not understand the fishery but the fact is when you go district wide with the fleet they move to areas of high sockeye concentrations and away from coho headed north. But you know better than 50 years of fishery managers in UCI. Also, stop with the systems are not making escapement bs. They are making escapements and when they have not it is because in-river harvest was not restricted soon enough or the run was just poor. But as I pointed out on the other thread the Little Susitna has essentially made goals the last three years. Sockeye are fine for those lakes monitored and chinook and chum salmon in the Susitna drainage are doing fine. Stop with using conservation to try and make your allocation position stronger. It does not hold up to the data. Also, we addressed the issue of bag limits in the whole ND and maybe that is not appropriate on a stream by stream case. However, with a sport fishing population that is basically not tuned into emergency orders (especially tourist) sometimes a set bag limit works better.

    With no federal government oversight we would be a chaotic mess. Environmental laws, Commerce, Labor, International accords, all would be a mess. The idea that individual states will work for the collective good is a myth.

  18. #178
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    254

    Default

    Being retired and all and back in Alaska, it sounds like one good way to fend off impending boredom is to begin attending BOF meetings.

    Since I haven't done that and don't have the data, I'll offer my preference that more of all the fish were allocated for sport use.....but that simple preferential allocation doesn't appear to be consistent with the laws and regulations. Bummer as far as I'm concerned, but the alternative is some degree of chaos.

    To add more rabbits in the hole:

    - I have an unshakeable, unabashed, and constant belief in the triune God; I believe that we are his creation and that we are endowed with an eternal soul. That soul's fate is reason to seek out salvation and heaven;
    .....

    - But I also know that Christ stated to "render unto Caesar..." and obeying laws that do not imperil that eternal soul (and hunting / fishing laws don't no matter how draconian) falls into Caesar's domain.

    Hopefully, I can attend future BOF meetings and impress them to allocate more fish to airplane drivers and grandkids.
    Back in AK

  19. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pa12drvr View Post
    Being retired and all and back in Alaska, it sounds like one good way to fend off impending boredom is to begin attending BOF meetings.

    Since I haven't done that and don't have the data, I'll offer my preference that more of all the fish were allocated for sport use.....but that simple preferential allocation doesn't appear to be consistent with the laws and regulations. Bummer as far as I'm concerned, but the alternative is some degree of chaos.

    To add more rabbits in the hole:

    - I have an unshakeable, unabashed, and constant belief in the triune God; I believe that we are his creation and that we are endowed with an eternal soul. That soul's fate is reason to seek out salvation and heaven;
    .....

    - But I also know that Christ stated to "render unto Caesar..." and obeying laws that do not imperil that eternal soul (and hunting / fishing laws don't no matter how draconian) falls into Caesar's domain.

    Hopefully, I can attend future BOF meetings and impress them to allocate more fish to airplane drivers and grandkids.
    I believe the same - and I believe in "rendering unto Caesar" as you have put it - however, I believe men are born free and may freely survive by each day obeying "arise, kill and eat" as well. I don't believe any man has the right to tell another that he may not survive off of the fish, animals, water, and plants that God has provided. That's all I was saying. There are times the law of the land should be civilly disobeyed. I don't see that law coming and certainly hope it is as extreme as it sounds, but hey, we live in crazy times.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

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
  •