Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: UCIDA federal lawsuit

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,212

    Default UCIDA federal lawsuit

    http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/loc...et-salmon-plan

    Thoughts? Clarification on the amendment 12, looks like UCIDA sued based on amendment 12 relating to escapement goal management, but now is ok with escapement goal management? What about the other alaska fisheries that are not part of this but not by choice?

    Any insight?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/loc...et-salmon-plan

    Thoughts? Clarification on the amendment 12, looks like UCIDA sued based on amendment 12 relating to escapement goal management, but now is ok with escapement goal management? What about the other alaska fisheries that are not part of this but not by choice?

    Any insight?
    New reporter who does not understand UCI issues so a lot of this article is off. So UCIDA sued that an FMP was needed - not the content of the FMP as that will be decided in the upcoming meetings. However, the national standards need to be followed. Relative to escapement goals UCIDA wants MSY management not OEG's so they made that point but the court did not rule on that just like they did not rule on how the State management meets the other criteria. They only ruled an FMP was needed. The court also in the oral arguments made this point when one judge said to UCIDA lawyers - if the Federal Gov writes an FMP but you do not like the way the standards are met you will sue on that issue. UCIDA lawyer responded yes. Also there are provisions for other systems than annual catch limits in Mag/Stevens such as MSY goals. She got that wrong in the article.

    The other areas are included because the Federal gov violated the law. They may want to have a simplified plan for their area but one is needed. They should have known this when this first came up and should have been prepared for this outcome given it has been ongoing for years.

    The State has little chance at the Supreme Court level but we will see - stranger things have happened.

  3. #3
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Relative to escapement goals UCIDA wants MSY management not OEG's so they made that point but the court did not rule on that just like they did not rule on how the State management meets the other criteria.
    I think UCIDA wants MSY management for just one or two stocks.

    But the MSA and national standards don't mandate strict adherence to MSY, either. The Bering Sea has a 2 million metric ton OY cap on all removals, and in many/most years groundfish are left in the water even though they could technically harvest more under the (MSY-based) ABC's. While Stevens put the OY cap into law, it was in place as a Council-created regulation for years before that.

    Like Yukon, I too was confused when I saw UCIDA's facebook post from today, with their clarification and a link to the Clarion article. I looked to see if they've submitted any public comments to the Council that may explain this a little better, but there's nothing there yet.
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    UCIDA members are split on what a win in court meant. Lawyers can confuse everyone. But I think it is out of their hands right now. Public process includes everyone.

  5. #5
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    While I've never asked UCIDA directly, I've never been clear on what, specifically, they hoped to achieve with this lawsuit. I think I understand their main beef with State management, but how they think this suit will get them there has been elusive to me. In many ways, I think the suit had a lot of risks to their own interests...besides the general "be careful what you ask for".

    I'm still hoping UCIDA submits some written comments for the Council meeting next week. As of tonight, there's still not a single public comment for this issue on the Council website.
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    While I've never asked UCIDA directly, I've never been clear on what, specifically, they hoped to achieve with this lawsuit. I think I understand their main beef with State management, but how they think this suit will get them there has been elusive to me. In many ways, I think the suit had a lot of risks to their own interests...besides the general "be careful what you ask for".

    I'm still hoping UCIDA submits some written comments for the Council meeting next week. As of tonight, there's still not a single public comment for this issue on the Council website.
    "Ready, fire, aim!"


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    "Ready, fire, aim!"


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Do not sell them short. They have a good lawyer. They may be talks with The feds and communicating that way. They still are before a judge

  8. #8

    Default

    Jason Morgan is a great lawyer and strategist. I'm quite sure UCIDA will get some input this time around that is actually taken seriously, unlike what the council passed this last go around. Magnuson requires an accounting of all removals, which includes the dipnetters. Also a prohibition on discrimination based on residency. Could mean closing dipnetting, or opening it up to everyone. I'm guessing the latter will happen with a hard cap on total take. MSY management. Could see a hard cap on Chinook removals bydipnetters and setnetters which could trigger additional time to inriver and drift gillnets to harvest sockeye. Could also see a hard cap on ND stocks which could work the other way.

    Mostly, I think UCIDA just wanted to get a layer of insulation between KRSA, Dipnetters Assoc, and their fishery. Coffey and Johnstone were no friends to the commercial fleet and never saw a Bob Penney idea they didn't like.

  9. #9
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Several public comments were posted to the Council website today, including a lengthy letter from Jason Morgan, they can be found here:
    http://npfmc.legistar.com/gateway.as...54a855b65d.pdf
    I haven't read these yet, but I look forward to digging into them this weekend.


    Also, here's the staff-prepared discussion paper that outlines options for how the council could proceed:
    http://npfmc.legistar.com/gateway.as...1d973926d3.pdf
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    Several public comments were posted to the Council website today, including a lengthy letter from Jason Morgan, they can be found here:
    http://npfmc.legistar.com/gateway.as...54a855b65d.pdf
    I haven't read these yet, but I look forward to digging into them this weekend.


    Also, here's the staff-prepared discussion paper that outlines options for how the council could proceed:
    http://npfmc.legistar.com/gateway.as...1d973926d3.pdf
    I read the first pages of UCIDA and they lie worst than others. Sad they cannot make their case with factual claims. For example saying commercial catch decreased because of poor returns instead of reallocation or using in river goals instead of SEG range to claim over escapement. Just not necessay to misrepresent stuff.

  11. #11

    Default

    Ill take a stab at this, first off I will state I'm just getting my feet wet in the Counicl process. I read the discussion paper (dp) and thought it was pretty good and will offer some of my thoughts on it and hope if I'm not correct in my conclusions someone can offer other points of view.
    1. The FMP only covers a relatively small body of water in Cook Inlet per the map in the dp, that would only effect the drift fleet, (eez) in the dp it states subsistence, personal use, and sport fishing are are not included in the FMP. It doesn't mention the Set net fishermen but I'm assuming they will be excluded as well since the map of the FMP doesn't cover the waters they fish. All that being said I believe the Counicl has to take all those other fisheries into account when a developing a harvest limit for the FMP. Yes/ No ?

    2. The first standard in setting a FMP states it is to achieve optimum yield OY . By the Feds definition OY includes food production and recreational opportunities, and also MSY. The Feds and State differ a bit in definitions of OY and MSY . No real point here, just and observation.

    3. Feds state it is not possible to manage MSY in mixed stock fisheries when composition, production, and abundance vary.

    I would highly recommend to ready the discussion paper, lots of points can be taken from it, above are just a couple that jumped out at me.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seinerman View Post
    Magnuson requires an accounting of all removals, which includes the dipnetters. Also a prohibition on discrimination based on residency. Could mean closing dipnetting, or opening it up to everyone.
    The prohibition on discrimination based on residency would appear to apply to commercial take?

    "4. Non-discriminatory allocation among U.S. commercial fishermen"

  13. #13

    Default

    Skwentna Man what you posted makes sense if this quote is correct:

    the council, which oversees all federal fisheries management in the North Pacific between 3 and 200 nautical miles offshore — known as the United States Exclusive Economic Zone — has to craft a management plan for the salmon fishery.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    I think we are going into uncharted waters. The Council wants to limit the discussion to Federal waters but Mag/Stevens does not do that. It says to manage through-out the range which includes State waters. In the Northwest FMP the document includes habitat concerns in the State watersheds. So while some council members may want to limit their authority they may not be legal. That is one of the challenges in this discussion by UCIDA.

    Next, the idea one cannot manage a mixed stock fishery because of variation is just false. The State has been doing it since Statehood. I will agree the Feds cannot do it because of the Fed regulatory structure. We experienced that in the 50's.

    This is really a complex isssue. What is sad that so far all the documents I have seen by all parties have had little technical review. The claims in the Federal document about UCI fishery management and status of stocks is bs. In fact, the Fed document looks like someone not familiar with UCI wrote it. The UCIDA paper is bs on some claims. What ever happened to peer review and honesty in reporting?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    I just finished reading UCIDA's paper and am so pissed I am having a hard time being civil. Calling the State management "gross mismanagement" and using Susitna River sockeye commercial management to claim there is more harvestable surplus in Susitna is a total fabrication. Not using the actual spawning numbers for Kenai and claiming unharvested fish is another one. They are misusing data on the status of the Susitna run, the way the goals were set with the Bendix system, the present inability to meet individual lake goals on a consistent level, and the fact they argue the resources are in decline but Susitna has excess fish and the State is grossly mismanaging this stock. Unbelievable. The lawyer even cites UCIDA authored papers to reference his position. No offense to the authors but they wrote a paper that is biased and inaccurate on the status of Susitna and so now the authors (one of which is a UCIDA fisherman who has no fishery management training) become the experts? Wow.

    UCIDA has some valid questions on how goals are set, the public process, management trade-offs in the mixed stock fishery, but they do not need to attack the State to make these points and frankly lie about the status and management of the returns. The State has done a good job raising goals to the MSY levels and while we can disagree on what those goals are the level of disagreement does not come close to gross mismanagement. Yes, ADF&G has some problems with Kenai chinook and not being totally honest in that counting operation and some individuals have misrepresented data. Those should be dealt with on an individual level. I want to see ADF&G come back to better science based approaches and less allocative games playing but I will never say they grossly mismanaged the resource over the last four decades.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by extrema View Post
    The prohibition on discrimination based on residency would appear to apply to commercial take?

    "4. Non-discriminatory allocation among U.S. commercial fishermen"
    I think there are constitutional protections in place for protection of out of state commercial fishermen/guides. (Interstate commerce clause, equal protection, etc.).

    MSA provides standards for the implementation of FMP's. One of those standards states: "Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states".

    I too have heard that many folks wish to limit the discussion/FMP to only the EEZ. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem possible to me. Uncharted waters for sure, and I like my fishery now, even though it is not what it was in 1986. My "Ready, fire, aim!" comment was not selling anyone short. I'm sure they have a good lawyer, and I always thought that their odds were decent, but no one, including UCIDA, knows how this suit will turn out. That scares me, especially when I feel that some people involved are more concerned with poking the bear and grabbing headlines than they are with creating better fisheries.

  17. #17
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Like Nerka, I was also really surprised at how cavalier they are in accusing ADFG of "mismanagement" and especially "gross mismanagement" time and time again. It takes away from their points that have some validity.

    Nobody likes to be attacked, nor should they be, but asking for additional scientific scrutiny is a completely different matter. Screaming "gross mismanagement" definitely comes across as more of an attack than an honest and legitimate criticism.
    "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

  18. #18
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    2,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    Like Nerka, I was also really surprised at how cavalier they are in accusing ADFG of "mismanagement" and especially "gross mismanagement" time and time again. It takes away from their points that have some validity.
    Agreed....especially when you consider the claim that ADFG's "mismanagement" consists mainly of exceeding inriver goals...that's mental acrobatics of an impressive caliber!
    "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,815

    Default

    So I wanted to see how UCIDA can argue mismanagement on Kenai, which they did in their brief. So below are the number of sockeye over the spawning escapement goals. That would be the standard to measure management since it is conservation and yield oriented. Positive numbers are over the upper end of the BEG/MSY/SEG goal. Remember the goals have not changed only the name. So for this discussion these would be considered MSY goals for the federal discussion. If you add the plus and minus up the lost harvest has been around 100 sockeye per year which less than 10% of the upper spawning goal range. In a mixed stock fishery getting this close is pretty good. UCIDA fails to understand that the in-river harvests have increased and making goals is easier because of it - more fishing power in river to reduce management limitations in the mixed stock fishery. Anyway - UCIDA is going to go down in flames if they keep up their present positions. These data took me 10 mins to generate and refute their gross mismanagement position.

    2000 -80
    2001 -19
    2002 0
    2003 127
    2004 331
    2005 321
    2006 527
    2007 0
    2008 -94
    2009 0
    2010 0
    2011 80
    2012 12
    2013 0
    2014 18
    2015 200

  20. #20

    Default

    Most of the inriver harvest is attributed to the resident only dipnet fishery. If that fishery is a violation of the MSA, how do your numbers change?

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
  •