Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 520

Thread: Ballot Measure 1 / Alaska Salmon Habitat Initiative

  1. #481

    Default

    https://www.adn.com/politics/2018/11...lot-measure-1/


    Map of areas of support....an Not support.

  2. #482
    Member hogfamily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Suburbanites, part time Willowbillies, Appleseeds, and Weekend Warrior Turquoise Miners!
    Posts
    1,403

    Default

    Did I miss what the colors mean?
    “Move that fat ass Henry!”
    “Don’t swing your balls or you’ll swamp the boat!"

  3. #483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaximumPenetration View Post
    Whether or not money played an issue isn't important to me. While I wholeheartedly agree that we need to change laws that are outdated, this was not the answer. I hope those who were truly educated on the implications of this proposition and still supported it will come to the table with those of us who want responsible and reasonable change so we can make things better for the salmon and still maintain a reasonable approach to development.
    You might want to take into account we are dying off.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  4. #484
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    Spending 8 digits doesn't seem to hurt either....
    ....not surprised here....pretty much tracks like Prop 2 in 2012....maybe next time....
    Bad ideas and bad candidates lose elections regardless of how much or how little money they have and spend on their behalf. There are studies proving it, but look no further than this election Alyse Galvin is a high profile example, there are many other that were elected and re-elected in this state yesterday. Be to O'Rourke in Texas just spent the highest sum ever to run for Senate and lost! http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/h...nomics-quorum/
    "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." - G.I. Joe

  5. #485
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hogfamily View Post
    Did I miss what the colors mean?
    Looks like red is no and green yes, if you hover your mouse over the areas it tells the split. Interesting returns from where the fishing districts...they mostly voted no with big parts of Bristol Bay being the biggest exception to that.
    "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." - G.I. Joe

  6. #486
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan54 View Post
    Looks like red is no and green yes, if you hover your mouse over the areas it tells the split. Interesting returns from where the fishing districts...they mostly voted no with big parts of Bristol Bay being the biggest exception to that.
    Looking a little closer at the areas totals, Bristol bay as a whole had very few votes, specifically the area where a proposed mining operation that shall not be named by some (Pebble) was something of a mixed bag to go along with the low vote total, some areas supported BM 1 others did not.

    By and large it appears ALL fishing areas rejected this BM, along with the rest of the state by an overwhelming margin.
    "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." - G.I. Joe

  7. #487
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    631

    Default

    For the supporters of BM 1, we've all been where you are now...on the losing end of something we supported. As has been pointed out here, repeatedly, by many of us who were against BM 1 we all support protecting our salmon, and our anadromous waters. If you doubt that then consider the fact that if we didn't care about it we wouldn't spend our time commenting here.

    If all you ever wanted was to shutdown industry in this state then please feel free to call me names and insult me, so that we will all know who you are. If however you wish to engage in an actual conversation about what to do going forward, how to do it, and who you should be talking to and with then please keep reading.

    I said I would wait until after the election to offer my opinion on how we should move forward with protecting our waterways. Here are a few "lessons learned" that I hope we can all understand and agree upon.

    1. Listen to those you disagree with.

    2. Use the proper channels for such regulations, no more writing backroom ballot box biology measures. When we are dealing with things that will impact such large swaths of our state (physically and economically) it should be an open process where we gather input from all stakeholders, not a narrow vision of what is best for a few and from a few.

    3. Demonizing those you disagree will backfire, not everyone agrees with everything you do. There are an unimaginable degree of viewpoints, we all have different experiences in life and that leads to different viewpoints, while every viewpoint isn't equal we all have the right to our viewpoint. Most importantly we can all disagree, doing it without being disagreeable is what we should be striving for.

    4. Listen to those you disagree with.

    5. Those who are most passionate about this subject need to understand that in order to have any hope of advancing their cause they need to temper their expectations of others. Expecting everyone to be as passionate about any subject just because you are is unreasonable and would ultimately be disastrous since we would all spend all our time on one thing and one thing only to the exclusion of everything else.

    6. Set realistic goals. There are no doubt trouble anadromous waterways throughout the state, focus on the troubles areas not every last drop of water in the entire state and every piece of ground that impacts directly or indirectly every drop of water.

    7. Listen to those you disagree with.

    8. Regulations are already in place, could they be improved...probably. Funding is the issue to properly enforcing the regulations that are in place, not adding more regulations. Spending time, money, and effort on trying to get everything you ever wanted wastes time, money, and effort on getting something that would have had an actual impact on real areas that need the help.

    9. Listen to those you disagree with.

    10. If you ever want changes you need to pay attention to those you disagree with.

    Let the conversation towards what is next begin.....
    "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." - G.I. Joe

  8. #488
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    We know from studies of buffers a 50 foot buffer removes about 60% of some pollutants. In Alaska the ADFG recommended 100 feet. Other studies indicated a variable width buffer is better. This was just for pollution not other biological functions. This is just buffer data. Relative to watershed some studies indicate that 70% should b left vegetated.

    Hogfamily I answered your question. However again no offense but your question is too simplistic. As I pointed out impacts are site specific. If the impacts are significant then some projects may suffer but why is that wrong if salmon production impacts are significant? You seem to imply any impact is not acceptable to recreational mining. I will go to a different example. On the Kenai River a single sockeye bank fisherman had a good spot. Habitat damage was minimal. However this spot became known and over time hundreds showed up and trashed the bank habitat. So ADFG close the area to fishing. Should not the same type of standard be applied to mining and ATV use?
    The ADFG standard is too weak to protect fish and wildlife resource habitats and only applies below mean high water. If you hunt and fish as I do around the state on public lands (that arenÂ’t restricted to access by industries) you should know the states GAU regulations apply everywhere which already require a permit from ADFG for motorized crossing of anadromous waters (this law as prop 1 does not include prohibiting float planes boats or other float water crafts). Nor does it like prop 1 prohibit you from getting a permit to cross a salmon stream with a truck or 4-wheeler or maintenance on the pipeline (please). The rehtoric behind reasons to vote no on proposition 1 were false on many basic levels and perpetrated onto an uneducated voting public most of which had a hard time to decide if it is worth their time to read more than a half a page and ask questions or simply because they do not really consume fish and wildlife resources to the extent you want a more rigorous permitting process for large scale projects. Large scale such as hydropower development around Kenai, pebble out west, mines or hydro dams on the Susitna. Remember ADFG has very little to weak at best habitat protection authority and the GAU regulations already apply to you everywhere on state lands. 70% of Alaskans voted no for habitat and the past my friends is prologue. The voters need to discriminate between 2 sources of information. Read the existing regulation and the proposed regulation seek information about how what you are concerned about doing would be affected. You can do that right now or tomorrow and those who voted no will better learn what they voted against. But I know most wonÂ’t.

  9. #489

    Default

    Just hold down on the left side of mouse and it will tell you how each area voted.



    Quote Originally Posted by hogfamily View Post
    Did I miss what the colors mean?

  10. #490

    Default

    'Patsfan54'-

    "6. Set realistic goals. There are no doubt trouble anadromous waterways throughout the state, focus on the troubles areas...

    ........... Let the conversation towards what is next begin....."


    Here's a challenge for you, rather than pass out redundant and elementary tips at the keyboard:

    Wasilla Cr. headwaters.

    There is a full throated State Plan (Mat Su Moose Range Plan, 1985) for the area with DNR, F&G, and Forestry roles all delineated. The Plan has been completely ineffective; habitat destroyed, ongoing right under our noses. You can see much of the problem in 1/2 of your day. Spring, summer and fall are the best times to view the impacts and winter is a good time for agency conferences. It's wet until well after spawning occurs, and you will need to wear your waders or XtraTuffs at a minimum.
    It is an ideal 'realistic goal' with which one may earn the privilege to advise.

    I've provided an overview of the situation in this forum (as you know).
    Feel free to request extensive photo documentation with geo markers. I'll be happy to provide you with initiated high level agency contacts.

    Get back to us when you are successful - i.e. known fish habitat protected per the Plan and the laws.
    When you have accomplished that, I can point to other easily accessed 'trouble areas'.

    I've logged many, many years of field time, meetings, writing, etc. and would really like to see you and yours be successful where many of us have failed.

    That is "..what is next.." in my diminutive timeline. I'm tired of the banter and lack of progress in the watersheds and wish to pass on the tasks to a new generation.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  11. #491
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    'Patsfan54'-

    "6. Set realistic goals. There are no doubt trouble anadromous waterways throughout the state, focus on the troubles areas...

    ........... Let the conversation towards what is next begin....."


    Here's a challenge for you, rather than pass out redundant and elementary tips at the keyboard:

    Wasilla Cr. headwaters.

    There is a full throated State Plan (Mat Su Moose Range Plan, 1985) for the area with DNR, F&G, and Forestry roles all delineated. The Plan has been completely ineffective; habitat destroyed, ongoing right under our noses. You can see much of the problem in 1/2 of your day. Spring, summer and fall are the best times to view the impacts and winter is a good time for agency conferences. It's wet until well after spawning occurs, and you will need to wear your waders or XtraTuffs at a minimum.
    It is an ideal 'realistic goal' with which one may earn the privilege to advise.

    I've provided an overview of the situation in this forum (as you know).
    Feel free to request extensive photo documentation with geo markers. I'll be happy to provide you with initiated high level agency contacts.

    Get back to us when you are successful - i.e. known fish habitat protected per the Plan and the laws.
    When you have accomplished that, I can point to other easily accessed 'trouble areas'.

    I've logged many, many years of field time, meetings, writing, etc. and would really like to see you and yours be successful where many of us have failed.

    That is "..what is next.." in my diminutive timeline. I'm tired of the banter and lack of progress in the watersheds and wish to pass on the tasks to a new generation.
    still skipping the step of how to avoid having troubled waters. Someone said we have plenty of troubled waters to focus on. How did they get troubled? Maintenance and attention to vital systems in your home boiler, septic systems keep you out of and avoid trouble. A speck of an attempt a starting point to maintain watershed system health is met with anti-industry, close-down industry, anti-alaska rehtoric that is simply not truthful and offensive to people interested in maintaining healthy watersheds. The wasilla creek example is a clear indication much more than a prop 1 could give is needed, wouldnÂ’t you say? Or is it better to fail systems and try to fix them?

  12. #492
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    5,065

    Default

    I think what could be next is the same thing that happened to other ballot measures that have been brought up multiple times before they pass.
    I've said it before but a prime example is the marijuana ballot measure.
    the first versions that were put on the ballot we're not good and the majority of Alaska's could not agree with all the terms so they failed.
    But in subsequent versions the wording was changed and we finally got to something that the majority of alaskans could agree on and now it is law.
    The same thing can happen here.
    Though I am not a fan of Ballot Box biology if the persons and groups who created this ballot measure want something on the lines of ballot measure one to pass they simply need to do another ballot measure. Of course they will need to look at how they worded it and change it in ways that still protect anadromous fish (because it's not just salmon here folks) and their habitat but the majority of Alaskans can agree on.
    Listen to what the opposition has been saying and tweaking it in such a way that more Alaskans can accept it.
    as Nerka has said several times in this thread this ballot measure was not worded perfectly and needed some tweaking well now is a perfect opportunity to do that.
    Or they can go crawl into a corner and cry and whine but how people do not care about fish and fish habitat.
    But for now this version of ballot measure 1 is over and done with and no amount of absentee ballots can save it.

    Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  13. #493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    ..........

    Or they can go crawl into a corner and cry and whine but how people do not care about fish and fish habitat. ......

    Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk
    Careful not to paint with such a broad and disrespectful brush - People unavoidably age out of activities for myriad and valid reasons, as well.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  14. #494
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    5,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    Careful not to paint with such a broad and disrespectful brush - People unavoidably age out of activities for myriad and valid reasons, as well.
    I guess you missed my point.
    Which was that although this ballot measure has failed it doesn't mean people have to give up on habitat protection or give up on another attempted passing a similar but improved ballot measure.
    The fight for Habitat Improvement doesn't have to be over but some seem to think it is.
    I wasn't pointing at anyone in particular but the entire vote Yes movement.

    Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  15. #495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    I guess you missed my point. ......

    I wasn't pointing at anyone in particular but the entire vote Yes movement. .......

    Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

    Wrong guess. I got your main point, which is obviously well intended. Thanks for that, truly.

    However - ".....can go crawl into a corner and cry and whine ...." ".... pointing at.....the entire vote Yes movement " LOL !

    Let's just move on - which was also part of your point.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  16. #496
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    'Patsfan54'-

    "6. Set realistic goals. There are no doubt trouble anadromous waterways throughout the state, focus on the troubles areas...

    ........... Let the conversation towards what is next begin....."


    Here's a challenge for you, rather than pass out redundant and elementary tips at the keyboard:

    Wasilla Cr. headwaters.

    There is a full throated State Plan (Mat Su Moose Range Plan, 1985) for the area with DNR, F&G, and Forestry roles all delineated. The Plan has been completely ineffective; habitat destroyed, ongoing right under our noses. You can see much of the problem in 1/2 of your day. Spring, summer and fall are the best times to view the impacts and winter is a good time for agency conferences. It's wet until well after spawning occurs, and you will need to wear your waders or XtraTuffs at a minimum.
    It is an ideal 'realistic goal' with which one may earn the privilege to advise.

    I've provided an overview of the situation in this forum (as you know).
    Feel free to request extensive photo documentation with geo markers. I'll be happy to provide you with initiated high level agency contacts.

    Get back to us when you are successful - i.e. known fish habitat protected per the Plan and the laws.
    When you have accomplished that, I can point to other easily accessed 'trouble areas'.

    I've logged many, many years of field time, meetings, writing, etc. and would really like to see you and yours be successful where many of us have failed.

    That is "..what is next.." in my diminutive timeline. I'm tired of the banter and lack of progress in the watersheds and wish to pass on the tasks to a new generation.
    This is a poster child for the vote no on 1 movement. Regulations and agencies are all in place to provide adequate protections for this watershed. Yet it is not being done. Prop 1 would have added a plethora of oversight, regulations and fines to what are already in place, but not being enforced. Without changing enforcement protocol, further regulations do nothing but create more confusion. We don't have a regulation issue as much as an enforcement issue.

  17. #497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    This is a poster child for the vote no on 1 movement. Regulations and agencies are all in place to provide adequate protections for this watershed. Yet it is not being done. Prop 1 would have added a plethora of oversight, regulations and fines to what are already in place, but not being enforced. Without changing enforcement protocol, further regulations do nothing but create more confusion. We don't have a regulation issue as much as an enforcement issue.
    Meh... The present system/regulations ARE unenforceable. The whole ball of wax needs overhauled. Go thru my (and others) threads/posts on this entire fish management forum and tally how many times "enforcement" appears and how many times it is explained in detail why F&G enforcement is not possible under the present system allowing damaging uses - I'm appalled anyone could miss that. Proofs are smacking us in the face.
    And what costs more in the long run - loss, restoration or intelligent management and enforceable regulations to prevent same?
    Try like h___ to get enforcement happening now, and see how successful you are. You are correct it is not being done. Prop 1 is history; drop it. Lets see workable solutions.

    The fish can't weigh in on the excuses, nor differentiate any of our petty detail arguments while publicly funded plans, $$$$$$$, time, habitat are all being wasted.

    Useless. Logging out, will see what progress/ideas arise in due time. I hope some do. Here's a starter - register/license ORV's.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  18. #498
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,903

    Default

    Aww c'mon, you guys can't make it to 500 comments?
    ....no stamina, no stamina at all....
    "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  19. #499
    Member hogfamily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Suburbanites, part time Willowbillies, Appleseeds, and Weekend Warrior Turquoise Miners!
    Posts
    1,403

    Default

    Consider it...
    “Move that fat ass Henry!”
    “Don’t swing your balls or you’ll swamp the boat!"

  20. #500
    Member hogfamily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Suburbanites, part time Willowbillies, Appleseeds, and Weekend Warrior Turquoise Miners!
    Posts
    1,403

    Default

    done!

    .....
    “Move that fat ass Henry!”
    “Don’t swing your balls or you’ll swamp the boat!"

Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 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
  •