ADF&G's Mission and the Kenai
A lot of posts have been made about the "best" way to manage the Kenai River fishery. Economic interests have been villified, C&R has been arugued back and forth, C&K and it's various alternatives have been thrown back and forth. F&G has even been "attacked" (for lack of a better term off the top of my head). Their managers/biologists are following mandates put on them by that State. My guess is some of these mandates and the subsequent decisions may goes against the beliefs of some employees.
It is nearly impossible to have a discussion without an understanding of the guiding principles and mission statement. Read it and think about some of the proposals that have been discussed.
Here is a copy of their mission statement and what is mandated on them.
ADF&G Mission Statement
To protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state, and manage their use and development in the best interest of the economy and the well-being of the people of the state,
consistent with the sustained yield principle.
Provide opportunity to utilize fish and wildlife resources;
Ensure sustainability and harvestable surplus of fish and wildlife resources;
Provide information to all customers;
Involve the public in management of fish and wildlife resources; and
Protect the state's sovereignty to manage fish and wildlife resources.
Optimize economic benefits from fish and wildlife resources.
Optimize public participation in fish and wildlife pursuits.
Increase public knowledge and confidence that wild populations of fish and wildlife are responsibly managed.
Be careful Yukon
Yukon, not sure what reference you got the above from. Some things are in statue - Title 16 but others are made up by ADF&G in their internal plans. If it is from the Sport Fish plan then it is not in statue but an internal document that is self serving. I think the references are from both but am not sure and do not have time to look myself.
Nerka, I just thought with all our discussions that is was important to look at that information. I don't see a reason why I need to becareful? Could you please tell me why?
It took me all of 5 seconds to google "adf&g" I clicked on the link to the site and clicked on "mission" I did not go to the commercial or sportfish division. Here is a link to the page.
I think his point is that some of the above is not "mandated" as you suggest, but rather an internally produced statement of goals. Do you know what parts of the above mission statement is actually mandated by law?
Originally Posted by yukon
Don't shoot the messenger. All I did was what I said in my post, a quick goolge search. I didn't look things up in the statue or law. "Mandate" may have been the wrong choice in words but usually "companies" "schools" and other strive to accomplish their goals and mission statements. Isn't that why teachers recieve and post "district goals" and "school goals"? Maybe they aren't mandated by the school board but they are "mandated" by a principle or superintendent.
My goal with the post was to start a discussion about the Mission Statement and how it relates to the Kenai proposals. Not to argue where it came from or which parts of it are mandated by law.
I would go back and edit it if I could so my intend could come through better but it is too late and the "edit" button is gone.
A few things stick out to me in the mission statement/goals:
The problem here is that these aren't listed in any order of priority. Clearly we can't always meet all of these goals when stocks are depleted or in danger of being so. The question then becomes which of these goals needs to come first. Hopefully ensuring sustainability comes first, but then what? Optimizing economic benefit? Public participation? Opportunity to utilize the resource?
Originally Posted by yukon
It's great to consider the above goals when debating policy, but I think where the big divide lies is between priorities. Thanks for pointing this out, though. We do need to keep in mind that economic benefit is indeed a stated goal of our managers. Whether it should be a top priority is worthy of discussion, but it's certainly a goal. (Incidentally, that needs to be considered when discussing further restrictions on the drift fleet as well, in addition to the established guides.)
Brian, that is why I put it out there. Not only for economics, as that is part of decisions that are made, but also for participation and opportunity and others.
The tough part for us, F&G, and BOF is to balance all the items and attempt to satisfy as many user groups as possible, not anyones own self interets. Most of that falls on BOF (in the end) and they usually do a pretty good job.
The lawful requirements (not a "mission statement") of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game are clearly spelled out in AS 16.05.
Requirements for the ADF&G Fisheries Department are spelled out in AS 16.05.092.
Requirements for the ADF&G Board of Fisheries are spelled out in AS 16.05.25.
How ADF&G achieves that is the responsibility of the Commissioner, the Departments and the Boards. This is where internal rules, procedures, and mission statements come from.
Alaska does not prioritize the requirements of the laws because they must all be satisfied. And although any reasonable person would understand that a fishery can not exist without fish, habitat, etc., that simple concept can get lost in the pursuit of other goals, like economics for example. And there lies the problem...balancing, and why before you know it a fishery is in trouble. In my opinion this is what's happened on the Kenai River...economic priorities and other self-interest priorities have overwhelmed the fish and their habitat. And that is why we need to get back to square-one (the fish and habitat) asap.
Thanks Grampy, that was a respectable answer. Not that I necessarily fully agree with your ending opinion, I can absolutely respect it and see your point of view.
Again, I just wanted to show the "guidelines" not necessarily "mandates" (my apologies) that F&G had in their mission statement and get a constructive thread going. Looks to me like we are starting out good!
what the constitution says
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses
Yukon, I said to be careful because in the post you cited ADF&G has reduced the legal authority to words that may or may not be correct. For example, the issue of opportunity is not found in any statue or the constitution - it is a goal written by ADF&G without authority.
Instead, as Grampyfishes points out the actual powers of the Board of Fisheries and the Commissioner are found in Title 16. In Title 16 it states words like conservation and development of the fisheries. However, ADF&G has taken these words and changed them in the core services you quote.
There is also no place that ADF&G is authorized to optimize the economic benifit or public participation. That is all made up stuff. As you can see from the constitution it says subject to preferences among beneficial uses- not users - that is an important point. That is for the Commissioner and Board of Fisheries to decide. It is not required that ADF&G optimize anything, especially public participation.
So when I say be careful what I am saying is just because it is written down check the actual authority for the statements.
Unless you do this then any discussion of proposals is not very meaningful. I hear all the time the resources are owned by the people so the people have a right to the resources first. Not true. What the constitution says is beneficial uses - not users.
Hope that helps why I said be careful. Gofggling for 5 mintues can lead you down a path that is not true.
Nerka what is meant by benificial users? That eludes me at the moment? Does that basically specify commercial as they help with escapement? Just wondering.
thanks for taking the time for these threads.
It says benificial uses - not users - uses implies commercial fishing, sport fishing, subsistence fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting, personal use, ...
Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan
It does not say users because the state can limit the amount of users while still providing for the use. An example would be limited entry for commercial fishing, a permit system for hunting, tier program for subsistence -
It is very confusing because we are users who take advantage of a permited use. If the State decided commercial fishing should be the lowest priority use in Upper Cook Inlet we the people could do that relative to the constitution. We have no obligation to maintain a user group of commercial fisherman ( I am reaching here because limited entry may have changed that somewhat if the present takings lawsuit goes to through the courts and fisherman prevail - so far they have not).
Hope that helps.
It sure does. Amazing what a little "r" can do. Beneficial USES makes a lot more sense. Thanks!