Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 84

Thread: Dipnetting cutbacks AGAIN!!!

  1. #1
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Dipnetting cutbacks AGAIN!!!

    Hey Guys, If you value your dipnetting and believe the average Alaskan should take priority, before commercial fishers, please contact me at Federico@ptialaska.net. Come February, the BOf is considering cutbacks to our annual catch limits, From 25 to 15. If you can give three minutes come Feb., 2nd, it will only help our access to the resource. Cell- 715-8363. Stand up for your rights... Thanks. Ken

  2. #2
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Hey Guys, If you value your dipnetting and believe the average Alaskan should take priority, before commercial fishers,
    Because commercial fishermen aren't average Alaskans?

  3. #3
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    During the oil spill I had a commercial fisherman bend my ear for an hour and a half about his money woes. He was going to have to sell one of his three houses, one of his two $100,000+ motorhomes and at least two of his four trucks. All because he was going to run out of money in seven months as his monthly 'nut' was $40,000.

    Average? I was living in my truck.

  4. #4

    Default

    Do you have anymore info about this? Is it the copper or kenai?

  5. #5
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Kenai/Kasilof proposals to the Board of fish.

    In February, the BOF meets in Anchorage to make decisions for upper cook inlet, for the next couple of years. There are about six proposals to cut back the family limit from 25 to 15. There are also proposals to do away with the windows, Those are the 36 hours each week that the commercials can't fish, to allow fish to enter the Kenai and Kasilof. The Commercials are saying, when the fish are here, we want to be able to fish 7 days a week. If we don't get enough people to give three minutes of their time, to testify before the BOF, telling the Board to leave our fish alone, we will probably be cut back. You have to remember that the Commercial guys don't have to work in the winter and can show up to testify for themselves. Please pass this on to all who dipnet. I started the South-central Alaska dipnetters association last year because they wanted to cut back dipnetters to only three fish a day.Dipnetters need to stand up for their fair share of the resource. I can be reached at 715-8363 or Federico@ptialaska.net. Thanks for your interest.

  6. #6

    Default Great. Another allocation grab.

    Could you please link us to these proposals and show us where the evil greedy comfishers have decided that they must have a portion of your fish to continue their evil greedy quest for filthy lucre?

    Thanks in advance.

  7. #7
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Originally Posted by thewhop2000
    Hey Guys, If you value your dipnetting and believe the average Alaskan should take priority, before commercial fishers,
    Because commercial fishermen aren't average Alaskans?
    Ummmmm, actually, that's correct since a percentage of commercial fishing permits are held by non-residents, and dipnetters (by regulation) must be Alaskan residents.

  8. #8

    Default spin

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Ummmmm, actually, that's correct since a percentage of commercial fishing permits are held by non-residents, and dipnetters (by regulation) must be Alaskan residents.

    What has happened to consistency in commercial/resident/nonresident/fish/game considerations?


  9. #9
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Ummmmm, actually, that's correct since a percentage of commercial fishing permits are held by non-residents, and dipnetters (by regulation) must be Alaskan residents.
    Please, Mark. The post I was referring to didn't say that average Alaskans should have priority over some commercial fishermen, but over commercial fishermen period. He was clearly suggesting that they are not, in fact, average Alaskans. Your post points out that "a percentage" of permits are held by non-residents. True. So...therefore those that are Alaskans should be somehow punished because some permits are held by non-residents? Yeesh...

    As for the "rich commercial fishermen" remarks in another post above, I can most certainly assure you that is not the case 99% of the time. I have known more commercial fishermen that have gone bankrupt chasing the dream of a life at sea than have found financial security, much less wealth.

    The vast majority of UCI salmon fishermen most certainly are average Alaskans. If you want to advocate for dipnetters, please do so. (Heck, I dipnet every summer myself.) Please, though, do not try to paint a false picture of average Alaskans vs. evil outside wealthy commercial fishermen who seek to plunder our resources so they can buy a 4th RV.

  10. #10
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    Ummmmm, actually, that's correct since a percentage of commercial fishing permits are held by non-residents, and dipnetters (by regulation) must be Alaskan residents.
    What has happened to consistency in commercial/resident/nonresident/fish/game considerations?
    The only consistency in fish and game law/reg in Alaska was the golden rule; he with the gold makes the rules.........

  11. #11
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Originally Posted by thewhop2000
    Hey Guys, If you value your dipnetting and believe the average Alaskan should take priority, before commercial fishers,
    Because commercial fishermen aren't average Alaskans?
    Ummmmm, actually, that's correct since a percentage of commercial fishing permits are held by non-residents, and dipnetters (by regulation) must be Alaskan residents.
    Please, Mark. The post I was referring to didn't say that average Alaskans should have priority over some commercial fishermen, but over commercial fishermen period. He was clearly suggesting that they are not, in fact, average Alaskans....
    I was answering your question, and I believe I did so accurately.

    ....Your post points out that "a percentage" of permits are held by non-residents. True. So...therefore those that are Alaskans should be somehow punished because some permits are held by non-residents? Yeesh...
    No, not necessarily.

    I'd be quite happy if non-resident commercial fishermen were prioritized lower than resident commercial fishermen in the Copper River commercial fleet.

    Just for the record:

    2006 grand total of commercial fishing vessels: 9755
    2006 commercial fishing vessels, Alaska resident: 7203 (74&#37
    2006 commercial fishing vessels, California resident: 168 (2%)
    2006 commercial fishing vessels, Oregon resident: 268 (3%)
    2006 commercial fishing vessels, Washington resident: 1809 (19%)
    2006 commercial fishing vessels, Other resident: 307 (3%)

    ....The vast majority of UCI salmon fishermen most certainly are average Alaskans.......
    I agree. There's a substantial shore-based set-net fishery in UCI who are primarily Alaskan residents. "Only" 17% of Cook Inlet set net permits are held by non-residents.

  12. #12
    Member Toddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    556

    Default $$$ vs The little guy

    Brian
    I do believe that commercial enterprises with their sights clearly on the almighty dollar will move to cut the little man out. You can clearly see it when the National Fisheries management wanting to limit the private take on halibut when the by-catch from the commercial operation is 5-10 times the private take. It is not about residency, it is about commercial entities taking actions that will severely impact, or impede completely our access to the fishery.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toddler View Post
    Brian
    I do believe that commercial enterprises with their sights clearly on the almighty dollar will move to cut the little man out. You can clearly see it when the National Fisheries management wanting to limit the private take on halibut when the by-catch from the commercial operation is 5-10 times the private take. It is not about residency, it is about commercial entities taking actions that will severely impact, or impede completely our access to the fishery.
    Do you mean this in a general, "Commercial fishers catch all my fish and it's not fair" sense?


    Or do you refer to some specific proposal whereby commercial fishermen are attempting to grab a portion of the personal use allocation on the Kenai from it's rightful holders?

    If you mean something specific, please show us.

    Thank you.

  14. #14
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    Do you mean this in a general, "Commercial fishers catch all my fish and it's not fair" sense?

    Or do you refer to some specific proposal whereby commercial fishermen are attempting to grab a portion of the personal use allocation on the Kenai from it's rightful holders?

    If you mean something specific, please show us.....
    May I?

    The commercial fishing industry makes up a statewide average of 95% of the total salmon harvest. I can provide links to support that claim.

    The taxes paid on this largess is insignificant, to say the least:

    ....Fisheries Business Tax
    The fisheries business tax is levied on businesses that process or export fisheries resources from Alaska. Although the tax usually is levied on the act of processing, the tax is often referred to as a “raw fish tax” because it is based on the value of the raw fishery resource. Tax rates vary from 1% to 5%, depending on whether a fishery resource is classified as “established”
    or “developing,” and whether it was processed by an on-shore or floating
    processor.....
    One to five percent. This after recently pounding the oil and gas industry at 25%.

    And few Alaskan residents are interested or capable of harvesting and processing their own oil and gas.

    Many Alaskan residents are very interested in harvesting and processing their own salmon in order to put food on the table. But in order to do so they must fight the political fish wars, which have been ongoing for decades........even before statehood, and even involving foreign nations.

    I need the commercal fishing industry like I need a nuclear detonation in my watch pocket. Of course, I'm not employed in the industry, nor is my local government involved. In fact, my locality (Mat-Su) gets screwed royally in the fish wars.

    So that's my perspective; from the outside looking at.

    But, it could be worse. Look here for any tax on commercial hunting (guiding).

    Good luck..........

  15. #15

    Default The list is growing

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post

    But, it could be worse. Look here for any tax on commercial hunting (guiding).

    Good luck..........
    Thank you Mark; I missed that one.


  16. #16
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Thank you Mark; I missed that one.
    You're quite welcome.

    And if (by pure chance) you find that hunting guides pay any state taxes whatsoever, please let me know............

  17. #17

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    May I?

    The commercial fishing industry makes up a statewide average of 95% of the total salmon harvest. I can provide links to support that claim.
    Misnomer. Commercial fishers, with vastly more efficient gear, and the experience and ability to fish many places in most weather, are going to catch the vast number of fish. That's what they do.
    Also, the majority of commercial salmon landings are pink salmon. Not exactly taking food out of your mouth....

    Do you think eliminating commercial fishing equates to 20X more PU fish for you ?





    The taxes paid on this largess is insignificant, to say the least:



    One to five percent. This after recently pounding the oil and gas industry at 25%.

    And few Alaskan residents are interested or capable of harvesting and processing their own oil and gas.
    Red Herring.
    There are taxes specific to fishermen and fish processors which are not included in you source. This implies that fishermen pay a 1-5% tax rate. This is incorrect.

    Enhancement taxes= 2-3% of gross landings (that's right, tax is on the gross...) (these monies directly fund hatcheries, fisheries management, and scientific research on salmon), Port and City assessments on fish landings= 2-3%, Alaska Seafood Marketing Assessment= 0.5%,


    This bumps the average fisherman's tax bill well over the Alaska State corporate maximum from your link. Corporations pay this on net profit.

    http://www.tax.state.ak.us/programs/..._2007_2008.pdf



    Fishermen pay a lot of taxes to harvest a resource they themselves pay to renew and keep sustainable.

    Does Big Oil do this? (I know it's a false comparison, but it's Your comparison...)




    Many Alaskan residents are very interested in harvesting and processing their own salmon in order to put food on the table. But in order to do so they must fight the political fish wars, which have been ongoing for decades........even before statehood, and even involving foreign nations.
    The vast majority of Alaskans who consider Subsistence/PU salmon a major priority live in areas where they can have more opportunity than in urban or suburban Alaska. If feeding your family with wild caught PU salmon is a big enough priority, you can choose to establish residency in an area where legal gear types and Subsistence openers aren't as restrictive.







    I need the commercal fishing industry like I need a nuclear detonation in my watch pocket. Of course, I'm not employed in the industry, nor is my local government involved. In fact, my locality (Mat-Su) gets screwed royally in the fish wars.

    So that's my perspective; from the outside looking at.

    But, it could be worse. Look here for any tax on commercial hunting (guiding).

    Good luck..........
    Commercial fishing was going on here before most of us were born or emigrated here. There are still large numbers of salmon to catch every year.
    This is prima facie evidence that commercial fishing does not destroy the resource any more than legions of hunters destroy Pennsylvania's deer population.

    It is superficial at best to say that the elimination of commercial fishing will equate to more fish for you. Just like the culling of the mountain lion didn't equate to more deer in the Kaibab, the sport or PU fisher (or hunter, in the case of the Kaibab NF) doesn't necessarily benefit from the elimination of a major predator.

    In light of these counter-intuitive examples, the burden of proof rests on those who make the positive claim.
    You posit that eliminating commercial fishing will result in a greater number of convenient PU/Subsistence sockeye for the needy people of the Valley in the long term. You must prove how this can be so.



    On a side note, I am not a commercial fisherman.

  18. #18
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    ....The commercial fishing industry makes up a statewide average of 95% of the total salmon harvest. I can provide links to support that claim.....
    Misnomer. Commercial fishers, with vastly more efficient gear, and the experience and ability to fish many places in most weather, are going to catch the vast number of fish. That's what they do.....
    And they have no individual limits. They are free and encouraged to catch all they can within the alloted time.

    ....Also, the majority of commercial salmon landings are pink salmon. Not exactly taking food out of your mouth....
    Yet the fish wars on the East side of UCI are not about humpies, are they?

    ....Do you think eliminating commercial fishing equates to 20X more PU fish for you ?...
    Nope. I couldn't use that many fish, anyways.

    The fact stands. I'll repeat it here:

    The commercial fishing industry makes up a statewide average of 95% of the total salmon harvest.

    The taxes paid on this largess is insignificant, to say the least:

    One to five percent. This after recently pounding the oil and gas industry at 25%.

    And few Alaskan residents are interested or capable of harvesting and processing their own oil and gas.
    Red Herring.
    There are taxes specific to fishermen and fish processors which are not included in you source. This implies that fishermen pay a 1-5% tax rate. This is incorrect.

    Enhancement taxes= 2-3% of gross landings (that's right, tax is on the gross...) (these monies directly fund hatcheries, fisheries management, and scientific research on salmon), Port and City assessments on fish landings= 2-3%, Alaska Seafood Marketing Assessment= 0.5%,

    This bumps the average fisherman's tax bill well over the Alaska State corporate maximum from your link.
    The Enhancement "tax", and "marketing assessment" do nothing for the rest of us (meaning the other state residents) if the industry claims rights to the fish the enhancement brings forth.

    The 1% - 5% fish tax is all that goes to the state just like the 25% the oil and gas industry goes completely to the general fund. The rest goes right back to the good of the fishing industry.

    ...Fishermen pay a lot of taxes to harvest a resource they themselves pay to renew and keep sustainable....
    Again, if I pay the state a "tax", and it all goes back into my private infrastructure, is it truly a tax?

    ....Does Big Oil do this? (I know it's a false comparison, but it's Your comparison...)...
    Nope, but if there was a way to rear and stock oil back into the ground, I'd be calling for the oil corporations to do it, and I wouldn't call it a "tax".

    Many Alaskan residents are very interested in harvesting and processing their own salmon in order to put food on the table. But in order to do so they must fight the political fish wars, which have been ongoing for decades........even before statehood, and even involving foreign nations.
    The vast majority of Alaskans who consider Subsistence/PU salmon a major priority live in areas where they can have more opportunity than in urban or suburban Alaska. If feeding your family with wild caught PU salmon is a big enough priority, you can choose to establish residency in an area where legal gear types and Subsistence openers aren't as restrictive.
    Yup. I sure could.

    But I choose to live where I do because I like the people here.

    And I get my share of fish. I certainly can't do it where I used to............

    I need the commercal fishing industry like I need a nuclear detonation in my watch pocket. Of course, I'm not employed in the industry, nor is my local government involved. In fact, my locality (Mat-Su) gets screwed royally in the fish wars.

    So that's my perspective; from the outside looking at.

    But, it could be worse. Look here for any tax on commercial hunting (guiding).

    Good luck..........
    Commercial fishing was going on here before most of us were born or emigrated here. There are still large numbers of salmon to catch every year.
    This is prima facie evidence that commercial fishing does not destroy the resource any more than legions of hunters destroy Pennsylvania's deer population.
    All correct.

    I suppose that's a great reason for the industry not to pay the state a decent royalty, but it sure doesn't get any points from me.

    I guess I'm just an old, tired curmudgeon.

    .....It is superficial at best to say that the elimination of commercial fishing will equate to more fish for you.....
    I suppose it would be.

    But, of course, I didn't say that.

    You did.

    ....In light of these counter-intuitive examples, the burden of proof rests on those who make the positive claim.
    You posit that eliminating commercial fishing will result in a greater number of convenient PU/Subsistence sockeye for the needy people of the Valley in the long term. You must prove how this can be so....
    Actually the burden of proof is back on you to show where I wrote that.

    Where did I advocate "eliminating commercial fishing"?

    ...On a side note, I am not a commercial fisherman....
    Oh.

    I suppose I "accused you" of being such?

  19. #19

    Default

    Sorry the double post.

    Mark, I didn't notice anything specific at all concerning any BOG dipnet proposals.
    Since you appeared to quote my request for something specific with a gallant, "May I", and later accepted thanks for a JWD, I find it inconsistent that you enumerated absolutely nothing specific WRT any BOG dipnet proposals.
    Perhaps my profound lack of perception led me to overlook a subtle turn of phrase wherein you demonstrated any specific point about any upcoming BOG proposal?

    Please forgive the errors of my advanced years, but all I read were logical fallacies and vague general rants from someone who admitted to not being well versed in a subject he didn't address.

    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that tend to detract somewhat from the soundness of your opinion?

    Just sayin'....

    Ish

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    ....Mark, I didn't notice anything specific at all concerning any BOG dipnet proposals.....
    Nor did I.

    ...Since you appeared to quote my request for something specific with a gallant, "May I", and later accepted thanks for a JWD, I find it inconsistent that you enumerated absolutely nothing specific WRT any BOG dipnet proposals.
    Perhaps my profound lack of perception led me to overlook a subtle turn of phrase wherein you demonstrated any specific point about any upcoming BOG proposal?...
    Perhaps so.

    What I did with my "gallant 'May I'" was ask if I could answer your questions posted here:

    Do you mean this in a general, "Commercial fishers catch all my fish and it's not fair" sense?

    Or do you refer to some specific proposal whereby commercial fishermen are attempting to grab a portion of the personal use allocation on the Kenai from it's rightful holders?

    If you mean something specific, please show us.....
    I note nothing in those questions citing the specific BOF action regarding dipnetting.

    ....Please forgive the errors of my advanced years, but all I read were logical fallacies and vague general rants from someone who admitted to not being well versed in a subject he didn't address....
    Okay. I'll gladly forgive the errors of your advanced years.

    I'm getting up there myself.

    ...Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that tend to detract somewhat from the soundness of your opinion?...
    Apparently, it does for you.

    However, the facts I cited and linked are still there, and they are still facts.

    Just sayin'....
    Yeah. Me too.

    Just saying, quoting, and linking the facts.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •