After reading some of the recent posts it has become evident that a lot of opinions are "trumped" by in essence saying that you can't be critical of F&G without having a degree or experience that F&G has. The open process that we are about to go through is directly related to that. Basically, what I am failing at attempting to say, is that pretty much every proposal to the BOF is trying to tell F&G how to manage and allocate the fish by people that don't have the degrees or experience of F&G managers (both sportfishing and comfish). Heck, the BOF doesn't have the experience that many on this board desire from posters.
Personally, I like the open, public system that we have now.
Do others agree or would they like to see F&G manage, set limits, methods and means, escapements, allocations, etc....... on their own without the BOF process?
(as is done in many other states)
How should our rules and regulations be made?
One distinction between the role of the Board and ADFG is that the Board is charged with making allocation decisions. The biology is left to the Department. It is not appropriate or is it fair to the fishery managers to ask them to make the difficult allocation decisions among the dog-eat-dog fishery politics in Cook Inlet even if they might be willing to do so. I have to admit to being pretty impressed with the Alaska Board of Fisheries process - it gives everyone a chance to have a say and the Board listens and works really hard to do the right thing.
Unfortunately the line between biology and allocation can become somewhat blurry at times. Virtually every apparently biological decision has some allocation implication. Take the Yentna underescapements for instance. There is a biological component to deciding whether to restrict central district fisheries in order to meet the Yentna goal. Underescapements reduce yield. Corresponding large escapements onto the east side beaches potentially reallocate harvest shares from the drift netters to the set netters. What happens to the river fisheries depends on how agressively the set net fishery is fished. If it goes hard, then the in-river fisheries are impacted.
To me it makes sense for it to be the Board's call on what priorities drive decisions. They have an open public process in which to consider their decisions. It should not be the commercial or sport fishery manager's call on which fishery group gains or benefits in situations like this. His role is to lay out the alternatives and biological or allocation implications of each in order to inform the Board's decision.
It can get complicated but you don't have to be a rocket scientist or government employee to understand how it all works, to ask the hard questions, and to advocate for what you deem to be a fair share of the allocation.
Good. . .
Well said, Bfish. . . wish to heaven all posts were as intelligent!
Unfortunately, economic perception is reality for most, detrminative of what we perceive to be the "facts."
The love of money is the root of all evil in society.