Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98

Thread: SB 284, Reorg. the board of fish, Sen.green.

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

    Default SB 284, Reorg. the board of fish, Sen.green.

    Boys and girls,please

    look up pending SB 284. Sen green attemptes to reallocate the BOF. 3 commercial/ 3 sport/ 3 personal use/ subsistence. And... 1 moderator/chairman. I like it. It levels the playing field. If anyone wants to argue, they are just showing their true colors. Let us even the playing field. Spread the dynamics, so to speak. Unless of course, you have other axe's to grind. This kind of spreads the voice around. Don't you think? Nothing is ever written in stone so all of you nay'sayers, justify your positions.... And declare your backing and background. So this way, you will tell the forum where you intend to benefit.

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Boys and girls,please

    look up pending SB 284. Sen green attemptes to reallocate the BOF. 3 commercial/ 3 sport/ 3 personal use/ subsistence. And... 1 moderator/chairman. I like it. It levels the playing field.
    Sounds like a winning mix to me.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default I think this is short sighted

    Sen Green is playing games for the valley and she knows it. This just continues the BOF political process. If she was really interested in running a corporation which the fishing industry is she would have positions not based on users but on knowledge of a number of fields.. For example, she could propose a BOF with an economist, biologist, ecologist, lawyer, and other professional disciples.

    Also, she could propose a sceintific staff to help the BOF. She is just doing something that has no chance of passing so she can say she tried but those other people stopped her. Not very ethical in my opinion. I assume she is smart enough to know this so I am putting a motive on her grandstand.

    Also, I do not believe any user group should be represented - they can have their input to the full time BOF and not get into the trade-offs user groups try to make. Also, none of the groups mentioned represent my interests - the long term health of the resource. This proposal puts users first.

    So, yes I will object to sen green and her grandstand. To the poorly informed it looks good but this has been before the legislature before and has gone down in flames because it is poorly thought out - Sen. Green should be ashamed of herself for this cheap political stunt.

  4. #4

    Default

    thewop2000, I think the only interest you have in a "Level playing field' is for more fish for you.

    Nothing "On the level" at all. Just allocation grabs to get more fish from a resource that's already 100% allocated.

    Be honest, that's the only reason you involve yourself politically, isn't it?


  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Boys and girls,please

    look up pending SB 284. Sen green attemptes to reallocate the BOF. 3 commercial/ 3 sport/ 3 personal use/ subsistence. And... 1 moderator/chairman. I like it. It levels the playing field....
    Sounds fair and reasonable to me. What's the current makeup?

  6. #6

    Default

    This sounds good but we all know this will lengthen the proccess. These decisions should be based on science that is objective. We do not need any more biased science with skewed data.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default Past Board makeups

    The past Board of Fish makeup has varied by user group. This is because geographic considerations come into play. So people want someone from Southeast, Kodiak, Yukon, BB, UCI, Cordova, etc on the board. What I find is that the Board tends to have a calming influence on the members in the long run. They tend to look at what they think is best for the State - the only Board I take exception with is when Dan Coffey was on the Board - he runs a different ship - he was very controling and tried to keep information from the Board members. I have personal experience with this so I can say it.

    I would like to see the Board of Fish restructured along with the support staff. Another way to do it is via regional BOF that deal with just there area - except for fisheries where stocks pass through more than one area - Kodiak to UCI - False Pass to Yukon. Those would have to be dealt with on a case by case bais with a different Board.

    This is just a couple of suggestions. I just wish Sen Green stops the politics and started being responsible if she really wants to do something. I believe she is way out of line on this one- especially just following a Board meeting for UCI

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    And..........I can't say I like being called "boy" at all. Maybe you were trying to be funny? Or make a point? Still where I grew up that is a big insult.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Question

    Did I hear correctly that there is counter-suggestion in Juneau to restructure Board membership based on end-user groups?

    Something along the lines of four commercial, two sport/PU/subsistence?


  10. #10
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    thewop2000, I think the only interest you have in a "Level playing field' is for more fish for you.

    Nothing "On the level" at all. Just allocation grabs to get more fish from a resource that's already 100% allocated.

    Be honest, that's the only reason you involve yourself politically, isn't it?

    I don't need more fish for me. I get my 35 reds a year and call it good. I usually only have one to two weekends to get them too. That is why I dipnet. Don't have time to sportfish and I don't like the political process, but work what I have to work. I just don't like the little guy being last in line when it comes to the resource. My political forum is the newspaper and the internet. I don't have lobbyists, lawyers, people paid to be involved in the political process. ONLY ME, and my humble opinion. Thank you very much.
    ISH, sounds like you think I have something more to gain? You are so off base. Don't even go there. I don't have money on the line, only fish in my freezer, or so I hope, except people want to take that fish out of my freezer every year. SO i HAVE TO CONTINUE to fight for those lousy 35 fish. FOR ME AND FOR MY NEIGHBOR.

  11. #11
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The past Board of Fish makeup has varied by user group. This is because geographic considerations come into play. So people want someone from Southeast, Kodiak, Yukon, BB, UCI, Cordova, etc on the board. What I find is that the Board tends to have a calming influence on the members in the long run. They tend to look at what they think is best for the State - the only Board I take exception with is when Dan Coffey was on the Board - he runs a different ship - he was very controling and tried to keep information from the Board members. I have personal experience with this so I can say it.

    I would like to see the Board of Fish restructured along with the support staff. Another way to do it is via regional BOF that deal with just there area - except for fisheries where stocks pass through more than one area - Kodiak to UCI - False Pass to Yukon. Those would have to be dealt with on a case by case bais with a different Board.

    This is just a couple of suggestions. I just wish Sen Green stops the politics and started being responsible if she really wants to do something. I believe she is way out of line on this one- especially just following a Board meeting for UCI
    the only Board I take exception with is when Dan Coffey was on the Board - he runs a different ship - he was very controlling and tried to keep information from the Board members. I have personal experience with this so I can say it. You got on me last week for mentioning comfish by name, tried to get the moderator to silence me. yet you mention Dan coffey, MODERATOR, Please let the individual know that this is not acceptable to mention names, Unless of course NERKA wants to point fingers and then it is alright.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default different situation.

    I mentioned the Board chairman becasue he was in charge of the procedures for the Board as chairman. He therefore, as a public figure, is fair game. Just like a politician since being appointed to the Board of Fish is a political process requiring confirmation by the legislature in a public forum.

    In contrast, naming the local biologist who does not have the authority to aact alone is not responsible. I would hope you could see the difference - further Mr. Coffey went on and used his Board experience to run for a seat on the Anchorage Assembly. He is fair game.

    Nice try -

  13. #13
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default so, what's any different?

    By my count, there's only 3 "commercial guys" on the board right now...if you want to pigeonhole folks: Morris, Jensen, Webster.

    And, 4 sport/subsistence/PU : Edfelt, Williams, Campbell, Delo.

    Can anyone argue that this isn't the current makeup of the Board -- if you want to apply labels?

    So, what would change? Would members under this new "format" be somehow obligated to vote with their "constituency", and who decides how that vote falls out?

    After this meeting, lots of people have claimed that the Board is "loaded" or "stacked" with commercial interests. That is a load of manure.

    Anyone can (and undoubtedly always will) be unhappy with ANY Board meeting outcome...but saying the outcome was predetermined or that the Board was stacked is ridiculous.

  14. #14
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    what happens if you are an advocate for subsistence, sport, and commercial fishing?
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink It's a plot. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    . . .
    After this meeting, lots of people have claimed that the Board is "loaded" or "stacked" with commercial interests. That is a load of manure.

    Anyone can (and undoubtedly always will) be unhappy with ANY Board meeting outcome...but saying the outcome was predetermined or that the Board was stacked is ridiculous.
    I'm afraid, Art, that the tendency to see black helicopters is universal . .


  16. #16
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Think about what is most important

    Our org heard about this when it was submitted. I went to find the sponsor statement but there wasn't one. Checked just now and still can't find one, which is kinda odd.

    What continually surprises me is that folks whom I thought were knowledgeable about how the process currently works would think Sen. Green's bill is somehow a good idea. It's the antithesis of a "winning mix," Francis. It isn't "fair and reasonable," Charholio.

    How telling that those who support this don't find it odd there is no representation for the habitat, no voice for the lakes and rivers. And no voice for the fish. And that sums up what our real problem is right now and in the future...too many aren't prioritizing the fish and habitat as thee #1 goal. We can sort out the allocation issues through conflict resolution and compromise, but only if decisions on allocation are grounded in biological truths and what is best for the long-term sustainability of the fishery. From all sides, I see evidence of "mine mine mine," and "more more more." No one user group that I can see is immune from demanding more for themselves at the expense of other groups and at the expense of the fishery. Mandating a Board makeup that must represent specific user group interests --- when there isn't even any representation for the fish and habitat --- is the height of ignorance.

  17. #17
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default BOF

    APM, I guess if you are an advocate of all three, you either sit out of discussions, or run for Governor, I'm not sure which? Seriously, we all have either backgrounds or biases that lead us to any decisions. The problem is the honesty in which we are honest with ourselves , and the justifications in which we use to come to any decisions, and prepare responses to back up same. I suspect those are mostly (subconcious)sic, me thinks!!!

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Welcome to the world of realpolitik. . .

    Mark,

    It's my understanding, vis-a-vis the BoF, that it's the function of ADF&G, ADNR, KRSMA, and other state agencies to advocate for the fish and the environment.

    That's why the Kenai, Big Lake, and more are in such good shape . .

    Given human nature, all one can reasonably expect from any user group is self-interest as The Tragedy of the Commons makes plain. Any special-interest advocate who tries to mask their self-serving agenda in some sort of altruism is either horribly self-deluded or will fib about other things too.

    realpolitikónoun
    1: realpolitik, practical_politics
    politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations


  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default thanks Mark and Mr. Fish

    Thanks for your comments. In the cold light of day this move by Sen Green is just wrong. Also, the presnet Board, as Mr. Fish, pointed out would be more sport fish oriented but the Board has a leveling culture to it and people try to do the right thing.

  20. #20

    Default All the commerical fishermen I know are for the health of the run.

    Commerical fishermen need the runs to be healthy for our future. All the fishermen I know have the health of the runns as priority #1.

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
  •