Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71

Thread: Palin Vetoes Kasilof Boat Launch......

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default Palin Vetoes Kasilof Boat Launch......

    I don't know if anyone noticed but Palin vetoed $1.2 million for a boat launch on the Lower Kasilof river. The launch would have provided a take-out for drift boats as well as provided a launching point for motorized vessels to access the dipnet fishery.

    Palin received a lot of pressure from the strong commercial fishing lobby in Juneau to veto this project under the guise of no public hearing. Instead of 2 years out for this project it will now take in the range of 5 years for this needed project to take shape.

    Make your own opinion but with the recent anti-dipnetting threat of legal action from the commercial fishing industry this is another way they are trying to limit dipnet access.

    I would suggest that dipnetters and Kasilof fishermen contact their Legislators and the Governor on this issue if you support increased access to your resources. Palin comes from a commercial fishing background and that is starting to show. I expected more from her on helping her Alaskan constituents gain access to the resources, not road blocks.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    ...yet another troll which serves no purpose other than to divide and separate.

    Yukon, your anti-commercial fishing agenda has once again left you short-sighted.

    Palin vetoed lots of things in an effort to cut the budget. There's more to the Kasilof boat launch than you are letting out. There are issues with the site itself...purchasing private land, historical importance, etc. Controversy with the locals who live there...traffic, garbage, encroachement on adjacent private property, etc. Then there are the issues of outboard motor pollution, habitat loss, a powerboat fishery, and a change in fishery management. All things we are trying to address and recover from with the Kenai dipnet fishery. Access is but one small aspect.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    Palin received a lot of pressure from the strong commercial fishing lobby in Juneau to veto this project under the guise of no public hearing....Palin comes from a commercial fishing background and that is starting to show.
    You are implying Palin was influenced by special interests, and that she has her own agenda. Care to back that up, or is this your lame attempt at muckraking?


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    with the recent anti-dipnetting threat of legal action from the commercial fishing industry this is another way they are trying to limit dipnet access.
    That's pathetic. You're once again trying to turn the commercial fishermen's concern for the Kenai River's habitat into "anti-dipnetting threats". Think habitat yukon. Habitat. That's where our fisheries begin.

    Yukon, you continue to fail to acknowledge the negative impacts associated with these dipnet fisheries. Regardless of the pollution, habitat, crowding, and social issues, your motto is "The sky isn't falling". Full speed ahead and don't look back. Uh huh.

    Even if you completely removed those nasty, horrible commercial fishermen from the face of the earth, the dipnet issues would still be there, and even worse.

    I believe Palin has some fore-sight on this one. If only we had the same fore-sight with the Kenai River's dipnet fishery...we wouldn't be in the mess we are now with it. I commend Palin for yanking this one until it can all be sorted out, and we can get a grip on the current dipnet fishery issues on the Kenai.

    You're an anti-commercial fishing troll yukon.

  3. #3

    Default

    Grampy,

    You got me laughing....Is fore-sight a golfing term? Thanks....

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Grampy, just calling a spade a spade, calling it how I see it. Hide behind "habitat". You should be supporting increaded dipnetting in tidewater. Not exactly critical habitat and if it keeps people from sportfishing the upper stretches of the river it is a postive thing. I would much rather have people dipping in tidewater than fishing from a grassy bank up river. It is about moving the masses to less impact. But as some seem to want, zero impact in the river and for all of us to buy our fish from commerical fishermen.
    BTW, I am not anti-commercial fishermen, never have been. I have some very good friends who are commercial fishermen. They see the greed in all this as well.

  5. #5

    Default

    I'm wondering how much more boat pressure the Kasilof will get now that they have closed the Kenai to 2 strokes. Could get interesting if you get a bunch of small boats in that river with the skiffs for the commercial boats too.

    With the road issues at Chitna, the motor issues on the Kenai more and more pressure on the Kasilof...


    40

  6. #6

    Default

    Habitat is important for sure. I can see the Kasilof becoming a very busy place with the new Kenai regs. As Alaska grows, they are all going to just get busier. With that, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see big business try to squeeze out the little guys and any competition that they can to survive. It is not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before and won't continue to happen in the future. Weather or not Palin is protecting habitat, big business , or just trying to avoid a big mess on the Kasilof is anyone's guess. One thing is for sure: with less access there will be fewer people using it and the river will have some protection just from that in itself.

  7. #7
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    don't look at me I voted for tony
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default beyound belief Yukon

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Grampy, just calling a spade a spade, calling it how I see it. Hide behind "habitat". You should be supporting increaded dipnetting in tidewater. Not exactly critical habitat and if it keeps people from sportfishing the upper stretches of the river it is a postive thing. I would much rather have people dipping in tidewater than fishing from a grassy bank up river. It is about moving the masses to less impact. But as some seem to want, zero impact in the river and for all of us to buy our fish from commerical fishermen.
    BTW, I am not anti-commercial fishermen, never have been. I have some very good friends who are commercial fishermen. They see the greed in all this as well.
    Yukon, you need to research the topic more before you post. This project was objected to by the local residents who had no say in the planning for it or the location. Second, it was objected to by KAFC and the Kenai Watershed Forum based on habitat issues. With the Kenai ban on two strokes providing access by powerboats to the dip net fishery would move lots of older two stroke engines to the Kasilof and we would be looking at impaired river status for that system. The Kasilof has no regulation that would stop that and until the Board of Fish acts it would not be a responsible project. In addition, there is no special management area so powerboats would not be limited - large jet boats could be launched and run up-river to fish chinook - which would change the nature of the drift boat fishery and recently ADF&G has opened dip netting to the bridge on large returns which would allow jet boats used for dip netting to conflict with the existing sport fishery.

    This all came about because ADF&G and KRSA failed to plan for how the facility would be designed, impacts on the river and existing user patterns, and impacts on the local residents. This was a bad project from that stand point and those who objected had valid reasons. It was not a commercial fisherman objection that killed this project. It was the combined effort of groups who care about process and planning for development. You should join that group but instead you jumped off the bridge without any data to support your claim.

    Also, saying you have friends that are commercial fisherman that see the greed is meaningless. There is no way to verify that is true unless you want to post who so we can contact them directly. You can PM me with the names and I will call them to let them know why groups are objecting. I somehow doubt that you will do that.

    ADF&G said they would plan after they got the money. That means the project will be built regardless of what the planning process shows. The no development option is off the table. That is a poor way to do business. We do not allow major projects to be designed that way when federal funds are used and I suspect if Palin had not veto the project the next step would be to request an environmental impact statement since federal funds were involved. We do not need to waste time in this manner. It would be better if ADF&G spend the time evaluating whether this is a good project from all perspectives. In fact, from what I understand ADF&G did not submit this but it was put in by a representative from an area outside the Kenai P.

  9. #9

    Default Now that's funny

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    ...
    Palin vetoed lots of things in an effort to cut the budget.

    You are implying Palin was influenced by special interests, and that she has her own agenda. .

    Palin cutting budget..........now that's funny as hell! Her budgets grow faster than my belly.

    As far as special interests goes...........there's not one politician in the world that isn't influenced by them. In Palin's case the biggest one is Teachers Unions.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Thank you Nerka.

    Yukon can't think past his nose. Here we are trying to address and fix the current problems the Kenai dipnet fishery has created, and yukon wants to start it all over again on the Kasilof without considering the facts, issues, or impacts...All under the premise of a crooked Palin and those horrible commercial fishermen. Come on.

    Yukon, I'm all for "supporting increased dipnetting in tidewater". The issue is all the problems doing that on the Kasilof raises. You can turn cheek to that. However, I will not.

    So why don't you explain how you're going to do it without steamrolling the residents who live there? Do you realize this is all private property? How are you going to address the potential powerboat and pollution situation that's bound to shift from the Kenai? How are you going to protect habitat? How are you going to address the crowding, garbage, and other facility problems. What adjustments are you going to make for a change in fishery use and the different user groups? What contributions did you make regarding planning and development to see it would be done properly?

    I am not surprised you didn't back up your accusations about Palin being influenced by special interests, and what you claim is a anti-dipnetting threat from commercial fishermen. Because you're just a trouble maker. And your comment about some of us wanting you to buy your fish from commercial fishermen is pathetic. The Kasilof has as much access as it always has, and Alaskans aren't having to buy their fish because of it. In fact tens of thousands of fishermen jam their freezers with fish without ever stepping foot on the Kasilof.

    Yukon, your "pay me now and worry about it later" attitude is the exact short-sightedness that will destroy (and has destroyed) our Rivers.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKKCChief
    Palin cutting budget..........now that's funny as hell! Her budgets grow faster than my belly.
    Palin recently vetoed 80% of a $70 million capital project spending package, including this Kasilof launch project. I don't care to discuss the policts of those veto's on this forum or in this thread. However, my point was that for yukon to single out this veto as some type of crooked, self-interest commercial fishing, anti-dipnetting, plan is just plain falacy. Lots of things were vetoed.


    Quote Originally Posted by AKKCChief
    As far as special interests goes...........there's not one politician in the world that isn't influenced by them. In Palin's case the biggest one is Teachers Unions.
    Again, if you or yukon have some evidence that Palin's Kasilof veto was influenced by commercial fishing special interests, please post it.

    I believe Palin did the right thing. No one should fund a project like this that is so lacking in planning and development. "Pay me now and worry about it later" doesn't work very well where fisheries are concerned. Lets get our ducks lined up and do it right this time.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Palin recently vetoed 80% of a $70 million capital project spending package, including this Kasilof launch project. I don't care to discuss the policts of those veto's on this forum or in this thread. However, my point was that for yukon to single out this veto as some type of crooked, self-interest commercial fishing, anti-dipnetting, plan is just plain falacy. Lots of things were vetoed.


    Again, if you or yukon have some evidence that Palin's Kasilof veto was influenced by commercial fishing special interests, please post it.

    I believe Palin did the right thing. No one should fund a project like this that is so lacking in planning and development. "Pay me now and worry about it later" doesn't work very well where fisheries are concerned. Lets get our ducks lined up and do it right this time.
    Ohhhh I get it; you're one of those that worship her feet. The fact is her overall budgets are the BIGGEST EVER! Her cutting a 58 million is pennies on the dollar when you look at her General Budget request last year and this year. Thank God the Legislature essentially cut her General Budget request by 1 BILLION this year. It was that fact that really got her panties in a bunch which resulted in her Grand Standing with the vetoes on the supplemental budget. Do some reading beyond the headlines Gramps and you'll see she is a RINO who likes to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    In addition, there is no special management area so powerboats would not be limited - large jet boats could be launched and run up-river to fish chinook - which would change the nature of the drift boat fishery and recently ADF&G has opened dip netting to the bridge on large returns which would allow jet boats used for dip netting to conflict with the existing sport fishery.
    Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but current regulations prohibit sport fishing from a motorized boat from Jan. 1 - July 31 downstream of the Sterling Hwy bridge. Since king fishing above the bridge is closed year-round, how would the boat launch change that?

    Also, the EO to increase the area allowed for dip netting from a boat was only allowed up to river mile 3, which is just below Trujillo's, specifically to avoid conflict with the sport fishery.

    It took quite a few boats on the Kenai River to cause an exceedance in the water quality standards, a level that the Kasilof has never really seen. Disscussion of such a possibility would probably be prudent.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKKCChief View Post
    Palin cutting budget..........now that's funny as hell! Her budgets grow faster than my belly.

    As far as special interests goes...........there's not one politician in the world that isn't influenced by them. In Palin's case the biggest one is Teachers Unions.
    I didn't realize that teachers were still getting rich in Alaska. Care to share what location that is?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Wouldn't it be nice if F&G had the money to do the research and obtain land when the opportunity is there? Without funding this project will go nowhere, it takes money to plan and get input on all the considerations Grampy mentioned. Nerka, there is already no king fishing from a powered boat in the Kasilof. No problems there. It is not like this project would finished this summer, it would be a couple years out. Plenty of time for regulation to be enacted, such as have been enacted on the Kenai to protect habitat. Heck, with the experience from the Kenai it seems like it would be rather easy to expand a the Kasilof fishery with regulation/fees in place to deal with the situations that arrise with increased use.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    You would think people would want to find ways to catch the excess fish in the Kasilof, can you imagine what all the overescapement has done to the spawning beds of the Kasilof?
    My commercial fishing buddies hate overescapement, wasted fish, wasted opportunity. The Kasilof has been overescaped for years, maybe this year we will see the affect of that. Or maybe it won't be artifically overescaped without the "enhancement" sockeyes by commercial fishermen.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    AKKCCheif, my concern here is the topic at hand...the Kasilof boat launch. Not who's a Palin supporter and who's not...Not the general budget...And not the Teacher's Union. You obviously have some penned-up issues with Palin, and I might suggest you take them to another site rather than hijack this thread.

    You and yukon have accused Palin of acting via the special interests of herself and commercial fishermen concerning the Kasilof issue. Yet neither of you have shown evidence of that when asked. And apparently neither of you seems concerned with the repercussions that going forward with funding this project could bring. I guess it's all political finger-pointing for you, and has nothing to do with the actual issues we face.

    If you think Palin should've funded a project like this, which clearly lacks planning and development and contains huge conflicts, and is a potential can of worms (especially in the wake of the Kenai's dipnet fishery problems), then explain how to make it work. Please explain how you're going to do this without steamrolling the residents who live there, and who own the private property? How are you going to address the potential powerboat and pollution situation that's bound to shift from the Kenai? How are you going to protect habitat? How are you going to address the crowding, garbage, and other facility problems. What adjustments are you going to make for a change in fishery use and the different user groups? What contributions did you make regarding planning and development to see it would be done properly?

    Again, "pay me now and worry about it later" doesn't work very well where fisheries are concerned. I don't care who's Governor or who's vetoing what. Lets get our ducks lined up and do it right this time. At this point, vetoing the funding was a step in the right direction.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akkona
    It took quite a few boats on the Kenai River to cause an exceedance in the water quality standards, a level that the Kasilof has never really seen.
    How many boats did it take on the Kenai? Can the Kasilof be compared to the Kenai in regards to how much powerboat pressure it can withstand? I saw an estimated figure (that came out of one of the planning meetings) that at least 400 powerboats per day would be using the fishery.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    it would be rather easy to expand a the Kasilof fishery with regulation/fees in place to deal with the situations that arrise with increased use.
    Like what? The Kenai hasn't exactly been a good example to go from, considering the current problems.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    My commercial fishing buddies....
    That's funny. You're one of the biggest anti-commercial fishing crusaders we have here.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Heck, with the experience from the Kenai it seems like it would be rather easy to expand a the Kasilof fishery with regulation/fees in place to deal with the situations that arrise with increased use.
    I already addressed your questions, granted without much detail so I will give it a go:

    1) Private property: Who? Not many owners on the banks of the Kasilof down in tidewater. I see a situation with increased traffic, would have to be addressed, dipnetting hour restrictions would help. Also improve the road to the launch access, widen it, seal coat it to prevent dust. Just a couple thoughts. Would there be more traffic and change, yes, it happens to us all.

    2) Powerboat pollution: dipnetting from 4-strokes only, pretty simple.
    And since there would only be one lauch it would be very easy to limit the number of boats. Determine the number, and make that many parking spots, once they are full, it is one out, one in.

    3) Habitat: this would be the lower 3 miles in tidewater, not critical habitat. If it keeps people off grassy banks on the Kasilof and Kenai then it is a big win for habitat, I would much rather see use in the muddy tidewater habitat.

    4) Crowding and associated problems: User fees from the launch, possible Kasilof (and Kenai for that matter) dipnet user fee. And with the addition of a lauch parking area, you can control crowds. No parking spot, no access. I have no problem with user fees as long as they go to the area for which they are paid and not the general fund.

    5) If the funding would have come through then the public process would begin and we can all proceed with the public input process.

    Grampy, I do more than just complain that nothing will work and change is bad on an internet forum.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post

    Like what? The Kenai hasn't exactly been a good example to go from, considering the current problems..
    Learn from the mistakes on the Kenai, we know what unintended consequenses have happend, develop the Kasilof so those problems don't arrise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    That's funny. You're one of the biggest anti-commercial fishing crusaders we have here.
    Kinda like all your guide buddies........Can't I have friends who commercial fish? Not all of them hate guides as much as some people. Believe it or not, many guides and commercial fishermen are friends and can see through the propaganda out there.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •