Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 145

Thread: DNR funding and KRSA

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default DNR funding and KRSA

    I just was copied on an email from a Kenai Peninsula representative who said that he had 200k in the budget for the Use Study of the Kenai River requested by DNR. For those who do not know about this it is required by the courts before DNR can regulate guides on the river.

    The email noted that KRSA is fighting the funding and trying very hard to get it out of the budget. He was not sure he could keep it in. The KRSMA advisory board has also supported this funding but KRSA is in Juneau and opposing it strongly.

    Does anyone know the status of this funding and why KRSA would object to having a study of use patterns on the Kenai. The study as outlined by DNR would appear to meet the court requirments and therefore one can only assume objection is to maintain the status quo - let guide numbers continue to increase and push the private angler off the river.

    This representative had KRSA people in his office objecting to the funding so that part of the story is true from what I can tell.

    Where are the guides on this - I assume that some have objected as I saw an email from one past KPGA director - but he was representing himself.

  2. #2
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    The guide number will be down this summer if you already havn't heard. The requirement of the guide class is limiting the nymber of registered guides.......

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default that may or may not be true in the future

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    The guide number will be down this summer if you already havn't heard. The requirement of the guide class is limiting the nymber of registered guides.......
    This is probably a one year event but the question is why would KRSA oppose the study and be in Juneau to do so?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    TYNMON, the guide class isn't going to limit or reduce the number of guides. No other requirement ever has. In fact I heard rumor that there will be more guides than ever trying to get in before possible limits come. Are you going to throw in the towl because of the class?

    Nerka, KRSA fighting this study is confirmation that KRSA doesn't represent the sportsfishermen, but rather the commercial guide industry. So of course they are going to fight it, it is about them, not doing what is right. In the name of commercial guiding interests, they'll fight anything that has the slightest hint of helping the River if it means they have to give something. It will be interesting to see if DNR becomes another puppet to KRSA (example 50 hp increase, etc.), and who succumbs to the political lobbying. The use study is needed. And guide numbers not only need to be limited, but reduced. If the guides were smart they'd keep their leaders from cutting their own throats. Contact your representatives to make sure this study goes forward!

  5. #5
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Ill informed once again..

    Gramps the Kenai guide numbers has been at 396 the last two years, this year it will be down as their are at least 22 ppl who where not able to get into the class...

    As for you comments on KRSA... No need to comment as you are more than likely a member of KFC along w/ Nerka.... As if they represent the local sportfisherman... Not.... The only proposal that Dwight and KFC got through at BOF was the increase in time and length of king spawning area's.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    My two cents.

    First, remember that KRSA funded the Kenai River Working Group who's objective was to 1) find a legal way to limit Kenai River guides 2) look at what the number should be if they were able to find a way to limit Kenai River Guide's and 3) do this so that it was "Fair" to Kenai River Guides themselves.
    So, since KRSA was willing to fund this group their track record is good in my book on this matter. KRSA also has funded other Kenai River studies so I simply do not know why they would wish to block this user study or if they are indeed attempting to block this study. I do know that things are seldom what they appear on the surface so there is probably more to this than what is being reported.

    I support a "fair" way of coming up with a way to limit Kenai River guide numbers. I do not know what the magic "number" of Kenai Rver guides should be limited to. I do know that there are 400 KRG's now. How high can the number go while still sustaining the industry without leading to further restrictions for all? 420, 450, 500, 550... In my mind it has to stop somewhere and soon.

    The Kenai River Guide Academy is a step in the right direction for a variety of reasons but it was never meant to stop the number of new Kenai River Guides. Slow the growth down maybe but not to stop it. So, obviously the KRGA is not the answer in itself to limiting KRG numbers.

    Part of the problem of finding a way to limit guide numbers on the Kenai stem from a lack of trust in the system itself. There are some guides that will try to block any limitation because they are afraid of the uncertainy of any such program. Questions like "How will it effect me"? Will I be able to continue to guide? Will I be able to sell my business? Can I find a guide to work for me if something happens to me? Will my business be allowed to grow? How to determine who is in and who is out? Lottery?
    Large operations will want to make sure that they are protected and they have the money to go to the courts. If the large operations currently have multiple guides working for them they will want to make sure that they are able to maintain that number into the future. If it goes limited entry who gets the permit the guide or the business? Both? Neither in some cases? So many questions that no one has the answer to at this time and this is the crust of the inner problem.

    Another big part of the problem is the knowledge that even if the KRG numbers are limited that there will still be to many people on the Kenai for certain people. Some of the worst days as far as number of people on the river comes on a Sunday in July every year and this is a no guide day. Witness the Upper Kenai River as an area that already has a limited number of guides. There is still a over crowding problem here as well according to the word on the street. So, how do we limit the general public? Or, are we going to just to restrict the guides?

    Still, myself and a vast majority of the Kenai River Guides that I know are in support of limiting our numbers. As long as it is done in a "fair' manner.

  7. #7
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Good post, iceblue.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    Gramps the Kenai guide numbers has been at 396 the last two years, this year it will be down as their are at least 22 ppl who where not able to get into the class...

    As for you comments on KRSA... No need to comment as you are more than likely a member of KFC along w/ Nerka.... As if they represent the local sportfisherman... Not.... The only proposal that Dwight and KFC got through at BOF was the increase in time and length of king spawning area's.
    Well TYNMON when you cannot make a point attack the messenger. It speaks volumes. I guess your guide colors are showing in this one.

    First, people who cannot get into a class will and can sue the State of Alaska - if it is a state requirement then the State must provide a class to handle the volume. We will see if that happens but what took place with the class does not limit guides in any manner. It just makes a point for more guide classes.

    Since you want to attack KAFC and that they do not represent area sportfisherman maybe you should do some research before you open your mouth about accomplishments. Below is a report for the first year of the organization to the membership - I would say they are doing pretty good. Maybe the problem with your position is that they are having too much influence and you are afraid of what may happen in the future- you should be fearful if you want to maintain the status quo - that will not happen as the river environment is being damaged - turbidity violations are next.

    Finally, iceblue - the question was why would KRSA not support a study that the KRSMA board supports, the DNR supports, and the courts ordered. Grampy has it right as far as I can see. Lets hear from KRSA on this one -


    Kenai Area Fisherman’s Coalition Record of Achievements


    The Kenai Area Fisherman’s Coalition was formed in 2007 guided by a desire to ensure sound science is used to make management decisions, conservation concerns are prioritized over allocative concerns, and private anglers have a louder voice in local fisheries management. The initial membership was a combination of retired fisheries professionals and area fishermen. The membership has since grown to over 150 members based on organizational accomplishments.

    During the first year the Kenai Area Fisherman’s Coalition took several actions designed to level the playing field for the private angler. Many new members were generated by the full page advertisement questioning whether the monetary benefit of the Kenai River Classic outweighed the social derisiveness and political gerrymandering that come with it. We also initiated an attorney general decision that instructed Alaska Board of Fisheries members not to attend the Classic in any year where the Classic’s sponsors had proposals scheduled to be heard by the Board.

    A priority during the past year has been our contribution to Department of Natural Resource regulations designed to remove the Kenai River from impaired water body status due to hydrocarbon pollution. While we supported restrictions on 2-stroke outboard use during July we were the only organization that fought for some leniency regarding their use during other months. Our efforts were rewarded when the final regulatory package allowed 2-stroke outboards, outside of July, for five seasons rather than two as originally proposed. This allows for a more orderly and compassionate transition to clean motors while respecting water quality standards.

    Additionally, we submitted proposals and developed positions on every proposal before the Board of Fisheries for the 2008 Upper Cook Inlet Meeting. While in-river commercial users thwarted many of our sport fishery proposals, we were successful on several fronts. For example, we successfully argued meeting escapement goals should take priority during in-season salmon management. Additionally, we helped craft a new regulatory package that extended protection for mainstem spawning Chinook salmon through July in the sanctuary areas and liberalizing harvest opportunities on early run Chinook salmon under 28 inches to the resident angler’s advantage. The regulatory language was also reworded in a way that should allow for bait earlier in the season when warranted.

    In addition to the aforementioned accomplishments, we participated in public process by writing letters to the editor in local and regional papers and testifying in numerous meetings and hearings. Cumulatively these actions have increased out organization’s standing in the community. Members of our coalition sit on the following local decision-making bodies;
    • Fish Habitat Organization – a partnership of Kenai Peninsula agencies and organizations concerned with fish habitat.


    • Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association Board of Directors – a board that helps determine grant applications and directs research and enhancement projects for the association.
    • Kenai River Special Area Management Advisory Board – responsible for advising the Department of Natural Resources on Kenai River Special Management Area issues.
    • Kenai River Special Area Management Advisory Board committees – Our members sit of the Habitat committee and the Recreation Use committee.
    • State of Alaska Guide Limitation working group – A Department of Fish and Game group tasked with developing a statewide guide registration process.
    • Kenai/Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory Committee – Responsible for channeling local anglers concerns to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.

    These accomplishments, while impressive for a new organization striving to become an effective stakeholder in such a politically derisive landscape, require constant vigilance and effort if we expect to accomplish our long-term vision for the Kenai River, our natural resources and our rights as non-commercial users. Conservation will always be our foundation, yet we hope to yield more influence on behalf of private anglers as our membership grows and our organization earns more respect.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    TYNMON, 400 guides is unacceptable. And the fact that they remain unlimited means that number could follow its trend and potentially double in the next 25 years. Everyone knows that, even the guides think there are too many of themselves (reference Responsive Management Study ADF&G - 2003). That's exactly why the State has developed all these committees and task forces to address the problem. Wake up.

    You don't want to address my comment about KRSA because you are a guide and you know they are true. So one more time...explain why KRSA is fighting funding for this study? After all, the study would evaluate social impacts, environmental impacts, water quality, habitat, erosion, and fullfills the requirement so efforts for limiting guide numbers can proceed. Aren't those things we should all be concerned with?

    TYNMON, you obviously don't have a clue about KAFC, other than you see them as your opposition because they represent Joe Fisherman. Really you should be working as an ally with them. I'm not a member of KAFC, but I need to be. I support their cander, awareness, and their efforts that speak for the people, the river, and the fish. They are the only group I am aware of that represents locals and Joe Fisherman, and who have no commercial or political dog in the hunt. I like their science/fact approach. Of course you don't like them...sometimes the truth hurts.

    Thank you Nerka for the KAFC brief. Not bad for an organization with only one year under its belt.

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

    Default

    iceblue, one needs to only look at the declining condition of the Kenai River, and all the encompassing issues, to see exactly what KRSA has done. Just look at the situation we are in. In fact KRSA, supported by the guides and Bob Penney's crew, has been a detriment to the River. More, bigger, faster, harder, in the name of the "economic engine run hard". KRSA has done nothing but push the River beyond its limits. The studies they support did nothing but things like increase horsepower, find a way not to limit guides, take, take, take, more, more, more. They have driven a wedge between other user groups and the community like no other. Then they have the nerve to hide behind the auspice of doing good deeds for the River, which are no more than reactionary cover-ups of their own aftermath.

    You say KRSA tried to find a legal way to limit guides. When in fact all they did was find a legal way not to limit them. So I ask you the same question I asked TYNMON....if KRSA wants to limit guides, Why would KRSA fight funding for this study? After all, this public impact study, tying together social and environmental factors, is required by law so the Department may consider a limitation on guide numbers.

    http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=us

    I think KRSA and you guides piling on here are afraid of what such a study will show. That's why you're fighting it. And that is sad since our priority should be for the long-term health of the river itself. Not short-term economics driven by political greed. The River needs this study and I can think of no reason for a group like KRSA to oppose it.

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    . . KRSA doesn't represent the sportsfishermen, but rather the commercial guide industry. . .
    Perhaps a better way to think of it is that KRSA is pro-commercial development of the river and the surrounding area?

    For some fresh perspective, let me recommend a new book, Alaska Avengers by a local author, Craig Doser, available at River City Books in Soldotna, Amazon, etc.

    Book Description
    "Millions of salmon can’t be wrong! Three obstinate Alaskans meet and do their best to create mayhem in an attempt to protect the Kenai River, the most fished river system in Alaska. This is a fast-paced, frolicking novel about eco-terrorism at the urban-rural interface of one of Alaska’s most popular areas. While attempting to protect and defend the wild, the conspirators poke fun at river guides, tourists, developers, commercial fishermen, politicians, technology and each other. Along the way, they confront the ethics of civil disobedience and the problems of balancing the needs of society, nature and themselves." —Amazon


  12. #12
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Congrats to KAFC on work well done

    Nerka, appreciated reading that KAFC report on the accomplishments of the org after only one year. Everyone involved should be proud and I know it wasn't easy. Thank you for what you are doing!

    To TYNMON, I would just like to say that what proposals an org either gets through or doesn't via BOF is a lousy way of portraying whether or not they are doing good work.

    There is one huge difference between what the overall agenda of KRSA is, and the overall agenda of KAFC. That difference is in whether or not the habitat and fish come first, or whether the economic interests of sportfishing comes first. For KAFC it is the former; for KRSA it is the latter.

    I am not knocking KRSA agenda that seeks to "build it and they will come." Not from a business/economic standpoint. Having read and listened to their positions, I think it's very obvious what they want. I also think now it's even more obvious how they went about getting what they wanted.

    As a hardcore conservationist though, my views are 180-degrees different than KRSA's. So I'm very glad to see KAFC in the mix.

  13. #13

    Default Still in the budget

    Looks like the 200K is still in the budget - SB221- page 153 line 12.

  14. #14
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    TYNMON, 400 guides is unacceptable. And the fact that they remain unlimited means that number could follow its trend and potentially double in the next 25 years. Everyone knows that, even the guides think there are too many of themselves (reference Responsive Management Study ADF&G - 2003). That's exactly why the State has developed all these committees and task forces to address the problem. Wake up.

    You don't want to address my comment about KRSA because you are a guide and you know they are true. So one more time...explain why KRSA is fighting funding for this study? After all, the study would evaluate social impacts, environmental impacts, water quality, habitat, erosion, and fullfills the requirement so efforts for limiting guide numbers can proceed. Aren't those things we should all be concerned with?

    TYNMON, you obviously don't have a clue about KAFC, other than you see them as your opposition because they represent Joe Fisherman. Really you should be working as an ally with them. I'm not a member of KAFC, but I need to be. I support their cander, awareness, and their efforts that speak for the people, the river, and the fish. They are the only group I am aware of that represents locals and Joe Fisherman, and who have no commercial or political dog in the hunt. I like their science/fact approach. Of course you don't like them...sometimes the truth hurts.

    Thank you Nerka for the KAFC brief. Not bad for an organization with only one year under its belt.
    The only allies I saw KAFC have at BOF where commercial fisherman... No wonder they get so much support on this thread... As for KRSA, I think the guides would argue that what they want and the guides are one in the same.. You are right about KAFC I wouldn't be caught dead associated w/ the radical affiliation of this association, even though I have alot of respect for the former fisheries biologist that are associated w/ it.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default Bob Penney is a member

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    The only allies I saw KAFC have at BOF where commercial fisherman... No wonder they get so much support on this thread... As for KRSA, I think the guides would argue that what they want and the guides are one in the same.. You are right about KAFC I wouldn't be caught dead associated w/ the radical affiliation of this association, even though I have alot of respect for the former fisheries biologist that are associated w/ it.

    Tynmon - Bob Penney is a member of KAFC - not that we think his long term view of the river is what should happen but because we believe the membership should be open to all viewpoints for discussion. We have the same view about commercial fisherman. I would like you to explain the radical affiliation comment.

    At the Board of Fish meeting if your read KAFC comments we opposed most of the commercial fishing proposals - so what is your beef other than not being able to be objective or the fact KAFC does believe guide numbers and overall use of the Kenai River should be lowered if powerboats are allowed. Frankly, whether you join us or not is not the issue for me but the fact you know nothing about the organization - nor have you asked the leadership - correct me if I am wrong.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    TYNMON, you keep avoiding the question using misguided emotional diversion and distraction....

    Explain why KRSA did not want this study funded?



    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    The only allies I saw KAFC have at BOF where commercial fisherman...
    Your attempts to bash KAFC are futile. You obviously don't understand who makes up the membership of KAFC...private anglers, locals, guides, commercial fishermen, fisheries scientists and biologists, and many others who have an interest in preserving and conserving our fisheries for our future. You just don't like the fact that private anglers are starting to organize, and actually now have a group to help represent them.

    By the way, where were your (guide) allies at the BOF meeting? I didn't see any groups supporting you. I know KAFC worked compromise with the guides on their package, and KAFC had some support from the commercial fishermen, and of course the locals and private anglers. But what about the guides? The only support I saw them get was from their own political lobbying. Maybe you better read that Responsive Management Study I referenced, and also check out the public polls and surveys...the majority does not like the guide industry (you), nor do they support them.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    No wonder they get so much support on this thread...
    Well who wouldn't support this impact study, and why? As far as commercial fishermen supporting KAFC in this thread, I am a private sportsfisherman. Marcus is a private angler. I think Nerka is a fisheries biologist, buhsrat is a subsitance fisherman. The rest of you who are anti-KAFC and anti-impact study, are guides. Go figure.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    As for KRSA, I think the guides would argue that what they want and the guides are one in the same
    Exactly. The Kenai River Sportsfishing Association doesn't represent the sportsfishermen. They represent the commercial sportsfishing guide. So tell us, why are you fighting this impact study?


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    You are right about KAFC I wouldn't be caught dead associated w/ the radical affiliation
    Exactly what has KAFC done that makes you think they have a "radical affilitation"? Most think they have hit the nail right on the head. I don't see them playing KRSA's political money greed games.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    even though I have alot of respect for the former fisheries biologist that are associated w/ it.
    Those same people you say you respect make up KAFC.

    Just answer the question TYNMON.

    Edit: Oops. Sorry to post on top of your Nerka. Looks like we said about the same thing anyway.

  17. #17
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Answers to questions..

    I have no idea why KRSA opposes the guide limitations and frankly don't care... I trust those guys judgement and what they stand for...

    For all the personal attacks... whatever, I have only been a Kenai River Guide for one year and find the label amusing at best.

    Guides where well represented at the BOF and while you all believe that they where one in the same w/ KRSA, let me assure you that KRSA and KRPGA are hardly on the same page on many subjects.

    I have no person beef w/ KFCA... I said I had respect for some of its members as an organization however, I do not support what they stand for. Not from a guide's stand point, but from a biological and fishermans stand point.

    As for Nerka's assumptions that there will just be more guide classes for more guides he is wrong, but don't believe me, call Gary Turner and find out for himself, I beleive there are six classes a year and if you snooze you loose, first come first serve. There are not going to be more classes this spring to accomidate the guides that didn't take the class in time to guide this summer.

    I have many friends that are currently biologists, guides, and joe off the street fisherman. NONE of them aggree w/ many of what they would label radical beliefs of KFCA. Likewise, who cares, I would luv just to know home many member they represent anyhow... Either way they will never see a dime of my money...

    For the record, groups I do support are Fly Fishing Federation, Coastal Conservation Ass., KRSA, Trout unlimited, The Renuable Resources Coalition to name a few.

    To label my views as of common Kenai Guide is silly and any that know would not go there w/ me.

    I would say that my views esp on this site are just that my own personal views, not those of the guides, or KRSA, but what I value and think are important. One of the reasons I was asked to represent KRSA at BOF, was that I would first represent what they voted on, not the view of the guides, and that I would bring a a fresh look at the BOF topics from both the perspective and background in fisheries and fishing from around the state, not just the Kenai pennisula.

    The guides and KRSA has plenty of allies at BOF and certianly didn't have to go try and find friends in the commercial sector to have allies.

    Just for the record I have no problem w/ coimmercial fishing... I just would like to find the happy medium in fisheries management w/ an ecologic basis vrs the status quo of maximium sustainable yield.

    Once again I DO NOT represent any organization on this forum just my view points and if you guys have such a beef or questions for KRSA, call them up and ask... There are no ones hands in my pocket telling me what to say or do, nor do I care why they didn't what a study funded.

    So explain to me again why I should have to answer to Gramps, Marcus, or Nerka for KRSA? I am not a board member... Just a member who supports most of what they do. Yes, I support the KRPGA, I think Steve and Mike are have a great sence of reason and like the direction the organization is going.... Do I believe and support what their general membership does, porbably not. Do I deserve the label of some Jackass Guide that is uniformed on local and statewide fisheries issue?.... Certainly not.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default For The Record

    Not all Kenai River Professional Guides feel like their concerns are well represented by the KRSFA. Some of us are actally very concerned about the impacts we as a group have on the Kenai River. Some of us who have watched the growth for the last 30 to 40 years realize that without some restrictions put on ALL users, we will not be leaving a very pretty legacy for our grandchildren. I know of only two organizations that a Kenai Guide can belong to. I do not want to start a spitting match, but I belong to neither because I do not believe that they have a vision for the furure that matches mine. While I am also a little suspicious at times of KAFC, I do believe that what they are trying to do is give a voice to many who feel like they have had no representation in the past. To me, and I speak only for myself, this impact study can't happen soon enough.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    I have no idea why KRSA opposes the guide limitations
    Hold on...You just got done telling us you represented KRSA at the BOF meeting, and you don't deserve the label of some "Jackass Guide that is uniformed on local and statewide fisheries issue"! Now you want to play dumb? You seem to know more about KAFC that your own KRSA that you represent. Come on.

    TYNMON, you either support funding for the Kenai River use impact study, or you don't. You say you support KRSA, who is fighting against the funding for this study. So tell us why?? Surely if you are a KRSA representative to the BOF, and not a "Jackass Guide that is uniformed on local and astatewide fisheries issues", you must have a good reason. I mean if you're going to come on here and bash a group like KAFC who supports the funding, then you should say why you disagree with them.


    TYNMON, you also said the guide class requirement was limiting the number of guides. Then you turn around and say there are 6 classes and it's the guide's own fault if he doesn't take the class:

    "The requirement of the guide class is limiting the nymber of registered guides" - TYNMON

    "I beleive there are six classes a year and if you snooze you loose, first come first serve. There are not going to be more classes this spring to accomidate the guides that didn't take the class in time to guide this summer." - TYNMON

    So really, the required class isn't limiting the guides like you would have us believe. And while you would try to downplay no limits on guide numbers, you yourself were added to the list last year as a new guide. Go figure.

    "I have only been a Kenai River Guide for one year..." - TYNMON

    What Nerka was saying about the class was that it would be illegal to use the class as a method to limit the guides. Ample opportunity for the class must be made available to all guides. You missed that.


    Here you contradict your self again. In one breath you say KRSA represents the guides, and in another breath you say they aren't on the same page:

    "As for KRSA, I think the guides would argue that what they want and the guides are one in the same.." - TYNMON

    "Guides where well represented at the BOF and while you all believe that they where one in the same w/ KRSA, let me assure you that KRSA and KRPGA are hardly on the same page on many subjects." - TYNMON


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    I have no person beef w/ KFCA
    Is that a joke?...

    "You are right about KAFC I wouldn't be caught dead associated w/ the radical affiliation of this association" - TYNMON

    "No need to comment as you are more than likely a member of KFC along w/ Nerka.... As if they represent the local sportfisherman... Not...." - TYNMON

    You still haven't explained what all this "radical affiliation" stuff is, other than reckless accusations.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    I do not support what they stand for. Not from a guide's stand point, but from a biological and fishermans stand point.
    What exactly do you think they stand for, and what do you disagree with and why? Since KAFC is made up of biologists and fishermen, you need to explain.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    I have many friends that are currently biologists, guides, and joe off the street fisherman. NONE of them aggree w/ many of what they would label radical beliefs of KFCA.
    Bull. Who are they and what are all these "radical beliefs"?


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    I would luv just to know home many member they represent anyhow
    I thought you new everything about KAFC...or have you ever even contacted them? FWIW, last I heard they were about 200 members and growing. Not bad for the first year.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    To label my views as of common Kenai Guide is silly and any that know would not go there w/ me.
    I'll go there with you. First, you are a commercial guide. You are anti-commercial fishing, as represented by your last thread on gill netting and your support for KRSA who is anti-commercial fishing. You are anti-private fishermen, as represented by your protest for their representing group, KAFC. You downplay guide number problems. I'd say you fit the label almost perfectly.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    One of the reasons I was asked to represent KRSA at BOF, was that I would first represent what they voted on, not the view of the guides
    You're not kidding anyone. You are a guide. You represented KRSA as that guide, and nothing more. If KRSA wanted a non-biased representation, they would've had a non-guide representative.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    The guides and KRSA has plenty of allies at BOF and certianly didn't have to go try and find friends in the commercial sector to have allies.
    That's classic. Like having the commercial industry as an ally would be a bad thing for working out these issues. TYNMON, you exemplify the exact guide attitude and anti-commercial fishing bipartisanship that causes so many problems. BTW, who were all these allies KRSA had? The guides?


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    There are no ones hands in my pocket telling me what to say or do
    You mean you don't guide for profit?


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    nor do I care why they didn't what a study funded.
    If you didn't care you wouldn't have posted on the topic. Or maybe you like being a member of their organization without knowing what they do, or why. Maybe you represent them at BOF meetings without a clue as to what they do. Then again, maybe you just don't want to say why you don't support the funding because you know it shines the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    So explain to me again why I should have to answer to Gramps, Marcus, or Nerka for KRSA?
    Because you are a member of their organization, who supports what they do, and because you are a person you say was selected to represent them before the BOF.


    Lots of unanswered questions and blank explanations TYNMON. Your credibility is about zip right now.

  20. #20
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default Twist away...

    Because I represented KRSA at BOF means that I advocate all they do??

    My credibility is in jepordy... Oh please....

    Twist away Gramps.. I won't even go any further as all you want to do is twist responces and get fired up and blow gaskets.... If I where u I would worry more about how excited you get about a rediculous internet discussion in the first place.

    How much money do you think Kenai R guides make starting out? I tell you what guides don't guide for the money, but because they luv to fish and guide... If money was what we where after another line of work would certianly be appropriate.

    If I have to explain what radical views that KFAC has, then apparently you are the one misinformed not me. I am sure that they have the right pricipals in mind, but they do not represent the general fishing public resource users. Of course, KRSA doesn't either and nor is their intention they believe in maximizing ppl right to resources. That being said that is a direct conflict w/ reducing guides on the Kenai.... If their wasn't a market for the guides, then there would be less. Furthermore, 70% of the clients of guides that fish the Kenai are Alaskan's.... So when guides are limited, and I sure they will be, then prices will increase and Alaskan's will further be less entitled to a resource that they wish to utilize through a guide. While u may believe that guides are a bunch of money hungry monrgrols, most of us are just trying to make a living just like commercial fisherman.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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
  •