Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 115

Thread: Why we are the way we are...a primer for the un-initiated

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

    Default Why we are the way we are...a primer for the un-initiated

    First of all, thank you Brian for closing a thread in which some of the discussion had become quite ugly over the past few days…even after a warning from the webmaster in a different thread just the day before.

    If you’re very familiar with fish management/politics in AK (or anywhere else for that matter) then this probably isn’t much of a surprise to you. Here in AK, we’re fortunate…by and large…to have healthy and abundant fish stocks. SOMETHING WORTH FIGHTING FOR, even if the solution(s) aren’t all that obvious or reachable by unanimous consent. If it was that easy or obvious, there wouldn’t be any need for the BOF, NPFMC, or even for the Legislative task force.

    We all care about the fish…passionately so…and we can let it turn to personal attacks against those that may disagree on the small points. Yes, I said the small points – even though those “small points” may seem “big”, depending on your point of view.

    So, enjoy! Hopefully the tone will improve. The “Management” forum has been quite valuable, in my opinion. I’ve said before (as have others) that we’re not likely to change each other’s minds --but maybe we can better understand other points of view. People should take a deep breath and sleep on it before posting a knee-jerk reaction to another post.

    Best Regards,
    Art Nelson
    amateur fish killer and former BOF member
    Last edited by MRFISH; 04-22-2008 at 21:07. Reason: spelling

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default Try looking in the mirror

    Nice post Art. I suggest we all stand back and take a look in the mirror. We have met the enemy, and he is us. Without some compromise from each and every user group the whole process is useless. I have learned a lot by reading and posting in this forum. Being respectful of those you disagree with is the first step towards bridging the gap. I have learned from Nerka, Grampyfishes, IceBlue, Yukon and Mr. Fish to name a few. Thanks for helping to enlighten me. On a brighter note, i floated the lower river today from pillars to cunningham and am happy to say there is no longer a snag at the bottom of the crossover.

  3. #3
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default gone fishing...I wish

    GotFish, you're killing me! You actually went fishing today, instead of just talking about fishing? Jealous, I am.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default Read em and weep Mr. Fish

    The fishing was a little slow. But to watch that rod-tip of mine dance was priceless! and it really made me wonder what all the hubbub is about the crowding.

  5. #5

    Default Snag and previous forum

    Quote Originally Posted by gotfish? View Post
    Nice post Art. I suggest we all stand back and take a look in the mirror. We have met the enemy, and he is us. Without some compromise from each and every user group the whole process is useless. I have learned a lot by reading and posting in this forum. Being respectful of those you disagree with is the first step towards bridging the gap. I have learned from Nerka, Grampyfishes, IceBlue, Yukon and Mr. Fish to name a few. Thanks for helping to enlighten me. On a brighter note, i floated the lower river today from pillars to cunningham and am happy to say there is no longer a snag at the bottom of the crossover.

    Thanks for the news on the snag... I lost a few really good plugs on that snag...

    For the record, I am totally and completely unaffiliated and yet sent the POM regarding the funding. I support this study.

    I too have learned much after wading through the bantering. Thanks to all, and Thanks to Dave for shutting it down.

    Ed French

  6. #6
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gotfish? View Post
    On a brighter note, i floated the lower river today from pillars to cunningham and am happy to say there is no longer a snag at the bottom of the crossover.
    Oh really? The one on river right above the gravel bar? Or the one on river left at the top of the exposed claybank?

    If it was the latter, I need you to rummage thru all the plugs you salvaged off that sucker and tell me if you find a Purple Peril K16 (Luhr Jensen Gay Boy) with the initials FE swished above the bill..... and 12 black stripes marked on the butt end of the plug!

    My brother planted that "swimmer" on the infamous snag two years ago!
    "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

  7. #7

    Default So Art; are you keeping up

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    So, enjoy! Hopefully the tone will improve. The “Management” forum has been quite valuable, in my opinion. I’ve said before (as have others) that we’re not likely to change each other’s minds --but maybe we can better understand other points of view. People should take a deep breath and sleep on it before posting a knee-jerk reaction to another post.

    Best Regards,
    Art Nelson
    amateur fish killer and former BOF member
    With the fishing guide task force? If so maybe you can 'explain' to me why the task force is not incorporating a "guide" tax on the resource they take?

    Com fish pays a tax on the resource. Unlike the oil tax the com fish tax does not benefit everyone in the state. By that I mean as far as I know none of the tax goes into the permanent fund and therefore does not benefit "everyone".

    Regardless; the increase in "guiding"; which is entirely predicated on taking the available resource, impacts the available fish for the com fleet and therefore less "tax" income to the state for the resource. This can not be good management protocol. To "take" a taxable resource base from one user group and give it "free of charge" to another group that is getting stronger and wanting more just might not be in the "states" best interest.

    How long can we expect to "have healthy and abundant fish stocks" if we let "guides" make their own rules?

    It seems to me that a great deal of interest should be put into this fish guide task force and that the commercial fishing interests and the BOF should be much more interested in what is going on at this task force.

    Other issues maybe you can enlighten me on:

    In the process of developing regulations for "fishing guides" it appears
    • The rate at which sport guided fisherman are taking the resource in increasing numbers is directly related to "accommodations" for clients.

    "Lodges" are a significant source of the increases put on the resources by guided fishing and appear to be completely escaping regulation, limits or taxes for the resources they are "taking".
    • No considerations to "limit" the numbers of guides a lodge can hire.
    • No limits to the numbers of "assistant" guides a "licensed" guide can hire.

    So while many are fighting over who gets the fish lodges just keep on being built.

    The task force is considering all kinds of "tricky" ways a lodge or guides can "sell" or trade "their" allocations in the hopes of getting stronger and larger and more influential.

    It appears as if an opportunity is being wasted and I wonder if the problem is getting bigger and less manageable through the lack of interest or real thought going into the "fish guide" regulations?


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH
    First of all, thank you Brian for closing a thread in which some of the discussion had become quite ugly over the past few days
    That thread was way out of hand. However, at least now people know that in fact KRSA did not support funding the study, and the original post and our legislators were correct. The good information in those threads is hard to find, but when found it's priceless.

    AVALANCHE, interesting ideas....

  9. #9

    Default Interesting indeed

    While I (of course) disagree with some of Avalanche's post, it was indeed interesting.

    Here are some other thoughts... First of all, the post referenced the Alaska Permanent Fund. These funds are royalties from Sub-surface resources (i.e. oil and gas). The residents of Alaska voted to give up their sub-surface rights (except for domestic water and native lands) in trade for the Permanent Fund. So that oil or natural gas under your back yard doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the State of Alaska. (Totally opposed to the general public perception that Alaska residents receive "free money" just for living here... indeed, it cost much). So if Jed Clampet shows up and shoots the ground and finds that "Texas Tea", well, he is out of luck... he'll get his check with the rest of us sometime in October.

    How much of the large scale mining operations pay a resource tax? Are royalties from these operations who extract sub surface minerals sent to the Perm Fund? As we (the State of AK) are considering the Pebble Mine which is claiming many $billions, how much of that will go to the Permanent Fund? What about Red Dog, and other large scale mining operations? This could be a huge amount of money that is slipping through the hands of the residents as exploited, non-renewable resources.

    For the record, if I could sell the fish that are caught on my boat, I would be glad to pay the aforementioned fisheries tax. The truth of the matter is that I sell a service and not fish. Already a resident Kenai River guide pays an annual fee (tax?) for a guide license, DNR permit, KNWR permit and sometimes Chugach National Forest permit. The non-resident pays double for the DNR permit. Don't get me wrong, while it is a lot of money, it is the cost of doing business. The sad part of this is that the huge majority of the money spent on fees (specifically the DNR fee) goes to the State of Alaska general fund and not directly back to the Kenai River or Kasilof River or even State Parks for that matter. If we assume that all 400 guides are residents (of course they are not), at $750 per year, that equal $300,000. This money could/should be sequestered to go right back into the resource or management of the resource. In addition, add the fees for launching, day use and other permit fees that are secured by DNR that do practically nothing for the resource.

    Another matter of correction (at least for now): In the industry of Sport Fish Guiding, there is not an "assistant guide". All guides, if they own their own business or work for a lodge or a large scale operator are fully licensed guides. This is in contrast to the hunting guide industry where before a person can obtain a license to guide hunters, they must first work for a period of time as an assistant guide. I have seen some efforts to establish fishing guide regulations to mirror hunting guides... I think that there are good point and bad points to this thought process. That could be, and has been another thread.

    By the way, another bullet point to add to Avalanche's post in relation to the increased exploitation of the resource is the air charters. Take a look at Wolverine Creek or Big River Lakes when the reds and silvers are running... How many flights per day from how many operators with how many people per flight? It is unbelievable!

    OK.. I know that I just put a big stick in a bee's nest... Certainly not intending to be antagonistic (please don't take my post as an attack, rather a different perspective.)

  10. #10

    Default There is a task force, their will be a fish guide licensing board...

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides View Post
    How much of the large scale mining operations pay a resource tax? Are royalties from these operations who extract sub surface minerals sent to the Perm Fund? As we (the State of AK) are considering the Pebble Mine which is claiming many $billions, how much of that will go to the Permanent Fund? What about Red Dog, and other large scale mining operations? This could be a huge amount of money that is slipping through the hands of the residents as exploited, non-renewable resources.
    As far as I know the only money going into the permanent fund is oil and gas...but all resources the State owns should very likely be contributing to the permanent fund; including Pebble and fish and game. It may be the only way that all Alaskans could benefit from our resources.

    Now would be the appropriate time to make that move because neither guided fish or game is paying for the resource they take and those sitting on the fish guide task force have an opportunity to do the right thing; and if they don't legislators have another bite at the apple I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides View Post
    For the record, if I could sell the fish that are caught on my boat, I would be glad to pay the aforementioned fisheries tax. The truth of the matter is that I sell a service and not fish.
    Sorry, but like big game guides, fishing guides are selling the resource. The occupational license permits "guides" to sell the public resources. How long would a fishing guide or a hunting guide be in business if they were not "taking" fish or game? Bear viewing guides, mountain climbing guides, ect. I could buy it; but not fishing and hunting guides.

    If there is anybody in the fish and game commercial "services" business that sells a "service" it is charters; be they aircraft or boats, AND outfitters.

    Charters are not permitted to "sell" the resource. To charter is not to guide. Charters and guides are distinctly different.
    They are not even "regulated" by the State. The FAA and the Coast Guard are the only ones who can certify a person or company to carry passengers for hire. The State can not write regulations to "authorize" the commercial carry of passengers for hire.

    Outfitting is entirely different from "guiding" too.

    Call them all commercial services if you will, but they are absolutely different. One sells access, one provides gear and equipment and the other sells the resource. Otherwise charter operators properly licensed to "charter" would be also licensed to guide and to outfit. There is no "class" of charter-guide-outfitter license and who ever got the idea that you had to "have" a guide license to outfit was a moron with a lot of stroke at the "guide" board. IF the fishing guides adopt the class of guide-outfitter regulation it will be appear as monkey see monkey do.

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides View Post
    Already a resident Kenai River guide pays an annual fee (tax?) for a guide license, DNR permit, KNWR permit and sometimes Chugach National Forest permit. The non-resident pays double for the DNR permit. Don't get me wrong, while it is a lot of money, it is the cost of doing business.
    Exactly; that is the cost of doing business. NOT a "substitute" for a proper tax for taking the publics resource.

    A $50.00 "fishing guide" license and a first aid card is not "justification" for a lodge to hire X's of "guides", pay them peanuts, and reap the benefits of adding more and more clients.

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides View Post
    The sad part of this is that the huge majority of the money spent on fees (specifically the DNR fee) goes to the State of Alaska general fund and not directly back to the Kenai River or Kasilof River or even State Parks for that matter. If we assume that all 400 guides are residents (of course they are not), at $750 per year, that equal $300,000. This money could/should be sequestered to go right back into the resource or management of the resource. In addition, add the fees for launching, day use and other permit fees that are secured by DNR that do practically nothing for the resource.
    Actually; its even sadder than that!

    The licensing fees for (hunting guides and soon to be fishing guides) goes to pay for the operation of the Boards. Hunting guides are not even collecting enough "guide licensing fees" to pay for their own costs of operating their board and the general fund is making up the short falls.

    So truly, if guides were actually to contribute to the management of the resource their "licensing fees" should be maybe 10 times what they are now. Essentially; hunting guides (not anyone person) are stealing the resource and the Legislature is permitting it. It is a fact that the "authorization" that established "hunting guide licensing" required them to pay for the resource they take, the legislature is ignoring it...and so are hunting guides. Fishing guides will more than likely do the same thing, it is that old "fox watching the hen house" analogy I am thinking of.

    So, from a residents perspective it is not looking to good...guides are not paying a tax for the resource they take AND not paying enough to even justify their "boards" and none of the money either fishing guides or hunting guides are contributing to the State is going to manage the publics resource.

    (I know fish guides don't have a board yet, but my point is that maybe more thought and discussion needs to be put into this whole idea that natural resources belong to the public and fishing and hunting guides should be actually compensating residents for the resource they take.)

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides View Post
    By the way, another bullet point to add to Avalanche's post in relation to the increased exploitation of the resource is the air charters. Take a look at Wolverine Creek or Big River Lakes when the reds and silvers are running... How many flights per day from how many operators with how many people per flight? It is unbelievable!
    First off, if they are in fact "full up air charters" then they are operating within the law and the only way to "manage" that is by the resource managers.

    However; if they are operating under some lodge/guide license then they are operating outside of the law; this is "extreme exploitation" and should be stopped now.

    So, I will agree with you that it is very likely that "illegal" flight operations have and are doing major damage to the resource (both fish and game) on a Statewide basis.

    Everyone, guides who do not fly, residents who hunt and fish, and the fish and game we do have will be much better off when the FAA and the State; ESPECIALLY the State since it is a public resource they are taking, decide to finally enforce the commercial carry regulations. Just addressing that issue alone would solve a huge problem; and when they solve this problem our resource issues will be much less stressed.

    Right now we are trying to figure out what to do with so much demand on the resource and more than likely 50% of the pressure is put on by "illegal charter flight operations".

    The industry practice of getting a person with a "guide" license to conduct commercial flight operations is an Alaskan travesty.

    It's is just as amazing that the land managers allow illegal aircraft operations on State and Federal lands.

    Imagine what this place would look like if only legal "charters" were permitted.

    This task force focus on "fish guide" licensing and not on illegal flight operations and lodges escaping the net is another example of how poorly our declining public resources issues are being thought through. Or maybe it's an example of how well 'lodges" and "guides" are connected to legislators and congressman?

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides View Post
    OK.. I know that I just put a big stick in a bee's nest... Certainly not intending to be antagonistic (please don't take my post as an attack, rather a different perspective.)
    I very much appreciate your perspective and the discussion.

    Be interested to hear your thoughts about "lodges" escaping the net of regulation, limits and allocations?


  11. #11
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Just a small point. Guides do not sell a resource. If they did, they would have to refund the guide fee if the client were skunked. They sell the opportunity for the resource. Thats why its hard to affix a direct dollar value to a salmon swimming in the river, as opposed to an exvessel value on the same fish. And guides can do very well selling an experience only- I do it part time, fly fishing for rainbows in hook and release waters. The value of these fish is not measured in a one time $ per pound. Rather it is compounded each and every time a fish lives to see another fight. My un scientific estimate of unmarked fish to scarred fish is about 1 in 10. In other words, if it weren't for hook and release regulations for rainbow trout, and anglers releasing their trout, I would catch a tenth of the fish that I do now.

    While guides may not directly pay very much per client to the state, every non resident client they take out spends at least $20 directly to the state for their day license. Often one good day of fishing leads to others, which also benefits the state through the sale of licenses. Its not entirely true to say that guides are just exploiting a resource and the state is receiving nothing directly from that.

    An interesting fact about commercial fishing taxation, and the lack of sport fish guide taxation; according to the Alaska Industry report for '07, sport fishing netted almost $20 million in revenue to the state, while commercial fishing netted $12 million. This is on gross revenue of about $40 million from sport fishing, and almost $90 million from commercial. Sport fish harvest was less than 5% of the total harvest statewide. In a nutshell: harvesting 1/20th of the fish, and grossing 1/2 the revenue, sportfishing's profit to the state was nearly double that of commercial. Does sportfishing really need additional taxation?

  12. #12
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    With the fishing guide task force? If so maybe you can 'explain' to me why the task force is not incorporating a "guide" tax on the resource they take?

    Com fish pays a tax on the resource. Unlike the oil tax the com fish tax does not benefit everyone in the state. By that I mean as far as I know none of the tax goes into the permanent fund and therefore does not benefit "everyone".

    Regardless; the increase in "guiding"; which is entirely predicated on taking the available resource, impacts the available fish for the com fleet and therefore less "tax" income to the state for the resource. This can not be good management protocol. To "take" a taxable resource base from one user group and give it "free of charge" to another group that is getting stronger and wanting more just might not be in the "states" best interest.

    How long can we expect to "have healthy and abundant fish stocks" if we let "guides" make their own rules?

    It seems to me that a great deal of interest should be put into this fish guide task force and that the commercial fishing interests and the BOF should be much more interested in what is going on at this task force.

    Other issues maybe you can enlighten me on:

    In the process of developing regulations for "fishing guides" it appears
    • The rate at which sport guided fisherman are taking the resource in increasing numbers is directly related to "accommodations" for clients.

    "Lodges" are a significant source of the increases put on the resources by guided fishing and appear to be completely escaping regulation, limits or taxes for the resources they are "taking".
    • No considerations to "limit" the numbers of guides a lodge can hire.
    • No limits to the numbers of "assistant" guides a "licensed" guide can hire.

    So while many are fighting over who gets the fish lodges just keep on being built.

    The task force is considering all kinds of "tricky" ways a lodge or guides can "sell" or trade "their" allocations in the hopes of getting stronger and larger and more influential.

    It appears as if an opportunity is being wasted and I wonder if the problem is getting bigger and less manageable through the lack of interest or real thought going into the "fish guide" regulations?
    Avalanche: no, I haven't really been following that process much at all -- most of my info on that has come from what I've read on these forums. I haven't been watching it closedly because, frankly, I don't really need to anymore...but that doesn't mean that I don't think its important. I guess if there was a need for me to participate, then I'd consider it. I would imagine (or hope) that one or more of the current BOF members are following it, especially if any of their recommendations will ultimately require Board action, or effect Board jurisdiction. A lot of it seems to be speculation, but AKCAPT has posted some info that has been helpful.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Just a small point. Guides do not sell a resource.
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    While guides may not directly pay very much per client to the state, every non resident client they take out spends at least $20 directly to the state for their day license. Often one good day of fishing leads to others, which also benefits the state through the sale of licenses. Its not entirely true to say that guides are just exploiting a resource and the state is receiving nothing directly from that.

    Never said that guides are just exploiting the resource. I said fishing guides sell the resource and don't pay anything for the resource they take. How much money changes hands because some person went fishing is irrelevant to the principal; the resource is a public resource and guides sell the publics resource and then get paid to guide someone to it so they can take it.


    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    An interesting fact about commercial fishing taxation, and the lack of sport fish guide taxation; according to the Alaska Industry report for '07, sport fishing netted almost $20 million in revenue to the state, while commercial fishing netted $12 million. This is on gross revenue of about $40 million from sport fishing, and almost $90 million from commercial. Sport fish harvest was less than 5% of the total harvest statewide. In a nutshell: harvesting 1/20th of the fish, and grossing 1/2 the revenue, sportfishing's profit to the state was nearly double that of commercial.
    How about a link to the facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Does sportfishing really need additional taxation?

    Does oil, gas, minerals, timber?


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

    Default Some points to consider...

    Guide do bring in considerable income into the state... Out of state licences, hotels, B and B, rental cars, fuels, food, ect, ect.... What guided fishing bring in revenue for out of state licences along pays for the resource that they use.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON
    What guided fishing bring in revenue for out of state licences along pays for the resource that they use.
    Before making comments like that, please show how many out-of-state sportfishing licenses were bought last year, and how many pounds of sport-caught fish those sportsfishermen removed from our state (usually in the form of freezer boxes). That will get us started on a comparison. Also show the costs of the impacts those out-of-stater's cause on Alaska (roads, refuge, pollution, facilities, development, enforcement, etc.).

  16. #16
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    ......like big game guides, fishing guides are selling the resource. The occupational license permits "guides" to sell the public resources.....

    .....If there is anybody in the fish and game commercial "services" business that sells a "service" it is charters; be they aircraft or boats, AND outfitters.

    Charters are not permitted to "sell" the resource. To charter is not to guide. Charters and guides are distinctly different.

    They are not even "regulated" by the State. The FAA and the Coast Guard are the only ones who can certify a person or company to carry passengers for hire. The State can not write regulations to "authorize" the commercial carry of passengers for hire.

    Outfitting is entirely different from "guiding" too.

    Call them all commercial services if you will, but they are absolutely different. One sells access, one provides gear and equipment and the other sells the resource. Otherwise charter operators properly licensed to "charter" would be also licensed to guide and to outfit........
    I understand your point in general, but I must admit some confusion.

    For example, I understand a hunting guide's operation includes transporting the client to the hunting grounds, providing shelter and meals, accompanying the client throughout the hunt, sometimes even providing back up firepower on dangerous game, packing meat/trophy, etc. It's a full service operation.

    An outfitter provides gear and gear alone. There are no services provided.

    A transporter will take you to a location and dump you off, then perhaps pick you up later.

    But a halibut "charter"? A salmon "charter" on salt water? A shark "charter"?

    How does that differ from a salmon "guide" on the Kenai or Little Susitna Rivers?

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

    Default

    AVALANCHE, I tend to agree with you that guides are selling a resource. One look at their glossy advertisements, and you immediately see the resource being exploited...fish. Whether it be holding a huge King salmon or rows of Halibut hung on the "rack". Even if a client doesn't catch anything, the resource is still being sold, and he still has an impact on the resources.

    I too would like to see a reference of willphish4food's revenue figures. I thought the State's gross commercial fishing revenue was in the billions.??

    Commercial fishermen pay a Fisheries Business Tax, a Fisheries Resource Landing Tax, a Seafood Marketing Assessment Tax, a Salmon Enhancement Tax, and in some places a Regional Seafood Development Tax. It does seem to make sense that if commercial guides have such a greater profit from the resource, like willphish4food says, that they pay tax accordingly. It would sure help repair lost habitat, fisheries rehabilitation and aquaculture, fund all these studies and task forces, get more enforcement, fix our roads, repair our schools, etc.

  18. #18

    Default Out of State COMFISH

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Before making comments like that, please show how many out-of-state sportfishing licenses were bought last year, and how many pounds of sport-caught fish those sportsfishermen removed from our state (usually in the form of freezer boxes). That will get us started on a comparison. Also show the costs of the impacts those out-of-stater's cause on Alaska (roads, refuge, pollution, facilities, development, enforcement, etc.).
    How many are like Sig and the boys on Deadlist Catch....that isn't Homer, Kodiak or Sitka they pull into at the end of the season.

    When's the last time you walked a beach....I didn't throw all that poly pro line in the ocean that ended up on our beach or beer cans, milk jugs, floats and all the other crap.

    All you guys say that the fish are everyone's but it only seems to hold true if they have to buy it from COMFISH....why can't they catch there own?

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TYNMON View Post
    Guide do bring in considerable income into the state... Out of state licences, hotels, B and B, rental cars, fuels, food, ect, ect.... What guided fishing bring in revenue for out of state licences along pays for the resource that they use.

    Thats like saying BP hires people, builds infrastructure, buys leases, business licenses and pay for special permits, brings in clients who stay in hotels, rent cars, buy fuel and food ect ect ect........and thats enough for the resource they take?


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

    Default Here you go Gramps...

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Before making comments like that, please show how many out-of-state sportfishing licenses were bought last year, and how many pounds of sport-caught fish those sportsfishermen removed from our state (usually in the form of freezer boxes). That will get us started on a comparison. Also show the costs of the impacts those out-of-stater's cause on Alaska (roads, refuge, pollution, facilities, development, enforcement, etc.).
    The ADF&G statistics for sportfishing liscences show the following for 2007:

    resident angler..............185,485
    non-resident angler........324,142
    So who contributes more money to the ADFG licencing? Out of staters or instaters... Guided sportfishing is the driving force behind the pruchase of out of state fishing licences...

    As far as selling the resource.... You can count the number of fish on one hand that ppl typically take home in a fish box on a plane while you will need alot more fingers to count the fish that are sold to processors statewide...

    Persoanlly I don't care to get in a pissing match Gramps, but do you really think that the economic trade off for Sport Fishing are not worth it when compared to the economic trade offs of commercial fishing?

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •