View Poll Results: Move UCI fishing management to Anchorage & reorganize so all are represented equally.

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • I Strongly Agree

    8 32.00%
  • I Somewhat Agree

    4 16.00%
  • I'm Neutral

    3 12.00%
  • I Somewhat Disagree

    2 8.00%
  • I Strongly Disagree

    8 32.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Poll: Move & Reorganize UCI Fisheries Management

  1. #1
    Mark
    Guest

    Default Poll: Move & Reorganize UCI Fisheries Management

    . . For myself my only interest is to myself and fellow resident sport fishermen. . .
    whether one valid test is much more valuable than the opinions of a thousand experts depends totally on the test criteria.

    narrow self-interest is no criterion for a test of how a public resource should be allocated.
    This exchange made me realize that a series of “Fish Management Polls” are due on this forum.

    While I’m among those who fear the “tyranny of the majority”, I also tend to fear a tyranny of the minority.

    I have long been of the position that as the resident population of Upper Cook Inlet grows exponentially as the commercial salmon fishing industry stays the same size (due to it’s limited entry makeup), allocation battles will grow. I believe what we’ve been seeing over the past couple of decades bears me out.

    A poll here is clearly unscientific. It is a limited pool, but it is made up of people interested in outdoor Alaskan things, and those who vote are likely interested in fish politics (or they wouldn’t be in this sub-forum). Also, it might include people who wouldn’t normally post in fish politics threads. This poll is anonymous, just like voting in elections.

    I will start several polls. Hopefully the results will be enlightening for us all.

  2. #2
    Member chumstik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    166

    Default

    How can you possibly expect people to answer this poll when the question is so slanted? Of course everyone wants to be "equally represented". Anyone is going to "strongly agree" that there should be "equal representation" in making management decisions. Of course that has no real bearing on how decisions are actually made. But based on how your question is phrased, everyone will vote in favor of the result you are seeking.

    Reminds me of those stories where some dictator in Africa claims to have the people's support because he received "99% of the votes" in the last (uncontested) election.

  3. #3
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chumstik View Post
    How can you possibly expect people to answer this poll when the question is so slanted? Of course everyone wants to be "equally represented".....
    That wasn't my original choice for the question, but the program only offered so many digits. Originally I had "have equal representatives of commercial, personal use, sport, and subsistence at the same table".

    Too many words, apparently.

    ....Anyone is going to "strongly agree" that there should be "equal representation" in making management decisions. Of course that has no real bearing on how decisions are actually made. But based on how your question is phrased, everyone will vote in favor of the result you are seeking....
    I'm not seeking any particular result.

    Okay. Let's see if I can delete that portion of the question altogether.

  4. #4
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Too late to edit.

    Frankly, I don't think it's a loaded question, but I suppose not all can be pleased (which in itself is part of the fisheries politics problems).

  5. #5
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default my answer

    I voted "somewhat agree." I would like to see participation and representation that is representative of both the constitutional requirements for users and the number of participants in each group. Subsistence use has the strongest constitutional pull, yet likely the fewest users. Sport has the most users, yet a very weak voice. Commercial has far fewer direct users than sport, yet its the tail that wags the dog. I would like to see that dumped on its head, with subsistence, sport, then finally commercial needs the order of management. Until that happens, I would settle for equal consideration to all groups.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    I haven't seen any legitimate reason, or any factual justification, for moving and reorganizing management. All groups are allowed to participate and be represented equally. No one has presented anything proving otherwise. And there is no evidence management isn't following the requirements of our laws. This poll is yet another baseless scenario that wastes time, money, and effort that could be better spent on studying and enhancing our fisheries.

    The management office needs to be where the bulk of the fisheries and fishermen are, so they have a first-hand grip on exactly what's happening. Long-distance management is a great way to lose touch with reality. The closer to the fisheries and the closer to those groups associated with the fishery, the better. They all need to work together, hands on. Not separate themselves and remove themselves from where the action is.

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food
    I would like to see that dumped on its head, with subsistence, sport, then finally commercial needs the order of management.
    Explain how that would work? Explain how you would manage millions and millions of fish via subsistence and sport? If you understand these fisheries even a little, you know doing that would be detrimental, and our State would be wasting millions of fish.

    Again, relocating the office and reorganizing management is a waste of our money and effort, which would be better spent studying and enhancing our fisheries.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,524

    Default Another misguided rationale

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I voted "somewhat agree." I would like to see participation and representation that is representative of both the constitutional requirements for users and the number of participants in each group. Subsistence use has the strongest constitutional pull, yet likely the fewest users. Sport has the most users, yet a very weak voice. Commercial has far fewer direct users than sport, yet its the tail that wags the dog. I would like to see that dumped on its head, with subsistence, sport, then finally commercial needs the order of management. Until that happens, I would settle for equal consideration to all groups.
    WFFF- your assumption that commercial fisherman rule the world just makes no sense given the history of UCI in the last 20 years. In that time a 350k personal use sockeye fishery has come about, an allocation of 150k to 450k sockeye in the Kasilof River have been allocated to sport rod and reel fisherman, a chinook salmon allocation plan has come into play that closes the commercial fishery if the chinook escapement is not made, a history of restrictions to move fish north, the putting in of windows, and the creation of OEG's.. So if commercial fisherman are the tail that wags the dog they have done a terrible job. Would they give up almost 1 million sockeye salmon/year over the past 20 years. Again, your view of the world is just not defendable given the historical record.

    Also, since 1978 would commercial fisherman give up the early run Russian River reds and chinook, the Susitna River chinook, late run coho salmon, and so forth. Your comments just do not fly in the face of these allocation decisions and direction. In point of fact the sport fishing interest have done a good job of making their case and getting a reasonable allocation. The fact that you feel that in one area you are mistreated is the issue here - not the whole inlet management allocation direction.

  8. #8

    Default

    Thanks to Grampfishes and Nerka for their factual, based in reality responses. The commercial fisheries have taken a large hit over the last 20 years as Nerka has pointed out. I'm continually amazed that some people still continue in their rants to diminish the commercial participants; it has to be ignorance, blind ambition, or both that causes this phenomenom. Back in the "good old days", the commercial fleet fished full openings Monday and Friday. It was as regular as the sun rising. Now there are many restrictions, closures, irregular openings, deadlines, etc. that the commercial fleet must comply with. Those who want to cut into the commercial pie have done so successfully; now get off your soap box, get your fish, and be happy.
    Last edited by Powderpro; 07-19-2008 at 05:32. Reason: additions

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
  •