Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 105

Thread: Public Meetings scheduled in Soldotna and Homer

  1. #1

    Default Public Meetings scheduled in Soldotna and Homer

    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/state...fm?StartRow=21

    The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is hosting public meetings to explain and solicit comments/recommendations on draft language regarding development of a Sport Fish Guide Services Board. The Soldotna public meeting will be held Monday, October 27, from 5:30 7:30 p.m. at the Kenai River Center at 514 Funny River Rd. The Homer public meeting will be held Tuesday, October 28 from 6:00 8:00 p.m. at the Islands and Ocean Visitor Center at 95 Sterling Highway. A complete schedule of public meetings and an overview of what led to this draft language can be found online at:
    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/guides/GSpecIssues.cfm
    For additional information contact Tom Vania, Regional Management Coordinator, (907) 267-2131.


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Looks like it is set up similar to big game guide regulations.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Thanks AVALANCHE.

    Here's some problems I have with the whole scheme...

    The task force didn't include anyone from the fishing public, only guide industy interests. They were "tasked" with finding a way to limit the number of guides and the unrestricted growth of the guide industry. They did not do that, as of course no fox in the hen house would. Instead this special interest task force has now been allowed to create a Sport Fishing Guide Services Board, who they determine will be made up of mostly guide industry interests. They are doing this, self-admittedly, to get around a public voter-approved amendment to the Constitution, and other constitutional issues. And now here we, the public, sit...left to comment on a draft proposal made up by the same group that the proposal is supposed to limit. Obviously a public process that involved people without economic interests should've happened from the beginning. But we already knew that.

    So one has to ask if the results of all this will be a representation of what's best for the public and the resource, or a result of a special interest group in control. This should been done right, with fair public process, and specific laws limiting the industry like other commercial industries have.


    The language seems to tip-toe around the main issue...limiting and reducing guide numbers. There's lots of extraneous stuff that supports the economic health and stability of the guide industry and so on, but not much that takes into account the undesirable guide levels or allocation issues caused by their unregulated commercialization. Little effort is put forth to limit guide numbers, and certianly none to reduce them. The draft appears to ignore the fact that current numbers are creating dissatisfaction within the public. Nothing indicates the current issue will be addressed.

    I think the public has been duped, and I hope there is a good public turn out at the meeting.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Thanks AVALANCHE.

    Here's some problems I have with the whole scheme...

    The task force didn't include anyone from the fishing public, only guide industy interests. They were "tasked" with finding a way to limit the number of guides and the unrestricted growth of the guide industry. They did not do that, as of course no fox in the hen house would. Instead this special interest task force has now been allowed to create a Sport Fishing Guide Services Board, who they determine will be made up of mostly guide industry interests. They are doing this, self-admittedly, to get around a public voter-approved amendment to the Constitution, and other constitutional issues. And now here we, the public, sit...left to comment on a draft proposal made up by the same group that the proposal is supposed to limit. Obviously a public process that involved people without economic interests should've happened from the beginning. But we already knew that.
    Yep, and I am dissapointed that our State Administrators supported; aided and abetted, this NOT public process. They failed to add even a hint of public perspective to the task force; even when asked to do so. It might do some good to make contact with Rob Bentz, Douglas Vincent-Lang and Charles Swanton at the Department level for the answers to the question of why the public was not included before a person gets to the meetings.

    Actually all that is even a little more troublesome. When the original task this group was given (by the Commissioner) failed to materialize any good will by the department of law, the DFG because they knew the public wouldn't support a move for a constitutional amendment they (guides and administrators) independently changed the task order. That independent re-tasking was an over the top disregard for the public process by the Administrators.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    The language seems to tip-toe around the main issue...limiting and reducing guide numbers. There's lots of extraneous stuff that supports the economic health and stability of the guide industry and so on, but not much that takes into account the undesirable guide levels or allocation issues caused by their unregulated commercialization. Little effort is put forth to limit guide numbers, and certianly none to reduce them. The draft appears to ignore the fact that current numbers are creating dissatisfaction within the public. Nothing indicates the current issue will be addressed.
    Right, this does nothing to limit or reduce guide numbers. It's impossible to limit the number of Guides. This legislation is smoke and mirrors; junk.

    The numbers of occupational license issued by the State to guide, can not be limited or reduced by legislation any more than the numbers of pilots license could be limited or reduced.

    If a person meets the requirements of a pilot; they get the license. No matter where they take up residency. That is how law works....and why this one wont, can't and isn't going too. The most dishonest part of the whole scheme is that the group that developed this trash knows that too. Nonetheless they march on; implying it will do something or lead to something they know full well it CAN'T and WONT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    I think the public has been duped, and I hope there is a good public turn out at the meeting.
    A good turn out would be great. Unfortunately, if the public doesn't step up and just say NO nothing is going to stop this attack by the special interest commercial sport fishing and hunting industries on our resources. Profits, and more resources for their special interests is comparable to a drug addiction. All this legislation does is enable people. Time for some tough love.

    I am expecting some public group up will end up forced to bring a public interest case to the courts against the Administration in order to put a stop to the public abuse.

    Our administrators and the department of law sure are not holding the line and have no intent to do so as evidenced by their actions in the instant case.


  5. #5

    Default

    This has a similar tone to what the commercial halibut guys did to the charter guys in SE....But, in all fairness at least they had one token sportfisherman on that board. There is nothing like legally eliminating or reducting your competition.....

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

    Default

    T.R., the charter guys brought the issue upon themselves by forcing their industry into the fishery, and refusing to address their unlimited and uncontrolled exponential growth. They weren't going to limit themselves, so of course another group, the commercial fishery, piped up. The difference here, with the sport fishing guide industry, is that the group piping up and forming task forces and special Boards is the same group who brought the issue on...themsleves. The commercial halibut guys were never tasked with limiting and reducing themselves... established laws do that for them.

  7. #7
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    .....Here's some problems I have with the whole scheme...

    The task force didn't include anyone from the fishing public, only guide industy interests. They were "tasked" with finding a way to limit the number of guides and the unrestricted growth of the guide industry. They did not do that, as of course no fox in the hen house would.......
    Maybe they figured you'd show up, wanted a preliminary meeting with those who were being faced with the restrictions to see what what the most favorable approach before people started throwing themselves on the floor in fits of rage, and are planning to put up with you later?

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Maybe they figured you'd show up, wanted a preliminary meeting with those who were being faced with the restrictions to see what what the most favorable approach before people started throwing themselves on the floor in fits of rage, and are planning to put up with you later?
    Yeah, the "most favorable approach"....for themselves.

    Mark, it's a public process, not one where the industry faced with the restriction gets to tell the public what they've come up with to limit themselves.

  9. #9
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    .....Mark, it's a public process, not one where the industry faced with the restriction gets to tell the public what they've come up with to limit themselves.
    From the link above:

    This page contains comments from the public on the Sport Fish Guides Services Board issue. We appreciate your well thought out comments and welcome your input. Comments are posted by date received, please allow up to three days before a submitted comment is posted. You may also submit your own comments.
    So submit your comments.

    I'm sure they're waiting with bated breath.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Maybe they figured you'd show up, wanted a preliminary meeting with those who were being faced with the restrictions to see what what the most favorable approach before people started throwing themselves on the floor in fits of rage, and are planning to put up with you later?
    That is pretty much what the Department said too; lets give those special interest dudes one last chance to "fix" the public system of managing the resources in their favor before the Department has to let the narrow minded, crazy, wakco, insane, smokin somethin, radical, lib, extreme, over-regulating, limiting, fee collecting, anti-guide hating public interest activist crowd loose on them.


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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    So submit your comments.

    I'm sure they're waiting with bated breath.
    Well sure...let the public submit comments on draft language derived from a task force that's made up of strictly guide industry special interests who are "trying" to limit themselves. Don't include the public on the task force, don't let the public draft the language, and certainly don't let the public have a vote on the decisions...we can appoint our own Sport Fish Guide Service Board made up of guide industry special interests to do that. Sure.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    T.R., the charter guys brought the issue upon themselves by forcing their industry into the fishery, and refusing to address their unlimited and uncontrolled exponential growth. They weren't going to limit themselves, so of course another group, the commercial fishery, piped up. The difference here, with the sport fishing guide industry, is that the group piping up and forming task forces and special Boards is the same group who brought the issue on...themsleves. The commercial halibut guys were never tasked with limiting and reducing themselves... established laws do that for them.
    Grampy,

    Thanks for your response. I know the issues are different and I know that the situations are different. All I am talking about is the boards. The halibut board had one token sportfisherment (talk about a fox in a henhouse) and this new one has exactly zero (different foxes and different hens) from the sportfishing community. Descision making groups are not supposed to be so slanted when they are making decisions for a community owned resource. What a shame....

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    ......lets give those special interest dudes one last chance to "fix" the public system of managing the resources in their favor before the Department has to let the narrow minded, crazy, wakco, insane, smokin somethin, radical, lib, extreme, over-regulating, limiting, fee collecting, anti-guide hating public interest activist crowd loose on them.
    Yup.

    Can't say I blame them at all. Try to deal with the victims rationally before letting the sharks in the pool.

  14. #14
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Well sure...let the public submit comments on draft language derived from a task force that's made up of strictly guide industry special interests who are "trying" to limit themselves. .
    Quote Originally Posted by T.R. Bauer View Post
    The halibut board had one token sportfisherment (talk about a fox in a henhouse) and this new one has exactly zero (different foxes and different hens) from the sportfishing community. Descision making groups are not supposed to be so slanted when they are making decisions for a community owned resource. What a shame....
    Well, well. The tonnage apologist doesn't like it when the Department does the same thing to them that they've been doing to the sport side for years, then throws himself to the floor in a hissy when he realizes that the Department isn't much interested in dealing with him thrashing about creating a scene at the beginning of the process.

    Seems like a no-brainer to me. Try to cut a deal with the rational before bringing in the Dogs of War.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    ...cut a deal with the rational before bringing in the Dogs of War.
    That's funny I don't care who you are


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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    Try to cut a deal with the rational before bringing in the Dogs of War...Try to deal with the victims rationally before letting the sharks in the pool.
    That's funny I don't care who you are
    Yes, but unfortunately thats the mentality we are dealing with...the guide and charter industry are the "rational", and the public are the "Dogs of War". The guide and charter industry are the "victims" and the public are the "sharks in the pool". And Mark says he despises tyranny. Go figure.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default I support ADF&G on this

    ADF&G formed this panel to help form a "starting place". People that were familiar with the industry from around Alaska were asked to participate on it. If you were not on the panel you were allowed to sit in the meetings and you could add your two cents. Tell me again what was wrong with this approach?

    Why have people involved or familiar with the industry on this beginning panel? Because there are different business models in place which lead to different "probelms" when trying to limit sportfish guide numbers in that area of the State. Putting it bluntly Alaska is a big State. What is good for Kodiak, might not be good for the interior, and so on.

    I think that we can all agree that a sportfishing guide limit is long overdue in some parts of Alaska and there are other places that are getting closer to this point with each passing year.

    If some type of sportfish guide limit program is not enacted we will continue to see more problems surface like the one that is growing in Southeast Alaska with the allocation dispute over halibut.

    I for one support ADF&G attempt at trying to come up a sportfish guide limit program. Even if this sportfish guide limit program is enacted how many years will it take from now to actually come on line? Three years? Five? More? How much longer can we afford to wait in places that the fishery is allready fully allocated?

    Yes, it has to be done right but the regualtion has not been set in stone and so it can be easily admended at this point. If this program is not the answer than someone show me a better one.

  18. #18
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    ......I think that we can all agree that a sportfishing guide limit is long overdue in some parts of Alaska......
    I have yet to see the reason for this.

    If there are enough sport fishermen willing to pay to be ferried out to go fishing, why must the number of guides be limited regulatorially?

    In other words, why must the supply/demand economic model be legally restricted? Because there aren't enough fish?

    Where aren't there enough fish to support guided fishing?

    .....If some type of sportfish guide limit program is not enacted we will continue to see more problems surface like the one that is growing in Southeast Alaska with the allocation dispute over halibut.....
    What is wrong with reviews of allocation?

    If allocation based historically is never to be altered, we would still have people out there shooting caribou, moose, and sheep to market the meat.

    If the purpose of commercial market fishing is to supply the world with fish meat, why are we not participating in aquaculture like the rest of the world? Aquaculture is a 4,500 year old industry. 90% of American shrimp consumption is farmed and imported. Ever wonder how China feeds 1.3 billion people, or 20% of the entire world's population? China accounts for 70% of the world's aquaculture production.

    Alaska? We're fighting amongst ourselves, and allowing a small percentage of the population to harvest and export our seafood resources by the mega-ton at wholesale prices while sportsmen worldwide are fighting to pay premium prices to sportfish in pristine conditions and take away much, much, much less of the resource.

    It's stupid.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default I hear you

    I understand what you are saying, Mark. I also know some folks that believe that Free Enterprise is the American way so they feel that supply and demand should be allowed to continue in the sportfish guide industry.

    But what happens when a system becomes fully utilized such as halibut in Southeast Alaska and sockeye/king salmon in the Kenai River? Restrictions for all is what happens.

    On the Kenai River there are around 400 registered sportfishing guides now. How many can the system handle? 600, 800, 1000? What will happen is more and more restrictions will be placed on the various fisheries and that will drive the number of users down to allow for escapmement numbers if something isn't done. Is this what we want to do?

    No, I do not believe that just limiting sportfish guide numbers will solve all the problems.

    Comm fish users are limited in Cook Inlet, limit the sportfish guides, and take a serious look at the public when that time comes. Maybe a reduction of both Comm Fish and sportfish guides needs to be reviewed at some point in the near future as well. Time will tell but I still believe that this program is a step in the right direction.

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    I understand what you are saying, Mark. I also know some folks that believe that Free Enterprise is the American way so they feel that supply and demand should be allowed to continue in the sportfish guide industry.

    But what happens when a system becomes fully utilized such as halibut in Southeast Alaska and sockeye/king salmon in the Kenai River? Restrictions for all is what happens.....
    I agree. Let's restrict the right folks.

    I submit that restricting the folks who are sport fishing from charter boats is worse than spitting into the wind.

    ....On the Kenai River there are around 400 registered sportfishing guides now. How many can the system handle? 600, 800, 1000? What will happen is more and more restrictions will be placed on the various fisheries and that will drive the number of users down to allow for escapmement numbers if something isn't done. Is this what we want to do?....
    The Kenai system is much more complicated than the halibut situation. In the Kenai example we have very easy access to various points along the entire length of a river system, a fresh-water fishery of limited size that has been widely advertised throughout the sport fishing world, and a large, growing resident population within an easy drive demanding access to the huge salmon run to feed themselves.

    In the halibut case you have an immense, inland sea/archipelago with virtually no road access, and with the sport fishing pressure easily split between charter/residents owning their own boats, and subsistence.

    Both have a commercial tonnage industry exporting the vast majority of the resource overseas.

    ....Comm fish users are limited in Cook Inlet, limit the sportfish guides....
    Limiting sportfish charters limits sport fishing access, therefore unless we're discussing limiting access because of environmental impact on the habitat (as is the main argument regarding the Kenai River), limiting access to sport fishermen is just another way of further limiting the allocation only for those sport fishermen who don't have appropriate boats.

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
  •