Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Read & Review - Dipnetting challenges

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    260

    Default Read & Review - Dipnetting challenges

    I would encourage everyone that has an interest in dipnetting to read the following and contact your Juneau reps.

    Charlie Huggins
    State Senator
    Senate District H


    Huggins, Stoltze Introduce Resolution to Protect Alaska’s Personal Use Dip Net Fisheries
    (JUNEAU, April 9, 2009) – Senator Charlie Huggins (R-Mat-Su) and Representative Bill Stoltze (R-Chugiak/Mat-Su) today announced that they are introducing companion resolutions requesting Governor Sarah Palin’s administration to join the federal government in opposing a lawsuit filed by a Cook Inlet commercial fishing group challenging salmon management in the inlet. Senate Joint Resolution 22, sponsored by Senator Huggins and co-sponsored by Senators Johnny Ellis (D-Anchorage), Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage) and Linda Menard (R-Wasilla), was introduced this morning. Representative Stoltze plans to introduce a companion resolution in the House of Representatives tomorrow.

    “With this resolution, we’re trying to get a fair shake for Alaskans who fish to feed their families and asking the governor to defend the state’s authority to manage our fisheries in a responsible manner,” said Senator Huggins. “If this lawsuit is successful, it could pre-empt state management and be detrimental to Alaskans’ access to our salmon resources.”

    The lawsuit was filed last year by the United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA) against the U.S. Department of Commerce opposing the current management of salmon fisheries in Cook Inlet. UCIDA is an association of both resident and non-resident commercial fishermen who participate in drift gillnet salmon fisheries in the inlet. Senate Joint Resolution 22 would express the Senate’s objection to the association’s effort to have state-managed personal use dip net fisheries declared unconstitutional and therefore pre-empted by federal law.

    “It is appalling that this Alaska resident-only salmon fishery is under assault by special interests, said Representative Stoltze. “Dipnetting is a great part of Alaska - a true family tradition.”

    The resolutions request Governor Palin “to direct the attorney general to oppose this lawsuit”, and, “in cooperation with the legislature, to re-examine the inordinate and potentially unfair, unethical, and disproportionate influence of the commercial fisheries industries on fisheries management in Alaska.”

    SJR 22has been referred to the Resources Committee and the Judiciary Committee. The House version will be referred to committees tomorrow.

    For more information, contact Senator Huggins or Sharon Long at 907-465-3878, or Representative Stoltze or Ben Mulligan at 907-465-4958.

    ###




    image001.gif
    How stupid is it to be wasting tons of salmon and halibut as bycatch in the Bering Sea and then have the coastal villages hollaring they have no food? It's got to stop!

  2. #2

    Default Hmmm

    “It is appalling that this Alaska resident-only salmon fishery is under assault by special interests, said Representative Stoltze. “Dipnetting is a great part of Alaska - a true family tradition.”


    I didn't realize the United States Constitution qualified as "special interest" - take a look at the resolution that was introduced - and passed unanimously - the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly.

    http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Assem.../R2009-031.pdf

    Maybe we'll get this dipnet fishery reopened in about 10 years, after an Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental and Economic mitigation measures are taken.

  3. #3
    Member Berto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    336

    Default wow,

    that is a significant action...could mean big changes after this year.

  4. #4
    Member garnede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    soon to be back in Alaska
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dipper View Post
    “It is appalling that this Alaska resident-only salmon fishery is under assault by special interests, said Representative Stoltze. “Dipnetting is a great part of Alaska - a true family tradition.”


    I didn't realize the United States Constitution qualified as "special interest" - take a look at the resolution that was introduced - and passed unanimously - the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly.

    http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Assem.../R2009-031.pdf

    Maybe we'll get this dipnet fishery reopened in about 10 years, after an Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental and Economic mitigation measures are taken.

    Looks like they want to do the same thing a the Kasilof as the north shore of the Kenai. I don't think it will stop the dipnet fishery, just make it more expensive.
    It ain't about the # of pounds of meat we bring back, nor about how much we spent to go do it. Its about seeing what no one else sees.

    http://wouldieatitagainfoodblog.blogspot.com/

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    I could do w/o all the TP and poop on the south shore that's for sure. Plus someone checking to make sure folks are camping/driving on the beach would be great. I'd pay the coin.

  6. #6

    Default Commercials want it both ways!

    Funny the reason the legislature is making this request is because of the
    United Cook Inlet Drift Association's attempt to sue the United States Secretary of Commerce.
    UCIDA is now claiming, among other things, that they have nonresident members
    who are discriminated against because they cannot participate in Alaska's
    resident-only dip net fishery. They are requesting that the court declare Alaska's
    state-authorized, resident-only dip net salmon fisheries to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
    and therefore illegal under federal law. All the while pushing sportsfishing rules that do the same to non-resident anglers. SE has different rules for non-resident Salmon anglers and will have for Halibut too, if the 1 fish rule is signed by the Secretary of Commerce (allmost 90% of SE Halibut anglers are NR).
    Frank
    Alaska Wildrose Charters and Cabins
    www.wildroselodge.com

  7. #7
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default crybabies!!! Wha,Wha

    First, they say they want local control, comfish out of soldotna. The sytem is and has been managed for the commercials since statehood. Now all of a sudden we need federal control, never mind local. They get 85% of the resource and all of a sudden it is against federal law. I'm embarressed for the commercials filing suit. It has been managed for them and all of a sudden, it isn't good enough. Like a child getting most of that piece of candy, they eye that last chunk cause they think they want that too. End of story... You can have all the fish you want, you just have to buy it. So sad. A commercial permit used to allow them access to the resource. Now it seems it says they are allowed all of the resource. Want to read the Federal suits, go to www.alaskadipnetting.com. You can also read the states reply.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dipper View Post
    “It is appalling that this Alaska resident-only salmon fishery is under assault by special interests, said Representative Stoltze. “Dipnetting is a great part of Alaska - a true family tradition.”


    I didn't realize the United States Constitution qualified as "special interest" - take a look at the resolution that was introduced - and passed unanimously - the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly.

    http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/Assem.../R2009-031.pdf

    Maybe we'll get this dipnet fishery reopened in about 10 years, after an Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental and Economic mitigation measures are taken.
    Hockey Puck!!! Historic?? Sensitive??? Yeah, yeah everything in Alaska is sensitive and shouldn't be accessed and trampled upon by the redneck riff raff. Maybe the best thing that can happen in this country is a severe depression. Maybe then the envirowacko Watermelon Commie SOBs will have to rearrange their priorities. Maybe a good economic down turn will make 'em go back to whatever commie arts fartsy hell hole they crawled out of.

  9. #9
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default It does not matter

    Babies will be babies. If I can't have it all, I don't want anyone else to have it, also. Federal suits, I'm embarassed for the commercials that have filed the suit. This is just another allocation grab, call it what you will. So sad but so inline with their goals and agenda's. Ken

  10. #10

    Default Interesting.

    What if the dipnet fisheries are illegal? I'm embarrassed that instead of waiting to see how this turns out, or attempting to reach some kind of resolution, we see name calling and finger pointing. The fact is, if the fishery is illegal, they have a point. Common sense tells me that when you discriminate, it is probably illegal. Sounds like somebody is frustrated...maybe needs a hug.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dipper View Post
    What if the dipnet fisheries are illegal? I'm embarrassed that instead of waiting to see how this turns out, or attempting to reach some kind of resolution, we see name calling and finger pointing. The fact is, if the fishery is illegal, they have a point. Common sense tells me that when you discriminate, it is probably illegal. Sounds like somebody is frustrated...maybe needs a hug.
    You are so full of BS! It's not illegal and it's not unconstitutional. Personal Use Fisheries are NOT Interstate COMMERCE! The Imperial Federal Government has no say in this fishery. It's a State Resource used by State Citizens in State Waters adjacent to State Land. It's Commies like you who try to twist the Constitution to mean whatever feels good to you or your special interest that are ruining the Republic.

  12. #12

    Default Alrighty then.....

    Looks like this case is in the bag. I'll get ready to start dipnetting....for the record, I'm a socialist, just like all true Alaskans. Chief, you didn't answer my question. What if....???? I did not ask whether they are or are not illegal. Please, reread the question and provide a reasoned answer. If that is beyond your ability, then it may be best to just not respond.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dipper View Post
    Looks like this case is in the bag. I'll get ready to start dipnetting....for the record, I'm a socialist, just like all true Alaskans. Chief, you didn't answer my question. What if....???? I did not ask whether they are or are not illegal. Please, reread the question and provide a reasoned answer. If that is beyond your ability, then it may be best to just not respond.

    Komrade: reread your own post. Yes you asked a what if and then answered your own question by declaring it to be probably illegal because you are descriminated. Here's a question for you: What if Liberty Loving Gun Totting Alaskans started shooting at invading Socialists???

    Here's my answer for your collective's contention (Please Read Slowly):

    Personal Use Fisheries involve a State Resource in State Waters adjacent to State Lands for State Citizens.

    What part of STATE don't you understand? And keep in mind the history that the States created the Federal Government not the other way around. The States only gave the Fed Govt limited authorities and jurisdiction in the Constitution, one of which was the jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce. Personal Use Fisheries are NOT Commercial Fisheries. There is no commerce involved; neither intrastate nor interstate. The Federal Courts have no Constitutional jurisdiction, no matter how much you wish to make it so. You and your little collective can waste your money going to court all you want. Hell lawyers need jobs too. But you could save yourself a lot of cash by reading a little document called the US Constitution.

  14. #14
    Member mntransplant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKKCChief View Post
    Komrade: reread your own post. Yes you asked a what if and then answered your own question by declaring it to be probably illegal because you are descriminated. Here's a question for you: What if Liberty Loving Gun Totting Alaskans started shooting at invading Socialists???

    Here's my answer for your collective's contention (Please Read Slowly):

    Personal Use Fisheries involve a State Resource in State Waters adjacent to State Lands for State Citizens.

    What part of STATE don't you understand? And keep in mind the history that the States created the Federal Government not the other way around. The States only gave the Fed Govt limited authorities and jurisdiction in the Constitution, one of which was the jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce. Personal Use Fisheries are NOT Commercial Fisheries. There is no commerce involved; neither intrastate nor interstate. The Federal Courts have no Constitutional jurisdiction, no matter how much you wish to make it so. You and your little collective can waste your money going to court all you want. Hell lawyers need jobs too. But you could save yourself a lot of cash by reading a little document called the US Constitution.
    WELL PUT CHIEF!! Im with you on this one.

  15. #15

    Default Chief and transplant

    Well, to answer your question, they would probably be shot Ruby Ridge style, or go to jail – possibly to the gas chamber Timothy McVeigh style. See how easy that was? I read your question and provided my answer.

    Now, it is your turn. What if the dipnet fisheries are illegal? I know, it probably really hurts your head to comprehend something so Imperialistic, but give it your best shot. By the way, you pointed out that the Constitution provides federal jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce – that is a good starting point. Now, if salmon are items of interstate commerce, then apparently the federal government can manage them. Since I see salmon in every grocery store in the United States, they must be items of interstate commerce. Do you see where this is going? Because nobody is answering the what if question, nobody is looking at ways to save these fisheries. That’s all I’m saying. If these guys are right, then I suppose the dipnet fisheries will just go away, because nobody thought of a way to negotiate them into a settlement.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dipper View Post
    Well, to answer your question, they would probably be shot Ruby Ridge style, or go to jail – possibly to the gas chamber Timothy McVeigh style. See how easy that was? I read your question and provided my answer.

    Now, it is your turn. What if the dipnet fisheries are illegal? I know, it probably really hurts your head to comprehend something so Imperialistic, but give it your best shot. By the way, you pointed out that the Constitution provides federal jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce – that is a good starting point. Now, if salmon are items of interstate commerce, then apparently the federal government can manage them. Since I see salmon in every grocery store in the United States, they must be items of interstate commerce. Do you see where this is going? Because nobody is answering the what if question, nobody is looking at ways to save these fisheries. That’s all I’m saying. If these guys are right, then I suppose the dipnet fisheries will just go away, because nobody thought of a way to negotiate them into a settlement.
    I see pine wood in stores too. Does that mean the IFG has the right to regulate pine trees in your backyard? What about the chickens in my backyard? Does this mean the IFG has the right to regulate them? I see where you are going and it is not logic unless you view them through Marxists lenses. Read the recent law Montana passed, stating that the IFG has no right to regulate guns manufactured, sold, and used purely within the State of Montana. This same principal applies. Sorry Pal there is no authority unless the fish are caught for COMMERCIAL purposes and sold outside the State of Alaska. Your what if has no Constitutional basis.

  17. #17

    Default Whatever

    I noticed that once again, you failed to answer my simple question. It is obvious that you are simply incapable of answering a simple hypothetical question. I will no longer waste my time responding to your posts.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dipper View Post
    I noticed that once again, you failed to answer my simple question. It is obvious that you are simply incapable of answering a simple hypothetical question. I will no longer waste my time responding to your posts.
    It's obvious that you just don't understand the concept of Limited Government. I answered your "What If" by showing that your "What If" is not possible so long as there is a Constitution to Limit the POWERS OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERAL GOVT. Your "What If" simply can not exist without either ignoring or completely changing the Constitution of the United States. Get it now Komerade???

  19. #19
    Member mntransplant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    359

    Default What if...

    You can what if all day long, but for now you have to deal with reality. Also Interstate commerce does not apply to Personal use, only commercial fisheries.

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
  •