Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 121

Thread: Ninilchik tribe flexing its political muscle... Part 2

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,218

    Default Ninilchik tribe flexing its political muscle... Part 2



    Study this map carefully because it could be the the next in-river gillnet fishery on the Kenai Peninsula.

    The Ninilchik tribe scores another victory in winning a subsistence priority for the Upper Kenai Basin's fish resources. Here's the article from the Anchorage Daily News:


    Ninilchik gets Kenai fishing priority
    SUBSISTENCE: Federal board finds residents have historical link to fish.


    By BRANDON LOOMIS
    Anchorage Daily News

    Published: November 18, 2006
    Last Modified: November 18, 2006 at 02:43 AM


    The Federal Subsistence Board has determined that Ninilchik residents have traditional fishing rights on the upper Kenai River and surrounding waters -- a move that could put sport anglers in the state's most popular fisheries at the back of the line.

    The board on Friday approved Ninilchik's status for a subsistence preference despite the state's objections, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game may consider a lawsuit, a department official said. Next spring the federal board will decide how Ninilchik residents may fish in the area, and how many fish they get.

    The group pushing the change, the Ninilchik Traditional Council, says it merely seeks to spread its fishing efforts across the Kenai Peninsula and can do it without pushing other users off the river. As yet, it has not specified how many of each fish species it seeks from the upper Kenai.

    Some who testified against the board's findings questioned whether Ninilchik residents ever fished much around the Russian River or Cooper Landing -- only about 7 percent of village residents say they go there annually, according to the state. But board members disagreed, in part because even if Ninilchik fishermen didn't always go that far inland, the village always has caught fish destined to spawn in the area.

    "It's irrefutable that rural residents of the Kenai Peninsula have long-term customary and traditional use of Kenai River fish," board chairman Mike Fleagle said.

    Before the board's 5-1 vote, its attorney, Keith Goltz, told members that federal law favors food fishing for rural Alaskans when it can be done without hurting fish populations.

    "The purpose of (the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act) is to allow people to continue their traditional lifestyle," Goltz said.

    However many salmon, trout and char Ninilchik is allotted, those who use the river now fear it comes out of their creels.

    "The fish have to come from somewhere," said Sarah Gilbertson, the Alaska Fish and Game subsistence liaison. "Whether that's curtailing sportfishing or commercial fishing remains to be seen."

    The department will review its legal options, she said, based on the opinion that federal managers ignored their own criteria in deciding Ninilchik -- population about 800 and 80 or more road miles from some of the inland waters in question -- has a historical link to the fish.

    Just how the ruling affects sport anglers who line the Russian River in crowded "combat" fishing for sockeye or float the Kenai in search of returning king salmon won't come into focus until the board considers Ninilchik's methods and harvest levels in May. But the Ninilchik Traditional Council proposes using in-river gillnets, which is a prospect sure to rile some fly-fishermen and conservationists.

    "It should raise an interest (among sport anglers) to become engaged in the process," said Ricky Gease, executive director of the Kenai River Sportfishing Association. He said he hopes the board will compromise when it considers Ninilchik's fishing methods, but fears nets in the river could undo years of conservation measures that have promoted large rainbow trout and protected big kings.

    Offering Ninilchik a subsistence preference in the Kenai watershed puts all other users -- sportsmen, downstream dipnetters and Cook Inlet commercial fishermen -- at risk of closures in years of poor returns, Gease said.

    The Kenai and Russian rivers are the state's top two sport sockeye fisheries, with harvests some years running into the hundreds of thousands, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Kenai also supports the state's largest king and silver salmon sportfisheries.

    Friday's decision was not restricted to the two rivers, but covers all federal fresh waters on the Kenai Peninsula from the Kenai River watershed north. In large part it covers Kenai Lake, the Kenai River, the Russian River, Skilak Lake, the Swanson River and their tributaries on stretches that cross the Chugach National Forest and the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.

    Under federal law, rural subsistence fishermen have first dibs on fish in federally controlled lands. Most of the Kenai Peninsula's population falls outside the designated rural zone, but Ninilchik is an exception.

    The finding that Ninilchik has made "customary and traditional use" of the fish gives the Ninilchik Traditional Council standing for its proposed netting of fish, though the board still must rule how it will be done.

    Federal appointees from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service constitute the board.

    Ninilchik Traditional Council executive director Ivan Encelewski did not return phone calls seeking comment this week. Council member Greg Encelewski, though, testified to the board by phone on Thursday. He said Ninilchik tribal members hiked or boated to the Cooper Landing area to catch fish before the Sterling Highway reached that area in the 1950s. He also said members had intermarried with Kenaitze Indians, who have an accepted historical relationship with the fish.

    That rationale struck one Peninsula senior citizen as absurd when he read a news account of it on Friday. Seward resident Valdemar Anderson, 80, said he remembers tramping the area in the mid-1930s with his father, who homesteaded on Tustumena Lake. From there northeast to Cooper Landing, he said, no one from Ninilchik came inland. "The only net in the water was ours," Anderson said.

    While not opposing Ninilchik's fishing rights, Anderson said they can't be based on an assumption that coastal Alaska Natives followed fish upstream. "Good Lord, no," he said. "Why would you travel all the way up there when you get all the fish you need in a net in front of your house? Ridiculous."

    Ultimately, though, whether many Ninilchik residents long ago fished the Russian or upper Kenai rivers may not have mattered in Friday's ruling. Fleagle said federal law allows the board to consider a group's use of "stocks," as opposed to fishing holes, so Ninilchik has a claim one way or the other. Goltz added that the law doesn't require that new subsistence fisheries be exact replicas of former practices, but modern equivalents that allow Alaskans to continue living off the land.

    In its proposal to be taken up next spring, the Ninilchik Traditional Council wrote that it believes the fishery can be in harmony with other uses.

    "The tribe believes that this proposal can be implemented so that it does not cause any disruption to commercial or sport users," according to the request. "The proposal intends to spread the community's fishing effort throughout the Kasilof and Kenai drainages, thereby lessening the impact on any particular river."

    Goltz said there is flexibility to count some of Ninilchik's Cook Inlet or lower Kenai catch against a new subsistence limit upstream, possibly helping reach a compromise with other fishermen.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone."
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Angry No winners. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    [IMG]The Ninilchik tribe scores another victory in winning a subsistence priority for the Upper Kenai Basin's fish resources.
    Now, now, doc, it's federal law that defines the subsistence priority, and the feds that authorized the fishery, not the tribe. Nobody "won" anything, the feds simply applied the law. Let's not go there. . . the courts decided all this some time ago.

    Please, no more stirring up of neighbor against neighbor, Alaskan against fellow Alaskan. No winners in that scenario. . .

  3. #3

    Default

    Basic disagreement here, Marcus....the article states, "The group pushing the change, the Ninilchik Traditional Council...".....this would indicate the council took the issue to the Fed board.....the Feds didn't scare up this ruling on their own. I think it does pit neighbor against neighbor but the NTC has initiated this issue. Surely they realized when starting this particular push to have preeminent "rights" to the fish over everyone else would create more than a few hard feelings. This will especially be true if we start to see nets across the river on the upper Kenai.

    Quite a reach for the Feds to determine 800 people have exclusive first rights to fish way upstream simply because they swim past the village on the way to the Kenai.....putting the question in hands of the Feds pretty much gaurantees those making the decision do not understand the local ramifications of their decision....certainly they would not have made this decision knowing the rancor it may create. In addition does it somehow redress past grievances?

    I will my diatribe at that.

    Brian

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Unhappy Ideas, not people. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by DocEsox View Post
    Basic disagreement here, Marcus....the article states, "The group pushing the change, the Ninilchik Traditional Council...".....this would indicate the council took the issue to the Fed board.....the Feds didn't scare up this ruling on their own. I think it does pit neighbor against neighbor but the NTC has initiated this issue. Surely they realized when starting this particular push to have preeminent "rights" to the fish over everyone else would create more than a few hard feelings. This will especially be true if we start to see nets across the river on the upper Kenai.

    Quite a reach for the Feds to determine 800 people have exclusive first rights to fish way upstream simply because they swim past the village on the way to the Kenai.....putting the question in hands of the Feds pretty much gaurantees those making the decision do not understand the local ramifications of their decision....certainly they would not have made this decision knowing the rancor it may create. In addition does it somehow redress past grievances?

    I will my diatribe at that.

    Brian
    These forums are supposed to be about ideas, not people. The "idea" of subsistence priority has been defined by federal courts. Please, let's not start with "they" this and "they" that to the detriment of social good will, smearing people for doing what the law defines as right. Hard feelings are not hard come by — let's try for once to see the other person's view of things, keeping in mind too that one of our government's functions is to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
    Last edited by Marcus; 11-18-2006 at 14:03.

  5. #5
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    let's try for once to see the other person's view of things.
    Amen, brother. Amen!
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone."
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up Let's try. . .

    It's a fine thing to understand the other guy's views even when we don't agree with them. And when we don't, it's a finer thing perhaps to attack the idea, not the man.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,852

    Default ADF&G role

    What everyone should be upset about it that a department of fish and game representative is threatening a lawsuit to overturn this ruling. What is ADF&G doing threatening anyone with a lawsuit? They are suppose to protect the resource, not the users. This is the problem with ADF&G today - the leadership is corrupt relative to their mandates. If they decide to go against sport or commercial fisherman eveyone would be howling. It just continues the pattern of abuse of subsistence users that started all of this in the first place.

    Relative to the ruling it is not native vs non-native. It is rural residents. Lets keep it to that discussion otherwise some may look racist.

    While the rural residents (some of the people wanting this are not native) brought it to the federal government they did it under the proposal process - just like any citizen can do with the federal government or the State of Alaska Board of Fish.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    Ninilicik rural, give me a break, it becomes us verses them when one group gets a priority for an equal resource, the feds are discriminating against me and my heritage and location. I can't wait to see the commercial fishermen and sportfishermen unite when both groups get shut down because these "subsistence" fishermen haven't met their quota.
    Forget about all the other politics, pollution, and other issues, this poses more of a threat than any of them, this truely could be the begining of the end, just as those down in Washington or Oregon.

    Marcus, I want to see you jump on Nerka for singling out ADF&G as "corrupt" without basis, I thought this forum was about idea's not people.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Read more closely. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Marcus, I want to see you jump on Nerka for singling out ADF&G as "corrupt" without basis, I thought this forum was about idea's not people.
    yukon: Whoa there. . . go get another cup of coffee and read Nerka's post again more carefully. Nerka plainly states the basis of his accusation:

    "What is ADF&G doing threatening anyone with a lawsuit? They are suppose to protect the resource, not the users. This is the problem with ADF&G today - the leadership is corrupt relative to their mandates. If they decide to go against sport or commercial fisherman eveyone would be howling. It just continues the pattern of abuse of subsistence users that started all of this in the first place."

    Note too that Nerka didn't say ADF&G was corrupt across the board but corrupt relative to their mandates.


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Alaska
    Posts
    21

    Default

    "one of our government's functions is to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority"

    Let's not forget that the reverse is also supposedly of concern. When a governments main duty is seen as protecting minority rights then you're on the long slide into anarchy. While some might enjoy such a situation (I have a little list) that is not a state of affairs to be striven for.

    The point in discussion makes sense only if it is considered a precedent for later actions or there's blatant cheating. I do not see how the fishery, as described and as implemented, would be worth the time and trouble if honestly utilized and honestly apportioned throughout the rewarded group. I also fail to see how it would foster any type of social tradition continuity. Time will tell. Rulings, such as this one, do little other than foster animosity.

    Additionally I doubt not that soon this new fishery will be unable to bear close scrutiny, much like the Yukon subsitance gillnetting cannot bear close scrutiny. I have far to much experience with far to much of humanity to accept the concept that ethnicity is some guarantee of impeccable moral standards. People are people.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Ninilicik rural, give me a break, it becomes us verses them when one group gets a priority for an equal resource, the feds are discriminating against me and my heritage and location. I can't wait to see the commercial fishermen and sportfishermen unite when both groups get shut down because these "subsistence" fishermen haven't met their quota.
    Forget about all the other politics, pollution, and other issues, this poses more of a threat than any of them, this truely could be the begining of the end, just as those down in Washington or Oregon.
    Yukon, you never fail to make me chuckle with your comments. Lets look at them.

    It becomes us vs. them when one group gets a priority for an equal resource.

    Lets take this one. Sport fisherman in UCI have a priority use for early run chinook salmon, late run coho salmon, and early run sockeye salmon in the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers. Are you willing to give these up for a subsistence fishery in the interest of sharing?

    Also who is us vs. them. I have a number of friends in Ninilchik that subsistence fish, hold a commercial fishing permit, and sport fish. Not sure your generalization is even close to reality.

    the feds are discriminating against me...

    Just for the record the laws on this matter were passed by Congress and signed by the President. Ted Stevens push for and voted for the legislation that created the priority. Since Congress represents the people of this country - right or wrong - the people of this country discriminated against you by your definition.

    So who are the feds here? Local managers are just following the law.

    this could truely be the beginning of the end

    I just cannot understand how a rationale person could say this so help me. If habitat is protected ( stopping pollution, maintaining the watershed) overfishing (which I assume you are implying) rarely can reduce a salmon population to non-recoverable levels.

    In UCI overharvest of salmon in the 40' and 50's recovered when the State managed the fishery based on escapement goals. I hardly think the fisheries that are being discussed will ever have the potential to end the production of salmon vs. the known habitat damage that it taking place everyday along the banks of UCI streams.

    Yukon, sometimes I think you sit at your computer and cast bait for Nerka to take. It is too fun not to take the bait. I hope you enjoy the battle.

  12. #12
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    This is unacceptable and illegal write our cogressmen and women now and tell them to fix it

    What the hell is the subsistence gillnet fishery at the mouth of the kasilof and the subsistence dipnet fishery at the mouth of the keani and kasilof. The historical use of the keani by residents of the area include raping and pillaging the rainbow trout of the russian river it took a good 30 years to rebuild that stock and now the feds see fit to let them rape and pillage again. While a net fishery in skilak lake for sockeye could be a very very good thing for the resourse calling Nililchik rural is stupid, clearly nililchik residents get along just fine without raping the resourse, and clearly anyone with enouight money to drive 160 miles to get fish has enough money to live on without those fish.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  13. #13
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    What everyone should be upset about it that a department of fish and game representative is threatening a lawsuit to overturn this ruling. What is ADF&G doing threatening anyone with a lawsuit? They are suppose to protect the resource, not the users. This is the problem with ADF&G today - the leadership is corrupt relative to their mandates. If they decide to go against sport or commercial fisherman eveyone would be howling. It just continues the pattern of abuse of subsistence users that started all of this in the first place.

    Relative to the ruling it is not native vs non-native. It is rural residents. Lets keep it to that discussion otherwise some may look racist.

    While the rural residents (some of the people wanting this are not native) brought it to the federal government they did it under the proposal process - just like any citizen can do with the federal government or the State of Alaska Board of Fish.

    Its right there in the constitution hows that for a mandate
    SECTION 3. COMMON USE.
    Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.

    SECTION 15. NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF FISHERY.
    No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State. This section does not restrict the power of the State to limit entry into any fishery for purposes of resource conservation, to prevent economic distress among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood and to promote the efficient development of aquaculture in the State.

    hows that for a mandate.

    Heres the policy section of title 8 of ANILCA

    (1) consistent with sound management principles, and the conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife, the utilization of the public lands in Alaska is to cause the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend upon subsistence uses of the resources of such lands; consistent with management of fish and wildlife in accordance with recognized scientific principles and the purposes for each unit established, designated, or expanded by or pursuant to Titles II through VII of this Act, the purpose of this title is to provide the opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to do so;
    (2) nonwasteful subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and other renewable resources shall be the priority consumptive uses of all such resources on the public lands of Alaska when it is necessary to restrict taking in order to assure the continued viability of a fish or wildlife population or the continuation of subsistence uses of such population, the taking of such population for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be given preference on the public lands over other consumptive uses; and
    (3) except as otherwise provided by this Act or other Federal laws, Federal land managing agencies, in managing subsistence activities on the public lands and in protecting the continued viability of all wild renewable resources in Alaska, shall cooperate with adjacent landowners and land managers, including Native Corporations, appropriate State and Federal agencies and other nations.






    -section 2 states that in times of shortage rural residents get priority, is there a shortage or reason to restrict the fishery? Nope


    heres more ANILCA

    PREFERENCE FOR SUBSISTENCE USE

    804. Except as otherwise provided in this Act and other Federal laws, the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes. Whenever it is necessary to restrict the taking of populations of fish and wildlife on such lands for subsistence uses in order to protect the continued viability of such populations, or to continue such uses, such priority shall be implemented through appropriate limitations based on the application of the following criteria:
    (1) customary and direct dependence upon the populations as the mainstay of livelihood;
    (2) local residency; and
    (3) the availability of alternative resources.



    customarily the residents of the nilichik area didn't need to travel 80 miles to get food, if you recall theres a few large salmon runs that are right there

    and there are limitless alternative resourses (drive to costco you idiots, buy sockeye salmon at a proscesser for $1.50/pound its cheaper then gas)


    curiosly there is nothing that defines rural heck I think Eagle River is rural I think I'm gonna get together with my buddies and demand priority rights to the little susitna river because my buddies dad who's lived in Eagle River for 50 years used to fish there

    Please write our congressional delgation and tell them to define rural as rural (not on the road system) or write your state representative and tell them to get in gear and pass an ammendment to our costitution that complies with ANILCA but allows us to define what is rural, Nililchik clearly is not. The NTC our a bunch of greedy SOBs and if you disagree you have no idea what you are talking about.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  14. #14

    Default

    The one thing that AK does bring up that is a valid point. If one has to travel that distance that goes by a major town, does that make it Rural.

    To travel thru an urbanized are to reach a subsistance fishing are strikes me as a contradiction.

    Just something to think about.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,852

    Default Mandate

    There is lots of misrepresentation of what these two clauses mean and the powers of the ADF&G. First, the term " are reserved to the people for common use" is a legal way of saying the resources are owned in common as opposed to being owned by an individual.

    This says nothing about how those resources should be allocated to various users. The legislature representing the people can allocate those resources or set up a system for allocation. They did this via Title 16 Fish and Game when they set up the Board of Fish and Board of Game. Thus the people, who own the resources, have delegated to the legislature the power to regulate resource management who then delegated this via Title 16 to the Commissioner of ADF&G and the Board of Fish or Game. Finally, the people also have the power to override both these groups via a public vote.

    The next section cited was to keep the State from giving special rights to fisheries - if fact this was changed so limited entry could be implemented for the commercial fishery. It just means that the state could not say only those guides today who fished the Kenai River can continue in the future. That would be unconstitutional without a change to the constitution.

    The powers of ADF&G are given to the Commissioner via Title 16 which is passed by the legislature. Those powers are well defined and say nothing about ADF&G having the authority to sue any federal or state group. In fact, the powers of ADF&G are limited but there is a section that outlines how the Department is to handle susistence issues. That section is:

    16.05.094. Duties of section of subsistence hunting and fishing.

    One can look this up on the net.

    I see nothing in this section that ADF&G is to sue anyone relative to susistence. They are to provide data and advise only.

    Sorry Ak Powder Monkey - no mandate is present for ADF&G to do anything other than present data and advise. However, more important is the crediability of ADF&G is compromized when they take sides in an allocative fight. If they choose one side how does the other know the data and advise is not bias. If ADF&G picks and chooses who they want to win they are not doing their job but the job of the Board of Fish. When they have tried to do this in the past the courts have found them illegal and enjoined them from implementation ( see the False Pass fishery cases).

  16. #16
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    I'm not familier with the false pass case, explain that please.

    Limited entry is open to anyone rights are granted by permits which are issued to anyone and then traded freely like property. Your argument shows no understanding of the limited entry program.

    Oh and explain how Ninilchik is rural? I'm all for people who live in the bush being allowed to take what they need to get by but if they can drive to the lower 48 they are not rural. And I highly doubt the Natives of the ninilchik area traveled the 80 miles over land to fish the keani.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,852

    Default false pass law suit

    The Board of Fish passed a regulation limiting the false pass chum fishery. It also by definition limited the sockeye salmon fishery. The Commissioner of Fish and Game announced he would overturn the regulation prior to the season. The users groups sued the State and Commissioner and the court ruled that the Commissioner did not have the authority to overrule the Board of Fish prior to the season. If during the season new information became available then the Commissioner could change the area and time for fishing by emergency order.

    Relative to limited entry I probably know more than most. However, for your information the first permits issued were done on historical fishing patterns. This created a special group and the courts ruled that without a constitutional amendment that could not be done. A more recent case in the forming of co-operative fisheries for salmon -

  18. #18
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,713

    Default I highly doubt the Natives of the ninilchik area traveled the 80 miles over land to f

    You're right. They didn't need to. Deep Creek and Ninilchik River would have met their needs. At least for kings, steelhead and silvers.
    Last edited by sayak; 11-20-2006 at 18:20.

  19. #19
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The Board of Fish passed a regulation limiting the false pass chum fishery. It also by definition limited the sockeye salmon fishery. The Commissioner of Fish and Game announced he would overturn the regulation prior to the season. The users groups sued the State and Commissioner and the court ruled that the Commissioner did not have the authority to overrule the Board of Fish prior to the season. If during the season new information became available then the Commissioner could change the area and time for fishing by emergency order.

    Relative to limited entry I probably know more than most. However, for your information the first permits issued were done on historical fishing patterns. This created a special group and the courts ruled that without a constitutional amendment that could not be done. A more recent case in the forming of co-operative fisheries for salmon -
    This is a comm fishery? So whats wrong with False Pass and how does it parralelle this issue? That is an internal state of Alaska law and everyone is playing by the same book, I think the state and the feds would disagree on a) what is rural and b) that people 80 miles away from a river have traditional ties too it except a few residents with money 50 years ago. Therefore grounds for a lawsuit are there.

    So if the first permits were issued according to historical use why is anyone complaining, they should either have their permits or be happy with the money they received for them? or did they get revoked when the courts struck that down?

    You still haven't answered my question: How is Ninilchik rural?

    Like I said I have no problem with someone in Hoonah, or Karluk, Goodnews Bay, or Even Skwenta being able to take a few more fish then me or being able to use fish wheels or dip nets, in the rivers that flow through their villages (note that most villages are on good salmon streams) I do have a problem with people from Ninilchik driving past a fred meyers, a safeway, and through an urban area to fish "subsistencely" when they have ample opportunatey to harvest enough fish for their family, including an "educational fishery" that show's their tribe's heritage and allows them to continue using tradtional methods.

    It is an act of pure greed to request more then they need and from what I know fo native culture is purely against their culture (taking more then one needs, clearly there is no dire need for these fish to be harvested). Furthermore they have ample access to dolly carden in their stream that flows right through their home. While I think there would be little to no or possibly possitive effects on sockeye numbers in this specific case, I think to allow a specific group primary access to the ample resource when it is not mandatory for their livelyhood or survival, or customs is wrong and should be avoided, furthermore in my opinion the law states that prefrence shall be given in times that restrictions must be made to protect the resource, and specifically states that it is not a native issue, if it were native kodiak islanders wouldn't have prefrence for deer, elk or goat hunting as these animals have no traditional value to the people as they are not native to the area (they do have prefrence btw even the people of kodiak city who must travel quite a ways and spend lots of money to get subsictence rights) the state must make sure that a fair and legal pressident is set for when (knock on wood) the state can pass a constitiutional ammendment that complies with ANILCA and allows us to manage these decsisions in the best intrest of all Alaskans, while maintaining the quality of life enjoyed by rural residents.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,852

    Default rural definition

    Ninilchik is rural by federal law. While some may want to disagree with the federal law the fact is that is the law of the land. So then the next question becomes what is the customary and traditional use. The finding by the subsistence board made that finding.

    I think it is better to live with this than fight it. Washington State and the Bolt decision fought for years but in fact it is still around. Better to live with it than to waste time fighting a law that has been around for over 25 years.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •