Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Proposal 166 BOF March meeting

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default Proposal 166 BOF March meeting

    Proposal 166 eliminates the requirment of having a sport fish license to fish in the personal use fishery. The justification given in the proposal book is not correct as it was prepared prior to a ruling by legal. However, it is still a valid proposal and needs support of the dip net community.

    Here is some reasons why it should pass.

    1. The cost of a sport fish license has fees associated with it for paying off two hatcheries which do not support the personal use fishery. Sport fishing by law is not personal use fishing.

    2. A family of 4 with two teenage kids who are 16 would be required to have 4 sport fish licenses for a total of nearly 100 dollars. Fish and Wildlife protection has ruled that a sport fish license is required to participate in the fishery even if it is a household permit. This is very costly to families for a fishery that was suppose to replace subsistence fishing (this is replacement has been stated in court by the State).

    3 Personal use fishing is not sport fishing by definition.

    4. Money for a sport fish license is not going back to the personal use fishery management in proportion to the users. ADF&G puts very little money into PU infrastructure and management.

    5. Removal of the sport fish license will allow a bill to be introduced into the legislature to have a pu fee that is tracked and can be used for pu infrastructure and management. It is the intent of the proposer of this regualtion change to talk to representative about a 60/40 split of pu fees. For example, on the Kenai 60% would go to the city of Kenai and KPB and 40 to ADF&G for management. While funds cannot be dedicated intent language can set the stage for this to open in the annual budget process. The division of funds for other pu areas is part of the process. So in the example above the amount allocated to the Kenai fisheries would be split this way.

    6. There are other ways to prove you are a resident. An alaska drivers license, permanent fund check, Alaska id card, and the list goes on. These are the same proofs used to get the sport fish license. Therefore one does not need the sport fish license. If you lie to get a pu permit you are probably going to lie to get a resident sport fish license.

    7 Money and impacts on ADF&G are not allowed to be discussed at the BOF meeting. The BOF cannot set fees or their distribution. They can only set permit requirments for proof of residency or harvest tracking. Therefore, a sport fish license is not to be required to meet these goals.

    So I hope people write to the BOF with comments supporting this proposal and that organizations do the same.

  2. #2
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    5. Removal of the sport fish license will allow a bill to be introduced into the legislature to have a pu fee that is tracked and can be used for pu infrastructure and management.

    how do you propse this happens with out a change in the state constitution? my understanding is that funds for projects are set aside for that year and remainders are put back into the general fund. how do you set aside funds?
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  3. #3
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,355

    Default opposed

    Nerka, its a good proposal, and a bad one. Good if the only fishing you do is pu. Bad if you also sport fish. Item #5- "Establish a P.U. fee structure. In other words, one more fee that Alaskan fishermen have to pay.

    Now, I would be 100% in favor of it if the fee were an "either/or." In other words, there is a p.u. license, but the sport fishing license would also include the p.u. Kind of like the non resident small game hunting license. That way, Alaska families who already both sport fish and PU fish would not have to pay extra to fish personal use. That makes your argument in #5 much stronger.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kodiak
    Posts
    650

    Default residency

    I don't see a way to check residency of folks who are pu fishing without a license. Driver's license and ID is not a claim of residency and you cannot make someone carry around a copy or receipt from PFD.
    It seems like you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. Eliminate one fee requirement to implement another?

  5. #5
    Member ksbha4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Palmer/Juneau
    Posts
    187

    Default PFD Receipt

    Why not require a PFD receipt to be carried as proof of 1 year of residency for PU fishing? The legwork has already been done to verify residency qualification for the PFD and and I see no reason whatsoever that a PU authorization stub couldn't be attached to the application receipt. We are required to carry all sorts of licences, tags, etc anyway so what's the big deal? I agree with willphish4food with the "either/or" idea requirements. That saves the each user from having to spend the extra money to stay in compliance.

    BTW, when and where is the BOF meeting?
    Ask not what your government can do for you. Ask how your government can go away and get out of your life

  6. #6
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,833

    Default pfd

    I have been in alaska with intent to stay since 5/19/08 and I do not have a PFD receipt yet.

  7. #7
    Member ksbha4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Palmer/Juneau
    Posts
    187

    Default Clarification

    If you have direct deposit then you should have received a deposit recipt used for tax purposes. My idea would be that the tax receipt could have a PU authorization stub for the next year.
    Ask not what your government can do for you. Ask how your government can go away and get out of your life

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    A proposal (#166) has been submitted to eliminate having a valid Alaska Sport fish license be a requirment in order to go dipnetting. Follow me for a second as I dwell on this one.

    What pops into my mind is "clamming". I still have not figured out why I need a sport fish license to go fishing, I mean digging, for clams. Its not like I am putting a reel on my shovel or clam gun or that I am actually casting or trolling around the dimples in the sand. To be honest the only way that I can get my reel to stay on the shovel handle is by using a little duct tape but even with this I cannot seem to find a lure that the little buggers will strike. So, after awhile everyone seems to move away from me and my trolling methods which opens a lot of room on the ol beach so I just reel it in and start digging away.
    I have to admit digging seems to produce just a little better at least for me. Maybe I am using the wrong "lure" so if anyone can help a fellow sport fish clammer out I would love to be able to get them on the troll as that would be a whole more fun than having to dig them.

    Reading thru this proposal and the other question that I ask myself is "why was it submitted"? I do not know the answer to that but I do know that there is safety in numbers and it looks to me like some are wanting to split dipnetters from the "herd".

    It also looks like someone has a beef with ADF&G Sport Fish Division.

    I am good with purchasing a sport fish license to dipnet for salmon, dipnet for hooligan, and to dig for clams.

    NO ON #166!!!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default iceblue - typical bull from you

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    A proposal (#166) has been submitted to eliminate having a valid Alaska Sport fish license be a requirment in order to go dipnetting. Follow me for a second as I dwell on this one.

    What pops into my mind is "clamming". I still have not figured out why I need a sport fish license to go fishing, I mean digging, for clams. Its not like I am putting a reel on my shovel or clam gun or that I am actually casting or trolling around the dimples in the sand. To be honest the only way that I can get my reel to stay on the shovel handle is by using a little duct tape but even with this I cannot seem to find a lure that the little buggers will strike. So, after awhile everyone seems to move away from me and my trolling methods which opens a lot of room on the ol beach so I just reel it in and start digging away.
    I have to admit digging seems to produce just a little better at least for me. Maybe I am using the wrong "lure" so if anyone can help a fellow sport fish clammer out I would love to be able to get them on the troll as that would be a whole more fun than having to dig them.

    Reading thru this proposal and the other question that I ask myself is "why was it submitted"? I do not know the answer to that but I do know that there is safety in numbers and it looks to me like some are wanting to split dipnetters from the "herd".

    It also looks like someone has a beef with ADF&G Sport Fish Division.

    I am good with purchasing a sport fish license to dipnet for salmon, dipnet for hooligan, and to dig for clams.

    NO ON #166!!!
    Iceblue - typical post from you. You cannot have a rationale discussion without degrading into motive and hidden agenda without asking the proposer. The name of the person who put the proposal in is on the proposal form. I doubt you even tried to call and ask.

    The purpose of the proposal is clear and I outlined the reasons above. But for the sake of others I will answer your questions.

    First, no one has a beef with ADF&G on this issue except ADF&G does not allocate funds to deal with habitat and infrastructure issues in the PU fishery.

    What is happening is that monies are not allocated to the PU fishery to fix infrastructure and habitat issues because ADF&G is not fully funded for this additional fishery. The PU fishery needs a funding source that is trackable and can be used for these issue (the legislature can define intent in the budget process very similar to the aquaculture association volunteer tax).

    In fact, if you had done a little research a number of us are trying to get the State and other interested groups to deal with these issues. The idea of a separate PU fee is one way to fund that and that discussion takes place in the legislature. Other funding sources are stamps, CIP requests, and reallocation of existing funds.

    Second, no one is causing a split in the dip net community. I and others have been in constant communication with the dip net association leadership on this issue to resolve some of the issues facing this fishery. To imply I or others want to see this fishery eliminated is pure hogwash on your part. But knowing you I expected nothing less.

    Your idea of the clam story just shows total ignorance on your part of what is sport/recreational issues and dip netting. They are defined in regulation as different activities with different purposes. Read the regulation definitions and you will see the difference. Keeping the sport fish lic. requirement for the PU fishery is not required by law and the BOF cannot use monies to ADF&G as a rationale for keeping it. That is not in their authority.

    Finally, the idea of sport fish lic. being needed for proving residency is hogwash. When one buys a sport fish lic. in most cases the vendor only asks for a driver lic if that. When protection needs to proved a person has a resident sport fish lic. that in reality should be a non-resident it takes a full investigation. Lying to get the dip net permit is no different than lying to get a sport fish lic. Both permits and sport fish lic. go into a data base that can be crossed referenced to the permanent fund or other resident checking methods. For most cases non-residents buying resident lic. are found out because someone turns them in.

    So iceblue - you should do some homework before posting comments that imply some negative motive. Call the "the whop 2000" and see if what I am saying is true or not - then you can post an apology to those of us working on this issue.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Wow, what a response. I could fire back a post in a like manner but really what is the use? I do not support this proposal but that is just my opinion.

    Yes, I saw that you were working with Ken on trying to deal with some of the issues on the beaches and I for one really hope that you guys can get someplace with this. But, tell me again how this makes you the new best friend of dipnetters?

    Just because you disagree with a post does not mean that it gives you the right to attack the poster. Yes, I still believe that this is a bad proposal. So go ahead and fire off some more personal attacks if it makes you feel better.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default now a victim?

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    Wow, what a response. I could fire back a post in a like manner but really what is the use? I do not support this proposal but that is just my opinion.

    Yes, I saw that you were working with Ken on trying to deal with some of the issues on the beaches and I for one really hope that you guys can get someplace with this. But, tell me again how this makes you the new best friend of dipnetters?

    Just because you disagree with a post does not mean that it gives you the right to attack the poster. Yes, I still believe that this is a bad proposal. So go ahead and fire off some more personal attacks if it makes you feel better.
    You continue to make the personal attacks. I only responded to your poor attempt at it. As far as answering any more questions from you I do not have the time to waste.

    However, you never said why you disagreed - so what is the reason? Take the time to post your rationale rather than deal in your idea of motives. You do not know me or those who work for the resource - I only see you protecting your self interests on this forum. What have you done for the resource that allows you to question the motive of others?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Okay, I'll bite. Here are a couple of reasons why I do not support this proposal. In the original post on this topic there was a list of 7 reasons given as to why this proposal should be supported.
    The first reason given was that fees from sport fish license were helping support two hatcheries that did not support the PU fishery. Well, the PU fishery over on the Kasilof River is taking some hatchery King Salmon as well as some hatchery sockeye. Actually some of the sockeye are now more "natural" these days but that is a different story. Over on the Kenai River the PU folks are taking some hatchery sockeye (Hidden Lake) and in the Valley, well, do I need to go on? Fact is hatchery stocks are being taken by PU fishers so why not help support the two hatcheries even if the fish that are being taken home are not from the same hatchery that the sport fish license funds are helping support?

    Under #2 it explains how expensive it is if you have two teenagers in your family particpating in the Pu fishery. Give me a break ! A family of 4 can Pu fish hooligan and salmon for most of the summer for under $100 and this is expensive? Does anyone really think that a Pu fishery run by a different entity than ADF&G Sport Fish is going to charge any less? No, my guess is that it would cost even more as they would have to set up the the new infrastructure to help maintain and manage the PU fishery. A resident sport fish license is $15 for goodness sakes!!!

    Under #3 it says that by law the definition of PU fishing is not sport fishing. Well, neither is clamming so what is the point again?

    Is that enough or do I need to go into # 4 - 7?


    To answer the rest of the post about "Who am I to question the motives of others & what have I done for the resource". On the first part this is a Managment Forum were people talk about there ideals on the various topics so get over it. On the second part I actually try to giver back as much as I can. Here are a few things that I have done over the last 10 or so years.

    1) Came up with and started the first "Take A Vet Fishing Day" with help from Kenai River Sportfish Association and the Kenai River Professional Guide Association to keep it going to date. This event started on the year after the infamous 9-11 and we try to have it on the Saturday or Sunday that September 11 falls on depending on how it best works for the Vets fishing that year.
    2) Helped develope the Kenai River Guide Academy. I also have a section that I present to each class and to date I have donated countless hours to this project.
    3) Proud to say that I have fished kids in the Make a Wish for years.
    4) Provide port a potties on the Kenai River in a area that does not have enough bathrooms. KRPGA pays for half of this as well. Bathrooms are available for anyone to utilize.
    5) Donated countless hours and dollars to many other resource related items but this is enough to list for now.

    Once again these are a few of the things that I do. I do them because I believe it is the right thing to do. No other reason.

    Now it is my turn to ask a few questions Nerka. Have you ever been dipnetting? Have you ever submitted a proposal to the BOF asking to take things away from other user groups?
    Last edited by iceblue; 01-20-2010 at 22:55. Reason: spelling

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    You continue to make the personal attacks. I only responded to your poor attempt at it. As far as answering any more questions from you I do not have the time to waste.
    ?
    Grow up with this personal attack stuff. Iceblue never attacked you. I get tired of this personal attack crying by folks on the board. Any disagreement becomes a personal attack. Give me a break.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default live in a glass house Yukon.

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Grow up with this personal attack stuff. Iceblue never attacked you. I get tired of this personal attack crying by folks on the board. Any disagreement becomes a personal attack. Give me a break.
    Then stop it and tell iceblue to stop it in his posts. He gave reasons in the last post and I will answer them, the earlier posts did not do that and questioned motives and agendas - so do not cry to me Yukon about personal attacks - you and others have no problem speaking behind peoples backs. I can give examples if you want - especially from the guide industry. You can take the high road only if you are walking on it.

    The hatchery programs he mentioned - Hidden Lake for example is funded by CIAA and not the State. So should monies go to them? Second, there is no stocking going on in Kasilof for sockeye salmon and that was a CIAA program. Third, the chinook program at Kasilof is not producing fish for the PU fishery - the catch there is minimal. Those large hatcheries are for just for sport fishing interests that have nothing to do with PU fisherman.

    Next, clamming is defined as a sport fishing activity in regulation but PU is not. There is a regulation and statue which states that PU is separate and distinct. Read the regulations.

    I have PU fished and will do so in the future if medical conditions change for the better. This is another hidden attempt to question the motives of the proposer not the merits of the proposal. However, I will answer it to show that to forum readers.

    Not sure why the list of things iceblue does but the guide academy is not something I would be proud of but that is another post. Just for the record I did not question iceblue volunteer efforts but his attack implying some negative motive.

    I have never put in proposal into the Board of Fisheries that is allocation oriented. I have put in proposals that deal with habitat and fairness (proposal 166 is this type of proposal) and ethics (recent proposals on sustainable fisheries management). When iceblue says taking away from a user group I assume he means fish. But again this question has nothing to do with the proposal under discussion just an attempt to discredit the person, not the rationale for the proposal.

    So Yukon, tell me again that some of your fellow guides do not get personal in the fishing discussions? I know they are out there making personal attacks all the time - so give it a rest since you do not have clean hands.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I am holding back what I really want to type right now for fear of being banned from the forum.
    PM me what I have done. Maybe I will calm down by the time you do that.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Hatchery stocks that are caught in the Kasilof and Kenai PU fishery were just examples. I could of just as easily had mentioned other systems that have hatchery stocks that are included in the PU catch but choose not to. But, are am I hearing that CIAA does not recieve any money from the State to help it operate?

    No mention was made as to how this new infrastructure would be set up, who would manage it, and how the funds would be split between the different areas that people PU fish in. But the ultimate responsibility of the fishery would still fall back onto ADF&G. So, why should they (ADF&G) not be allowed to manage the PU fishery?

    I understand that there is frustration involved with a lack of structure during the Pu fishery on both the Kenai and the Kasilof River. Critical habitat needs to be protected, there are a lack of restrooms, litter is prevelant, crowding issues, and even a lack of enforcment. But, that is also how every popular road side sport fishery in the State is deemed. Anyone ever walked into the woods around the Russian River Ferry in July? How about the easy places to park a drift boat on the Kasilof River? There are these same problems in many areas but that is not a reason to take the management of the fisheries away from ADF&G Sport Fish. Simply a matter of lack of staff and funding on many basic levels.

    I have to say that Yukon is one the most level headed, nicest, least confrontational, smartest, and extremely well respected by all that know him. Simply put I do not know a single guide, non guided, non sportsman, or whatever that has ever had a bad thing to say about him. At the very least I believe that you owe Yukon an apology Nerka.

    Anytime you want to start a thread and talk about the college course go to it. I cannot believe that you would actually insinuate that it is not a positive thing for all aspects of the fishery on the Kenai River.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,518

    Default why ADF&G is not alone

    Iceblue, no one is saying that ADF&G should not manage the fishery. However, the Commissioner of ADF&G recently stated that ADF&G does not manage land use issues. Therefore, monies need to go to cities, the KPB, or other state agencies like DNR to manage those lands. Since the monies spent for a sport fish lic are only going to ADF&G and they are not responding to the land use issues then a separate and distinct funding source is needed. Those people using the PU fishery on this forum indicated they were willing to pay a user fee if the money went toward their fishery.

    The proposal was put in prior to recent discussions because of time lines for proposals being sent in. If ADF&G wants to change their position on funding land use solutions then the proposal will be withdrawn prior to March. Since as of last week they have not indicated any willingness to do so they must bear the responsibility for others to force them to do so or to take away their funding source and apply it to this fishery.

    Relative to CIAA they do not receive any money from the State to fund the hatcheries. They receive a cycle of funds back to them from the 2 percent tax on the commercial fishery. That is money generated by one user group for CIAA. Other funds from the State have been for loans that are being paid back and in some cases grants a long time ago. Recent grants have been for specific projects like Susitna River studies not funding hatcheries.

    Relative to Yukon I have responded to him in a PM and that is not for forum discussion but it was positive.

  18. #18

    Default

    I thought I read in one of Les Palmer's Clarion articles for 2009, Kenai's revenues from parking, camping and boat launching totaled nearly $255,000, an 18 percent increase over 2008 revenues. After expenses, Kenai cleared $43,000. So it appears that at least for the Kenai River, the land managers already have a funding mechanism and are doing their job. It seems that the same sort of process needs to be developed for the Kasilof.

    Instead of trying to force ADF&G to manage lands outside of their statutory authority maybe efforts should be directed to those entities who do have the proper authority.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    If the information I have been getting from the SCADA is correct there is a movement to set up the Kasilof the same way as the Kenai and allow parking and camping fees pay for the management of the area. The main hurdle is the number of land owners....mostly state entities, who own the land. There is no one agency to go to to set this up. I am willing to help out all I can to do this as I think it is long overdue. Maybe it would also cut down on locals driving ATVs on the dunes and environmental damage done by setnetters as well when accessing their sites from the beach.

  20. #20
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Gusdog is correct...

    I should probably give you a rundown on where we are standing, relative to the Kasilof and multiple state agencies. We have the Governors office involved,DNR land managers James King,State parks, and Adam Smith, Div. of mining,land and water.
    The Governor has asked James King to get together with Fish&Game to come up with a long and Short term plan for the Kasilof. As of now, there has not been a meeting date set but I and others are trying to keep the pressure on so this just does not get put aside.
    I have been in contact with a number of people from the legislature and am setting up the premise that we will be needing additional funding in the future.
    We have some pretty capable High School students from Nikiski that have located over 2000 feet of temporary fencing and posts that can be borrowed, for use at the mouth but we need the above agencies to sign off on SCADA and volunteers erecting same. Considering the legalities of fencing off critical habitat and state regulations.
    Wish I could tell you more but we, cause there are a number of you that are taking an active part also, can only prod and push only so much.
    All I can say is stay tuned for further updates as things progress.
    We have been working to make this a groundswell of support from many different groups and I really think in the end, we will have habitat protection in place by June. JMHO. OR Maybe I'm Just a **** optimist
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •