Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 72

Thread: Idea: Salmon Tags for non res

  1. #1
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default Idea: Salmon Tags for non res

    Anybody else think we should treat Alaska's big game fish like we treat Alaska's big game and require tags? I think its a feesable way to raise more money for management and reduce the imact of non res anglers taking home a ton of fish
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    We already have salmon stamps for kings on the Kenai for residents and non residents.....why not statewide for kings and steelhead?? Sounds like a good idea. I don't often agree with AKPM but this suggestion makes sense. How about proposing it at the next BOF meeting?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    Anybody else think we should treat Alaska's big game fish like we treat Alaska's big game and require tags? I think its a feesable way to raise more money for management and reduce the imact of non res anglers taking home a ton of fish
    We already pay a steep price for the lic. and stamp and thats ok. I would not get to carried away or the non res peeps will quit coming. that may be fine with you buy many people make their living off of the tourists. It thats ok to kill that industry then charge 350.00 for the lic. and 250.00 for the king stamp

  4. #4
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    We already have salmon stamps for kings on the Kenai for residents and non residents.....why not statewide for kings and steelhead?? Sounds like a good idea. I don't often agree with AKPM but this suggestion makes sense. How about proposing it at the next BOF meeting?

    we already have st wide king stamps......
    "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

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    We already have salmon stamps for kings on the Kenai for residents and non residents.....why not statewide for kings and steelhead?? Sounds like a good idea. I don't often agree with AKPM but this suggestion makes sense. How about proposing it at the next BOF meeting?
    It's not a Board of Fish issue but a legislative issue.

  6. #6
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default I have been floating a sockeye stamp, per say

    Around with my SCADA membership. If proposal 166 passes, that is before the BOF,there would not be a need for a fishing license to dipnet. One of the scenario's I have been looking at to help raise revenue, if this happens, is a Sockeye stamp. We could ask the legislature to put, say 20% of fee's raised towards CIAA, and the rest given back to fish and Game.
    If you look at the rate of inflation and when we last had the fishing license rates raised(1992?) that $25.00 is now worth @ $16.00. Why are we giving away our resource? I'm willing to pay to play. I think in the long run, everybody would. Just keep the low income provision but make people show proof when obtaining one. As of now they don't and law enforcement cannot force them to show proof.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Not quite the same

    While we do require tags for kings we consider the reds and pinks to be the lawfull bounty of commecial fishemen - even though a significant number of the commercial guys don't even reside in Alaska. Game has not been commerically harvested although I'm sure there are many on this forum that would rather have the moose and game harested by comerical guys so it can be shipped outside for others to enjoy instead of farmed animals.

    How about charging out-of-state comercial fishermen and hands a significant premium like we charge out of state sport fishermen? The qualifications for residency can be the same as for sportfishermen and hunters - previous residency of a year and intent to remain a permanent resident.

    While we are at it there should be a "windfall" profits tax for the commercial fishemen. When prices are high and the catch is good slap a health tax on the guys - just like we do on the oil companies.

    The additional fees and revenue can go for enforcement and resource developement.

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    Anybody else think we should treat Alaska's big game fish like we treat Alaska's big game and require tags? I think its a feesable way to raise more money for management and reduce the imact of non res anglers taking home a ton of fish
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Well said TV! i do bring back some fish from AK. I also bring up no tackle and spend my money in AK for goods i already own but choose to buy it up there and leave it up there. I buy a one year king stamp when i could get by with a 3 day or even a one day. Same with my license. i could buy a 14 day but opt for a yearly. Its not like i am going to make another trip up there. I dont take any kings those are C&R for me. No need to keep them when there is a bounty of reds. For the amount of money i spend in AK i could buy many more pounds of fish from comfish and come out ahead.

  9. #9
    Member captaindd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Salcha, AK
    Posts
    762

    Default Fee's

    Do not know if the user the fee's would be legal. You would have to pay the same as non residents. The state just got done refunding fee's to out of state comm fish do not remember what it was all about.

  10. #10
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    I favor keeping the non-resident fee structure in place that we already have. Raising taxes does not always increase revenue. I have some relatives that come to visit every year. Sometimes we'll float the Kenai and they'll buy a license so that they can wet a line. More often than not they don't catch anything, but since the price of a one day or one week license is reasonable, they don't mind the cost for the hope of catching a fish or two. If they had to purchase an additional tag or stamp, though, I'd bet they wouldn't bother with fishing and would just enjoy the float instead. I don't think they're alone in this, either. While you would get more revenue from some fishermen, I'd wager that you'd lose revenue from others. As it is non-residents already pay more in license fees than residents do. I'm not inclined to bite the hand that feeds us.

  11. #11
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post

    How about charging out-of-state comercial fishermen and hands a significant premium like we charge out of state sport fishermen?
    We already do. Non-resident crew licenses are significantly more expensive than resident crew licenses.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hartford Michigan
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kgpcr View Post
    Well said TV! i do bring back some fish from AK. I also bring up no tackle and spend my money in AK for goods i already own but choose to buy it up there and leave it up there. I buy a one year king stamp when i could get by with a 3 day or even a one day. Same with my license. i could buy a 14 day but opt for a yearly. Its not like i am going to make another trip up there. I dont take any kings those are C&R for me. No need to keep them when there is a bounty of reds. For the amount of money i spend in AK i could buy many more pounds of fish from comfish and come out ahead.
    On our last trip we put in the area of 6,000 dollars into the local economy. We ate some Bows and Reds, didn't keep a king.

  13. #13
    Member Phish Finder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Searching for more cowbell!
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    I would like to see the first grinning retiree who proclaims with pride that his Alaska Pink Salmon stamp is proof of his fishing prowess!

    All kidding aside, the king stamp seems to do it's job.
    ><((((>.`..`.. ><((((>`..`.><((((>

    "People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they
    just like to pee a lot." --Capitol Brewery

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    What would be the purpose of raising fishing license fees or creating salmon stamps? More money for research & enforcement? I do not believe that the money from such fees can be earmarked for specified projects so they would go into the general fund.


    This is not the time to be adding additional fees or cost associated with anyone that is looking at coming to Alaska for a fishing vacation. Nor is it the time to be adding to the cost of fishing for residents wishing to put some salmon in the freezer.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default before this gets too far

    I think everyone needs to look up some rules and regulations before going forth with the various ideas. Not against brainstorming but there are some road blocks to some of the proposals.

    First, lets take commercial fisherman - because this is commerce that goes across state lines there are numerous laws that impact what one can and cannot do - for example the Mag/Steven act has a number of sections on commercial fishing and commerce. We have State laws that govern this also.

    Second, no funds can be dedicated from funds going into the general fund. So the language should be intent language but cannot dictate who or where or how funds are spent, except on a year by year bases.

    Third, the BOF cannot require a fee for fishing. They can require a permit but the lic. structure is up to the legislature and the amount charged.

    Fourth, anadromous fish, unlike moose and caribou, are considered under federal control and in the Mag/Stevens act there is a standard that says the State cannot restrict fisheries to residents. This is being fought in the courts right now.

    Fifth, there is case law on what states can charge as a differential between resident and non-residents. So one cannot get out of control and put all the burden on non-residents who also own the resource.

    Sixth, the tourist industry would go crazy with a higher fee on non-residents after seeing this season. Less people may hurt significantly to this industry.

    Seven, trying to tax commercial fisherman in good years with a windfall assumes that they get breaks in the other years. The oil industry has all types of incentives to balance the equation. Those good years help the industry in the bad years if the players are smart.

    So while it is easy to say lets tax and charge more it is very complicated to do and needs lots of research to weave the way through the various laws and regulations.

  16. #16
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default I have read the past few posts and...

    I still believe that we are in need to boost some sort of hunting and fishing license fee's. As stated, the cost of inflation has diminished the original boost to licensing fee's to half of what it was originally was, boosted to. That is in 2009 dollars, compared to 1993 dollars.
    Compared to other states, Alaska is really giving their resources away. I'm not in favor of choosing between resident or non-resident user fee's. I say let us raise all user fee's.
    I have stated before, I am willing to pay to play. Shouldn't every body else be willing also? I know the economy is tanking but if people want to come up and fish and hunt, they will. A few dollars more will not discourage them. The same goes for Alaska residents too. Just my own opinion!!!
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

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

    Default

    So, just out of curiosity I looked up fishing licences fees of a few fishing type locations to see were Alaska stacks up as far as price differential.

    Resident (yearly) Nonresident (yearly) Nonresident (1 day)
    Alaska $25 $145 $20
    California $41.50 $111.85 $13.40
    Wash $24 $48 $15.82
    Hawaii $0 $0 $0
    Florida $17 $32.50
    Canada $22.05 $106.05 $7.35
    Mexico $48.20 $48.20 (license only needed when fishing from a boat)
    Bahamas $0 $150 fee for the BOAT


    Alaska, Washington, and California all had other fees such as king stamps, saltwater license, steel-head stamp, & shellfish stamp among those that I saw.

    Kind of interesting to see that Alaska leads this list as far as cost of a nonresident fishing license and for that matter is right there for the resident license cost as well.

  18. #18
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default Hold on there guys!

    I cannot believe the course of this thread. We are taxed for everything and in most regards we are over taxed to the point of being punitive. And you guys are seriously talking about asking our government to raise our taxes?!?

    You have to ask yourself some questions. Does the King stamp really do anything? (don't just say "it seems to", provide evidence in the way of numbers that shows it did/does anything... and what is it that it does). Now why is it that <whatever the King stamp does> needs to be extended to the other species?

    Compared to hunting licenses, the fishing license is very cheap. So where does the money we pay for that license go and demonstrate why they need to have more money (and what they'll do with it) before you start talking about raising my fees "just because".
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Thanks but...

    Thanks for the contribution - I'm sure it helped some people and some small portion of it stayed in state to benefit some residents.

    Not being in the tourist industry I'm still trying to figure out just how much it helped me. On the negative side I have to put up with horrible traffic and crowed rivers and fishing spots as well as pay unemployment and assistance to the low paid seasonal tourist workers that have no work much of the years. On the positive side there are some taxes collected although I don't know how those balnce out with tourist related government expenses.

    Yet the people in the tourist industry are generally against developing our land for development - like openning ANWR - that would create high paying year round jobs.


    Quote Originally Posted by 2PawsRiver View Post
    On our last trip we put in the area of 6,000 dollars into the local economy. We ate some Bows and Reds, didn't keep a king.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Thanks for the contribution - I'm sure it helped some people and some small portion of it stayed in state to benefit some residents.

    Not being in the tourist industry I'm still trying to figure out just how much it helped me. On the negative side I have to put up with horrible traffic and crowed rivers and fishing spots as well as pay unemployment and assistance to the low paid seasonal tourist workers that have no work much of the years. On the positive side there are some taxes collected although I don't know how those balnce out with tourist related government expenses.

    Yet the people in the tourist industry are generally against developing our land for development - like openning ANWR - that would create high paying year round jobs.
    Not being in the tourist industry it probably doesn't help you much, but to the many Alaskans in the tourist industry it makes a huge difference. To the small shops, mom and pop B&B's, guides, processors, resturants etc... many make their yearly incomes in a 4 or 5 months, usually 2 or 3 months.
    Not to mention the money raised from F&G by licenses.

    I think it would be hard to argue that tourists "cost" the state money.

    BTW, I support opening ANWR.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •