Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: BOF meeting this weekend

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7

    Default BOF meeting this weekend

    Hi everyone,

    The Board of Fisheries is meeting this weekend specifically to tackle proposal 200 & 201 relating to the classification of the Chitina subdistrict. I am very interested in learning more from both sides on this issue.

    My disclaimer: I live in Cordova, do not commercially fish - never have, and probably never will. I participate in Federal subsistence programs (moose and halibut). I don't participate in any State subsistence programs, since I have no way of accessing the subsistence fishery at the mouth of the Copper (no boat). M family and I catch coho in the local sport fishery to get fish for our freezer (3 per day limit), and usually put away about 20-30 fish to supplement the halibut, moose and deer we also harvest. We take some to a local processor, where it is kippered and canned. Absolutely delicious! We love to harvest salmon in the sport fishery, because then we are allowed to give some to give away to family and friends for Christmas presents. Our overseas friends love Alaska salmon!

    One day I'd love to get my hands on a king salmon, but without a boat there is no way for me to get one. Also, as long as I have food on my table, it doesn't matter much to me which type of salmon I'm eating, just as long as my family and I have enough food to last the winter. It's not necessarily a live or die situation, but with the cost of living in Cordova I'd have a hard time justifying living here if I couldn't at least supplement the food I purchase with caught food.

    Even in my situation (harvesting foods to supplement the food I purchase) I do not feel like I should be given equal entitlement to the resource as those that truly depend on salmon in the Copper for their way of life. I'm not talking about simply eating fish and feeding a family, but the long standing customs and traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation, and include much more that a recreational adventure.

    I have traveled up to Chitina in June, and have seen the lay of the land. To me, it looks harmless enough, just families harvesting salmon to fill their freezers. Fair enough. What I'm having trouble comprehending, is why these families feel like they deserve equal entitlement to the resource as those that depend on the salmon for their way of life. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most dipnetters will argue that they depend on the salmon to make ends meet, fill their freezers etc. but if they were the case, why are they dipping salmon in Chitina? They qualify for the subsistence fishery that is open only a few hundred yards upstream where they can dip hundreds of salmon!

    I guess the thing that irks me most about the Chitina fishery, is the commercialization of it all. And, the fact that people travel hundreds and hundreds of miles to participate in it. Like I said, I don't participate in the Cordova subsistence fishery because it is too far for me to travel to. It doesn't make sense economically for me to buy a boat just so I can catch subsistence fish (catch more, and get a king salmon). Economically speaking, I'm better off putting that money towards my electricity bill so I can afford to buy milk, bread and vegetables to supplement the sport fish I catch.

    Personal use fisheries are a special privilege for Alaska residents that were established back in the 80's. Before then, the only way non-rural Alaskan's could harvest fish was in the sport fisheries, competing against tourists and visitors from out of state. The Personal Use category was developed as a way for Alaska residents to supplement the foods they buy in the store, and were never intended to morph into subsistence fisheries.

    I just wish people could be happy and appreciative that this opportunity exists. And, I also wish people could see the difference between what is true reliance on the resource, and what is more of a recreation, or a desire to catch fish at that time and place as opposed to other closer opportunities.

    Thanks for listening. I'm off my soapbox now, but would appreciate if some of those residents that participate in the dipnet fishery can shed some light on this issue. I'm very interested in hearing the other side of the argument, so convince me why it should be susbsistence.

  2. #2
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskamoose View Post
    Hi everyone,

    The Board of Fisheries is meeting this weekend specifically to tackle proposal 200 & 201 relating to the classification of the Chitina subdistrict. I am very interested in learning more from both sides on this issue.

    My disclaimer: I live in Cordova, do not commercially fish - never have, and probably never will. I participate in Federal subsistence programs (moose and halibut). I don't participate in any State subsistence programs, since I have no way of accessing the subsistence fishery at the mouth of the Copper (no boat). M family and I catch coho in the local sport fishery to get fish for our freezer (3 per day limit), and usually put away about 20-30 fish to supplement the halibut, moose and deer we also harvest. We take some to a local processor, where it is kippered and canned. Absolutely delicious! We love to harvest salmon in the sport fishery, because then we are allowed to give some to give away to family and friends for Christmas presents. Our overseas friends love Alaska salmon!

    One day I'd love to get my hands on a king salmon, but without a boat there is no way for me to get one. Also, as long as I have food on my table, it doesn't matter much to me which type of salmon I'm eating, just as long as my family and I have enough food to last the winter. It's not necessarily a live or die situation, but with the cost of living in Cordova I'd have a hard time justifying living here if I couldn't at least supplement the food I purchase with caught food.

    Even in my situation (harvesting foods to supplement the food I purchase) I do not feel like I should be given equal entitlement to the resource as those that truly depend on salmon in the Copper for their way of life. I'm not talking about simply eating fish and feeding a family, but the long standing customs and traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation, and include much more that a recreational adventure.

    I have traveled up to Chitina in June, and have seen the lay of the land. To me, it looks harmless enough, just families harvesting salmon to fill their freezers. Fair enough. What I'm having trouble comprehending, is why these families feel like they deserve equal entitlement to the resource as those that depend on the salmon for their way of life. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most dipnetters will argue that they depend on the salmon to make ends meet, fill their freezers etc. but if they were the case, why are they dipping salmon in Chitina? They qualify for the subsistence fishery that is open only a few hundred yards upstream where they can dip hundreds of salmon!

    I guess the thing that irks me most about the Chitina fishery, is the commercialization of it all. And, the fact that people travel hundreds and hundreds of miles to participate in it. Like I said, I don't participate in the Cordova subsistence fishery because it is too far for me to travel to. It doesn't make sense economically for me to buy a boat just so I can catch subsistence fish (catch more, and get a king salmon). Economically speaking, I'm better off putting that money towards my electricity bill so I can afford to buy milk, bread and vegetables to supplement the sport fish I catch.

    Personal use fisheries are a special privilege for Alaska residents that were established back in the 80's. Before then, the only way non-rural Alaskan's could harvest fish was in the sport fisheries, competing against tourists and visitors from out of state. The Personal Use category was developed as a way for Alaska residents to supplement the foods they buy in the store, and were never intended to morph into subsistence fisheries.

    I just wish people could be happy and appreciative that this opportunity exists. And, I also wish people could see the difference between what is true reliance on the resource, and what is more of a recreation, or a desire to catch fish at that time and place as opposed to other closer opportunities.

    Thanks for listening. I'm off my soapbox now, but would appreciate if some of those residents that participate in the dipnet fishery can shed some light on this issue. I'm very interested in hearing the other side of the argument, so convince me why it should be susbsistence.
    1st of all pal, why do you need convincing? Are you a board member? If you have no interest either way why are you stirring the pot? One more thing, you said you participate in the federal subsistence program, that is another bone of contention, it annoys 90% of us that live on the road system. Why should a Cordovan have anymore right to go get a subsistence halibut than a Whittier resident? I might have taken you subsistence fishing on the Copper to get that king salmon but you said this-- "Our overseas friends love Alaska salmon!", so I can't in good conscience take you, you might send it over seas. Besides I only take people that DEPEND on the salmon and can't afford to buy them (real subsistence) I don't really want to insult you (God knows I'm trying not to) but a lot of what you say raises my hackles, even tho I agree w/ some of your points. My disclaimer is I do depend on the Copper river commercial salmon fishery. The last thing we need is any pot stirring.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullbush View Post
    1st of all pal, why do you need convincing? Are you a board member? If you have no interest either way why are you stirring the pot? One more thing, you said you participate in the federal subsistence program, that is another bone of contention, it annoys 90% of us that live on the road system. Why should a Cordovan have anymore right to go get a subsistence halibut than a Whittier resident? I might have taken you subsistence fishing on the Copper to get that king salmon but you said this-- "Our overseas friends love Alaska salmon!", so I can't in good conscience take you, you might send it over seas. Besides I only take people that DEPEND on the salmon and can't afford to buy them (real subsistence) I don't really want to insult you (God knows I'm trying not to) but a lot of what you say raises my hackles, even tho I agree. My disclaimer is I do depend on the Copper river commercial salmon fishery. The last thing we need is any pot stirring.
    Whoa buddy! I apologize if I said anything to offend you, it honestly wasn't my intention to offend anyone here. Nor, was it my intention to "stir the pot". There has been a lot of talk here lately about this upcoming issue, and I'm just interested in hearing from the other side since I only ever hear from Cordova folks or the odd extremist dipnetter in forums and things. Sounds like it will all come to a head this weekend anyway, but I always try and look at both sides of the coin before judging.

    Concerning the federal subsistence fishery, I'm not saying I have any more right to participate than a Whittier resident, but the way the current law is written, I'm allowed to because Cordova is considered rural (and it is!). Even though CDV and Whittier are both in Prince William Sound, the cost of living is much higher in Cordova because it is off the road system. The freight costs to get food and supplies in and out tacks on a great deal to the price we pay for basic necessities. I'm not going to stop participating in this fishery just because it offends some folks. If you have a problem, take it up with the feds!

    Also, my family send our overseas friends kippered canned salmon in exchange for food items from their turf. This is perfectly acceptable since the fish are sport caught. We are acting within the bounds of the law. Sorry if this offends you, but in all honesty (not that I even need to justify myself) we always send them last season's Ibeck Creek coho.

    We share our moose and deer and sourdough starter, and cranberries and blueberries and nagoonberries amongst other local Cordova families, and do lots of trades. Sometimes food is traded for things like babysitting or dogsitting. Cordova definitely is a subsistence dependent community.

    Like I said, I did not want to spark a contentious argument here, and if this gets heated I'm happy to delete this thread (if I even have that capability).

  4. #4
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Fair enough I'm just a little cranky the personal use/subsistence argument coupled w/ federal subsistence if you're off the road system got under my skin. It should be financial based (my opinion) hey one more quick question before I leave ya alone, you said you have no boat, how do you get your halibut subsistence, toss your 30 hooks off the ferry dock?

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    7

    Default

    No, we borrow a friends small skiff. Much too small for the flats. Can barely make it to Hawkins.

  6. #6
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskamoose View Post
    No, we borrow a friends small skiff. Much too small for the flats. Can barely make it to Hawkins.
    gotcha lol, maybe I will take ya on the flats, if ya trade me some halibut

  7. #7
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullbush View Post
    It should be financial based (my opinion)
    Financial based? So if a kid works their butt off in school, goes to college and gets a good paying job...or alternatively works their butt of and learns a trade, and therefore gets a good paying job working on the slope - that person should therefore have less access to subsistence fish and game than someone who makes poor choices and ends up working low paying jobs?

  8. #8
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Financial based? So if a kid works their butt off in school, goes to college and gets a good paying job...or alternatively works their butt of and learns a trade, and therefore gets a good paying job working on the slope - that person should therefore have less access to subsistence fish and game than someone who makes poor choices and ends up working low paying jobs?
    Good point Brian

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    fishhook, ak
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Financial based? So if a kid works their butt off in school, goes to college and gets a good paying job...or alternatively works their butt of and learns a trade, and therefore gets a good paying job working on the slope - that person should therefore have less access to subsistence fish and game than someone who makes poor choices and ends up working low paying jobs?

    frankly, my short answer (from a philisophical standpoint) is yes. not in every instance, but with respect to harvest preference in their local gmu/fisheries unit, yes, the principle makes sense. accumulating material wealth doesn't earn you the right to fish and game far removed from your locality.

    i have not seen how this can work in practice, however. so from a practical standpoint I don't know how to implement any such preference, and it would obviously be subject to abuse/manipulation.

  10. #10
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andweav View Post
    frankly, my short answer (from a philisophical standpoint) is yes. not in every instance, but with respect to harvest preference in their local gmu/fisheries unit, yes, the principle makes sense. accumulating material wealth doesn't earn you the right to fish and game far removed from your locality.
    I didn't address locality. I was referring to two people who are the same with the exception of income. Should my next door neighbor have more or less access to fish or game than me if we have differing incomes? Some would say yes.

  11. #11
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default Hope and Change?

    Its only fitting the BOF meets on this day. The same day the socialists are trying to force feed a nation socialized medicine. If proposition 200 and 201 passes and Obama Care passes. It truly will be a dark day for freedom and enterprise. Not to mention more special interest attacks on the industry of Alaska....One thing will be for sure---we will all need subsistence because there will be no economy left in our state. The birkenstock crowd from Maine and Vermont can finally have our state. Where is left for them to go and push their agendas?

    Hey do you guys remember what year it was that Tony Knowles and his henchman met in Kenai for the BOF meeting? Was it 96 or 97? I can't remember all I know is it was a black day for the economy of south central Alaska. Knowles smugly showed up in Kenai w/ his media and an entourage of armed trooper escorts. I hope our state never has to endure likes of that again! Alaska changed forever that fateful board cycle. I'm quite confident the current board will follow the age old rule of thumb....IF IT AINT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT! enough w/ the cliches already, but in my humble opinion our states economy can't handle losing anymore industry to special interest. Turning personal use into subsistence is just another gut bomb in the long line of new socialist policies that are bringing this great nation down

  12. #12

    Default

    What happened after Knowles showed up at BOF?

  13. #13
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powderpro View Post
    What happened after Knowles showed up at BOF?
    there was riot and swat teams showed up because hardworking Alaskans were put out of business. It was not a pretty sight in the peaceful community of Kenai.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Thumbs down Hey fullbush...

    who nailed yer pants 2 tha floor to keep ya from movin'????

  15. #15
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gogoalie View Post
    who nailed yer pants 2 tha floor to keep ya from movin'????
    uh sorry my ebonics is rusty.....X-lation please

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Thumbs down Ya can't...

    read UP English either I bet...

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
  •