"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone."
The KeenEye MD
... because that's the only good to come of this.
This seems pretty close to a nuisance law suit. These Outside interests want to overrule Alaskan's laws of what to do with Alaskan's public resources which are physically IN the state of Alaska.
IN, because as a part of the statehood process, in 1953, Alaska gained title to the first 3 miles from its shoreline, and certainly that's where PU happens.
And since the Alaska constitution requires that Alaskan resources be managed for the benefit of Alaskans, it seems unlikely that this Outside effort will prevail. But try (again) they must it seems.
I've been accused of spreading venom and hate against comfishers in general, in recent other posts. Are you baiting me? Are you trying to get my goat? Are trying to get me in a rant against our venerable industries that have a fifty year history of taking the resource for profit?
OK, you had me at, "the saga continues"!!!
Now I am cooking a lasagna that takes about 4 hours to prep and cook so I don't have much time, but...Quoting a Doctor Lou Tisce, who has been involved with studying human behavior for years, "Yea, but..."
Why would people file a federal lawsuit under the guise of the state
is superceeding or violating Federal management, when under state law/statute, out of state commercial fishermen are allotted or allowed a homepack with no restrictions except for a reporting requirement of a fish ticket? They have access and that it what this piggyback suit is all about. Access? Availability? extra cost to retain? Nope! Loss of the 3% tax to the state? YUP!!!
They have it great. So...I'm at a loss. Comfishers have it better than sport/personal users in regard to daily bag limits and yearly allotted takes. Heck, I'm just plain envious.
Mr. Fish/ Nerka/Brian M., where are you? Someone please try to educate me on where I am going astray? I'm confused?
By the way, I won't be checking this thread till after the sportsmen show so if anyone needs a hug, you better get it while you can. LOL.
Come by the SCADA booth and say hello. I'll be the guy with a perpetual perplexed look on his face. I just could not resist, and I know I'm an as___hole, At any rate, enjoy your weekend, and... Thanks Doc. Tootles
If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?
I'm just waiting to see the proposals from UCIDA and KPFA for the UCI Board of Fish cycle. There will, as usual, most likely be several to shut down or severaly limit PU fishing on the Kenai and Kasilof. This is an ongoing battle between the commercial "owners" of the resource (as they seem to see it) and the rest of us. I'll hold off on any comments until I see what else they are up to this time.
Sorry, Whop...nothing to help you out right now. I'm glad the State is intervening. I guess I'll have to go back and look at UCIDA's original filings...it's been a while since I last looed at it and their main arguments escape me right now. I remember reading it a while back and thinking that their likelihood of success was slim (not to mention the Jenson suit).
I wasn't planning on swinging by the show this weekend. I don't need any gear right now and I've found that I always end up buying something when I go...whether I need it or not.
It is an election year and running against something is much easier than being for something.
With that said I would strongly suggest people read the M/S act and the UCIDA lawsuit. It really is based on a strong foundation and salmon in federal law are not under management of the State to do with as it sees fit. It is similar in nature to migratory birds.
The M/S act allows for the federal government to have the State manage salmon but the State must follow certain criteria and the Federal government must review the regulations and make sure that they are in line with federal law.
UCIDA has a number of reasons for this law suit - putting personal use aside which has been over played in the press and hype - some of the other issues are manaagement for optimun yield - the State has moved away from that with SEGT management - a second issue is the use of best available science and the State has not done that is some cases - there are other examples so read the suit and the act.
Relative to PU one of the criteria is for M/S covered fish stocks a State cannot make a resident only fishery. That is the issue. Some want to say this means no fishery. That is not true. The BOF under a federal approved management plan could open the fishery up to all residents of the United States. Thus if UCIDA wins they could be looking at greater harvests in the PU fishery not less.
The M/S act also requires the State to follow federal law relative to habitat impacts and what is called essential fish habitat. The lack of action by the State on pike in the Susitna is a prime example where the State has failed under M/S. The loss of hundreds of thousands of sockeye salmon headed to this drainage is of concern to UCIDA.
So at this point while the Gov. wants to use this law suit for political ends and wants to make some organizations bad guys that is not fair or the ethical thing to do. The State should be a player in the process but this suit is about the federal goverrnment not doing their job under M/S. The last time a management plan for UCI was reviewed under M/S was in 1991. They are to be reviewed each year and the federal government has not done that. Also, for the record if you read the history in the documents you will see the federal government always retained ownership of salmon and that is why there was a 1991 federal plan for UCI.
Hope this helps. My position is to let this play out and see what a judge has to say. It may be the best thing to happen to Alaska to have some oversight on salmon. In this development oriented State we are making major errors in habitat protection and maybe we can actually have salmon in our future in UCIDA wins. The coal project on the west side of UCI is a prime example of a State willing to give up 12 miles of coho salmon production for coal exports - Pebble may be another one. There are many more examples and they follow the trend seen in the lower 48. We are about 50 years behind the rest of the country on the importance of maintaining habitat.
This isn't about politics.
This isn't about fairness to nonresidents.
It would be a stretch to say UCIDA truly cared about habitat.
UCIDA just "threw" a bunch of legal arrows and hopes one hits the spot.
The State of Alaska, submitted the following motion to intervene, because it has a vested interest in the case.
Read the document listed, specifically the footnotes, much of UCIDA's arguments have already been decided upon and reaffirmed.
Optimum yield? Does this concept make any sense? Read the MSA, the subjectivity of the concept of Optimum Yield, combined with the poor accuracy of projected run numbers, invalidates this measure as a serious management tool. Maybe that is why today's scientific stewards have decided to use a more objective tool (SEG).
Resident only fisheries. Not only legal but reaffirmed in 2005, read the footnotes.
Alaska manages the fishery in question. The Federal Government retains authority over the same. Specific procedures are in place to address discrepancies, and the Federal Government can ultimately take over. Fortunately, the State, has due process also, and must be given an opportunity to address the discrepancies.
ICIDA knows one thing for certain. If the PU fishery or any other component, ie., subsistence, or sport fishing, has their allocation reduced, due to habitat degradation, resident-nonresident inequity, etc, the fish must be reallocated, IAW the MSA. Guess who benefits?
Maybe UCIDA is not so altruistic after all.
Second, the main points of the UICDA case were not dismissed as implied. There are two cases pending before the court filed by UCIDA. The judge ruled on some procedural issues in UCIDA 1 and rolled the main issues over to UCIDA 2. So again one must know this case history before making wild claims as to the outcome.
Also, one does not know UICDA's aims without taling to their lawyers and their Board of Directors - I have asked them point blank about their motives and have mixed results. Some are for the greater good and some are in self interests. So what? If they have a legal point that is valid that is the issue. Again, we must wait for the final court rulings before jumping off the bridge and frankly posts that try to make a judgement on the final outcome or rulings to date are a waste of time.
It looks like UCIDA doesn't really believe we have the best managed fisheries in the world anymore.
Here are a few from this forum: 1) why does it take years of inaction by ADF&G to deal with an invasive species - pike in the Susitna and Kenai Rivers 2) why did the State of Alaska move habitat protection from ADF&G and in the process remove experts in that field to DNR and then back on paper to ADF&G without significant authority 3) why did ADF&G refuse to deal with a sonar counter in the Susitna River that was known to have problems in 1985 until recently and then publish Bendix counts that they know are wrong 4) why does ADF&G not deal with a chinook counter than no one trusts and yet they use it to justify no action in Slikok Creek when there is only 16 female spawners counted 5) why is essential fish habitat for coho salmon even being discussed relative to removing it for a coal mine 6) why is ADF&G and the Board of Fish putting opportunity above resource protection in a number of areas by allowing catch and release when the escapement is below the goal 7) why is ADF&G hiring and putting people in key positions that have no resource manajgement education or skills - more than Rosey ADF&G has a high school educated person in a D. Director postiion and a lawyer as a D. Commissioner and I could go on....
The point is that ADF&G is not the same organization that it was when the reputation was made. It has changed and with it a loss of mission in my opinion. The leadership takes polls on resource management rather than doing what is right for the resource. Biologists call up user groups to see how they will react to a closure or restriction before making the call. Some have presented false and misleading information to the Board of Fish, an organization that is so polluted by user group issues they cannot see the forest for the trees.
So Willphish4food maybe it is time for a good outside review of this State's management structure and function to make sure it is the best management approach for the future. As a scientist I am not afraid of outside peer review and neither should the State. If they are meeting the 10 National standards then they can claim the best managed in the world but they are not in my opinion.
First it is not a rant as you claim and if you read my posts closely you would see some of the examples apply to Comm Fish (Susitna sonar and a Dep Director of Comm Fish with little to no resource training) and others apply to Sport Fish and Habitat Division. I also said I could go on but wanted to make the issue relevant to UCI as opposed to PWS and SE. Commerical fisheries has their issues but your question is more to try and show a bias in my post as opposed to discussion of the topic. Nice try but that approach will not work.
Last edited by Brian M; 04-11-2010 at 14:34. Reason: referenced deleted comment
I don't think the Feds are going to do a better job of managing, though. Look at their action to date in the state with subsistence, with halibut, with pollock, in California coastal fisheries, etc. Hopefully this lawsuit will bring out some issues that can be resolved with the state's way of managing her resources.
Perhaps where we disagree is to what level overexploitation of small stocks contained within mixed stock fisheries can and has affected returns in the Cook Inlet. I hope UCIDA's lawsuit will highlight that issue.
My God nerka are you saying we need to bring in Ken Salazar?
Maybe Janet Napalitano for enforcement?
I'd rather have fishnphysician and the whop manage our fisheries
My opinion, F&G has a tough job, overall, they are doing a fine job. Can the feds do better??? I really don't think so. I am surprised that the comfishers want the feds involved.
The lawsuit is interesting, I need to do more reading so I can fully understand it.
Nerka didn't say that. Trouble-making.Originally Posted by yukon
I think we would all agree that our fisheries are a conglomeration of State and Federal management (by law). I think we would all agree that ADF&G is slowly drifting away from the foundation that makes our fisheries the best in the world (10 National Standards, etc.). And I think we would all agree that our fisheries can continually be improved, both with State and Federal intervention.
Nerka, I know it's frustrating to make comments with such a bias crowd jumping all over you like that. But you make some great, honest, points. Thank you for the information.
But then Nerka goes on to say after the quote that "This is not accurate willphish4food. Maybe they believe a system can be improved with peer review of actions and viewpoints that reflect a national mission to conserve fishery resources."So maybe Nerka can explain or clarify.
I believe the State is more in tune with the State's fisheries, not the Feds. And I believe the State has the best interest of the State in mind, not the Feds. Maybe that is the "bias" you see (since you worked for the Feds)? No doubt Federal management plays a role in the State's fisheries. But the State also provides vital data and research that the Feds are not interested in (halibut, etc.), so the same could be said there for both. The point is the direction that our State managers are taking, particularly most recently like the examples Nerka pointed out so well. The results of those types of State actions tend to bring in Federal management. And like Nerka, I fault the State management for that.Originally Posted by TYNMON
Maybe you could clarify why Nerka's statement (whatever it meant) is an issue to you. You said, "I am thinking if I made that claim I would get hammered." Does that mean you do not think Alaska's fisheries are the best managed in the world? If so, who's are managed any better?
I will wait for clarification from Nerka. In the end it really isn't a big deal and I don't want to get this thread off course. We will see. Thanks