Marcus, what is your take.......
You have been pretty quiet as of late, with the dipnetting proposal making more news yet again today in the ADN I haven't heard you comment.
I am 99% sure it won't pass put it is out there for discussion and causing quite a bit of of it statewide.
What are your thoughts if indeed it does pass?
How would this affect "Joe" fisherman?
What are possible social implications?
What impression does this give the average Alaskan about commercial fishermen?
I am sure you have more but those are a few things I thought about. Anyone else feel free to comment.
More manure. . .
Originally Posted by yukon
About the same as my take on the idiotic, self-serving, special-interest nonsense I hear coming from "big-kenai-kings" chauvinists.
Definition: Sense of superiority: an excessive or prejudiced loyalty to a particular. . . group, or cause
I expected more elaboration.......
I see you point, I think......
The Kenai Area Fishermans Coalition has also been quiet on this issue......as an organization that claims to represent "Joe Fisherman" I would expect to hear something from them. Nerka must be in Hawaii and not following this thread.........
I also haven't seen a peep out of them since the whole 50 horse/two stroke controversy. Where are they representing "Joe fishermen"? Can't get anymore "Joe fishermen" than the dipnetters.
Nerka, any info on the KAFC??
see post on other thread on this issue in this forum
I just posted on the other thread in this forum on this issue - see my comments there.
Malice (legal term), a legal term describing the intent to harm
Originally Posted by Marcus
Wow, Marcus! That's the most real response or comment on your personal feelings I've ever seen. Usually you just stir the pot. This time you went after someone, even resorting to calling them names. That's unlike you. Of course, no one to this day really knows what your agenda is, but you just brought us a step closer to understanding who you don't like, and how deeply you feel that way.
Some people are just inferior enough to like catching big kings on sport gear as much as you like stirring the pot on issues that you say you don't really have a vested interest in. Who's acting in a superior way here? The name-caller, or the name-callees?
Those of us who spend so much time, energy and money to catch these big kings do so because we enjoy it, not because we aspire to be superior. In some ways bigger is better. Kenai kings are an exceptional strain. And a truly big one is a wonder to behold for those of us passionate about that resource.
Yes, we want to continue to fish kings, not to feel superior but because we like it. That requires involvement in the issues and activity to ensure other groups' more-is-better desires don't overshadow our own.
Kenai king fisherman aren't the only people who would fit your quote. How about the comm fish guys trying to get what they want, and the Ninilchik folks and others pushing the Kenai Fisheries Proposals? I guess all groups and people with strong interests have a little chauvanist in them, wouldn't you say? But you singled out Kenai king fisherman. Surely one with your analytical prowess and ability to see all sides of an issue you would like to send similar comments toward the other groups who push just as hard or harder for their causes. Or do they get a free pass?
Take a deep breath. . .
There is nothing intrinsically pejorative about the definition of chauvinism. Moreover, a chauvinist is a chauvinist is a chauvinist regardless of the particularity of the cause espoused. And while no chauvinist gets a free pass, it's difficult not to use the "size-matters/big-Kenai-kings" cause as an example simply because it's where most of the excessive and prejudiced loyalty comes from on some of these threads.
We're probably all chauvinists about something. . . relax. . . ; )
I was talking with a good friend of mine and a thought on the dip net restrictions came to mind........
Comparing this to the possible halibut restrictions due to the increase of the charter fleet. The same could be said for the dip net fishery, it has grown uncontrolled since its inception. They (the dipnetters) are taking fish from the commercial fishermen (just like the charter halibut fleet).
And from comments made by individuals on this board, the idea of restrictions was okay because of the above reasons and the halibut did more for the greater good of Americans if the commercial fishermen caught them and were able to sell them to the masses. I followed that logic with the salmon dip netting issue and came to the conclusion that the salmon did more good in the commerial nets (for society) than it did in an individuals dip net or personal use set net.
Any thoughts from those that supported the restrictions on Charter Halibut fishermen?
Not quite that simple. . .
True. . . as I hear it, the commercial guys were told the personal use fishery would take about 100,000 fish. The personal use fishery has grown to where it now takes, what, about 300,000 fish?
Originally Posted by yukon
A couple things to keep in mind: First, the personal use fishery is not a new thing since it replaced existing subsistence fisheries. Second, the personal use fishery was never assigned a quota.