Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: HB 20 - Prefiled for this session

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Question HB 20 - Prefiled for this session

    Rep. Stoltze from Wasilla prefiled a bill (HB 20) for the upcoming session. What are the possible outcomes if passed?

    TITLE: "An Act providing for a priority for a fishery that is restricted to residents when fishing restrictions are implemented to achieve a management goal."

    HOUSE BILL NO. 20
    "An Act providing for a priority for a fishery that is restricted to residents when fishing restrictions are implemented to achieve a management goal."

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
    * Section 1. AS 16.05.251 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (j) Except as provided by AS 16.05.258, when the harvest of a stock or species is limited to achieve a management goal, the Board of Fisheries shall place restrictions on all other fisheries before restricting personal use fisheries. In this subsection, "management goal" means the escapement or estimated population size of the exploited stock that provides the greatest potential for sustained yield as established by the board.
    I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

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

    Default

    It won't even make it to committee I wouldn't think because of constitutionality issues, but what do I know. I do know the non-resident commercial fisherman successfully sued the state a few years back because they paid so much more to renew their permits than did residents. Their permit renewal price went down about a $100 and residents increased by about $300! go figure

  3. #3
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    If passed, it would place personal use fisheries above all others in the management tier. In allocation battles, PU allocations would be set-aside, and any other uses would be divided among the leftover.

    Lets take the Kenai River. If there is a projected shortfall of kings, because there's a PU fishery that allows harvest of kings, all other uses would see restrictions first. So if the Dept wanted to limit the harvest of kings in dipnet to 1, or zero, or make mesh restrictions to gear, etc, first there would need to be restrictions to drift and set gillnet fisheries that catch Kenai Kings, and all inriver sport fisheries for kings.

    It wouldn't mean closure of these other fisheries, only that they need to be restricted first.

    I believe the intent is to say that Alaskans have first priority to fish reared in Alaskan waters, for their own personal use.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post

    It wouldn't mean closure of these other fisheries, only that they need to be restricted first.

    I believe the intent is to say that Alaskans have first priority to fish reared in Alaskan waters, for their own personal use.

    If thats what it means, then we need a Legislative inquiry as to the sanity of one Sen. Bill Stolz. He simply needs to be removed from his office ASAP. Its actions like that that give the valley zero credibility w/ the rest of the state

  5. #5
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    It wouldn't mean closure of these other fisheries, only that they need to be restricted first.
    This isn't meant as a comment the merit of the concept, but rather me wondering about the implementation, should it become law. "Closure" is a rather definitive term...but "restriced" is anything along a very broad spectrum. What someone thinks is a "restriction" may be viewed by another as nothing more than a meaningless, token, measure.

  6. #6
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    wow... going from last to first... this should be killed... I would like to see residents get priority in sport fisheries though...
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Stoltz is playing to his crowd and this will go nowhere. I would assume sport fishing groups would be up in arms with it. It will be fun to watch how he tries to get out of this foot in the mouth. Remember last year he was not going to pass any legislation out of his committee unless certain restrictions happened in the UCI commercial fisheries. That went nowhere and this will also. Lets not waste our time on this one.

  8. #8
    Member Phish Finder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Searching for more cowbell!
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    It's unconstitutional based on the commerce clause, right?
    ><((((>.`..`.. ><((((>`..`.><((((>

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

  9. #9
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    What is it w/ these valley senators and representatives? We just got rid of that idiot vic koenig, masek drank herself into a stupor, Scott Ogan wanted to drill methane in our neighborhoods and this Stolz, you gotta be kidding me, he's got a committee? Bill Stoltz thinks every Alaskan dipnetters freezer should be full before theres any sport or commercial fishing? We may as well just put in fish traps, like Fran Ulmer and the rest of the socialists wanted to do. First we have to start w/ the low income Alaskans that live off the road system, we'll buy them all freezers, and start filling freezers based on income and need. We won't have one salmon left by the time we get the underprivileged families freezers filled. No wonder the whole state discredits the Mat-Su, its for good reason. If the MAt-Su keeps sending halfwits to Juneau the rest of the state is going to continue to completely discredit the valley. Thats all

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    wow... going from last to first... this should be killed... I would like to see residents get priority in sport fisheries though...
    At least in my area, residents are given preference, and then some. Factor in fed subsistence, and it's WIDE open for residents or rural communities.

  11. #11
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    This isn't meant as a comment the merit of the concept, but rather me wondering about the implementation, should it become law. "Closure" is a rather definitive term...but "restriced" is anything along a very broad spectrum. What someone thinks is a "restriction" may be viewed by another as nothing more than a meaningless, token, measure.
    This is so very true, MrFish. "Restricting" boats to fish only in areas where fish are present is a prime example of that. I don't see that this bill would accomplish what it appears to want. I do like the idea that fish are more important to Alaskans for consumptive use than to non-residents. In other words, do not deprive Alaskans the opportunity to eat fish originating in Alaska streams in order to provide that opportunity to the global community.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    This is so very true, MrFish. "Restricting" boats to fish only in areas where fish are present is a prime example of that. I don't see that this bill would accomplish what it appears to want. I do like the idea that fish are more important to Alaskans for consumptive use than to non-residents. In other words, do not deprive Alaskans the opportunity to eat fish originating in Alaska streams in order to provide that opportunity to the global community.
    I somewhat agree, but a lot of alaskans count on the non-resident consumption and/or pursuit of those fish to "subsist" during the winter. You have commercial fishermen, guides, B&B's, local retailers, etc..... that depend on non-residents access to the fish. Not saying that they should have priority by any means, but their money gets a lot of alaskans throught the winter, just as a lot of alaskans use personal use fish throughout the winter.

  13. #13

    Default

    Finally, a non-NIMBY response from someone who recognizes the economic input tourists bring to the AK economy. AK could never afford to do what this nimrod wants. Last I heard, tourists are funding a ton of stuff for ADFG thanks to the ridiculously high non-resident license fee's they pay.

  14. #14
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NorcalBob View Post
    Last I heard, tourists are funding a ton of stuff for ADFG thanks to the ridiculously high non-resident license fee's they pay.
    Good I'd rather fleece the outsiders than the locals. They better get used to it somebody has to pay for all those cruise ships and the sewage they dump in our waters. I'll tax some touroids @$$ if they make me miss a tunnel schedule because they're busy gawking at the scenery.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullbush View Post
    Good I'd rather fleece the outsiders than the locals. They better get used to it somebody has to pay for all those cruise ships and the sewage they dump in our waters. I'll tax some touroids @$$ if they make me miss a tunnel schedule because they're busy gawking at the scenery.
    Aren't those out of state tourists and other out of stater's the one's buying your fish? So I guess you are already "fleecing" the outsiders by selling them pink salmon.

  16. #16
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Aren't those out of state tourists and other out of stater's the one's buying your fish? So I guess you are already "fleecing" the outsiders by selling them pink salmon.
    Here we go again, my God man!

    I would hardly call purchasing a wonderfully healthy tasty product like pink salmon for a meager 1.00 a lb getting fleeced. Burger filled w/ hormones at Walmart will run you over $3.60 a lb. You my man need to bark up another tree than pink salmon its one of the healthiest things on the planet and people are waking up to the fact.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    just making a point that it looks really bad to out of staters when you you post stuff like you did, especially when they are buying your product.

  18. #18
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    just making a point that it looks really bad to out of staters when you you post stuff like you did, especially when they are buying your product.
    I'd hate to hurt any feelings what part should we change? should the locals bear the brunt so the tourists have a cheaper trip? or should we allow the tourist do drive 35 in a 55 so they don't miss anything?

  19. #19

    Default

    Well, I'm all for ADFG fishing licenses to be more reasonable for us tourists! I sport fish all over the world, and AK license fee's are extremely high. But I really don't care, because my money is doing good things by funding a lot of things that I like. But I don't expect locals to fund my trip up there every Sept! And don't worry FB, I hate salmon so you don't have to worry about me not buying it! ;>}

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
  •