Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where will the next UCI Board Of Fish meeting be?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    Fun, we will just have to disagree on the cause of the decline and responsibility but the facts on the Habitat change and lack of meaningful habitat action by the past three republican administrations speaks volumes. You cannot deny those facts.

    Relative to the lack of comment on environmental and social issues I asked a person close to the Walker team why he was not speaking out on these issues. This was three weeks ago just after the merger. He told me it was a decision that was made by the team and for the reasons I stated. I am out of town so I will ask you. Has Walker spoke to environmental issues and social issues in any meaningful way. I gather from your posts he has not so that tends to support the position I heard.
    Nerka, that opinionated partisan blame-game is all too familiar in today's cold civil war between Democrats and Republicans. It's unfortunate, yet the same type of partisan politics that has infected our fishery management. It's far from productive.

    So you can rag on Republicans, but in all honesty what can't be denied is the lack of meaningful habitat action by the administrations prior to the Republican one's you mention; like Knowles, Cowper, Sheffield, and Egan. Paramount is the fact that those democratic administrations took place at the heart of when Alaska's fisheries were exploding, and habitat protection needed to be at the forefront. But they didn't see to it. I know because I worked personally with Egan, Sheffield, Hammond, and Cowper, trying to make habitat a priority, primarily regarding the Kenai River. Talk about a lack of action. So pointing fingers at the last three Republican administrations, is a myopic, half-baked, partisan-driven view. I see no reason not to recognize that it has been a long process touched by all parties.

    So exactly who is this "person close to the Walker team" you spoke to who claims environmental and social issues are being avoided for political reasons? It's not a trick question (I haven't decided which party or candidate to support), I'm just not a sucker for hearsay, and I would like to get to the bottom of it. I figure if a rumor can't be verified, it doesn't have much merit.

    Contrary to your claim, I found no record of Walker/Mallott avoiding any discussion on environmental or social issues. Quite the opposite. In fact I found multiple press releases just this month where Walker reiterated the importance of environmental impacts when assessing development, the need for State environmental regulation and oversight, and even an article in the Seward Pheonix that says, "Walker...doesn't mind breaking down his impassioned plea into bite-sized morsels for those who don't always follow environmental trends, state and federal laws, and complex international negotiations." And of course his stance on social issues was made clear back in 2010 when he ran for election, and they can be found just by looking. Not to mention his current stance is at the forefront of the Parnell campaign. But if you have an example that supports your position, please show it.

    I really don't want to discuss your partisan rag on Republicans any further. It's unproductive digression. The object is to clean up the BOF process.

    Comment


    • #32
      So a dumb question--It seems logical to have the meeting in Kenai/Soldotna. Why are these guys (including the commercial seats) so resistant to holding the meeting on the peninsula? Why would the commercial seats be willing to back away from that and support Anchorage?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by AKJOB View Post
        So a dumb question--It seems logical to have the meeting in Kenai/Soldotna. Why are these guys (including the commercial seats) so resistant to holding the meeting on the peninsula? Why would the commercial seats be willing to back away from that and support Anchorage?
        This syndicate wants it in Anchorage. Let's face it, this group includes power players in Anchorage and the Valley, and they have no interest in a peninsula meeting. Absolutely offensive that KRSA and friends have perpetuated the idea that the peninsula is an unsafe place to host a meeting.

        These guys are good at figuring out what people want, or what weak spots they have. Their biggest advantage is that they have absolutely NO shame. Oh, and they own a chairman who can limp procedural circles around most of the board. They made this meeting location a priority. Some of them are running short on time and they can taste the blood of the commercial industry. 4th quarter so to speak. The screwing locals get is just collateral damage.

        Comment


        • #34
          I believe the answer for the commercial representatives from Kodiak and SE is that they trade votes. So the Chairman and other board members who want to keep the meeting far from the peninsula made a deal or Sue J or Jensen believed it would cost them in the future if they went against the chairman. They tend to represent their area rather than the whole state which is what they are suppose to do. Vote trading used to be looked on in a poor light now it is common place. The AG office even condoned it at one meeting.

          Bottom line - the peninsula has no power.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Funstastic View Post
            I really don't want to discuss your partisan rag on Republicans any further. It's unproductive digression. The object is to clean up the BOF process.
            As a fairly conservative person who does NOT vote party lines, it's been my observation that this KRSA-born group responsible for most of the current dirty actions in fish politics is relatively adept at crossing party lines - human nature is universal and resource rich states/nations are know to be some of the worst with regard to corruption and individual rights. I would not be so quick to blame one party or another.

            Power and free money corrupt universally - our biggest defense as a state is to have strong institutions structured to resist such corruption. When I look at leadership in DNR, DEC, ADFG and other state institutions, I do not see that needed strength.

            I am very pro-resource development, but not when it pits the best interest of our citizens and communities against the needs of corporate and political juggernauts like this group. We should feel sold out. Shame on them.

            Comment


            • #36
              The Anchorage F&G AC voted 12-3 in support of the BOF holding the next UCI meeting on the Kenai. Good for them.


              http://radiokenai.net/two-advisory-c...ting-to-kenai/


              Mr. Delo obviously feels differently... Likely this is the argument KRSA and company will champion.

              http://www.frontiersman.com/sports/outdoors/conflicts-continue-to-surround-upper-cook-inlet-meeting/article_0a5a7dc2-7ea5-11e5-82bc-2fa6e98dcf1c.html

              I get the point, but the valley is less dependent on fishing than the peninsula, and it is entirely possible to commute to Anchorage to attend BOF proceedings at a minimal expense. No so for Peninsula residents.

              Also worth mentioning that the valley has several borough paid reps to represent them at these functions - Delo might even be one of them (not sure). Unlike the Mat-Su, the Peninsula does not hire reps for fisheries issues or lobbyists in Juneau.

              Oh, right. We have KRSA...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by smithtb View Post
                The

                Also worth mentioning that the valley has several borough paid reps to represent them at these functions - Delo might even be one of them (not sure). Unlike the Mat-Su, the Peninsula does not hire reps for fisheries issues or lobbyists in Juneau.

                Oh, right. We have KRSA...
                Why should the Kenai Peninsula borough have paid reps when the mega million dollar commercial industry (this includes sport fishing advocates) already promotes the economic interests of the UCI?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by penguin View Post
                  Why should the Kenai Peninsula borough have paid reps when the mega million dollar commercial industry (this includes sport fishing advocates) already promotes the economic interests of the UCI?
                  I did not say that the KPB should have paid reps - only that they don't.

                  The industries you referenced lobby for their interests - primarily through a multitude of nonprofits. Just because these organizations claim their goals to be in the economic best interests of the Peninsula does not necessarily make it so. The fish fight that these organizations perpetuate is certainly not in anyone's best interests.

                  That said, one could easily argue that the goals of the Mat-Su paid reps are not in their area's best interests either...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by penguin View Post
                    Why should the Kenai Peninsula borough have paid reps when the mega million dollar commercial industry (this includes sport fishing advocates) already promotes the economic interests of the UCI?

                    One reason is that the KPB should represent all users and 20 some percent of KPB residents personal use fish. The KPB also receives tax dollars in the millions from fishery issues and they should protect those dollars from paid opposition from the Mat/Su. It is about money for the KPB penguin not a single user group.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Worth pointing out that some of our borough and local officials directly engage in representing their area on these issues rather than opting to spend our tax dollars on lobbyists. I support that. Not always effective against big money lobbyists, but at least they are trying to do the right thing. I am very proud of the way the KPB mayor and his chief of staff have represented us at the BOF and in Juneau, and of the City of Kenai officials who have done the same.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        tb... clear your PM's... or call me
                        "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
                        sigpic
                        The KeenEye MD

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/201...-board-meeting

                          Thanks to my local reps. What a great idea, and a very persuasive way to lobby for the Peninsula to be treated fairly. So much better than dumping $60K (or $160K) on a lobbyist.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Money well spent considering the huge social-economic affect these upcoming BOF issues will have on the Peninsula. Kudo's to the mayors.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Given the bias of the BOF in the past this move is a good political one. However, I am not sure it is a good idea for a bidding war on where a meeting should be held. I think we should be fighting for a rotating schedule that is fair to Wasilla/Palmer, Anchorage, and the Kenai.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                                Given the bias of the BOF in the past this move is a good political one. However, I am not sure it is a good idea for a bidding war on where a meeting should be held. I think we should be fighting for a rotating schedule that is fair to Wasilla/Palmer, Anchorage, and the Kenai.

                                I'm making an assumption about your statement, but I don't understand why the meetings would need to be split between three locations. It is no harder for people in Wasilla/Palmer to commute to Anchorage for daily meetings (or vice versa) than it would be for someone in Ninilchik or Homer (who per capita likely have many more people who's lives are directly affected by the outcomes of these meetings) to commute to the Kenai/Soldotna area for daily meetings (or vise versa). Obviously inconvenient, but much more practical than a 3 hour drive through a mountain pass.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X