Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Governor and changes in ADFG and board of fish.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by iceblue View Post
    If ones goal is to have BOF members make decisions based on science or the best available data combined with strong ethics then Karl Johnstone should retain his position as Chairmen of the BOF.
    I have not always agreed with any of the current Board members on every issue or proposal that has been acted on but I can honestly say that they try to do the right thing every single time. That's all anyone can ask of them.
    Hopefully Governor Walker can see thru the smoke that comes from a fully allocated mine field like cook inlet.
    I'm going to go ahead and call bs on this comment.
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Nerka View Post
      Just looked at Walker transition team. Gease, Bruce Knowles, Larry Engel, Roland Maw, just to name a few of the special interests.
      That's a big disappointment. Drain the swamp!

      Comment


      • #18
        tbsmith - you do not have enough experience to judge what happens with a change in administration. I have been through several major changes and you can clean house in some departments. There are lots of qualified people in the lower ranks of ADF&G and in some cases outside the State. So cleaning house down to the Director level has been done in the past and has worked. I did not say to remove all Directors - remember I mentioned keeping the Director of Admin and I did not say to do it all in one day. This is easier than you think as the day to day operations are really run by the regional supervisors.

        Special interests rarely look out for what is good for the people of the State of Alaska or in that matter the nation. I look at this from someone who wants a strong ADF&G in the future and sustainable resources based on good scientific decisions. At the Board of Fish meetings I watch user groups push to get what is best for their financial interests under the banner of sustainability. The average citizen has little to no input in this process. I watched the ESSN representatives at the last few meeting throw science and fairness under the bus in their self interests. The buy out discussion is another example -

        Relative to the bitter comment I assume you mean angry as opposed to other definitions of the term. Yes, I am angry at how ADF&G has degraded with the present leadership. As an ESSN fisherman you should also be bitter. If not then why not? However, relative to my time in ADF&G it was a good experience for 18 of the 20 years and I do not begrudge that at all.

        And please do not give me the condescending realistic comment and lecture on what you get. Been around the block too long for that comment. However, if you do not fight for what you believe and just sit on the sidelines and complain then you are a parasite on society not part of it.

        iceblue - have to disagree with you. I know of too many backroom unethical meetings to go along with your evaluation. In public the Board has ignored the best available data and ignored or suppressed ADF&G staff comments. Not sure how many board meetings you have attended but this Board is one of the worst I have every witnessed.

        Comment


        • #19
          Nerka, we're you at the last bof meeting?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by otternorth View Post
            corrected for acuracy
            No, that takes selling out your principles to get elected. Power hungry

            Comment


            • #21
              Hmm

              Nerka- I was present every single grueling day of the 2014 UCI Meeting. Funny thing is I do not recall seeing you in attendance. So, I am going to assume that you have second or third hand information about "behind closed doors meetings" that you were told took place. Please forgive me if I take this information with a heavy dose of skepticism as your sources have been less than accurate in past threads on this forum.
              To insinuate that Board of Fish members didn't listen to ADF&G staff or pertinent data is simply another misleading statement. Board members have to look not only at the data but they must also weigh allocation into how they choose to deal with any proposal before them. Allocation..,that is a extremely heavy burden and at times it could trump staff comments.
              All in all I think the BOF members did the best that they could in a difficult meeting. Except for Board Member Kluberton but that is a story for another time.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by yukon View Post
                Nerka, we're you at the last bof meeting?
                No but I listened to some of the taped portions that I have an interest in. Not sure what the point of your question. I left the Board of Fish meeting prior to the last one because the Chairman and some Board members were not interested in hearing facts and figures that could change their position. Remember Cora even took the Chairman to task for the way he was treating the public.

                Are you defending the Board as being ethical and using the best available data?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                  No but I listened to some of the taped portions that I have an interest in. Not sure what the point of your question. I left the Board of Fish meeting prior to the last one because the Chairman and some Board members were not interested in hearing facts and figures that could change their position. Remember Cora even took the Chairman to task for the way he was treating the public.

                  Are you defending the Board as being ethical and using the best available data?
                  The reason for my question was wondering what you had actually "witnessed":

                  Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                  but this Board is one of the worst I have every witnessed.
                  Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                  I know of too many backroom unethical meetings to go along with your evaluation..
                  With all respect, if you aren't there to witness it is tough to comment on. Your "sources" have often led you astray in posting on the forum.

                  It is tough to "witness" the Board when you weren't there and only listening. I was there to testify and give my input, which gave Kudo's to a set netter, and I listened in when I could. I wouldn't make the claim that I "witnessed" anything as I wasn't there enough to make that claim. Others were actually there participating the entire time.

                  The Board has a very tough job, allocating an intense fishery with very diverse usergroups and some fish populations in low abundance. It is a cheap shot to say the Board:

                  Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                  I left the Board of Fish meeting prior to the last one because the Chairman and some Board members were not interested in hearing facts and figures that could change their position. ?
                  and

                  Originally posted by Nerka View Post

                  In public the Board has ignored the best available data and ignored or suppressed ADF&G staff comments.
                  Yet also say:


                  Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                  We are all frustrated with ADF&G and you can imagine how a BOF feels when they can see the manipulative and anti=science nature of ADF&G. .


                  I don't have the exact percentage in front of my, but if memory serves, most of the actions taken by the 2014 BoF passed 7-0 or 6-1, very few were 4-3 or even close. I don't think the Chairman has that much power/influence to have the votes pass that overwhelmingly.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    New Governor and changes in ADFG and board of fish.

                    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                    tbsmith - you do not have enough experience to judge what happens with a change in administration. I have been through several major changes and you can clean house in some departments. There are lots of qualified people in the lower ranks of ADF&G and in some cases outside the State. So cleaning house down to the Director level has been done in the past and has worked. I did not say to remove all Directors - remember I mentioned keeping the Director of Admin and I did not say to do it all in one day. This is easier than you think as the day to day operations are really run by the regional supervisors.

                    Special interests rarely look out for what is good for the people of the State of Alaska or in that matter the nation. I look at this from someone who wants a strong ADF&G in the future and sustainable resources based on good scientific decisions. At the Board of Fish meetings I watch user groups push to get what is best for their financial interests under the banner of sustainability. The average citizen has little to no input in this process. I watched the ESSN representatives at the last few meeting throw science and fairness under the bus in their self interests. The buy out discussion is another example -

                    Relative to the bitter comment I assume you mean angry as opposed to other definitions of the term. Yes, I am angry at how ADF&G has degraded with the present leadership. As an ESSN fisherman you should also be bitter. If not then why not? However, relative to my time in ADF&G it was a good experience for 18 of the 20 years and I do not begrudge that at all.

                    And please do not give me the condescending realistic comment and lecture on what you get. Been around the block too long for that comment. However, if you do not fight for what you believe and just sit on the sidelines and complain then you are a parasite on society not part of it.

                    iceblue - have to disagree with you. I know of too many backroom unethical meetings to go along with your evaluation. In public the Board has ignored the best available data and ignored or suppressed ADF&G staff comments. Not sure how many board meetings you have attended but this Board is one of the worst I have every witnessed.
                    Nerka I did not mean any disrespect or to be condescending in my post. You have every right to be upset with the way things have gone down within ADFG and BOF the last while. I am, and every Alaskan who knows the facts should be. I am perfectly ok with the fact that we disagree on the politics. You are right - I have not been through as many changes in administration as you. That gives me less experience to base my opinion on, but perhaps it gives me a clearer lens to see things through? Like the fact that we are all - in one way or another - special interests. Everyone. Even your agenda, if allowed to be taken too far, would eventually run contrary to the greater public good. It's human nature. Each and every interest group would take their agenda too far if allowed. Relative to your part about ESSN behaviour - each and every interest group has bad apples who care about nothing but what they think is best for themselves.

                    Which is why we need fair and impartial BOF members who can keep special interest groups in check and look out for the greater public interest. Moving on to my next point...

                    Originally posted by iceblue View Post
                    If ones goal is to have BOF members make decisions based on science or the best available data combined with strong ethics then Karl Johnstone should retain his position as Chairmen of the BOF.
                    I have not always agreed with any of the current Board members on every issue or proposal that has been acted on but I can honestly say that they try to do the right thing every single time. That's all anyone can ask of them.
                    Hopefully Governor Walker can see thru the smoke that comes from a fully allocated mine field like cook inlet.
                    Sounds like someone got some quality bonding time in during the Classic... Even though our state has determined that it is unethical for BOF members to participate...

                    Iceblue, I would love to hear you expound on your views and provide examples of where Mr. Johnstone has put science, ethics, fairness, and the best interest of Alaskan citizens and communities above his personal agenda and that of his syndicate. Was it the weight he put on the Kintama study that even ADFG admits was B.S.? Was it the way he manipulated the agenda at the last UCI meeting in order to address the issues important to his syndicate before any others? Was it the way he ramrodded his agenda through so hastily that other BOF members didn't even know what they were voting on? Was it when he cut public testimony short for use of the word "family"?Was it when he walked up to my family after he passed major restrictions on our fishery and said "That's what you get" for fighting against a LR OEG? Was he showing signs of impartiality when he walked by the syndicate reps during a strategiclly timed break and said "You'd better do something, because you are losing this one!"? Speaking of that, was it the way he strategically timed breaks to threaten or influence other board members when he thought a vote was not going to go his syndicate's way?

                    Has the board under his leadership become more in tune with the Alaskan public and their best interest? Is this new method of Board generated proposals under which sweeping changes have been made to Alaska fisheries with no public input really a better public process?

                    Originally posted by iceblue View Post
                    Nerka- I was present every single grueling day of the 2014 UCI Meeting. Funny thing is I do not recall seeing you in attendance. So, I am going to assume that you have second or third hand information about "behind closed doors meetings" that you were told took place. Please forgive me if I take this information with a heavy dose of skepticism as your sources have been less than accurate in past threads on this forum.
                    To insinuate that Board of Fish members didn't listen to ADF&G staff or pertinent data is simply another misleading statement. Board members have to look not only at the data but they must also weigh allocation into how they choose to deal with any proposal before them. Allocation..,that is a extremely heavy burden and at times it could trump staff comments.
                    All in all I think the BOF members did the best that they could in a difficult meeting. Except for Board Member Kluberton but that is a story for another time.
                    As my above comments show, I was also there for nearly all of it. I saw lots of sketchy stuff happen - on all sides. I would not begin to post everything I saw or heard, but I did tell a few people - Nerka being one. I have read his posts think he has a very accurate view of the way things went down up there. It's a political process and will never be squeaky clean or perfect. I get that. But it could be much better than it is if were were honest about keeping unethical and dishonest people from buying and running the show. As it is now it encourages the worst of us to participate because many decent people cannot or will not stomach it. Probably the reason you didn't see Nerka there.

                    To that extent, I am hopeful that Mr. Walker and his administration will feel the same.

                    Yukon, the Chairman is still personally pushing the Kintama report even though ADFG genetics staff discredited it at the meeting, saying that scientific standards and process was not followed, and has since reaffirmed that this was a poorly performed scientific study based on a very small sample. Major restrictions were passed using that study as a basis, and as I said the chairman is still pushing that data - he emailed the new Kintama scientific journal publication out to everyone to make sure we saw it despite the fact that ADFG has recently stated that they will not be using that data for management purposes. Perfect example of BOF ignoring data and ADFG staff comments.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Yukon, with all due respect, I have been at a number of Board meetings with the major players still on the Board and seen first hand what goes on. In fact, this is nothing new as when I worked for ADF&G I was in some of those backroom meetings against my will ( supervisors said come and participate and we had to do it). In fact, in one case I testified against the Department and BOF in a court hearing years ago on what went on in one of these meetings and the court ruled the meeting illegal. The present Board has just taken it to a new level in my opinion. Remember some members of the Board have been on it for a long time and have had multiple meetings that I attended.

                      I believe the major issue with the Board is they want to micro-manage the fisheries to reach allocation agendas. In order to do that they have misused data provided by ADF&G and ADF&G has not been forthright with them on what they are doing. A lot of the issues with the present Board is ADF&G and their relationship with the Board. ADF&G use to be the side-boards on BOF actions. That was degraded with the Coffey Board and has reached a level where ADF&G just remains silent when they should speak up. For example, ADF&G knows the present plans are not working and that the trade-off discussion has not taken place in a meaningful manner. They rewrite regulations after the Board meeting in the hopes of trying to figure out what the Board wanted. In one case UCIDA sued and won on having ADF&G write an emergency regulation because the BOF was not clear on what it wanted or did not understand what they passed. Hopefully a new Commissioner will change that and talk to the Board members about the relationship with ADF&G for Cook Inlet issues.

                      tbsmith - I talked with a member of the transition team and it looks like they came up with some good points. A report should be out in the near future for public review. I do not want to post anything as Yukon is right some of the information in the pass from these sources have been misleading. Relative to the future lets hope a good discussion with a new Commissioner will bring changes and that all user groups get rid of their bad apples.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                        ADF&G use to be the side-boards on BOF actions. That was degraded with the Coffey Board and has reached a level where ADF&G just remains silent when they should speak up.
                        The Coffey board? As in Dan Coffey, the attorney who was (according to his own Linkedin Profile) retained by Bob Penney's "Kenai King Conservation Alliance", and wrote an article about how we must act now to save the Kings, only to later get ticketed for using Kings for shrimp bait? Same Guy? Yep! Not the same organization though. They scrapped that for the "Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance" (initiative) and the "Alaska Sportsmen's Conservation Alliance" (PAC).

                        Just another example of how long these guys have been in the driver's seat of Alaska's fish politics, and how shady they have been about it. Conservation. Yeah, right.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Yes, smithtb, I remember you from the UCI BOF meetings and yes in fact you were present for much of the meeting. How could I forget? During the committee process you voiced opposition to every single proposal that might somehow benefit PU or Sport fishing. It didn't even matter what the data set said if there was opportunity for in-river folks you spoke against it plain and simple. I also remember the drifters, other UCI set net groups, and even the processors doing the same exact thing. You guys had a plan and it was to further restrict in-river groups whenever or however possible. Yes, I remember that you were there. I too hope that someday all Alaska Residents realize what actually transpires at these UCI meetings.

                          Speaking of BOF meetings I realize that the agenda should be set to deal with the most contentious set of proposals right off the get go as that makes the most sense. Tell me again why this would not be a wise move?

                          As the meeting unfolds I would hope that a board member would explain to me why a proposal had passed or failed if they knew it was important to my fishery. During the countless breaks that occur over a three week meeting I would appreciate a heads up & that I needed to go talk to Board Member X if a proposal that effected my fishery was on the table, and I would expect board members to spend time talking to those involved with the fishery whenever the opportunity presented itself. These things I would expect yet others say they are unethical...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Iceblue - no one has said a Board member explaining his position is unethical. What is unethical is when a Board member or members go into a back room with the staff or a small group of users or even a single user group and develop a regulation that no one has seen before or had input on. Also, there is no doubt some Board members trade votes from one area to another to get what they want in their area. That is also unethical. All work should be done out in the open and if staff needs to prepare something for them they should ask for it on the record.

                            I do not have a problem with a single Board member requesting clarification from staff or help in writing a regulation but it should not involve the user groups in closed door meetings. I have been at a number of Board meetings in recent times where the backroom meetings have been closed to other user groups or the general public. What that does is create distrust of the process. You may be in a meeting this year but next year excluded.

                            Relative to commercial fisherman fighting for their allocation is that not the same as what KRSA and the Guide Association does? They want to restrict and take from commercial fisherman for their self interests. In fact, they are not open in that process but tend to have more influence away from the meeting and at the meeting one gets the feeling the fix is in. The recent restrictions on the ESSN fishery fit this picture well.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by iceblue View Post
                              Yes, smithtb, I remember you from the UCI BOF meetings and yes in fact you were present for much of the meeting. How could I forget? During the committee process you voiced opposition to every single proposal that might somehow benefit PU or Sport fishing. It didn't even matter what the data set said if there was opportunity for in-river folks you spoke against it plain and simple. I also remember the drifters, other UCI set net groups, and even the processors doing the same exact thing. You guys had a plan and it was to further restrict in-river groups whenever or however possible. Yes, I remember that you were there. I too hope that someday all Alaska Residents realize what actually transpires at these UCI meetings.

                              Speaking of BOF meetings I realize that the agenda should be set to deal with the most contentious set of proposals right off the get go as that makes the most sense. Tell me again why this would not be a wise move?

                              As the meeting unfolds I would hope that a board member would explain to me why a proposal had passed or failed if they knew it was important to my fishery. During the countless breaks that occur over a three week meeting I would appreciate a heads up & that I needed to go talk to Board Member X if a proposal that effected my fishery was on the table, and I would expect board members to spend time talking to those involved with the fishery whenever the opportunity presented itself. These things I would expect yet others say they are unethical...
                              I notice you chose to pass on expounding on your views of the chairman and instead chose to overly generalize my position at the BOF. As if since I fish with a net for one month a year I don't want myself or others to have ample sportfishing opportunity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

                              Perhaps we simply have different views on what would benefit PU or Sportfishing. Yes, I voiced opposition to proposals which sought to eliminate the one day each week during King season that guides can't operate commercially on the river, proposed by a guide who testified during committee that he was "tired of being discriminated against" vs. private anglers. And I opposed the litany of proposals that sought to allocate more fish to the inriver fisheries by increasing inriver goals despite the fact that there was no scientific justification to do so. Most of these proposals were put forth by an organization with a long-standing goal of eliminating my user group entirely.

                              I did support - even authored - other proposals which I believed would benefit PU or Sportfishing, such as more timely reporting requirements for all fisheries, mandatory habitat assessment by the department (in keeping with regulations already on the books), additional drift-only days on our overcrowded river, and additional spawning protection for our Kings.

                              In my view, the proposals that benefit PU or Sportfishing are those which protect the resource and ensure that my kids have the same opportunities I have enjoyed. Not what puts more money in your pocket.

                              My only plan at the last UCI BOF was to not get completely shut down by the sportfishing syndicate. Since I don't know who you are I won't speak to yours.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                So, smithtb, you want me to "expound" on my view of BOF Chairman Karl Johnstone. Okay, I will give it a try.

                                I believe that Johnstone's time as a judge has provided him a truly unique perspective of not taking things at face value and the gumption to ask questions when others might hesitate to do so. I believe that he is one of the most informed BOF members that I have ever witnessed as he has experienced all corners of what Alaska has to offer while others have only heard or read about some of these mystic places. I have been impressed with how prepared Mr Johnstone is at every BOF meeting that I have attended and I honestly believe that he has Alaska's best interest at heart. I hope he is provided the opportunity to continue his tenure on the Board of Fish if he so desires.

                                Have I always agreed with every position he has taken in regards to proposals? Of course not.

                                smithtb, in the committee process there is a huge difference between fighting for your allocation issues and simply opposing everything that might benefit other user groups when those issues do not directly effect your fishery.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X