Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2019 Cook Inlet Salmon Management

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

  • Bfish
    replied
    Originally posted by NorcalBob View Post
    And California water management (which is where my professional expertise comes from). Thank goodness I retired over 20 years ago from that madness and moved on! But, I can't complain, that madness made me a ton of money, so I could retire and move elsewhere!
    Now there is a royal cluster goat rope that makes Cook Inlet salmon management look like kindergarten


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • NorcalBob
    replied
    And California water management (which is where my professional expertise comes from). Thank goodness I retired over 20 years ago from that madness and moved on! But, I can't complain, that madness made me a ton of money, so I could retire and move elsewhere!
    Originally posted by Cohoangler View Post
    It would look like Columbia River salmon management! We've been there a long time........

    Leave a comment:


  • Cohoangler
    replied
    Originally posted by NorcalBob View Post
    Yep, been there, done that, and got the t-shirt! Agree 100%!
    Can you imagine what would happen if every aggrieved user group (guides, to name only one, and I'm not picking on them specifically for the record, just to illustrate) jumped into this fray? What a zoo that would be!!! Be careful what you wish for!!!
    It would look like Columbia River salmon management! We've been there a long time........

    Leave a comment:


  • NorcalBob
    replied
    Yep, been there, done that, and got the t-shirt! Agree 100%!
    Can you imagine what would happen if every aggrieved user group (guides, to name only one, and I'm not picking on them specifically for the record, just to illustrate) jumped into this fray? What a zoo that would be!!! Be careful what you wish for!!!

    Originally posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Turning to the courts to resolve fishery management disputes never ends well. Trust me.

    One side might get a favorable/adverse ruling, but that only serves to prompt similar lawsuits, and opens up other avenues for further lawsuits in other areas of disagreement (what’s good for the goose…..).

    In the end, the only folks who benefit are the attorneys. Sometimes, legal actions can’t be avoided, but it should be the ‘option of last resort’.

    Leave a comment:


  • kidfromgarcia
    replied
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    I think we are disagreeing on the issues that I am bringing up and what the TRO stated. The judge did not have testimony only the lawyer understanding and therefore most of those involved figured the TRO would fail but the hearing on the permanent injunction would be a different story. I have not talked to the people who filed or their lawyers. I am getting this second hand from good sources. That group figures they win with depositions in the State case for use in the Federal case. It may be a good move since the State personnel cannot speak freely without a court order.
    And while you 2 are dicscussing litigation over whether or not fishing management plans are being followed there is EPA regulations and other environmental protections all over the country being dismantled at the federal and state levels that will impact legions of people who have salmon in their culture because the pro growth based economic regulations will harm the oceans and rivers where salmon live. It would be nice if there was more discussion on stabilizing the environment rather than the fishing regulations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cohoangler
    replied
    Turning to the courts to resolve fishery management disputes never ends well. Trust me.

    One side might get a favorable/adverse ruling, but that only serves to prompt similar lawsuits, and opens up other avenues for further lawsuits in other areas of disagreement (what’s good for the goose…..).

    In the end, the only folks who benefit are the attorneys. Sometimes, legal actions can’t be avoided, but it should be the ‘option of last resort’.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorcalBob
    replied
    I think there is a basic misunderstanding of what the legal process of the TRO and Injunctions do and how they are executed. These are intended as a relatively easy, quick, and inexpensive legal means for an aggrieved party (in this case CIFF) to ask a judge to intervene in order to stop whatever aggrieved action they specify, without going to a full-blown trial. And that trial is NOT relatively easy, quick, or inexpensive. For a TRO and Preliminary Injunction, the aggrieved party has to specify why they are aggrieved, give a legal basis to support that (and the DFG Commish is a meanie and doesn't like us, won't hack it in front of a judge), and also state what they want the Court to do. The Preliminary Injunction is used for a very quick resolution of issue and a specified period of time. The Permanent Injunction is used to make the action permanent. You are correct that there is no actual witness testimony for a TRO/Preliminary Injunction, but that does not mean that potential evidence is not discussed. In fact, the aggrieved party gets to present their "evidence" to support their action, the Judge reviews it, and can ask questions about it to both parties. The Judge then makes a determination on the likeliness of the legal action to succeed, and can issue a Court Order of Action (or not) to give the aggrieved party what they ask for. In this legal action, the CIFF has a long list of things that it wanted the Court to order, and many of those things were direct requests to stop actions specified by regulation and BoF direction. Quite frankly, that means that CIFF wanted a Court Order to stop specific actions mandated by the BoF and ADFG regulations. And that is untenable to the State (as it should be in the States view, as it would prevent State regulation of the fishery). The evidence bar and legal arguments to get a Judge to approve that is going to be quite high, as no Judge wants to overrule previous regulations and BoF direction. And Judge Gist did not feel that CIFF had presented a strong enough case to prevail in future legal actions so he DENIED the Motions for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. CIFF can now proceed to other legal approaches should they so desire, but future legal actions are NOT going to be relatively easy, quick, and inexpensive. I sure hope CIFF has deep pockets lined with money should they choose to go further, because it's going to get very expensive from this point on. CIFF tried this tactic before in a very similar case, and even issued an appeal all the way to the Alaskan Supreme Court, but they ultimately failed. And IMNSHO, I really don't see any way they can prevail this time either. Nerka, I strongly urge you to get a copy of Judge Gist's Final Ruling to review yourself (it is public record), as it details all the legal reasoning, including CIFF demands, and make your own determination as to whether or not CIFF demands are reasonable and legally sustainable. I did, and my conclusion is, no way Jose.
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    I think we are disagreeing on the issues that I am bringing up and what the TRO stated. The judge did not have testimony only the lawyer understanding and therefore most of those involved figured the TRO would fail but the hearing on the permanent injunction would be a different story. I have not talked to the people who filed or their lawyers. I am getting this second hand from good sources. That group figures they win with depositions in the State case for use in the Federal case. It may be a good move since the State personnel cannot speak freely without a court order.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by NorcalBob View Post
    Nerka, you are incorrect on a number of issues. Judge Jason Gist did indeed deny CIFF's request for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction in his court ruling. This is excerpted verbatim from the Courts Summary Decision issued on 5 AUG 2019: "For the reasons stated herein, CIFF has failed to demonstrate a probable success on the merits of its claims. Accordingly, its Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED". You are correct that the Case is divided into two parts: 1) Request for TRO and Preliminary Injunction, and 2) Request for a Permanent Injunction and that Judge Gist did not issue a ruling on Count 2. In addition, you are incorrect in what was discussed at the hearing, and "it was about legal standing, harm to individuals, and the merit of winning the case". The hearing was much more far reaching than that, and included many additional topics including the following that was discussed by CIFF Attorneys, State Attorneys and Judge Gist. In the interest of brevity I am only going to address the issues involving allegations about improper conduct by ADFG and bias/favoritism (which was the focus of my OP). CIFF in its original Court Filings identified those very issues as being relevant as a legal basis for granting of the TRO and Injunctions. In point of fact, CIFF did indeed bring those issues to the Courts attention during the hearing with Judge Gist, and they were discussed, and questions were asked to both CIFF and State Attorneys. Lastly, CIFF has many legal approaches they can pursue in the future if they so decide, including the Permanent Injunction. I have no idea whether or not they plan future action, but any additional legal actions will require a large expenditure of funds.
    "
    I think we are disagreeing on the issues that I am bringing up and what the TRO stated. The judge did not have testimony only the lawyer understanding and therefore most of those involved figured the TRO would fail but the hearing on the permanent injunction would be a different story. I have not talked to the people who filed or their lawyers. I am getting this second hand from good sources. That group figures they win with depositions in the State case for use in the Federal case. It may be a good move since the State personnel cannot speak freely without a court order.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorcalBob
    replied
    Nerka, you are incorrect on a number of issues. Judge Jason Gist did indeed deny CIFF's request for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction in his court ruling. This is excerpted verbatim from the Courts Summary Decision issued on 5 AUG 2019: "For the reasons stated herein, CIFF has failed to demonstrate a probable success on the merits of its claims. Accordingly, its Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED". You are correct that the Case is divided into two parts: 1) Request for TRO and Preliminary Injunction, and 2) Request for a Permanent Injunction and that Judge Gist did not issue a ruling on Count 2. In addition, you are incorrect in what was discussed at the hearing, and "it was about legal standing, harm to individuals, and the merit of winning the case". The hearing was much more far reaching than that, and included many additional topics including the following that was discussed by CIFF Attorneys, State Attorneys and Judge Gist. In the interest of brevity I am only going to address the issues involving allegations about improper conduct by ADFG and bias/favoritism (which was the focus of my OP). CIFF in its original Court Filings identified those very issues as being relevant as a legal basis for granting of the TRO and Injunctions. In point of fact, CIFF did indeed bring those issues to the Courts attention during the hearing with Judge Gist, and they were discussed, and questions were asked to both CIFF and State Attorneys. Lastly, CIFF has many legal approaches they can pursue in the future if they so decide, including the Permanent Injunction. I have no idea whether or not they plan future action, but any additional legal actions will require a large expenditure of funds.
    "
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    This is not true from what I understand. The TRO was not about what I am suggesting. So my concern was not addressed by the courts. Also the Injunction hearing and depositions are in the future. There was two parts of the case and the judge has let discovery go forward for the injunction part of the case. So what you have posted is not correct. In a TRO hearing no testimony was allowed - it was about legal standing, harm to individuals, and the merit of winning the case. I heard this directly from the parties involved but I am not a lawyer. I just know other groups are preparing to question a number of issues in both State and Federal court. This is far from over.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfish
    replied
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    Not avoiding your questions just running out of time recently. I will respond in the next day or so. There are a number of references one needs to look at and list for you.
    Nerka, my best wishes are with you. I thoroughly enjoy a good hearty back and forth,

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by Bfish View Post
    If I am following you correctly, you are accusing the commissioner of acting improperly outside of his authority. This is a very serious allegation. Can you point me to a specific provision in the administrative code or management plans that the commissioner violated with regard to no action on the Saturday's you reference? I'm sure that I don't know or understand the management plans as well as you do so I could use a little help here.

    And if the sole basis for your conclusion is your unique insight and understanding of this fishery and the implications of acting or not acting, I'm having a hard time understanding how these subjective inferences rise to the level of improper conduct.
    Not avoiding your questions just running out of time recently. I will respond in the next day or so. There are a number of references one needs to look at and list for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by NorcalBob View Post
    Bfish, the allegations of improper conduct by the ADFG Commish, and bias/favoritism to a particular user group, that are being rampantly spread in this forum, was the legal basis for the CIFF to file for a TRO and Injunction against ADFG that was recently resolved by the courts. Judge Jason Gist just recently ruled on the legal action, and refused to issue the TRO and Injunction. His ruling found no legal merit or evidence to support the above allegations. So, those allegations have been presented to the Court (a neutral body), reviewed by the Court, and rejected by the Court. Interestingly, the same legal strategy from CIFF was also undertaken a few years ago (against another Commish) and were also rejected by the Court (by a different judge).


    .
    This is not true from what I understand. The TRO was not about what I am suggesting. So my concern was not addressed by the courts. Also the Injunction hearing and depositions are in the future. There was two parts of the case and the judge has let discovery go forward for the injunction part of the case. So what you have posted is not correct. In a TRO hearing no testimony was allowed - it was about legal standing, harm to individuals, and the merit of winning the case. I heard this directly from the parties involved but I am not a lawyer. I just know other groups are preparing to question a number of issues in both State and Federal court. This is far from over.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorcalBob
    replied
    Bfish, the allegations of improper conduct by the ADFG Commish, and bias/favoritism to a particular user group, that are being rampantly spread in this forum, was the legal basis for the CIFF to file for a TRO and Injunction against ADFG that was recently resolved by the courts. Judge Jason Gist just recently ruled on the legal action, and refused to issue the TRO and Injunction. His ruling found no legal merit or evidence to support the above allegations. So, those allegations have been presented to the Court (a neutral body), reviewed by the Court, and rejected by the Court. Interestingly, the same legal strategy from CIFF was also undertaken a few years ago (against another Commish) and were also rejected by the Court (by a different judge).

    .
    Originally posted by Bfish View Post
    If I am following you correctly, you are accusing the commissioner of acting improperly outside of his authority. This is a very serious allegation. Can you point me to a specific provision in the administrative code or management plans that the commissioner violated with regard to no action on the Saturday's you reference? I'm sure that I don't know or understand the management plans as well as you do so I could use a little help here.

    And if the sole basis for your conclusion is your unique insight and understanding of this fishery and the implications of acting or not acting, I'm having a hard time understanding how these subjective inferences rise to the level of improper conduct.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunner
    replied
    Originally posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
    So you actually think they solved the problem of having a bad king run by not allowing bait for coho fishing and telling people to avoid areas where kings may be concentrated? This is the kind of thinking that is exactly the problem disallowing bait has no effect on helping the bad king run. You got a bunch of government people and public that loves useless regulation.
    I think you have it wrong kid. My understanding is the e.o. not allowing bait and multiple hooks is no longer in effect. Commisioner Penney, or whatever his name is has classics and other considerations to worry about, so what little chinook loss due to this relaxation of the e.o. are inconsequential, at least in his point of view,which is to ensure the sportfish guide industry prospers ,no matter what the long term costs to the resource are.

    Leave a comment:


  • kidfromgarcia
    replied
    Originally posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
    So you actually think they solved the problem of having a bad king run by not allowing bait for coho fishing and telling people to avoid areas where kings may be concentrated? This is the kind of thinking that is exactly the problem disallowing bait has no effect on helping the bad king run. You got a bunch of government people and public that loves useless regulation.
    Originally posted by SmokeRoss View Post
    If Kings hadn't been over fished in the river the past 3 or so decades, we would be having decent returns now, and setnet commercial fishing wouldn't need drastic restrictions to help get a few more Kings up the river. Guides targeting Kings should have been reduced to a fraction of the current numbers a LONG time ago. The Kenai should have gone to drift only fishing for Kings years ago. Watch for more in river restrictions in the future, and smaller returns of Kings. Smaller Kings also. The Kings are screwed. Have been for a many years. Slot limits were a poor attempt to try to get a few big Kings to spawn. Didn't work. None of the recent rules have helped much. Too little, too late. The writing has been on the wall for a long time, but has been mostly ignored. They're done. You might see a year or 2 of decent returns in the future, (along with a lot of hand wringing and wailing) but my bet is on a continuing downward spiral of our once great King fishery.
    I completely do not buy most of your reasoning because it is happening all over the state in places where the habitat has not been hammered like the Kenai habitat. Kings are going away all over not just Kenai. It is way bigger than a bunch of guides or gill netting. Your taking the easy way out by blaming something simple. It is the environment.

    Leave a comment:

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X