Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Board of Fisheries 2019-2020 Proposal Book

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

  • Board of Fisheries 2019-2020 Proposal Book

    ... now available.

    https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cf...ed,,28,,30,,31,
    "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

  • #2
    Summary of final actions at the Feb UCI Meeting in Anchorage....

    https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f..._uci_draft.pdf
    "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


    • #3
      Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
      Summary of final actions at the Feb UCI Meeting in Anchorage....

      https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f..._uci_draft.pdf
      And how much does it cost the state to pay all those people for a couple weeks and do all those reports and regulation comments for mostly stuff that was not applicable as in NA? Big government at the finest ridiculous no wonder the state is short on money and according to that webpage the meetings continue.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
        And how much does it cost the state to pay all those people for a couple weeks and do all those reports and regulation comments for mostly stuff that was not applicable as in NA? Big government at the finest ridiculous no wonder the state is short on money and according to that webpage the meetings continue.
        If you were there, or live-streamed the meetings, you would know that NA (no action) were taken on many proposals because they were redundant, or because of a previous vote it became moot. They wasted very little time on proposals that were NA.

        If you want to streamline the process, make it a rule that an individual can only submit a couple of proposals, and if the proposals have been submitted more than two consecutive board cycles, you canít submit them a third time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Penguin,

          I would say the process could be streamlined by forcing a proposal to be supported by at least one AC. Then the you know the proposal will be properly written. So many proposal get put in the book and the author is not real clear on what they want. One has an idea of what they want but the author has to be very clear. There are enough AC's around the State that getting one ot support a proposal would not be that hard.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by polardds View Post
            Penguin,

            I would say the process could be streamlined by forcing a proposal to be supported by at least one AC. Then the you know the proposal will be properly written. So many proposal get put in the book and the author is not real clear on what they want. One has an idea of what they want but the author has to be very clear. There are enough AC's around the State that getting one ot support a proposal would not be that hard.
            I get your point but would add that there were some really poorly written AC proposals. I think they should stick to the rules on the proposal submission form which state ďAddress only one issue per proposal. State the issue clearly and concisely. The board will reject multiple or confusing items.Ē IMO the most time consuming part is hashing through the many proposals that try to rewrite entire management plans. Plus, I donít think itís good management to change plans drastically every 3 years - especially on a resource with longer life cycles than that.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by smithtb View Post
              I get your point but would add that there were some really poorly written AC proposals. I think they should stick to the rules on the proposal submission form which state ¬ďAddress only one issue per proposal. State the issue clearly and concisely. The board will reject multiple or confusing items.¬Ē IMO the most time consuming part is hashing through the many proposals that try to rewrite entire management plans. Plus, I don¬ít think it¬ís good management to change plans drastically every 3 years - especially on a resource with longer life cycles than that.


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
              So you are saying all those reports took very little time? How? There must be thousands of pages written in those commenting reports and reports for the meeting look at it all? There is no reason to allow anyone to change all of the rules for fishing every 3 years. I guess maybe I can see a need for circumstances to require a change but rarely. what other entities can change all there rules so often? IMO once again big government at the top. Thank goodness the refuge and forest rules do not have the chance to change like that. Fishing rules in Alaska are not like a box of chocolates because you always know you will get shafted every couple of years I can never figure out when outdoors people will just stand-up and say stop! Enough is enough. But that is big government for you.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
                So you are saying all those reports took very little time? How? There must be thousands of pages written in those commenting reports and reports for the meeting look at it all? There is no reason to allow anyone to change all of the rules for fishing every 3 years. I guess maybe I can see a need for circumstances to require a change but rarely. what other entities can change all there rules so often? IMO once again big government at the top. Thank goodness the refuge and forest rules do not have the chance to change like that. Fishing rules in Alaska are not like a box of chocolates because you always know you will get shafted every couple of years I can never figure out when outdoors people will just stand-up and say stop! Enough is enough. But that is big government f,or you.
                Personally, I think one of the strengths of the process is that that anyone can submit a proposal for consideration. It does add some additional workload but I don't think it's that much.

                Yes, there are always proposals that don't stand a chance, but the Board's committee process does a pretty good job of identifying the ones that have very little or no support and the Board dispatches those pretty quickly.

                As far as reports, the only document that addresses the proposals is the staff comments (RC 2 and 3 for the recent UCI meeting). The rest of the reports would have been prepared regardless of any specific proposal.
                .
                You could try to limit it to no more than 2 or 3 proposals per person/organization, per meeting but there are so many ways around that. Submit the rest of them from your spouse, kids, crew...
                "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MRFISH View Post
                  Personally, I think one of the strengths of the process is that that anyone can submit a proposal for consideration. It does add some additional workload but I don't think it's that much.

                  Yes, there are always proposals that don't stand a chance, but the Board's committee process does a pretty good job of identifying the ones that have very little or no support and the Board dispatches those pretty quickly.

                  As far as reports, the only document that addresses the proposals is the staff comments (RC 2 and 3 for the recent UCI meeting). The rest of the reports would have been prepared regardless of any specific proposal.
                  .
                  You could try to limit it to no more than 2 or 3 proposals per person/organization, per meeting but there are so many ways around that. Submit the rest of them from your spouse, kids, crew...
                  Can I submit a proposal to change the rules about drinking age, traffic, septic systems, federal land laws and a whole lot of other things every couple of years and hold everyone hostage who is involved in those issues. The answer is NO so it should be the same for fishing end of story big government it is a bad system

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Most of the proposals from the public center around allocation issues. Comfish vs Sport vs PU vs Subsistence. The Department, in my opinion, keeps lowering the Bar on some of their goals to make their numbers look better. I don't remember if it was OEG, or SEG but one can be addressed by proposals and one can't. The BOF passes proposals and then the Department is supposed to figure out how to make it work. Basically the Department is asked whether they feel they can effectively manage the fishery within the confines of the proposals passed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by polardds View Post
                      Most of the proposals from the public center around allocation issues. Comfish vs Sport vs PU vs Subsistence. The Department, in my opinion, keeps lowering the Bar on some of their goals to make their numbers look better. I don't remember if it was OEG, or SEG but one can be addressed by proposals and one can't. The BOF passes proposals and then the Department is supposed to figure out how to make it work. Basically the Department is asked whether they feel they can effectively manage the fishery within the confines of the proposals passed.
                      What numbers look better?. The goal for spawning Kings was changed by riding from 13,000 to 27,000 to 15,000 to 30,000 big ones so this 15 to 30 was the the same number the goal was a few years back regardless of whether or not they are big so that means there is some more greater number of not so big kings in with the 15,000 just big ones. So you are wrong the bar was not lowered. If you read the escapement goal summary that report Russian river, Kenai reds crooked creek kings goal all went up all the goals went up so I do not know why you say lower just shows how out of tune people are with what the big government is doing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Kid,

                        Some of the Valley stream goals were. I do not river fish on the Kenai so I don't pay attention to those numbers.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by polardds View Post
                          Kid,

                          Some of the Valley stream goals were. I do not river fish on the Kenai so I don't pay attention to those numbers.
                          The poor matsuvalley salmon runs as a biologist told me are really going to have challenges ahead. Last time I was up there fishing will be the last time I will be up there fishing was 5-6 years ago most of the king salmon I saw or caught are shrunken from 20 pounds of yesteryear down to 8 to 10 pounds or less. Plus you got the fishing hour thing now is that part of the free-enterprise system?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Kid,

                            The fishing hour thing was BS in my opinion. Allot of that was wanted by Enforcement. If it was dark they could not see so they wanted to limit the hours people could fish so they could monitor them effectively. (But as I recall allot of our Summer hours are pretty light all day long)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by polardds View Post
                              Kid,

                              The fishing hour thing was BS in my opinion. Allot of that was wanted by Enforcement. If it was dark they could not see so they wanted to limit the hours people could fish so they could monitor them effectively. (But as I recall allot of our Summer hours are pretty light all day long)
                              Yeah it is not completely dark during all the time of the restriction so not a good reason. Also An example of the uselessness of the regulation undertaking of big government can be found in the fish and game news this week with the releases about closing the formerly great king fishing rivers on kodiak island again for about the 15 years in a row. I was lucky enough to fish these 2 rivers for kings in the late 1980’s early 1990’s and the king has gone away. This is a good example to make the people think and understand that all the regulations the state spends millions in tinkering with do not have the power to help that people making regulations or tinkering with regulations think they do.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X