Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SB 284, Reorg. the board of fish, Sen.green.

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

  • SB 284, Reorg. the board of fish, Sen.green.

    Boys and girls,please

    look up pending SB 284. Sen green attemptes to reallocate the BOF. 3 commercial/ 3 sport/ 3 personal use/ subsistence. And... 1 moderator/chairman. I like it. It levels the playing field. If anyone wants to argue, they are just showing their true colors. Let us even the playing field. Spread the dynamics, so to speak. Unless of course, you have other axe's to grind. This kind of spreads the voice around. Don't you think? Nothing is ever written in stone so all of you nay'sayers, justify your positions.... And declare your backing and background. So this way, you will tell the forum where you intend to benefit.
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip? ALASKADIPNETTING.NET

  • #2
    Originally posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    Boys and girls,please

    look up pending SB 284. Sen green attemptes to reallocate the BOF. 3 commercial/ 3 sport/ 3 personal use/ subsistence. And... 1 moderator/chairman. I like it. It levels the playing field.
    Sounds like a winning mix to 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


    • #3
      I think this is short sighted

      Sen Green is playing games for the valley and she knows it. This just continues the BOF political process. If she was really interested in running a corporation which the fishing industry is she would have positions not based on users but on knowledge of a number of fields.. For example, she could propose a BOF with an economist, biologist, ecologist, lawyer, and other professional disciples.

      Also, she could propose a sceintific staff to help the BOF. She is just doing something that has no chance of passing so she can say she tried but those other people stopped her. Not very ethical in my opinion. I assume she is smart enough to know this so I am putting a motive on her grandstand.

      Also, I do not believe any user group should be represented - they can have their input to the full time BOF and not get into the trade-offs user groups try to make. Also, none of the groups mentioned represent my interests - the long term health of the resource. This proposal puts users first.

      So, yes I will object to sen green and her grandstand. To the poorly informed it looks good but this has been before the legislature before and has gone down in flames because it is poorly thought out - Sen. Green should be ashamed of herself for this cheap political stunt.

      Comment


      • #4
        thewop2000, I think the only interest you have in a "Level playing field' is for more fish for you.

        Nothing "On the level" at all. Just allocation grabs to get more fish from a resource that's already 100% allocated.

        Be honest, that's the only reason you involve yourself politically, isn't it?

        :rolleyes:
        .
        .
        .
        .


        Killin' it!



        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by thewhop2000 View Post
          Boys and girls,please

          look up pending SB 284. Sen green attemptes to reallocate the BOF. 3 commercial/ 3 sport/ 3 personal use/ subsistence. And... 1 moderator/chairman. I like it. It levels the playing field....
          Sounds fair and reasonable to me. What's the current makeup?

          Comment


          • #6
            This sounds good but we all know this will lengthen the proccess. These decisions should be based on science that is objective. We do not need any more biased science with skewed data.

            Comment


            • #7
              Past Board makeups

              The past Board of Fish makeup has varied by user group. This is because geographic considerations come into play. So people want someone from Southeast, Kodiak, Yukon, BB, UCI, Cordova, etc on the board. What I find is that the Board tends to have a calming influence on the members in the long run. They tend to look at what they think is best for the State - the only Board I take exception with is when Dan Coffey was on the Board - he runs a different ship - he was very controling and tried to keep information from the Board members. I have personal experience with this so I can say it.

              I would like to see the Board of Fish restructured along with the support staff. Another way to do it is via regional BOF that deal with just there area - except for fisheries where stocks pass through more than one area - Kodiak to UCI - False Pass to Yukon. Those would have to be dealt with on a case by case bais with a different Board.

              This is just a couple of suggestions. I just wish Sen Green stops the politics and started being responsible if she really wants to do something. I believe she is way out of line on this one- especially just following a Board meeting for UCI

              Comment


              • #8
                And..........I can't say I like being called "boy" at all. Maybe you were trying to be funny? Or make a point? Still where I grew up that is a big insult.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Did I hear correctly that there is counter-suggestion in Juneau to restructure Board membership based on end-user groups?

                  Something along the lines of four commercial, two sport/PU/subsistence?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ishmael View Post
                    thewop2000, I think the only interest you have in a "Level playing field' is for more fish for you.

                    Nothing "On the level" at all. Just allocation grabs to get more fish from a resource that's already 100% allocated.

                    Be honest, that's the only reason you involve yourself politically, isn't it?

                    :rolleyes:
                    I don't need more fish for me. I get my 35 reds a year and call it good. I usually only have one to two weekends to get them too. That is why I dipnet. Don't have time to sportfish and I don't like the political process, but work what I have to work. I just don't like the little guy being last in line when it comes to the resource. My political forum is the newspaper and the internet. I don't have lobbyists, lawyers, people paid to be involved in the political process. ONLY ME, and my humble opinion. Thank you very much.
                    ISH, sounds like you think I have something more to gain? You are so off base. Don't even go there. I don't have money on the line, only fish in my freezer, or so I hope, except people want to take that fish out of my freezer every year. SO i HAVE TO CONTINUE to fight for those lousy 35 fish. FOR ME AND FOR MY NEIGHBOR.
                    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip? ALASKADIPNETTING.NET

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nerka View Post
                      The past Board of Fish makeup has varied by user group. This is because geographic considerations come into play. So people want someone from Southeast, Kodiak, Yukon, BB, UCI, Cordova, etc on the board. What I find is that the Board tends to have a calming influence on the members in the long run. They tend to look at what they think is best for the State - the only Board I take exception with is when Dan Coffey was on the Board - he runs a different ship - he was very controling and tried to keep information from the Board members. I have personal experience with this so I can say it.

                      I would like to see the Board of Fish restructured along with the support staff. Another way to do it is via regional BOF that deal with just there area - except for fisheries where stocks pass through more than one area - Kodiak to UCI - False Pass to Yukon. Those would have to be dealt with on a case by case bais with a different Board.

                      This is just a couple of suggestions. I just wish Sen Green stops the politics and started being responsible if she really wants to do something. I believe she is way out of line on this one- especially just following a Board meeting for UCI
                      the only Board I take exception with is when Dan Coffey was on the Board - he runs a different ship - he was very controlling and tried to keep information from the Board members. I have personal experience with this so I can say it. You got on me last week for mentioning comfish by name, tried to get the moderator to silence me. yet you mention Dan coffey, MODERATOR, Please let the individual know that this is not acceptable to mention names, Unless of course NERKA wants to point fingers and then it is alright.
                      If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip? ALASKADIPNETTING.NET

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        different situation.

                        I mentioned the Board chairman becasue he was in charge of the procedures for the Board as chairman. He therefore, as a public figure, is fair game. Just like a politician since being appointed to the Board of Fish is a political process requiring confirmation by the legislature in a public forum.

                        In contrast, naming the local biologist who does not have the authority to aact alone is not responsible. I would hope you could see the difference - further Mr. Coffey went on and used his Board experience to run for a seat on the Anchorage Assembly. He is fair game.

                        Nice try -

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          so, what's any different?

                          By my count, there's only 3 "commercial guys" on the board right now...if you want to pigeonhole folks: Morris, Jensen, Webster.

                          And, 4 sport/subsistence/PU : Edfelt, Williams, Campbell, Delo.

                          Can anyone argue that this isn't the current makeup of the Board -- if you want to apply labels?

                          So, what would change? Would members under this new "format" be somehow obligated to vote with their "constituency", and who decides how that vote falls out?

                          After this meeting, lots of people have claimed that the Board is "loaded" or "stacked" with commercial interests. That is a load of manure.

                          Anyone can (and undoubtedly always will) be unhappy with ANY Board meeting outcome...but saying the outcome was predetermined or that the Board was stacked is ridiculous.
                          "Fishing relaxes me. It's like yoga, except I still get to kill something." --Ron Swanson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            what happens if you are an advocate for subsistence, sport, and commercial fishing?
                            I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It's a plot. . .

                              Originally posted by MRFISH View Post
                              . . .
                              After this meeting, lots of people have claimed that the Board is "loaded" or "stacked" with commercial interests. That is a load of manure.

                              Anyone can (and undoubtedly always will) be unhappy with ANY Board meeting outcome...but saying the outcome was predetermined or that the Board was stacked is ridiculous.
                              I'm afraid, Art, that the tendency to see black helicopters is universal . .

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X