Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UCIDA sued and "won", they got their prize........

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

  • #31
    Thanks hoose, but I don;t believe that is the link to the article I was referring to. The article, which lays it on the line in my opinion is on the ucida facebook page.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by gunner View Post
      Thanks hoose, but I don;t believe that is the link to the article I was referring to. The article, which lays it on the line in my opinion is on the ucida facebook page.
      It really seems like it's the opinion piece you were referring to, since it is the opinion piece you were referring to, but maybe if you have a different one you could link to it?
      I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. Physicist ― Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #33
        Guess that is it. Thanks hoose

        Comment


        • #34
          And then there is this take :

          https://inletkeeper.org/2020/12/10/d...in-cook-inlet/
          "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 68 Bronco View Post
            Drama.

            Quote from the link:" Can anyone today imagine the incredible views across Kachemak Bay pocked with belching, spewing oil and gas platforms? "

            On the other hand one needn't imagine views in Kachemak Bay pocked with belching, spewing commercial fishing and other vessels since they are for real. I guess it's best to be dependent on oil and gas from countries that would behead you and that lack environmental guidelines like ours?

            Comment


            • #36
              Not sure how much to jump in on this but the amount of misinformation and misdirection is causing everyone problems. I have followed this fairly closely and talked with UCIDA and others about motives but in reality because of the misinformation people put motives on decisions and positions that are wrong. So so history -

              1. Salmon are federally owned and their management is required by the Feceral Gov. This can be a co-operative agreement with the States but any management must meet the standards of the Mag/Stevens Act.
              2. In UCI there has been a Fishery Management Plan and the State and Federal Gov have comanaged but the Feds basically said to the State go do it we are fine with what you are doing. Unfortunately the Feds failed to follow M/S on annual updates of the FMP and since 1980 I do not believe the UCI FMP has ever been updated. The Feds in updating must meet their own standards and inallowing the State to manage must hold them to those standards. This is done across all the coastal states.
              3. UCIDA was not happy with the Board of Fish regulations and asked that the FMP be updated and brought into compliance. Basically the Feds said go pound sand. UCIDA sued for an updated FMP they did not ask for Federal management just Federal oversight so Federal law was being followed. In fact at the 9th circuit one of the judges said I guess we will see you back here if the new FMP does not meet Federal law in UCIDA's opinion. There was no discussion of anything more than updating the old FMP. The State tried to make a State rights argument but lost that all the way to the Federal Supreme Court.
              4. The Feds stalled the process via administrative actions and after 2 years and no progress UCIDA went back to court and won that the FMP must be completed by December 2020. Over the past two years the Feds and State have not played fair and even tried to meet the federal standards. There are 10 standards and one should read them to get an idea of where the State manages meet them and where it does not.
              5. There are no winners or losers right now. One point of contention is what is meant by M/S when it says the Feds must manage salmon through-out their range. That of course could mean in both Federal and State waters. A non allocation example would be dealing with invasive species under M/S.
              6 There is no FMP written yet and the vote to close commercial fishing in the EEZ is probably illegal under M/S. The State position is just silly. They have been managing at no additional cost in this area for decades and the State co-manages a number of resources with the Feds - salmon, crab, groundfish, and these fisheries cross State/jFederal boundaries.
              7Once the FMP is written it must go out for review internally by the Federal Gov legal teams and scientific panels, review by the State, and review by the General public. There could and probably will be major changes in this process.
              8. I am sure UCIDA or some group will sue if the FMP has the EEZ closed. There is no justification and if the State says they will not do it that does not mean the Feds get a pass. They must manage unless they can make a case why the provisions of M/S cannot be met. For example, the FMP has certain requirements for fishing communities and the impact of regulations on those communities. The act is very long and complex and one should read it to fully understand what is happening. One provision is that there can be no resident only fisheries so the PU fishery may be an issue depending if the FMP must go outside the EEZ. Also there are sport fisheries in the EEZ that must be managed co-operatively with the Feds. The State position is just blowing smoke.
              9. Relative to motives everyone has some different objectives - UCIDA wants Federal review of the goals and whether the State approach meets the scientific standard. UCIDA also has pointed out that pink and chum salmon stocks are not being harvested in accordance with M/S. That may mean no more fishing time for UCIDA but a seine fishery may be developed. Seines are legal gear in UCI> There are lots of options that must be on the table. UCIDA has said from day 1 they do not want Federal biologists making in-season calls. They want the State to do it but with oversight. For example at the Board of Fish a Federal member of the Board might be appointed to provide that oversight (I made this up as an example). Some have said the Federal motive and State is to run the commercial fishery out of business by delaying action on the FMP and writing positions that will require more litigation. A judge actually sided with UCIDA on this when he required the FMP be done by December 2020.

              So at this point there is not even an FMP to review and the action of the Council could change depending on how the legal review goes or a judge rules on this particular vote. I suspect UCIDA and other groups will wait for the final FMP and go to court on a number of points.. I think this is one of those issues it is better to watch and see what happens rather than spend a lot of time trying to dissect each action and what it means. The courts have a lot of decisions to make on this one and should - hopefully UCIDA and other groups will not run out of money. There are lots of good things in M/S the State should be doing =. It would be nice to see them deal with some of them.

              Comment

              Footer Adsense

              Collapse
              Working...
              X