Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cook Inlet Federal Salmon Suit

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by AGL4now View Post

    I am totally fine with this thread. I fully support members having this discussion. I was a commercial fisherman, long ago, but this is a not important issue to my currently.
    Then why are you belly aching about it. Move on.
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by SmokeRoss View Post

      Then why are you belly aching about it. Move on.
      Don't look now.......but your belly aching. MOVE ON

      This forum has a policy of "NO Political Discussion". However at least 40+ % of the content here is "Political Discussion". If that policy was "Fairly" and consistently enforced, I am fine with that. But it is not. And they know it is not. There are other solutions to political discussions.

      One is have a "restricted" section of the forum that is for political discussion. Members would have to request access to that section. When threads that start out "NON" political, become political discussion, a moderator or Administrator simply moves that thread to the section for political discussion.

      To be clear I have no problem with political discussion, nor do I have a problem with closing threads that become political discussions. My problem is that some political discussions, are allowed, and others are deleted. Either enforce the policy fairly or eliminate the policy, or have a restricted section for threads that migrate into political discussions.
      ALASKA is a "HARD COUNTRY for OLDMEN". (But if you live it wide'ass open, it is a delightful place to finally just sit-back and savor those memories while sipping Tequila).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by AGL4now View Post
        Don't look now.......but your belly aching. MOVE ON

        This forum has a policy of "NO Political Discussion". However at least 40+ % of the content here is "Political Discussion". If that policy was "Fairly" and consistently enforced, I am fine with that. But it is not. And they know it is not. There are other solutions to political discussions.

        One is have a "restricted" section of the forum that is for political discussion. Members would have to request access to that section. When threads that start out "NON" political, become political discussion, a moderator or Administrator simply moves that thread to the section for political discussion.

        To be clear I have no problem with political discussion, nor do I have a problem with closing threads that become political discussions. My problem is that some political discussions, are allowed, and others are deleted. Either enforce the policy fairly or eliminate the policy, or have a restricted section for threads that migrate into political discussions.
        As I have stated several times - both in this thread and elsewhere - our policy has always been to allow discussion of politics as it directly relates to resource management issues in the appropriate forums. Period. Just because you don't seem to understand that policy does not make it cease to exist, nor does it mean that it is not being enforced consistently.

        We're done with this hijack of the thread. Further comments along these lines will be deleted. If you'd like to discuss this further, you're always welcome to send me a PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          This issue reminds me of the lawsuits involving subsistence management in rural Alaska.

          As I recall, the State lost a court decision regarding State management of subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska. The courts said a "rural subsistence preference" was inconsistent with the Alaska Constitution. So the Feds took over. Now the Feds have primary management responsibility for ensuring the subsistence preference for rural Alaskans. That includes both fish and wildlife resources.

          This is a completely different issue, but the end result might be something similar: Federal management of salmon fisheries in UCI, and perhaps elsewhere in the Great Land. I'm not sure if that was the intent of the lawsuit, but it might be the result.

          For better or for worse.........

          Comment


          • #35
            We should eliminate commercial exploitation entirely, and manage exclusively for subsistence yield.
            ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
            I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
            The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by iofthetaiga View Post
              We should eliminate commercial exploitation entirely, and manage exclusively for subsistence yield.
              More better eliminate sport fishing and sport hunting, only those with Federal Subsistence qualifications should be allowed to harvest anything in Alaska.

              ALASKA is a "HARD COUNTRY for OLDMEN". (But if you live it wide'ass open, it is a delightful place to finally just sit-back and savor those memories while sipping Tequila).

              Comment


              • #37
                The Feds don't want to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole. They've said that consistently from day 1. The courts will decide and may force the issue if it comes to that, and it won't be to the Feds choosing that path.

                Originally posted by Cohoangler View Post
                Federal management of salmon fisheries in UCI, and perhaps elsewhere in the Great Land. I'm not sure if that was the intent of the lawsuit, but it might be the result.

                For better or for worse.........

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by NorcalBob View Post
                  The Feds don't want to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole. They've said that consistently from day 1. The courts will decide and may force the issue if it comes to that, and it won't be to the Feds choosing that path.

                  I agree. I would also point out that the Feds didn't want to touch the rural subsistence issue either. But they ended up with it.

                  I'm not saying this is going in the same direction, but the similarities are worth pointing out. Your observation is consistent with my thoughts.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I'm not going assume that a commercial drift net closure 3 miles from the coast is a done deal, I think it is far from that. I do start to think about how things might change if it does happen.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Rivermist- what do you think the changes will be if the closure happens. Here is how I see it. First, the homer fleet will leave homer and move north , at least to ninilchik,
                      but more likely to kasilof and kenai harbors.
                      The drift fishery, which usually starts about the 20th of June, will see little or no participation due to the fact that most of this early harvest takes place between the south line and the kalgin bar,which under this amendment are closed to fishing. The kenai and kasilof fleets will start fishing in early July,and managers will have to fish the drift and setnet fisheries more aggressively than usual to meet goals due to the lack of early season harvest. More northern district sockeye, coho and chum will be harvested . Processers will have problems dealing with a shorter season and condensed harvest. . The benefits of this is that the feds and state don't have to deal with the tremendous burden of sharing management of this fishery, much like they do with crab ,bottomfish and waterfowl.
                      ​​​

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Gunner - I think you are spot on. The fishing area will obviously be more concentrated leading to increased tensions/conflicts. Fishery managers will have their hands full as well as enforcement. I'm sure the first year will be a mess and may always remain that way. In river fish goals may also be challenged. My opinion is that such an abrupt change will not be good for anyone, hope I'm wrong.

                        Comment

                        Footer Adsense

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X