Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Fish and Game’s budget prospects

Gov. Sean Parnell this week released his proposed state budget for fiscal year 2011, which starts July 1, and naturally Deckboss went straight for the Department of Fish and Game section.

The department’s operating budget request is $188.6 million, counting general fund, federal and “other” dollars. That’s 4.1 percent bigger than the current budget.

The department’s biggest division, Commercial Fisheries, is penciled in for $61.7 million, up by less than 1 percent. The Sport Fish Division budget is actually down a hair to $47.5 million.

The Parnell administration also is proposing a $31.3 million capital budget for special Fish and Game projects.

The list of projects is below.

Remember, the governor merely proposes a budget. The Alaska Legislature, which starts a new session in January, ultimately holds the purse strings.

Proposed Fish and Game capital projects:

• Facilities, vessels, aircraft maintenance and upgrades, $700,000
• Crewmember fishery participation database development, $250,000
• Yukon River chum salmon aerial surveys, $200,000
• Assessment and feasibility of Pilot Station sonar, $250,000
• Endangered Species Act listed marine mammals research, $600,000
• Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, $15 million
• Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook fishery mitigation, $7.5 million
• Sport Fish recreational boating access, $3.1 million
• Economic Contribution of Wildlife to Alaska, $500,000
• Cooperative Resource Program, $455,000
• Statewide facility deferred maintenance projects, $2 million
• Genetic marker screening for estimating stock composition of Western Alaska salmon fisheries, $750,000


Anonymous said...

So how does the Carlson vs the State fit into the budget? As it looks now they are going to have to pay out Millions of Dollars in refunds in January. Is that somthing that would come out of somewhere else or is it them being ignorant about having to pay it. Somthing that sould have been settled years ago and not all the added interest.

Anonymous said...

Wesley...can you please explain a bit more? In particular, you say that the Department's operating budget is up 4.1%, but the rest of your numbers say that comfish is up less than 1% and sport fish is down a "hair". Are those other numbers capital budgets, or what? Otherwise, it doesn't seem to add up.

Deckboss said...

Don't forget the "game" side of Fish and Game.

The department's Wildlife Conservation Division is in line for a 12.5 percent budget increase to $41.3 million.

Other Fish and Game units, such as the Habitat Division, also are slated for substantial increases.

Anonymous said...

Dancing with Clams?

For some education,on Citizenship!

Discussing Corfield v. Corell, the Classic Clam Digger Case, written by Bushrod Washington, and Citiazenship?
"which are fundamental"
that William H. Seward and friends wrote into that Fourteenth Amendment too.

Citizenship? Confusing a certain Alaska Clamdigger, and Governor, from Troy New York, 30 years ago today!

Anonymous said...

Gee for a dude who claims to know the Constitution you sure aren't hesitant to point out the ethnic / religious identity of the ADFG lawyer.

What's up with that horse hockey?

Anonymous said...

JTGranger rides again.
And while you are technically correct, JT, the sad reality is that the Anchorage-Fairbanks-Mat-Su delegation could give a darn about the longstanding economic contribution that is made by non-residents. And it is substantial. Non-res commfish are not just cheap tourists. They provide a major economic base in major regions of the state.

Unfortunately for Alaskan commercial fishermen, the Carlson case highlights the reason why commfish gets little traction in the state-- the non-resident component.

While i was a nonresident for 12 years- from 1990-2002, i am part of that class. I am giving my Carlson money back to the state so long as the legislature figures out how to dedicate that funding to the ADFG budget.

As to why the budget increase-- it's simply this. The $7.5 million in Chinook mitigation is simply a pass-through to the affected trollers, sportsmen and communities in SEAK who took the 15% Chinook cut in the 2009-2018 Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement.

Wes, take that $7.5 million out of the picture and what kind of increase do you have?

Zero. And an increase is sorely needed. Around 75% of SEAK commfish is run on Federal dollars and it is likely that those funds will be drying up so let's sincerely hope that the legislature can beef up the Governor's Commfish budget by about another $10 million.


Deckboss said...

Deckboss has just deleted an interesting but fatally flawed post containing religious slurs.

He trusts the anonymous poster knows better.

Anonymous said...

The funny thing is, the slur about that particular person's religion wasn't even correct. Thanks, Wes, for deleting that offensive post.

Anonymous said...

JT doesn't mean to slur anyone's ethnic background, I believe.

I think he's just calling into question the slang nature of the term.
Heck he's called Norweigans and especially Croatians by that term as well and certainly we all know that we aren't God's chosen ones.

And he is actually correct that the legislature should have taken care of Carlson a decade- and $35 million dollars- ago.

Anyways, back to the budget, Wes. The PCSRF at $15 mill, isn't a big lift for the state as well, since it is Federal monies.

The ADFG budget should probably be going on about a 10% state-funded tear for about a decade and then we'd be able to pay the men and women in ADFG blue 3/4 of their Federal counterparts salaries.

When I began commercial fishing, in 1977, Alaska was #2 or 3 in the nation for ADFG salaries. Now we're between Alabama and Arkansas.

And the much needed scientific studies and research. Without the Federal dollars, we'd have to shut down Southeast region.


Anonymous said...


You surely didn't seem to be bashful in publishing the Exxon list.

I cannot see why you wouldn't publish the Carlson list.

It's on the CFEC website and has been there for months.

It's much more interesting than Exxon.
And alot of guys might want to check in with CFEC and make sure they get their checks, if the legislature decides to write them.


Anonymous said...

Thank you Mr Loy for researching this story. Very nicely done!

Anonymous said...


What's that got to do with the lawyers profession, as explained a couple centures ago?

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 15, 1810
Monticello Oct. 15, 10.

Dear Sir,--Tho' late, I congratulate you on the revocation of the French decrees, & Congress still more, for without something new from the belligerents, I know not what ground they could have taken for their next move. Britain will revoke her orders of council, but continue their effect by new paper blockades, doing in detail what the orders did in the lump. The exclusive right to the sea by conquest is the principle she has acted on in petto, tho' she dares not yet avow it. This was to depend on the events of the war. I rejoice however that one power has got out of our way, & left us a clear field with the other.

Another circumstance of congratulation is the death of Cushing. The nation ten years ago declared it's will for a change in the principles of the administration of their affairs. They then changed the two branches depending on their will, and have steadily maintained the reformation in those branches. The third, not depending on them, has so long bid defiance to their will, erecting themselves into a political body, to correct what they deem the errors of the nation. The death of Cushing gives an opportunity of closing the reformation by a successor of unquestionable republican principles. Our friend Lincoln has of course presented himself to your recollection. I know you think lightly of him as a lawyer; and I do not consider him as a correct common lawyer, yet as much so as any one which ever came, or ever can come from one of the Eastern states. Their system of Jurisprudence made up from the Jewish law, a little dash of common law, & a great mass of original notions of their own, is a thing sui generis, and one educated in that system can never so far eradicate early impressions as to imbibe thoroughly the principles of another system. It is so in the case of other systems of which Ld. Mansfield is a splendid example. Lincoln's firm republicanism, and known integrity, will give compleat confidence to the public in the long desired...

Anonymous said...

And where did a cartain Deputy Director of Commercial Fisheries go after that "fatally flawed" Anchorage Board of Set Net Meeting, Janurary 1-8, at the Hilton?

Anonymous said...

And the Class Lists, from the Public Records at

Classics, shown by example at 11.5%interest, we actually love Lance Nelson's Department of No Law, loosing cases at an unprecendented rate, never before seen in any state's Fish and Game Department, in any State's shoreline on the Pacific Ocean.

That priviledge at 11.5% compounded quarterly. A great rate of return anywhere today.
Shown best by the many examples, with a $32,000 example turned into $192,000?

How many years would it take for $32,000 make $192,000 at todays 1.5% commpounded quarterly?

That confusing 4th grade math class, should have been studied up at Lance Nelsons Division, of Flunking Justice Bushrod Washingtons Clam Digger Case!

Just go ask the Lawyer Shawn Parnell, and Attorney General Sullivan, why Lance Nelson still has his job, I'm sure you'll get that same blank stare, as a deer in the headlights.

Hopefully Lance Nelson will assist Parnell, and Sullivan in dragging it out for another 30 years.

Just take your time, and blame it on Anchorage the perfect place for politicians without a clue!

Anonymous said...


It wasn't Lance Nelson who delayed this Carlson payment.
It was the prior legislature, most of whom are not currently in leadership.

I was pleased to pay triple as a non-resident and would do it again for the privilege to commercial fish in Alaska should I ever become a non-resident again, which I do not intend to do, BTW

Also, I think you were referring to the Dec 1-8 BOF meetings and I truly believe Ms. Aspelund is an unbiased public servant and doesn't advocate for one group over another.


Anonymous said...

Prior Leadership?

Would that be like the unbiased, BOF December meeting?

And Todd Palin's wife appointing the Palin Set Net Commission to the Board of Fish? And one certain private corporation, to rule the Boards own "public participation goals and requirements" at the December BOF meetings?

Isn't it great, when one private corporation get's to toss out the rules of the Board in their favor, and then have the Board, delete a few written comments that don't fit into the proposed Palin Set net agenda?

"The constitutional right of free speech has been declared to be the
same in peace and war. In peace, too, men may differ widely as to
what loyalty to our country demands, and an intolerant majority,
swayed by passion or by fear, may be prone in the future, as it has
been in the past, to stamp as disloyal opinions with which it disagrees."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Schaefer v. U. S., 1920

"The greater the importance to safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more
imperative is the need to preserve the constitutional rights of free speech,
free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion."
Justice Charles Evans Hughes
DeJonge v. Oregon, 1937

"The priceless heritage of our society is the unrestricted constitutional right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it."
Justice Robert H. Jackson
American Communications Association
v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950)

It is the part of wisdom, particulary for judges, not to be victimized by words.
Felix Frankfuter
Shapiro v. US (1948)

Just erase a few of the "Timley Public Comments" that don't fit the predetermined BOF Agenda, and you too can become the rubber stamp committee for Todd Palin.

"When an Indian fights, he only shoots to kill."
Chief Joseph

"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only a unanimity at the graveyard."
Justice Robert H. Jackson,

"unbiased public servant?"

Like Judge Johnstone's and Palins favorite political party, the tories?

Anonymous said...

is the Pacific Coastal Recovery Fund ever going to see commercial salmon fishing as a user group or just an incidental which was their appearance after a grant awarded to KRSA and UCIDA was not allowed to participate because they were not considered a user group?

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan has called a $21 million attorney fee request by Juneau lawyer Loren Domke "borderline outrageous." Domke represents the fishermen and is seeking legal fees on top of the refunds.

Domke said responsibility for the legal fees lies with the court, not him.

"It doesn't matter what the lawyers ask for, it's what the court orders," he said.

Domke also noted that the case has been fought for 25 years without payment.

"It's been done on an assumption that at the end the court would award some attorney fees," Domke said.

The Alaska Department of Law, representing the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, is continuing to fight the case. It has hired an accountant to review Domke's request.

When you work at Law, Law is confusing. Especially when Sullivan and Nelson are at the Helm, drunk drivers forever.

"borderline outrageous?"

Evidently the Alaska Attorney General Sullivan, also flunked his law class with General Washington's soliger, and later Chief Justice Marshall, who has always confused the Alaska Attorney General's "borderline outragous" legal education!

Marbury v. Madison, confusing Sullivan today, yesterday and tommrow.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.[Like that Commerce Clause of 1789?)

This is what happens when you can't find an intellegent attorney in Alaska, esp, at the AG's Division of the Clueless, Lance Nelson in 2nd Command of the Division of Imbeciles.

Lets review that 2nd grade math lesson?
21 million + 68 million = 89 million?

How much is that daily rate, at 11.5% interest compounded quarterly?

Ever been to Juneau, where those important cases, like
"Bong's Hits For Jesus"
smoke thru the Courts, and real cases, involving real issues take decades?

The Supremacy Clause, written by Marshall, could only confuse Sullivan and Nelson and Parnell.

Going Rogue is expensive!

Anonymous said...

Ah, Mr. Granger

U need to dig deeper into the Dec 2006 BOF meeting to find the smoking setnet

The 2009 meeting was actually conducted legally

The 2006 meeting goes all the way to the top

Anonymous said...

In regards to the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, maybe UCIDA could get off its behind and submit its own proposal for fisheries research to the state.

Oh, that's right, it doesn't get involved in fisheries research, just frivolous Federal lawsuits that get laughed out of court.

Heh, let's ban all personal use fisheries for Alaskans because they discriminate against our non-resident commercial fishing members of UCIDA. Let's spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this type of non-sense lawsuit, and then cry poor, poor me I am a victim of ADFG, the Commissioner, KRSA, the Feds, dip netters, guides, the Mayors, politicians, the BOF, Lance Nelson, and anything else that remotely moves or breathes.

Did UCIDA approach Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association for some of the millions it got through PCSRF for fisheries research? Of course not. UCIDA heads sit on the CIAA board of directors, and got millions in Federal support. Oops, how soon we forgot the millions in our pocket and look at others for more.

Instead of the endless mindless complaints from UCIDA, how bout you start with the closest mirror?