Thursday, November 10, 2011

Hot pinks!

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game says this year's pink salmon harvest set an all-time record for value at more than $170 million.

Chum and sockeye also did very well. Read all about it here.


Anonymous said...

When you want to get your Hump on, Think Pink!

Maybe a little over the top but we
are not selling enough of the sexy side of salmon.

Anonymous said...

Screw you schockler field and Alaska seafood marketing board -now we gotta pay too muck taxes
It was better in the old nickel a pound days

Anonymous said...

Really shows what a bunch of self-absorbed washouts we all are. Get a crack at Bobbyt or Z and you get 100 plus comments. Show the results of years of afmb asmi trident burgers ufa marketing plan sk funds silver bay seafoods. Ted Stevens Frank Murkowsi trade missions to china korea hong kong poland germany england japan and taiwan Alaska state Leg task force and not even a fucking thank you

You ungrateful pricks-hope you choke on that pink salmon Money

Thank you fields riutta Wallace schactler denkinger Mcallister
Thank you UFA and all the ufa groups
Thanks to the world most of all for eating our dogs and humpies

Anonymous said...

Somebody needs to raise their blood sugars.

Anonymous said...

Trust me, we all know that they got their thanks in $$$ already.

Anonymous said...

Everybody's grateful with the $.45 cent pinks, when one looks at a 1975 pink, that's worth $1.90 in todays 2011 inflation adjusted dollars.

The missing 321.7% tax, can we get another study?

"Ted Stevens Frank Murkowsi trade missions to china korea hong kong poland germany england japan and taiwan Alaska state Leg task force and not even a fucking thank you"

A Big Thank You to Ted, Ben, Trevor, Frank, Lisa,...and the list can go on forever...

Just like that Gold Price, in '75; $140.00 and ounce, worth $590, on the inflation adjusted scale?

Whoops! Thank God economics is another lost art!

Anonymous said...

Thank You Ted...thank You Ben...

Anonymous said...

fraudulent job opportunities

now were a bunch of pricks cause 50 cent's a pound or 50 cents an ounce needs? a thanks?

Anonymous said...

Always Generally Screwed, always!

Anonymous said... again.

Anonymous said...

huge strides have been made in marketing of Alaska Salmon. I am glad to hear of the good pink year value wise and also the general health of the salmon industry.
The guy who thought he was better off at 5 cents could not have known the agony of seigning for 5 cents. It is quite a foolish statement to think you are beter off at 5 cents rather than 45 cents to save 1% in marketing tax

Anonymous said...

It wasn't the tax that did it.

Anonymous said...

And the guy who fished pinks today for .50 adjusted for reverse inflation, 1975?

That's right we got the UFA today...mail your money in..I vote ????

In 1975...I Vote Scab!

huge that 1919 Income Tax Bill, huge strides for WWI, WWIII, I vote (DWoodrow Wilson

Anonymous said...

the asmi 1% salmon tax was stopped dec 31, 2003

Anonymous said...

in 1975, the high boat in SE Alaska caught 100,000 lbs of pinks and grossed $50,000

in 2011, the high boat caught 3.5 million pounds and grossed $1.75 million

i'll take the 1.75 million in 2011 dollars thank you.

you can have the $50,000 in 1975 dollars.

irrelevant politics, irrelevant statistics, irrelevant Lummi Island logic trying to cast a hook towards alaska............................ a family tradition since 1878

robin samuelson hasn't cut you carpetbaggers out of the bay yet?

Anonymous said...

It's always irrevelant, when the Calhoune Street Dispository, is making a withdrawl to bobbyt's Carpetbag.

I notice a few missing old, Lummi Island S.E. Seiners Names, on the corruption page of yours bobbyt?

Even a couple from Petersburg?

How is it, they missed out that buyback deal, bobbyt?

Could they read the Maggie Act, the Limited Entry Act, their U.S. Document Papers, and all the associated criminal, and civil laws of the United States?

Oh yea, Robin Samuelson, I'd doubt very much even Robin would buy into your theory of what the inflation number means in the Bay's Optimum Number Report, exposing Optimum Economics?

Robin ain't that stupid?

Anonymous said...

$1.75 million, and you need a buyback bobbyt?
And $500.000.00 from your neighbors, dinner plate?

You need to go on a diet bobbyt a super exclusive concept.

“Economically healthy fishery” is defined in AS 16.43.990(2) as follows:
(2) “economically healthy fishery” means a fishery that yields a sufficient rate of economic return to the fishermen participating in it to provide for, among other things, the following:
(A) maintenance of vessels and gear in satisfactory and safe operating condition; and
(B) ability and opportunity to improve vessels, gear and fishing techniques, including, when permissible, experimentation with new vessels, new gear, and new techniques.

Anonymous said...

And who was the biggest carpet bagger of ALL!

Anonymous said...

And boobyt says he never posts anonymously. Once a liar always a liar......

Anonymous said...

Who tried to swallow, the whole hook, line, and sinker?

There are 13 letters in Annuit Coeptis and 13 letters in E Pluribus Unim. The dollar encodes the number 13 repeatedly. There are 13 stars above the eagles head, 13 steps on the Pyramid, 13 vertical bars on the shield, 13 horizontal stripes at the top of the shield, 13 leaves on the olive branch, 13 arrows, 13 fruits, and 13 numbers.

Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie
Which we ascribe to heaven.
~William Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

Anonymous said...

more than one is onto your bullshit, jt
you pompous assed flake

go waste your space on the bristol bay forecast. any shakespeare or daniel fucking webster on that?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Interesting you'd bring up Webster,

The Bank of Bobbyt?

"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is essential to all government.

Anonymous said...

Or, Daniel "Intercourse" Webster,


The words are: Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. The subject to be regulated is commerce; and our Constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration and not of definition, to as certain the extent of the power it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word.

Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more - it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals in the actual employment of buying and selling or of barter. If commerce does not include navigation, the government of the Union has no direct power over that subject, and can make no law prescribing what shall constitute American vessels, or requiring that they shall be navigated by American seamen.

Yet this power has been exercised from the commencement of the government, has been exercised with the consent of all, and. has been understood by all to be a commercial regulation. All America understands, and has uniformly understood, the word commerce to comprehend navigation.

The word used in the Constitution, then, comprehends, and has been always understood to comprehend, navigation within its meaning; and a power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted as if that term had been added to the word commerce. To what commerce does this power extend? The Constitution informs us to commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. It has, we believe, been universally admitted that these words comprehend every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations. No sort of trade can be carried on between this country and any other to which this power does not extend. It has been truly said that commerce, as the word is used in the Constitution, is a unit, every part of which is indicated by the term. If this be the admitted meaning of the word in its application to foreign nations, it must carry the same meaning throughout the sentence and remain a unit, unless there be some plain intelligible cause which alters it.

Anonymous said...

like your 1% tax in the bay?

heard there's 11 million in JT"s account there

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a great opportunity to do something fisherman driven. It takes money to make money.

We need to market more, to create more demand, thereby driving up the price on a limited supply item. Econ 101.

Remember back in the 80's when we actually had competition for our product?

When you have an industry that can't afford to reinvest into major capital projects, such as a new boat, there is something obviously wrong.

$14 lb. sockeye at the grocery store, high roe value, omega 3 extracts, milt for the frenchies, and yet it is only worth $1 lb. on the boat?

Anonymous said...

Taxation without representation can get kinda messy. Ever hear of the Boston tea party?

Anonymous said...

Actually bobbyt,

I like the 12% tax best, the Daniel Webster Tax?

Bank of the State of Alaska?

Supreme Court Oral Argument:
Public List Anchorage
Oral Arguments Scheduled on Thursday, December 15, 2011
State of Alaska, CFEC v. Donald H. Carlson, et al.

Anonymous said...

Hey Juneau, cut those Carlson checks while you can. That 12% interest just keeps rackin' up! You can run but you can't hide. You legislators actually ought to be doing some time over this one.

Anonymous said...

Like that Bubba Gump Shrimp Case, way down younder...for "interstate extradition of fugitives from justice" with the brains of a shrimp?

(a) The privileges and immunities clause was intended to outlaw classifications based on the fact of noncitizenship unless there is something to indicate that noncitizens constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed, and, in this case, there is no convincing showing of a reasonable relationship between the alleged danger to the shrimp supply represented by noncitizens, as a class, and the severe discrimination practiced upon them. Pp. 334 U. S. 396-399.
The purpose and effect of this statute, they contend, is not to conserve shrimp, but to exclude nonresidents, and thereby create a commercial monopoly for South Carolina residents. As such, the statute is said to violate the privileges and immunities clause of Art. IV, § 2, of the Constitution and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...
Article IV, § 2, so far as relevant reads as follows:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located -- those relating to full faith and credit and to interstate extradition of fugitives from justice -- was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent, sovereign States. It was designed to insure to a citizen of State A who ventures into State B the same privileges which the citizens of State B enjoy. [Footnote 24] For protection of such equality, the citizen of State A was not to be restricted to the uncertain remedies afforded by diplomatic processes and official retaliation. [Footnote 25]
Page 334 U. S. 396
"Indeed, without some provision of the kind removing from the citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in the other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists."
Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 75 U. S. 180 (1868).

8 Wall Paul the Petersburg Fire Case, Classic!

Someone should read An Act of Congress, page 0 on any optimum number...An Act, from the 19th Of June...

SEC. 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Anonymous said...

Jesus, you are the cut and paste king of "Deckboss". I get dizzy trying to follow the convoluted logic (using the term loosely) in your posts. Some of us only passed 4th grade, so help us out OK? What's the use of a long screed, if no one knows what the hell you are talking about?

Who is JT anyway?

Anonymous said...

Gotta laugh at that "evil" nonresident consideration language in that there ol' Carlson case. Yep, gots' ta watch them thar evile southerners, even if dey's only so far south as south east. Now thar is some defnit evile goin' on der.

All oer a can o' pink.

Anonymous said...

49 cent pinks, 49 cent lawyers, for the 49th State, where the newest rant from a law team who could not find a job, anywhere but in Juneau!

Not especially complicated, from the writings of Lance Nelson, the favorite S.E. Seiners Lawyer, or Jamie Ross in Chignik too,.could NOT comprehend Carlson 1, so the Kindergarden form at Carlson 2.

How many S.E. Seine Permits would $80 million buy?

419, in 2002, of course this classic going on from 6 years after the Limited Entry Act, shown there is no limit at, the Alaska Department of No Law!

3. Although protracted, the character of this litigation does not justify an attorneys’ fee award far in excess of full reasonable attorneys’ fees.
The litigation of this case, although lengthy, has not been especially complicated nor required inordinate amounts of plaintiff counsel’s time. It was not complex litigation, as in the nature of a large shareholder or construction suit, oil spill or oil and gas tax rate case, serious medical malpractice or environmental damage lawsuit, or similar case involving multitudinous details....

The long version how do you spell MURKOWSKI,,,

How do you spell Hammond?

Anonymous said...

"the first successful write-in Senate candidate since Strom Thurmond."

Shown best in Filibuster Mode....

SEC. 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.