The state is bumping up the surcharge nonresidents must pay for commercial fishing permits.
The new surcharge will be $190, an increase of $50 from the current amount.
The increase will take effect for the 2013 fishing season.
The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, the state agency that issues permits, adjusts the nonresident surcharge every three years according to a court-approved formula.
The surcharge applies only to the first permit a nonresident obtains or renews each year. So, if he or she pays the annual base fee for permits in multiple fisheries, the surcharge is paid only once.
The surcharge is meant to help defray the cost of fisheries management.
How much has the resident fee gone up?
ReplyDeleteThey should be called CFUCU.
ReplyDelete$750 to renew my resident drift card; WTF!
ReplyDelete$750 to renew resident card - the cost being entitled to take fish from all of Alaska's residents. A mere pitance to the state from whom you take your resources from, I'd wager you recoup that in less than a day of fishing.
ReplyDeleteBoy, you're really funny. Calling the fishing game an entitlement. You obviously don't know what is involved to go out there and just "take" some of them fish. I'd wager you to be a puker.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the cost of permit,fuel,gear,insurance, maintence, stall/electricity,crew,tax assesments among many other things. I think they should raise the cost even more for non residents, look at the cost for non-residents in other states!
ReplyDeleteI just wish we could use the money from fishermen's fund to pay your (P&I) deductible for in or out of state residents.
We had that before bill Thomas blocked it
DeleteFish fund pays all
Unless you have insurance
Just to add to the above comment we have our salmon enhancement taxes, salmon buyback taxes, raw fish taxes, ifq taxes, we got freakin taxes on taxes, yep she is a real cake walk out there................
ReplyDeleteYup, almost as dangerous as working in an office.
ReplyDeleteThe state wasn't just going to pay out the carlson case without a little payback now are they? Did anyone expect them to play nicely? Millions of dollars are walking out the door, it has to be replaced somehow...
ReplyDeleteIt is quite a raise,but oh well,I'll use my ten grand from the carlson case that the state fought all these years to ease the burden of their latest ripoff,and continue to spend thousands every year in Alaska and then leave to live in a more civilized state.
ReplyDeleteNon residents are very very lucky that the state allows them to harvest a resource that constitutionally should be managed for the benefit of Alaskans only. Look at Bristol Bay, for example. almost 55% of the drift permits are owned by non residents, an increase of almost 75% over the distribution when limited entry was started. This at the expense of local fishers who now sit on the beach and watch the non residents load up their super 32' boats. Is this what our constitutional delegates intended when it drafted our constitution? So, when I read the complaints of having to pay a very small additional fee to "farm our waters" it does not resonate well. And it is the best farming job you will ever see. Just harvest. Don't need to till the soil, no need to keep weeds out, or to seed. Weather seldom destroys the crop. and it is all over in a matter of a couple months. So, off the non residents go with the money from the sale of Alaskan fish and where do they spend it. Not in Alaska. So, please, cry me a river over having to pay just a little more for the privilege of taking Alaska fish.
ReplyDeleteCFEC did a report a few years back
ReplyDeleteFound that most of the res to nonres transfer--85% -- was fishing families from AK moving outside
Due to climate- school- remarriage-- health- closer to care for dying parents--- whatever
In fact 50% of all tkingits and Haida live in the PAC nw ouside of Alaska
We are still the first alaskans
Still Tlingit
And when we live in Ballard Edmonds and lake forest park- yeah we are willing to pay more
If you really wanted to fish Bristol Bay, or anywhere in Alaska, residents have the immeasurable advantage of getting affordable state loans that are not available to non-res. CRY ME A RIVER! It takes a helluvalot more to operate a successful fishing operation than just getting a permit!!! If it was as simple as having a permit, then BBEDC has more than enough cash on hand to buy up all the outside permits and give them to locals. They won't, know why? Because thems that can run boats are already doing just that. Those that can't would just sell them like they already did once before. Ever try maintaining a boat, preparing gear, managing crew, cover expenses, work in a constantly deadly environment, operate on a financial knife edge. Go back to your cush job and be glad that you don't have to fish. With your attitude, you'd never make it.
ReplyDeleteUse your dividend, isn't that what most of the non-residents who claim residency are going to do? Quit whining, if you don't like it up here then go down to Oregon and Washington and fish. Oh wait, that's right......
ReplyDeleteThat's right, I invested all of our dividends and retired in Arizona.
ReplyDeleteKinda like the original idea, tossed in the ditch, by the Court. You know the one's, they want more then their neighbors too, based on length of residency?
ReplyDeleteZOBEL ET UX. v. WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF ALASKA
457 U.S. 55
June 14, 1982,
Where even state residency goes to the COURT.
Where do they find their lawyers. Wal Mart.
When you can't find a job, move to Alaska.
Chief Justice Burger.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, newcomers seem more likely to become dissatisfied and to leave the State than well-established residents; it would thus seem that the State would give a larger, rather than a smaller, dividend to new residents if it wanted to discourage emigration. The separation of residents into classes hardly seems a likely way to persuade new Alaskans that the State welcomes them and wants them to stay...
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE POWELL join, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, and agree with its conclusion that the retrospective aspects of Alaska's dividend-distribution law are not rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. I write separately only to emphasize that the pervasive discrimination embodied in the Alaska distribution scheme gives rise to constitutional concerns of somewhat larger proportions than may be evident on a cursory reading of the Court's opinion. In my view, these concerns might well preclude even the prospective operation of Alaska's scheme....
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring...
Alaska's distribution plan distinguishes between long-term residents and recent arrivals. Stripped to its essentials, the plan denies non-Alaskans settling in the State the same privileges afforded longer term residents.
What's the United States?
I thought there was a long time Lawsuit against the state because of them over charging non residents for thier permit renewal, did not they settle that and the biggest part of what we had to pay the non residents was the interest. Will we be paying again in 10 years because of this fee increase.It is true that the majority of non resident permits were from people who have lived thier life in Alaska , but need to be elsewhere for a variety of reasons ranging from health care to climate.
ReplyDeleteTo 9:05. do you think that you are the only one that has the same challenges with fishing in the Bay. give me a break. You are obviously a non resident who really does not care about anybody but 'you'. And do you really think that the residents can't run boats. Is that what you really said? That smacks as a bit racist. Or are you just stereo typing the locals who try to run boats, but 'can't? Come out of your closet and tell us who you are. By the way, your days in the Bay are numbered. The winds are blowing against you.
ReplyDeleteTo 6:15, I'm a resident and have done more for the fisheries than you ever will. You think that the resident comment was racist? Have I missed something? Are all residents the same race? My days fishing are numbered just as everyone elses are. I will not fish for infinite years. But what do you mean by that stupid remark? Are we going to become a new nation with new constitutional rights? Keep blowing, you're doing a great job!
ReplyDeleteTo 12:22AM> You misinterpreted my comments. i was addressing the person at 9:05 who accused residents of being unable to meet the challenges of fishing and thought that his remarks had a racist aspect to them as many of the residents who fish are native alaskans who face the elements with generally smaller boats. It is the non-residents whose days may be numbered if they don't back off buying all the permits and dominating the fishery with their super 32' boats and ability to buy two permits under existing regulations. the BOF has several proposals this december that address these issues and who knows but perhaps it will recognize the in equality of the fishery between watershed residents and non-residents. And for those who quote the constitution, remember that Alaska resources are to be managed for the maximum benefit of the people in Alaska, not Washington.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite is the fee the STATE charges for my halibut and sablefish permit cards.
ReplyDeleteEver go to ADF&G and ask to talk to a halibut biologist??? No such thing, all the state does is collect fishtickets and their fees.
We already pay for management via the revenue derived from the IPHC yearly surveys.
To 7:03, I am 9:05, 6:15, AND 12:22, and if you think that the State, let alone the BOF, has the power to eradicate the non-res, you have been in the bush too long. IF that were possible, it would have been done at the inception of the Limited Entry Act.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that everyone, racially or residence-wise should have the equal opportunity to live and work wherever it serves their personal needs best, and that is the crux and privilege of living in a "free" country such as the U.S. Alaskans with a selfish and separatist attitude are a result of the wealth and influence of the oil era, coupled with a self imposed attitude of inadequacy.
Without the "outsiders", domestic and foreign, we would not have supplies nor markets. Furthermore, the domestic outsiders have the same privileges that we have of free movement and interstate trade. That's what makes us strong.
Just in case you forgot, the standing military that protects your borders, Navy that would fight for your waters (fish), and the Coast Guard that saves lives are mostly "outsiders".
In the bigger and healthier picture, those outsiders are us. They are our fellow citizens with hopefully the same goals and rights as us: life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, enjoying prosperity through equal access, measured by ones personal commitment to strive for personal and mutual benefits.
You are NOT better than any other U.S. citizen based upon your race or residency.
9:05 etc. you are correct that the State of alaska cannot legally discriminate against non-resient CFEC permit holders. That does not mean, however, that it is right. And everyone understands the dependency each state has on the Federal Govt for security. My point was simply that non-residents are lucky it is the way it is. Your comments seemed to suggest that residents did not have the same challenges or abilities as non- residents when it came to fishing alaska waters. And while the Alaska BOF cannot do anything to prevent non-residents from taking Alaska resources, it certainly can attempt to balance the playing field which some of the proposals for Bristol Bay seem to address. It is shameful that so few permits are owned by the watershed people or by residents in general. Look at the vessel size and note that the super 32s are almost all owned by non-residents who now want to be able to own and fish two permits. So, for the moment you are correct, the law favors non-discrimination to a point. but increasing permit fees for non-res is legal and your whining about that small difference is unseemly at best and downright ignorant at worst. And to be clear, from what you said in your various posts, i would bet that you are not a resident as claimed, but one of the Washington guys with a very large greed gland that can't stop squirting. Go ahead and man up and tell us who you are.
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time; there was this new idea.
ReplyDeleteThe Northwest Ordinance, adopted by the Second Continental Congress, chartered a government for the Northwest Territory, provided a method for admitting new states to the Union from the territory, and listed a bill of rights guaranteed in the territory. Following the principles outlined by Thomas Jefferson in the Ordinance of 1784.
Sec 2. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and nonresident proprietors in the said territory...
That "equal footing doctrine" when your stumbling drunk is a bit difficult to comprehend, even from a few state supreme courts.
DID you know that some people think Salmon, are OUTSIDERS! Notice the small letters.
PPL MONTANA, LLC, PETITIONER v. MONTANA
on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of montana
[February 22, 2012]
"To be navigable for purposes of title under the equal-footing doctrine, rivers must be “navigable in fact,” meaning “they are used, or are susceptible of being used, . . . as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water...
Lewis and Clark knew of the Clark Fork River but did not try to navigate it, in part because the absence of salmon in one of its tributaries made Lewis believe “ ‘there must be a considerable fall in [the river] below.’ ”
Stumbling Drunk? You can become a Montana State Supreme Court Judge too!
One can only wonder...when salmon explain commerce so perfectly in our US Supreme Court under the law's of nature, where did this Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission attend 8th grade civics class?
ReplyDeleteHuh? Hard to stay on point is it? Whew, what a bunch of nonsense: Incomplete sentences, no subject matter, incorrect use of verbs and adjectives and a complete absence of relevant topic. Who are these people? And you think that CFEC missed civics. Right!
ReplyDeleteAnd those non-resident salmon?
ReplyDeleteRight!
They Left! Whew?
ReplyDeleteDear ridiculer of basic laws of national and international commerce,
ReplyDeleteyou wear your ignorance on your sleeve. When you open your mouth, you prove yourself a (name calling) fool. You are an embarrassment to all that is TRULY Alaskan. I am a resident. I never was "...whining..." about the fee increase. You are the whiner, beating the drum of local vs. resident vs. outsider. The only "shame" in drainage res's not owning more permits is due to each specific person themselves. BBEDC will cover the down payment money and pay the interest for a State guaranteed issue loan. Talk about easy. You can get all the money you want/deserve for a better boat, second permit, refrigeration, engine upgrade, etc... You, are the ignorant one proven by your statements. And "...man up..." really?
8:48: You really are a very emotional person. I really am sorry that i brought that out in you. Take a deep breath and breath through your nose. Everything will be ok
ReplyDeleteI'm just tired of small minded separatists fouling our economy.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the matter with small minded separatists fouling our economy, they catch all the fish as exposed in every report.
ReplyDelete2 nets are always better than 1.
But 1/3rd, is always better than 3/3rds.
Like that record player at 33 & 1/3 rpm, the new and improved magical mystery tour, brought to you by Tim Sand's, diggin up another mud dobber.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2012-2013/bristolbay/12-02bb-perm-stack.pdf
Question:
ReplyDeleteIf I start using anchors on my drift gear, can I double my web in the water?
It always has somthing to do with measuring the anchor line, depending on which state reads the Fourteenth Amendment.
ReplyDeleteAnchors AWAY!
(A) No permittee shall possess or fish more than a total of 65 fathoms (1 shackle) of gill net, as measured at the cork line, in San Francisco and Tomales bays. Said gill nets shall not exceed 120 meshes in depth. In Humboldt Bay and Crescent City Harbor, no permittee shall possess or fish in combination more than 150 fathoms of gill net. Fresh fish permittees shall not possess or fish more than 65 fathoms (1 shackle).
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=31425&inline=true
Or Crab Permit Stacking, when your fishin the Pacific, and William H. Sewards Fourteenth Amendment, as read clearly in California or Washington.
50/50, or 75/75, or even 100/100
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/amistd.htm
Happy thanksgiving, from 19th of November
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/crab/pugetsound/
And Captain Hollywood on the 1/3rd question?
ReplyDelete"....justifying an award of one-third of the value of the Amistad and its non-human cargo?"
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/Salvaging.html
The last few posts say it all. Unfortunately, no one can understand it. Is there some broken connections between what they are thinking of writing and the hand that does the typing? Or, is it as good as it gets for them? I will tip my hat to anyone who can come up with more meaningless, unintelligible posts.
ReplyDeleteThe last few posts have fishin for tuition stamps all over it. Fish for some brains dude.
ReplyDeletelol...fishin for Tuition indeed. Nothing going on over at Alaska Dispatch?
ReplyDeleteBrains, you mean Tripe, at the Board of Fish?
ReplyDeleteWith "no special privileges?" clearly written in Article 8 Section 15, of the Alaska Constitution?
DOA on arrival, when tripe was not allocated within a single fishery, it's a fundamental. Just go ask Robert Heyano about his BOF membership.
C. The Chignik Cooperative Fishery Scheme Permitted by Former 5 AAC 15.358 Was Fundamentally at Odds with the Limited Entry Act.
In Grunert I, we stuck down former 5 AAC 15.359 (2002) because it was “fundamentally at odds with the Limited Entry Act.” 30 We explained that a central premise of the limited entry system is that permit holders are individuals who actively fish.31 We also explained that the Limited Entry Act was enacted to protect “economically dependent fisher[s].”
For these reasons, we conclude that the Chignik purse seine salmon fishery was a single fishery, and that the board did not alter that fact by making detail changes to the type of equipment used by the cooperative fishers. Both cooperative and open fishers captured the same species of salmon common to the fishery with purse seine gear. The board cannot divide what has historically been a single fishery by simply tinkering with ancillary apparatus and seine dimensions. The emergency regulation therefore authorized the board to allocate fishery resources within a single fishery, in violation of the authorizing statute, AS 16.05.251(e).
Another tripe fishery, free mad cow from the BOF!
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ak-supreme-court/1119517.html
Fishin fo tripe...with free mad cow too!
ReplyDeleteSeparate but Equal? Yes Mr. Plessy, sat in the back of that school bus too, tangible factors? (D), when (E), was the GPA average at BOF, for years.
(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal.
(e) The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education.
We note that the board's allocation of the harvestable salmon between the cooperative and the open fishers was potentially arbitrary and capricious. Allowing some, but not all, Chignik salmon purse seine permit holders to operate different types and amounts of fishing equipment potentially raises questions of efficiency, arbitrary decision making, and equal protection....
Because only some of the Chignik permit holders could operate the maximum amount of gear, Grunert contends, the regulation unlawfully discriminated. We do not need to consider these contentions, however, because we conclude that the emergency regulation authorized an allocation of fishery resources within a single fishery in violation of the authorizing statute.
Pay poor school tax of $15.00
Which 1 is it, you not from Alaska, the Alaska Supreme Court must be full of tripe too.
ReplyDelete"In addition, the board informed us at oral argument that it has established cooperative regimes in other fisheries around the state...."
Lance Nelson, our favorite shown best in any case he touches, or did those millions in Carlson also break a record running at 33&1/3rd rpm.
Welcome to the State of Denial, join the UFA.
ReplyDelete§ 10. Treason
Treason against the State consists only in levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
"When sentencing Hankins, Judge Holland found that Hankins had knowingly testified falsely at his trial when he denied he falsified the landing reports, and that this testimony amounted to perjury. The Judge found further that Hankins was still “in a state of denial” about having committed the crimes for which the jury convicted him...."
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ak/
Where is this nonsense coming from? Does anyone except the posters themselves understand what is being said in sentence fragments and bits and pieces? I thought this blog was about non-residents having to pony up for a bit more for their CFEC permits. Neither Grunert, Chignik Purse seine, Lance Nelson, Treason or Perjury have anything to do with the blog and its contents. Are these authors mercury poisoned or smoking something that puts their minds into some sort of cosmic warp zone? Maybe they should put in for a place on the fish Board or Council and discuss these concepts with their fellow Spock comrades
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, it's just over your head.
ReplyDeleteYou would have to be very familiar with fish history statewide, State Law current and past, Federal Law, current players and their politics, advanced humor and a seemingly unending ability to find appropriate corroborating links that you haven't taken the time to highlight and search with google to follow the thought or action link. It aint always easy, but then again, nothing worthwhile is. You would've probably thought Einstein or Edison were nuts. It does ALL tie together, you just don't know enough, and that's alright.
Tell us about the schooner USS George Washington, and his non-resident crew.
ReplyDeleteBeam us up Scotty!
And how many (D) permit holders, are paying 2/3rd's more than their share of a CFEC renewal?
The Connections, are all exlained, in one little slave case, and the 1/3rd citizenship clause At State of Denial.Gov.CFEC.ADFG.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/priorhist.html
Oh thank you! Now i get it. The Schooner part cleared it up for me.
ReplyDeleteLike the setnet governor, it clears it up perfectly, if you ever read Carlson.
ReplyDeleteThe class rests its argument about the applicability of section .280 largely on legislative intent. The class points to Governor Jay Hammond's transmittal letter as providing for "uniform administrative and enforcement provisions for all of the State's
tax statutes."44 The letter, the class notes, points out that prior to the bill the State only paid interest on overpayment of income taxes, but that passage of the bill "would set a fair and uniform system for all taxes."
@10:07 AM--Don't worry, no one really gets the stream-of-consciousness postings that the resident wing-nut puts up. You're not alone there (maybe I'm just not smart enough, either).
ReplyDeleteJust skip over them, that's the best thing to do.
Like Bobbyt, Bobbyw. and Dr. Charles Crapo's work group?
ReplyDeleteExplain it then? 3 Septic Tanks make a work group?
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2012-2013/bristolbay/miscellaneous-tab.pdf
You know the special work group.
ReplyDeleteThe "Special Privileges" work group, at Natural Resources, Section 8, room 15? The Unlimited Liability Act from 1972.
Lance Nelson's Favorite???
Optimum Number's of Drain Fields from Dr. Crapo's most famous studious students.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71921417/Southeast-salmon-seine-reduction-plan
lol, Mr. Rogers asks, "can you say nonsensical?"
ReplyDeleteActually it was Justice Frankfurter, who gave an answer long ago, from 1789.
ReplyDeleteCan you spell CFEC?
Couldn't Find Education Compelling?
But what's a few million more, of the same old story...1789, it was a confusing year.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/415/case.html
Been Fishin Long?
ReplyDelete"no exclusive right" 1952, what a concept from 1789.
At least the billion dollar question, isn't relevant either. What is a U.S. Supreme Court.
Don't ask Tromley, why do think he's not judge anymore, like Johnstone?
"After the decision in the Haavik case, Congress passed the White Act, 43 Stat. 464, 48 U.S.C. §§ 221-247, comprehensively regulating "the fisheries of the United States in all waters of Alaska" and delegating authority to the Secretary of Commerce (now to the Secretary of Interior) to administer the law. That Act provided
". . . no exclusive or several right of fishery shall be granted [in reserved fishing areas established by the Secretary in Alaskan waters], nor shall any citizen of the United States be denied the right to take, prepare, cure, or preserve fish or shellfish in any area of the waters of Alaska where fishing is permitted by the Secretary of the Interior."
Bruce Twomley CFEC, to Monica Wellard, BOF
ReplyDeleteNovember 7, 2012?
"As noted above we urge caution..."
November 7, 1940
Were from the government...we use caution, and have another bridge to nowhere for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw
These posts are about as understandable as acupuncture. I have more important things to decide; like whether to get my lug nuts chromed. Maybe someone from UCIDA or the ESSN group can help me with the decision.
ReplyDeleteJust more money the State of Alaska is going to rob from the fisherman! As if the "landing fees" and IFQ tax/fees aren't enough. For once I have actually finally seen a couple of rational comments on here! Many of us "non-res" were residents of Alaska with family members who were residents and first generation fisherman! I chose to get the heck out and raise my kids in the real world. I don't feel that gives the State of Alaska the right to continue to rape the non-res fisherman. It's true, we already dump plenty of money back into Alaska's economy! Our boat stays up there year around, doing all of the maintenance ect., locally. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt that we contribute more money than many of the "residents"! I resent the fact that when the kids and I go up to join my husband on the boat for tendering season, I have to go spend another grand on a non-res fishing licenses. I did my time up there as did my husband, as it is, he spends 9-10 months a year up there, fishing. Perhaps you would think twice about your biased thinking and attitude if all of us in the lower 48 told your kids that you send down here for a college education, to just go home, go away! I see quite a few of them driving around with their Alaska license plates....that's right, the college here doesn't charge for "out of state tuition"! Go figure!!!
ReplyDelete