The Seattle-based Bristol Bay Fishermen's Association is no fan of House Bill 188, which would allow "regional fisheries trusts" to hold and lease limited entry permits.
Here is BBFA's letter to legislators.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Wouldn't CFEC interim Permit be the same, something that couldn't be sold?
Could be issued to a watershed resident/ state resident when a permit is confiscated when there is to many citations/violations points on said permit! Violation point could be lowered to accommodate.
Or we could do away with the dual permit, there would be plenty on the market, price would reasonable , limited entry wouldn't be in jeopardy. The BBEDC could loan the interested watershed residents the money they need to buy permits and participate in the fishery. Isn't that what BBEDEC funds are for?
So who is really behind this legislation, I smell a fish buyer, some entity that need to have control over the watershed Residents!
deception abounds!
Just a thought, If we really want to reduce the fleet to the projected numbers that the ADFG 1200 or so. Why not let us own 2 permits under one name. If you want to be a "D" permit holder let's find a way to "marry" the 2 permits. So now we will have "S" and "D" permits. A price for a "S" and a price for a "D".
The "D" permits will never be able to get a divorce and go back to being single. This will protect the Fishery and the Fisherman.
I think this could be a win / win situation. Tell me what you think! Then maybe we could lobby the state.
Have a great day, Chuck.
The S & D permit is a very good idea!
great idea
What's the incentive? It a great idea if everyone else buys up the extra permits. What am I missing?
D-Permit = 300 or 200 Fathoms
S-Permit = 150 or 100 Fathoms
This is the question!
Why would you buy the second permit
If you were only get twenty-five percent of said permit ( 50 Fathoms extra)
It only works for those that have already bought and gifted,Medical that permit since the Dual permit was established.
Post a Comment