Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alaska commercial fishing news and notes
About me
- Deckboss
- I'm a journalist covering Alaska's commercial fishing industry. My real name is Wesley Loy. Reach me at wloy61@gmail.com.
Blog archive
-
▼
2026
(91)
-
▼
May
(16)
- Circle Seafoods touts salmon prices for 2026
- Personnel file
- Heads-up on a possible Area M bombshell
- UFA seeks new skipper
- Trawl electronic monitoring bill clears Legislature
- Juneau watch
- Silver Bay announces its Bristol Bay starting price
- No ESA listing for Chinook
- ESA watch
- Whittier commissioning for destroyer Ted Stevens
- SE fisherman fined, banned in halibut conspiracy
- Dismal salmon news out of Kodiak
- Juneau watch
- Dave Bronson claims fishy business at Dutch Harbor
- The new salmon season comes in sight!
- Rep. Begich wants North Pacific Council revamp
-
▼
May
(16)
12 comments:
Come on, Wes. You're gonna post this type of defamation on the site? All one has to do is look up the Alaska Fisheries Landing Tax statute to see that all offloads within state waters (like those being alleged here) are subject to state taxes. OR one could look at the American Fisheries Act statute and see that pollock vessels have to pay taxes on any pollock harvested, regardless of where it's landed. Dave is a clown that couldn't even run a small city and lasted less than a year at his cushy airport job.
Statement from At-sea Processors Association CEO Matt Tinning:
"Dave Bronson is dead wrong — again. Section 210(f) of the American Fisheries Act requires full landings tax payments to be made to the State of Alaska on every pound of pollock harvested off our coast — whether landed in-state or not. Cargo vessels transport this pollock to markets around the world, just as they do for salmon, crab, cod and other Alaska seafood. The Alaska pollock fishery is globally recognized for its sustainability practices and operates under strict federal oversight.
"Alaska's fishing industry deserves serious leadership, not campaign theater from a candidate who appears determined to destroy Alaska's seafood economy and the tens of thousands of jobs it supports."
The Alaska Pollock Fishery Alliance posted the following remarks on Facebook:
"It is disturbing to see candidates for governor blatantly lie about the strict regulatory environment the Alaska pollock fishery operates under. Clearly, for all of the 'research' done to try to embarrass the fishery, the only one who should have a red face is the campaign.
"Section 210(f) of the American Fisheries Act of 1998 is clear."
The Alaska Fisheries Landing Tax is explicit: A person who engages or attempts to engage in a floating fisheries business in the state and who owns a fishery resource that is not subject to AS 43.75 but that is brought into the jurisdiction of, and first landed in, this state is liable for and shall pay a landing tax on the value of the fishery resource. Landing includes any offloading of fish.
All little Davy had to do was look it up. If he can't manage to do that, how can he run a state?
Thank you for the comments, 1:55 and 2:43. When I read Bronson's statement I had exactly the same reaction: this candidate literally doesn't know what he's talking about.
Just as ignorant as he was as mayor of Anchorage. This is not a "landing" by fisheries law. That only occurs on shore. They are required to do product transfers in designated areas such as this. They are areas that enable Fisheries Enforcement to monitor such offloads unlike secretive and are more dangerous high seas transfers
Why expect anything different from Anchorage. The guys a clown like everyone else elected from that town. The Bronson-Church campaign? Just think, we can get another value added fish processing plant built in Anchorage to turn into another Change Point Church! It's Perfect! Vote Bronson-Church?
He's just another candidate pandering on an issue he knows nothing about.
Pretty sad that this kind of messaging, and throwing out sound science in favor of Facebook fisheries management seems to be where all of our fisheries are going.
What could go wrong?
Well…maybe it’s time for all of us that agree on these issues get together and decide on a pick for who we vote for? Looking at the comments that I fully agree on it appears we know who not to vote for. Times a passing. Money talks and BS walks !!
There's no Facebook fisheries management. It's always been ran by another political action machine. When Anderson ran ADF&G after the Feds gave it to the territorial legislature, we had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to explain his illegal fisheries management plans, in Mullaney v. Anderson, 1952. The Alaska Supreme Court has also been writing about their mismanagement plans since 1959. "But, it is urged, Alaska is not a State but a Territory, to which the controlling constitutional limitations laid down in Toomer v. Whetsell, supra, are not applicable. Havvaik v. Alaska Packers, 263 U.S. 510, is invoked for that contention...But that, in fact was the real issue to which the Courts attention was directed in the Havviik case. It was assumed that, if Congress had the power, it was exercised by the Organic Act..." As Justice Frankfurter explained again, the simple concept over, and over, and over again. Alaska schools are second from the bottom of the list, in all 50 States. And ADF&G has proved it, since it was spawned. Who's your Commissioner this Week?
Oh yea, remember when they tossed Walker out for Dunleavy?. Just promise em the big Permanent Fund Check, and now you got the Governor from Pennsylvania, instead of the Governor from Valdez. You are 100% Correct, Permanent Fund Checks talk and walk to the voting booth. Somebody's got to pay for the free vodka, from the old Pipeline Club Bar in Valdez.
How anyone can support Bronson is beyond me. As mayor of Anchorage he proved to be a compulsive liar and big backer of cronyism. His current comments about trawling and AK fisheries overall are so amateurish and show a complete lack of understanding about complex issues. The mere thought of him in the governor's office is frightening - he is overall inept and divisive.
Post a Comment