Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Hilsinger, commercial fish director, retiring Dec. 1

John Hilsinger, state commercial fisheries director, will retire Dec. 1, an Alaska Department of Fish and Game spokeswoman confirms.

That is the same date Hilsinger's boss, Commissioner Denby Lloyd, plans to step down, as previously reported.

News of this second departure highlights a big problem Hilsinger himself has addressed — the struggle to attract and retain top biologists and other staff in the Division of Commercial Fisheries.

You'll recall we reported just last week that the state's crab manager at Dutch Harbor, Forrest Bowers, is leaving for a new job with the National Marine Fisheries Service in Juneau.

Lloyd appointed Hilsinger to the position of commercial fisheries director on Feb. 18, 2007.


Anonymous said...

If the commercial fishing industry paid its own way (i.e., cover the costs of commerical fisheries management, including enforcement), then the department would have the financial resources to recruit more qualified biologists.

Anonymous said...

In some areas, they do pay for someones own way, with a tax for those who can't make it in the real world.

Just review those city, borough, and marketing taxes, paid by the fleets, and wasted by a few local politicians.

Anonymous said...

Halibut is the only fishery that pays it's way. 3% RAM tax and the IPHC "survey" which earns them millions of dollars every year. All the state does is collect fish tickets. Then factor in the city, borough, and state taxes.

Anonymous said...

Do any of you people actually live in Alaska? It is not legal to dedicate any tax to a specific purpose. All revenue must be place into the General Fund, from which the legislature disburses all funds as it sees fit. City and Borough taxes go to support local facilities like harbors, not state managed fisheries over which they have no authority in the first place.

While I agree that the fishing industry is taxed rather lightly by the state, the notion that increased taxes will somehow flow back to ADF&G is naive, to say the least.

By the way, those marketing taxes must refer to ASMI, since I'm not aware of anything else that resembles a marketing tax. That is an actually an industry self assessment, not a tax mandated by the legislature.

Anonymous said...

Consider all State revenues created from commercial fishing, Landing taxes,fishboats Sales and fuel taxes, coastal towns fishermen venders and their associated taxes. Seafood processors and their associated taxes. Seafood distributors and transporters and their associated taxes. All the above employees and their tax contirbutions. If one takes all these contributions into account it pales in comparison to the ADFG commercial budget. Investment into high quality ADFG personel is revenue possative and a good business decision.

Anonymous said...

Commenter #4: Yes, by golly, I live in this state, so what? Your point that tax revenue is usually not dedicated, instead goes to the general fund, is obviously valid, but beside the point -- which is that commercial fishing does not pay its own way (and of course it's the legislature's decision whether it would appropriate any increase in commercial fishery tax revenue to ADF&G).

Anonymous said...

What a classic comment, #4!

City and Borough taxes go to support local facilities like harbors?

Yea sure thing, would that explain many city and borough taxes, for citys and boroughs who have no harbors?

You should actually move to Alaska, and learn about dedicated taxes, like the oil model, that is dedicated to the permenant fund, the welfare system for those who don't pay a dime in taxes?

And since speaking about the ADF&G budget, seems to be the subject matter here, how about those illegal fees, discussed by US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, in Mullaney v. Anderson, 1949, and todays model at ADF&G known well as Carlson? 12 million that's now 70 million, isn't it great, when an ADF&G employee, can't find a lawyer in Juneau, who passed any law school exam in his life?

The Supreme's wrote clearly that "three generations of imbeciles are never enough in Juneau." Shown best in the Bong Hits Case, where the defendant wins his suit aghainst the school district ran by the imbeciles!

Its a shame that Alaskans, do not, will not, and cannot understand any form of funding from reality?

Just like back in the Territorial Days, Explained well at the Supreme Court, that school funding is a confusing subject matter, a problem in Alaska since 1867.

Still looking for anyone else but an Alaskan to pay fior an Alaskan?

Of course it always confusing when you attend any Alaska School District, who attempts to find it funding from 49 other States of the Union!

Anonymous said...

To the previous comment: Hmm, is that a combination of whiskey and pills, or just a lot of whiskey?

Our local taxes do pay for things like harbors, where those things exist. Boroughs without harbors spend the tax money on other things.

Oil taxes are not dedicated to the Permanent Fund. When you sober up you may recall that the state legislature occasionally makes lump sum contributions to the principal of the Permanent Fund. I get my welfare check from the earnings on that principal.

As for finding a decent lawyer in Juneau, with ADF&G's budget and the pay scale of their employees, I don't see how any of them could even afford to hire a bad lawyer.

Your comment about understanding "any form of funding from reality" is an especially poor one, given that you clearly do not understand the subject.

Anonymous said...

And to think someone at the Department of Law's Natural Resourcers Division dosent work for ADF&G?

Yes the understanding of subject matter, it's always a laugh after that Permenant Run to the Liquor Store!

Anonymous said...

Just go ask the Chignik Seine Fleet, and the Alaska Supreme Court, how stupid Lance Nelson is at that Juneau Division of Lawyers who couldent get a job anywhere but for the State?

Anonymous said...

We need more funding?

Not really, we need more intellegence, on taxes no spent on waste.


And just think a bit, who but the State can pay 12% on todays investments?

Love those Permenant Fund Whiskey Bottles, don't WE!

Anonymous said...

And never forget that Whiskey Bottle? Just read Wesley's Blog if you can read that is, or if your still fishin for tuition!

"Denby Lloyd will retire effective Dec. 1 as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

He made his plans known today in an e-mail to staff.

Lloyd is facing a drunk driving charge in Juneau."

Anonymous said...

We pay our way.


Lots of studies about this fact.

But what is bigger than this is the billions and billions in direct and indirect income and revenue that fishermen and attendant support businesses create for the rest of the state. For every dollar we get in ex-vessel there are 3 dollars created in wholesale value, not to mention the indirect value.

Look at 2010 numbers, Wesley.

Heck, just look at salmon alone

Meanwhile, the commfish folk work their asses off for 60% of the wages that federal fisheries guys get. This is bullshit.

Commfish pays its way and always has.


Anonymous said...

oh. And congratulations to a great career, Mr. Hilsinger.

Safe travels in retirement land.

your friend


Anonymous said...

If commercial fisheries in state waters pay their way, then why the millions federal grants annually that go to ADFG to do its job (barely) managing commercial fisheries? You guys are subsidized (like a lot of other industries). So, why not show some gratitude? Pounding your chest is unbecoming and tiresome.

Anonymous said...

Gerald Ford once talked about "investment in good politics"

This is investment in good management.

We appreciate the Federal and State dollars that are spent.


Each and every one.


Anonymous said...

So, is the first poster (or the others) trying to say that sport fisheries pay their way or aren't subsidized with federal dough?

Anonymous said...

As poster(boy)#1: No way did I intend to contend sport fishing pays its own way in terms of ADFG sportfishery management (e.g,the new, but yet to operate, Fairbanks hatchery).

Anonymous said...

Yeah...that hatchery in fbx wasn't needed at all, but a few of those fbx legislators just couldn't sit by and let the anchorage hatchery be rebuilt (which was needed and is more centrally located). Nope...they just had to have one of their own up there. That tacked even more on to the sport fish license increases that went thru a few years ago.