Monday, November 7, 2011

Who wants out of Southeast salmon seine fishery?

Last month we told you the National Marine Fisheries Service had published regulations for a potential buyback of Southeast Alaska salmon seine permits.

The fishery currently has 379 permits.

Naturally, Deckboss was wondering how many permits we might retire, and at what cost.

Well, here's a reduction plan buyback organizers submitted to NMFS.

They accepted bids on 67 permits, with the bids totaling $13.65 million.

The document lists the owners of the 67 permits, and bid amounts for each.

The idea of the buyback is to trim the number of permits, especially latent permits, to preserve the value of the fishery for those who remain.

With the high price of pink salmon seen the past couple of seasons, active seiners are worried new boats might pile back into the fishery and water down profits.

Thus, they say, the timing for the buyback is ideal.

The expectation is that permit holders soon will vote on whether to shoulder a federal loan to actually carry out the buyback.


Anonymous said...

Pretty interesting given that the permit value is listed by the state at $147,000 with a range of $50,000. Particularly interesting when you look at some of the $250,000 bids where the permit holder has never had a seine boat, and bought their permit around five years ago when the state value for the permit was $55,900 at it's peak.

Anonymous said...

You can buy back permits for less than the average gross.

That means it's a good deal if you prevent these permits from re-entering the fishery for even one more season.....ever.

With prices over $.40, it's only a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

Buying back permits that haven't fished for years? How does that relate to reducing effort? What a scam.

The State needs to be buying back these over issued permits.

They were the ones that created inflated optimum number plans that issued too many in the first place.

Bristol Bay is the worst case of too many permits issued. The State itself completed a reorganization study concluding with the NEED to reduce Bristol Bay drift permits by roughly 800. The State has since done NOTHING to remedy their over-issuance of permits.


Juneau is quiet.

Anonymous said...

I am going to offer the low man 150k and go fishing.

Anonymous said...

But you know Acoholics Anonymous, at the CFEC never actually applied the Constitutional Requirement of Limited Entry to Bristol Bay.

Was it not Rickey, who got 6 BB Permits himself?
Yes those history books are confusing, just like the term LIMITED, between the ears of the Commission.

S.E. Seine?
1974=459 Permits
2011=379 Permits

BB Drift?
1974=872 permits
2011=1875 permits

Evedently the "Shall Issue" clause is a Drift, instead of Seine Concept, of course the Criminal Actions of Rickey and Rickey, with many others, are most amusing at the Juneau, Calhoune Street Disposatory to!

Keep wondering how these people keep their jobs, The Commission with No Tuition!

Anonymous said...

Doug Rickey, Law Specialist, at CFEC today?

It's a Family Tradition!

Anonymous said...

Don't fall off my Rickety Old Steps?

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable, Denkinger, Zuanich, add a few that have never fished their Se permit getting up to 245K for their license that will lucky to be worth 100K after next years 17 million fish run. Alas, you have another nifty little scam to make a few "players" a little wealthier simply by manipulating the system and retiring a few permits that wouldn't fish anyway..... AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY ...they propose to have the rest of the permitholders pay for it through an assessment. If this is adopted by a vote of permitholders it will simply affirm how flat out stupid fishermen can be.

Anonymous said...

And the timing is "ideal" for those "SERIOUS" Constitutional Questions, both Alaska and Federal Criminal Law!

Anonymous said...

And so super exclusive does not apply anywhere, except for SE? Seiners? Interesting concepts of facts over fictions?

1.1 Previous Understandings of AS 16.43.290
The commission’s staff did considerable work on optimum numbers in the early years of the limited entry program. These efforts were summarized by Martin, in a contract report to CFEC.3 Martin said the commission understood the three standards in AS 16.43.290 to require the following:
The commission interpreted these standards as requiring independent determination of: (1) the economic optimum number of entry permits; and (2) the management optimum number of entry permits. The third criteria was to be utilized to adjust the economic and management optimum numbers as required by local employment conditions.
In 1994, the commission used similar reasoning and rationale to establish an optimum number for the Southeastern Alaska Roe Herring Purse Seine Fishery.4

Anonymous said...

Of course the real Optimum Number, can only confuse a S.E. Seine Association, a Commission, a Dept. of Law, and the usual, reading compromised, from Willamette University's most famous Law School Drop Out, boobyt and Associates


Section 1.1 - Inherent Rights.

This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

Anonymous said...

It's a family tradition...

61 Thorstenson Gina S01A58048Q $246,900.00
62 Thorstenson Robert S01A55974W $246,900.00,

Anonymous said...



SEP11 $147,000

Country music singers
have always been a real close family
but lately some of my kin folks
have disowned a few others and me
i guess its because
i kinda changed my direction
i guess i went and broke the family tradition

they get on me wanna know booby
why do you drink?
(booby) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
over and over
everybody made my prediction
so if i get stoned
I'm just carryin'
on an old family tradition

I am very proud
of my daddys name
although his kinda music
and mine ain't exactly the same
stop and think it over
put yourself in my position
if i get stoned and sing all night long
it's a family tradition

Don't ask me booby
why do you drink?
(booby) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
If I'm down in a Honky-Tonk
Some ol' slicks tryin to give me corrections
I'll say leave me alone
I'm singin all night long
it's a family tradition

Lordy, I have loved some ladies
and I have loved Jim Beam
and they both tried to kill me
in 1973
when that doctor asked me
Son how did you get in this condition
I said hey sawbones I'm just carryin on
an old family tradition

So don't ask me bobby
why do you drink?
(booby) why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs you wrote?
Stop and think it over
Try and put yourself in my unique position
If I get stoned and sing all night long
It's a family tradition!

Anonymous said...

Yes, through an exhaustive multi-year study, the State found that Bristol Bay needed to have "800-1200 fewer permits", that range resulted from economic variables.

What are they doing about it?

Anonymous said...

Ask Wesley Loy,

By Wesey Loy
December 23, 2006

"Subponeas banket the fishing industry." at

"I got one. It's no big deal. Just about everybody did, everybody in the North Pacific Crab Assocation. And they spelled my name wrong," said Greg Blakey...
Ted and tow...

Rob Zuanich EXCcutive director for the trade group called PSVOA, said his or gain ization received subpoenaes, business partner Robert Thorenston also got a subpoenas, for his other Seine group...

Benny and Trevor...

A major ocean bill Congress passed this month, the Magnusen-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, contains a provision for a 25 million dollar loan finance provision

The subpoena also requests all documents regarding "any attempt by you or your members" to obtain funds from the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, or to secure a buyout.

It also asks for all documents concerning anything of value provided to any elected official."


Anonymous said...

"spelling subpoena" in a Congressional Record, a OMB hearing, Defecit Reduction Committee member, and quite a few more national news programs, could be a problem;

"Ideal Timing" when ones "Fishin for Tuition"

51 Zuanich Michelle S01A57849F $230,000.00

56 Zuanich Michelle S01A56881I $235,000.00


Anonymous said...

why should i tax myself so some guys that were in on the ground floor of this, who went out right away and bought cheap permits, so they scam the the fleet . it just seems a very enethical way to rob the rest of the seine fleet.

Anonymous said...

It's even better than the Original Issue Problem, 1972 S.E. Seine isn't on that list either??????????????

Sec. 16.43.200. Administrative areas.
(a) The commission shall establish administrative areas suitable for regulating and controlling entry into the commercial fisheries. The commission shall make the administrative areas reasonably compatible with the geographic areas for which specific commercial fishing regulations are adopted by the Board of Fisheries.

(b) The commission may modify or change the boundaries of administrative areas when necessary and consistent with the purposes of this chapter.

Sec. 16.43.210. Interim-use permit; qualifications.

(a) For each fishery that is not subject to a maximum number of entry permits under AS 16.43.240 and not subject to a moratorium under AS 16.43.225 , the commission shall issue interim-use permits under regulations adopted by the commission to all applicants who can establish their present ability to participate actively in the fishery for which they are making application.

(b) Before the issuance of the maximum number of entry permits for a given fishery, the commission may issue an interim-use permit to an applicant who may later become eligible for an entry permit under AS 16.43.270.

(c) To the extent that the commissioner of fish and game authorizes it under AS 16.05.050 (a)(9), the commission may grant an interim-use permit to a person to engage in the commercial taking from a fishery on an experimental basis.

(d) The sustained yield management and economic health of the following fisheries is severely impaired as a result, among other factors, of too many units of gear participating in the commercial harvest:

(1) Bristol Bay registration area - drift gillnet fishery;

(2) Cook Inlet registration area - drift gillnet fishery;

(3) Prince William Sound registration area - drift gillnet fishery.

Interesting, if your a fisherman who can actually read, a Statute Book???????????

Anonymous said...

Rickey and Rickey; Zuanich & Zuanich, with Thorstensen & Shorstensen & Thorstensen?

What a concept 4th grade reading?

Sec. 16.43.100. Duties and general powers.

(a) To accomplish the purposes set out in AS 16.43.010 , the commission shall

(1) regulate entry into the commercial fisheries for all fishery resources in the state;

(2) establish priorities for the application of the provisions of this chapter to the various commercial fisheries of the state;

(3) establish administrative areas suitable for regulating and controlling entry into the commercial fisheries;

(4) establish, for all types of gear, the maximum number of entry permits for each administrative area;

(5) designate, when necessary to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, particular species for which separate interim-use permits or entry permits will be issued;

(6) establish qualifications for the issuance of entry permits;

(7) issue entry permits to qualified applicants;

(8) issue interim-use permits as provided in AS 16.43.210 , 16.43.220, and 16.43.225;

(9) establish, for all types of gear, the optimum number of entry permits for each administrative area;

(10) administer the buy-back program provided for in AS 16.43.310 and 16.43.320 to reduce the number of outstanding entry permits to the optimum number of entry permits;

(11) provide for the transfer and reissuance of entry permits to qualified transferees;

(12) provide for the transfer and reissuance of entry permits for alternative types of legal gear, in a manner consistent with the purposes of this chapter;

(13) establish and administer the collection of the annual fees provided for in AS 16.43.160 ;

(14) administer the issuance of commercial fishing vessel licenses under AS 16.05.490 ;

(15) issue educational entry permits to applicants who qualify under the provisions of AS 16.43.340 - 16.43.390;

(16) establish reasonable user fees for services;

(17) issue landing permits under AS 16.05.675 and regulations adopted under that section;

(18) establish and collect annual fees for the issuance of landing permits that reasonably reflect the costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of provisions of law related to landing permits;

(19) establish a moratorium on entry into commercial fisheries as provided in AS 16.43.225 ;

(20) administer, when necessary to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, a vessel permit system under AS 16.43.450 - 16.43.520; and

(21) when requested by a regional development organization formed under AS 44.33.895 , provide to the organization, without charge, public information contained in the commission's data with respect to relevant fisheries, including limited fisheries, fishery participants, and limited entry permit holders' harvests and earnings.

(b) The commission may do all things necessary to the exercise of its powers under this chapter, whether or not specifically designated in this chapter.

Anonymous said...

Run through the list. How many of the permits on it have been emergency transferred during the last 2 years? Bunches of them.

The scam: buy a permit, e transfer it for a couple years, sell it for a nice profit in buyback, go back to playing tennis in Arizona

Anonymous said...

Missing that last one
I'm a big supporter
I hate the reverse auction
That was unfair to make our guys deal with it
NMFS should have had one price

In this cAse 203000 eA

There are great reasons for continuing on our buyback quest

Word on the street is that most of these housewives etc will be contributing heavily to seas with their excess permit gains

This is the way it had to be done so we did it this way

Look up to see all the backstory from 2003-04 so you can see where we came from
85% of the last seas march2011 poll support

we encourage your input if you are a se seiner

Jt Vic and crew can say what you wAnt-- but the nmfs and Cfec will ignore you A's you are not a se seine stakeholder
Nor are you residents


That's where you will find the story

Thanks to the rogue board member or whomever got wes the list

Now we can talk
" I loved tge buyback until I found out Ronnie porter- mitch beritich and sunnar Murphy got more money than me"

That we can handle. Just glad there are no real or in
Unmanagable impediments to the plan

Glad to see the baby guys looking at this
You are wise beyond your musings JT
You guys need this next after were done

410 Calhoun ave

Call if you are a seas member or a prospective one


Anonymous said...

Last Post was meant to say bay not baby

As in Bristol

Anonymous said...

Sure booby,

The 1st thing we do is restrict reentry, bye bye bobbyt.

I suppose the General Accounting Office, can't count either?

Anonymous said...

Question to the guys who are actually invested in this fishery:

Will your operation be worth more if the buyback passes or not?

It will.

Anonymous said...

Second, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act clarified that a permit holder relinquishes any future limited access system claims associated with the permit or vessel participating in a reduction program and that (if not scrapped) the vessel will be effectively prevented from fishing in Federal or state waters, or fishing on the high seas or in the waters of a foreign nation. The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act revised section 312(b)(2)(A) to recognize that the owner of a fishing vessel may be different from the permit holder. As a result of this change, NMFS is amending the regulations to require that, along with surrendering the permit authorizing the participation of the vessel in the fishery, for permanent revocation, both the vessel owner and the permit holder, if different from the vessel owner, relinquish any claim associated with the vessel or permit that could qualify such owner or permit holder for any present or future limited access system permit in the fishery for which the program is established or in any other fishery.

Anonymous said...

Thanx gemmell

Doesnt apply here noodlehead

Anonymous said...


Bruce said...

In the previous comments there is a great deal of retoric that presumes this plan is something that has not been vetted or is little understood by the s.e. seine fleet. First this option has been developed over a decade and was first suggested in 1984, it has had about as much scrutiny and massaging by industry and goverment (both State and Federal) as any action I have ever seen and will not be put into effect until the full final preposal will be presented and voted on by all permit holders. Since as it has been noted almost every fishery ended up with more permits fishing under limited entry than before it is only resonable to allow for the impacted fisheries to be allowed the opportunity to bring the numbers back to what most saw as the original level. While there are elements of this approach which I would liked to have been different in sum it is a good solution and since it is for more than next year, rather for the extended future it is something that I can and will support.
Bruce Wallace Juneau

Anonymous said...

Retoric? Mr. Wallace

Take for instance S.E. Drift
Rickey and Rickey?

1974-855 permits issued
1975-511 permits issued
1976-487 permits issued

Anonymous said...

(e) An entry permit constitutes a use privilege that may be modified or revoked by the legislature without compensation.

Anonymous said...

"shall issue new retoric" & "shall estabilish optimum retoric."

Sec. 16.43.330. Issuance of new entry permits; appropriations related to fleet reduction.

(a) When the number of outstanding entry permits for a fishery is less than the optimum number established under AS 16.43.290 , the commission shall issue new entry permits to applicants who are presently able to engage actively in the fishery until the optimum number is reached...


Sec. 16.43.290. Optimum number of entry permits.
Following the issuance of entry permits under AS 16.43.270 , the commission shall establish the optimum number of entry permits for each fishery based upon a reasonable balance of the following general standards:

(1) the number of entry permits sufficient to maintain an economically healthy fishery that will result in a reasonable average rate of economic return to the fishermen participating in that fishery, considering time fished and necessary investments in vessels and gear;

(2) the number of entry permits necessary to harvest the allowable commercial take of the fishery resource during all years in an orderly, efficient manner, and consistent with sound fishery management techniques;

(3) the number of entry permits sufficient to avoid serious economic hardship to those currently engaged in the fishery, considering other economic opportunities reasonably available to them.

Anonymous said...

Sec 11.56.850. Official misconduct
(a) A public servant commits the crime of of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or deprive another person of a benefit, the public servant
(1) performs an act relating to the public servants's office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of the public servants official functions, knowing that the act is unauthorized; or
(2) knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon the public servant by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of the public servants office.
(b) Official Misconduct is a class A misdemeanor.

Anonymous said...

Sure, sign me up, I'll vote for it. Please tax me so Bobby T, Troy, Zuanichs and a host of others can cash in on their little insider scam... and Bruce you never were very smart so here's a little advice. If you don't think too good, don't think too much.

Anonymous said...


You are nothing if inconsistent

You do want a
Bay buyback no?

You are a bay guy no?

Then get your sorry highlawyering off our SE topic and go find yourself a useful venue in the bay

You don't see these fine se boys up there mucking around in you're bay stuff do ya

From your convoluted law
Iced in with dilapidated drifter fishing ideas we don't know whether you want to shitcan limited entry altogether or if you have a master plan for the bay

Get your rocks off on something you know about

Se is my home

We worked on this for a decade

All your objections were thought of and squashed about a decade ago

You are interesting but you are wasting our space


Anonymous said...

Yea boobyt,

can you buy back space too, it's not you space

AS 09.50.050. Imprisonment to Compel Performance of An Act.
When the contempt consists of the omission or refusal to perform an act which is yet in the power of the defendant to perform, the defendant may be imprisoned until the defendant has performed it.

Anonymous said...

By the Voting Majority, The Constitution is still confusing in SEA, the Glacier Highway, and your Calhoune Street Depository.

§ 15. No Exclusive Right of Fishery
No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State. This section does not restrict the power of the State to limit entry into any fishery for purposes of resource conservation, to prevent economic distress among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood and to promote the efficient development of aquaculture in the State. [Amended 1972]

Letter to your favorite Mayor, the Calhoun Street Depository

Anonymous said...

Who is this guy?

If we wanted to read the regs and the constitution we would.

Anonymous said...

reading entry statute, isn't lawyering.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th abridged, in case you dropped out at Willamette Law class 1.

"shall" vb. 1. Has a duty to; more broadly, is required to ...

sham, n 1. Something that is not what it seems; a counterfeit 2. A person who pretends to be something he and she is not; a faker

sham transaction. 1. An agreement or exchange that has no independent economic benefit or business purpose and is entered into solely to create a tax advantage

shanghaiing 1. The act or an instance of coercing or inducing someone to do something by fraudulent or other wrongful means; specif.,the practice of drugging, tricking, intoxicating, or otherwise illegally inducing a person to work abord a vessel, usu. to secure advance money or a premium 18 USCA 2194 Also termed Shanghaiing sailors

"special privilege" Interesting concept with the big word NO, in front?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

You guy's keep picking on the Thorstenson
family claiming they're money grubbing
carpetbaggers that sold the industry
and their permits to defraud us of the
blood money for their over inflated
permit prices. This couldn't be further
from the truth.Everyone knows the real money is in Lobbying for the Southeast
Seiners ASSOC.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to me that people keep quoting Alaska Statutes...this is not a state game anymore. This is a federal ballgame played by federal rules. Bobby and his posse have effectively sold out all SE AK seiners (whether they belong to SEAS or not) over to Federal control. Even our own legislature doesn't get it. This is just one more step towards rationalization. Don't be blinded by the greed opiate Bobby T peddles. Think...the future of this fishery depends on your thought process. Years ago Fishermen were swindled into voting for hatcheries. They morphed into something they were never intended to be and we all see how that's working out. Truth be told this is all the State of Alaska and The Feds fault. The Feds with their optimum number studies and CFEC and Div. of Investments turning permits over and over again. It is the State and the Federal Governments job to clean up their mess. We didn't create this boondoggle BUT we have let it go on for far too long and we have let a man that is in every aspect of this fishery run roughshot over this fishery, UFA, SRA, Hatcheries, Pacific Salmon Treaty, Federal agencies and our own legislators and even us, the hardworking, ALASKAN fishermen who are NOT lobbyists, fish spotters or just a general pain in the ass.
This is NOT an Alaskan Plan. This is NOT the way we work. For those of you who think it is...I feel sorry for you. When it all falls down where will Bobby T be? SEATTLE!

Anonymous said...

You are right,Until the likes of Arne F,Bobbie T,NMFS office personnel in
Juneau, and many of the NPFMC members
are investigated or removed total
rationalization will happen.
You're right again about the average
fisherman is honest and hard working,
there are only about 20 people that
control all of the politics and council
agendas and votes.They're the big share
holders of processing plants,or guys that
own factory boats, or more than one
boat, or all the above.They've been
selling us and the crews out for years

Anonymous said...

is there law in the cfec regs that say 3 percent of the nothern southeast black cod fishery be given to the charter fleet even if the charter fleet has no history in said fishery!a slap in the face of the fisherman who were cut from the fishery.

Anonymous said...

Real Seiners, know bobbyT,SEA, PSVOA, the BOARD and CFEC's most interesting concepts of criminals working in Juneau, The Department's Top Criminal Lance Nelson, Department of No Law! I vote scab!

State Board of Imbeciles in Juneau, v Grunert.

"Fundamentally at odds with 3rd grade reading"
SEINERS, know boobyt, and the Calhoune Street Depository, for SupposaTories!

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].” 32  Our main concern with the cooperative regime created under former 5 AAC 15.359 was that it did not require “active participation” of all Chignik salmon purse seine permit holders.33  The Chignik cooperative fishery scheme was incompatible with the limited entry system “because it allow [ed] people who [were] not actually fishing to benefit from the fishery resource.” 34

Although the lack of an active participation requirement was the flaw on which we focused the most attention in Grunert I, we expressed concern with other aspects of the cooperative regime as well.   For example, we expressed concern with the reduced number of crew members necessary under the cooperative regime.35  We noted that the cooperative regulation may interfere with the ability of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) to determine the optimum number of permits because the regulation “destroys any relation between the number of permits issued per fishery and the ultimate number of participating vessels and units of gear.” 36  And we criticized the corporate-like nature of the cooperative regime:  “the cooperative regulation ․ transforms the limited entry permit from what used to be a personal gear license into a mere ownership share in a cooperative organization.” 37

 We directed the board to seek legislative approval:  “Before this regulatory scheme accomplishes such radical departure from the historical model of limited entry fisheries in Alaska and the spirit of the Limited Entry Act, ․ we conclude that the legislature must first authorize the board to approve cooperative salmon fisheries.” 38  We repeat that command here.

Alaska Statute 16.43.150(g) prohibits an entry permit from being “pledged, mortgaged, leased, or encumbered in any way” except as provided in certain subsections dealing with loans.   The statute does not define “pledge.”   Grunert argues that we should read “pledge” to mean “to promise solemnly or to put under obligation or commitment by or as if by a pledge.”   The board responds that “pledge” is a legal term of art that refers to personal property transferred as security for a debt, engagement, or the performance of an act.

In Grunert I, we stuck down former 5 AAC 15.359 (2002) because it was “fundamentally at odds with the Limited Entry Act.” 

The fundamentalists, "PLEDGE of ALLEGIANCE"

Anonymous said...

I feel for the poor loser who sold for half what some guys got. Those thorstenson's sure are lucky; they sold so close to the max without going over. Almost looks like they somehow knew that bids over $250,000 would not be accepted.

Anonymous said...

It's great down at Calhoun's "special privilege" club, 410 Calhoun Ave. "Techumseh Burns Atlanta?"

Of course that little federal amendment, also discussing "special privileges" is now thought to be another immunity, for boobyt and friends privileges?

The biggest of big, big, big, big Calhoune Despository Fires? "feeble minded?"

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities...nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."

§ 15. No Exclusive Right of Fishery
No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State.

From my tribe I take nothing, I am the maker of my own fortune.

Anonymous said...

What a mess! Stevens came through with the initial funding, and the se permit holders (that bought cheap, and have never fished their permits), will make a huge profit! Capitalism at its finest, though once again, it is corrupt and flat out wrong! Bobby T and his buddies at UFA suck big time. I wish they would just go away!

Anonymous said...

The timing is "ideal" for another illegal deal.

S01A 2002 CFEC value report? $18,600.00

AS 11.16.130. Legal Accountability of Organizations.
(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided, an organization is legally accountable for conduct constituting an offense if the conduct
(1) is the conduct of its agent and
(A) within the scope of the agent's employment and in behalf of the organization; or
(B) is solicited, subsequently ratified, or subsequently adopted by the organization; or
(2) consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty of affirmative performance imposed on organizations by law.
(b) In this section "agent" means a director, officer, or employee of an organization or any other person who is authorized to act in behalf of the organization.

"Get your rocks off on something you know about
Se is my home
We worked on this for a decade"

What took so long?

We know S.E. is your home? How stupid are you boobyt?

City Point Virginia, Nov. 7 1864 10;30 p.m.
"When you were about leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful;...."nothing risked nothing gained" Now the undertaking being a success, the honor is all yours.. Not only does it afford the obvious...but in showing to the world that your army could be divided, putting the stringer part to an important new service and yet leaving enough to vanquish the old opposing force of the whole, Hood's army, it brings those who sat in darkness to see a great light. But what next?..."
A. Lincoln, to "Tecumseh"

Anonymous said...

Of course S.E. is Don's Home Too!

Anonymous said...

Most recent CFEC statistics are 2010 and it shows 235 permits fished. How will buying back 67 permits help the remaining permit holders when already there are 144 that are inactive? It also shows the permit value at $87,400; sure glad I don't have to pay my share of a loan to buy them back at way more than double.

But what do I know; I am just a picking loser. Back to billable work.

Anonymous said...

A few minor points here

1. The 3 percent assessment will likely shrink in size and/or duration
The Feds have us at 20 cent humps and 25 cent dogs through 2020
If prices are higher (50 and 90 in 2011) then the term of loan will go down or , my favorite, the 3 goes down accordingly to 1.5-2-2.25 %

2. Seas insisted upon a flat bid amount
I personally know of several bidders who will use part of the overage above the 202000 average to backfill SEAS and other good causes to work together to make s01a stronger

3. There will be opportunities for new entrants and when they get in they will be in an economically relevant fishery
In 2002-2004 some of the biggest names in s01a were unable to seine in se
Our model should come the closest to total inclusion, where a skipper has options to fish for whomever he wants to
When we began Ralph Cole. Paul mattson Paul Troka. Erik jensen. David street. Amongst a hundred more-- couldnt get a market


Anonymous said...

4 the top 10% of the fleet grosses 25 % of the total
So those guys will pay the lions share of the assessment
So this is not a regressive assessment
Take a season off pay zero
Catch a million dollars worth of fish pay 30000
(well your processor deducts before settlement so everyone on the boat - operator owner crew- pays

5 unlike the ifq assessment the processor pays

6. Been fine-tuned for a decade and except for the length of time it took and our disdain for being forced to Dona
Reverse auction this is the program we need for se

Maybe doesnt work for JT
Maybe not for vic smith or steve Taufen

But this is what seas sent me to do


Anonymous said...

2011 269 permits fished

If we get to 311 then we have $10 million left at the lowest interest rates in the us history to close that gap


Do the math

Oh and I'm responding to the processor who is going back to billable work

Anonymous said...

Get the crew to pay, like every UFA Scab.

Anonymous said...

I LOVE the guy who said "If we wanted to read the regs and constitution we would."

I suspect that it was boobyt or Lance Nelson.

In other words; If we wanted to abide by the law, we would.

I guess they feel that they are above the law.

I wonder what the State ombudsman office feels about that attitude and resultant actions?

Move over Smith, it's the Soapy Thorstenson show, sidekick Slick Nelson!

Anonymous said...

Oh and JT

Do your history

Calhoun Ave in jnu is named after a prominent Juneau pioneer family-- not for Andrew Jacksons VP

Your history lessons are interesting

Methinks you are perhaps mindmelting with the confederate greats when you get your great Lummi Island courage to write this stuff

I see you are a member of PSVOAs Bristol Bay Reserve

I worked on a bill for you 5 years ago and still have a copy of the check on my wall

Thanks for the support JT

You must love Zuanich as you pay his salary still down there with your insurance pool

JT- I'd say you are one of us but I am no longer associated with PSVOA like you are so that makes you one of them

Lummi Island- a family tradition since 1878?

All I have to add here


Anonymous said...

Yea like your "Fish Cabinet" discussions boobyt?

Juneau; where "NO NO" always means, Yes Yes?

Love that check on the wall, always in the trailer trash art collection.


Anonymous said...

Polling se seiners for 30 years

85% in last march poll in favor of current buyback, current assessment, current reverse auction

So 1 in 6 are opposed

Pretty supermajority stuff

Sorry you didn't buy one so you can't vote JT

But answer me do you support buyback for the bay

Or do you totally oppose limited entry on it's face

People call me a blowhard and significantly worse

But in a couple sentences, leaving out your great southern heroes from the 1800' s, illuminate your position

Or are you always the guy who pisses in boots that others try on

How do you like that 11 million in the bank there at the BBRSDA

What you gonna do with that?

Keep fish cold or buy back permits


Anonymous said...

The super majority bobbyt?

Didn't 1 fisherman named Grunert teach that lesson to a association, of seiners? validity by the minority.

Democracy or the Republic?

Alaska Statute 16.05.251(e) authorizes the board to allocate fishery resources “among personal use, sport, guided sport, and commercial fisheries.”   We explained in Grunert I that “among” means “between,” not “within,” the fisheries.52  The board's authorizing statute defines “fishery” as “a specific administrative area in which a specific fishery resource is taken with a specific type of gear.” 53  That statute also defines “gear” and “type of gear” as follows:

Or was it super minority 15.1%, enacting a tax on an eskimo, to teach an eskimo what they taught Clarance Birdseye 100 years ag?

5AAC06.333, with ilegal within a fishery allocation, under the equal protection clause explained in Grunert?

Stacking's Free, tax free, and 1876/2=optimum Number.

But you know Bristol Bay, where the brains are in the old plantati0n economy?

The harshness of these results is well demonstrated by the facts of this case. The salmon industry as described by this record takes us back to a kind of overt and institutionalized discrimination we have not dealt with in years: a total residential and work environment organized on principles of racial stratification and segregation, which, as JUSTICE STEVENS points out, resembles a plantation economy. Post at 664, n. 4. This industry long has been characterized by a taste for discrimination of the old-fashioned sort: a preference for hiring nonwhites to fill its lowest level positions, on the condition that they stay there. The majority's legal rulings essentially immunize these practices from attack under a Title VII disparate impact analysis.
Sadly, this comes as no surprise. One wonders whether the majority still believes that race discrimination -- or, more accurately, race discrimination against nonwhites -- is a problem in our society, or even remembers that it ever was. Cf. Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)

Anonymous said...


How many members of SEAS actually live in Alaska?

When you poll, are you polling Non-SEAS members? After all many, many seiners are not members BUT do have active permits.

When you poll, is there a third-party involved to facilitate the process so your data can be above reproach? Or do you just count the votes that share your opinion?

How come we always hear about the numbers but never see any concrete data?

Why not just lobby (your good at that) to have the state "retire" latent permits if not active for several years? That would cost us nothing and the State of Alaska would be cleaning up their own mess instead of putting it on the backs of the hard-working SE Alaskan seiners.

How can you be so sure seiners will not lose area to other fleets that are bigger in numbers?

Can you assure us that NO permits will be allowed back into the fishery? Would we not become too
"exclusive"? What is exclusive? Does it have a definition? Or is the definition fluid, like that of the "optimum number"?

If permits were allowed back in would we get some money back OR we repayment of the loan be forgiven?

Come on, people..lets have a real substantive discussion. After all it is just one of the state's biggest economic engines, employers and for some of us "real"
fishermen, our only source of income.

Anonymous said...

Like the federal question relating to the substantitive questions on procedural due process?

Who pulled this one off? waive bye, bye?

"The Federal statute authorizing this Program waives all of the fishing capacity reduction program requirements of the Magnuson-StevensAct (Sections 312(b)–(e)) codified at 16U.S.C. 1801
et seq.
except for Sections(b)(1)(C) and (d) which state: (1) It must be cost-effective; and (2) it is subject to a referendum approved by a majority of permit holders."

Anonymous said...

Covered all.

HB464, passed in 2006, Wilson R-Wrangell, allows the money from potential future permits to go to the loan we take out. 30 year term just like the loan.

SEAS is 45% of Active fishermen. Over 55% at times. Mostly locals but probably averages 67% resident.

Retaking of permits is not in our members best interests. You forget to renew as you are in False Pass and you lose your permit. You are the first one for that one. There is such a system. If 2 years go by without application. So far we've lost 2-3 permits since 1988. It'll take us 400 years to go this route

WE do the best we can to represent all interests but if you don't pay dues to SEAS then that's your problem if you feel like you are on the outside. Get it together, man, we are on the cusp of losing millions in allocated hatchery fish, major corridors. Without SEAS there would be no Icy Strait, no Noyes Island.

The polling is taken in by SEAS staff, in this case, Martin Lunde( his number is 206-915-1776) whom you are welcome to call to verify his methods.

SEAS polls on the buyback are well documented and you can find the other polls on

This final poll was done at the request of the board to include only SEAS members. And it came in at 85%.

Or that's what Marty told me.

Maybe some pro-buyback scumbag has Marty in his or her pocket and marty is lying and hiding no votes.

But that would be odd, as our polling over the past 2 decades has run from a low of 77% to a high of 86% so 85% didn't seem to be an outlier.

While we have an independent CPA firm deal with the buyback mechanics, bids, etc., SEAS doesn't have the money to spend $3000 every time we do a simple poll

Guess if you'd join, and we jack dues up to $1000 then we could do that.

5 state bills had to be passed to address the concerns of working a FED funded buyback of a state waters fishery.

10 years, and at least a half million in Fed lobbying took place to get us here.

We've uncovered every rock, turned around and around on every path.

I have never seen a more thoroughly reviewed program in my time in fish politics.

Former SEAS Exec. Director and current ADFG Dep Commission and PSC Commissioner David Bedford began this for SEAS.. I came along after he'd be at it for over 2 years.

This is it. There will never be another. We've done everything possible to make it the best possible. WE lost a year and a half fighting to make this be a one number bid, not a reverse auction but NMFS would not let us go that route.

WE have had 10 years of discussion

Obviously you missed alot of it.

Goto to buff up on your history, my friend


again, if any questions from actual permit holders, active or not, call at )(907)723-8267

Anonymous said...

as far as trollers or gillnetters taking over our turf, why?

because they start liking pinks?

certainly not because we lack capacity.

just because we have twice as many guys out on the hookoffs now as we need keeps them at the door?

so when they see theres only one or 2 or 3 guys per hookoff they'll covet our corridors.?

WE just don't see it.

Worked through this thought from 1984 through 2001, when we went from wanting to have a buyback to working on one, after working through the concerns you lay out above.

Maybe you are an active seiner from wherever, but I can assure you that unless you have been active at SEAS that you couldn't possibly have known how much work and thought went into this program.

I personally would have shot this thing in the butt if I thought it would cost the seine fleet one single salmon.


Anonymous said...

"1. it must be cost effective."

Sec. 16.43.150. Terms and conditions of entry permit; annual renewal.
(a) Except as may be otherwise provided under AS 16.43.270 (d), an entry permit authorizes the permittee to operate a unit of gear within a specified fishery.
(e) An entry permit constitutes a use privilege that may be modified or revoked by the legislature without compensation.

(d) The commission may restrict the fishing capacity employed under an entry permit if, before the initial issuance of entry permits for a fishery, the commission determines that the fishing capacity in the fishery must be limited to achieve the purposes of this chapter, establishes criteria for determining the fishing capacity that is allowed under an entry permit, and establishes how fishing capacity will be measured. The maximum fishing capacity allowed under an entry permit must be based upon past participation in the fishery by the initial recipient of the entry permit during a period, specified by the commission, preceding the qualification date established under AS 16.43.260. The commission may define fishing capacity in terms of quantity of fishing gear, a proportion of the maximum amount of gear that can be utilized in the fishery under regulations of the Board of Fisheries, fishing vessel size or other characteristics, or other factors determined by the commission to affect the amount of fishing effort in the fishery. The recipient or transferee of an entry permit issued subject to this subsection may not exceed the fishing capacity allowed under the entry permit."

Anonymous said...

Toxic Loans, a National Discussion

Anonymous said...

The problem with too many people...

Explained Best at
State v. Ostrosky 1983

RABINOWITZ, Justice, dissenting.
I agree with the majority's suggestion that the conflict in constitutional provisions in this case is properly resolved by allowing the legislature to adopt a system of limited entry, but only through the means which are least restrictive upon other rights guaranteed in the constitution. Beyond the statement of this principle, however, I cannot agree with the application given the less restrictive alternative test to the "free transferability" system implemented by AS 16.43.170(b) and 16.43.150(h).
Free transferability impairs rights guaranteed by three separate clauses of the Alaska Constitution. The "common use" clause in Article VIII, section 3 provides:
Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.

I further disagree with the majority's discussion of the state's interest in the goals furthered by AS 16.43.170(b) and 16.43.150(h). The court's opinion appears to dismiss the importance of the overall objectives of the limited entry statute to the equal protection scrutiny of transferability
[ 667 P.2d 1198 ]

provisions. It is true that specific sections within a complex statute will be designed to serve narrow purposes subsidiary to the statute's larger goals. It is also true that these narrow purposes may properly be asserted by the state in attempting to meet its burden under the state equal protection clause. The legitimacy of these subsidiary purposes, however, is seriously undermined if they are found to conflict with the greater goals of the statutory scheme as a whole.
Under AS 16.43.010, the legislature has declared that "[i]t is the purpose of this chapter to promote the conservation and the sustained yield management of Alaska's fishery resource and the economic health and stability of commercial fishing in Alaska by regulating and controlling entry into the commercial fisheries in the public interest and without unjust discrimination." This statement of legislative intent does more than provide that one goal of the Limited Entry Act is to comport with the constitution. Decisions of this court have made it clear that the statute's policy of avoiding unjust discrimination extends further than to classifications forbidden by the constitution. Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. Apokedak,606 P.2d 1255, 1268 (Alaska 1980).
In evaluating the strength of the state's interest in the goals behind the system of free transferability, it is incumbent upon this court to weigh the Ostroskys' argument that the legislatively-created "free market" for gear licenses discriminates on the basis of wealth. I would hold that the broad statutory anti-discrimination purpose of the Limited Entry Act militates against any system of transferability which makes gear licenses available only to the extremely wealthy. Certainly the state's interest in the current transferability provisions is diminished by the provisions' tendency to create such a classification.

Anonymous said...

What are you trying to say? I don't understand any of what you are posting, and I'm guessing everybody else is thinking the same thing. 66 posts and half are nothing but nonsense and state statutes that are at best loosely related to the buyback. Legal opinion from 1983? Are you advocating we disband limited entry, ifqs and the whole show?

If you want to contribute, please take it easy on the control-c and say something real.

$200k for a permit is going to look cheap in a few years.

Anonymous said...

JT is from a longtime Lummi island drifter clan who has fished the Bay forever

He feels discrimination from Alaska

He thinks we are all morons

He seems to come out against limited entry

But what really frosts his butt is that the most obvious place in need of re-limiting limited entry is the Bay

So he sees us 99.9% of the way through a decade long - far from perfect program that took dozens of rewrites of federal law and 4 or so bills to revise state statutes to accomplish this-- on top of a queer reverse auction that got stuffed down our throats-- and he just cannot and will not allow us to get our fleet consideration done before it is done in the bay

He's a sharp dude though but he's felt the sting of anti- Alaskan near 'racism' and he wants to let us know that this shall not stand. This is not fair that se could get a buyback before the bay

Especially a bunch of backwater losers like us from Sitka Petersburg Ketchikan and Juneau

He recognizes that a Seattle attorney helped alot --- and that seattle attorney runs his Bay pool.

So he's conflicted there too.
Why not the Bay JT

You Bay guys can hire Rob when we get this one done
Granger- a Lummi island tradition of posting entire sets of law books and legal briefs from the 1800's


Anonymous said...

"...always lies within their vision."
Abe Lincoln

your years wrong too boobyt.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

Anonymous said...

I personally would have shot this thing in the butt if I thought it would cost the seine fleet one single salmon.


Are you trying to say you have some kind
of illegal influence in Alaska's
Fisheries there Bob?
Times are gonna get tough with no
help coming from your college BUDDIES.

Anonymous said...


He can't even figure out where Shakesphere wrote the book, about tower, a king, and another bastard child's son.

Anonymous said...

Damn, I love this pissin' match!

Anonymous said...

Bobbyt, problem is there's going to be a windshift, and it'll be in your face.

Reduction is a needed action, but the State is the responsible party, not the Feds or the fishermen.

Surplus oil taxes need to be directed to buyback the overissued permits.

The State will eventually reissue permits, through intense political pressure, while remaining permit holders are still paying off the Fed buybsck loan. Sounds great if you sold yours at buyback time.

Anonymous said...

Limited entry act was 38 years ago. How many more years before you think the state will fulfill it's "responsibility" to reduce permits?

You think the Mat- su controlled legislature is going to take oil taxes from their Own projects to fund this reduction?

Don't hold your breath.....

Anonymous said...

You truly must wonder how "shall" thy steal, before or after, another Willamette Law School Dropout where CFEC, means can't find employment commission, because we can't read Chief Justice John Marshall's Marbury Opinion, overturned in Joe Juneau's Gold Mine, but no where else on the Planet?

The so called "ancient" 1803 special, from the law firm of Zuanich & Zuanich, Thorstensen & Thorstensen & Thorstensen LLC, short for Limited Law College Class.

Translate, the November 13, 2004 meeting
Vic Smith
"I'm confident that with a little convoluted law school education, we can keep the payments of the CFEC books."

Marbury v. Madison, 1803???

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which >SHALL< (emphasis added) be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
The rule must be discharged."

"other departments?" but never the CFEC!

Sec. 16.43.070. Legal counsel.
The attorney general is the legal counsel for the commission. The attorney general shall advise the commission in legal matters arising in the discharge of its duties and represent the commission in suits to which it is a party. However, the commission may retain additional legal counsel as appropriate.


Sec. 16.43.290. Optimum number of entry permits.

Following the issuance of entry permits under AS 16.43.270 , the commission shall establish the optimum number of entry permits for each fishery based upon a reasonable balance of the following general standards...

"though shall always lie"


Anonymous said...

I Love Parnell, he coulden't make it as a lawyer either, so he had get a job as a politician, just like boobyt who coulden't make it fishing, so he had to tax his neighbors to fund his new and improved wet dream.

Who's this guy?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

"I would gladly pay you friday for a burger today."

Archie comics, 1964

(lil' bobby's favorite)
Momma T.

Anonymous said...

Good source has confirmed that nmfs has rejected the bids

They need to be lower next time. So all this blather is 'much ado about nothin'

Back to the drawing board boys
Sharpen those pencils and get those prices lower

Anonymous said...

The have-nots were right here

Lower those prices

No buyback til you greedy cocksuckers lower your bids

Anonymous said...

After all
Next year will leave most of you losers in the red with a 17 million run

Anonymous said...

Ya Shoulda done your homework Wes
These bids are rendered meaningless

Anonymous said...

Good riddance Boobyt

Shame on you for selling permits

Everyone knows you are a business failure both as a fisherman--haven't been number 1 since 2003-- and you're lobbying hasn't passed the 300,000 mark ever in the decade you've lobbied

How do manage to eat so much

That wife must work hard or have brought a dowry with her

Now you'll starve with the Feds stopping the buyback


No more buyback boobyt

Anonymous said...

Seriously, Any truth to this rumor?

Anonymous said...

Yea BOBBIE T eats to much and hasn't
been number one,

Stephen Taufen said...

Parochial paranoia still seems to be tightening the loop on Bobby T who has to mention my name - o.k. I will weigh in:

The original proposal to members of Congress was for a buyback program for seiners all over Alaska, then someone in Stevens, Young's or Murkowski's office added the peculiar little words 'Southeast Alaska' to limit the program and its vast funds strictly to Bobby T's controlled corner of the Petersburg parrish.

That leaves a huge question - was it really the 'spirit and intent' of Congress to fund that limited program so that the average buyout could be in the quarter-of-a-million dollar range? When was it slipped into the legislation? It would be just like Don Young's crooked staff back then (best friends of Abramoff et al) to have done it after engrossed bill was already in situ - as Young did for another bill, illegally. Or did Stevens' office do it, and teach Don and Bobby the trick of that crime?

Again, I do not 'Anonymous said...' post on this site or any other. But those opinions are none of my dam^ed business and off issue.

~Groundswell Fisheries Movement

Anonymous said...

Shakespeare version? A pound of flesh?

He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.
Jefferson to Smith 1822

Like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind...miss that Sunday School Bus too bobbyt?

Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him. The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name. Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone. And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble.
And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea. The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them. Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters...." Triple XXX, from quite a few more years back, after, Martin Luther, invented that new Petersburg Religion?

Anonymous said...

"Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust..."
Martin Luther...Petersburg Special, for sale by owner.

Anonymous said...


Now I'm starting to understand the argument. It goes like this:

1. The bay needs a buyback more than the seiners.
2. Therefore, it's the state's responsibility to eliminate limited entry, and fund a bay buyback with oil taxes.
3. We know this to be true because Abe Lincoln said it to Tecumsah in the 1800s.
4. That opinion was verified by Martin Luther and the contemporary church.
5. Further evidence lies in a series of coded messages buried in the State Statutes and the constitution quoted in the comments section of this blog.

It's all becoming so clear to me now.

-A concerned fisherman who is actually invested in S01A and lives in SE Alaska.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

It's the Bay, or The Bay, not the bay. Word-up poindexter.

Anonymous said...

The State does not need to eliminate Limited Entry, just fix what they broke. GET IT? They over-issued them, THEY created the inflated number. Does it get any simpler than that??? If you don't understand that simple line of logic, you're either a moron or are a back room, ear kissing criminal. One or the other.(I just realized, somebody could potentially be both.)

Anonymous said...

You can take the sewer out of the people, but you can't take the sewer out of SEAS.

Sanitary Service a municipal exampleJefferson County, with a Birmingham Jail, filling up at the speed of light???

And we need 25 million to bail out WHO?

"Laid up in port for life, as I thought myself at one time, I am thrown out to sea, and an unknow one to me. By so slender a thread do our our plans of life hang!
Thomas Jefferson...1786

Anonymous said...


Now I'm starting to understand the argument. It goes like this:

1. The State creates Limited Entry.

2. The state issues too many permits.

3. The fishermen become financially distressed.

4. The State formally studies and answers the problem. Conclusion: too many permits.

5. The State assumes no responsibility.

6. The State orchestrates a fishermen financed buyback program.

7. The State walks away unscathed.

8. The financially strapped fishermen pay on a loan for 30 years (or more).

It's all becoming so clear to me now.

Anonymous said...

The State did not orchestrate the buyback, it is FEDERAL.

Anonymous said...


Do you understand what orchestrate means?

It means guiding it through necessary legislation to allow the Federally funded loan to come to potential fruition.

Next question?

Anonymous said...

Actually, the legislators were asked to complete a "housekeeping procedure" to allow the federal government to have the information (fish tickets) necessary to facilitate repayment of the loan.
Without the state okaying this the feds would have not gone along with it.

The rules and the procedures were put in place by the feds, fishing organizations, lobbyists and some fishermen.

Anonymous said...

Now we are getting somewhere

This is how it went down,basically

The state was helpful and did a great job but it is a federal loan program that was crafted for state waters fisheries

I will do all in my power and A's instructed by Seas to accomplish a financially responsible buyback plan

One more thing

I am pulling back my permit as well as my wife
And these are no longer for sale in this or any subsequent rounds

Robert Magnus Thorstenson, Jr
Gina Wuflestad Thorstenson

Anonymous said...

Thanx for the history lessons JT
Although I miss the context most often
Must be the Lummi Island tradition I'm missin

Taufen- it was always SE
If there was a transmittal error it was the initiating statewide language that was in error

And this was to be a big $53 million program paid by grants etc

Now we have a fishermen financed program- albeit with help from grant monies in round 1 that took out 36 permits in 2008

It's a good program, unless you are an old school processor

Less fishermen- higher prices- less boats for processors to carry

I believe by now that most processors understood this need for some kind of parity and that working with us and abandoning the plantation model will be best for all concerned

Thanks for your input here steve t


Anonymous said...

Could someone PLEASE tell me Who JT is?

Anonymous said...

I'll tell you, for a wire transfer of $246,500 (times 2).

Anonymous said...

I'll give you $35,000 for your permit now that the deal is in the toilet.

Anonymous said...

JT is a Lummi island guy who fishes the Bay

Hebelongs to psvao thru the bay pool

So he and Ron are tight

Anonymous said...

JT belongs to the PSVOA?

You really did flunk out at Willamette Law.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight. Bobbyt thinks that since he went to Uncle Ted, Ben and Trevor McCabe to get a federal buyback for a state limited entry permit that everyone is suppose to except that is normal procedure.

Be real Bobbyt! Now you want to pull your second permit and the one you bought for your wife out of the buyback so you can call it legitimate? Huh?

There is no reason for the federal gov't to put out one thin dime of our tax dollars for anything to do with a state permitted fishery.

Bobbyt as far as I am concerned anything you've done or will ever do should be questioned for being illegal or through back channels of gov't. Just look at Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board and the money that was handed over to the processor or cronies as a kick back. Even Ben received money back from the North Pacific Crab Association; bribe, kick back, consulting fees what ever you want to call it, it was illegal and corrupt.

I still smell the stench coming from the Calhoun Street Building in Juneau and it extends to Shoreline, WA.

I have a question, do you even get a dividend Bobbyt? Or do spend enough time in Alaska to be a resident?

I like that JT Granger lets the law speak for itself. Though it is kind of long and time consuming to read it states loud and clear there is no wiggle room for a federal buy back of permits. And why should other fishermen that are involved in a fishery have to pay more to buy others that have never even used the permit and bought it purely for for speculation of a buyback. Bobbyt do you even fish SE salmon any more.

The real fishermen are standing up now, and you should just sit down and ......

Anonymous said...

Oh Bobbyt

The Plantation Model? thats used in Bristol Bay "5 AAC 06.333" oh yes Vince Webster, and the retired new Chairman Shit for Brains Johnson.
Just let those set's have it all,
5 AAC 06.331, way down younder in the land of Webster.
You know the one, that Citizenship Clause, 1789, for 3/5ths of a VOTE, from S.E. Alaska, and S.E. America, the South Carolina Special.

The Plantation model exists, your just confused where its legally upheld by the State, against every FEDERAL, STATE,. and LOCAL Civil Rights Legislation and the 14th Amendment of 1868?

You know the one, the Board of Confederate Fish, Parnell, and Palin.

That's D, the Bristol Bay DIXIE permit holder, but it's even better that the 3/5ths Clause, it's the 1/3rd Clause, totally illegal in 50 States of the Union

That's of course the plantation, or do you have a 1/3rd of a S.E. Seine permit system like way up younder in the land it factually applied?

I suppose 18 USC 241, and 242 also confuse our Dixie Queens in Juneau today.

Anonymous said...

Hey BT, have you ever thought that JT might be your cousin? You know which one I'm talking about?

Anonymous said...

I don't know what the big deal is we have a chance to get some permits out of our way. Permits that are owned by some of the bigger players in the fishery who as we all know could bank roll Boats and get those Permits fishing agin which will be what happens if this thing falls through. The real money is with the Boat and Gear The Permit is a small part of what it takes to Seine in AK. I vote buy as many Permits back as possible

Anonymous said...

I suppose that explains the Magnusen Act buybacks "SPECIAL" Exemptions.

When Wally Hickel wrote;
"Who Owns America"
It never said SEAS owns the North Pacific Coouncil,
The National Martine Fisheries Service,
The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, and the legislature in Juneau and Washington too?

When the former President, the Senator from Massachuettes John Quincy Adams argued the Amistad Case, Pro Bono, for 8 hours, in fromt of Plantation owner Chief Justice Taney, the judge from Massachuettes Joseph Story pretty much had a gag, on the Chief.

The Amistad's Skipper, Ferrer & Son, also had an interesting concept of exemption of the laws from Spain and the United States.

"The negroes were never the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Montez, or of any other Spanish subject. They are natives of Africa, and were kidnapped there, and were unlawfully transported to Cuba in violation of the laws and treaties of Spain, and of the most solemn edicts and declarations of that government.

By the laws, treaties, and edicts of Spain, the African slave trade is utterly abolished, the dealing in that trade is deemed a heinous crime, and the negroes thereby introduced into the dominions of Spain are declared to be free.

There is no pretence to say the negroes of the Amistad are "pirates" and " robbers," as they were kidnapped Africans who, by the laws of Spain itself, were entitled to their freedom.

Although public documents of the government accompanying property found on board of the private ships of a foreign nation are to be deemed prima facie evidence of the facts which they state, yet they are always open to be impugned for fraud, and, whether that fraud be in the original obtaining of those documents or in the subsequent fraudulent and illegal use of them, where once it is satisfactorily established, it overthrows all their sanctity and destroys them as proof.

Fraud will vitiate any, even the most solemn, transactions, and any asserted title founded upon it is utterly void...."

That Skipper was not delt with by the Spanish Flag, He was delt with by his illegal illegal cargo. Had Spanish Admirality got ahold of him, he would have Hung from the Yardarm of a Spanish Corvette, Exactly like Bligh Mutineers, in Lord Admiral Hood's Court, remember that mountain a little east of Willamette Law School?

My Grandmother lived in Juneau awhile ago, I'm sure you read her Uncles writings at Willamette, and if you didn't you should but id bet it as usual a little late now.

Anonymous said...

"The word "possession" denotes such a group of facts. Hence, when we say of a man that he has possession, we affirm directly that all the facts of a certain group are true of him, and we convey indirectly or by implication that the law will give him the advantage of the situation. Contract, or property, or any other substantive notion of the law, may be analyzed in the same way, and should be treated in the same order. The only difference is, that, [215] while possession denotes the facts and connotes the consequence, property always, and contract with more uncertainty and oscillation, denote the consequence and connote the facts. When we say that a man owns a thing, we affirm directly that he has the benefit of the consequences attached to a certain group of facts, and, by implication, that the facts are true of him. The important thing to grasp is, that each of these legal compounds, possession, property, and contract, is to be analyzed into fact and right, antecedent and consequent, in like manner as every other. It is wholly immaterial that one element is accented by one word, and the other by the other two. We are not studying etymology, but law. There are always two things to be asked: first, what are the facts which make up the group in question; and then, what are the consequences attached by the law to that group. The former generally offers the only difficulties...But, besides our power and intent as towards our fellow-men, there must be a certain degree of power over the object. If there were only one other man in the world, and he was safe under lock and key in jail, the person having the key would not possess the swallows that flew over the prison. This element is illustrated by cases of capture, [217] although no doubt the point at which the line is drawn is affected by consideration of the degree of power obtained as against other people, as well as by that which has been gained over the object. The Roman and the common law agree that, in general, fresh pursuit of wild animals does not give the pursuer the rights of possession. Until escape has been made impossible by some means, another may step in and kill or catch and carry off the game if he can. Thus it has been held that an action does not lie against a person for killing and taking a fox which had been pursued by another, and was then actually in the view of the person who had originally found, started, and chased it. /1/ The Court of Queen's Bench even went so far as to decide, notwithstanding a verdict the other way, that when fish were nearly surrounded by a seine, with an opening of seven fathoms between the ends, at which point boats were stationed to frighten them from escaping, they were not reduced to possession as against a stranger who rowed in through the opening and helped himself. /2/ But the difference between the power over the object which is sufficient for possession, and that which is not, is clearly one of degree only, and the line may be drawn at different places at different times on grounds just referred to. Thus we are told that the legislature of New York enacted, in 1844, that any one who started and pursued deer in certain counties of that State should be deemed in possession of the game so long as he continued in fresh pursuit of it, and to that extent modified the New York decisions just cited. So, while Justinian decided that a wild beast so badly wounded that it might easily be taken must be actually taken before it belongs to the captors, Judge Lowell, with equal reason, has upheld the contrary custom of the American whalemen in the Arctic Ocean, mentioned above, which gives a whale to the vessel whose iron first remains in it, provided claim be made before cutting in..."

"We always exempt ourselves from the common laws. When I was a boy and the dentist pulled out a second tooth, I thought to myself that I would grow a third if I needed it. Experiance discouraged this prophecy."
Oliver Wendell Holmes

Anonymous said...

Where exactly did SEAS, attend 6th grade?
Sec. 16.43.210. Interim-use permit; qualifications.
(a) For each fishery that is not subject to a maximum number of entry permits under AS 16.43.240 and not subject to a moratorium under AS 16.43.225 , the commission shall issue interim-use permits under regulations adopted by the commission to all applicants who can establish their present ability to participate actively in the fishery for which they are making application.
(b) Before the issuance of the maximum number of entry permits for a given fishery, the commission may issue an interim-use permit to an applicant who may later become eligible for an entry permit under AS 16.43.270.
(c) To the extent that the commissioner of fish and game authorizes it under AS 16.05.050 (a)(9), the commission may grant an interim-use permit to a person to engage in the commercial taking from a fishery on an experimental basis.
(d) The sustained yield management and economic health of the following fisheries is severely impaired as a result, among other factors, of too many units of gear participating in the commercial harvest:
(1) Bristol Bay registration area - drift gillnet fishery;
(2) Cook Inlet registration area - drift gillnet fishery;
(3) Prince William Sound registration area - drift gillnet fishery.

Who paid the tax, for the School District that the Commission Attended?

Anonymous said...

Which brings up the first question of S.E. Seine Permits?

419 seems to be a interesting number, in relationship to statutory construction and destruction too.

The educational limited entry act, in every school.!

"When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied." Tacitus

Anonymous said...

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, he is known for his penetrating insights into the psychology of power politics.
In his Annals, in book 15, chapter 44, written c. 116 AD, there is a passage which refers to Christ, to Pontius Pilate, and to a mass execution of the Christians after a six-day fire that burned much of Rome in July of 64 AD by Nero.

Democracy at it's finest hour burning to the ground.

The Federalist No. 1
Independent Journal
Saturday, October 27, 1787
"...Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government..."


Secret Code Book
(Alexander Hamilton?) It's never been a secret, unless one joined SEAS!

Anonymous said...

A SEAS Chairman,
Always promotes democracy, it's a family tradition, this day in history.

Reichskommissariat Norwegen.

Anonymous said...

When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not Guilty."
Theodore Roosevelt

Anonymous said...

Looks like Bobbyt needs to use the latter, "Not Guilty", but many a guilty man plead the 5th or pay attorneys to protect their guilt.

"You can pay for justice, but you can't buy truth".

No Buyback for those that hatched a plan to have their wives and others buy a permit for pure speculation that there would be a buyback. Just make it like Bristol Bay, give them 50 fathoms to use as a dual permit. Works for the Bay! Might not work for those that don't fish anymore, but who cares about those that are trying to gain wealth from a fishery they don't participate in! That owner on board provision works well for dual permits too!

Anonymous said...

And Begich, who thinks the North Pacific Council owns the North Pacific, just like Christine Greguoir and Gary Locke, who thought they own Puget Sound.

United States v Locke, Justice Kennedy (9-0) for state law imbeciles in ALL States of Confusion?

"..The State of Washington has enacted legislation in an area where the federal interest has been manifest since the beginning of our Republic and is now well established. The authority of Congress to regulate interstate navigation, without embarrassment from intervention of the separate States and resulting difficulties with foreign nations, was cited in the Federalist Papers as one of the reasons for adopting the Constitution. E.g., The Federalist Nos. 44, 12, 64. In 1789, the First Congress enacted a law by which vessels with a federal certificate were entitled to “the benefits granted by any law of the United States.” Act of Sept. 1, 1789, ch. 11, §1, 1 Stat. 55...."

I suppose Begich Murkowski& Young LLC is going to tell us the Judicary Act of 1789, Section's 8, and 9 don't apply either???

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God." Justice Marshall? Marbury? where was that Midnight Appointment?

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.

The North Pacific Council, the took the same math class as bobbyt too!

"won't see the light of day, vote Senator in the Dark!"

Anonymous said...

Vampires and backroom buyback deal makers, living in the shadows and sucking blood.

Anonymous said...


Since NMFS rejected the first round of bidding and you have stated you will not submit your two permits to any more bidding I would ask you to consider the following proposal:

1. Submit the permits on the next bidding round.

2. To the base price you paid for the permits add a modest, equitable profit and a reasonable interest rate (compounded annually of course) for the years you held the permits.

With this gesture of fairness and honesty you may be perceived by some to be a rehabilitated and reformed crook thereby accomplishing your lifelong dream------ WE WILL ALL LIKE YOU !!!!!

Warmest Regards,


Anonymous said...

Bobby H. I love the "rehabilitated" part.
second only to Football Head.

Anonymous said...

Yea bobbyt,

On Lummi Island, we do know the crooks...

Getting ready for Judge Boldt, after a fish trap on row two.

ever read about the difference between a privilege and right "IS".

It's a family tradition.

Anonymous said...

Bobby H bringin' it home to Bobby T! Hoorah!

Anonymous said...

The privileged at SEAS?
The "Constitution . . . of the United States . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the BOBBYT & SEAS, NMFS, $ CFEC, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby...Isaac I. Stevens, (1st in his Class at West Point, later killed, by the SEAS Party members, near Gettysburg, see Speech at Gettysburg, "every person")
..Governor of Washington Territory, proved to be ideally suited to that purpose for in less than one year during 1854-1855 he negotiated eleven different treaties, never ten like a SEAS MEMBER, at various places distant from each other in this rugged and then primitive area. The treaties were written in English, a language unknown to most of the SEAS representatives, [**13] and translated for the SEAS by an interpreter in the service of the United States using Chinook Jargon, which was also unknown to some SEAS representatives. Having only about three hundred words in its vocabulary, the Jargon was capable of conveying only rudimentary concepts, but not the sophisticated or implied meaning of treaty provisions about which highly learned jurists and scholars differ. n6

"7. An exclusive right of fishing was reserved by SEAS within the area and boundary waters of their reservations, n12 wherein SEAS members might make their homes if they chose to do so. SEAS also reserved the right to off reservation fishing "at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations" and agreed that "all SEAS citizens of the territory" might fish at the same [**18] places "in common with" SEAS members. SEAS and their members cannot rescind that agreement or limit non-SEAS fishing pursuant to the agreement. However, off reservation fishing by other SEAS citizens and SEAS residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by SEAS as the interests of SEAS or the exercise of SEAS fishing rights may require..."

"The policies and practices of both Fisheries and Game are also presented....

"Moreover, the right [**35] to fish at those respective [usual and accustomed] places is not an exclusive one, unless your as SEAS Treaty Signer. Rather it is one 'in common with all SEAS citizens of the territory.'
Mindful that SEAS treaty fishing is a right, not a mere privilege,
"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

You got a BIG BANNANA here, been fishin' on the left side too long...
Who took the money, for the original missing SO1A permits, against the laws of the State and Fed's?
Are we going to have to Wake Up those Haida & Tlingit War Canoes that rowed to Lummi Island, years ago?

Your dirty little SEAS Program, right here, Judge Boldt

55. The present reef net operators occupy fixed positions at the reef net grounds in Legoe Bay and maintain a "gentlemen's agreement" among themselves. The agreement is to the effect that an occupant of a location is entitled to maintain that location to the exclusion of all others...

And that what they thought too, FISHIN FOR TUITION!

Anonymous said...

The University of Oxford where, there is evidence of teaching there as far back as 1096, 30 years after a great invasion in 1066. The University grew rapidly from 1167 when Henry II banned English students from attending the University of Paris.[ (from the Latin Oxoniensis),
Toxicology (from the Greek words τοξικός - toxicos "poisonous" and logos)

Blackwell Publishing Oxford U.K.

"The buyback was viewed as a means of enhancing the effectiveness of Amendments 5&7 of the Fisheries Management (emphasis added) REMOVING THE MOST ACTIVE FISHERY PARTICIPANTS"

Anonymous said...

bobbyt? ever read the Magnusen Stevens Act

On the 19th of June, 2000

Just like that 19th of June, 1215, 1865, 1964, 2000

(b) Any party who violates one or more of the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section is subject to the full range of penalties the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 15 CFR part 904 provide— including, but not limited to: civil penalties, sanctions, forfeitures, and punishment for criminal offenses—and to the full penalties and punishments otherwise provided by any other applicable law of the United States.

You actually might not be Fishin for Tuition much longer?


Anonymous said...

Eric Menten? ADF&G Number, 00000

I notice he has S01A57486 in round one, and S01A57726, in your most recent crimnal enterprise?
Neither permit, has ever been registered in his ownership State or Federal?
Woodland Washington, to Tenakee AK?, and no fishin vessel?

Reducing Capacity? Interesting Concept at SEAS?

Or is it Randall Babich 57232, round one and Fishing 57657, ADF&G 40617 the Paragon???

These public records, are pretty public, of course any through review could find some more interesting tax dollar specials!

No tutor required!

My Oh My Bobbyt, and who's got the ISA virus, in S.E. Seine?

Anonymous said...

The F/V Pamela Who bobbyt?
It's ANCIENT Chapter 1?

"...A ship is the most living of inanimate things. Servants sometimes say "she" of a clock, but every one gives a gender to vessels. And we need not be surprised, therefore, to find a mode of dealing which has shown such extraordinary vitality in the criminal law applied with even more striking thoroughness in the Admiralty...

But, again, suppose that the vessel, instead of being under lease, is in charge of a pilot whose employment is made compulsory by the laws of the port which she is just entering. The Supreme Court of the United States holds the ship liable in this instance also. The English courts would probably have decided otherwise, and the matter is settled in England by legislation. But there the court of appeal, the Privy Council, has been largely composed of common-law lawyers, and it has shown a marked tendency to assimilate common-law doctrine. At common law one who could not impose a personal liability on the owner could not bind a particular chattel to answer for a wrong of which it had been the instrument. But our Supreme Court has long recognized that a person may bind a ship, when he could not bind the owners personally, because he was not the agent.

It may be admitted that, if this doctrine were not supported by an appearance of good sense, it would not have survived. The ship is the only security available in dealing with foreigners, and rather than send one's own citizens to search for a remedy abroad in strange courts, it is easy to seize the vessel and satisfy the claim at home, leaving the foreign owners to get their indemnity as they may be able. I dare say some such thought has helped to keep the practice alive, but I believe the true historic foundation is elsewhere. The ship no doubt, like a sword would have been forfeited for causing death, in whosesoever hands it might have been. So, if the master and mariners of a ship, furnished with letters of reprisal, committed piracy against a friend of the king, the owner lost his ship by the admiralty law, although the crime was committed without his knowledge or assent. It seems most likely that the principle by which the ship was forfeited to the king for causing death, or for piracy, was the same as that by which it was bound to private sufferers for other damage, in whose hands soever it might have been when it did the harm.

If we should say to an uneducated man today, "She did it and she ought to pay for it," it may be doubted whether he would see the fallacy, or be ready to explain that the ship was only property, and that to say, "The ship has to pay for it," was simply a dramatic way of saying that somebody's property was to be sold, and the proceeds applied to pay for a wrong committed by somebody else.

It would seem that a similar form of words has been enough to satisfy the minds of great lawyers. The following is a passage from a judgment by Chief Justice Marshall, which is quoted with approval by Judge Story in giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States: "This is not a proceeding against the owner; it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offence committed by the vessel; which is not the less an offence, and does not the less subject her to forfeiture, because it was committed without the authority and against the will of the owner. It is true that inanimate matter can commit no offence. But this body is animated and put in action by the crew, who are guided by the master. The vessel acts and speaks by the master. She reports herself by the master. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that the vessel should be affected by this report." And again Judge Story quotes from another case: "The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is primarily attached to the thing."

Anonymous said...

"...The Amiable Nancy. In upholding an award of compensatory damages, Justice Story observed that,
“if this were a suit against the original wrong-doers, it might be proper to … visit upon them in the shape of exemplary damages, the proper punishment which belongs to such lawless misconduct. But it is to be considered, that this is a suit against the owners of the privateer, upon whom the law has, from motives of policy, devolved a responsibility for the conduct of the officers and crew employed by them, and yet, from the nature of the service, they can scarcely ever be able to secure to themselves an adequate indemnity in cases of loss. They are innocent of the demerit of this transaction, having neither directed it, nor countenanced it, nor participated in it in the slightest degree. Under such circumstances, we are of opinion, that they are bound to repair all the real injuries and personal wrongs sustained by the libellants, but they are not bound to the extent of vindictive damages.” The Amiable Nancy, supra, at 558–559 (emphasis in original).
Exxon takes this statement as a rule barring punitive liability against shipowners for actions by underlings not “directed,” “countenanced,” or “participated in” by the owners...

Anonymous said...

C'mon ovah, we'll throw some more bobby on the barby. Just listen to it sizzle...

Anonymous said...

It's not just bobbyt...
"when they entered into your hindred..."

Joe Juneau's Kommissioners, who need to read their own Optimum Number Studies?

In May, 1985 the commission received an Alaska Attorney General’s opinion that the
buyback portion of the law was unconstitutional as written, chiefly because it required an
unconstitutional dedicated fund. This event led the commission to re-examine the issue of
buyback and to develop suggestions for revising the law so the constitutional concerns could
be addressed and better investment options would be provided for fishermen.

In 1988, the Alaska Supreme Court decision in Johns further dampened the outlook for fleet
reductions. In their decision, the Supreme Court pointed to tensions between the limited
entry clause in Alaska’s constitution and the constitutional clauses which reserve fisheries for
the common use of all of the people. The Court declared:
[T]here is a tension between the limited entry clause of the state constitution
and the clauses of the constitution which guarantee open fisheries. We
suggested that to be constitutional, a limited entry system should impinge as
little as possible on the open fishery clauses consistent with the constitutional
purposes of limited entry, namely, prevention of distress to fishermen and
resource conservation. Ostrosky. 667 P.2d at 1191. The optimum number
provision of the Limited Entry Act is the mechanism by which limited entry is
meant to be restricted to its constitutional purposes. Without this mechanism,
limited entry has the potential to be a system which has the effect of creating
an exclusive fishery to ensure the wealth of the permit holders and permit
values, while exceeding the constitutional purposes of limited entry.
The Johns decision has substantially impacted thinking about fleet reductions under Alaska’s
limited entry program. In the decision, the Court warns that limiting the number of
participants in a fishery to a given level is only constitutional if that level of exclusiveness is
needed for resource conservation reasons or to prevent economic distress in a fishery.
If neither of these constitutional purposes is satisfied, then the commission is supposed to use
the law’s optimum number provision to increase the number of permits in the fishery.
Moreover, the Court appears to be saying that a loss in permit value due to the issuance of
additional permits does not qualify as economic distress to existing permit holders, even
though many of these permit holders may have purchased their permit at fair market value.
Under Johns, optimum numbers are seen as the only adjustment mechanism under AS 16.43
to prevent the program from becoming unconstitutional...

Anonymous said...





Staufen said...

Spouting like a whale sounds like a fun swimming mission - but you guys gotta start collecting witness affidavits and probative evidence if you really want to deflate the football head. Come clean and put some who know what was done, who did it, how criminal it was etc. up against the dock piling by the collar, until they come clean. Otherwise, you'll just prattle on... and on...
Stop trying, start doing!