Tuesday, April 9, 2013

How they voted

Here's how state legislators voted yesterday on whether to confirm the appointment of Vince Webster to the Alaska Board of Fisheries.

House

YEAS: Austerman, Chenault, Costello, Edgmon, Feige, Foster, Gruenberg, Herron, Josephson, Kerttula, Kreiss-Tomkins, Munoz, Nageak, Olson, Seaton, Tarr, Tuck, P. Wilson

NAYS: Drummond, Gara, Gattis, Hawker, Higgins, Holmes, Hughes, Isaacson, Johnson, Kawasaki, Keller, LeDoux, Lynn, Millett, Neuman, Pruitt, Reinbold, Saddler, Stoltze, Thompson, T. Wilson

Excused: Guttenberg

Senate

YEAS: Bishop, Dyson, Egan, Fairclough, French, Giessel, Hoffman, Micciche, Olson, Stedman, Stevens

NAYS: Coghill, Dunleavy, Ellis, Gardner, Huggins, Kelly, McGuire, Meyer, Wielechowski

TOTALS: 29 yeas, 30 nays with one member excused

And so, lacking the required 31 votes, Webster failed to be confirmed to the Board of Fisheries.

Source: Senate and House Joint Journal Supplement for April 8

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bob Penney has more stroke and gives more $$ than the entire multimillion commfish industry combined. You commfish guys are nothing but natural born losers. You take all our fish for money but are too stupid to leave some in the politicians pockets.

Anonymous said...

Next April the Fairbanks boys are not going to get a free ride for reed morrisky

They got their guy
Anchorage got their guy

And then the assholes
Killed the best boardmember from rural Alaska

You no votes are despicable

Anonymous said...

Yup, the stupid commercial guys are too honest, they don't understand that it isn't bribing, it's just campaign contributing.

Anonymous said...

4:26, you are part of the problem and i am pretty sure that the commercial sector does not subscribe to your uneducated, pathetic, rant. Who would? Calling more than half of the legislature despicable shows just how dumb you are. If I were a KRSA member, i would sing your praises because I could not ask for a better advertisement for my cause. Thank you and keep up the good work. Without you and your type, Webster would surely have been confirmed. Kudos to you. Where do I send the check?

Anonymous said...

Gloat KRSA drones, while you can. Your crew of paid for politicians from the bowl are in for a surprise. Most of Anchorage doesnt fish. These pandering fools just gave away huge amounts of money that belonged to ALL of us in the form of tax breaks to their oil masters. Everybody is tired of their shit, and yours too. Your days are numbered.

Anonymous said...

Webster was a good rural/ commercial representative, but he was fair. Often he voted in favor of KRSA wishes. Now, commercial will find someone TOTALLY party line. You will hate it all the worse. Might as well start drafting up your next hate letter full of lies now, and keep it handy.

Groundswell Movement said...

If you really have actual evidence on Penney, then turn it in to authorities. We hate blog threading cowards who hide anonymously, because we've put our lives and work on the line and it is time you do too. Speak with some facts, please... not mere accusations (unless bound by authorities not to disclose).

Not trying to be a fan of Bob here, we're not, there is solid evidence he should be federally investigated, tried, and when found guilty, then imprisoned. He's Ted's buddy and seditious, but some one has to prove it. And strategically get the other CBCers in the same trap.

Go to State AG (maybe not, who can you trust!) or FBI 276-4441 to talk to someone, and arrange to give your evidence to an agent. But it better be big $, bad acts of egregious nature, and illegal.

Go get em. Or be known as the little scared fish blogger who hides behind the anonymous boat.

Groundswell

Anonymous said...

You need much more evidence than than an intentionally intercepted call coming in at your home office?
Not to mention, things dont have to be illegal, to be unethical. You want to talk about having a stand up fight? Then try writing a letter that has some truths in it for once. The rant against Vince was a complete farse, a witch hunt that singled out one guy, because of his affiliation to gillnetting.
No different than a 3 y.o. throwing a tantrum because they cant have their way. Kluberton voted the exact same way Vince did, where was your letter against him? Whats wrong, goes all the way to the top. Bob is the captain of your ship full of loose cannons, the buck has to stop on his desk. Hypocracy at it's finest. Just remember it, so you understand it when it comes back around.

Anonymous said...

Amen, nice to see Taufen cuddling up to Penney. Membership in groundswell must truly be lean these days.
Too bad you both don't live in washington.

Anonymous said...

i would be curious to see which of these legilators are card carrying members of the territorial sportsmen of alaska and wink wink where there loyalty really lie.ksra members will proudly show you there cards wink wink!!

Anonymous said...

We just lost a Southeast board seat to Fairbanks and now this. Hmm, sorta makes a guy long for the days when we had a commercial fisherman chairing House Finance, right Bobby? Maybe your little buddy from Sitka can straighten this all out. At least we get to fish the Homeshore every other season! Miss you Bill.

Anonymous said...

Where's Bill Allen? Our house needs an enima again. Couple of hundred bucks a peice and on your way. Time to start fresh.

Anonymous said...

Anyone have an audio link to the floor debate on this?

Anonymous said...

Go the state leg website

2spoke against

8 in favor

Anonymous said...

Webster needed to get 31 votes. He got 29. Close, but still two votes shy. All the claims that our elected officials were ignorant and did not have accurate information is nonsense. The governor's office threw a barrage of information in support. UFA did the same. The Alaska trollers assoc did the same. Webster himself sent an email to each legislator in a failed attempt to sway the vote. ( and by the way, that was unprecedented). And almost everyone from the commercial industry that wanted to continue benefitting from Webster's maneuvering while on the Board sent support one way or another. Those that claim that KRSA violated some law regarding lobbying obviously do not know APOC regulations. If there is any organization that knows the lobbying law it is KRSA. Perhaps those other commercial organizations should examine their legal status when they lobby. No, the governor simply got it wrong and has been seriously damaged. And more importantly, the Dept. has been shown to be unaware of the consequences of their continued lowering of escapement goals. Both the governor's office and the Dept. better get their act together or heads will roll. Count on it.

Anonymous said...

You can view the floor debate here: http://www.360north.org/gavel-archives/?event_id=2147483647_2013041122 Starts at about the 20 minute mark. Stoltze impugns the integrity of Webster right off the bat.

And Bob Penney gets blind copied on internal BOF emails. Apparently not illegal, but certainly unethical. How come we can't ALL get those emails?

Anonymous said...

Ahhh, Eric Stoltze. 3/4 of an acre of riverfront for nothing headed your way. Keep it up, and you'll get the chalet built too, good job!

Anonymous said...

In the interests of saving the Kenai King Salmon, the terrible hook and release mortality that goes on daily by the in-river sport industry has to stop. Far more fish are hooked, released, and roll down the river than ever were killed in a net. Time to cut the number of anglers in half. Most of them would enjoy the breathing room too.

Anonymous said...

Bleach the Kenai, and let's move on. Some of the rest of us have issues we'd like resolved besides you.

Anonymous said...

not bleach it's bluestone the kenai.thats the proper and political correct terminoligy!thank you.

Anonymous said...

check out the Blog on KRSA's web page. they do a pretty complete job of discussion what went on.

Anonymous said...

2:24, You have no clue when you claim that hook and release kills more Kings than the net fisheries. What a show of ignorance. It is because of that flawed approach that there is so much friction between the users. Had the Task force members representing the commercial fishery had any sense at all they would have come up with some creative ways of fishing that would have not targeted Kings. They had their chance and now the BOF will take care of the problem next year. Everyone but the ESSN and UCIDA people know what the problem is and that now includes the legislature and the governor.Watch out for what the KRSA and Northern district people try to accomplish. I can see the drift fleet taken out of all areas except for the corridor and a shut down of the ESSN fishery all together. They over reached and it will bite them.

Anonymous said...

You think unlimited amounts of rednecks, standing shoulder to shoulder, the entire length of the Kenai yanking every single king salmon out over and over again isnt having a negative affect? Better do some reading, and no, all this damage isnt going to go unchecked either. Even Yellowstone has limits on the numbers of visitors.
Why is so hard to embrace the concept of charging more, and impacting less?

Anonymous said...

http://www.krsa.com/blog/krsa-fish-blog/kenai-king-debacle-non-confirmation-of-webster-show-upper-cook-inlet-is-different/

LW said...

The way it played out gives the distinct appearance of a straight set up with an(as needed) fall guy episode. To timely to theactrical as in the movies. It appears our officials have gone 2nd rate Hollyweird. Talk about not making the grade. It was my understanding our officials are made of distinctive cloth such as fairness, optimism, level headedness, surity on decision making, knowing right from wrong,civilism & for sure handling themselves well under pressure.Everything Vince Webster was about and then some. All I am hearing and seeing is a pack of wolves going in for the kill. When your good your good through and through. Vince has done great things in the past and would have continued doing great things for the future. Don't be a hater put Vince Webster back on the fish board.

LW said...

Where does one find the supposed proposal in which people claim Vince Webster wrote in his own handwritting to prevent dip netting kings?

Anonymous said...

To 2:48. Webster drafted RC 88 and made a motion to have it substituted for the placeholder proposal which was to revisit the late run King management plan. It can be found on the board web site. RC 88 contained a paragraph that Webster put in that stated that when the Dept. projected an escapement of less than 28,000 Kings that no one participating in the Personal Use (dip net) fishery could keep a King. They had to be released unharmed. This would occur from the beginning of the season and before any restrictions would be considered for the commercial or sports fisheries. At no time during the entire meeting was there anything mentioned about the dip net fishery until Webster put this in during deliberations on the placeholder proposal. No notice was given to the public that the dip net fishery would be the subject of this uniquely restrictive and allocative component of the management plan. Webster was asked why he did this and he stated that by restricting the dip net fishery it would save around 900 Kings that could be harvested by the ESSN and Guided Sports before any restrictions would have to be placed on those users. It was this last minute ploy by Webster that got the attention of the legislators. And it was not the first time he had done this last minute thing without proper notice to the public. He did it in Yakutat on the last day when he introduced a set net gear and permit stacking proposal, again in PWS when on the last day he introduced a restriction to the PU fishery for shrimp, and again in Bristol Bay when after stacking had been thoroughly discussed and voted down he offered a Board Generated proposal to stack in Egigik and Ugashik which was voted down again in the Statewide meeting. He abused the process by lining up his commercial votes at the last minute and putting something totally new on the table when the public had no notice it was coming and no opportunity to provide input. Hope that your question is answered.

Anonymous said...

What was the vote on RC 88? Did it even get a second? Now a BOF member gets the boot for a failed motion? Seems a bit harsh.

I have no opinion on the release of kings in the PU fishery one way or the other, but my understanding is that fishery was started and developed to provide for harvest surplus sockeye--of which there is plenty--not to put kings in the freezer. People can get plenty of fish. How hard is it to roll a king out of the dipnet?

Anonymous said...

8:18. Not that it really matters, but the stacking proposal for Egegik/Ugashik was on the agenda for the Area M meeting. Its not something Webster sprung on an unsuspecting public. It was thoroughly discussed/debated at that meeting. There was plenty of public notice. And yes, the Board voted it down.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Verne Martell will be appointed to the BOF??

Anonymous said...

to 9:34 and 9:41. I can understand your questions. Had you attended the meeting you would know the answers. I attended part of it and these comments are a result of listening, speaking with a couple of persons who sat through the entire meeting and by reviewing the Dept's web site. First, Webster's motion to put RC 88 on the table was seconded by member Jensen. There was a discussion and and it looked like the motion would pass. However the Chairman who apparently saw some unforeseen consequences took a break. Members discussed the new RC with the public, each other and Dept. staff. When the meeting resumed, the unintended consequences were discussed and the motion was voted down with even Webster voting against it. Had the break not been taken it was pretty clear to all in the room, that it would likely have passed.
As for the stacking proposal Webster made at the very end of the BB meeting, it came when almost all of the public had left. Webster was seen talking to three other board members before he offered the Board generated proposal and they all voted for the proposal. It truly was sprung on an unsuspecting public with no notice. The effect of this was two fold. First it required many of the public, that had at significant expense in time and money, to come to the Statewide meeting in Anchorage to push against stacking after they had already done so in the BB meeting. Second, the issues were thoroughly discussed earlier, but had to all be revisited. CFEC had to attend as well as all those who attended the BB meeting. Webster and his family hold four set net permits. But he was not conflicted because he does not fish in Egigik or Ugashik. Yet he would benefit from any stacking proposal because it would impact the value of all BB set net permits.

And finally, when the PU fishery was established Kings were a species that were harvested from the get go and have been harvest ever since. Only when restrictions were placed on the commercial and sports users were restrictions placed on the PU fishery. This was a shared burden. Webster's little trick would have skewed that burden by restricting the PU fishery to NO Kings while allowing the other users that opportunity. A big allocation shift with no notice to the public.
If 9:34 and 9:41 are objective open minded posters they will have a clearer picture now and perhaps have a better understanding of why Webster did not get confirmed.

Anonymous said...

History lesson time.

Commercial fishing was and is a vital economic engine that powers this state.

PU is an idea modifying the idea of subsistence and sport use. PU is an optional source of food and was/is intended to be available on the surpluses of commercial and subsistence use.

Get over the idea that politically you have the right to hinder the ecologically sound management of the runs. Your "right" to target kings when there are an abundance of reds to "use" will damage the whole balance and turn these systems into disasters like all the politically managed systems down below.

Figure it out before you lose it all.

Anonymous said...

I was obviously overly optimistic about there being any open minded posters on this site. 8:02 is solid evidence that the greed of some gets in the way of fairness for others. The economic impact of the commercial fishery on the Kenai pales by comparison to the economic and social impact of the sports and PU fishery. Not even close. No matter how you manipulate the numbers. Better get used to the idea that there is indeed a new sheriff in town and hope that the Legislature or the Board of fish doesn't decide to do away with the ESSN fishery. It has been clearly shown that it is not needed to manage for sockeye escapement . The drift fleet and PU fishery will accomplish that management goal. And don't think this can't happen. Because it has been the topic of discussion by legislators and the Dept. If I were you, i would start trying to kiss and make up with KRSA. If you did not believe their influence and power before the Webster vote, surely you do now and it does not take much of an imagination to see what could be coming your way.

Anonymous said...

6:32. There is a lot in your post that's debatable, but it gets to the point of flogging a dead horse. It seems to me the process on RC88 worked just fine and, as you say, even the maker of the amendment voted against it. But, whatever.

I realize kings have always been incidentally caught in the PU fishery on the Kenai. But it is a fact that the dipnet fishery was established to harvest surplus sockeye, and more than adequate opportunity exists for participants to harvest fish for their freezers. Having PU fishers return kings doesn't infringe on their ability to harvest sockeye, which is the original intent of the fishery. In times of low king abundance, having PU fishers return kings unharmed seems appropriate. Those kings should be allocated to the sport fishery upriver or allowed to spawn.

As I said before, the BB stacking proposal was debated at the Area M meeting, not Statewide. You do have a point about stakeholders being required to attend another meeting at significant cost to testify to this issue, though many would have come anyway, since it was the Area M meeting after-all. CFEC, Law, and other staff are all there pretty much anyway so that's a non-issue. But, I agree this issue should have been vetted and laid to rest at the BB meeting. Is that Webster's fault? Perhaps, but it takes four to adopt a BGP. As to Webster's conflicts on this issue, I also agree, but apparently the Chair did not, since he is the one who makes those calls.

I'm not weeping over Webster's dismissal, but the factual basis for the Legislature's actions are pretty weak. I guess its testament to KRSA's political muscle that they could "take him out" based on such a flimsy pretext.

Anonymous said...

Good post. We can agree to disagree and be cordial about it. I respect your take on the issues and in some cases we do agree. You are correct about the second stacking proposal taking place at the area M meeting and that many of the same players who attended the BB meeting would be there anyway. but not all, that's for sure. And CFEC was at both meetings solely because of the stacking proposals. Twomley personally told me he was invited or would not have attended. And I tend to want to give our elected officials the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making informed decisions. There was a lot of information sent their way by both sides of the Webster question. Let's hope that they considered all of it. On the other hand KRSA board members are generous contributors to many lawmakers and money talks. But that is all behind us, isn't it. Now it is time for the Bay to come up with someone from the area and presumably someone who is a commercial person. Hopefully a drifter as we already have a board member who set nets. Any ideas who might fit the bill?

Anonymous said...

9:16. A new appointee from the Bay? Unfortunately, I have no idea who a good, qualified candidate might be. It is too bad the seat seems restricted to someone who lives in the Bristol Bay watershed, with its small year-round population, since there are several well-qualified BB fishermen who happen to live somewhere else in Alaska. Dillingham or Naknek/King Salmon brings it own world view to the process, which is quite dogmatic in my experience, so I don't know that it matters that much. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, as they say.

I've enjoyed our exchange. Yes, one can respectfully disagree on issues, and keep it cordial. Sometime the anonymity of this blog encourages some pretty poor behavior.

Good fishing.