Thursday, August 25, 2016

Governor backs off CFEC overhaul

Here's the press release.


Anonymous said...

"Governor backs off CFEC overhaul" ???

Wesley, where in the news release does it say that?? Sure, your misleading headline is a grabber, but come on - you're better than that.

The Gov's statement makes it clear the CFEC overhaul is a happening thing. The administration is moving forward. And in doing so, they are soliciting input from stakeholders.

CFEC completed most of it work a long time ago and now carries a bloated budget. Two audits make that clear. Backing off from restructuring ain't going to happen. Even tho Bobby, Ben, Bruce, and a handful of other cronies wish it weren't so.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

When you cannot read the Limited Entry Act, maybe you should not be a Commissioner?

34.  Id. (also stating that Limited Entry Act was not intended to protect individuals who “indirectly ‘fish’ while holding down an office job or sitting at home”).

69.  The court stated:  “I think it's significant that the Act requires-defines permit holders in terms of persons and defines persons to be natural persons, not a variety of artificial and associational or cooperative groups.”   It cited AS 16.43.140(b) in support.

Anonymous said...

The comments so far miss the point. This is about grabbing money from the CFEC division to pay for ADF&G pay raises (3 million plus). It also will redirect the IT and research divisions to full control of the politically appointed Commissioner of Fish and Game. CFEC Commissioners have been very instrumental in protecting the CFEC program overall. Sure, budget cuts are necessary and CFEC is not immune to the need to streamline. Problem is that the program pays for itself and has a surplus to boot. Protection against challenges ahead. The Department already steals from the sale of crewmember licenses and now it wants to pay expensive incentive raises for management by stealing from permit and vessel owners. This might be justified if there was a way to direct the spending in an open and transparent manner. It is not and maybe retiring Brooks should be an indicator of why the strong push to raid the CFEC funds. I guess we will never know now since Brooks has slithered away.

Anonymous said...

This is "about grabbing money" 11:25?

For $33,505,327.72 I would have to dissent, about who are experts are at money grabs.

That 1/3rd U.S. Citizenship Clause still confuses Twomey, just like todays D permit renew forms!

Inbreeding, as an employment requirement; UFA APPROVED!

Anonymous said...

11:25..."Problem is that the program pays for itself and has a surplus to boot."

That's not a problem. It's part of a solution.

CFEC spends too much money. Audits make that clear. And this happend when we close test fisheries, dismantle counting towers and weirs, lay off biologists, and go to more conservative management because we don't have any other sustainable choice. And there's a lot more of this coming down the pike.

But audits show theres about a million bucks can be saved from that tiny agency. Expensive commissioners are underworked, make them part time. Cut out vacant positions. Move the agency to more affordable space. More than a million bucks.

Your right we don't need a ADFG/CFEC merge. But if we make a fat agency lean then we help preserve some of the important stuff that keeps us in the water fishing.

Anonymous said...

6:16 says that we need to use money for CFEC licensing for ADF&G programs that contributors who fund the program have no say in where or how it is spent. Pay increases within the department and the rate of pay is to high for the type of work many of the department people do. The pay increases to upper division ADF&G employees seem to be more important to the department than continuing monitoring programs. You have to wonder why it is necessary to continue raising fees for crewmember licenses or permits and vessels if there is so much fat in their respective budgets. ADF&G has full control of crewmember funds and wants to do the same with CFEC funds. I say rid ourselves of both issues and reduce the cost to all to be in line with a conservative budget. If there is a need to fund necessary budget items charge a tax or user fee for that area and fishery in need with the agreement of those that are directly affected. That means only paying for direct costs and not subsidizing other non related programs or pay increases and medical expenses.