Did anyone get a phone survey in the last few nights about Board of Fisheries?
Dale, ATA
Salty
2009-04-11 07:56:24
I got a call about Brent Johnson. It said they had a couple of questions for me about Governor Palin appointing "another commercial fisherman to the Board of Fisheries". Then the robo voice asked me if I thought it was fair for "commercial fishing interests to "dominate the Board of Fisheries" or something of that gist. When I said "Yes!!" that was the end of the call. I think it is what is called a "push" poll.
Hi Eric:
That's the one! It's a ridiculous question, highly biased, and our legislators need to hear from folks who received the call, because they are likely to get hit with the 'results'. I did not get a call, but heard about it, so I am trying to figure out how broad based the polling was before I say anything to our legislators. I'd like to hear a few more details about the questions. But, as you say, if you say 'yes' - for fear of what 'no' might mean - it hangs up. Maybe someone should test the system with a 'no', but my guess is that the polling is over.
When it comes to the Board of Fish, why shouldn't the answer be yes with respect to numbers? With a huge number of unique commercial fisheries in this state, it's very difficult to get a good cross-section of BOF members with expertise in all of them. I've always been much more concerned about that than seating the board based on geography... isn't it more important that they know the difference between 'walls of death' and AK gillnetting, or trawling and trolling, or what rings on a seine are? With only 7 members, commercial is the likely group to 'dominate', yes? As we all know, more commercial fishermen have sport fished and understand that side of things than the reverse - sportfishing is much more straightforward. I wish the powers that be would just think about that for a minute. I mean, are we supposed to put non-pharmacists on the pharmacy board - for 'balance'?! We used to have a great BOF that was made up of 5 commercial fishermen from various regions/fisheries - some with subsistence experience; an angler, and a guide. Why was that considered 'unbalanced', or 'dominated by commercial fishing interests'?
The goal should not be to table a majority vote for any particular perspective, it's to get a knowledgeable group of people to analyze regulatory proposals and make reasonable decisions for all gear types. These days, that's tough with all the 'conflict' rules imposed. Unless the legislature fixes the problem, BOF members can neither vote or speak to the issues in their region if they have
Guess I jumped on the soapbox there, but I don't want those people who cruise this website and are not fishermen to think ATA supports commercial fishing interests 'dominating' the BOF process - or any other. We just believe a mix of expertise only makes sense when appointing the people who set regulation for the biggest employer in the state. ATA has always demanded that the people we endorse are fair and balanced towards subsistence, personal use, sport anglers and the guided industry as well. All gear types are important to Alaska communities. What the BOF needs is people who not only recognize that fact, but have enough experience to understand the core issues, ferret out information, and ask the right questions when something new arises.
If you got polled and have more information, please post or private message me. And, please contact your legislators if you were polled and are concerned that it could lead to biased information floating around the legislature.
Remember... port meetings start Monday - see you there!
Dale, ATA