Public Comments:
This page contains comments from the public on the Sport Fish Guides Services Board issue. We appreciate your well thought out comments and welcome your input. Comments are posted by date received, please allow up to three days before a submitted comment is posted. You may also submit your own comments.
Displaying Posts 31 - 40 of 79 Posts Total
Previous 10 Posts | Next 10 PostsDate Submitted: 11/15/2008Guide type: FreshWater
I do not support the creation of a Sport Fish Guide Services Board.
If your goal is to promote the conservation and the sustained yield management of Alaska's fishery then we already have regulations in place that do that if the regulations are enforced.
If your goal is to benefit the economic health and stability of the sport fish guide industry - you will fail. The Free Market (what's left of it) should be allowed to self regulate. Good guides who provide a good service at a fair price will thrive, while poor guides who abuse the resource, charge too much and have low standards will be put out of business.
I do not support the introduction of a test for Sport Guides. I have already taken the real test. That test is out in the field, on the water.
I did not support the introduction of the freshwater logbooks. My guiding is catch and release only. I have seen neither an increase nor decrease in catch rate since they were introduced.
I certainly do not support any increase in the Sport Fish Guide license fee.
Who has voiced their concern? Where are they from? Where are their comments? What user group are they from? What areas? Why are you trying to circumvent the Constitution?
This is nothing more than one user group asking the government to use force against another group.
Date Submitted: 11/14/2008Guide type: SaltWater
I am writing you to express my strong opposition to the ADFG Sportfishing Guide Board Proposal.
This new Board is simply not needed due to the fact that there is already plenty of other agency oversight for this industry. The US Coast Guard, NOAA, and ADFG just to name a few of the entities already do a fine job of overseeing this industry.
I can appreciate that there may be issues that arise in some areas, on certain rivers or with Unguided Operations, but there are already remedies in place to deal with these issues. More enforcement of the current laws would solve these issues.
As for the qualifying of new operators by this New Board the process described would prove too onerous and once again is simply not necessary. We already have a strenuous testing process in place provided by the US Coast Guard that requires renewal every five (5) years and provides for random drug testing. I don’t believe there are any other industries that fall under ADFG’s oversight that have these criteria.
This new Board represents a growth in government that is simply not warranted and the only thing it brings to the table is more burdensome red tape.
Date Submitted: 11/14/2008Guide type: None
Another Hoop to jump thru. With all the regulations and Govt agencies currently in place, do we really need to micro-manage. I've 4-saltwater boats and Capts for each plus a releif Capt, with the 3-yr Asst guide regulation, that really curtails how I will beable to find Capt's on a short notice. Three hundred plus days to get a license, and you must also work under a guide to get a guide license. Sometimes I use a Sightseeing Capt. to give my guys a day off, they are licensed familar with the area and my deck hand is familar with the fishing.
This sure seems like a directive on who can be hired to operate a vessel and thats taken care of by the Coast Guard. All of a sudden their is a value associated to being a ADF&G approved guide. The charter operations that already do a good service are rewarded byt their clients and their employers. This Card essentially will make a mulitple vessel owner subject to the whim of his Guide Carded Capts.
Regarding state residents vs non-residents; There are alot of Capt's and deckhands who make their living in this industry by traveling between climates. They are extremely professional and provide a valuable service to the State. Isn't it about time that Commercial Fishing Capt's are required to be State of Alaska residents, and their vessels homr-ported in Alaska as well as their deckhands be residents of the state. I'm very concerned on the direction of this task force and who their Participants initally were, I've lived in Alaska 45 yrs, and run a charter service since 1974.
Date Submitted: 11/14/2008Guide type: SaltWater
I have been running a charter boat out of Valdez for the past 20 plus years and due not support the guide licensing proposals that put use in with the hunting guides. In 2007 I applied for and got a transporter license for Pince Willam Sound. All the paper work that I had to submit I already had because of the requirements that where already placed on me by the State and the Coast Guard. I did have one problem with the game board they do not have good communication with the Federal BLM. The State gave me permission to transport hunter and allowed those hunters to stay on my boat. The Federal BLM out of Cordova said I could drop hunters off but they could not stay on the boat and I would have to leave the area. I was also told by BLM that I could apply for a permit but new ones where not being issue because of a study that they where doing. The whole point is that because the state and fed do not communicate the charters could end up loosing their business. If you want to control out of state fisherman then issue fewer fishing license, and put limits on the amounts of fish that can be taken for the season.
Date Submitted: 11/13/2008Guide type: Both
I have 2 boats thus I have to hire at least one Captain/Sportfish guide. If sport fish guides are limited and my Captain quits, am I out of business? I haven't seen anything about vessels versus guides.
There is a proposal (Proposal 95) written by Cordova District Fishermen United going before the board next month to restrict sport fishing gear so that sport can't get to black cod. The proposal states black cod are fully allocated -meaning 100% are designate to commercial. Whoever mentioned 80% for commercial, it isn't enough.
If we don't agree to the Sport Fish Guide Board they will find another way. Example - Proposal 94 was also submitted by Cordova District Fishermen United to restrict charter vessels in Prince William Sound to 6 lines in the water if they don't qualify for the Federal LEP. If the Board idea goes away, they will be free to submit Proposals and the Fish Board, which is dominated by commercial fisherman will have the power to destroy us.
It's kind of like the halibut issue - we have to look at which is the least painful, not whether or not it's a good thing. At least the Fish Guide Board would be made up of guides, although don't be surprised if a bunch of commercial fishermen don't get licenses and try to dominate the board - maybe the regs should disallow someone who holds a sport fish guide license and commercial permits.
Date Submitted: 11/13/2008Guide type: SaltWater
Amen to the posts! It appears that the proposal doesn't pass the "Smell Test."
The comments in these posts make more sense than the proposed draft.
If the Guide associations were allowed to make up a test for the Board members and ADF&G members promoting this measure then It might be a bit more palitable.
If they failed to pass the test on the first attempt then they would no longer be qualified for thier positions and be terminated. Sound like something you read in the draft proposal?
I'll help write the test!
Date Submitted: 11/13/2008Guide type: SaltWater
I have reviewed this proposal and it provides for another unnessecary board.
There are already plenty of agencies overseeing this industry...and doing a fine job.
I can appreciate there may be issues on some rivers and with unguided operations but these issue would be better resolved by the agencies already in place or by legislation specifically targeting the unguided operations/issues.
This proposed board is simply too broad in scope and really does not bring anything new to the table.
More obstacles are not needed!!!
Date Submitted: 11/13/2008Guide type: None
Just what we need, more unnessecary boards.
Who is behind this idea? It sure sounds like the commercial fishing interests trying to gain even more control!
There are plenty of laws concerning these issues and they just need to be inforced!
What next? Will we all have to pass a "board" to obtain a fishing license.
What does Gov. Palin think about adding to our already onerous government?
Date Submitted: 11/12/2008Guide type: SaltWater
Sportfish Guide Services Board Task Force
Nov. 12, 2008 TD
I have reviewed the web site, including the rationale statements expressed, explaining the need for the creation of this task force, all the public comments, and the proposed version of the Guide Services Board.
First let me say that I do not support the creation of a Sportfish Guide Board. I will not go into my many specific reasons here, but it is suffice to say that the many public comments on the web site against this proposal express my sentiments exactly. And from those comments, my tally shows that over 75% of the comments are against the forming a Guide Board.
However, I find some very troubling information on the web site, found in the introduction page, explaining how and why this task force was formed. For me, this introduction page leaves several very important questions unanswered.
1). The introduction basically states that the very reason this Task Force was formed was because:
“A number of individuals across the state have voiced concern......” So “in 2006 the ADF&G Commissioner authorized a task force....”
So my first question is: Just who actually voiced this concern, how this can be verified, where are these comments recorded, and to what user group did they belong. In other words, provide the records for the basis of making this statement and the creation of this task force. All your posts on this web site are from after this task force was formed, none from before.
2). The web sites then very next sentence (and second paragraph) states:
“The overall goal of the task force was to define a program that will.....”
So my next question is: Why was this the very next step in the procedure, rather than first determine if the so called “voiced concern” was even valid or not? Where was this investigative step?? Why wasn’t there an open forum set up for public input at that time, to receive documented public input to confirm this (so far secret) “voiced concern” so as to establish the validity or the need to set up a task force? Why immediately jump to the development of a program before a need was established?
3). The fourth paragraph is very troubling. In part, it states:
“The intent of creating this Board would be to avoid Constitutional Issues..... and authorize the Board to establish use areas and pursue limitations on use... increase professional standards....and slow industry growth.....”
So, in other words, since the State couldn’t create a Limited Entry Program earlier, they now want to by-pass the procedures they couldn’t get around earlier, create a Guide Board (of Charter Operators) to by-pass this process, and cause the charter industry to rip themselves apart by creating a board of competing peers to establish a Limited Entry Program and do their other dirty work for them.
In my opinion, the methods and reasons given for creating this Sportfish Guide Board are disgraceful. And as for the actual content within the draft language of this proposal, it will create far more problems than it will ever resolve. I do not support the formation of this Sportfish Guide Board.
Date Submitted: 11/12/2008Guide type: Both
This is just what is needed, another layer of paper work to deal with. The Coast Guard provides our license and they do a good job, the forest service tells where we can and can't go. the dept. of Fish and Game gives us useless log books to fill out, and NMFS is lurking out there, stiring up the pot, just because they can. No one in ADF&G seems to care what is best for the sportsman, visitors, and business of the state, but only to that of special interests. if this is so important, let the people of Alaska vote on it.
Previous 10 Posts | Next 10 Posts
