All Forums  Forum Category - To Edit click the Pencil Icon to the right ->  General State Fisheries Issues  Why Brent Johnson On The BOF?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.

Screensize: 640 x 480 800 x 600 1024 x 768 1280 x 1024 UserName: Password: Enter Anti SPAM Code: Click here to refresh this page Format Mode: Basic  Help  Prompt  Format: Font Andale Mono Arial Arial Black Book Antiqua Century Gothic Comic Sans MS Courier New Georgia Impact Lucida Console Script MT Bold Stencil Tahoma Times New Roman Trebuchet MS Verdana   Size 1 2 3 4 5 6   Color Black Red Yellow Pink Green Orange Purple Blue Beige Brown Teal Navy Maroon LimeGreen Message Icon:                             Message: * HTML is OFF * Forum Code is ON Smilies [quote][i]Originally posted by kenai[/i] [br]Why Would Brent Johnson Desire To Be On The Alaska Board Of Fisheries? Sport, subsistence and personal users are all pretty upset that Governor Palin wants to create another commercial fishing seat on our Alaska Board of Fisheries. The reason for the concern is because these common users have just become used to dealing with a BOF made up of 3 sport, 3 commercial and 1 subsistence/personal use members. Now the governor wants to return to a commercial majority like the board had back years ago when tremendous controversy enveloped the BOF process? The process was so overwhelmed with controversy back then that the board accomplished little other than head-butting. The quid pro quo ploy the commercial fishing industry used back then was that a Bristol Bay commercial BOF member, would support all pro-commercial fishing issues statewide arising out of any place other than Bristol Bay. Then BOF members from outside Bristol Bay, would repay the quid pro quo by supporting all pro-commercial fishing issues within Bristol Bay. This arrangement preformed very well until the late 1990's when common users were finally able to break up this conflict of interest arrangement and arrived at the current 3 sport, 3 commercial, 1 subsistence/personal use seat ratio. With the breaking of this "commercial conflict of interest" came an increase in fisheries allocations for common users, going from 3% to 10% within Cook Inlet. It is this 7% common user increase in fisheries allocation which has so upset Brent Johnson and the Cook Inlet commercial fishing industry in general. These commercial users have basically blamed their lost of this 7% allocation, on the fact that they lost their commercial majority lock on the BOF. Rather than plainly stating up front that they desire to again illegally manipulate the BOF, they instead have claimed that the current BOF is unfair. Brent Johnson refers to our current BOF process as being a "kangaroo court". http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/013008/letters_3801.shtml The commercial solution to this "kangaroo court", is to just add a Cook Inlet BOF seat. This claim is intended to infer that Cook Inlet lacks BOF representation, when in fact it has little to do with Cook Inlet representation. This is nothing but a power grab to revert the BOF back to the way it used to be when statewide commercial interests, "quid per quo" cross protected each other within a commercial fisheries majority on the BOF. The key to understanding the true commercial intent here is to take a very close look at what Brent Johnson has been claiming for years. He has been claiming that our BOF is going to "make commercial fishing in Cook Inlet a memory", for many years. http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/013008/letters_3801.shtml . He makes this statement even as he know perfectly well that any BOF member coming from Cook Inlet commercial would be legally required to recuse themselves from most deliberations involving Cook Inlet. I then ask myself why would any person desire a Cook Inlet commercial fisherman be on the BOF, when they would not be able to vote on Cook Inlet issues? Johnson is claiming that the situation is "rotten" since Cook Inlet lacks commercial representation on the BOF but if he got that representation, they would not be able to vote on Cook Inlet issues, so how would they be able to change the "rotten" situation? Johnson also claims that Cook Inlet commercial fishers cannot get a "fair shake" within the same above reference, without a Cook Inlet commercial fisher on the BOF. Obviously there is much more going on here than just seating a Cook Inlet Board Member because this does make any sense, right? It is not a big secret that BOF members effect each other in a very substantial way by just talking to other BOF members. Also, right now our commercial fishing industry is very intensely pushing our legislature to reduce or totally eliminate recusals for conflict of interest. Most people would call this a non-functional "catch 22 situation" but not Johnson. Brent Johnson is arguing for a supposed "catch 22 situation", while commercial fishing lobbies our legislature to reduce or eliminate recusals for conflict of interest, while the BOF acquires a commercial fishing majority? It is obvious that Brent Johnson's "Cook Inlet representation claim" is a smoke-screen for his true intent to return to the past commercial "quid pro quo" statewide rule. A "fair shake", "things are rotten", a "kangaroo court"? These are all meaningless terms being used to disguise the true nature of a "quid pro quo" commercial takeover attempt on our Alaska Board of Fish. No other conclusion is even possible because the only thing Johnson could "legitimately" effect, would be on fisheries issues outside the Cook Inlet area. So why would he claim that a Cook Inlet commercial fisher on the BOF would give Cook Inlet commercial fishers a "fair shake"? Logically Johnson can only be referring to either an illegal "quid pro quo" commercial agenda or he does not fully understand that a Cook Inlet BOF member would not be able to legally correct the situation he is referring to. Johnson is clearly stating that he seeks statewide commercial control of our BOF by way of claiming a lack of Cook Inlet commercial representation. It is illegal to obtain this kind of control over fisheries you have a conflict of interest within, so what could Johnson's agenda be? Johnson's below article was not a slip of the lip. I have know Brent Johnson for 30 years and over that time period I have watched him put forth at least a dozen major fisheries proposals which on the surface appeared to make no real sense. Within each of these cases there were non-reality issues up front and reality issues behind the scenes. The reality of Brent Johnson getting on the BOF is a statewide commercial high-jacking of the BOF process. It is obvious that Johnson's agenda can only be to inappropriately influence BOF decisions within Cook Inlet issues and he basically admits this goal within his below article. For this reason I request that the Alaska Legislature NOT CONFIRM Brent Johnson to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Thank you. Don Johnson ccpwow@gci.net 907 262 7893 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Letter to the Editor Web posted Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Something's fishy on the Board of Fish Letter to the Editor Here's what's going down. The state Board of Fisheries (BOF) is going to hold a February meeting, put on a kangaroo court and enact regulations that will likely make commercial fishing in Cook Inlet a memory. Here's why: governors Palin, Murkowski, Knowles, Hickel, Cowper and Sheffield didn't appoint a single Cook Inlet commercial fisher to the BOF. Gov. Jay Hammond was the last to do that, with the appointment of Dannie Garroutte, a drift fisher from Ninilchik (served 1975-80). Isn't that odd? The Cook Inlet basin includes Anchorage, has the bulk of the state's population and many Cook Inlet commercial fishers, and yet six governors chanced to not appoint a single one. In that same span (since 1979), 12 Cook Inlet basin sportfishers have served on the BOF. They are: Calvin Fair of Soldotna ( 1977-79), Russ Dunn of Anchorage (1975-80), Bix Bonney (Kenai River guide, 1983-87), Bud Hodson of Anchorage (1986-93), Mike Chihuly (Ninilchik saltwater guide 1988-93), Irv Carlisle of Soldotna (1990-93), Tom Elias (president of the Alaska Sport Fishing Association 1991-93), Larry Engel (former Fish and Game sportfish biologist, 1993-2003), Dr. Dick Bower of Soldotna (1993-96), Dan Coffey (Anchorage attorney who crafted the "fish initiative," 1997-2002), Ed Dersham (Anchor Point guide, 1997-2005) and Howard Delo (Wasilla sportfisher critical of drifters 2007-). To his credit, Gov. Steve Cowper appointed Mike Haggren, a Kodiak resident who drifted in the inlet. Before Haggren had the opportunity to actually sit at a BOF meeting, however, he was cited for a commercial fishing violation. Cowper had the courage and good sense to give his resignation. The same can't be said of current board member Jeremiah Campbell, a Murkowski appointment from Seward. Campbell, who has a guide business, was cited for a Fish and Game violation, but he will be in full participation at the upcoming BOF meeting because the same governor who criticized the Murkowski machine for dishonesty in oil and gas issues is unwilling to clean up her own administration. Why can't Cook Inlet commercial fishers get a fair shake? I don't know, but I have an idea there's "something rotten in Denmark," and it comes from politics, not salmon. Brent Johnson Clam Gulch http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/013008/letters_3801.shtml [/quote]   Check here to include your profile signature.