VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:23:52 04/14/09 Tue
Author: Don Johnson
Subject: Why Brent Johnson Desires To Be On Our Alaska Board Of Fisheries?

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

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.