Single Page
Beyond Oil: Issues Alaska's Legislature should consider in 2012Editor's Note: The following list of issues was compiled by Alaska Dispatch staff in response to a simple question: What might Alaska lawmakers focus on besides the seemingly perennial attendance to oil taxes? For more on the list and why we think it important, read Thinking Outside the Oil Patch, linked below. Stop federal encroachment on halibut fishery | Invest in ourselves with professional schools | Alaska's blossoming film industry | Modifying Alaska's mining tax | Building Alaska's own icebreaker | Repeal intensive wildlife management | Thinking outside the oil patch
Alaska's halibut fisheries must be managed by AlaskansAlaska has long prided itself on the management of marine resources in the waters off its coast. A driving force behind statehood was the desire to rid Alaska of the fish traps blamed for decimating salmon runs, an accusation that wasn't wholly true, and the Seattle-based economic interests that profited off the traps. The state later fought for and obtained the authority to manage crab almost everywhere they range off Alaska. And it has always clung to the authority to manage salmon fisheries -- including those in Cook Inlet and Bristol Bay -- that sprawl far from shore into federal waters. This year, however, the state turned its back on this 50-year-old policy for the first time and acquiesced to efforts by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to impose sweeping changes in Alaska near-shore halibut fisheries. That the Council wanted to take halibut away from small, coastal charter businesses to provide more fish for commercial halibut longliners is negligible compared to the broader implications of what happened. The limp-wristed response to the Council's action by the administration of Gov. Sean Parnell was an invitation for a federal raid on what have historically been state management prerogatives. The governor and Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Cora Campbell argued that halibut are unique and different because management of the species is in part dictated by a treaty between the U.S. and Canada. But the same applies to many other fisheries, most notably those of the Yukon River and the trans-boundary rivers of Southeast Alaska. The Pacific Salmon Treaty between the U.S. and Canada formed a Pacific Salmon Commission not dissimilar to the International Pacific Halibut Commission set up to manage flatfish. The state is already struggling with the salmon commission to maintain king salmon quotas for the coastal waters of Southeast, and the battle appears to have just begun. Conservationists in Canada this year launched an effort to reign in production by Alaska salmon hatcheries. They claim those hatcheries, not to mention Alaska intercept fisheries along the coast, "threaten" Canadian salmon. It seems only a matter of time before the Pacific Salmon Commission attempts to impose itself in Alaska salmon fisheries the way the International Pacific Halibut Commission has imposed itself in halibut fisheries. And these aren't the only organizations looking to use federal powers to take over fisheries managed for decades by the state. Just out the backdoor of the state's largest city, the United Cook Inlet Drift Association has sued to force federal oversight of salmon management in the U.S. waters of Cook Inlet. U.S. waters starts three miles offshore. The Alaska Department of Law successfully fought the organization's effort to invite the Feds to manage the Inlet "on the grounds that the State of Alaska's management is inconsistent with the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries and Conservation Act of 1976." But the issue is not yet settled. Some of the commercial fishermen who serve in the Legislature appear to think this fine. Commercial fishermen in Cook Inlet have been forced to give up some of their catch over the past two decades to growing sport fisheries. The Feds have sometimes appeared more willing to grant the wishes of commercial fishermen than the Alaska Board of Fisheries, but it would be a mistake to think federal management would be anything but a disaster. Under federal management, the Gulf of Alaska has been managed so well that the most bountiful species there now is arrowtooth flounder -- a fish that is just about inedible to humans. Before the Feds take over Cook Inlet and make the predominate species the Irish Lord, the Legislature needs to send a message to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the governor, and the Feds that Alaska plans to maintain its primary role in managing fish that graze in "Alaska pastures." If necessary, the Legislature should be ready to appropriate the money to fund the lawyers to push the state's case in court. It's clear that if there's no push back against federal invasions they will keep coming. Rep. Alan Austerman is to be commended for pushing back against federal efforts to grab more power to manage Alaska fisheries along the edge of the three-mile limit last year, but he could use some help in a battle in which the only the first volley has been fired. And Austerman himself needs to recognize that the state can't afford to allow a bad precedent to be set in a fishery -- in this case the charter halibut fishery -- just because he doesn't happen to like the fishery. Given an inch, federal officials are all too happy to take a mile. The supremacy clause has been used to make federal law supreme in many places. The Legislature needs to stand up to it in Alaska at every turn. -- Craig Medred Stop federal encroachment on halibut fishery | Invest in ourselves with professional schools | Alaska's blossoming film industry | Modifying Alaska's mining tax | Building Alaska's own icebreaker | Repeal intensive wildlife management | Thinking outside the oil patch
"Or will oil taxes supercede this vital economic interest?" The word is "supersede." Cedere and sedere are two different Latin verbs. The latter menas "to rest upon" and that's the etymology of "supersede." Sounds like the same old crap! Overharvest, Overharvest, with little enforcement until the resource numbers start to crash. How does recreational charting fishing compare to commercial in halibut numbers harvested? Seems like it would be a no brainer that the Commercial fleet would harvest more with by-catch. Is this about the resource and its future or greed? We see it all over the world. Signed: Concerned citizen that would like to see his children be able to halibut fish. Well Craig I have to agree with you about letting the Fed's have control of anything. Exactly what would you have the state do? We could whine lots and make lots of press for our politicians or we could do something that might actually work. 1. In any case where the state has functions that mirror Federal functions we should ignore Federal regulators. 2. End all cooperative agreements to manage fish,game and natural resources. 3. End all cooperative law enforcement agreements. 4. Deny federal officials access to or right of way across state lands. Sent state troopers to arrest them when found. You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not about the number of attorneys practicing in Alaska today. It's about offering Alaska's younger generations the opportunity to live here, educate themselves, pursue professional certifications. Half of law school students don't become practicing lawyers. But those skills permeate the community. Small businesses are created from the knowledge attained in graduate work. Why should anyone stay here if there's not more to offer than just Slope jobs and state/federal office work? Anchorage and Alaska needs the UAA to be a full fledged university and be able to offer PhD's. Anchorage is lossing $100 million a year in research grants. Hamilton ran off the last Chanellar who wanted to make UAA a full fledged university. Hamilton has been a disaster for Alaska's Universtity system. I just can't believe Scott Kawasaki keeps introducing this bill to create a law school. There is just no need for a law school here, let alone one at public expense. Based on our small population, we already have an excess of attorneys. An Alaska law school would probably pump out 200 attorneys each year. This would be a completely unnecessary waste at public expense. The only people who would benefit would be the attorneys who could get the highly paid state university professorships. A medical school, on the other hand, might be a good idea. If Alaska can support a good medical school and and a good law school, the private market will provide them. Why should Alaska taxpayers across the board be largely paying for the tuition of people who will be making big salaries due to their education? This would only add to the coming implosion of the education bubble caused by absurd federal loan policies. Please quit envying the State treasury as the source of your fantasies. There are plenty of practical careers practicing law beyond your narrow-minded view of defense attorneys or trial lawyers. Create a new law school? Whoa! Before we go off half cocked and do something foolish, let's just stop and think about this. What would the result be of creating a new law school? More lawyers! Is that really what we need? Be careful what you wish for ... It's too bad the Jones Act won't let us just buy the NS 50 Let Pobedy from the Russians. It's nuclear powered with a 4 year endurance, is designed to break ice nearly 10 feet thick, can carry over 100 passengers in addition to the crew, and in the summer of 2008 it sailed from its home port to the North Pole in 4 days so some tourist could see an eclipse. It kind of kills two birds with one stone by providing on one hand a robust, practical platform for facilitating shipping, augmenting search and rescue capability, and arctic oil spill response, while on the other hand being a very special cruise ship that could take passengers on arctic adventures, for a premium of course. Reading the other comments here, it doesn't seem likely that the US, much less Alaska, has the capacity to produce a vessel of this type quickly or at all and must resort to recycling the icebreakers of the last century. The USCGC Healy went from the keel being laid to launch in just over a year and was commissioned in just over 3 years, so that seems pretty reasonable for a fairly large vessel with a lifespan of 30-50 years when the reality is that we should be looking 100 years down the road. All American Shipyards are in a constant state of flux.. The USCGC-Healy was built in Avondale Shipyard, Louisiana.. If Alaska wants an Icebreaker in 2013.. If you want to think 100years ahead in the arctic, consider an American ekranoplan/WIG -- The Boeing Pelican can be modified for icepack operations with a reinforced ice-basher amphibious hull.. When the Governor of the state meets with oil executives, and the public is not allowed to hear what is going on, Democracy is hosed. Public lands, public resources, public wealth is being managed without public consent or knowledge. News of these events are ambiguous at best (which is the only way the Alaska government lets you listen in). A few are getting filthy rich, while the public is working so hard, they do not bear to hear how bad things have become. Steadily, the corrupt are filling the population with illegal immigrants to make your voice less powerful. Without unity and effort, conditions in Alaska are going to remain the way they are. You could be well off, but instead you choose to be allotted what the politicians want you to have. Right now is the time to do something about it. See the cheating at the ballot box. See the criminals being let go on technicalities. Get outraged!. Soon you will be too poor to respond. According to the Dispatch that meeting was attended by a "who's Who of Alaska politics". Sadly however, The Dispatch has been keeping the list of attendee's to themselves. The question is, what is our vision of the future? Where would we like to be two, ten, twenty, fifty and a hundred years from now? Until we figure this out, it will be difficult to reach agreement on or make a commitment toward anything! Once we agree on a vision, some goals, and objectives, we might combine the most viable immediate "solutions" with mid and long-term best-practice strategies to get us there. Assuming we would like to have a presence in our waters, and this makes sense, the "fix what you've got then build the best you can" idea makes sense to me.... but that's just me. With a strong enough consensus things will move forward quickly. Reaching a consensus requires an open forum and healthy ongoing dialog. Once again, I'm reading some things that make sense to me. I believe we will be left with empty holes in the ground. Once the corrupt have taken everything you own, they are going to fly away. You need to fight back public! To accomplish any of these lofty goals this state will need affordable and available power from natural gas/propane, in order to efficiently compete effectively in the process, which involves many players, state,fed,native corporations etc. The crushing cost of fuel, freight, heat, and generated power will always, as it has in the past, dominate the best intentions that seem to lie fallow for years without advancing... a natural gas pipeline off the slope to feed this state. If that takes a modicum of LNG export to make the best benefits of all these ambitions doable, then that is what we need to place the immediate priority on, and that`s getting that gas off the slope to Alaskans in amounts that advance those lofty goals mentioned in the article. Natural gas is the "bridge" that, along with "reliable and practical" renewable energy forms, will lead to a future with increasingly less dependence on fossil fuels. If we cannot access our gas we will continue to be choked energy-wise, and at the mercy of the oil agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAAS_Surveyor_%28S_132%29 This icebreaker is currently tied up in mothballs.. I know the broker for this vessel.. They have one hand on a pump, in the other on a shotgun. Your included in the debate as long as you don't cross the line and stop the hose from sucking. Its a pretend "debate" that your NOT winning. a NEW best technology icebreaker, or TWO, would be worth their weight in gold to the US. The investment would employ a lot of skilled folks, and train a lot more in the process. If we`re going to have an effective presence in our own arctic waters during the long ice months this is a no-brainier. Trying to make a silk purse out of an old sow`s ear will put us behind the eight ball when it comes to functioning EFFECTIVELY in the arctic as it pertains to increasing arctic commerce and transport, and the support infrastructure that will demand. How do we go from being the most wealthy State in the world, to dependance on Russia for oil? You had better take a better look from your backyard! You might be seeing Russia too! jmacinak -- I dunno how much you know about shipbuilding. I been a shipyard troubleshooter for a few decades. I have worked on many ship remodel jobs, and the new owners almost always insist on the latest technology. I spent a whole day walking through this vessel in 2009. One of the many interesting attributes of this vessel is the propulsion system is steam turbine, costly to run on diesel, but unlike the fuel-hog brand new engines in the M/V-Susitna which burn #1-diesel 520gal/hr, these steam turbines are fully capable of burning multifuels in the boilers.. these boilers can use best-tech LNG in combination with emulsion-fuels that can be made for 50cents/gallon. The purchase, remodel, and yearly operational costs with this vessel will be much less than a new vessel, and it can be ready to deploy for operations within 1year.. unlike commissioning design & construction of new icebreakers which nowdays often takes several years.. America now has a shortage of shipyards capable of building new large heavy icebreakers, most of these yards are backlogged for several years already, get in line your new expensive boats will take a decade to completion.. http://www.ngvglobal.com/category/maritime If we do propane-in-polypipe you might see a gasline to railbelt before we haul you off to the taxidermist too..!! I agree with every point you made. However if we give up on the idea that the United States cannot build a worthwhile and timely ship, then we are in worse trouble than I thought. Jobs doing this kind of NECESSARY work, is the best medicine for working our way out of this very long economic downturn. To say we cannot do it (build one or two of our own) for this or that reason, generally speaking, doesn`t advance the proposition that we need to stimulate this economy with worthwhile long-term projects like this. We`re going to break our own ice in our own water, or the Russians and Norwegians will. Pick your poison. I`d like "made in USA" stamped on the best of the best. We can patch yours together..sturdy, fine adaptive propulsion and fuel systems.. I`m all for it if it "fits the bill" and helps us monitor and influence winter commerce developments as they pertain to our national waters, and international waters, as well as the ability to respond to the inevitable small to moderate fossil fuel incident such as a wreck breaking up on the rocks. That`s one thing this state is not short of (rocks to tear your bottom out of errant or lost or disabled ships). I`d vote to buy and upgrade your breaker my friend. jmacinak-- When I read your stuff I get excited and start lacing up my boots.. you are quite the visionary.. guys like you need to be mass produced.. dunno what your mom would say about that though (;-P) I agree we got to get America back to Action.. Alaska is capable of building standard 100x400 barges.. We have a big need for many barges of many different configurations.. Icebreakers like the Healy are very expensive to operate, and they are inefficient compared to new designs that fly over the ice.. Hoverbarges work like a hockey-puck, air-pressure is a very efficient icebreaking method. I figured out how to make the Humphrey Engine work for marine propulsion.. simple as a toilet, powerful like a waterfall, quiet as a whale.. A barge with a Humphrey engine can swim with the whales without hurting them, no whirling propellor, just a big gentle jet thrust and suction. |
Comments