


August 25, 2009
Subsistence-Fishing Alaska Senator Fights Fishing Citation
By Dave Hurteau
From Newsday:
An Alaska state senator will challenge a fishing citation he received and seek a court opinion on whether a state wildlife officer has jurisdiction over subsistence fishermen on federal land.
Sen. Albert Kookesh, D-Angoon, said Monday the Alaska Legislature has consistently refused to take steps to align the state constitution with federal law governing subsistence on federal land. He believes the state wildlife officer who landed his float plane on Admiralty Island and cited him and other fishermen for too many subsistence fish had no business being there.
Megan Peters, a troopers spokeswoman, told the Juneau Empire the party was in possession of 148 sockeye salmon taken with a beach seine net. Each man had a valid subsistence permit allowing them to collectively take a total of 75 sockeye, she said.
Comments (10)
Really, they were breaking the law so the Fish & Game had all the right in the world to be there. Im sure they knew what they were doing, and they are just mad that they were caught.
I'm not sure about the jurisdiction issue, but seems to me they were twice the limit. If he were a Republican it'd be a big scandal i'm sure.
What part of Sen. Albert Kookesh, D-Angoon subsistence permit allowing them to collectively take a total of 75 sockeye he doesn’t understand! There is a reason for bag limits and Alaskans know that! I hope they throw the book at them!!
Once again what audaciousness and ignorant these Democrats have!
The rules apply to those other than them!
I remember one night we pulled over a City Councilwoman for speeding. Not only was she clocked 62 in a 45 she didn’t have a driver license proof of registration and insurance. But because she was a Council Woman she truly believed she was immune to Local, State and Federal laws. We turned it over to City Police with the jurisdiction and boy did t ever hit the fan!
Sounds Familiar!
It said the party had collected 148 salmon. If there were more than one fisherman, it seems that they were under their 75 fish per person limit.
Would like to know more facts, but if there were two or more fisherman and I were on a jury, given what is presented here I'd acquit.
Looking back maybe the per person limit was lower. Anyone know?
They're over the limit--that's poaching, period. The jurisdiction argument is just playing the lawyer game--trying to get off on a technicality. Politics has nothing to do with this--poaching is an equal opportunity crime.
Limit is the limit for a reason on most occasions. Don't like it, try and get it changed through the proper channels.....Officer was just doing his job...
What the hell do you do with 148 sockeyes anyways? Moron alert.
I'm from SE Alaska. I know very well the place where Albert was fishing; it is lake and stream system that supports only a small run of sockeye salmon. The harvest limits are there strictly for conservation reasons.
For Albert and his friends to take 148 sockeyes from this fragile system is unconscionable, regardless of their heritage, and regardless of the conflict between state and federal laws.
Mike Diehl, the trooper said that the fishermen all together had a limit of 75 fish, not each individual. I definitely agree with officials on this one, definitely throw the book at them. They had almost double the legal limit, it seems very wasteful.
Just like everyone else has said, he seems to just be mad that he was caught. He had double the limit when he should have had only 75... just dont understand why he would make a big deal out of it and make an even bigger deal out of it, rather than just accepting the penalty.
Post a Comment
They're over the limit--that's poaching, period. The jurisdiction argument is just playing the lawyer game--trying to get off on a technicality. Politics has nothing to do with this--poaching is an equal opportunity crime.
Really, they were breaking the law so the Fish & Game had all the right in the world to be there. Im sure they knew what they were doing, and they are just mad that they were caught.
What part of Sen. Albert Kookesh, D-Angoon subsistence permit allowing them to collectively take a total of 75 sockeye he doesn’t understand! There is a reason for bag limits and Alaskans know that! I hope they throw the book at them!!
Once again what audaciousness and ignorant these Democrats have!
The rules apply to those other than them!
Limit is the limit for a reason on most occasions. Don't like it, try and get it changed through the proper channels.....Officer was just doing his job...
I'm not sure about the jurisdiction issue, but seems to me they were twice the limit. If he were a Republican it'd be a big scandal i'm sure.
I'm from SE Alaska. I know very well the place where Albert was fishing; it is lake and stream system that supports only a small run of sockeye salmon. The harvest limits are there strictly for conservation reasons.
For Albert and his friends to take 148 sockeyes from this fragile system is unconscionable, regardless of their heritage, and regardless of the conflict between state and federal laws.
I remember one night we pulled over a City Councilwoman for speeding. Not only was she clocked 62 in a 45 she didn’t have a driver license proof of registration and insurance. But because she was a Council Woman she truly believed she was immune to Local, State and Federal laws. We turned it over to City Police with the jurisdiction and boy did t ever hit the fan!
Sounds Familiar!
What the hell do you do with 148 sockeyes anyways? Moron alert.
Mike Diehl, the trooper said that the fishermen all together had a limit of 75 fish, not each individual. I definitely agree with officials on this one, definitely throw the book at them. They had almost double the legal limit, it seems very wasteful.
Looking back maybe the per person limit was lower. Anyone know?
Just like everyone else has said, he seems to just be mad that he was caught. He had double the limit when he should have had only 75... just dont understand why he would make a big deal out of it and make an even bigger deal out of it, rather than just accepting the penalty.
It said the party had collected 148 salmon. If there were more than one fisherman, it seems that they were under their 75 fish per person limit.
Would like to know more facts, but if there were two or more fisherman and I were on a jury, given what is presented here I'd acquit.
Post a Comment