Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Subsistence-Fishing Alaska Senator Fights Fishing Citation

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

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)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Hunt_Hard wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

Looking back maybe the per person limit was lower. Anyone know?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from seadog wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 38 weeks ago

What the hell do you do with 148 sockeyes anyways? Moron alert.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Woodstock wrote 2 years 38 weeks ago

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.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rem700-06 wrote 2 years 38 weeks ago

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.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 2 years 29 weeks ago

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.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from seadog wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hunt_Hard wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Woodstock wrote 2 years 38 weeks ago

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.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 38 weeks ago

What the hell do you do with 148 sockeyes anyways? Moron alert.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rem700-06 wrote 2 years 38 weeks ago

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.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

Looking back maybe the per person limit was lower. Anyone know?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 2 years 29 weeks ago

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.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 39 weeks ago

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.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs