Laine Welch/Alaska Fish Radio
The woman who filled the roll of “fisheries reporter” for Alaska’s largest newspaper for years has retired with an admission of what was obvious to fishery-educated readers a long-time ago:
She was a propagandist for the state’s commercial fishing industry.
“The goal always has been to make readers aware of the seafood industry’s economic, social and cultural importance to all Alaskans,” Laine Welch wrote in her farewell column.
That would the “commercial” seafood industry which has regularly been in conflict with the tourism fishing industry, which delivers more value per pound of fish; some state “personal use fisheries” that help to provide food security for tens of thousands of Alaskans, many of them with low incomes; and the subsistence seafood economy.
Most Alaskans think of subsistence as simply “living off the land,” but anthropologists have long defined it as a “socioeconomic system” wherein wild resources take the place of money.
As a propagandist, Welch ignored the conflicts that naturally arise between these various interests competing for slices of the limited supply of Alaska fish, or portrayed the commercial fishing industry as the victim of greedy’ sport, personal-use or subsistence interests.
Of the remaining 1.8 percent, 61 percent goes to subsistence which legally has a resource-harvest priority in the state, but usually only sees that priority applied in any meaningful way to the harvest of wildlife.
Alaska personal use fishermen, Alaska hunters abd Alaska anglers, plus non-resident hunters and fishermen all combined harvest 0.7 percent of the resource with tourists, primarily anglers who help support a thriving tourism business, taking the biggest share of that at 0.3 percent.
There are, of course, regional differences. The percentage harvest by personal-use fishermen and anglers in Cook Inlet, the finger of the Gulf of Alaska that laps at the shores of Alaska’s largest city, is closer to 20 percent than 2 percent.
Most of this 20 percent of the harvest – whether the fish are caught in the Inlet, in the streams of the Kenai Peninsula or in the creeks and rivers of the Matanuska-Susitna Valley – goes to support a tourism and recreational fishing industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars that competes directly with a commercial fishing industry limited to 1,386 permit.
A necessary business
Those permits are in the hands of fewer than 1,300 people (some commercial fishermen hold mulitple permits), who annually split the profits on the 80 percent lion’s share of the Inlet catch and often rightfully so.
Salmon return to the Inlet by the millions each year. The sport, personal-use dipnet and subsistence fisheries don’t begin to have the fishing power to capture the number of fish surplus to scientifically determined spawning needs.
The commercial fishery thus plays a vital role in the management of Inlet salmon, but there is a delicate balance. Small percentage shifts in where and when the commercial fishery catches salmon can have huge impacts on the quality of fishing in the streams and rivers that drain into the Inlet, and it is in those streams and rivers that most sport, personal-use and subsistence fishing takes place.
Welch long ignored the inherent conflicts between commercial fishing, tourism and individual Alaska fishermen to sing the praises of the commercial fishing business or, as she put it, “make readers aware of the seafood industry’s economic, social and cultural importance to all Alaskans.”
Imagine the ADN fronting an oil and gas reporter who had a goal of making “readers aware of the oil industry’s economic, social and cultural importance to all Alaskans.” And there are plenty of good things that could be written about the oil industry.
It provided the seed money the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation used to build a state savings account now valued at $80.6 billion. Though not the economic powerhouse it once was, the industry still accounts for about a quarter of all wages and salaries in the state. On the social front, it has been and remains the biggest, private supporter of the state’s many nonprofit social service organizations.
One could easily devote a lot of ink to singing the praises of the oil industry, but the ADN, to its credit, has not done that becuase there are both costs and benefits to any industry on the environmental, economic, social and cultural fronts. Thus the state’s largest news organiztion would never think of using an oil-industry propagandist as its “oil and gas reporter.”
And yet it did this with the fishing business for years.
When first called out on the issue, the newspaper’s big solution was to stop identifying Welch as an “independent journalist” in favor of identifying her as “a Kodiak-based fisheries journalist” and later as the author of “Fish Factor, a weekly roundup of news and opinion about Alaska’s commercial fishing industry.”
This was a creep toward the truth that never quite got there. ADN readers actually had to go visit the Fish Factor website at AlaskaFishRadio.com and look at the sponsors and advertisers there to discover Welch was wholly funded by the commercial fishing industry.
When once asked to explain how a reputable news organization could cover the complicated and multifacted world of Alaska fisheries in this way, ADN editor David Hulen explained that it was because fisheries coverage was just “too complicated” for anyone on his staff to untangle.
He conceded the newspaper should probably put a reporter on that beat to figure out how the state’s fisheries work and to objectively monitor the state’s regular “fish wars,” but that never happened.
That Welch provided her “news” for free to the ADN probably had a lot to do with this, though it is hard to imagine the newspaper running an “Oil Factor” report funded by the oil industry to spread oil industry propaganda.
Were this the end of a sad tale of journalist ethics gone down the toilet, this commentary would be bad enough, but this is not the end.
All the things wrong
The end was written by Welch herself who, after admitting to her years of propagandizing for the fishing industry, went on to outline the many ways in which Alaska has suffered at its hands.
Honest to God, to quote the former humor columnist Dave Barry, “I am not making this up.”
Here’s Welch excerpted:
- “I hope that Alaska can find ways to keep more of its fishing revenues in the state,” she observed, noting that 78 percent of the $718 million (or $560 million) made on the harvest of pollock and other groundfish caught off Alaska’s coast goes into the pockets of out-of-state fishing interests.
- “Fifty-two Alaskans own 31 percent of the snow crab quota share pool; 200 nonresidents own 66 percent. Forty-nine Alaskans own 28 percent of the Bristol Bay red king crab quota; 181 nonresidents own 70 percent,” she wrote. The crab fisheries are, pound for pound, the state’s most valuable commercial fisheries.
- “I hope that more salmon permits remain in Alaskan hands…residents of Bristol Bay communities, for example, now hold less than one-quarter of the region’s salmon permits. And more than 60 percent of gross earnings from the bay’s driftnet fishery leave the state,” she said.
- “My wish is to see more of every Alaska fish fully utilized. Nearly all other protein industries around the world use animals ‘from the rooter to the tooter.’ But in Alaska, the fish skins, heads, organs, shells and undervalued species like sculpin or arrowtooth flounder are mostly discarded or ground up and dumped,” she reported. No Alaska agency reports how much of the seafood harvest is dumped as post-processing waste in this state each year, but the McDowell Group, a consultancy, presented these figures in a 2017 report: “In 2015, Alaska harvesters caught 2,740 thousand metric tons of (round-weight) seafood. Not including meal/oil, Alaska processors sold 1,300 thousand metric tons, a yield of 47.5 percent. Alaska meal/oil operations utilized an estimated 395,000 to 483,000 round metric tons, or 14 to 18 percent of the total harvest volume (in round terms).” Those numbers would indicate somewhere between 35 percent to 38 percent of Alaska seafood is still being wasted in processing. U.S. researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future and the University of Florida report that in Norwegian there is “almost zero waste occurring at the processors. The silage, that is, fish heads, guts, trimmings and ‘floor fish,’ is used to make fish meal, pet food, fish oil or another byproduct.” Alaska processors are improving their use of waste but still lag.
- “I believe Alaska is getting left behind in terms of patented or trademarked ‘intellectual properties’ stemming from things like bioengineering, advanced analytics, decarbonized vessels, robotics and other high-tech industry advances seen in other states and nations,” Welch wrote. Given the state’s salmon processors have invested little in the research that drives this sort of work, this is no surpise. The comment does, however, make one wonder exaclty how clueless Welch might be as to how the world of R&D works.
- She did, however, note the technological progress elsewhere and how “the robot makers believe the system will help solve workforce problems in remote processing plants where it’s tough to recruit enough workers.” She makes no observation on what this will mean for the rural communities near those plants which are now supported on a year-round basis by the neednto maintain facilities to house and feed the large, annual influx of non-resident workers. Replacing that work force with robots will have a ripple effect on those communities.
But never mind writing about that. There’s propaganda work to be done.
As Welch observed in closing out her ADN “reporting,” it has been a privilege to be a voice for Alaska’s seafood industry, and I will continue to be.” She’s already got a blog up and running.
Everyone should wish her luck. At least now she’s being honest and not claiming to be some “independent journalist” dong what journalists are supposed to try to do: Explain what is happening, identify who is benefitting and where and when, and – in the best case – try to get some handle on why.
It’s the old 5Ws – who, what, where, when and why.
Propagandists are lucky that they can ignore them becuase they’re not journalists. They are sales people, and Welch has been doing a good job of selling Alaska’s a line for decades.
Categories: Commentary, Media, News, Outdoors
Hmm- I think people are confused regarding the definition of propaganda. Reporting facts and information in a relatively clean fashion is not propaganda.. Ms. lane was paid to report a certain slant . That’s propaganda. ( mixed with just enough facts to make it palatable) a dangerous mixture. ( a reporter who reports on the misrepresentation of facts is just a reporter and not a propagandist) even if not every one agrees with that reporters position or representation . It would do us all good to look up the definition of propaganda I think. To get some clarity.
I guess I thought everyone knew her reports were paid propaganda. As a former commercial fisherman and current sport and sometime personal use and relative to subsistence fisherman, I always read what Laine wrote for what it was, industry news. I also read news for the industry I am now in and understand how it does not read the same to me as it might to someone not familiar with that industry.
I’m honestly not sure that ANY news I’ve read in my entire life isn’t propaganda of one sort or another, but for what it’s worth I do think that the news I’ve read from Craig over the years is the most honest news I’ve ever read. I haven’t always agreed with him or sometime how the news he’s reported, but he doesn’t shy away from addressing it when questioned…that’s more than 100% of other reported journalists I’ve ever come across.
As a former commercial fisherman, current sports fisherman, sometime personal use fisherman, relative to subsistence fishermen, and a part time monetary contributor to craigmedred.news I certainly hope there are more of these discussions in the future.
Hi Craig:
There’s a lot in this piece we could debate and discuss–and you certainly raise important points.
But here’s one small part where YOU are the one parroting propaganda. You wrote “according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, commercial fishing interests net 98.2 percent of all wild resources harvested in the state – both fish and wildlife.” I see that a lot from the subsistence and sport sides of Alaska’s fish wars. And it’s technically true. But the vast majority of that harvest volume is in Bering Sea groundfish catches, particularly pollock, which neither subsistence nor sport users have any interest in harvesting or ability to harvest.
You acknowledge this later in your article when you write that “the percentage harvest by personal-use fishermen and anglers in Cook Inlet, the finger of the Gulf of Alaska that laps at the shores of Alaska’s largest city, is closer to 20 percent than 2 percent.” That’s the relevant kind of split we are talking about. Now you might respond “98% or 80%–so what? Commercial fishermen are still harvesting a vastly greater share.” But 98% packs a very different punch than 80%, and to keep quoting that 98% number as somehow relevant to the real fish wars in places like Cook Inlet is hardly an example of journalistic integrity. I expect it from sport fishing groups. I expect better from you. (To give you credit, you did get around to the 80%.)
Here’s something more subtle. You keep talking about the number of permit holders as the relevant figure for how deserving the commercial fishing industry is for some share of the fish resources. Permit holders have crew. And commercial fish don’t just get harvested–they get processed, and transported. All those people depend on commercial fishing, too.
Does that mean they add up to more than those who benefit from sport fishing and personal use fishing? Probably not by a long shot. But an informed and independent journalist shouldn’t low-ball the impact of commercial fishing, even if the underlying point is valid that fewer–or even far fewer–people benefit from it.
It’s the same thing when you talk about the value of the fishery as somehow being captured by the ex-vessel value of the harvest, while ignoring the significantly higher processed value of the commercial catch.
–Gunnar
OK, a couple things here, because I’m confident we are far more in agreement than disagreement on all of this.
1.) It is arguably unfair to use the ex-vessel value, but it is the value on which the fishery is taxed. If it were taxed on wholesale value, I’d be much happy to use that. Do you think the commercial fishing industry would go for such a shift in taxation?
2.) I put those numbers for Cook Inlet in there for a reason, and I think it was clearly fair. There are regional differences in Alaska fisheries. Nobody worries about the personal-use, subsistence or sport use of Bristol Bay sockeye because at the moment almost every drainage is being “over escaped” no matter how hard the state tries to boost the harvest.
3.) Lastly, I agree that the economic benefits flowing from Cook Inlet permit holders benefit more people than the permit holders, but the permit holders are far and away the biggest beneficiaries.
Now, since those same commercial fishermen, some of their crew and some processors are always whining about the “cooler loads” of tourist caught salmon from the Kenai going through Anchorage’s airport, could I get my favorite economist to come up with the value of a “cooler load” and how many cooler loads the commercial fishery in the Inlet catches each year?
I only ask because I think we can agree it would be nice to have an equitable way to compare economic value here. And personally, I really don’t care who catches the fish. It’s a common property resource, and at a societal/government level, such resources should be managed to produce the highest economic value with some offset for food security.
And I say sat “offset” because there is obviously some point where the lines cross and the monetary value exceeds the food-security value, ie. more people benefit from economic productivity of the money-producing harvest operations – be they commerical or sport – than by benefit from being allowed to kill their own food.
Personally, I think it’s great I can go harvest a bunch of Kenai sockeye each year at what works out to a price of about $1.17 per pound in 2021 dollars, but I don’t think that’s a good deal for “all” Alaskans and the resource does, theoretically, belong to all Alaskans even if some commercial permit holders think they own it.
Craig, are you being completely honest with your statement that you really don’t care who catches the fish? This for me is hard to believe, considering your continuous diatribe against cook inlet commercial salmon fisheries. And you need to get a grip. You were fired by adn. Shit happens. Get over it. Of course lainie welch painted alaskas commercial fisheries in a positive light. Look who her sponsors were. All businesses that profited from commercial fishing. Now, how about letting us know your sponsors . Krsa perhaps?
KRSA funding? I wish. Bob Penney sent me some money once. I got money from some anglers and guides as well as from a variety of commercial fishermen or former commercial fishermen. A lot of people I don’t know from Adam have contributed. I mainly don’t keep track. I appreciate every penny anyone contributes, but paying much attention to who contributed what would indicate an interest in letting that influence me.
That said, the revenue stream here isn’t enough to really influence anyone. I was making way more money at the ADN and got fired for not letting that influence me. Go figure. Who cares. A journalist can do the right thing or the personally more profitable thing. I prefer the former. Probably a character flaw but I’d do the same thing 100 times out of 100.
Now, I can presume your check is in the mail?
And I truly DO NOT CARE who catches the salmon of Cook Inlet. What I DO CARE is that the state get the most value out of its common-property resources. All of its common property resources
I sometimes find myself in conflict there with my personal-use/subsistence friends (including my best dipnet buddy) who think using salmon to feed Alaskan should always come first. That’s not always true. There are situations where the greatest benefit to the greatest number of Alaskans comes in putting the fish into an economic system that can generate not only cash but the ability to store cash in the form of savings.
Welch’s last column would indicate she understands that but never before stood up for it. The word for that is hypocrite. I’ve never been fond of such people. But the real problem with Welch is not that she “painted Alaska’s commercial fisheries in a positive light;” the real problem is the Anchorage Daily News and various other publications around the state never pointed out who paid her to write that propaganda and instead presented it as if was some form of “news.”
And she, of course, was never honest enough to disclose what was going on until she was all done doing it.
My only remaining question is: Why quit now? We’re in post-truth world. Ms. Welch was made for it.
Craig,
#Number 1,time is money, and money is time.Your fish costs you MUCH much more than $1.17/lb.And thats even given that as far as I know your retired.The cost goes up exponentially for any one that works.Your going to handle those fish at least 4 times,more if your a believer
in glazing whole H&G fish.
#2,you could catch Lainies program on NPR usually once a week pretty sure she threw out ASMI as a supporter.Maybe others as well.
#3,you could read it for free @Alaska Journal of Commerce
#4 and last but not least a shameless plug for her new sight that I was unaware of till a few minutes ago..https://alaskafish.news
Dave: Don’t be foolish. Time is indeed money, but that cost is variable. Some people in this country are willing to work for less than minimum wage and some want to be paid the hourly of a specialist in medicine. So it’s a big variable.
That said, I’ll grant you the point that my original valuation does not include time, but only direct costs which are low given how long I’ve been at this and how efficiently it gets done. But if I pay myself the $10.34 AK minimum wage and figure in 20 hours for driving, netting and processing, we can add $206.80 for the 20 sockeye to which I usually limit myself.
They usually produce about 75 pounds of filets. So I’ll give you an addition of $2.76 per pound vacuum packed and in the freezer, which raises the price to $3.93 per pound. Still a hell of a deal and with no cost offset for the “fun factor” given this harvesting also happens in a marketable way, ie. via a process in which many would pay to participate.
If one were to value that at what an Alaska tourist would be willing to spend to dipnet some salmon, the offest might reduce the cost of my fish to zero if not less, which is why I sometimes question how we rank allocation of the dipnet fishery in terms of priorities.
Then, again I have commercial fishing acquaintances who contend dipnetters spend small fortunes on gear – four-wheelers, fancy nets, costly coolers (mine is a long ago amortized Coleman), expensive vehicles, etc. – which would raise the economic value of the catch, and if they’re medical specialists taking a day of from work…..
Well, then by your accounting these fish could get incredibly expensive. And the more money that is spent to harvest them, the stronger the argument for increasing the allocation to the PU fishery because all of the money PU fishermen spend to catch the fish boosts the local economy.
Craig;
“Dave: Don’t be foolish”.–Craig,dont be asinine.
Theres a term in the commercial fleet called “hole trip”.Thats where the boat cant make expenses for the trip.The crew makes the boat “whole” for expenses.So what you imply is that you never have “whole trips”,ever..really?
120 miles or so for 20 fish, of course that doesn’t count “fun factor”,and that you cant put a monetary value on.On that I think we’d both agree.But that makes efficient economic sense to ughm who?
I know your well travelled and experienced,but,
I wonder if you’ve ever spent time, time as in at least a full year around any commercial fishing fleet any where in Alaska,or for that matter any where?Done any serious true investigative research on the shear magnitude of the economic ripple effect of ANY fleet.
Im not saying you haven’t,Im just wondering if you can imagine the spider web of economic well spring that is the commercial fishing industry, warts and all…
I remember in 1987 on the FV Eclipse,an old Seattle Halibut schooner,for whatever reasons we took 2 ADN reporters out, Hal Bernton and a photog, Spence something perhaps.Gaurantee it was a trip they’ll never forget.It was a first spring halibut opener.
I saved one of there lives as he was on deck,as we were traveling in the trough to set gear(E 35,maybe 12-15′ seas, not bad, but not fun) the boat took a hard port list from a wave on the starboard rail.I think he was trying to return to the relative safety of the galley after puking on the wrong side of the boat.
As he sailed across the deck,I grabbed him fortunately around the shoulders or collar before his temple collided with the row of 60lb steel kedge anchors lashed to the port rail.
Fortunately for both of us, he wasn’t a big guy,I would have had to use him as a human shield.
None of this has anything to do with humpies in the Gulf,or your farcical claims of nearly free fish.Of course your mileage may vary quite a bit if you live in Kenai and PU fish, that I freely agree on….But you dont
Im sure Hal might still be on your Rolodex,and apparently he still has the appetite, although the boat is one hell of a lot more comfortable than an old halibut schooner built in 1927 for sure.
Im not that tough anymore, and am pretty sure he’s not either, no harm no foul!
Dave: What can I say?
I lived on a bluewater sailboat in Juneau in the early 1980s. I edited the UFA’s then newspaper for a time and did its radio. I had a fair number of harbor friends who were commercial fishermen. The months I spent in Seattle while getting divorced in that period were spent reporting for National Fishermen and Seafood Business Report.
I have a pretty good idea of how the industry works, where the money is made, and where it goes. The McDowell Group, if you’re interested, has also done a pretty good job of tracking this for ASMI in reports over the years and if you read those reports what you will find is most of the money goes Outside.
My diesel truck gets better than 20 mpg. It was long ago fully depreciated. I travel to the Kenai almost always with at least one friend, and we split costs of less than $100 on fuel. It would be hard for anyone to find a cheaper source of high-quality protein than the Kenai produces for me. The meat and fowl the family eats each year are far more expensive. Hell, I spend more just for shotgun shells to harvest 50 or so ducks per year than I spend for all my fish.
So let me repeat, I’m a poor argument for the PU fishery in any system geared to MEY (maximum economic yield) for Cook Inlet salmon. And MEY is what the state should be managing for because the fish are a common property resource. They belong to ALL ALASKANS, not you or me or commercial fishermen or PU fishermen.
And the way they best serve all Alaskans is for the state to manage them to produce the most money instate since we didn’t set up a system to place a royalty on permits (as we did on oil) and impose a pittance of a tax compared to the oil industry.
I have to wonder if you understand the economics of this situation. Or maybe you’re just pitching me softballs as part of a public education campaign.
If I had a self-serving agenda here, I’d be arguing dipnet fish cost me $20 per pound and many other dipnetters more. Why?
Because nearly all the costs of catching those fish are pumped into the regional economy. It is much the same only more so for the sport fishery which is why – no matter how much all of us might hate tourists to varying degrees and at varying levels – state management should be geared to making Cook Inlet, as the best the Board of Fish can, an angler’s paradise, becuase the state economy gets a lot more economoic benefit from those coolers of fish going through the Anchorage airport than from a like number of unseen “cooler loads” shipped outside by commercial fisheries.
That said, the need for the commercial fishery will remain probably forever – and it is a need – because the other fisheries lack the harvesting capacity to catch the entire harvestable surplus of Cook Inlet salmon. Given the changing nature of global salmon harvests, we all should probably at some point have a serious discussion as to how to improve the efficiency of that commercial harvest going forward, but that’s a whole other story.
It’s crazy that we basically manage our fisheries to maximize their carbon footprint.
Very good discussion, – Knapp/Medford!
The inner feelings, were brought to the forefront.
Being a Commercial Fisherman,…I’m thankful there are those, who understand both sides of the equation.
Mr Medred…I applaud you for your truthfulness,…Mr. Knapp…I applaud you for your honesty!
There is a way… to quit throwing stones at each other! W.
50 ducks Craig? I still hunt them, but 50 would be a banner year anymore. The Boykin ( Star) and I are about the same age and wading through the mud has become challenging for both of us. But we still give it a go and sometimes an unlucky Mallard or Pintail flies into our shot pattern. Between waterfowl hunting and salmon fishing on the Kenai, I choose the hunt. Never had a bad word from anyone on the flats.
For years I’ve advocated a slow, steady, and partial buy back of Cook Inlet commercial set netting permits where the majority of personal use, sport, and commercial competition occurs. I’ve been universally met with immediate and vicious confrontation. The industry is relentless, refuses to give an inch, and buts all the representation it needs in the Legislature, Congress, and ADFG.
Reveals the influence of the commercial fisheries in the state that she was a long-time member of the newspaper.
While I agree that your article identifies a single despicable and unethical practice that has plagued and incarcerated Alaska as Seattle’s own resource penal colony for the last fifty years, it identifies only one person out of an entire industry whose practices have all but bankrupted every stream and every watershed in the state. Surely the GodFathers of Seattle must be proud.
Fake Alaska news has been daily fair for the ADF&G for the last fifty years as they were were bought and paid for to keep enforcing the status quo at all costs to keep the easily misled public and their preferred media from 1) knowing what was really happening to Alaska’s crashing wildlife resources, 2) knowing who was constantly creating false narratives and conspiracies as to whose really to blame, besides them and those who owned their souls, and 3) knowing who was taking all actions and means necessary to keep out any and all National available practices and resources that have been in use in the rest of the nation, that would have exposed their entire organization as meeting the Federal Definition of RICO.
This organization’s crime is so much larger than simply walking off with Alaska’s wildlife resource treasures or falsely incarcerating a few hundred Alaskans on trumped up subsistence or wildlife harvest charges or falsified reports intentionally driving out all other wildlife management resources except theirs. It’s even larger than intentionally creating the largest population of incarcerated and homeless landowners in our nation’s history. Their crime rises to the level of an international crime of creating an environmental collapse of Alaska’s entire biosphere whose first wave has already hit Alaska’s Indigenous Tribes who now rank as the majority of Alaska’s homeless and more than 40% of Alaska’s prison population. When you put that into perspective that’s enough to plug Goose Creek Correctional Center (1,536), Fairbanks Correctional Center (257), Ketchikan Correctional Center (71), and still have enough to be the majority in Bethel’s Yukon-Kuskokwim Correctional Center. Alaska’s number 1.
This environmental biosphere collapse is clearly evidenced in your articles in several ways. First, contrary to self serving reports that falsely claim the salmon industry is healthy, natural returns to spawning beds have collapsed from what was originally 10 months of fishing to ten weeks, to what is now not even ten hours, or is it ten minutes, of king salmon fishing on what was the mighty Yukon River.
Second, the trillions of tons of biomass nutrients represented by billions of tons of salmon, who thanks to this organizations unethical practices and influences, never made it to the spawning beds, their nutrients are now forever gone from the biosphere that created them. These salmon based nutrients are gone from the bears, who now have been documented, by ADF&G as killing 45 moose and caribou calves per bear, in just 45 days to replace salmon that are no longer there. Every other salmon dependent biosphere specie is faced making the same choice, including Alaska’s homeless and incarcerated landowners. Sadly, Chief amongst those species effected are the emerging salmon fry, of those whose parents got through the gauntlet set for them by this State archaic policies. These fry emerge from the egg into their ancestral spawning grounds only to find an environment stripped of the much needed biosphere of nutrients that were readily available to their ancestors, because their ancestors created that enriched biosphere with their own bodies.
Instead, those missing ancestral nutrients, in the name of this organization’s profits, are callously and ignorantly ground up as dog food or discarded. As a direct result that king salmon fry has no choice but to leave it’s spawning grounds a year ahead of schedule and head into the big city called the ocean, because thanks to the policies of this State, there ain’t no food at home. Hmm, sounds familiar. This is what Alaskans are told by ADF&G is Best Available Science. How sad.
This incredible loss of biosphere nutrients is creating a statewide multi generational biosphere collapse that will take multiple generations to recover from, which can begin only after Alaskans recognize and acknowledge the truth. What Alaskans have as a wildlife management system doesn’t work. It never has and never will. That’s why Alaska’s policies of government only management was soundly rejected by every state in the nation. This crime and biosphere collapse will go on and unpunished as long as Alaskans choose to believe in ADF&G’s Best Available Science, as bought and paid for.
How can it be that so many seemingly intelligent Alaskans, as citizens of the largest wildlife habitat in the nation do not know their system is collapsing and that Alaska is ranked the least productive wildlife state in the nation?
AtomHarris, it is because the whole phony “environmental” scheme is bought and paid for/controlled by Putin. Don’t believe me, look up those frauds and their gullible sheep. All on Putin and XI’s payroll. Enviro groups are no different than any other self-serving easily “bought-off” group tending a mentally deranged base.
Craig,
With all due respect, seems like you have an axe to grind.She filled a space.The space that the “average” alaskan has no idea about, unless your there on the well deck, with “rubbers” on your XTRA TUFFS.
Was she”independent”,maybe not, but that wasn’t her task…
Seems like theres bigger targets than somebody who coalesced state wide fisheries news for the masses.As much as masses may be in AK.
Guarantee the fleets all knew the news way before Layne did, but thats not the point.And neither was that her target audience (imo).
Sometimes swimming upstream all the time gets tiring……
Guilty, but with no more of an axe to grind than I would have had with Joseph Goebbels. Posing as a journalist while pedaling propaganda is just wrong. But that’s my opinion, and you’re certainly entitled to yours.
If everyone had been honest about what she was doing and labeled it for what it was I wouldn’t have had a problem with it although I would have still found it rather amazing that someone who seems to understand all the ways that the commercial fishing industry takes advantage of Alaska would push the industry’s agenda.
That’s just a little too hypocritical for me to get my head around.
I think “propaganda” is so 1930’s. The new term I think you are looking for is “Influencer”. Same turd, just a more appealing smell..
Bryan – It’s all persuasion at some level. It becomes propaganda when someone on the Other Side does it. Cheers –