Letters to the Editor

Posted: Tuesday, January 30, 2001

Dipnet fee of $10 small price to pay to participate in fishery

We would like to respond to your article on the proposed dipnet fee in Sundays paper (Jan. 28). Most Kenai Peninsula residents are in favor of this proposal of a $10 dipnet fee to support enforcement, area cleanup, and to protect and restore the habitat.

Ten dollars is a miniscule amount of money considering the value of the fish that is harvested for each family. This proposed fee will go toward the protection of the resource and habitat, and we do not see any logical reason for those who oppose it.

We pay a fee to hunt moose, which is strictly enforced for the benefit of all residents and the moose.

Of course, there are the people who abuse the dipnet fishery and therefore would not want to be monitored. We have met people that bragged about the many reds they caught dipnetting which surpassed the legal amount. We calculated that their families would have to eat salmon every day all year long to consume their whole catch!

There are also those that dont clip the tails and try (and some do) to sell the fish. We also know of instances of nonresidents, as well as non-U.S. citizens, who have also participated in this salmon fishery.

The Board of Fisheries instituted this fishery without prior thought to public safety, fish harvest, enforcement, private property, destruction and habitat degradation. If the Board of Fish will not take any action to control the abuses in this fishery, then we applaud Ken Lancaster for doing so. Keep up the good work, Ken!

Vassiliki and Mark Powell


Dipnet fee should be allocated to more enforcement of fishery

Is $10 too expensive a price for dipnetters to pay for a dipnet permit on the Kenai River? I think not if the revenue raised is allocated for increased enforcement of this highly abused fishery.

The impact of increased enforcement would help in many areas. With only eligible Alaskans dipping, the city of Kenai would gain by having people dip their fish quicker, thus easing crowding, pollution and habitat damage; more salmon would make it up river which would benefit the city of Soldotna and other businesses that are affiliated with the sports fishing industry and the rod and reel fishermen themselves.

The opposition to this legislation comes from greedy Alaskans taking more than their limit. It would also get rid of nonresident and alien dipnetters.

Lets pass this legislation, which will help habitat, the resource and the people of Alaska.

Dennis Effenbeck


Proposed tower would harm quality of life in neighborhood

Who would have thought that Soldotna City Hall would make such a poor neighbor?

I was shocked and dismayed to learn that the city is proposing to allow a 180-foot microwave-cell phone tower adjacent to my neighborhood, in the heart of the Tsalteshi Trail System, and below a busy air traffic corridor. I am having trouble comprehending why the city would allow the tower at the proposed location. If it is for monetary reasons, the city is being short-sighted. Lowering quality of life and property values will not benefit anyone.

Why the city is so short-sighted that it would risk negatively impacting the trail system is also troubling. The cross-country ski trails, in addition to providing recreation to local residents, draw hundreds of racers and travelers every winter and greatly benefit the restaurants, motels and retail stores in Soldotna. The city should be protecting the trail system rather than harming it.

I also cannot fathom why the city would claim that the 180-foot tower on a prominent ridge within the approach and departure corridor of the Soldotna Airport would not impact air travel. Local pilots need more margin of safety in deteriorating weather conditions, not less.

To this point, the city has been unresponsive to concerns of local pilots, affected property owners and users of the Tsalteshi Trail System. All the more troubling is that alternative sites are available.

While the city should help the business community and improved cell phone coverage is a benefit, clearly the city should not subsidize AT&T at the expense of Soldotna neighborhoods, recreational users and the flying public. I beg the city of Soldotna to be good neighbors, listen to reason and help support a good alternative choice for the tower site.

Chuck Osmond


Subscribe to Peninsula Clarion

Trending this week:


© 2018. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us