Comments (7)

amongst friends wrote on October 1, 2007 11:04 AM:

If they were friends what's the problems my mother always made me share with my sisters , and they didn't like me .

judyinnm wrote on October 1, 2007 11:24 AM:

So what? Small change, compared with georgejr's "earmarks" for his pals - Haliburton, Bektel, Blackwater, Mobil-Exxon, (the list is endless).

aklocal wrote on October 1, 2007 12:21 PM:

Are you sure Senator Lisa sold the Kenai River property back to Bob Penney? Has there been an actual transaction? Did she get fair market value?

Dave Bowman wrote on October 1, 2007 1:54 PM:

I think there should be an earmark for Alaska to procure pitchforks--one for every citizen. Then, the citizens of Alaska should proceed with their pitchforks to run these guys out of town...

On second thought, let's amend that earmark to include money for tar and feathers!

Steamed wrote on October 1, 2007 2:11 PM:

what I'd like to know is how much money Alaska sends to DC to get back so much pork.

Typical poor red state, cries for a handout from the blue states.

and young Benny, well, he's probly got a nice tax payer feathered nest egg buried in a Swiss Bank or the Caymans.

Whats it going to take for the Senate to investigate unky Ted?

Anonymous wrote on October 1, 2007 3:15 PM:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski's husband i think might have a prior federal conviction?

Anyone confirm?

Sockeye wrote on October 1, 2007 3:29 PM:

Ken Tarbox is hardly an environmentalist - he is a retired Cook Inlet commercial fisheries manager who then went on to work as a paid consultant of the commercial fishing industry in Cook Inlet.

Ken's "new" group that recently formed is a front group for the commercial fishing industry in Cook Inlet, which does not care about anything except unfettered harvest of sockeye salmon. No concern for other stocks, such as silvers, kings or chums, other users, such as in-river sport anglers, or other areas, such as the Northern District in the upper end of Cook Inlet above the Kenai.

The letter to the Governor from Ken is nothing more than good old fish politics in Cook Inlet, where every three years the Board of Fisheries set the rules of allocation. Ken wants more fish for his commercial fishing cronies.

Ken doesn't like the fact that PCSRF money is being directed at fishery and habitat research for salmon in the Kenai River, the largest sport fishery in the state.

It threatens the apple cart of his unsubstantiated life work and cult status in the commericial fishing community for "over escapement" - that too many fish up the Kenai River for spawning is a bad thing. Don't ask what Nature did before the arrival of commercial harvesters, because in Ken's world such questions are not allowed.

To date, going over the upper end of the escapement goal on Kenai River for sockeye has not been a problem as they have never failed to replace themselves in future returns - however this inconvenient truth does not deter him or his cult following in proclaiming over escapement to be gospel on the Kenai.

The real conservation problem, as any good environmentalist knows, is when too few fish reach the spawning grounds for escapement, which has been the case the past decade in the northern area of Cook Inlet - where the minimum escapements for sockeye have not been met many times in the past decade.

To recall, too few wild fish returning to the spawning areas is the leading cause of the Endangered Species Act listings for salmon in the Pacific Northwest, and the actual reason for its extiction over much of its former range around the world.

Ken and his cult followers do not want to see any fishery research going towards either the Kenai or northern district sockeye. He calls it a waste of money - because in Ken's world the only conservation problem is his tired theory of over escapement - never mind these chronic under escapement problems further up the inlet in the Northern District where there is a real conservation concern.

It is ironic that Ken claims he wants the state to control all the money - yet this is the same Ken who then complains bitterly about state run commercial fisheries research projects on the Kenai and in Cook Inlet for sockeye.

And what might be a cause for concern for the lack of fish further up the Cook Inlet?

Why, of course, one leading candidate theory is possible over fishing by the commercial fishing industry, the very one Ken managed for many years while working for ADFG and who then paid him as a consultant.

Ken is a paid consultant and he is very good at what he does - creating confusion and turmoil to obscure the facts.

For the seven years between 2000 and 2006, there were 29 congressional designations in the PCSRF to Alaska, of which the earmark for the Kenai and Russian Rivers to KRSA was one of them.

Ken Tarbox expresses no problem of PCSRF money going to all the other non-state entities across the rest of Alaska, including Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, a commercial fishing oriented group in Cook Inlet. Ironic that Ken only lobbies against the KRSA appropriation, but has no concerns for the other 95% of the congressional designations of PCSRF to Alaska.

KRSA took no money to provide management oversight of fishery and habitat research projects, instead covering those costs so that more money could go towards valuable projects. KRSA is one of the few organizations that did not seek reimbursement for its administration costs, which extends the usefulness of the public funds.

Ken calls the efforts of KRSA to make tax payer money go further wasteful. Yet he has no comment on all the other groups that get reimbursed for their administrative costs. Gee, does it make you wonder why the paid commercial fisheries consultant is Ken so selective in his venom towards KRSA?

Ken calls the actual research on the Kenai River a waste of time and money, yet already the results of two of the funded projects have been presented at the annual American Fisheries Society conference. Gee, is it a surprise that the negative venom of the all-knowing Ken on the value of such research is off base and out in left field?

Ken Tarbox complains bitterly that the process KRSA used in prioritizing the research on the Kenai River was not a good public process. Yet he fails to mention that KRSA made use of the expertise and input of many public agencies, local non-profits and land managers such as:

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial and Sport Fish divisions,
Alaska State Parks,
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,
US Forest Service,
US Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA,
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services,
National Fish Habitat Initiative, University of Alaska,
Kenai Peninsula Borough,
City of Soldotna,
City of Kenai,
Kenai Watershed Forum,
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association,
Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council,
Kenaitze Indian Tribe,
Cook Inlet Regional Inc.,
Alaska Recreational Management,
The Conservation Fund, and
Kachemak Heritage Land Trust.

Ken does not think having at least twenty different entities that are directly responsible for the land management and research in the Kenai River watershed is important, valuable, or good public policy.

Of all the PCSRF congressional designations to Alaska, KRSA developed one of the most comprehensive strategic planning processes that made expert use of many. But to Ken, the paid consultant of the Cook Inlet commercial fishery, this is all a waste of money.

So Ken wants everyone to ignore these facts, because in the warped “Cult of Ken” world Ken is all-knowing and all-seeing. What Ken says, is. Everything Ken does not agree with is viewed as wasteful, and if you don't believe in Ken you are a heretic.

In 2004/2005, Ken sat on the local Kenai / Soldotna advisory committee (AC) that reviews fishery proposals for the board of fisheries and makes recommendations to that board.

While sitting on the AC, Ken would not publically disclose that he was a paid consultant of the commercial fishing industry. Of course he voted in favor of proposals back by commercial fishing interests and against those of sport fishing interests. That is the depth of Ken’s commitment to open and transparent government.

So it is nice to see Ken and his “new” group leading the charge for commercial fishing interests in Cook Inlet. Ken plays the role of attack dog well, for which he has been compensated in the past and is currently relishing again.

Shenanigans - it must be time for another annual Board of Fisheries meeting in Cook Inlet.

PS: In FFY 07, all congressional designations were removed from the Alaska PCSRF appropriation. ADFG has put a process in place to select high priority habitat, fisheries, fisheries management and education / outreach projects through the PCSRF.

ADFG invited public input in their process. KRSA, along with other groups, participated with public testimony to the state on how best to prioritize the information and action needs in their request for proposals.

In many instances, the high priority objectives identified this year through the state's ranking process matched up well with those of the regional strategic plans developed in the prior 29 congressional designations of PCSRF to Alaska.

To date, Ken and his "new" group did not participate or comment in the state's process for ranking high priority information and action needs for PCSRF projects in Alaska.

The PCSRF call for proposals by KRSA over the past three years has been open to all members of the public. Yet not once has Ken submitted a proposal to this PCSRF call for high priority fisheries or habitat research on the Kenai River watershed.

In light of the fact that the state's ranked information and action needs for habitat and fisheries research match up closely with what KRSA had also identified for the Kenai River, it is dubious at best if Ken and his "new" group will participate on any level even though the state is now responsible for all phases of the PCSRF appropriation.

But you can be sure that KRSA and the other fishery and habitat conservation groups around the state who are actually dedicated to the health of the state’s fisheries resources will continue to participate in the process – because it is in their mission to do so.

Shenanigans:

1) A deceitful trick; an underhanded act.
2) Remarks intended to deceive; deceit. Often used in the plural.