Apr 27, 2009
Another discussion that is too important to get buried in the comments section of another post:
Yesterday Elsie posted these questions as part of a comment about CDQ’ on the Bob Poe thread:
On the surface, the new regulation requiring all the CDQs to publish an annual report would appear, to me, to be a significant improvement towards illuminating the secrecy of the financial workings of the CDQs—perhaps, in the best of all possible worlds, even affecting the elections of their board members. What’s the reality for expecting any meaningful, measurable improvements that will benefit the villagers in dealing openly with management of the CDQs and having a real say in how things are run and the money generated is spent? Have any of you seen a discussion of this anywhere?
Read from here down and you can skip the rest of this post.
Rob Rosenfeld replied in part:
CDQ groups have received their guidelines for operating from the State and Federal regulating entities. State and Federal entities are required to engage in meaningful consultation with Tribal Governments. Tribal Governments have a unique opportunity to demand their place at real and meaningful decision making tables. . .
. . . Consultation with tribal governments can not be a game of make pretend. The word, “meaningful” is the operative word.
Read the rest of the comment.
That got Elsie thinking:
Something that occurs to me is how absolutely wonderful it would be for a conscientious, knowledgeable person to draw up a comprehensive diagram of the interrelationships between the many various federal agencies, the Alaskan state agencies, the tribal governmental entities, the local municipalities, the ancillary organizations, and whatever the heck else is set up to govern, lead, control, direct, finance, assist, or engage the citizens of Alaska.
She must have taken a shot at it herself and now she’s put on her crown and become the Queen of the Question Mark!!
For example, to continue with my desire to understand the governmental structures, who all controls the fisheries? Let’s just start THERE!!!
The U.S. Dept. of Commerce is at the top of the list, I think, and holds ultimate authority over all the fisheries. How effective is THAT? How long does it take for Alaskans to send in a plan or receive a decision? If a “no” decision comes back, how many years does it take to implement a new decision? How badly does that time lag affect the fisheries if they are being overfished already?
Down from that, of several fishery management councils, isn’t the North Pacific Fishery Management Council the section of oversight, from three miles out to 200 miles offshore, for Alaska fisheries? But aren’t most of those same NPFMC board members out of Seattle and run large commercial pollock/other big operations? Doesn’t that “stack the deck” against the many small, one boat-type, local Alaskan fishing groups?
And there’s more!
And before I even finished this post, Rob Rosenfeld has responded with answers!!