Yakutat Tax?

Discussion area for political and legal issues affecting Alaskan salmon fisheries.
akfisher1978
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:02 pm
Spammer?: No

Yakutat Tax?

Post by akfisher1978 »

Anyone recieve anything in the mail about voting on a tax for troll caught fish in the Yakutat area?
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Salty »

Yes, I did. They are organizing a regional aquaculture association similar to NSRAA and SSRAA. Basically to produce some hatchery salmon.
Case Mapes, "Yak to Yak" on here sometimes, is on the board. The tax will be in the Yakutat areas. I don't believe these areas are taxed for NSRAA.

I am going to support it.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by yak2you2 »

YRAA ( Yakutat Regional Aquaculture Assoc.) has been officially established, and is actively pursuing a hatchery program for the Yakutat area. The plan is to start with a chum and/or pink program, and hopefully branch into other species in the future. Like anything else, it takes money to get the ball rolling, hence the tax, but the hope is all the efforts will pay in spades by having more fish to catch.
Why should a troller support this? First, all Alaska Troll permits are good all the way to Cape Suckling, ( which includes the whole Yakutat area.) Second, it's a big area, the potential for helping to spread out the fleet that seems to be getting very crowded in S.E. exists. Appreciate the support Salty.
For more information check out the website, www.yraa.org
fvsedna
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:42 pm
Spammer?: No

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by fvsedna »

Yak....
I looked at It briefly this evening....just got in from a short trip, I will read through It ......
Andrew
JYDPDX
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:04 pm
Spammer?: No
Location: Sitka

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by JYDPDX »

Upon reviewing the YRAA's site and most of the PDF's I didn't see any estimates on what the installation and implementation of a "Chum or Pink" hatchery would cost. By the way, are chum and pink interchangeable? Nor any estimates for the how much revenue a tax in the area would generate. Perhaps I missed or overlooked something.

Why should I support a tax on trollers for a hypothetical hatchery at an undecided location that produces and undecided species?

I am a little skeptical. Although, I agree that a hatchery in the yakutat area is possibly a very good idea (for net fishermen), I am wondering how it will be payed for and what the expected budget is for the project.

Having looked at the PDF on their website for the definition of the Yakutat area it seems that anyone trolling for Cohos or Kings off of cape fair-weather and North will be subject to this taxation for a "chum or pink" hatchery. I see this as being fundamentally wrong. I understand they need to fund the "chum or pink" hatchery and applaud the efforts, but taxing King and Coho fishermen is out of line in my opinion. The tax does not benefit them in anyway that I can tell. The result may possibly even be a hinderance.

I don't have charting software handy but I am going to have to assume the fairweather grounds is south of that line.

From what I gather, in supporting this tax, we are taking proceeds out of our fish checks on good faith that in the distant future the YRAA MIGHT get the ball rolling on enhanced Coho and/or maybe Kings AFTER the yakutat net guys start padding the pockets with (according to the PDFs) $50k per boat, per year of extra fishing revenue from the proposed/hypothetical "Chum or Pink" hatchery.

Maybe someone can tell me what I am missing here……
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by yak2you2 »

First, the Yakutat area is the only place you don't pay an enhancement tax. What usually happens in fact, is even if fish weren't caught in this area, they often get labeled as such, just to avoid paying the enhancement tax where they were delivered. But lets assume you actually caught some fish on the Fairweather grounds, and let's go ahead and call them kings or cohos. Why should some of your money go towards making chum salmon? Pretty simple really. We can't all survive on the wild kings and cohos anymore. Period.
Chums and pinks are cheap, and fast to make. They are hearty, and have good return numbers. There are essentially no wild chums in this area, so no preponderance of dealing with genetic straying. So why should a Fairweather ground king troller be donating to this effort? Well, how many kings is there really? is there enough for all those guys fishing chums in Icy Straits to come out and join you? Each guy who goes chum fishing, leaves more on the table for the guys still fishing wild kings and cohos.
In Yakutat, we are trying to stay away from the kind of narrowminded, greedy, industry infighting that has plagued S.E. As an outsider, watching the bitter feuding going on between gillnetters and trollers in S.E. at all the meetings it always amazes me. I think to myself, " you guys fish the same fish, your playing on the same team." If your not going to play nice with the other guys on your team, who do you think is going to win? You guessed it, the sport fishermen and charter boats.
So I find the comment about the " Yakutat net guys padding their pockets", a little ridiculous. I have a gillnet permit. Guilty, as charged. I also have a hand troll permit, which I fish very hard, all year around. I am the one and only hand troll representative on the Alaska Trollers Association board of directors, and I am also representing the troll industry on the board of directors of YRAA. I hear this same type of horseshit from some of my lifelong gillnetter buddies. " all you care about is helping out your troller buddies." Whaa, Whaa !! My hope is to see both industries get a fair share, and I hope to see both industries thrive off of the seeds were trying to plant. As a troller, let me assure you, you couldn't ask for better representation of the troll fleet than the guys on the YRAA board.
Lastly, if you havn't been up here before, here's a newsflash, there are very few wild kings and cohos left up here. I'm not talking about a few bad years. I'm talking about a total collapse. We are most definitely at the point where man made salmon is all were going to have.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Salty »

Thanks for coming up Case. Also thanks for all the good work you and the Yakutat trollers have done over the years helping all of us out on improving things for the winter fishery. For those of you who don't know the reason the winter fishery goes until we catch the 45,000 GHL or May 1 (April 15) is because of work of the Yakutat trollers. (I had proposed this for many years but it wasn't until Yakutat and ATA weighed in and supported it that it passed.)
Also, the reason our Alaska Hatchery Kings that we harvest in the winter (4-5,000) will be added on to our winter troll harvest GHL is because Case worked tirelessly on it at the BOF last year. (I and Ralph Guthrie had proposed it for a number of years and John Murray brought it to the Sitka Fish & Game AC last cycle and they sponsored it.) Without Case's hard work our winter season would close on April 15th.
About half the value of Alaska Salmon is hatchery produced salmon. I applaud the effort of the YRAA to get organized and start producing some fish. The value of hachery salmon harvested by the commercial gear groups in SE Alaska last year was over $65 million. The return on the % enchancement tax to fishermen is usually well over 10-1. You want some bang for your buck, invest it in a SE hatchery program.
I just spent an hour this morning meeting with people about improving troll share of SE Alaska hatchery harvest. I am continuing to work on getting new production going in SE. I would love to see Yakutat develop a hatchery program that benefits both the locals and provides another opportunity for SE trollers.
JYDPDX
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:04 pm
Spammer?: No
Location: Sitka

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by JYDPDX »

You did not answer any of the, more than reasonable, questions I posed. Your defensive rant hasn't swayed me in any way.

There are cohos north of cape fairweather and there are kings on the grounds.

Some of us (a lot of us) do just fine "surviving" without chums and pinks. What you mean is that "you" cant survive without a "chum or Pink" fishery in Yakutat. That doesn't mean that I/we should have to pay for it.

You answered none of my concerns about how the planning of this supposed hatchery has no ground. How much will it cost? How much tax revenue will be created to pay for it? What species? Do your job. My concerns are valid.

Whether or not the fair-weather grounds are included in this tax area is also a very valid concern. You did not address that, you only said that you think the grounds fish (Kings) should be taxed to develop your new fishery (Chums).

I wonder how many of the "trollers" on the YRAA board have gillnet permits as well. Is this truly a viable chum or pink troll fishery for yakutat? I dont buy your argument that having a Chum "troll" fishery in Yakutat bay will take heat off of the boats fishing Kings on the fairweather grounds. I will concede is has happened down south, but I dont believe we are comparing apple to apples in this case.

"Lastly, if you havn't been up here before, here's a newsflash, there are very few wild kings and cohos left up here. I'm not talking about a few bad years. I'm talking about a total collapse. We are most definitely at the point where man made salmon is all were going to have."

This sounds like desperation for the Yakutat fleet and doesn't agree with what you said about wanting what is best for everyone.

There has been absolutely NO so called "collapse" of Kings from the Fairweather Grounds. And there are cohos south of you but you may not know because you cant travel there in your skiff. Don't make this out to be big boat Vs. little boat either, its just a fact. The way I am reading this is that you figure you can generate revenue from the grounds and inner bank boats' Kings and Coho to save your local fishery which is of very minute benefit for any of the aforementioned boats you would be taxing.

It sounds very much like this tax innovative is trying to pull a fast one.

Otherwise move the tax line up to exclude the Grounds and the inner bank. You should not be getting tax revenue from King and Coho boats to create a chum fishery in Yakutat Bay.

I agree about the infighting and I would like to be your ally, I want you to get a hatchery in Yakutat but until you can answer some very reasonable questions and concerns I will have to remain skeptical.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by yak2you2 »

As you admit, those of you surviving off of the king and cohos, is do at lease in part, to less pressure by way of the guys who are busy fishing chums in S.E. Have you talked to any of these guys lately? These are the guys who are coming up with phrases like, "not so Neets Bay". It's crowded from what I hear. How long is going to be before these guys start coming back out to share with you? So I'll say it again, troll permits are good up here too. Apples CAN be compared to apples in this case, if we get a chum or pink fishery started, there will most definitely be a share allocated to troll.
How much will it cost? no one knows yet. We have to hear from the State what, where, and how big the scope of our operation will be. Be assured that what ever it it takes to build it, your tax dollars will be but a tiny fraction of the total sum. We have applied for Army Corp. grants, State funding, etc.
It sure sounds like you have a burr under your bonnet against gillnetters. Should it matter who all on the board has dual permits? I prefer to be judged by actions and how I vote if you don't mind, guessing most boardmembers would feel that way.
Yes, everything North of Fairweather will be included in the tax area. Would you feel differently if it was included in the NSRAA district? Did you get this upset when NSRAA was initiated? Or do you simply feel like you should have your own private little piece of the ocean where you don't have to pay any tax?
Initially, your taxes dollars would go towards build a facility that produces chums and/or pinks, and yeah, doesn't sound like your personally planning on recouping much money from it. Once it's built though, and should we figure out how to include kings and cohos into the spectrum, what then? Do you think you shouldn't have to pay until there's some high dollar fish made available to you immediately? So if we could somehow exclude you personally from the tax, built the facility, made some kings, how exactly would we go about excluding you from catching any of them since you helped build nothing?
Lastly, the stereotype of thinking that Yakutat's fishermen are just a bunch of skiff driving, gillnetter wolves hiding under troller cloaks is unfounded. There 80- 100 trollers up here, probably 40 of which are power trollers. A couple of doz. of those can, and do travel up and down the coast, and we catch fish just fine. I would guess that puts us at least on average with any other town our size in S.E. of per capita trollers.
Taxes are a funny thing. They are about serving the common good, not individuals. When you pay your federal taxes, some it is earmarked to pay for schools, whether you have kids, or not. Thats just how they have to work. Thats what were trying to do, think about whats good for the fleet as a whole, ALL salmon fishermen that is. You can continue to hold on to the dream of being the last of the buffalo hunters chasing a little pocket of cohos off of Lituya Bay ( how many of which are wild again by the way? NSRAA or SSRAA getting any taxes for the enhanced ones?) , or an ever shrinking quota of treaty kings on the grounds, but whats best for the fleets, both of them, is making some sustainable fish.
Why chums and/or pinks at first? Not simply "because were gillnetters", but because they're a lot more dependable, and it makes good sense to start off a new business, which is essentially what a hatchery will be, with something that is the least risky. After we get some roots planted, then we branch out into the things we all want to see more of.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Salty »

Good questions Joe,
Here is a link to the ADF&G Fishing District Maps. It looks to me like the Fairweather Grounds are south of the areas in District 189 to be taxed. Perhaps Case can clarify that. It looks to me like the Grounds are in District 157 which would not be included in the tax.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?ad ... ts_yakutat

Hopefully we can all step back and try to shed more light than heat on the issue.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by yak2you2 »

Some of your questions are reasonable, but you say "you don't like the infighting either". Yet from the way you express your concerns about who has what dual permits though, you are a part of that whole feudal enigma. Nothing pisses me off faster than guys from both sides trying to force me to choose whether I fight for the blue, or the grey. I am not a part of the troller Vs. gillnetter war, and I never will be. I am both. I enjoy doing each equally as much, and I will support both, equally as much. My intention is to see opportunity for both to succeed. I can't speak for the rest of the boardmembers, but I would venture to guess you would hear the rest of them voice a similar desire. If we get this going, whether it's chums, humpies, or other species, there will always be opportunity for gillnetters AND trollers to harvest a share in the catch. To imply that intentions will be for any less, is considered an insult, in my book.
So, I will try again to answer your questions.
It's been more than a year, since the meeting where boundaries were drawn, but I think the Fairweather grounds are excluded from the tax area. That is my personal interpretation.

Upon reviewing the YRAA's site and most of the PDF's I didn't see any estimates on what the installation and implementation of a "Chum or Pink" hatchery would cost. YRAA IS STILL INVESTIGATING LOCATIONS AND THEREFORE DON’T HAVE A SET FIGURE OR BUDGET YET. WATER TESTING/ WATER FLOW WILL BE CONDUCTED THIS SPRING AND SUMMER AS WELL AS TEMPERATURE AND OTHER INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT FROM ADFG. YRAA IS LOOKING AT BUT DON’T KNOW IF IT WILL WORK OUT TO USE A BUILDING THAT ALREADY EXISTS FOR THE HATCHERY. IF A LEASE CAN BE SECURED IT WILL BE CHEAPER THAN TRYING TO BUILD BRAND NEW.



By the way, are chum and pink interchangeable? Nor any estimates for the how much revenue a tax in the area would generate. Perhaps I missed or overlooked something. DEPENDS UPON HOW THE PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR – FOR EXAMPLE PORT ARMSTRONG HAS A PERMIT FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF EGGS, WHICH CAN BE A COMBINATION OF PINK OR CHUM. AGAIN WE NEED MORE INFORMATION BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE WHETHER YRAA WILL APPLY FOR BOTH SPECIES OR JUST ONE TO START.



Why should I support a tax on trollers for a hypothetical hatchery at an undecided location that produces and undecided species? FOR THE SAME REASON SE FISHERMEN SUPPORTED NSRAA AND SSRAA AS THEY WERE JUST GETTING STARTED. THE SSRAA WEBSITE HAS A PAGE TELLING ABOUT THE FIRST 10 YEARS WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO GET STARTED. AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND AS A COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE YRAA BOARD MEETINGS AND THE RPT MEETING AS THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT ARE A REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT PROCESS.

I am a little skeptical. Although, I agree that a hatchery in the yakutat area is possibly a very good idea (for net fishermen), I am wondering how it will be payed for and what the expected budget is for the project. AS IN THE PLANNING FOR ANY HATCHERY PROJECT/REMOTE RELEASE SITE THERE IS INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE GATHERED TO DETERMINE THE BEST LOCATION FOR THE PROJECT AND THEN A BUDGET WILL BE DEVELOPED. THE PROJECT WILL BE PAID FOR THE SAME WAY AS THE PROJECTS IN SE ARE BY A COMBINATION OF TAXES, COST RECOVERY AND USE OF THE STATE LOAN PROGRAM.

Having looked at the PDF on their website for the definition of the Yakutat area it seems that anyone trolling for Cohos or Kings off of cape fair-weather and North will be subject to this taxation for a "chum or pink" hatchery. I see this as being fundamentally wrong. I understand they need to fund the "chum or pink" hatchery and applaud the efforts, but taxing King and Coho fishermen is out of line in my opinion. The tax does not benefit them in anyway that I can tell. The result may possibly even be a hinderance. DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT YOUR CURRENT 3% TAX ASSESSMENT TO NSRAA AND SSRAA GOES TO PRODUCE SPECIES OTHER THAN KINGS THAT YOU PAY FOR? A FISHERMAN FISHING A SE TROLL PERMIT WILL NEVER PAY MORE THAN 3% BUT IN SOME AREAS (THE YAKUTAT REGION WILL BE A 2% TAX) A LOT OF TROLLERS LANDING FISH IN SITKA PAY THE 3% ENHANCEMENT TAX THAT TRUTHFULLY CAME FROM THE YAKUTAT REGION. IF THE TAX PASSES, PROCESSORS WILL HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL IN DETERMINING EXACTLY WHERE THE HARVEST WAS CAUGHT AND COLLECTING THE CORRECT FEE. BECAUSE TAXES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED ON FISH THAT TECHNICALLY SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN – IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF TAX FUNDS THAT WILL BE GENERATED BUT WE ARE ESTIMATED APPROXIMATELY $75K TO $125K. THIS IS BASED ON THE 1% LANDING TAX THAT THE CITY OF YAKUTAT ASSESSES THAT THEY WILL PHASE OUT IF THE ENHANCMENT TAX PASSES.

Hopefully this answers some or all of your questions. You should also note that implementation of this tax was voted on and approved of at the last ATA board meeting.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Salty »

Thanks Joe and Case. After re-thinking this question I am still voting for it. Got my ballot on the yellow sheet right here.

An interesting side story here. In 1977 I was hired to help organize NSRAA and encourage fishermen around Northern SE to vote for an enhancement tax. We won that vote in 1978. The interesting history is that the ardent supporters were trollers, seiners mostly ended up coming on board, and Northern SE Gillnetters, particularly in Haines and Juneau were the most skeptical and in some cases adamantly opposed. I conducted tense meetings in both Juneau and Haines. In Juneau I physically separated a gillnetter and seiner who had squared off in front of the room as the meeting started.
Now years later, after gillnetters sued to get their share, a task force which developed an allocation plan endorsed by the gear groups and unanimously passed by the BOF, the value of enhanced salmon harvest in SE by the commercial salmon gear groups was over $65 million in 2012. Gillnetters are way above their allocated share, seiners are barely within their's and trollers were $12 million short of the mid range of their allocated share in 2012. Interesting how the group most opposed is now benefiting the most and the group that lead the organizing in Northern SE, trollers, are relatively left behind. But, over 7 million worth of enhanced salmon to trollers and the ability to fish in May and June because of SE enhanced Chinook are definitely helpful.
So, my point is that we don't really know how the Yakutat hatchery program will evolve. Based on the experience in Prince William Sound and SE though we can be relatively confident millions of dollars of salmon will eventually be generated for the commercial fisheries.
While I am unlikely to harvest those fish, I have benefited greatly from the investment fishermen in SE made in the hatchery program even when some of them realized that by the time the returns developed they would most likely be retired.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by yak2you2 »

How this differs from S.E. is this. There is not a relativly even number of gillnet permits vs. Troll permits who will vote on this. S.E. gillnet permits are not good here, only troll permits. So there's a possible 3,120 combined troll permits, and 157 gillnet permits that are eligble to vote. The issue of whether or not were going have a hatchery program in this area is very much in the hands of the troll fleet. It comes down to whether or not the troll fleet wants to take a chance of having more fish available, more room to fish for them, and whether not or they will have faith in our newly created YRAA. We've gotten it started, but it very much is your organization, as much as it is anyone elses. Any troller is eligible to run for a seat on the board, vote for who fills what seats, and attend any board meeting or regional planning meeting to have their say.
It will be important to vote if your interested, we'll need all the positive votes we can get.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Salty »

Case, are the seats allocated like they are at SSRAA and NSRAA?
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by yak2you2 »

I'm not sure how SSRAA and NSRAA seats are allocated, but we generally tried to model ourselves the same. The allocative breakdown of representaion is posted on the website.
yak2you2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am
Location: Yakutat, Ak.

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by yak2you2 »

The Yakutat 2% tax is not added onto the 3% tax already paid in Southeast Alaska. They are separate taxes and depending upon where you fish is what tax rate you will be charged. If you fish NW of the latitude of Cape Fairweather you will be charged 2% paid to YRAA, if you fish below Cape Fairweather inside of 3 miles you will be charged 3% which will go to NSRAA or SSRAA if you fish Southern SE.
Kingbonker
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:36 am
Spammer?: No

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Kingbonker »

I live and fish out of yak, and I don't support any chum or other hatchery . Personally I don't think its needed!
Those of us who really fish for a living here don't .
Yak is what I would call a weekend warrior , not necessarily on weekends but on his days off from his job, if he didn't fish at all in a season not much would change for him.
You can tell from previous post that he really is anti-big boat" phallic powertrollers" is what he has said in past posts .
Just wanted to clear up some stuff , yak has always been known for off the wall ideas , he means good , but remember he doesnt represent me or my running buddies, because we are phallic powertrollers.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Salty »

So, Kingbonker, you are going to tie your boat up the 15th of April or after we catch 45,000 winter kings while the rest of us get to fish to the first of May or we catch 45,000 plus the 4-5,000 Alaska Hatchery Kings that will be added on? Actually the number would be a lot less if some of us hadn't fought like hell for the winter fishery 20 years ago. If you go trolling between April 14 and May 1 then you are fishing because the Yakutat AC and most importantly, Yak, has fought like hell for you and the rest of SE trollers to be able to fish during this time. The added on hatchery kings, which in some years might get you as much as a week the end of April, to the winter fishery is one way Yakutat trollers can benefit directly from our 3% investment in hatcheries, that you don't pay when you fish locally.
Perhaps I am coming on a little strong, and I have heard the resentment from Yakutat fishermen because Yak has a good job, but I try to be informed about the hands that are feeding me and try not to bite them.
Kingbonker
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:36 am
Spammer?: No

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Kingbonker »

Hey salty don't get me going !
I like yak don't get me wrong , you act like yak saved the fishery.
All I'm saying is he doesn't represent the people he claims to , in my opinion , but opinions are like buttholes , everybody has one , and everyone stinks. This will be my last post , don't won't to be part of this little bitch club anyways.
Salty
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Re: Yakutat Tax?

Post by Salty »

Didn't save it, didn't need saving. Just made it better.
Post Reply