Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: State/Fed Solutions and Correct Definition of "Anti"

  1. #1
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default State/Fed Solutions and Correct Definition of "Anti"

    After analyzing all the opinions publicly provided I feel the need to ask questions.

    In regard to Federal encroachment on state land I must ask the following:

    Can the state provide protection for subsistence as defined “A means of subsisting, especially means barely sufficient to maintain life,” as well as, protecting the rights of cultural preservation?

    Can the state ensure conservation for future domestic growth of a balanced wildlife population including the environmental conservation required to maintain the population?

    Can the state effectively protect and manage Alaska’s specific sites of interest that bring substantial revenue to the state and local businesses via tourism?

    Will the state acknowledge the growing concerns of hunter accessibility and declining game populations in condensed areas of accessibility? Can they effectively manage the idiots shooting caribou from their truck, in the middle of the road, and at 500 yards?

    Is it possible to have effective state resource management that DOESN’T create more regulations restricting any resident user group?

    In my humble opinion, I believe it could be achieved but it starts with personal responsibility; acknowledging issues and formulating ideas that will create solutions instead of jeopardize any one user group. IF everyone had a reasonable conscious and sound judgment restrictive regulation and further federal protection would not be required..Society tends to play by the rules dictated to them to benefit the dictator.. Why not create the rules that benefit the society as a whole?

    Please feel free to enlighten/educate me.. What is an “Anti?” Ha! Anti – what? For some reason I thought everyone was in on this together..
    Geezz where’s my tin foil hat?! lol..

  2. #2

    Default

    You seem more than ready to issue definitions without any context.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  3. #3
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subsistence

    Thanks for shedding your most valuable light on the 'topic' at hand..

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Echo View Post
    You seem more than ready to issue definitions without any context.
    Mike

  4. #4
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Oh, so that’s what “anti” means!! Thank you.. Definition: Anti-progress and lack of viable solutions..

  5. #5
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Not really sure what you're driving at here, wolfwatching, the state has laws and the feds have laws regarding how wildlife will be managed, and they differ. Also both have definitions of "subsistence" and what that really means, that don't really match your definition from freedictionary.com. For example, the state has 8 criteria that must be used regarding our state subsistence law that the Boards of Game and Fish adhere to (5 AAC 99.010).

    Wildlife management is 90% managing people. I know many don't like to hear that, but that's the way it is. In managing people we necessarily restrict harvests in certain ways by capping how many animals one can take and when they can take them and what type of animal can be harvested (FC ram, 3 or 4 brow tine 50" moose, bull only etc.) We also restrict types of access in many areas, whether it is for quality or habitat reasons or to try to limit hunters or better conserve game populations. So as far as having state mgmt that doesn't create any new restrictions at all on any hunter group, such a belief or idea would really be contrary to good effective stewardship. Look at the changes to Kenai moose hunting just enacted this spring by BOG. They had to mandate new harvest restrictions in order to save the herd and allow it to hopefully grow. Yes, they also instituted wolf control in a very limited (state) area, and pred-control and controlled burns are part of the equation in what we can do, but mostly it's all about controlling hunter harvests by various ways.



  6. #6
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Thank you BR! I'm really and simply asking questions to gain an understanding from a global perspective. There seems to be a growing discontent and Im sniffing around for the source. My opinions are often utopian in nature haha.. but right or wrong its just me... I'm not one to argue with you but whereas the system is designed to manage people I have the opinion that its the people who should be managing the system - in a perfect world..
    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Not really sure what you're driving at here, wolfwatching, the state has laws and the feds have laws regarding how wildlife will be managed, and they differ. Also both have definitions of "subsistence" and what that really means, that don't really match your definition from freedictionary.com. For example, the state has 8 criteria that must be used regarding our state subsistence law that the Boards of Game and Fish adhere to (5 AAC 99.010).Wildlife management is 90% managing people. I know many don't like to hear that, but that's the way it is. In managing people we necessarily restrict harvests in certain ways by capping how many animals one can take and when they can take them and what type of animal can be harvested (FC ram, 3 or 4 brow tine 50" moose, bull only etc.) We also restrict types of access in many areas, whether it is for quality or habitat reasons or to try to limit hunters or better conserve game populations. So as far as having state mgmt that doesn't create any new restrictions at all on any hunter group, such a belief or idea would really be contrary to good effective stewardship. Look at the changes to Kenai moose hunting just enacted this spring by BOG. They had to mandate new harvest restrictions in order to save the herd and allow it to hopefully grow. Yes, they also instituted wolf control in a very limited (state) area, and pred-control and controlled burns are part of the equation in what we can do, but mostly it's all about controlling hunter harvests by various ways.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thewolfwatching View Post
    Thank you BR! I'm really and simply asking questions to gain an understanding from a global perspective. There seems to be a growing discontent and Im sniffing around for the source. My opinions are often utopian in nature haha.. but right or wrong its just me... I'm not one to argue with you but whereas the system is designed to manage people I have the opinion that its the people who should be managing the system - in a perfect world..
    You are way OVER thinking this. With the exception of you, we all want it all. We all think someone else is getting a sweeter deal than us. I get a lot of subsistence preference, but I am not happy with the deal. I want more. We all want more, to hell with the other guy. There is a finite amount of resources, and an expanding influx of humans.

    40 years ago everyone got Two Moose, Five Caribou, Two Mt. Goats, no closed season/no limit black bears, etc.

    Here is the hard truth: There is no justice, and there is no compassionate equity. Humans just want more stuff, and less work. Show me a bunch of Alaskans who want lower wages, and want to work harder longer hours, for the good of someone else.

    I feel like I get a very good subsistence package. But, I also figure anyone who wants the same package only needs to become a resident of Hope/Sunrise, Alaska. If it was important to me to get a better subsistence package all I have to do is move. The bottom line is it will never be fair, however people do have the freedom to live where they choose, for better or worse.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    I get a lot of subsistence preference, but I am not happy with the deal. I want more.
    Well, I have to admit that you certainly have the subsistence problem pegged.

    Show me a bunch of Alaskans who want lower wages, and want to work harder longer hours, for the good of someone else.
    Here you go. Hundreds of them, all year round, and not lower wages, either; no wages at all.

    And, come to think of it, not many from subsistence areas.

  9. #9
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    You Sir are being pessimistic! But, as always, I appreciate your candid thoughts.. I suppose the obtainability of fairness seems to be a farfetched idea when all of humanity wants it all, more, and to hell with the next guy.. therein rests the problem..

    Yes, I’m over thinking lol but I’d like to ‘think’ there’s a workable mediation… and I’m NO expert on any of these issues but trying to make sense, in my own mind, out of what seems to be a very complicated subject.


    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    You are way OVER thinking this. With the exception of you, we all want it all. We all think someone else is getting a sweeter deal than us. I get a lot of subsistence preference, but I am not happy with the deal. I want more. We all want more, to hell with the other guy. There is a finite amount of resources, and an expanding influx of humans.

    40 years ago everyone got Two Moose, Five Caribou, Two Mt. Goats, no closed season/no limit black bears, etc.

    Here is the hard truth: There is no justice, and there is no compassionate equity. Humans just want more stuff, and less work. Show me a bunch of Alaskans who want lower wages, and want to work harder longer hours, for the good of someone else.

    I feel like I get a very good subsistence package. But, I also figure anyone who wants the same package only needs to become a resident of Hope/Sunrise, Alaska. If it was important to me to get a better subsistence package all I have to do is move. The bottom line is it will never be fair, however people do have the freedom to live where they choose, for better or worse.

  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Well, Idealism and Utopian thoughts are great and all, but unfortunately that isn't how things work <grin>. Some try to chalk much of the way things are now to changes in our country or to changes in the hunting community over time, but even way back at the Alaska Constitutional Convention the winter of '55-'56, Dr. Ira Gabrielson gave a presentation on wildlife mgmt to the Convention and this was part of what he said:
    http://www.law.state.ak.us/doclibrary/cc_minutes.html
    "Wildlife management, if you could deal only with the wild populations and their problems, would be relatively simple, but in my opinion most wildlife management consists of five per cent dealing with wildlife things and 95 per cent dealing with wild people, and most of the problems and most of the headaches in wildlife administration come from human attitudes and human problems not from the wildlife problems. "

    Our current system is by no means perfect. Some tout Alaska as having the best "public" system of wildlife mgmt of all the states, our large number of F&G Advisory Committees, the BOG process whereby those ACs and the public can weigh in on mgmt and allocation issues. In that sense, wolfwatching, I suppose one could say that the people are managing the system. But it still doesn't mean that the people also don't recognize the truth of what Gabrielson said so long ago, and what every biologist I've ever spoken with believes today. That we aren't going to be able to effectively manage and sustain our wildlife resource without managing the consumptive user groups as a whole.
    Selah,

  11. #11
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Okay, so let me take this as a whole… Wildlife Management is really People Management because we live in an unfair, unjust, lazy, and self-serving populous BUT due to the striving efforts of a few, People Management can be effective through the ‘people’ and by the people via BOG and ACs etc...
    Ahh, gentlemen, whenever I need my romantic delusions obliterated I come to the right place… LOL!!! Thanks for the replies..

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thewolfwatching View Post
    Okay, so let me take this as a whole… Wildlife Management is really People Management because we live in an unfair, unjust, lazy, and self-serving populous BUT due to the striving efforts of a few, People Management can be effective through the ‘people’ and by the people via BOG and ACs etc...
    Ahh, gentlemen, whenever I need my romantic delusions obliterated I come to the right place… LOL!!! Thanks for the replies..
    It would have happened sooner or later.........You can't stay under 30 years of age, and be a dreaming social idealist for ever, well not unless you live in California.

  13. #13
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Hear, Hear..
    It's time to grow old and grumble with the masses!!

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    It would have happened sooner or later.........You can't stay under 30 years of age, and be a dreaming social idealist for ever, well not unless you live in California.

  14. #14
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    What I’m driving at, truly, is there’s only ONE definition of the term subsistence and the state and feds can and will change that definition for whatever purpose they need to.. The true definition of subsistence is the RIGHT to maintain one’s own life via the resources available if the need is there.. IF we don’t protect the definition as it IS then.. well, what do we have? The King’s land…? A dictatorship, a system that’s managed by an empire vs. the people? Do you have to belong to a politically involved organization to have a voice? I’ve heard of a few complaints of late; folks who try to get proposals in and folks who are justifiably conscious of their environment and folks who refuse to commit themselves to any agenda.. Do their proposals get taken into accordance with the same respect? No.. they don’t..

    State vs. Feds vs. the people… Idealistic – yes… LOL!! In this day and age, yes, they call that idealistic; days of old they called it America, of which, was based upon personal responsibility and the right to govern yourself. Obviously we’ve lost both!

    BR, I think you’re an amazing voice and I have great respect for you.. but.. when you use the term ‘we’ as in the system or.. this is what ‘we’ are doing I have to ask myself what that means.. See, having a CR LA background I can only say that managing people is as fruitless as managing wildlife.. The only difference being who gains what from the mishaps of both..




    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Not really sure what you're driving at here, wolfwatching, the state has laws and the feds have laws regarding how wildlife will be managed, and they differ. Also both have definitions of "subsistence" and what that really means, that don't really match your definition from freedictionary.com. For example, the state has 8 criteria that must be used regarding our state subsistence law that the Boards of Game and Fish adhere to (5 AAC 99.010).

    Wildlife management is 90&#37; managing people. I know many don't like to hear that, but that's the way it is. In managing people we necessarily restrict harvests in certain ways by capping how many animals one can take and when they can take them and what type of animal can be harvested (FC ram, 3 or 4 brow tine 50" moose, bull only etc.) We also restrict types of access in many areas, whether it is for quality or habitat reasons or to try to limit hunters or better conserve game populations. So as far as having state mgmt that doesn't create any new restrictions at all on any hunter group, such a belief or idea would really be contrary to good effective stewardship. Look at the changes to Kenai moose hunting just enacted this spring by BOG. They had to mandate new harvest restrictions in order to save the herd and allow it to hopefully grow. Yes, they also instituted wolf control in a very limited (state) area, and pred-control and controlled burns are part of the equation in what we can do, but mostly it's all about controlling hunter harvests by various ways.



  15. #15
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thewolfwatching View Post
    What I’m driving at, truly, is there’s only ONE definition of the term subsistence and the state and feds can and will change that definition for whatever purpose they need to.. The true definition of subsistence is the RIGHT to maintain one’s own life via the resources available if the need is there.. IF we don’t protect the definition as it IS then.. well, what do we have? The King’s land…? A dictatorship, a system that’s managed by an empire vs. the people? Do you have to belong to a politically involved organization to have a voice? I’ve heard of a few complaints of late; folks who try to get proposals in and folks who are justifiably conscious of their environment and folks who refuse to commit themselves to any agenda.. Do their proposals get taken into accordance with the same respect? No.. they don’t..

    State vs. Feds vs. the people… Idealistic – yes… LOL!! In this day and age, yes, they call that idealistic; days of old they called it America, of which, was based upon personal responsibility and the right to govern yourself. Obviously we’ve lost both!

    BR, I think you’re an amazing voice and I have great respect for you.. but.. when you use the term ‘we’ as in the system or.. this is what ‘we’ are doing I have to ask myself what that means.. See, having a CR LA background I can only say that managing people is as fruitless as managing wildlife.. The only difference being who gains what from the mishaps of both..
    In the days of old as you put it, "the People" decimated many once abundant wildlife populations to the brink of extinction--buffalo, antelope, deer, turkeys, several species of ducks & geese, and of course, the Carrier Pigeon which went to the brink and was then nudged over. Left to their own devices, the People always over consume. It's partly due to primal, competitive human nature and on a sociological level, partly due to the tendency of individuals to discount their impact on the whole i.e. I'm-just a-drop-in-the-bucket.

    It was the governmental imposition of fish & game laws that eventually restored most of our depleted wildlife resources. Bushrat is correct in defining what we call Wildlife Management as being mostly people management. This is because people are the variable with the greatest degree of impact while also being the easiest to control. Managing people is not only not fruitless it's vital and so long as potential demand for a resource outstrips the sustainable supply, the need for effective people management in the name of wildlife conservation will endure.

    As far as proposals go, most of them in any given year are a beautiful example of ill informed self-interest. Individuals want the regulations tailored to suit them. They delude themselves into thinking their wants are reflective of the whole.


    Also, your notions of subsistence are, with respect, naive. Subsistence, at least in Alaska, is a political designation that equates to special rights of allocation and there are lots of threads on this already.
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  16. #16
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Thank Erik for the comments on people mgmt.

    wolfwatching, again I appreciate idealism and all, but re "subsistence," in reality there is not just one definition of it by law, as I had already gone into. The feds try to protect subsistence via their definitions and the state does the same based on their definitions. Complicated and divisive, yes, but that's where we now stand.
    Sincerely,

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thewolfwatching View Post
    Hear, Hear..
    It's time to grow old and grumble with the masses!!
    Think about this: Yes, I am Old and that is For sure, and I consider getting old winning at Life. You may not live to get old. I did 20+ miles on the Russian Lakes trail in the last 19 hours, with a 45 pound pack. There is old and then there is old.

  18. #18
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Sir, I seriously doubt I will live to be old and kudos to you for your trek..
    I'm whipped after taking my youngin on a 2 day fishing trip LOL! Never did and don’t mean any disrespect whatsoever.. but age is something that should be shared in the format of knowledge of which I believe you have.. Sometimes sharing knowledge is better than grumbling to the masses..

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    Think about this: Yes, I am Old and that is For sure, and I consider getting old winning at Life. You may not live to get old. I did 20+ miles on the Russian Lakes trail in the last 19 hours, with a 45 pound pack. There is old and then there is old.

  19. #19
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Can you cite the current legal definitions for me? Just so I can further my education… Truly, it would help..
    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Thank Erik for the comments on people mgmt.

    wolfwatching, again I appreciate idealism and all, but re "subsistence," in reality there is not just one definition of it by law, as I had already gone into. The feds try to protect subsistence via their definitions and the state does the same based on their definitions. Complicated and divisive, yes, but that's where we now stand.
    Sincerely,

  20. #20
    Thewolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Original post.. this whole thread comes full circle.. IF, we all, as a consumptive user group valued our resource in an educated way, IF we could mediate a solution, IF we could all be sound of mind and judgment then the entire argument between State vs. Feds wouldn’t have a chance.. Now, I must post this.. So my idealistic nature shouldnt have a voice? As a woman.. I shouldn’t hold council with men nor attempt to inspire or learn the issues at hand?
    Because this is the point comment I just received: “TheWolfWatching/Tink,pls return to the Womens Forum. Your post were very funnt, until they got deleted. We all want you back. Got any guy forum guy stories for us?”

    OMG!! And why have I had to change names sooo many times BR.. Ha! Thank you for your comments gentlemen.. Truly, trying to understand the issues and sometimes I understand them best arguing with all the holes in the topic..

    As far as my point comments BAHAHA!! Learn to spell moron!! and TY your not in a position of power.. Man, you SUCK!






Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •