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..