Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Discrimination moose hunt

  1. #1

    Default Discrimination moose hunt

    Subsistence hunts should be for Alaska residence with limited income. Not anyone who happens to live in a specified area.
    The state plan of 50" 4 bow tine --NO spike fork moose was to get the bull to cow ratio up.
    Federal subsistence hunt for unit 15 [August 10-September 20 and October 20-November 10] is the Ninilchik Rural Subsistence Area and is for any resident in that area only. Regardless of income.
    This is a bunch of BS........they will kill the moose the state is trying to protect.
    Right now the breeding bulls are very vulnerable. You can walk within 20 feet of a breeding bull and he won't care. He is only interested in cows.
    I am a meat hunter...NOT a trophy hunter, so rely on spike fork moose for meat. I live on a fixed social security income NOT a $100,000 a year job.
    This is a discrimination hunt. We need the governor and all the representatives in the state to step up and make this right for all residents in the state of Alaska.
    This is happening all over the state where most of the Alaskan residents are discriminated against for not living in a specified area.
    Anyone living in these specified areas can subsistence fish in the Kenai river for salmon. It is NOT right that they can fish in this area and we can not hunt in their area.
    This is pure discrimination no matter how you look at it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I've lived in Alaska 40 plus years. Raised my family here. We have always relied on hunting, fishing and our garden to get us thru the year. I have raised our kids to subsist this way and now we don't live in the Federal subsistence area to allow us to continue to subsist on moose.
    Don't take my word for it----get the Subsistence Management Regulations for the Harvest of Wildlife on Federal Public Lands in Alaska. Effective July1, 2010-June 30,2012
    See for yourself and compare these to our state hunting regulations.


    definition of subsistence......1.the act or fact of living or staying alive; existence. 2.a way to stay alive and support oneself; livelihood [Hunting and a little farming gave the pioneers a fair subsistence.]

  2. #2

    Default

    Yea, it is ridiculous. What are the horn restrictions for that thar "subsistence" hunt? I am 3 miles short of the line, so not privileged enough to participate. Leave it to the feds to completely butcher a system. In 20E all us normals have to stop on Sept 17, the privileged get to hunt till the 25th... and like you said the rut is getting rolling during those days.


    All Alaskans should hunt with the same rights... silly any other way.

  3. #3

    Default

    So.....we should get rid of the discriminating method of allocating moose currently in use and change it to....let's see....a system that uses a different form of discrimination? I don't agree with the current method, but I sure as heck don't support the other either. If there are enough moose, make it a tag hunt, if not, make it a draw or registration. No priorities for ANYONE for ANY reason.

  4. #4
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    So.....we should get rid of the discriminating method of allocating moose currently in use and change it to....let's see....a system that uses a different form of discrimination? I don't agree with the current method, but I sure as heck don't support the other either. If there are enough moose, make it a tag hunt, if not, make it a draw or registration. No priorities for ANYONE for ANY reason.
    Gotta get this tapatalk app to build in a feature to let me give rep. This post is worthy!

  5. #5

    Default

    More whiners game! These subsistence hunts are federal hunts, not state, therefore there are different rules to play by.
    I would be 110% against an income based system. It would make it another "welfare" system. TOTAL BS! The system isn't perfect and never will be the feds are here to stay, so no reason to continue whining about it.

    anchorrivercrowds, in 20E it is limited again to federal lands, which anyone knows up there is very limited and moose densities are very low. Harvest is almost non-existant, but does happen.

  6. #6
    Member Dirtofak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Creek
    Posts
    2,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Gotta get this tapatalk app to build in a feature to let me give rep. This post is worthy!
    I got him.
    I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
    Bill Hicks

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northway View Post
    More whiners game! These subsistence hunts are federal hunts, not state, therefore there are different rules to play by.
    I would be 110% against an income based system. It would make it another "welfare" system. TOTAL BS! The system isn't perfect and never will be the feds are here to stay, so no reason to continue whining about it.

    anchorrivercrowds, in 20E it is limited again to federal lands, which anyone knows up there is very limited and moose densities are very low. Harvest is almost non-existant, but does happen.
    Subsistence is a federal program, I had no idea..sic

    Moose are
    non-existent in 20E?... hmm.. I saw 9 in three days... 2 were bulls....

  8. #8

    Default

    No one said moose are non-existant. Said, "densities are low" which means that compared to other areas of the state, the moose population is low! If you ever looked at the river corridors, they are very narrow up there. Again, very few moose killed in these areas even with our "discriminating moose seasons". Man, I just had some "discriminating caribou burger" for dinner and it was really good! Sept. 24, courtesy of the feds! Gotta love em, gotta hate em!

  9. #9
    Member alaskabliss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Subsistence priority based on location is way better than based on income. I do think it all needs to change but I don't have any ideas that will make every one happy. People will always complain when they are not chosen to hunt. What about something similar to the Unit 13 caribou tier 1. There is no income limitations or place of residence limitations as long as your Alaskan and you hunt in that unit. This could be expanded to moose also or any subsistence game for that matter through out the state.
    Now don't starts blasting me for an idea, it's better to bring a possible solution to a problem instead of just complaining.

  10. #10
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hookedoo View Post
    Subsistence hunts should be for Alaska residence with limited income. Not anyone who happens to live in a specified area.
    Why should those with limited income have preferential access to game? Honestly, that makes no sense to me. Our fish and game resources are commonly owned by the residents of Alaska. Why should someone have a priority over someone else simply because their choices have led them to make less money? I am certainly not rich - as a teacher I'm fairly well entrenched in middle-income-ville - but there was a time when I ate $1.50 Costco hot dogs every day because that's all I could afford. I can't say that at that time I felt any more entitled to fish or animals than someone who worked to get into a position to make a high income. (Neither do I now think that I should have more of a right to game than the doctor or businessman who is pulling down $500k a year)

    As for Federal rural preference, I'm no fan of it, but really we all have a chance to participate - just move to those communities. I'd rather not have any preference at all, but federal laws are outside the purview of our state reps, board of game, etc.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Why should those with limited income have preferential access to game? Honestly, that makes no sense to me. Our fish and game resources are commonly owned by the residents of Alaska. Why should someone have a priority over someone else simply because their choices have led them to make less money? I am certainly not rich - as a teacher I'm fairly well entrenched in middle-income-ville - but there was a time when I ate $1.50 Costco hot dogs every day because that's all I could afford. I can't say that at that time I felt any more entitled to fish or animals than someone who worked to get into a position to make a high income. (Neither do I now think that I should have more of a right to game than the doctor or businessman who is pulling down $500k a year)

    As for Federal rural preference, I'm no fan of it, but really we all have a chance to participate - just move to those communities. I'd rather not have any preference at all, but federal laws are outside the purview of our state reps, board of game, etc.
    Well said Brian. Much more eloquently than me, but I have decided to be an ass tonight. I agree with you 100% on the income based idea. Nothing like creating a wave of "welfare" users for hunting. Would be totally asinine.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, Ak
    Posts
    3,901

    Default

    What's funny no one in unit 15 was complaining about these hunts until the rule change. Me personally don't really care if you live in a area that has federal hunts more power to you. Im pretty happy living in wasilla, have no real desire to move to one of those areas.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 323 View Post
    What's funny no one in unit 15 was complaining about these hunts until the rule change. Me personally don't really care if you live in a area that has federal hunts more power to you. Im pretty happy living in wasilla, have no real desire to move to one of those areas.
    Yup all it takes is a move! I'll have to post a story of my federal hunt later this winter! I am sure people will enjoy it!

  14. #14
    Member Salmon-Thirty-Salmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    FL410
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    ]...but there was a time when I ate $1.50 Costco hot dogs every day because that's all I could afford...
    Those dogs are the best [commercial] meal in town. I still make the regular trip, regardless of needing anything else in the store...or my current income level.

  15. #15
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    This forum is NOT the place to complain about fed hunting regs. Won't do ya any good. Write your federal reps. I'm sure Lisa will lend you a sympathetic ear...................Hahahaha! Maybe Safari Club shoulda contributed more to her campaign chest for the write in vote!!
    Like the others have said.............Move to the area and qualify! Go to the RAC meetings. The Fed Subsistence Board meetings are always in Anchortown. Go to the meeting and complain.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  16. #16
    Member Dirtofak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Creek
    Posts
    2,267

    Default

    If your income is that low that you really need the meat, get on the roadkill program. No closed season and it saves you the cost of a bullet.
    I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
    Bill Hicks

  17. #17

    Default

    I don't have an opinion on how best to allocate the resource, simply because if one follows all of these various arguments to their logical conclusions, there exists NO possible method of allocation that does not discriminate in some fashion. The only truly fair method I can see is to simply close down hunting whenever game numbers become too low to be open to everyone, and I doubt if anyone would support that idea (including me). So the real question is, in what fashion do we as a society wish to discriminate?


    Quote Originally Posted by hookedoo View Post
    Subsistence hunts should be for Alaska residence with limited income.
    Really hookedoo? It's just as easy (and just as ridiculous) to argue that residents with limited income should be barred from hunting because they can't afford it, after all it takes time and money to hunt that could be better spent earning additional income. An equally asinine argument in either direction!

    Nothing personal, you're free to rant of course, but your argument simply doesn't make sense.

    This is a discrimination hunt. We need the governor and all the representatives in the state to step up and make this right for all residents in the state of Alaska.
    Really hookedoo? You really want us to all rely on the government to solve our problems for us? Uh, isn't that a large part of how we got into this mess in the first place?

    I have raised our kids to subsist this way and now we don't live in the Federal subsistence area to allow us to continue to subsist on moose.
    Sounds like you moved away? If so, it isn't clear why you moved if you were relying on a local entitlement. Can you move back so you can continue to qualify for that entitlement?


    On another note:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Why should someone have a priority over someone else simply because their choices have led them to make less money?
    Brian, I have to believe you know it isn't that simple. Choices are only one small part of a much larger equation, along with opportunities, circumstances, competence levels, and just plain old luck. We really have very little control beyond that one small part.

    Just as one doesn't choose whether or not to be born into a subsistence lifestyle, one also doesn't choose whether or not to be disabled, to be intelligent, to be abused, to be talented, to be genetically disadvantaged, or to be born into privilege. Choices certainly play an important role in life, but quite frankly not every person is physically or mentally capable of "success". Being a good person, sure. Doing their personal best, of course. But achieving success defined by financial measures?

    People make choices that affect their lives, but to some extent we also play the cards we're dealt. Plenty of people make less money simply because they were incapable of making the choice to earn more. Not an excuse, merely a fact. As a teacher, surely you're familiar with the challenges faced by some (not all) of the kids in your district's special ed programs? Plenty of kids are mainstreamed despite very limited chances for future success.

  18. #18
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphina View Post
    Brian, I have to believe you know it isn't that simple. Choices are only one small part of a much larger equation, along with opportunities, circumstances, competence levels, and just plain old luck. We really have very little control beyond that one small part.
    Fair point, and of course I know it's not that simple. I do believe that our choices are a large part of why we end up as we do, but of course it's not the only determining factor. A reasonable discussion of all of the reasons for income disparity would have been impossible within a relatively concise post while staying on topic, so I suppose I mentioned choices because I believe that to be the largest contributor among many. Regardless of the reason for differing incomes, though, I maintain that it is a poor basis for game allocation (and it seems you agree). That was my main point, though perhaps I muddied the waters by throwing in the reference to the reasons for the differences.

  19. #19
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    The antidote to a decreased aptitude is an elevated work ethic. I know more than a few guys that never could do well in school yet they work hard and endeavor to take on new challenges and do what is needed to climb the ladder at work. The most frustrating sector in our population to me is the many that have the intelligence and are capable of being productive yet refuse to put in the effort to achieve. They instead believe that they should be in charge and get paid a high salary the day they grace their employers door step. The only thing worse is the masses that elect to spend their time buried in mind altering substances or pain medication due to some belief that they should never hurt or feel anything but happiness.... As I shell out 30% of my income to a govt that reallocates it to subsidize those behaviors I dang sure won't stand to have them turn over my hunting rights in the same vein!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    731

    Default

    yea, i get it. if you make 100k a year, that means you can go down to fred meyers and buy some moose and caribou, oh, and maybe some sitka deer.

    how utterly ridiculous.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •