Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 188

Thread: 5 Mile Corridor

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,815

    Default 5 Mile Corridor

    What was/is the reasoning behind the 5 Mile Corridor up on the Haul road?

    Was it safety?

    Was it to prevent the taking of too many Caribou, for example? Limiting the access, and therefore the number of hunters, etc. (Prevent Slaughter, at times.)

    To create work for the Outfitters, Air Services?

    To appease the Tree Huggers, and/or Wildlife Viewers?

    Iím just speculating here, and not taking issue with it.

    If you can shed some light, on this please do.

    Thanks
    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    788

    Default

    I once heard it was to control the amount of caribou taken right off the road. I guess the success rate was so hi with rifles that it would be a matter of time before the herd would be below comfortable number if they did not slow the rate down.
    I also heard that it was to limit the number of road side kills that the tourist would see.

    Sweepint
    Wasilla, (when not overseas)
    '' Livn' The Dream ''
    26' Hewescraft Cuddy, twin 115 Yam

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default which

    Quote Originally Posted by sweepint;1070607[COLOR=#222222
    it would be a matter of time before the herd would be below comfortable number ...

    I also heard that it was to limit the number of road side kills that the tourist would see.
    These are two entirely different reasons. Which was the driving force?

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

    Default

    I believe it is more to do with the number of people on the road. The corridors goes all the way back to when the road was originally opened to civilian travel. We have never reached the harvest goal for that herd so limiting harvest doesn't hold water. Personally I would like to see it cut down to 2-3 miles from the current 5. It would still be a hard hunt but on that is more reasonable for rifle hunters.

    I doubt the bow hunter orgs would stand for that though!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    I believe it is more to do with the number of people on the road.
    sweepint alludes about hunters but talks about tourists on the road; you say people. "hunters" are not not featured so far here. Which of the 3 (or more) types of people at what level was involved in the original thinking?

  6. #6

    Default

    maybe a "proving ground" for GI's personal jacked up trucks??

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oka in ak View Post
    maybe a "proving ground" for GI's personal jacked up trucks??
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe its a complete ban on land-based vehicles in that area.

  8. #8
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    You'll have to find somebody who was at the State legislature meetings when they passed the law to know for sure. The most reported reason why they banned firearm hunting coupled with a ban on off-road vehicle use was to prevent the urban hunters from coming up and competing with the subsistence users in the area. Nothing more complicated than that; just another subsistence preference rule, which we have plenty of in this state. I doubt they knew of the explosion in bow hunting that would eventually spawn out of that.

    Note that when the corridor was established, there was no tourism and the caribou herd was smaller. There's no way the state legislature would get involved in or come up with a 5-mile corridor in response to the number of people on or using a highway. Quite frankly, the number of people on that highway hardly bares mention when compared to any other Alaska highway. So that ain't it.

    Safety would have nothing to do with it. There's already a ban on shooting from or across a road. There's no law that would extend a shooting ban to the distance of 5 miles for safety, all the while ignoring all the other highways that actually have people using them. That ain't it.

    I'm pretty sure the subsistence preference issue was the primary driver at the time.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    You'll have to find somebody who was at the State legislature meetings when they passed the law to know for sure. The most reported reason why they banned firearm hunting coupled with a ban on off-road vehicle use was to prevent the urban hunters from coming up and competing with the subsistence users in the area. Nothing more complicated than that; just another subsistence preference rule, which we have plenty of in this state. I doubt they knew of the explosion in bow hunting that would eventually spawn out of that.

    Note that when the corridor was established, there was no tourism and the caribou herd was smaller. There's no way the state legislature would get involved in or come up with a 5-mile corridor in response to the number of people on or using a highway. Quite frankly, the number of people on that highway hardly bares mention when compared to any other Alaska highway. So that ain't it.

    Safety would have nothing to do with it. There's already a ban on shooting from or across a road. There's no law that would extend a shooting ban to the distance of 5 miles for safety, all the while ignoring all the other highways that actually have people using them. That ain't it.

    I'm pretty sure the subsistence preference issue was the primary driver at the time.
    Don't mean to pick, but do you know? Would't a 1 mile corridor have done the same result?

  10. #10
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Like I said, you'd have to find someone who was at the meetings to know for sure. Just trying to think like a politician with a motive, I'd say that 1 mile is too close. Anyone can pack a mile. To me, 5 miles sounds like the politicians giving the finger to the urban hunters and making the statement, "this area is for subsistence hunting". It's too much of a "round" number to be anything scientific.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Don't mean to pick, but do you know? Would't a 1 mile corridor have done the same result?

    No. I know a ton of people who would go up there and hike outside a corridor if it was only 1 mile, not so much with it set at 5.

    I think the big thing was mentioned above, the volume of traffic on the road that it would create if rifle hunting were allowed near the road. If it were a smaller distance, one that is much more easily reached on foot, you would see many more people driving that road, parking, and hiking in. Remember, this road was primarily constructed and used to access the north slope for large trucks. It would not be a good road in it's current state to encourage a big increase in traffic, especially traffic that isn't focused on driving but rather on looking for the herd or parking all over the place along the shoulders of the road.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe its a complete ban on land-based vehicles in that area.
    I think he was referring to the incident a few years ago when the two GI's tried to drive their trucks from the road to the 5-mile mark outside the corridor. They did not make it and it was a big issue with them having to recover their vehicles as well as pay fines and conduct community service (educating others).

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    You'll have to find somebody who was at the State legislature meetings when they passed the law to know for sure. The most reported reason why they banned firearm hunting coupled with a ban on off-road vehicle use was to prevent the urban hunters from coming up and competing with the subsistence users in the area. Nothing more complicated than that; just another subsistence preference rule, which we have plenty of in this state. I doubt they knew of the explosion in bow hunting that would eventually spawn out of that.

    Note that when the corridor was established, there was no tourism and the caribou herd was smaller. There's no way the state legislature would get involved in or come up with a 5-mile corridor in response to the number of people on or using a highway. Quite frankly, the number of people on that highway hardly bares mention when compared to any other Alaska highway. So that ain't it.

    Safety would have nothing to do with it. There's already a ban on shooting from or across a road. There's no law that would extend a shooting ban to the distance of 5 miles for safety, all the while ignoring all the other highways that actually have people using them. That ain't it.

    I'm pretty sure the subsistence preference issue was the primary driver at the time.
    Almost perfect....'ceptin it was the ONLY driver.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Does it have anything to do with not wanting bullet holes in the oil pipeline ?

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuskerHunter View Post
    Does it have anything to do with not wanting bullet holes in the oil pipeline ?
    Uhhhhhhh.....No.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuskerHunter View Post
    Does it have anything to do with not wanting bullet holes in the oil pipeline ?
    If that were the case, it could be accomplished by a corridor of maybe 1/2 mile centered on the pipeline itself rather than a 5-mile corridor centered on the road.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Familyman
    I was just passing on what i have heard was possibly the reason. I just started hunting up there last year and have not lived in the state for the past 20 years to know the real reason. As of the last 10 post it does not seem that anyone else knows the correct answer either. So if you know the answer please enlighten the rest of us.

    Sweepint
    Wasilla, (when not overseas)
    '' Livn' The Dream ''
    26' Hewescraft Cuddy, twin 115 Yam

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweepint View Post
    Familyman
    As of the last 10 post it does not seem that anyone else knows the correct answer either. So if you know the answer please enlighten the rest of us.
    The Dalton Highway Corridor/Management Area is located 5 miles east and west of the Dalton Highway from the Yukon River north to the southern boundary of the Prudhoe Bay Close Area. It is 10 miles wide by about 360 long (3600 square miles). The management area was established in 1980, and amended in 1985.

    What kind of restrictions apply?

    Closed to hunting; however, big game, small game, and fur animals may be taken in the area by bow and arrow only. No motorized vehicle, except aircraft, boats, and licensed highway vehicles, may be used to transport game or hunters within the Dalton Highway Corridor area. Hunters to stop at any check station operated by the Department. In addition, Alaska Statute 19. 40. 210 prohibits the use of off-road vehicles within 5 miles of the highway right-of-way in this area.

    What was the issue(s) that resulted in the establishment of the CUA?

    Perceived need to limit access by hunters, primarily on the part of communities in Unit 26.


    Is the CUA currently accomplishing its intended purpose?

    It has been successful in limiting access.

    Is the CUA generally accepted by the public, or is there a history of controversy and/or attempts to modify or eliminate it?

    There has been a long-term controversy relating to the fact that some people regard it as unnecessarily restrictive. Some hunters believe the 5 mile distance is greater than need be, and that something on the order of 2 miles would accomplish the purpose and be more reasonable. Restrictions on use of motorized vehicles seem to be more widely accepted.

    Source: https://secure.wildlife.alaska.gov/i...g=info.ftyukon

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,815

    Default

    Thanks to all, for the info, etc.

    I tried to think of everything, but hadn't considered subsistence to be a reason. I thought the area was sparsely populated.

    Are there Native Lands along that road, or pending selections under the Native Claims act?

    Or, opening it up to private ownership, for developement purposes?

    Anyway, it seems that a precedent has been set, for any new roads into, or through new areas.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  20. #20
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Thanks for the great post wet enuf! I am in the to restrictive camp based on harvest levels more than anything. I don't think I would make annual trips up there even if the hike was cut in half but the fact that we never come close to the harvest goals tells me that the current management plan is too restrictive. I hope that future roads (if we ever get any) are not held to the same plan!

Page 1 of 10 123 ... 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
  •