Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 79

Thread: AKF&G considering privatizing part of our natural resources? Its time to unite.

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Exclamation AKF&G considering privatizing part of our natural resources? Its time to unite.

    Read it and weep; F&G is actually considering giving large land owners private rights to the herd, and to set aside some of the laws that the rest of us (like hunting season timing) will continue to adhere to:

    http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/235050...s-weighed.html

    Click on the link and read it a few times. Its time to set aside petty differences and unite against this.

    Of particular interest, find that the people thinking about taking this step, are now identifying what particular parts of the Alaska constitution stand in the way of them taking this step.

    Even if you assume best case scenario - that this is a complete action, there will be no follow-on actions, and this is not just a foot in the door thing - its still a horrible prospect.

    It is my very clear understanding that this sort of politics type of subject is 100 percent allowed by forum rules, since it is (VERY much so) potentially affecting hunting, but in case I'm wrong, I'll wait to post more details that I would like to, regarding particular reasons why I know this direction to be a very wrong one.

    Once I see that the mod-squad here have ok'd the topic, I'll chime back in. I'll just post one last thing here: if you read that article with just a little bit of insight, you'll see that I'm not the first forum member here to speak up against the prospect of this happening.

    I propose we stand together now, or we might find ourselves standing for (and with) nothing.

  2. #2
    Member GAredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    459

    Default

    FM, sorry I didn't see you posted about the same time I did. Maybe the MODS will combin the two threads together so we don't have info in two locations regarding this.

    Folks,
    Just google this group and see what people in the lower 48 are saying about them. We DO NOT need them here, it's time to stand up and let our voices be heard.

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

    Default No worries

    Quote Originally Posted by GAredneck View Post
    FM, sorry I didn't see you posted about the same time I did. Maybe the MODS will combin the two threads together so we don't have info in two locations regarding this.

    Folks,
    Just google this group and see what people in the lower 48 are saying about them. We DO NOT need them here, it's time to stand up and let our voices be heard.
    No worries, GA.

    About what lots of outsiders are saying, yes, there is something to be learned from what happens elsewhere, but there are many reasons right here, that make this quite a wrong road to begin to travel down. I'll post some of my own reasons soon, after I see that this topic isn't a thorn in mgmt's side.

  4. #4
    Member broncoformudv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,670

    Default

    WOW its nice to see this all coming to light months later.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    I think starting down the slope with land owners being able to sell wildlife is a very slippery slope indeed. Once it starts you will NOT be able to stop it. I think being able to sell tags is just that. Selling game animals. It will diminish the amount of tags available for others and is another step in making hunting a rich mans sport. The state of AK owns the game not individual land owners. I am a NR so I have no dog in this fight but I do think the people of AK should come before us NR's. I see this as a way for a few people to sell animals to non residents. Whats next? big fences so the animals are confined to their land?

  6. #6
    Charterboat Operator kodiakcombo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Old Harbor, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,360

    Default

    Being able to manage game on private land is just common sense, especially is a vast area like Alaska. Hopefully the people who live on those lands actually would manage the fish and game and not a board who does not live off of it. Being able to close or open hunting and fishing to certain species when the numbers are actually observed, or reduce the take or increasing the take when needed would be a common sense thing to do.
    Providing trips for multilpe species for over 20 yrs
    www.kodiakcombos.com

  7. #7
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    this is the kind of stuff happens when folks want what the lower 48 does...i heard several testify this weekend to similar programs from wyo..and other states that have land owner tags..

    interstingly enough..it was from the same folks who keep asking the board to give / show preferance to Alaska Residents...funny part is..most the "land owner tags" in the states are sold to non res....

    folks keep asking "WHY can't Ak do it like other states"... lol

    carful pushing for more preferance for sheep hunts...some are creating their own slopes to slip on..yet fail to see the indemnification of their actions
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,919

    Default

    A quote from the arcticle:


    Byron Bateman, president of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife in South Weber, Utah, said in a telephone interview that landowner permits in his state have "increased the opportunity for the ordinary citizen to be able to hunt some of these private lands that they would not have been able to afford."



    Really? are you kidding me why is it that I cant see that happening here on large private lands without extreme costs.... so who would it really benefit

  9. #9
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Looks like we are almost going back to the system they had when King George of England and Henry the eight were around.
    "Tis the kings property to do what he wants with."
    Robin hood was chased around cause he was killing the kings wildlife in sherwood forest too.
    This is totally out of line IMO. What would happen if an animal was marked in some way of being part of a private estate, er.. I mean private land ownership and then it left that estate, er I mean left that private land and was shot? Does the Lord, er I mean owner sue to recoup damages of what that animal could have brought in by selling the hunting rights?
    Talk about creating the haves and have nots!!!!
    I cannot believe the Commish is good with this. She might be young but she ain't stupid!!
    Any true sportsmen and or Alaskan should be totally up in arms with this hairbrained scheme cause a scheme is exactly what it is. I'm starting to think that the group Sportsmen for wildlife should maybe be called Certain people for wildlife cause giving away a resource ain't sporting at all. Just my own .02
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Natives can all ready do this in a round about way,sell trespass permits to the highest bidder.It's happening right now, I know of two such cases, they do have to comply with state hunting regs but the hunters have exclusive access to the hunting area.and pay $10,000 for the access.

    It's just a fantasy to think that the land owners will manage the game better than the state, they'll go for the short term profits.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    big lake ak
    Posts
    342

    Default

    maybe a special use land tax for these parcels on the order of $3000. per acre for the owner. an amount that would be enough that we could build the opportunity for other resources. we could use the money to build roads, not in their area. mandatory land forfiture requirement for ANY violations so we could get the land back and re-rent it. make the land owners pay for the bio research. a bond requirement for potential resource destruction. if we exploit the land owners like they want to exploit the resource we might be okay.

  12. #12
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    TS and 27... Rep points on the way to both of you
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  13. #13
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    Yeah, big land owning corps will better manage game like Sealaska and Chugach used higher standards for logging.

    It's no coincidence that the SFW/Rossi/Tyonek Native Corp were all in bed with each other.

  14. #14
    Member mjm316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    821

    Default

    To help average hunters access these lands at a cost of $9000-$18500 I guess I'm well below the poverty line then
    This is garbage!
    Tomorrow isn't promised. "Never delay kissing a pretty girl or opening a bottle of whiskey." E. Hemingway

  15. #15

    Default

    I'm definitely not a big fan of the very vague idea that land-owners will even be allowed special out of season hunting rights part of the article. Seems to me like that would take away a lot of opportunity to non-landowners. I also wonder if there has been any discussion of increasing the property tax assessed to landowners that are able to get these special permits, especially native corporations. I'm pretty shocked every time I go on the KPB GIS website too look at land ownership and see that the huge parcels of native land are all charged no property tax even though they get to charge for access to them and now will be able to receive the additional benefit of getting permits that they can sell. I'd think that if any corporation owns land, especially if they are managing it to receive income, that they ought to pay taxes on that land. Maybe that would be a good incentive. If any corporation allows free public access to their land, then they get a tax break. Just my 2 cents.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    big lake ak
    Posts
    342

    Default

    what about farms? if a dude raises a few moose a bear or two can he sell a canned hunt without violating an ethic. the way i understand it this is not yet a legal activity. i am not opposed to a land owner raising his own to sell.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    big lake ak
    Posts
    342

    Default

    what about farms? if a dude raises a few moose a bear or two can he sell a canned hunt without violating an ethic. the way i understand it this is not yet a legal activity. i am not opposed to a land owner raising his own to sell.

  18. #18
    Member AK Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Land owner tags are needed for two things: Controlling overpopulation of game animals on large tracks of agricultural land and controlling crop damage from game animals. It is a program used to motivate land owners to create controlled access to manage a problem effecting their business.

    Where in Alaska are big game animals over populated on farms or ranches?

    Where in Alaska are big game animals consistently damaging agricultural crops?

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    You guys just waking up? We've been telling you all along how SFW operates. They get involved with projects they think will make them look good such as "protecting game animals from predators" or "growing more moose", anything that makes it look like they are making hunting better for the average hunter, then the next step is using that good will to getting some influence with the management process. When they get their guys in place, they switch gears and push hard for privatizing hunting and getting themselves coveted draw tags to sell. And they set it up so somehow, their people are the ones making money. This organization is all about making money for the people involved in it at the higher levels. They are very good at bait and switch. The average hunter is only good to them as far as getting support to put them into power.

    Anybody supporting them because they are helping the average hunter is just fooling themselves. It's all about money and hunting opportunities for hunters with money. Nothing less.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    One more thing, this is already happening to an extent under the guise of trespass fees by the native corporations. If they charged one fee for access to their land I would have no problem with it, but when they charge you a different price depending on what species you are hunting, they are basically selling you public property. Just another part of the slippery slope.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

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
  •