Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Mulchatna Herd Article

  1. #1
    Member High Country's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    191

    Default Mulchatna Herd Article

    This is pretty interesting and good conversation fodder: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...t-there-anyway

  2. #2
    Member Redlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Now in Anchorage
    Posts
    391

    Angry

    My reply to the person who posted "The ACTUAL people who live there should be the ONLY hunters. It needs to be written down for people who do not understand subsistence. The non native are greedy and need written rules."

    "The ACTUAL people who live there undoubtably do NOT hunt where I hunted in 2006 and harvested a very nice bull. However, the ACTUAL people that took my money to transport me and my friend to the hunting spot and my money at the grocery store there in Bethel and then took money from the transporter and his family after I left and the ACTUAL people working for Alaska Airlines did not seem to mind ONE D@MN bit that we came and took one bull and a handful of ptarmigan and fish from a place that no one that ACTUALLY live in the region ever ACTUALLY goes to. I doubt any natives went hungry because of the tiny bit of protein I took out of the area. But, I'm sure you are content with the ever dwindling population of the bush."

    I really don't understand the complete disgust shown to non-residents by some while they, or theirs, gladly pocket our money. My tax money goes to pay the FWS personnel same as anyone elses. I think that if they close all these areas, the people that live there should have to exist on what they can catch, and not get a single penny of Federal money to subsidize living in a an area they don't want me to "pollute".

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redlander View Post
    My reply to the person who posted "The ACTUAL people who live there should be the ONLY hunters. It needs to be written down for people who do not understand subsistence. The non native are greedy and need written rules."

    "The ACTUAL people who live there undoubtably do NOT hunt where I hunted in 2006 and harvested a very nice bull. However, the ACTUAL people that took my money to transport me and my friend to the hunting spot and my money at the grocery store there in Bethel and then took money from the transporter and his family after I left and the ACTUAL people working for Alaska Airlines did not seem to mind ONE D@MN bit that we came and took one bull and a handful of ptarmigan and fish from a place that no one that ACTUALLY live in the region ever ACTUALLY goes to. I doubt any natives went hungry because of the tiny bit of protein I took out of the area. But, I'm sure you are content with the ever dwindling population of the bush."

    I really don't understand the complete disgust shown to non-residents by some while they, or theirs, gladly pocket our money. My tax money goes to pay the FWS personnel same as anyone elses. I think that if they close all these areas, the people that live there should have to exist on what they can catch, and not get a single penny of Federal money to subsidize living in a an area they don't want me to "pollute".
    There are MANY who agree with you. To add further, the State of Alaska owns only 28% of "its" land, the the other two major interests, ie; The Federal Govt' and Alaska Natives own 60% and the remainder respectively, with the Feds giving a biased preference to Natives under ANILCA and the current subsistence regulations. This disbursment provides a tremendous resource for Natives to utilize toward self-sufficiency and to some degree there are great successes by virtue of CIRI, NANA, Chugach Native and other Corp's in the state. Despite the resources available the entitlement mentality and enablers reign supreme and I expect will for the remainder of my lifetime.

    Some info here: http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/land_own.pdf

    As to the article. Why would anyone hunt where there are currently no,or few migrating caribou? Why does anyone feel that is a valid reason to close the area from hunting, it is simply absurd to the N'th degree unless one considers the tendency for the Fed's to lock up any and everything they can possibly get away with, and we all know that once they lockout people such as hunters only special non-hunter interests are allowed access and input.

    The Mulchatna herd is in a cyclical low and there is scientific evidence to support caribou herds trend in such a fashion over many years as do other animal species, the lynx and the hare for example.

    This reads to me as a special interest, the Fed's, once again playing the enabler to a entitlement culture created and promoted by their own hand. It needs to stop. I can see clearly that if the lockup where to occur that when, not if, the caribou herd population returns to former numbers that only the Natives will have the "right" to guide "trophy hunters" in southwest Alaska after their predictably successful lobbying to their own special interest.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Definitely a silly proposal, the only caveat would be if there was threshold at which point this restriction would go away. But as was said, no one is hunting there now anyway, and won't unless the numbers and current restrictions on one animal per year goes away. I definitely do not support blanket restrictions on who can hunt these lands, I did live in DLG from 2004-2011, and understand rural preference and some of the advantages of it for those folks, but current regulations and just pure economics of hunting have already taken care of any pressure.

  5. #5
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .338WM View Post
    I can see clearly that if the lockup where to occur that when, not if, the caribou herd population returns to former numbers that only the Natives will have the "right" to guide "trophy hunters" in southwest Alaska after their predictably successful lobbying to their own special interest.
    Pretty far out there 338. The Fed restrictions are not race based. They are locality based. If you were to move to the region, then you too would be able to hunt these lands IF............notice I said IF............the closure proposal is approved.
    How will anyone be able to "Guide" if there is a non local restriction? How many locals hire guides?
    CIRI, NANA, Doyon, etc., etc. lands are not subject to these Fed rules. Native Corp. land is private land and is ONLY subject to State regs.
    The Federal Subsistence Board members are mostly Anch. based Fed higher ups, such as Park Service state head, Forest Service, F&W service. Your in Eagle River. Go see these people and gripe to them. They represent you also.
    I see little reason to get excited about not being able to hunt a poorly populated bou herd on certain lands. When the day comes the bou herd rebuilds............that is the time to get excited and attend meetings. Most all Fed Subsistence Board meetings are held in Anch.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    Pretty far out there 338. The Fed restrictions are not race based. They are locality based. If you were to move to the region, then you too would be able to hunt these lands IF............notice I said IF............the closure proposal is approved.

    Yes, you are correct and I realize such. I did mean it in general terms since generaly speaking the majority of people on those lands are native.

    How will anyone be able to "Guide" if there is a non local restriction? How many locals hire guides?

    Just looking to what I think is a predictable future should the restrictions occur. The Fed's grant native/rural preference and the State was strongarmed into to doing the same, as such I think it reasonable to consider that after the restrictions have been in effect for the number of years it takes for the Mulchatna herd to recover, the next step would be for those native/rural folks to lobby in their interest to be granted exclusive rights to hunt and to guide those lands and hunt those animals.

    CIRI, NANA, Doyon, etc., etc. lands are not subject to these Fed rules. Native Corp. land is private land and is ONLY subject to State regs.

    Never said they were. I said that they were granted a great resource and as such, for example, with those private lands they can sell timber, charge tresspass fees, guide sportsmen/outdoor enthusiasts, etc. exclusively.

    The Federal Subsistence Board members are mostly Anch. based Fed higher ups, such as Park Service state head, Forest Service, F&W service. Your in Eagle River. Go see these people and gripe to them. They represent you also.
    I see little reason to get excited about not being able to hunt a poorly populated bou herd on certain lands. When the day comes the bou herd rebuilds............that is the time to get excited and attend meetings. Most all Fed Subsistence Board meetings are held in Anch.
    I disagree, I think the time to voice opposition is now. Once the Feds do anything, it is nearly impossible to undo it in the future. There is no logical reason to restrict an area from hunting if such an insignificant number of animals are being taken each season, the idea spawns from special interest either from the individual quoted in the article, Fed agency/ies and/or native/rural folks ( enter AVCP(a native interest group), not from a biological concern. The sentiment that 30,000 caribou are threatened by lack of genetic diversity is laughable, the Nelchina herd is a perfect example in contrast.

  7. #7
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    At one time this herd was also hunted in units 14,15 and 16. If you read reports by F&G on the unit 13 hunt you find the official take numbers are low as they feel 20 to 40 percent more caribou are taken by poaching.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    At one time this herd was also hunted in units 14,15 and 16. If you read reports by F&G on the unit 13 hunt you find the official take numbers are low as they feel 20 to 40 percent more caribou are taken by poaching.
    Ahhhh....well, it's a little bit more than that. Try 200%-500%.

    I know of only ONE caribou hunter that takes his limit and stops. Me. Most folks here will go out and keep going out until they get tired of going out. They'll make sure their freezers are filled.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

  9. #9
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitroman View Post
    Ahhhh....well, it's a little bit more than that. Try 200%-500%.

    I know of only ONE caribou hunter that takes his limit and stops. Me. Most folks here will go out and keep going out until they get tired of going out. They'll make sure their freezers are filled.
    Then you need to report them.......
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Then I'd have to report most of the villages in Southwest. And nothing would happen anyway. When someone is actually observed by the State Troopers poaching a moose, they get a $500 fine. I was a witness to the Troopers buzzing three said poachers until they were arrested by VPSO's from Atmauthuak or Napakiak (I cannot remember which village responded), I was only two miles away at the time. A man and two of his teenage nephews poached a female moose on the Johnson River (always preferable as the female is more tender), subsequently received $500 fines. No time besides what they had spent in jail until their court appearance, they also lost no gear. To tell you the truth, if someone had more than their limit of caribou, most probably no charges would even be filed as the DA's out here simply won't bring it to court.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

  11. #11
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    The report was looking at folks with tags not filling them out untill they got caught with caribou and tag not filled out. Talked like a person just had to get down the highway a little bit and then the troopers would have to prove it was a 13 caribou and not from somewhere else.Once in the clear then a regular harvest ticket could be placed on the caribou.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .338WM View Post
    .......This reads to me as a special interest, the Fed's, once again playing the enabler to a entitlement culture created and promoted by their own hand. ......
    You get a brownie point from me for that dose of truth.

    Medred nailed it in the article. There is no need for any action whatsoever, since there is no pressure on the herd. The people pushing this are, simply, acting in classic nativist fashion, and just because they can:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nativism?s=t

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
  •