Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: VERY IMPORTANT: National Park Service Proposed Rule Change Public Comment

  1. #1
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,624

    Default VERY IMPORTANT: National Park Service Proposed Rule Change Public Comment

    All,

    The National Park Service is proposing some rule changes ONLY here in Alaska. These changes will disregard certain hunting/wildlife management practices approved by the state that the National Park Service finds unethical and/or in direct conflict with their natural abundance management policy. I have attached a PDF document with the proposed rule changes. You can also find the proposed rule changes on the comment link bellow. Many of the proposed methods that would be banned apply less to sport/recreational hunters and more to subsistence/traditional user groups at this point. In fact the Alaskan Federation of Natives has passed a resolution voicing their opposition to this rule change.

    We are never-the-less worried about the loss to our subsistence brethren as well as the dangerous precedent it sets for government land management agencies to supersede state wildlife management as they wish. Very conceivably they could apply further rule changes that will negatively affect sport hunting in the future. I think it goes without saying that removing predator management strategies will affect prey species detrimentally, which will affect both sport hunting and subsistence hunting on federal NPS lands. It also will have a spill over affect onto neighboring state and private lands, so we all have a stake in this one!

    Also the NPS is proposing to change the whole comment process. They're trying to move to a more online process rather than face to face meetings. Although this is an understandable cost savings strategy by avoiding costly trips to remote Alaska we are concerned because it undermines the voice of Alaskans without internet access and also plays well to out of state non-consumptive use groups who are well organized and use the internet as well as social networking well. We feel this would slant comment to non Alaskan non users and take meaningful input away from actual user groups here in Alaska.

    SO I NEED A COUPLE THINGS:

    *****First there is a comment period on the proposed rule changes. We need you to comment. You can comment on the proposed hunting/method changes and/or the proposed comment process changes. Please site science if applicable and possible (I don't expect this). If not anecdotal stories from you as a user group voicing your concern over how the proposed changes will affect your user group on NPS lands are acceptable. You can do so one of two ways. To electronically submit a comment go to:

    https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...onal-preserves

    The electronic submission deadline is December 3, 2014. Or you can verbally comment by appearing in person at any of these remaining meetings:

    October 28

    Anchorage, Lydia Selkregg Chalet, Russian Jack Springs Park

    3-7 p.m.

    October 30

    Fairbanks, Morris Thompson Center

    7-9 p.m.

    October 30

    Soldotna, Kenai Peninsula Borough Building

    3-7 p.m.

    November 1

    Yakutat, Yak-Tak Kwaan Office

    1-4 p.m.

    November 5

    Eagle, Eagle School

    6-8 p.m.

    November 5

    Copper Center, Wrangell-St. Elias NP Visitor Center (Mile 106.8 Richardson Highway)

    4-6 p.m.

    November 6

    Tok, Tok School

    6-8 p.m.

    November 18

    Port Alsworth, Lake Clark NP Visitor Center

    6-8 p.m.

    November 20

    Naknek, Bristol Bay Borough Assembly Chambers

    7-9 p.m.

    *****The second thing I need is for users that will be affected by the proposed changes to contact me/the Alaska Chapter of Safari Club, so we can get your contact information. We REALLY need users who hunt the parks or preserves that will be directly affected by these changes and who's recreational/subsistence hunting opportunities will be eliminated or materially diminished by these changes. Please contact us via our website:

    http://www.aksafariclub.org/#!contact/c1fgp

    *****Third PLEASE share this with a friend! We need numbers!

    Federal over reach with regard to state wildlife management is a growing concern. Just look at the Kenai NWR brown bear policies if you don't believe me. The only way we are going to prevail in this one is if our user groups are active and engaged. Please help be part of the solution! Thanks!

    Brett

    AK SCI President
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    Also PLEASE consider liking our Facebook page so you can receive regular updates on important issues to sportsmen and women like this. https://www.facebook.com/groups/201892889995627/

  3. #3
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    That was WAY too early in the morning to read trash like that cause the only thing that comes to mind are comments like "throw them out" and "take our state back".

    Thanks for posting Brett and I hope everyone takes this seriously and participates. Not that I personally think the comments will change much but its **** sure a "yes" vote without comment.

  4. #4
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    Please take comments seriously. Even after implementation from NPS your comments are essential.

    Brett

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Eielson Farm Road
    Posts
    368

    Default




    This is where the NPS believes that THEY own the lands, I've seen the sheep population take a big hit and predators go up in numbers in the wrangle mnts.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Member BluNosDav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrettAKSCI View Post
    The National Park Service is proposing some rule changes ONLY here in Alaska . . . . the Alaskan Federation of Natives has passed a resolution voicing their opposition to this rule change.
    "Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."

    That's irony!
    "Luckily, enforcement reads these forums, and likely will peruse this one...Especially after a link of it is forwarded to them....." - AlaskaHippie.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,086

    Default

    Just curious Brett, what exactly do you have a problem with in these changes? What are the parts, if any, that you don't like? The no brown bear baiting? Prohibiting the intentional obstruction or hinderance of another person's lawful hunting or trapping activities? No shooting swimming caribou? Prevention of manipulating game populations by hammering predators? Preventing the taking black bear cubs and sows with artificial light at den sites? Allowing the use of native species and salmon eggs for bait? Prohibiting the use of drones to find or take game?

    I'm guessing that your objections have mostly to do with any changes that might prevent wholesale slaughter of predators in the name of Abundance Management and more animals for hunters. But that was a nice deflection saying you are concerned more about the losses of traditional methods subsistence hunters may use. Truth be known though, most trophy hunters and their organizations feel the same way about subsistence hunters as they do about predators. That's why they fought against a subsistence priority and why we have Federal management of fish and game in Alaska in the first place, along side State management.

    Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  8. #8
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    Just curious Brett, what exactly do you have a problem with in these changes? What are the parts, if any, that you don't like? The no brown bear baiting? Prohibiting the intentional obstruction or hinderance of another person's lawful hunting or trapping activities? No shooting swimming caribou? Prevention of manipulating game populations by hammering predators? Preventing the taking black bear cubs and sows with artificial light at den sites? Allowing the use of native species and salmon eggs for bait? Prohibiting the use of drones to find or take game?

    I'm guessing that your objections have mostly to do with any changes that might prevent wholesale slaughter of predators in the name of Abundance Management and more animals for hunters. But that was a nice deflection saying you are concerned more about the losses of traditional methods subsistence hunters may use. Truth be known though, most trophy hunters and their organizations feel the same way about subsistence hunters as they do about predators. That's why they fought against a subsistence priority and why we have Federal management of fish and game in Alaska in the first place, along side State management.

    Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

    If it is supported by SFW, it's bad for everyone but the horn/hide measuring viagra crowd......
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  9. #9
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    Just curious Brett, what exactly do you have a problem with in these changes? What are the parts, if any, that you don't like? The no brown bear baiting? Prohibiting the intentional obstruction or hinderance of another person's lawful hunting or trapping activities? No shooting swimming caribou? Prevention of manipulating game populations by hammering predators? Preventing the taking black bear cubs and sows with artificial light at den sites? Allowing the use of native species and salmon eggs for bait? Prohibiting the use of drones to find or take game?

    I'm guessing that your objections have mostly to do with any changes that might prevent wholesale slaughter of predators in the name of Abundance Management and more animals for hunters. But that was a nice deflection saying you are concerned more about the losses of traditional methods subsistence hunters may use. Truth be known though, most trophy hunters and their organizations feel the same way about subsistence hunters as they do about predators. That's why they fought against a subsistence priority and why we have Federal management of fish and game in Alaska in the first place, along side State management.

    Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
    I really don't care if I convince you, but I will respond to and clarify a couple of your points.

    I do have a problem with restricting methods of take traditional and customary to our native Alaskans. It shows a staggering cultural insensitivity by the NPS. I have not ever and do not intend to participate in any of those methods of take. That said allowing the NPS to trump state management authority sets a dangerous precedent that I care not to let go by even if those aren't my chosen methods of take.

    As to predator management I am not in the a good wolf or bear is a dead wolf or bear group. I do however believe in state's rights and that wildlife management is spelled out in ANILCA as a state prerogative. I think it's important to keep it that way. So if that means the state does predator management for better or worse then so be it. It is their right and prerogative. If you don't like it work through the state systems to change it. I will do the same.

    "Truth be known though, most trophy hunters and their organizations feel the same way about subsistence hunters as they do about predators."

    This is an absurd and inflammatory statement that is bellow comment or justification, I will give it and you a pass.

    Brett

  10. #10
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaHippie View Post
    If it is supported by SFW, it's bad for everyone but the horn/hide measuring viagra crowd......
    That's pretty silly to think that anything a group says or supports has to be bad because you don't like the group. Sometimes even people we don't like have a good point every now and again viagra or not.

    Brett

  11. #11
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrettAKSCI View Post
    That's pretty silly to think that anything a group says or supports has to be bad because you don't like the group. Sometimes even people we don't like have a good point every now and again viagra or not.

    Brett
    In the case of SFW or KRSA, you would be incorrect sir. But I admire your passion.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    Just curious Brett, what exactly do you have a problem with in these changes? What are the parts, if any, that you don't like? The no brown bear baiting? Prohibiting the intentional obstruction or hinderance of another person's lawful hunting or trapping activities? No shooting swimming caribou? Prevention of manipulating game populations by hammering predators? Preventing the taking black bear cubs and sows with artificial light at den sites? Allowing the use of native species and salmon eggs for bait? Prohibiting the use of drones to find or take game?

    I'm guessing that your objections have mostly to do with any changes that might prevent wholesale slaughter of predators in the name of Abundance Management and more animals for hunters. But that was a nice deflection saying you are concerned more about the losses of traditional methods subsistence hunters may use. Truth be known though, most trophy hunters and their organizations feel the same way about subsistence hunters as they do about predators. That's why they fought against a subsistence priority and why we have Federal management of fish and game in Alaska in the first place, along side State management.

    Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
    Okay, maybe this will help. Believe it or not with the compendium that the NPS wants to do, it can basically eliminate state regulations of all kind on federal land. The feds look at all hunting at the state level as "sport" hunting and the NPS only recognizes "subsistence" hunting. Don't let them convince you otherwise. I just spent an hour listening to a person that is in the know about this. The writing is in the sand. And just because this is at the federal level, it will affect the parks and refuges and since it is the dept. of interior ultimately will be handed down to BLM lands too. This is a much bigger deal than most may think. So, convince you or not, this is real and it is happening. Thanks Brett for posting.

  13. #13

    Default

    And by the way, these were traditional practices. The park service just did this press release to stir up the anti's. Which side will you be on? Alaska is changing and it will take some fighting to keep what we have.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,086

    Default

    Again, had the State agreed to ANILCA requirements to accommodate subsistence hunting, this ball would have never got rolling. The State would still be managing hunting in all of Alaska.

    On top of that is this quote in the link you gave.

    "the SOA (State of Alaska) has been mostly unwilling to accommodate the different management directives for NPS areas. In the last 10 years, the NPS has objected to more than 50 proposals to liberalize predator harvest in areas that included National Preserves and each time the BOG has been unwilling to exclude National Preserves from state regulations designed to manipulate predator/prey dynamics for human consumptive use goals. Had these requests been accommodated, this proposed rule would not be necessary."

    So basically, the stubbornness that is the Alaska board of game and the Dept of Game since Sarah Palin created the Dept of Wildlife Conservation for her buddy, the disgraced Corey Rossi, has created this situation. (Gov Parnell and his administration have carried this on) The State of Alaska keeps trying to game the Feds with their bad science, predator control, and Intensive management schemes. Then when the Feds bite back, the State and those who pushed them that way scream foul.

    Now if SCI was serious about ending dual management, they would be pushing for the State to agree to a rural subsistence priority and for the State to be more accommodating to the Feds and their mandates as per managing hunting in the parks and wilderness areas. But instead I see SCI Alaska met with Gov Parnell this summer to discuss among other things "Federal intrusion into traditional state management of fish and wildlife".

    I also see that SCI Alaska held a fund raiser for Gov Parnell. So I'm assuming they support the direction he has pointed Alaska game management with his appointments and direction. So it doesn't appear SCI supports a real solution to the problem of Rural preference/dual management. They seem to want to continue the fight with the Feds.

    I'm curious, what is SCI Alaska's position on a rural subsistence priority? If my assertion above is absurd, inflammatory, and below comment or justification then I guess SCI Alaska is actually in favor of a rural subsistence priority and if so I will apologize and retract my accusation. But if SCI is in favor of the State continuing it's fight against a rural subsistence priority, then I'll stick by my statement.

    My reasoning is that both predators and rural subsistence users are looked upon as taking away animals and hunting opportunity for the well heeled, politically connected crowd.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northway View Post
    And by the way, these were traditional practices. The park service just did this press release to stir up the anti's. Which side will you be on? Alaska is changing and it will take some fighting to keep what we have.
    Running animals off cliffs and starting large fires to drive game animals were once traditional practices too. Shall we go back to those too?
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    723

    Default

    No, that's what the election season is for.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    ...had the State agreed to ANILCA... The State would still be managing hunting in all of Alaska.

    ….State to be more accommodating to the Feds and their mandates as per managing hunting in the parks and wilderness areas. .
    This is the quandary. If the State accommodates the Feds, then it's not State management. It is just the State implementing Fed policy no?

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    Running animals off cliffs and starting large fires to drive game animals were once traditional practices too. Shall we go back to those too?
    I was not aware of any communal kill sites in AK that utilized cliffs. Where are they?
    On the other hand there is plenty of documentation for the use of caribou fences/drive lines, and sure, if it is biologically sound, why not?

  19. #19

    Default

    Oh and allowing den hunting bears, taking swimming caribou IS the state accommodating subsistence activities.

  20. #20
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    I'll be at the meeting in Fbks this evening, so please say hi if you are there too.

    There are a couple of aspects of this that don't get much play because of what I believe is a partisan divide over all this. Meaning, some have solid anti-fed and anti-NPS sentiments, and some have anti-hunting sentiments as is evidenced in the public comments you can read on the NPS site.

    The rollout of this was imo poorly done by NPS. That rollout instigated a whole lot of anti-hunting sentiments borne out of pure ignorance. It would have been nice, for example, if NPS mentioned that black bear baiting has been and will continue to be allowed under these new proposed reg changes.

    But no matter how you look at it, both NPS and FWS have differing management policies when it comes to wildlife. And FWS will be pursuing similar reg changes on FWS lands in January.

    Personally, I don't support the killing of any animal when there is nothing utilized from such harvest. Year round wolf and coyote seasons, taking animals in summer when pups are denning, and when hides are worthless ... I don't agree with it. And I can see why NPS/FWS says it doesn't fit their management criteria.

    As far as the taking of black bears in dens using artificial light, and the allowance to also take sows with cubs (and cubs) from dens should such a scenario unfold when finding a den, yes that was proposed initially to the BOG as a customary and traditional Native practice, and from what I saw at the two meetings this was discussed, the NPS had no qualms with it as long as it was done by federally-qualified subsistence users. But the BOG in their wisdom when they passed that proposal opened it up to any Alaskan hunter in the state. Naturally the NPS didn't agree with that. They asked the BOG again to redefine who could participate in such a practice but the Board declined to change their position, knowing then that the Park Service would ban said practice for "sport" hunters. Still, NPS has said that if a federally qualified subsistence user or group wants to apply for such a hunt under Title 8 of ANILCA, they would grant a permit for it.

    As to the baiting of grizzly bears in some units of the state that the BOG has recently allowed, in and of itself that is somewhat controversial among the hunting community. The notion the BOG promulgated is that it isn't about reducing grizzly/brown bears in order to boost moose/caribou populations, rather it is about increasing opportunity for hunters. And that there are no conservation concerns where it is allowed (so far, anyway, but FWS surely disagrees inre the Kenai hunts and that is a big reason FWS will be coming out with their own proposed reg changes on Refuge lands). I honestly don't like this "no conservation concern" line of thought being tossed out there as the same could be said for bear trapping. Which btw, was also pushed the last time in the interior not to reduce predation on moose and caribou, but as increased opportunity for hunters/trappers.

    The fact is, no matter how much we argue pro or con, that the public and hunters in general feel and think differently about grizzly bears than they do black bears. I know plenty of guides who strongly oppose the take of grizzly over bait. I know other guides who have advocated for it and advocated for more bait stations per GUA who are now taking nonres clients out specifically after grizzly over bait. I know bios who believe that it can or will harm overall grizz populations and that we won't get in front of that until the harm has already been done. And I know hunters who are split on it; the ones who don't support it won't practice it, the ones that do support it will, with a live and let live attitude in general, not really something to get fired up about.

    But no matter how you slice it, the NPS position on take of grizz over bait isn't all that strange really. Calling it "historically illegal" isn't a stretch either, even though those who oppose the NPS reg changes claim that "historically illegal" could apply to any number of regulation changes promulgated by the BOG, such as increased beaver seasons and opportunities etc. ("Why doesn't the NPS also oppose those?" goes the question).

    In general, I don't oppose these proposed NPS reg changes (bans) on certain BOG-passed "sport" hunting regs. What concerns me the most is the language of the changes and the broad authority it gives to individual Preserve superintendents in perpetuity, without any future formal public input. And that is what I will bring up this evening if I get the chance. NPS superintendents should not imo be allowed to have broad authority to shut down any state-sanctioned hunt at their whim, without public input and comments. It's not a stretch to believe that banning of black bear baiting will be next. But hey, after these reg changes take effect, there doesn't need to be any further public input; a superintendent could do so on his/her authority alone.

    That's my take. And from my experience at BOG meetings, both the Board and NPS are to blame for where we are right now in all this. It never had to come to this point really. The Board could have accommodated NPS on some of these issues by not allowing some of this on Preserve lands. NPS could have rolled out these proposed changes in a much better and more honest way, and imo is going too far with these proposed reg changes.

    See some of you at the meeting tonight I hope at the Morris Thompson Center 7-9pm!

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •