Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: This guy is good for a laugh

  1. #1

  2. #2
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    I wish it was funny, but it is not. We have a crisis situation: too many people wanting the same resources. Some have depended upon the resources forever while others don't depend on those resources but want equal access to it anyway. If the road system population stayed the same, perhaps we could weather this out, but that population sector just keeps growing and growing, so the problem will only become worse.

  3. #3
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    I wish it was funny, but it is not. We have a crisis situation: too many people wanting the same resources. Some have depended upon the resources forever while others don't depend on those resources but want equal access to it anyway. If the road system population stayed the same, perhaps we could weather this out, but that population sector just keeps growing and growing, so the problem will only become worse.
    ........


    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sayak again.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Yep what they said.Sad part is the many who just got here and say me first because I have not had a try yet.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  5. #5
    Member Delta Tenderfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    91

    Default


    I have attempted to understand the subsistence program. I found that as a non-original Alaskan, understanding subsistence is akin to doing my taxes. I happened upon the TV show Yukon men when they were told that they could no longer keep King Salmon and they bemoaned that their dogs would starve. None of the TV stars talked about conservation of the species. Ok, ok,I take all I see and hear from reality shows with a bucket of salt.

    It makes me a bit sad that the people of the greatest state of the union, with the freedoms that Alaskan life it has to offer, squabble over "it's MINE MINE ALLLL MINE!"

    stepping off soap box

    All paradise rests in the shadow of swords." ~K. Yates

  6. #6

    Default

    If you haven't spent a couple winters living in a village and paying $10/gallon for fuel, you likely really don't understand at all the way the rural folk feel about access to the resources they have depended on to feed their families. When you can buy meat at Safeway, hunting to provide for your family sounds like a far-fetched story. When the meat at the store, if there even is a store, costs $15/lb or more, failing to obtain meat for the family is an economic disaster for your household.
    14 Days to Alaska
    Also available on Kindle and Nook

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    WIth nearly a decade in Dillingham, I am completely cool with rural preference, but I am not cool with bar room biology and small town conspiracy BS. I do not understand how guys flying out (dozens if not hundreds of miles away from Kotz) are directly affecting Kotz hunters who likely cannot access these areas anyway. Granted it's the same herd, but caribou are hardly scarce. Does he think those hunters are cutting the animals off so they don't get to traditional hunting areas? Does he think that shooting bulls has that much effect on overal herd production? (sperm is cheap my friends). I don't know the answers, but I am skeptical.

    I understand the perception, I watched cabelas hunters get off the jet every September in DLG with their funny accents and camoflauge underwear, I wasn't unwelcoming but ambivalent. Mostly because I knew they were going places that I didn't plan to go anyway.....and didn't need to. Plenty of resident only areas out there that preclude guided clients for moose.

    I will agree with not shooting them during the peak rut, I think it's wasteful and silly.

  8. #8
    Member Delta Tenderfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy Hamon View Post
    If you haven't spent a couple winters living in a village and paying $10/gallon for fuel, you likely really don't understand at all the way the rural folk feel about access to the resources they have depended on to feed their families.
    Please don't misunderstand my statement. I have wintered over several years in the interior and have many friends that live the subsistence lifestyle. My burr under the saddle involves the attitude that has been discussed many times on the forums involving a belief to not interfere with their lifestyle in any way.

    How long has the returning Kings issue on the Yukon been on the radar? But everyone still took their cut and now the run is nearing if not already in collapse. It was not too long ago that 8 subsistence hunters slaughtered dozens of caribou only to let them rot.

    I try to understand subsistence, but the regulations are all over the map with both state and federal requirements which at times seem contradictory and going so far as having regional limitations and requirements. I am not against it at all, but like any special allocation, it has the inherent ability to be abused.
    All paradise rests in the shadow of swords." ~K. Yates

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delta Tenderfoot View Post
    I am not against it at all, but like any special allocation, it has the inherent ability to be abused.
    Agreed.... And when it comes to subsistence preferences on the Kenai, well, how remote is the Kenai Peninsula. When it happens in a place like this, then to me, all it equates to is legal discrimination......
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    So this thread starts with a guy out of Kotz talking about subisistence and outside intrusion and it only takes 8 posts to get it to the Kenai......what is it like to be the center of the Alaskan universe.

    The can of worms that is roadside subsistence is certainly not answered easily. It seems much of it is grandfathered in etc. Well, that's the same as declining benefits for public employees. The Tier I guys with the state are all walking around at 55, retired and doing what they want with full goodies after a whopping twenty years with the state of AK. More recent employees have received less and less. Would I like to have what they had........YES......can I do anything about my timing........NO. So then I just accept reality and try to be thankful for what I've got.

    Your not gonna get increased subsistence benefits on the road system, there are too many of you all wanting the same thing (i.e. WHAT SAYAK ALREADY SAID). BUt, if taking away the benefits enjoyed by some who still have them on the road system makes you feel good, then just go for it and you can all be miserable.

    Threads evolve, but this one was obviously started by the article about bush subsistence and calls for reform. Instead of rehashing all the ballyhoo that is the argeuemt of roadside subsistence, why not stay on topic.

  11. #11

    Default

    Re-read your post..........you skillfully turned the thread into NOT one, but TWO new directions, which you managed to do (poorly) under the Vail of "Let's stay on thread subject".........I vote you win the skillful "SPINNER" of the day award......

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch It View Post
    So this thread starts with a guy out of Kotz talking about subisistence and outside intrusion and it only takes 8 posts to get it to the Kenai......what is it like to be the center of the Alaskan universe.

    The can of worms that is roadside subsistence is certainly not answered easily. It seems much of it is grandfathered in etc. Well, that's the same as declining benefits for public employees. The Tier I guys with the state are all walking around at 55, retired and doing what they want with full goodies after a whopping twenty years with the state of AK. More recent employees have received less and less. Would I like to have what they had........YES......can I do anything about my timing........NO. So then I just accept reality and try to be thankful for what I've got.

    Your not gonna get increased subsistence benefits on the road system, there are too many of you all wanting the same thing (i.e. WHAT SAYAK ALREADY SAID). BUt, if taking away the benefits enjoyed by some who still have them on the road system makes you feel good, then just go for it and you can all be miserable.

    Threads evolve, but this one was obviously started by the article about bush subsistence and calls for reform. Instead of rehashing all the ballyhoo that is the argeuemt of roadside subsistence, why not stay on topic.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    I disagree, I addressed both topics under the idea of getting back to the original article. However,this thread has been done many times before and it will play out as the others did, honestly no sure why I hit the reply button the first time with this knowledge in hand.

  13. #13

    Default

    Please show me where state employee's pay and benefits was in this post before you introduced it in your complaint about members failure to stay on subject.....???

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch It View Post
    I disagree, I addressed both topics under the idea of getting back to the original article. However,this thread has been done many times before and it will play out as the others did, honestly no sure why I hit the reply button the first time with this knowledge in hand.

  14. #14
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    Please show me where state employee's pay and benefits was in this post before you introduced it in your complaint about members failure to stay on subject.....???
    It was used as an ANALOGY, and a very good one.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  15. #15
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Not a laughing matter at all

    The OP only posted the subject title and the link. I always find that strange when someone posts something like this with only a link ... and no substantive rationale for why "this guy is good for a laugh." Oh well.

    As to the article, I don't know the author, but a few things come to mind. First:
    Quote Originally Posted by Roswell Schafer Sr
    There was a unified consensus that the dual management system was not what most Alaskans want now, nor in the future.


    I wasn't at the transition meetings but the way I heard it, that "unified" consensus regarding the current dual management system was about the state regaining management from the feds.

    So then this next sentence really caught my eye:
    Quote Originally Posted by Roswell Schafer Sr
    All agreed that a unified system must be developed to include the Native tribes as well as the federal and state systems.


    "All" agreed? I honestly have a hard time buying that considering the names on the subsistence transition team. (I'm waiting for a rebuttal from Arno <grin>) Here's the list of those on the subsistence transition team:

    • John "Sky" Starkey, Anchorage
    • Wayne Heimer, Fairbanks
    • Victor Joseph, Fairbanks
    • Angela Vermillion, Gulkana
    • Rosita Worl, Juneau
    • Walter Sampson, Kotzebue
    • Ross Schaeffer, Kotzebue
    • Robert Nick, Nunapitchuk
    • Rod Arno, Palmer
    • Aaron Bloomquist, Tok


    Now I could be wrong, maybe all those members really did agree that we need a unified system to include Native tribes into our state/federal management system. But if so ... a few there need to answer some serious questions.

    Moving on, what Ross said about the no-closed-season on caribou bulls and taking them when they are in the rut is something I completely agree with. The caveat is that not all bulls during that time are inedible. Mostly it's the larger bulls. But still, it sends a bad message. I've made the mistake of taking a good sized bull in October way back when I didn't know any better, and believe me we needed the meat ... but no matter what we did, no matter the spices we tried, it was simply inedible.

    As to restrictions on aircraft, it just is not gonna happen. Because there is no legal way to do it. The state, via the Big Game Commercial Services Board, has tried, with the "transporter" law, but an air taxi that flies hunters does not have to be a licensed "transporter," nor can the state force a federally regulated Part 135 air taxi to do so. They could try to regulate "transporters" via legislation (which has been tried) via some kind of concession program, but they still can't keep out the air taxis that don't choose to be licensed "transporters."

    This whole notion that (non-local) drop-off hunters and outfitters are influencing the Western Arctic herd's decline and Native "food security" seems a bit far-fetched to me. And if it were the case, the BOG could reduce the non-resident bag limits.

    Onto Ross' closing argument:
    Quote Originally Posted by Roswell Schafer Sr
    I challenge the state to begin to deal with this issue. I would like the Noatak, other Native Indian Reorganization Act villages and individual Native hunters to join together in a class action lawsuit against the state and federal agencies to challenge equal access on constitutional grounds, and the inability of the federal agencies to protect subsistence as provided by ANILCA.
    Itís time for change. If not, we will have nothing to hunt in the near future. It is time that Native people stand up for what is right and give notice that we will not live with the status quo.


    I'm disappointed that Ross wants to impose access restrictions on any non-Native hunters on state and federal lands via a class action lawsuit. When and where game populations are negatively affected by hunting, we have other avenues for restricting hunters via the BOG. Most notably, via tags allowed or going to registration or draw hunts.

    I've lived "subsistence" for three decades. I know what it's like to have non-locals fly in and compete for what game is out there. It can be frustrating, especially when you find out it isn't about the meat, that they don't want the meat, just the trophy. And when you see meat not taken care of properly, meat wasted. It's an education issue on one hand on meat care, and on the other our laws don't preclude anyone from giving the meat to the food bank or transferring it to someone else.

    The only way I see any "preference" working is when there are times of shortage and there isn't enough for everyone. We need to somehow get away from making this a Native vs non-Native fight. Both sides need to really see the other side's perspective. On Ross' side, I'd like to see the Native community recognize that that anyone who hunts and salvages and utilizes the meat to feed themselves and their families is a "subsistence" hunter no matter where they live or how much money they may make. On the non-Native side I'd like to see people recognize that dependence on game meat really is higher in the outlying rural areas.

    In coming to agreement on that though ... if it was possible ... the answer sure isn't imo a three-tiered management system between state/feds/Natives. Adding another layer to an already controversial system sure scares me when I hear arguments like those Ross is making.

    Having said that, I fully respect Ross' views even though I don't agree with all, and I appreciate him moving the debate forward and stimulating discussion on it.

    My longwinded .02,


  16. #16
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    Ross is like a lot of people. His narrow self-interest has made him a bigot. He doesn't want white-people hunting "his" caribou, but then I sympathize to a degree. He lives there and I don't. Growing up in rural NY, "we" locals would have a similar reaction to "goombah's" from NYC invading "our" deer woods every November.

    So this subject has come up again and I will throw out my unpopular and politically contentious idea, again:
    Amend the state constitution to grant rural preference.

    We have this unending procession of moronic allocation schemes (Community moose harvest anyone?) specifically because the language in our state constitution states all Alaskans have equal access to all F&G resources. Sounds nice on paper but it doesn't work in the real world and it's past time to be rid of it.

    I'm not suggesting that urban or railbelt residents be locked out, but that subsistence be given it's rightful place as the 1st priority user group, regardless of race. This would mean that seasons and bag limits for all other users are set so they minimize direct competition with subsistence use during the period, and in the location of greatest traditional subsistence harvest.

    As to the method? Do it by zip code similarly to the method used currently by the Feds. This means the people, (again, regardless of race) who live closest to the resource in question get to take first. There will almost always be a surplus thereafter that can be further alloted by Harvest/Registration/Draw as we currently have it.

    Get rid of the Subsistence Charade Parade--Tier II, Tier I, Community Harvest schemes because they're stupid and divisive.
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  17. #17
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    Where is the rural/urban divide? What do we do with all those summer time rural residents that fly to Arizona in the winter? For instance right now, Delta residents can get federal subsistence tags, but Talkeetna residents can't. Urban/Rural is as big of a can of worms as anything we have right now.
    Bunny Boots and Bearcats: Utility Sled Mayhem

  18. #18
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    I live in Palmer and get my supplies from the same place as the vast majority of people in cantwell and the copper river basin.... Costco

    Subsistence preference along the road system is about as NIMBY as it gets.

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
  •