Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: Unit 13 Tier II Issues

  1. #1
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Question Unit 13 Tier II Issues

    Has anyone heard of any tier II issues yet with the new requirements, such as income? Has anyone challenged it yet?

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    I don't think there's much hope of challenging it this year, though I'm sure it will be revisited in the years to come. Apart from a legal challenge, the board of game needs to see how many people apply and qualify this time around under the income requirements. They seem to be hoping that less people will apply, thus freeing up some permits for a drawing. It'll be interesting to see how it works out. For instance, what will be done with the person that has never hunted this unit but who falls under the income threshold? Will they be awarded a permit? According to the rules as I read them, that may be the case.

    I imagine any legal challenge won't happen until next winter at the earliest, or at least until they release the list of permit winners. (3-4 weeks from now?)

    -Brian

  3. #3
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    A "tier II" designation is not dependant upon the number of people who qualify. Tier II is dependant on 2 numbers.
    1. Amount necessary for subsistence. This number is set by the BoG.
    2. Harvestable surplus. This number is determined by ADF&G.
    As long as the ANS is higher than the HS, a given area will be in tier II for that particular species. This can be done with both fish and game. This is all set in codefied state law and without changes to either the ANS or the HS, an area cannot go out of, or go into, tier II.

    Tier II applications are scored. Each answer to the questions on the application receives a score and an applicants total score determines whether he or she receives a permit. I'm not familiar with the unit 13 application, but I would doubt that an individual would receive a permit based solely on his or her income. Would be interesting if that is the case, as I bet alot of long time permit holders will become ineligible.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    I don't think there's much hope of challenging it this year, though I'm sure it will be revisited in the years to come. Apart from a legal challenge, the board of game needs to see how many people apply and qualify this time around under the income requirements. They seem to be hoping that less people will apply, thus freeing up some permits for a drawing. It'll be interesting to see how it works out. For instance, what will be done with the person that has never hunted this unit but who falls under the income threshold? Will they be awarded a permit? According to the rules as I read them, that may be the case.

    I imagine any legal challenge won't happen until next winter at the earliest, or at least until they release the list of permit winners. (3-4 weeks from now?)

    -Brian
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    731

    Default i sure hope...

    they never make it a drawing; as in everybody has an equal chance. no points, no "pioneer" status, no "i've lived here 40 years". no phony "subsistence" claims.

    that would be a tragedy

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    I'm not familiar with the unit 13 application, but I would doubt that an individual would receive a permit based solely on his or her income. Would be interesting if that is the case, as I bet alot of long time permit holders will become ineligible.
    marten - This year's Tier II application questionaire for TC566 and TM300 specifically state that if an applicants gross adjusted income for 2006 was greater than ~52,000 (don't remember the specific figure) that they would recieve 0 points for the entire application. Thus, it would seem that someone with 0 years of experience in the hunt but a lower income would potentially win a permit, while those with 30+ years of experience in the Nelchina basin but a higher income would not.

    Am I wrong here? Again, the application stated that someone having too high an income would recieve 0 points for the entire application. 0 points = no permit.

    On a side note, the "amount necessary for subsistence" that you mentioned - how does the BoG come up with that number? If far fewer people qualify to "subsist" on Nelchina caribou due to the new income limit, would they not therefore lower the number needed for subsistence? And would that not potentially cause the harvestable surplus to exceed the amount needed for subsistence, thus allowing a draw?

  6. #6
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    I wasn't familiar with the application. I'd say your partially right. I would suspect that there are still plenty of applicants who fall below the income level and have a history of using the resource. A person could have 0 years of "hunting" but still have a history of use thru living in the vicinity and sharing proceeds of the kill with permitted hunters

    The BoG uses several sources to determine ANS. Most of the info comes from ADF&G household surveys and also from harvest reports. I don't think that the number who "qualify" would be the same as the number who "need" the resource. Even if that would work, it would take several years of lower numbers of qualified users to convince ADF&G and the BoG that the ANS could be lowered.
    With the high number of people living in the vicinity of unit 13, it would seem very difficult to get the nelchina bou herd out of tier II. Not sure of unit 13 moose.
    This income requirement seems likely for a lawsuit. Income has not been a factor in any other tier II area that I'm aware of, tho the differences in cost of living is regularly used. I know if income was a qualifying factor in other tier II apps, there would be a pretty good outcry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    marten - This year's Tier II application questionaire for TC566 and TM300 specifically state that if an applicants gross adjusted income for 2006 was greater than ~52,000 (don't remember the specific figure) that they would recieve 0 points for the entire application. Thus, it would seem that someone with 0 years of experience in the hunt but a lower income would potentially win a permit, while those with 30+ years of experience in the Nelchina basin but a higher income would not.

    Am I wrong here? Again, the application stated that someone having too high an income would recieve 0 points for the entire application. 0 points = no permit.

    On a side note, the "amount necessary for subsistence" that you mentioned - how does the BoG come up with that number? If far fewer people qualify to "subsist" on Nelchina caribou due to the new income limit, would they not therefore lower the number needed for subsistence? And would that not potentially cause the harvestable surplus to exceed the amount needed for subsistence, thus allowing a draw?
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  7. #7
    Member rimfirematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,133

    Default

    As long as someone else brought this up... Do you guys think that a income limit is a bad thing?

    I have lived here almost all my life. 25 years. I have hunted the nelchina a few times before it was a tier II area. My dad always discouraged me from putting in a tier II so I never did.

    For the longest time in my adult life me and my wife( she was born here) combined made less than 40K a year. I think this year We will be above 50K.

    Game meat is a very welcome addition to our freezer to supplement our dinner fare. Im not that great of a hunter and more often we rely on more wealthy freinds to donate meat to us (who are able to fly out, or who can afford time off from work).

    For me, I would like an income limit set on this hunt. even though I probably wouldnt qualify in the future for it. I have been there and know what a blessing it would be to have a caribou ticket in hand when its tough to make ends meet.

    Seems to me that most of the arguments for the new rules are made by people who just want to hunt mostly for the fun of it. Now I'm not against hunting for fun, wich I do also, but Hunting is also a way for the less fortunate man to put meat on the table. Wich is what subsistance should mean.

    heck Even I manage to save enough to afford one for sure hunt a year. 2 years ago it was a montague trip, last year it was a Idaho trip (funded actually by dad for the most part), this year back to montague. If I can do it then people who can afford motorhomes and wheelers can do it also.

    Leave the Nelchina to people in need regardless of longevity or heritage.

    Sorry if I hijacked this thread in anyway. We had company over tonight, They were non hunters and we were discussing subsitance issues and I have got a nerve struck, then I saw this thread.....

  8. #8
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    ....Thus, it would seem that someone with 0 years of experience in the hunt but a lower income would potentially win a permit, while those with 30+ years of experience in the Nelchina basin but a higher income would not.

    Am I wrong here?....
    Nope.

    Again, the application stated that someone having too high an income would recieve 0 points for the entire application. 0 points = no permit.
    Nope.

    0 points puts you in a pool of others with 0 points in a drawing situation for the remainder. You might still get a permit.

    In other words, there's a drawing among those who don't rate.

    On a side note, the "amount necessary for subsistence" that you mentioned - how does the BoG come up with that number?
    Arbitarily.

    If far fewer people qualify to "subsist" on Nelchina caribou due to the new income limit, would they not therefore lower the number needed for subsistence?
    Yup.

    And would that not potentially cause the harvestable surplus to exceed the amount needed for subsistence, thus allowing a draw?
    Depending on how many "poor" people apply, there is likely to be a draw among the remainder anyway.

  9. #9

    Default Perhaps It's Best

    A young hunter comes to Alaska and enjoys many times afield in the Nelchina Basin, chasing Caribou and Moose. Years pass and times change, demand for the game increases beyond what most consider a reasonable sustained yeild. The hunter continues to be able to hunt based on years afield. No young hunters can join in the chase.
    Hunter prospers and standard of living goes way up, can now afford motorhome, boat, airplane, atv, track rig and even a second home in the Nelchina Basin. Pretty much has an exclusive hunting opportunity in an area in close proximity to the largest population base in the state. Wants to maintain this grand status that is afforded the sourdoughs, that put in their time. But...also feels that it should somehow be able to be passed on to their direct decendants, for their exclusive use as well.
    The income requirement fits the bill very nicely. The younger member of the family qualifies per income and years of use. The elder hunter still gets to partake in the hunt and eat the game, as it is always shared.
    As the elder hunter ages, their income level reduces to the point of once again becoming eligible for scoring points. Gets to hunt in their sunset years. It is a time when the siblings no longer qualify, but...the grandkids now do. Imagine that, now we have three generations enjoying what used to be held to one.
    The cycle is repeated again and again.
    Perhaps it is as it should be.
    And, if it works, I predict you will see this social engineering project expanded throughout the state.

  10. #10
    Member arrowslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    270

    Default income??

    my father was in the military and only part of his income was taxable. I have asked this question on here to see if it was still the same, and it was. Certain portions of a military persons income are not taxable therefore they would fall under the cap, therefore they would qualify. I don't want anyone to take this as military bashing, at all. I just think there was a rush to judgement on how to change the permit process. If anyone can clarify something that I have not been told by all means do so. I would like to understand if this is really the way it is gonna work. I am not poor but am far from rich. Anything I shoot is a nice addition to my freezer and food bill. I don't think there are many people using this area and hunt that are in true subsistence situations. I know there are a few but not the 5,000 + that try for this hunt. How is this going to work for the teir II moose in that area with around 50 permits? The same as the caribou from what I was told.

  11. #11
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Well indeed, according to the press release just posted as sticky at top of forum, there were too few applicants to even meet the needs of the Nelchina herd. Meaning, the Dept. depends upon hunters to take x amount of animals every year so the caribou don't overgraze their range and remain at relatively stable and sustainable numbers. We'll see how the special application period fares. I think that ADFG /BOG should have worked harder to educate applicants in the last few months about possibility of at least getting a draw permit if they didn't meet the income guidelines. Seems like a lot of former applicants who are over the income limit basically said "screw it, I ain't applying." Can't blame them, when it says you will get a ZERO score. Aside from the inherent problems with income restrictions as a part of determining who is eligible for Tier II permits (and I don't blame the BOG; they were really hamstrung with options), there was imo a severe lack of foresight here in informing and educating hunters about the new Tier II regs and possibilities of not-enough applicants.

    Mike (Martentrapper) provides some good info on ANS and HS numbers that drive Tier II hunts. It's doubtful Nelchina caribou will ever go out of Tier II status; demand exceeds supply and Anchorage/Mat-Su is still growing in population.

  12. #12
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    ....For instance, what will be done with the person that has never hunted this unit but who falls under the income threshold? Will they be awarded a permit? According to the rules as I read them, that may be the case.
    Yup. They will get points (even if it's just a single point) while someone who may have hunted the herd for 80 years but has too much income will get zero points.

    I imagine any legal challenge won't happen until next winter at the earliest, or at least until they release the list of permit winners. (3-4 weeks from now?)
    Yup.

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rimfirematt View Post
    ....Hunting is also a way for the less fortunate man to put meat on the table. .....
    In the Nelchina Basin?

    You can buy a half of a steer, cut and wrapped, for $800 in Anchorage or Wasilla. That is more meat than you'll get from a caribou.

    When the costs of gear, transportation means, fuel, etc are calculated, wild game becomes much more expensive than commercially purchased meat.

    My daughter's income qualifies her for TC566. I applied for her, as I have in the past (this won't be her first TC566 permit). She in no way, shape, manner, or form is equipped or can afford this hunt.

    Guess who will take her out there? Guess who's freezer the meat will rest in? (She doesn't even own a freezer). Guess who's rifle she will shoot (her mother's - she doesn't own a rifle). Guess who's tent she will sleep in? Who's sleeping bag? Etc, etc, ad nauseum.

    This income scheme is just transparently stupid politics. It will solve nothing, and will create nothing but more trouble.

    And nobody will learn anything, either, because they don't want to.

  14. #14
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    ....And, if it works, I predict you will see this social engineering project expanded throughout the state.
    It doesn't take much of a prophet to predict more social engineering in the future.

  15. #15
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    ...We'll see how the special application period fares....
    Oh, another chance for the fools?

    Should we lead them by the hand this time?

    I think that ADFG /BOG should have worked harder to educate applicants in the last few months about possibility of at least getting a draw permit if they didn't meet the income guidelines. Seems like a lot of former applicants who are over the income limit basically said "screw it, I ain't applying." Can't blame them.....
    I can. In fact, one of the questions on the application asks if you would have hunted the herd if you would have gotten a permit.

    How can you get a permit if you don't even have the initiative to apply?

    That's why I apply for each of my family members each and every year. So I can honestly answer that question.

    Aside from the inherent problems with income restrictions as a part of determining who is eligible for Tier II permits (and I don't blame the BOG; they were really hamstrung with options), there was imo a severe lack of foresight here in informing and educating hunters about the new Tier II regs and possibilities of not-enough applicants.
    The whole circus is about ate up with stupidity. Stupid people cried about rich boys hunting a stupidly created "subsistence" hunt (which is literally surrounded by highways), the Board dreamed up this stupid income scheme to appease the cryers, and now stupid people stop applying for the hunt(which is exactly what the Board wanted).

    This is a Class A Cluster****.

  16. #16
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    I believe basing the application process on income is just plain discriminatory. It does knock a lot of the Mat-Su and Anchorage out of the mix.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  17. #17
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    if you make more than $52,000 a year are you really subsistence hunting? Really? If the need to hunt for subsistence is not based on income WHAT ELSE CAN IT BE BASED ON? (zipcode?)

    Sure we'd all like to have wild game in our freezer but there is a difference between SUBSISTENCE and SPORT HUNTING where meat is a great bonus to the hunt and if one is not successful in his hunt he will not starve.


    My question is where do they come up with the subsistence need? Clearly if they can't get enough people to put in for a subsistence hunt the subsistence needs are met and it should be a general drawing hunt.

    I'm not saying teir II or unit 13 isn't completely screwed up (and most definately should be a general draw) but if you make more than 52 grand a year take one of those grand and hop on a bush plane and get your caribou (like I will do for deer and a goat this fall making a grand total of 7 grand a year)
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  18. #18

    Default starving?

    Show me someone starving and I will give them some meat. That "starving" bs doesn't fly with me anymore. We are not living in Africa. The govt here more than takes care of most of the people that are the so called "starvers". Income is a piss poor way to determine subsistence and I don't have the answer, but that is the worse way. Just another method of "welfare" in my mind.

  19. #19
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Mark has accurately pointed out the costs of purchased meat, vs the cost of a hunt. Doling out hunting permits to the "poor" or "needy" is just as wrong as doling them out to the rich. I don't see how an arbitrary number, like 52 thou has any basis as an accurate figure to determine who "needs" and who doesn't.
    Perhaps we should also choose a lower number, at which one doesn't have the financial "ability" to hunt, and also rule those folks out.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  20. #20

    Default tier II

    The number in the household should pull more weight.I made 50k but have
    a family of 5.thats spread fairly thin,52k for a family of 6 isnt any better.We did apply this year and hopefully will be successful.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •