Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Anti Hunting Refuge Administrators doubling down on Kenai

  1. #1

    Default Anti Hunting Refuge Administrators doubling down on Kenai

    Proposed Amendment of Refuge Public Use Regulations

    The USFWS is publishing a proposed rule which would amend the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge’s public use regulations. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2015, and may be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...NWRS-2014-0003. Public comments on the proposed rule will be accepted through July 20, 2015. The proposed changes to Refuge regulations are aimed at balancing public use and safety with resource conservation.
    Also to help ensure protection of public safety, the proposed rule would expand areas closed to the discharge of firearms within the Refuge by prohibiting discharge of firearms along the Kenai and Russian rivers, with exceptions for use of firearms to dispatch animals while lawfully trapping in both areas and use of shotguns for waterfowl and small game hunting along the Kenai River. These river corridors receive intensive recreational use for sport fishing from shorelines and boats during open seasons for salmon and resident fish including rainbow trout and Dolly Varden, and, on the upper Kenai River for river floating, from late spring to freeze-up. The exceptions include an allowance for use of shotguns for waterfowl hunting, a popular traditional recreational activity occurring from September to mid-December along the Kenai River in areas downstream of Skilak Lake and near the outlet of the river into Skilak Lake. The proposed firearm discharge restriction would in effect require that archery equipment be used for taking of big game within the designated river corridors. This change would enhance consistency with State regulations which prohibit the discharge of firearms (with area-specific exceptions) within the Kenai River Special Management Area (11 AAC 20.850).


    Public Safety my ear, this was not an issue prior to the brown bear season the feds hate so much. Pure anti hunting activism.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    And they won't stop until they are defunded, hope we can at least slow them down with the comment period.

    Comments should include the note that rifle hunting for small game, bears and moose has been a traditional and customary use just like waterfowl hunting with a shotgun. Use there own example against them.

    I agree this is clearly a directed attack on brown bear hunting.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,902

    Default

    They're attempting to turn the "Moose Range" as it was originally named, into a National Park for the type who take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints.
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

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

    Default

    Why does this not surprise me?
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,902

    Default

    I read somewhere recently that there is a proposal to prohibit camping on the shores of lakes in the Refuge. Wonder how far back they expect us to go.
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeRoss View Post
    I read somewhere recently that there is a proposal to prohibit camping on the shores of lakes in the Refuge. Wonder how far back they expect us to go.
    If you talk to them they'll tell you directly they would prefer there was no public use of any kind on the refuge, other than their new visitor center of course.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeRoss View Post
    They're attempting to turn the "Moose Range" as it was originally named, into a National Park for the type who take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints.
    Doesn't sound like they're attempting to do anything inconsistent with the original intended purpose:

    Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Kenai National Moose Range
    (Moose Range) on December 16, 1941, for the purpose of ``protecting the
    natural breeding and feeding range of the giant Kenai moose on the
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, which in this area presents a unique wildlife
    feature and an unusual opportunity for the study in its natural
    environment of the practical management of a big game species that has
    considerable local economic value'' (Executive Order 8979; see 6 FR
    6471, December 18, 1941).
    Section 303(4) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
    Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) substantially affected
    the Moose Range by modifying its boundaries and broadening its purposes
    from moose conservation to protection and conservation of a broad array
    of fish, wildlife, habitats, and other resources, and to providing
    educational and recreational opportunities. ANILCA also redesignated
    the Moose Range as the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge)
    and increased the size of the Refuge to 1.92 million acres, of which
    approximately two-thirds are designated as wilderness.
    ANILCA sets out purposes for each refuge in Alaska; the purposes of
    Kenai NWR are set forth in section 303(4) (B) of ANILCA. The purposes
    identify some of the reasons why Congress established the Refuge and
    set the management priorities for the Refuge. The purposes are as
    follows:
    (1) To conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their
    natural diversity including, but not limited to, moose, bears, mountain
    goats, Dall sheep, wolves and other furbearers, salmonoids and other
    fish, waterfowl and other migratory and nonmigratory birds;

    [[Page 29278]]

    (2) To fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United
    States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats;
    (3) To ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner
    consistent with the purposes set forth in (1), above, water quality and
    necessary water quantity within the Refuge;
    (4) To provide, in a manner consistent with (1) and (2), above,
    opportunities for scientific research, interpretation, environmental
    education, and land management training; and
    (5) To provide, in a manner compatible with these purposes,
    opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation.
    The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) provides the
    following purposes for wilderness areas, including the Kenai wilderness
    area:
    (1) To secure an enduring resource of wilderness;
    (2) To protect and preserve the wilderness character of areas
    within the National Wilderness Preservation System; and
    (3) To administer the areas for the use and enjoyment of the
    American people in a way that will leave them unimpaired for future use
    and enjoyment as wilderness.
    http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2015/2015-12099.html
    ...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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Eureka MT
    Posts
    3,048

    Default

    So, how does one use and enjoy 1.92 million acres, two thirds of which are wilderness? How long would it take to walk through and view 1.92 million acres of land. How many people in the US actually have the ability and means to do that? For most people this land is now useless as there is no reasonable way to access it for all but a very few. How's that for administering the area for the use and enjoyment of the American people?

  9. #9
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Limon, I refuse to go into their new, extravagant, built-at-cost-of-taxpayers-money edifice. Yes, they want to "interpret" wilderness for you so you won't go there yourself and leave tracks, and fire pits and (God forbid!) ropes and wire on trees.

    As long as we fund them with our taxes, they will continue to take more power and land and place more restrictions on accessing it. Unrestrained government is like a cancer. We need leaders bold enough to excise it, but I fear citizens have gotten used to it, expect it, and now don't know any other way.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Doesn't sound like they're attempting to do anything inconsistent with the original intended purpose:
    The original intent is much different from the changes made in 1980 and more recently. Roosevelt intended for us to hunt the giant moose there. He was saving them for hunters.
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

  11. #11
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeRoss View Post
    Roosevelt intended for us to hunt the giant moose there. He was saving them for hunters.
    Saving them from whom?
    ...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

  12. #12
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeRoss View Post
    The original intent is much different from the changes made in 1980 and more recently. Roosevelt intended for us to hunt the giant moose there. He was saving them for hunters.
    In truth on dec.16th 1941 the world was at war and hunters were all to be hunting people.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  13. #13
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Doesn't sound like they're attempting to do anything inconsistent with the original intended purpose:
    There you go again talking about things you do not know enough about. Especially since you do not live in the area and have not dealt with these people as much and in ways us locals have.
    The wilderness area encompasses only a portion of the Kenai national wildlife refuge as a whole. Some of the areas this would effect are not part of the wilderness area.
    So in a sense they are putting more restrictions on us that are inconsistent with the original purpose of the Kenai national wildlife refuge as a whole.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    There you go again talking about things you do not know enough about. Especially since you do not live in the area and have not dealt with these people as much and in ways us locals have.
    The wilderness area encompasses only a portion of the Kenai national wildlife refuge as a whole. Some of the areas this would effect are not part of the wilderness area.
    So in a sense they are putting more restrictions on us that are inconsistent with the original purpose of the Kenai national wildlife refuge as a whole.
    So what are they doing, in your view, which is inconsistent with the following?:
    for the purpose of ``protecting the natural breeding and feeding range of the giant Kenai moose on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, which in this area presents a unique wildlife feature and an unusual opportunity for the study in its natural environment of the practical management of a big game species that has considerable local economic value'' (Executive Order 8979; see 6 FR 6471, December 18, 1941).
    ...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
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    So what are they doing, in your view, which is inconsistent with the following?:
    OK so my point is this: You quote a mission statement that was written and applies only to the wilderness portion of the wildlife refuge.
    There is a large portion of land on the Kenai peninsula that is part of the wildlife refuge but not designated as a wilderness area.
    So this new proposed law will effect areas that are part of the wildlife refuge as a whole but not specifically part of the wilderness area.
    Of course you may not have realized that living so far away.
    Notice the different areas of refuge on this map.
    http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/map...lderness.pdf#b

    Here's a perfect example of their harrassment:
    Illegally flying their Supercub on floats in conditions (low ceiling)that are are deemed unsafe by the FAA only to land to tell my dad he should leave Tustumena lake because in this USFWS oficers opinion my dads 20' boat was not safe on the lake.
    Keep in mind my dad is a licensed pilot and owns a Supercub and had checked flight conditions that same morning as he had intended originally to fly the area that morning.
    Also keep in mind he has many years of experience on that lake with this boat and that lake conditions include a big sandbar at the lakes entrance that does not allow for bigger boats to access the lake. And although it was a low ceiling and overcast weather day the lake was calm enough for good safe boating.
    When asked about flying in the weather the officers excuse was it was the only day that week he could get there due to this bad weather.
    Why are they above the laws that apply to other licensed pilots flying VFR?
    Why do they get to decide what boats are safe on what parts of the refuge?
    Especially given that even this 20' boat isn't always able to access this lake due to the sandbar and only due to it's having a hydraulic lift is it possible at times.
    Last weekend we had 1.5' of water crossing that sandbar.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  16. #16
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default I have a question

    How many who have posted here actually read the new proposed rules?

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    How many who have posted here actually read the new proposed rules?
    Can't say I read it all, but did read the part about no camping on lake shores in the refuge.
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

  18. #18
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Overall parts of this make perfect sense but other parts do not.
    For instance I do support the part that allows us to harvest wild berries and plants(Morels etc.). It is hard to believe I have been illegally picking berries on the refuge all these years!!! Why that was ever illegal is beyond me.
    But I do not support the part about no camping with 100 yards of the river and no discharging of rifles along the river.
    That's where I have trouble with this proposal. It goes both ways for me and is all included in the same proposal.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    How many who have posted here actually read the new proposed rules?
    Forget the new ones, even the existing ones are overboard, as Chris notes already, illegal berry picking?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    So what are they doing, in your view, which is inconsistent with the following?:
    In general, their land management practice of complete hands off, has directly led to habitat that in general equates to a desert for many of the native species of the Kenai peninsula, and has actually created a haven for the non-native coyote.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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
  •