Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 139

Thread: Support for AK Wild Sheep Foundation or RHAK (Resident Hunters of AK) ?

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

    Default Support for AK Wild Sheep Foundation or RHAK (Resident Hunters of AK) ?

    I just caught wind of the new Resident Hunters of Alaska group. They are looking for 100 founding member to donate $1000 each. I may be wrong, but it seems like the RHAK has formed in retaliation of the new presence of AK WSF. Who feels as though AK WSF doesn't have the resident hunters' best interest in mind? Does anyone have strong feelings about either one of these organizations ? Please explain.

  2. #2
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Honestly the last thing hunters need is another group that divides us. I realize that some folks probably see this as merely recognizing a division that already exists, however I don't think a move like this will bring people together as much as it will separate them. I'd like to see a Robert Ruffner-type of person involved in this stuff; someone who is capable of seeing all sides, is beholden to none, and is willing to compromise for the benefit of all hunters and the resource. (If we need this at all) I'm just not convinced that we're going to get far by erecting more walls. We need bridge-builders.

    Is this all about Dall sheep? I guess I will wait until the organization is clearer about their goals and what they're trying to do. There's not a lot on their website, so it's hard to tell right now.

    I have, on many occasions, expressed my support of a local subsistence - Alaska resident - nonresident priority (in that order) when there isn't enough to go around. I think this perspective is already supported in our hunting regulations. But trying to force an allocation adjustment down the throats of all hunters when there isn't a resource concern needlessly penalizes other hunters.

    We shall see.

    -Mike
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 03-17-2016 at 01:29.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  3. #3
    Moderator stid2677's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Area
    Posts
    7,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northtoalaska13 View Post
    I just caught wind of the new Resident Hunters of Alaska group. They are looking for 100 founding member to donate $1000 each. I may be wrong, but it seems like the RHAK has formed in retaliation of the new presence of AK WSF. Who feels as though AK WSF doesn't have the resident hunters' best interest in mind? Does anyone have strong feelings about either one of these organizations ? Please explain.
    I have been involved in the BOG process for the last 7 or 8 years trying to get resident oriented sheep proposals passed. In that time it became clear that residents lacked an organized voice to get real changes passed.

    IMHO, the AK WSF can't have a true AK resident priority when they have to also support their parent org charter. One only has to look at the leaders to see that resident hunters are not their main focus.

    Real change is going to take a concentrated effort,, that effort will take money, legal challenge and lobbying of law makers. I for one feel strongly enough to step up and become a founding member of RHAK, I have paid my 1K. I'm proud to stand with other like minded resident hunters and hope we can finally get some changes made while there is still something to protect for our children. I'm of the belief that as resident hunters we can be pro resident WITHOUT being anti anything else.

    Without a strong voice more board generated proposals will be passed and it is my belief they will continue to be biased against the resident.

    Steve
    "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"
    Founding Member
    http://www.residenthuntersofalaska.org/

  4. #4
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    802

    Default

    Well said stid2677!!!!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    In the real world I suppose that groups like this are necessary, 'cause C.R.E.A.M. But when we consider the nature of sheep politics, yet another lobbying group serving the interests of people willing to pay $1,000 for a voice is further evidence of just how screwed up Sheep politics is in this state.

    That said, I'm grateful for the people who put Alaskans first who are willing to put their money where there heart is. I might write them a check for $100. A grand is steep for folks like me.

  6. #6

    Default

    Well said Steve! I also agree that we need an organized representation for the resident Sheep Hunter.

  7. #7
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stid2677 View Post
    I have been involved in the BOG process for the last 7 or 8 years trying to get resident oriented sheep proposals passed. In that time it became clear that residents lacked an organized voice to get real changes passed.

    IMHO, the AK WSF can't have a true AK resident priority when they have to also support their parent org charter. One only has to look at the leaders to see that resident hunters are not their main focus.

    Real change is going to take a concentrated effort,, that effort will take money, legal challenge and lobbying of law makers. I for one feel strongly enough to step up and become a founding member of RHAK, I have paid my 1K. I'm proud to stand with other like minded resident hunters and hope we can finally get some changes made while there is still something to protect for our children. I'm of the belief that as resident hunters we can be pro resident WITHOUT being anti anything else.

    Without a strong voice more board generated proposals will be passed and it is my belief they will continue to be biased against the resident.

    Steve
    Steve,

    Okay, I spent some time on a research binge, that I should have spent elsewhere today. Hopefully it will make some sense to someone out there.

    I appreciate your involvement in the process, Steve. It's something that I simply don't have time to do, and knowing my personality, if I went down that path it would draw me in entirely (just look how long this post is, if you don't believe me!). But I think my "calling" is elsewhere. Still, I am grateful for good-hearted people who are involved in this, and I hope for a good outcome, first for the resource itself, and second, for those of us who use it. Iím especially hoping for some level-headed folks who can honestly look at the different facets of this and come up with some balanced recommendations.

    There are some things about this that I just do not understand, and I am hoping you can help me with this. You have suggested, many times, that Alaska residents are the victims of biased policies and regulations that favor nonresident hunters. I have looked through the hunting regulations and I am not seeing that at all.

    I am attaching a unit-by-unit assessment of exactly how resident and nonresident opportunity stacks up for some of our ďprimaryĒ species. In the interest of my own time, I did not include deer, elk, goat, black bear, wolf or wolverine, but in flipping back and forth through my well-thumbed copy of last yearís synopsis, it was clear that resident opportunity is as good or better than nonresident opportunity in Alaska across the board. In some cases, some of which I documented below, it is exponentially so. There can be no question that the current regulations do not show a bias toward nonresidents at all; in fact, itís exactly the way it is supposed to be, with local subsistence users coming first, then Alaska residents, then nonresident hunters.

    I could not find a single example where nonresidents were offered an opportunity that was not also offered to Alaska residents with equal or (in most cases) greater liberality. Not one.

    Itís also worth noting that nonresidents face the additional restriction of being required to hire a guide to the tune of multiple tens of thousands of dollars just to hunt sheep, goat and brown / grizzly bear.

    I started to compare the odds of drawing a tag for our draw hunts, between residents and nonresidents, but that would have taken way more time than I have today. And from what I have heard in the past here on this site, I am not sure that any number would make a difference to some of us anyway. Especially to the few who donít appear concerned about nonresident opportunity, and are only seeking a greater chance of drawing a tag. It is clear that some residents prefer a system that would revoke all nonresident draw tags in situations where residents must also draw. That would effectively shut down nonresident Kodiak brown bear, bison, muskox, many of our moose hunts, and all Dall sheep hunts for nonresidents. Such a move would be a financial disaster for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, who counts on revenue from nonresident license and tag sales for its operating budget, to say nothing of the ripple effect among guides, air services and the many other services that support the nonresident hunter in Alaska. Again, from past discussions of this, it is clear that some residents simply donít care about that, presumably because they donít believe it affects them. That kind of attitude isnít going to help us resolve this matter, if indeed it needs to be resolved at all.

    One of the things I just do not understand at all is the complaints about resident sheep hunting opportunity. As we clearly saw from Scott Luber and Steve Bethuneís resident sheep hunting adventures in recent years, there is no lack of resident sheep hunting opportunity on general season hunts that can be done right from the road system. Just this year I heard of a very large ram that was taken in a general season area by a resident who flew into a general season area and hiked in from there, as he's been doing for many, many years. The ram measured 45 inches on one side. The hunter is a quiet fellow who has hunted sheep for many, many years. But he doesnít talk about it on online forums, and he doesn't have his sheep scored. He just goes out year after year, sometimes alone, and heís harvested many very exceptional sheep on general season hunts. So I absolutely know it can be done, even in todayís sheep economy. Stories like this, taken from just last season and the handful of seasons prior, are the reason I simply donít understand what the problem is.

    For what itís worth, here's an overview of what our current hunting regulations have to say about resident and nonresident hunting opportunity. I challenge anyone out there to look at this data and demonstrate a bias against resident hunters anywhere in Alaska, based on what is actually in our hunting regulations:

    Moose


    • GMU 1: Seasons are identical for both groups, with the exception of a draw hunt thatís closed to nonresidents.
    • GMU 3: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 5: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 6: Seasons are identical for both groups in some areas. Units 6B & C are closed to nonresidents, but are open for registration and draw for residents on an ďany bullĒ or ďany mooseĒ tag.
    • GMU 7: Seasons are identical for both groups, but nonresidents get an antlerless permit hunt that is not available to nonresidents.
    • GMU 9: All hunts are registration. All nonresident hunts carry antler size restrictions and most are shorter than resident seasons. All but one of the resident hunts carry no antler size restrictions.
    • GMU 11: Seasons mostly identical, but there are two hunts available for residents only.
    • GMU 12: All nonresident hunts carry antler size restrictions. Some hunts are available for residents only, the rest are identical with the nonresident season.
    • GMU 13: Nonresidents must draw (115 tags available). There are five nonresident hunts available; the lowest one has a 7% chance of being drawn, the highest is 23%. Entire unit is open for general season resident hunting, with some any-bull draw opportunity for residents only.
    • GMU 14: Several hunts available to residents only, otherwise opportunity is identical.
    • GMU 15: No nonresident opportunity exists that is not also available for residents. Several resident opportunities available to Alaska residents that are closed to nonresidents.
    • GMU 16: Resident and nonresident seasons and restrictions identical, with the exception of draw hunts that are open to residents only.
    • GMU 17: There's a "Nonresident Closed Area", and only one general season nonresident moose hunt and one registration hunt. The rest is open to residents on general season, draw or registration. One of the resident hunts allows the harvest of two moose. All nonresident hunts carry antler size restrictions and an orientation requirement. Resident hunts either have no antler size restriction or the restrictions are not as tight. There is no orientation requirement for residents on any of the hunts.
    • GMU 18: "Any Bull" hunt; residents are allowed two moose. Nonresidents are allowed one. Some areas are closed to nonresidents that are open to residents.
    • GMU 19: Includes a Nonresident Closed Area that's open to residents. The entire unit favors Alaska residents. Every nonresident hunt is available to residents too, but in most cases the resident season is longer. There are many hunts available to residents only. The nonresident hunt in 19B requires an orientation or for the hunter to be guided.
    • GMU 20: Vastly favors resident hunters. Most corresponding nonresident hunts are either draw, or carry shorter seasons with greater antler size restrictions.
    • GMU 21: This unit strongly favors resident hunters. Most nonresident seasons are shorter in length, carry greater antler size restrictions or are draw.
    • GMU 22: Greatly favors resident hunters. Nonresident hunts are either closed, draw, or shorter than resident hunts, and carry greater antler size restrictions.
    • GMU 23: Unit-wide draw for nonresidents, general season resident hunt and two registration hunts available. Out of the 50 nonresident tags available, 9 of them require a guide.
    • GMU 24: Resident hunts are longer and carry smaller antler size restrictions. Some draw hunts open to residents only.
    • GMU 25: Most resident hunts are any bull, some nonresident hunts are shorter, and almost all nonresident hunts carry antler size restrictions.
    • GMU 26: Closed to nonresidents, open to residents on general season tag, no antler size restrictions.


    Caribou


    • GMU 7: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 8: (feral reindeer) Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 9: Closed to nonresidents, residents open on permit hunts.
    • GMU 10: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 12: Closed to nonresidents, open for general season and permit hunts for residents.
    • GMU 13: Closed to nonresidents, open for residents on permit basis.
    • GMU 14: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 15: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 16: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 17: Closed for nonresidents, open on permit basis for residents.
    • GMU 18: Closed for nonresidents, open for registration hunt for residents.
    • GMU 19: Some hunts identical for both groups, additional seasons for residents, including a general season hunt and a registration hunt that are closed to nonresidents.
    • GMU 20: Some hunts are identical for both groups, however some areas closed to nonresidents that are open to residents. Some resident seasons are longer.
    • GMU 21: Seasons are identical for both groups for some hunts, but others are open to residents only.
    • GMU 22: Resident hunts are five caribou per day. Nonresident hunts are five caribou total, with some additional restrictions.
    • GMU 23: Residents are allowed five caribou per day, nonresidents are allowed two caribou total. Seasons are the same for both groups.
    • GMU 24: Most hunts allow the same opportunity for both groups, with the exception of a large part of 24A, in which residents are allowed five caribou a day, while nonresidents are allowed five caribou total.
    • GMU 25: Residents allowed a total of ten caribou, nonresidents allowed two bulls only, or five total (depending on the hunt), and some nonresident seasons are shorter.
    • GMU 26: Seasons are identical for both groups, residents allowed to harvest five caribou per day, nonresidents are allowed a total of five caribou.


    Brown / Grizzly Bear


    • ALL UNITS: Guide required for nonresidents. Resident guide not required, regardless of experience.
    • GMU 1: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 3: Closed for nonresidents, open for residents on a permit basis.
    • GMUs 4-21, 24: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 22: Nonresident restrictions in several areas (draw hunts), no such restrictions on residents. In some areas, residents are allowed two bears, while nonresidents are allowed one.
    • GMU 23: Draw or registration hunts for nonresidents, general season for residents, with longer season.
    • GMU 25: Some hunts are identical for both groups, but resident season is longer in both spring and fall in 25D.
    • GMU 26: General season for both groups, with the same season dates in 26A and C. 26B is registration for residents and draw for nonresidents. Resident registration season substantially longer than the nonresident season.


    Muskox


    • GMU 18: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 22: Closed to nonresidents. Resident hunters allowed several permit hunts.
    • GMU 23: Closed to nonresidents. Resident hunters allowed several permit hunts.


    Bison


    • GMU 19: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 11: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 13: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 20: Residents allowed a tag every ten years by permit. Nonresidents allowed one tag per lifetime by permit.


    Dall Sheep


    • ALL UNITS: Guide required for nonresidents. Resident: guide not required, regardless of experience.
    • GMU 7: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 9: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 11: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 12: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 13: Seasons are identical for both groups, with the following permit allocation exceptions:
      • Resident tags: 30
      • Nonresident tags: 7

    • GMU 14: Seasons are identical for both groups, with the following permit allocation exceptions:
      • Resident tags: 194
      • Nonresident tags: 19

    • GMU 15: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 16: Seasons are identical for both groups.
    • GMU 19: Seasons are identical for both groups, with the exception of a resident-only registration hunt.
    • GMU 20: Seasons are identical for both groups. Tag availability as follows:
      • Tok Management Area: 60 tags
      • Delta Controlled Use Area: 120 tags
      • Portions of GMU 20D&E: 4 tags
      • General season in remainder of unit: no tag limit

    • GMU 23: Seasons are identical for both groups, with the exception of two registration hunts open to residents only, and a subsistence registration hunt that allows residents to harvest three sheep.
    • GMU 24: Seasons are identical for both groups, with the exception of a subsistence registration hunt that allows residents to harvest three sheep.
    • GMU 25: Seasons are identical for both groups, with the exception of a subsistence registration hunt that allows residents to harvest three sheep.
    • GMU 26: Seasons are identical for both groups, with the exception of subsistence registration hunts, one of which is in a National Park, and two subsistence hunts that allow residents to harvest three sheep.


    Summary on sheep: For hunts where tags are allocated on the basis of residency, 10.4% of the tags go to nonresidents.

    Can anyone show me how this information supports the claim that our regulations are biased in favor of nonresident hunters?

    -Mike
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 03-20-2016 at 12:27.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  8. #8
    Moderator stid2677's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Area
    Posts
    7,274

    Default

    Mr Mike,,

    You and I have debated this topic Ad nauseam, and I'm quite sure neither of us will sway the others thinking. While I lack your ability to spin and post lengthily statistics. I do know this,,, 90% of the game lives on 10% of the land and the majority of that land is either locked up by commercial operations or native holdings. This is the heart of the matter really,, half of the BOG now is in the commercial operations game. I'm not sure when the last time you attended a BOG meeting was, but for me it is hard to listen to their rhetoric and the way they laugh at, talk down to and are just plain disrespectful to the residents that have ask for proposals regarding sheep hunting.

    So IMHO it is more of an access and resource allocation issue than an opportunity issue. The guiding industry has a Lobbying Organization to assist them, I only feel that I'm supportive of the same for the Resident hunter.

    God Bless my friend.

    Steve
    "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"
    Founding Member
    http://www.residenthuntersofalaska.org/

  9. #9

    Default

    Steve, thank you for sending that info, it is much appreciated.

    While I am very much supportive of the principle behind a resident organization, I think they are doing a disservice to their stated goal by offering concrete opinions concerning past and present actions by the board of game when they are just trying to get their feet off the ground.

    I read through the documents concerning their stated goals and opinions on various proposals. While I would like to be able to support a resident only organization, I could not support them when right off the bat, they oppose and ask to rescind prop 207. I for one, think that proposal is one of the best regulations that has been adopted in a long time. It affects residents and non-residents equally, and the biggest winner for the adoption of that regulation is the resource itself, the sheep.

    Therefore, as much as I would like too, I can't support a resident only organization that, right off the bat, alienates all of those residents hunters who feel that 207 is a good and worthy regulation, such as myself.

    Just my 2 cents.

  10. #10
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stid2677 View Post
    Mr Mike,,

    You and I have debated this topic Ad nauseam, and I'm quite sure neither of us will sway the others thinking. While I lack your ability to spin and post lengthily statistics. I do know this,,, 90% of the game lives on 10% of the land and the majority of that land is either locked up by commercial operations or native holdings. This is the heart of the matter really,, half of the BOG now is in the commercial operations game. I'm not sure when the last time you attended a BOG meeting was, but for me it is hard to listen to their rhetoric and the way they laugh at, talk down to and are just plain disrespectful to the residents that have ask for proposals regarding sheep hunting.

    So IMHO it is more of an access and resource allocation issue than an opportunity issue. The guiding industry has a Lobbying Organization to assist them, I only feel that I'm supportive of the same for the Resident hunter.

    God Bless my friend.

    Steve
    Well said. Meetings this weekend gents. Fairbanks guys should stop in (and it'll make you feel like you are playing a rigged game.)

  11. #11
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stid2677 View Post
    Mr Mike,,

    You and I have debated this topic Ad nauseam, and I'm quite sure neither of us will sway the others thinking. While I lack your ability to spin and post lengthily statistics. I do know this,,, 90% of the game lives on 10% of the land and the majority of that land is either locked up by commercial operations or native holdings. This is the heart of the matter really,, half of the BOG now is in the commercial operations game. I'm not sure when the last time you attended a BOG meeting was, but for me it is hard to listen to their rhetoric and the way they laugh at, talk down to and are just plain disrespectful to the residents that have ask for proposals regarding sheep hunting.

    So IMHO it is more of an access and resource allocation issue than an opportunity issue. The guiding industry has a Lobbying Organization to assist them, I only feel that I'm supportive of the same for the Resident hunter.

    God Bless my friend.

    Steve
    Steve,

    I donít think you and I have debated this issue much at all, though we did trade a small number of posts a couple of years ago in some discussions about sheep. I realize you have a lot of time invested in discussing this with various people, and are probably weary of it; itís possible that you are tossing me in with those other people.

    I am honestly trying to understand what youíre saying. Itís hard for me to understand it, because I have not seen any evidence to support it. So I guess to keep it simple, Iíll ask a few direct questions, in hopes of getting something specific. I'm not playing games here, I'm just trying to clearly understand what you and this organization are saying.

    1. What evidence do you have to support the claim that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is favoring nonresidents over resident hunters in our hunting regulations?

    2. What evidence to you have to support the claim that commercial interests have locked up the majority of our public hunting lands?

    3. Is this organization going to try to abridge the rights of private landholders (native corporations) to develop their lands, up to and including their legal right to lease out hunting rights?

    4. Are you saying that nonresident draw hunts should be abolished in order to give more tags to residents than they already have?

    5. Is this new group mostly about Dall sheep issues, or are they saying that the Department is favoring nonresident hunters over residents with other species as well?

    The fourth question was my best attempt to understand what you meant by this being ďmore of an access and resource allocation issue than an opportunity issueĒ. Doesnít access and resource allocation equal opportunity? How can they exclude each other? I donít understand your comment. The hunting regulations make it clear that there is more than enough opportunity to go around. And there is no question that the allocation is skewed way, way in favor of resident hunters. That leaves the question of access. How is access a problem, from your perspective?

    Since you mentioned it, I haven't been to a BOG meeting in three years or so. If those have degenerated into a good old boy's club, that's a real shame. If the members of the board are laughing at, talking down to, or otherwise disrespecting ANY groups of hunters, they need to be taken to task for it. It's unprofessional at best. I never saw that when I was there. Are you saying Board members are doing this?

    A final point, and I know you probably didn't intend it this way, but your use of the word "spin" suggests that I am somehow skewing the information to support a particular view. That's usually the way that word is used. All I did was summarize what is in the regulations. There's no interpretation in there at all; no "spin". I really don't like that word because it almost sounds dishonest. And I think you know that I would never knowingly do something dishonest. Do you think I am being dishonest?

    -Mike
    Last edited by Michael Strahan; 03-18-2016 at 01:23.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    199

    Default

    What I have been told about RHAK...

    They seek to limit nonresident hunters by excluding them from any draw hunt based on the Alaska state constitution that apparently says something to the effect that 100% of the states resources, i.e. Game animals, shall be managed for the "maximum" opportunity of the residents. I'm gathering that their argument is if residents are not allocated 100% of those tags that doesn't constitute maximum opportunity? Apparently there are four real founding individuals that seek to bring a lawsuit against the state claiming that the state constitution is being violated. The 100 "founding" members are really needed to help fund the issue to the tune of $1000 each. This whole thing just seems real strange to me and doesn't appear to be a species specific deal, more of an "let's kick out the non residents" type of deal. I guess we will see what transpires and if any of those behind the issue come forward to say anything. I don't seem to find anything when I look them up so far.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    802

    Default

    I do not believe that RHAK wants to "kick" out the nonresident hunters. They want to make sure residents have a priority when the resource is limited. There currently is a Board of Game meeting going on in Fairbanks so I have heard they are busy up there fighting for the resident hunter. Most Western States have a 90% resident, 10% nonresident ratio for limited permits (Sheep). I believe RHAK wants a similar ration in Alaska when the resource is limited. I do not believe they are a Sheep only group.

  14. #14
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polardds View Post
    ... They want to make sure residents have a priority when the resource is limited...
    According to the regulations, we already have that. What am I not seeing here?

    HERE'S A LINK to their website. Looks like they are just now building it, only one page up so far. I really want to go to the source to find out what they're about, but maybe it's too early. There's nothing on the site, and all we have here so far is what appears to be personal perspectives of one member. I'd like to give them a fair shake at stating their position, but so far I'm not hearing much. If anyone else out there has something official that clarifies some of the questions being raised, let's hear it!

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    According to the regulations, we already have that. What am I not seeing here?

    HERE'S A LINK to their website. Looks like they are just now building it, only one page up so far. I really want to go to the source to find out what they're about, but maybe it's too early. There's nothing on the site, and all we have here so far is what appears to be personal perspectives of one member. I'd like to give them a fair shake at stating their position, but so far I'm not hearing much. If anyone else out there has something official that clarifies some of the questions being raised, let's hear it!

    -Mike
    From the documentation I have read, they are ardently opposed to proposal 207. Three of the four members on the board of directors own super cubs. I see this group as not having the "average" Alaskan resident hunters bests interests in mind, but rather a narrow focus to benefit a certain subset of Alaskan residents. Just my two cents.

  16. #16
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    802

    Default

    Perhaps we should wait for the actual group to respond before we jump to conclusions. I know many people may not be opposed to Prop 207, they were opposed to how it was generated (Board Generated behind closed doors), how it was passed (public testimony and Fish and Game Advisory Commitees opposed). Again I don't think this group is a one proposition (207) group either. I feel when we hear more from them most resident hunters will have more beliefs in line with RHAK than against. I don't know many organizations I agree with 100%.

    Mr Strahan the regulations in several areas do not agree, here is one example. In order for me to have a good chance at drawing a Kodiak Brown Bear permit I need to change my residency so I can draw in my lifetime. 2-3% draw odds for a resident on a Kodiak Bear. Nonresident who pays a guide is almost guaranteed a tag. As a resident I can't even try to "buy" one of those nonresident tags. (Pay a guide) Those tags are also split 60% resident and 40% nonresident (kind of, 8 nonresident next of kin are taken from the resident pool). So there is one example. (Yes residents have upwards of 60% of the tags but if the resource is so limited why should we not have a higher percentage?). That is one example I am familiar with from the regulations.

  17. #17
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Honest upstanding group of guys with residents (all) rights as focus. Just relax a bit and they'll get the website up and running. Looks to be a first rate organization.

    You could attend a bog meeting tomorrow and see if you think you need a resident voice.....Personally, I have little doubt the bog is well outside the bounds set. Board generated props, "silent majorities", "vocal minorities", disregard for ACs.

    Anyway, just let em get things together and save the drama. My .02.

  18. #18
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK-HUNT View Post
    Honest upstanding group of guys with residents (all) rights as focus...Anyway, just let em get things together and save the drama. My .02.
    I agree. I only know two people who are on that board and I respect them both. My responses have been directed at the only one of them who has posted here, because I was hoping to understand where they're coming from.

    If the unifying factor for this group is last year's 207 proposal, I would be concerned, for several reasons. Perhaps once they get everything posted in the open, we will know where they're coming from.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  19. #19
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadWolf View Post
    What I have been told about RHAK...

    They seek to limit nonresident hunters by excluding them from any draw hunt based on the Alaska state constitution that apparently says something to the effect that 100% of the states resources, i.e. Game animals, shall be managed for the "maximum" opportunity of the residents. I'm gathering that their argument is if residents are not allocated 100% of those tags that doesn't constitute maximum opportunity? Apparently there are four real founding individuals that seek to bring a lawsuit against the state claiming that the state constitution is being violated. The 100 "founding" members are really needed to help fund the issue to the tune of $1000 each. This whole thing just seems real strange to me and doesn't appear to be a species specific deal, more of an "let's kick out the non residents" type of deal. I guess we will see what transpires and if any of those behind the issue come forward to say anything. I don't seem to find anything when I look them up so far.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm a bit concerned about the wordsmithing here, which I bolded. Are those your words, dead wolf, or RHAK? shall be managed for the "maximum" opportunity of the residents. Opportunity is not a word used in the constitution; benefit is.
    • ß 2. General Authority ó The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the state, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of the people.
    • ß 3. Common Use ó Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.
    • ß 4. Sustained Yield ó Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belong to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.
    • There can be debate as to what the maximum benefit to the state and most beneficial use of game is to the state, but changing the verbiage of the constitution to make your point only weakens your position. Whether or not maximum resident opportunity is the most beneficial use can certainly be debated. What cannot be debated is whether or not the constitution says opportunity or benefit; it says "benefit."
    • There are many ways in which a sheep can benefit the state and its people. It could easily be argued that a sheep shot by a non resident brings much more benefit to the state overall than one shot by a resident. Think how many businesses are impacted by that hunter as he makes his way from an out of state location to the final resting spot of the sheep, how much F&G profits from him, etc.
    • I'm all for a group that wants to make sure resident Alaskans get a fair shake before the Board of Game. I just hope they are very careful what they ask for, as those things can easily turn and bite the asker in the rear.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    199

    Default

    I didn't create or wordsmith anything in my post, I only reiterated exactly what was said to me by a someone who claimed to be a founding member of RHAK. I personally will hold reservation on any group and their agenda until their mission statement is known and who they are is out in the open. And as of right now the info about RHAK is pretty limited aside from a website with almost no info and a donate link.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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
  •