Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 106 of 106

Thread: AK Hunters screwed by Professional Hunter Aswsociation

  1. #101
    Member AlpineEarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Usually somewhere I don't want to be.
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    It would take more time than either of us have, to address what you’ve said here. And if I have learned anything in this discussion on this occasion, it’s that folks are passionate about this issue, and sometimes that passion prevents them from seeing the other person’s point of view. And because the discussion sometimes becomes personal, you have to grow a thicker skin. Mine has gotten a little thicker from this. The alternative is to preserve yourself by saying nothing, and in so doing, you allow the loudest voice to rule the conversation. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the loudest voice that wins people over. And when you couple the loudest voice with a tide of emotion, it can lead to anger not only against “the system”, but even against each other. I am struck by the similarity between these discussions and the current political climate in this country, where the options being proposed seem based more upon anger than rational thought.

    Your comments that “this discussion is all about allocation”, and has "little to do with biology" are great examples of a point made out of passion which, whether intentionally or otherwise, discards other perspectives. For me it’s not about allocation at all. I see allocation as a necessity borne out of a resource shortage; a management tool that we use when biological issues force us into a corner. The clear evidence we have before us demonstrates that while some of our sheep stocks are experiencing a cyclical reduction, the numbers are not low enough to warrant a significant, state-wide change in resource allocation between user groups. I don’t expect to change anyone’s views on that, though I have certainly tried.

    For those still sitting on the fence on this one, I will only point to one thing: What are our biologists saying, and what proposals did they submit, through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game? Either we’re going to trust them or we aren’t. Clearly, some do not. I do. I don’t know of any other objective source we can trust on this.

    It’s fascinating to me that, while we’ve been having this endless debate about reduced resident opportunity to hunt and harvest sheep, two friends of mine, Alaska residents, are preparing for their next walk-in sheep hunt that will take place this fall. Together, they have spent the last few years hunting the Alaska Range, the Kenai Mountains, the Wrangell Mountains, the Chugach Mountains, the Talkeetna Mountains, the Tanana / White Hills, and the Brooks Range. Both of them have taken mature rams in every one of those mountain ranges by walking in from the road system, all in the last few years when our stocks were supposedly low. I just spoke with them yesterday and they told me that on almost all of those hunts they saw no other hunters, guided or otherwise. Clearly, they are not seeing a lack of opportunity, or a lack of resource. They are a part of a large, silent majority who, while the rest of us are arguing about lack of opportunity, lack of access, or lack of sheep, are simply lacing up their boots and going hunting. They’re not participating in the drama of debates like this, because they’re too busy taking advantage of the great opportunities we have. One of them killed a ram on a weekend hunt recently, by walking in from the highway. Hard to argue with success.

    I have heard some (including you) compare Alaska's hunting opportunities with those in the Lower 48, as a justification for making significant allocation changes. Well, welcome to Alaska. Allow me to acquaint you with a saying you may hear around this place, if you stick around long enough. "We don't care how they do it in the Lower 48". If it's relevant and necessary, we'll do it. But I don't expect we will follow the lead of the good folks who are managing the resources in Montana, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, California, Texas or even Maryland, simply on the basis that it's working for them. Our folks are going to do what's good for the resources of Alaska. And that's as it should be. Thankfully, we still have that going for us.

    To Jake: The "Old Alaska" you love is still alive and well. It's just not making a lot of noise right now.

    Well Sir, that's a lot to respond to. I'll try to be brief. First, your comments about passion overtaking reason are inherently dismissive. It's a subversive way to dismiss any position you don't agree with. Passion and reason are not mutually exclusive as you suggest. You've left out Wayne's name from the argument, but you bring up your two friends who solo hunt as an example to dismiss any complaint of the lack of opportunity. Brian addressed this pretty succinctly, so i'll let it go. There is no need to reference things being personal. You cannot conflate disagreement with getting personal. I didn't insult yo' momma or call you names. I forcefully disagreed with your position and the logic you used to dismiss others. You are a fine gentleman, top notch, none better and I wish you all the success and happiness in the world. It's my passionate, "well, welcome to Alaska", opinion that you are flat wrong on this narrow issue and the method you're using, and trying to convince others to support is off base. The sheep population could be increasing to a point they've become a nuisance and they are licking the salt from my Gwood driveway and the issue of allocation would still be worth having. Particularly when one group lobbies to limit my chance to hunt those sheep.

    This statement speaks volumes...."But I don't expect we will follow the lead of the good folks who are managing the resources in Montana, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, California, Texas or even Maryland, simply on the basis that it's working for them. Our folks are going to do what's good for the resources of Alaska." That's just an absurd perspective. If sound management and allocation practices prove effective in others states then we should dismiss them because they are not "Alaskan"????? And "Our folks are going to do what's good for the resources of Alaska.", is the centerpiece of the the argument. What Alaskan's? Commercial operations? Residents? Residents who want lower 48 relatives to hunt with them? Or Alaskan sheep? Your friend Wayne said most of the areas are stable, so again, this isn't about sheep biology. It's about who should be given the best chance to go after them. And on this issue you and I respectfully disagree.

  2. #102
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,858

    Default

    " Your friend Wayne said most of the areas are stable, so again, this isn't about sheep biology. It's about who should be given the best chance to go after them. And on this issue you and I respectfully disagree."

    i deleted most all I wrote in response to this. And am unsure why I keep
    Posting. I suggest routes to go for residents to "get back" whatever it is they feel they've lost in the mountains and no one follows suit. They just keep posting about other people's opinions and stance on an issue. Which in essence does absolutely nothing but drive a wedge between us. Nothing will change because you posted your armchair biologist opinion on sheep stability managment in the AOD forums.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  3. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    Just Browns have restrictions.
    What kind of restrictions?

  4. #104
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsunami View Post
    What kind of restrictions?
    Guide requirement....ie financial restrictions. In essence dropping the guide requirement would just make brown bear more affordable, that's basicly it in a nutshell.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  5. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    Guide requirement....ie financial restrictions. In essence dropping the guide requirement would just make brown bear more affordable, that's basicly it in a nutshell.
    how much more affordable?

  6. #106
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,858

    Default

    Depends....
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

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
  •