Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 179

Thread: A conservation LOSS for MatSu at yesterday's BOF deliberations

  1. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    AkExplorer you need to read more on fish and game ownership in this country and other countries. There is a long history. But a couple of points - cohoangler is correct there is no "right" like freedom of speech for hunting or fishing. The will of the people dictates that as limited by state and federal constitutions. Those constitutions are not government but the will of the people. In fact, all regulations and statues in Alaska are the direct result of a public process. There is no government ownership of the resource per se. When one says the federal government owns this or that what is meant is that federal law takes priority on management decisions over state and local laws. Management is given via a public process to agencies to carry out the will of the people.

    Now relative to ownership the resources in the United States are owned in common. Meaning there is no one individual like a king who owns the resource. That means majority rule for the most part on what is done with those resources. So again your premise of government telling you this or that is not true. What is true is that a majority of the public via their representatives have defined the use of those resources.

    Finally, your comment about not caring is very telling. There is no right for you to use public resources to feed your family if you have alternatives. The State of Alaska does allow some violations of hunting and fishing laws in emergency situations but all types of users including subsistence have limits. So if that limits you to feed your family what you want that is the law. Your comment about potentially not following the law speaks volumes. The public tells you all the time that you cannot fish or hunt in some areas - would you ignore those regulations? The State and Federal agencies do not allow the taking of some types of resources at various life history stages (waterfowl eggs , except for some localized subsistence takes) - would you ignore that? The public told the native users they could not take Beluga whales for food in UCI, which they historically did - would you hunt them anyway if you could? Just where is your line?

    I should clarify things, but first off let me say you picked up on the "not caring" verbage and jumped right on that. Don't blow it out of proportion. If the government told all citizens they couldn't own guns, I wouldn't care what they said about that either. I would own guns.

    Now, as to the rest of the discussion, our state government has been told repeatedly by over 80% of the public that they are not to touch the PFD - and that hasn't stopped them from moving right along this week and trying to limit it for the next 3 years. So don't sit there and act like the government always does what the people want.. Far from it.

    What I was saying was, in fact, that IF I was told that I could not hunt and fish while animal and fish populations were still strong and able to sustain hunting and fishing - let's say the state just decided it would be better economically to have everyone buy their meat and fish - then I would disobey the law. OR, if I were to move completely off-grid and actually rely on 100% of what I catch and kill and grow for family food, I would again have to disobey.

    I just happen to believe that if a man or woman born to this earth decides to go live off the land, they are allowed by God to do it and nobody gets to tell them, "Nope, sorry, go get a job and pay for your food, but no hunting or fishing." I happen to believe there are certain human rights, and one of this is life and and another is complete freedom, that simply cannot be endowed or taken by other men. Not rightfully, anyway. That's all i was saying.

    The whale illustration is a little over the top. I am sure that is an endangered species or something along those lines and there are plenty of other food sources. I would always do my best not to harm an endangered or limited resource, especially if others were plentiful. That said, if they forced them to stop hunting whales simply for political reasons when the whale population could sustain that harvest, I disagree with them doing it.

  2. #142
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    I should clarify things, but first off let me say you picked up on the "not caring" verbage and jumped right on that. Don't blow it out of proportion. If the government told all citizens they couldn't own guns, I wouldn't care what they said about that either. I would own guns.

    Now, as to the rest of the discussion, our state government has been told repeatedly by over 80% of the public that they are not to touch the PFD - and that hasn't stopped them from moving right along this week and trying to limit it for the next 3 years. So don't sit there and act like the government always does what the people want.. Far from it.

    What I was saying was, in fact, that IF I was told that I could not hunt and fish while animal and fish populations were still strong and able to sustain hunting and fishing - let's say the state just decided it would be better economically to have everyone buy their meat and fish - then I would disobey the law. OR, if I were to move completely off-grid and actually rely on 100% of what I catch and kill and grow for family food, I would again have to disobey.

    I just happen to believe that if a man or woman born to this earth decides to go live off the land, they are allowed by God to do it and nobody gets to tell them, "Nope, sorry, go get a job and pay for your food, but no hunting or fishing." I happen to believe there are certain human rights, and one of this is life and and another is complete freedom, that simply cannot be endowed or taken by other men. Not rightfully, anyway. That's all i was saying.

    The whale illustration is a little over the top. I am sure that is an endangered species or something along those lines and there are plenty of other food sources. I would always do my best not to harm an endangered or limited resource, especially if others were plentiful. That said, if they forced them to stop hunting whales simply for political reasons when the whale population could sustain that harvest, I disagree with them doing it.
    What you haven't clarified is, how much fish do you need to feed your family, and which government agency is preventing you from harvesting that amount?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  3. #143
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Typical of you Will. When the data refutes your position just reject the data and hope everyone assumes your bs observations will carry the day. It will not.
    Very ironic of you to say this of me, Nerka.

  4. #144
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoose35 View Post
    What you haven't clarified is, how much fish do you need to feed your family, and which government agency is preventing you from harvesting that amount?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It is likely far fewer than what you need, Hoose, as he is feeding his family with them, rather than earning his income with them.

  5. #145
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    It is likely far fewer than what you need, Hoose, as he is feeding his family with them, rather than earning his income with them.
    Actually, in reality I don't need any fish to feed my family, and neither does he. Also, the reality is, if a sport fisherman needs or wants fish to feed his family, there's nothing stopping them from getting whatever it is they need.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  6. #146
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    Very ironic of you to say this of me, Nerka.
    No irony at all. If data shows I am wrong I will accept it. I will not accept false conclusions based on cherry picked data you use.

  7. #147
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoose35 View Post
    Actually, in reality I don't need any fish to feed my family, and neither does he. Also, the reality is, if a sport fisherman needs or wants fish to feed his family, there's nothing stopping them from getting whatever it is they need.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Actually he is feeding my family by providing fish to the market. He also provides food to his family.

  8. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoose35 View Post
    What you haven't clarified is, how much fish do you need to feed your family, and which government agency is preventing you from harvesting that amount?



    I didn't say they were. I said when the day comes that the "government" says I can't hunt or fish....as in, they say they own it and the citizens do not have access. And that is where that type of thinking gets you when you start saying it's a privilege instead of a right. A man living off the land has a right to kill and catch for himself and his family. That is all I was saying. I don't like any mentality that starts giving ownership of this type of thing (or anything much) to the "government" or to some body of elected or appointed individuals.

  9. #149
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    [/FONT]


    I didn't say they were. I said when the day comes that the "government" says I can't hunt or fish....as in, they say they own it and the citizens do not have access. And that is where that type of thinking gets you when you start saying it's a privilege instead of a right. A man living off the land has a right to kill and catch for himself and his family. That is all I was saying. I don't like any mentality that starts giving ownership of this type of thing (or anything much) to the "government" or to some body of elected or appointed individuals.
    The Government is the people and if the people representatives do something they do not want they can change representatives. There is no agency that can say no hunting or fishing without a public process. Period. All regulations and laws have to go through a public process. So your fear or comment just makes little sense to me. Also, you still advocate for breaking the law if an area decides it does not want hunting or fishing and it impacts your food preference. For most States if you live off the grid you still must follow the State game laws. You seem to think resources are only for food. That is not true. The ecotourism industry in Alaska is a valuable industry. In fact, most tourist come to the Kenai to watch wildlife not hunt or fish (this is from studies by the Kenai Peninsula Tourism and Marketing Council). So if Kenai decided hunting was not allowed would you do it anyway? Finally, making this argument when you live in a urban area is kind of questionable. Bushrat can make these claims and yet I know he respects all the laws.

  10. #150
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    No irony at all. If data shows I am wrong I will accept it. I will not accept false conclusions based on cherry picked data you use.
    Thank you for the Monday chuckle. Have a great week!

  11. #151
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    AkExplorer you need to read more on fish and game ownership in this country and other countries. There is a long history. But a couple of points - cohoangler is correct there is no "right" like freedom of speech for hunting or fishing. The will of the people dictates that as limited by state and federal constitutions. Those constitutions are not government but the will of the people. In fact, all regulations and statues in Alaska are the direct result of a public process. There is no government ownership of the resource per se. When one says the federal government owns this or that what is meant is that federal law takes priority on management decisions over state and local laws. Management is given via a public process to agencies to carry out the will of the people.

    Now relative to ownership the resources in the United States are owned in common. Meaning there is no one individual like a king who owns the resource. That means majority rule for the most part on what is done with those resources. So again your premise of government telling you this or that is not true. What is true is that a majority of the public via their representatives have defined the use of those resources.

    Finally, your comment about not caring is very telling. There is no right for you to use public resources to feed your family if you have alternatives. The State of Alaska does allow some violations of hunting and fishing laws in emergency situations but all types of users including subsistence have limits. So if that limits you to feed your family what you want that is the law. Your comment about potentially not following the law speaks volumes. The public tells you all the time that you cannot fish or hunt in some areas - would you ignore those regulations? The State and Federal agencies do not allow the taking of some types of resources at various life history stages (waterfowl eggs , except for some localized subsistence takes) - would you ignore that? The public told the native users they could not take Beluga whales for food in UCI, which they historically did - would you hunt them anyway if you could? Just where is your line?
    This is spot-on correct. Nerka and I have disagreed many times over the years, but this issue is NOT one of them.

    There is room for compromise here. The current recreational angling regulations in most States allow anglers to catch multiple species of fish in varying quantities on a daily basis. It's likely that if the average angler had the time and opportunity, they could catch enough fish each day to feed the average family, just based on the current regulations. Ditto for most hunting regulations. If you had the opportunity and time to hunt everyday of the open season (for whatever you're hunting), it's likely you could get enough meat to feed a family (provided you had a big freezer, and a reliable source of electricity. I realize that's not always possible in rural Alaska.)

    But my point is that you don't need to violate the laws or the regs to feed your family. But also realize that, although everyone may be able to do this (legally), our fish and wildlife populations cannot sustain that level of harvest for very long.

  12. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    This is spot-on correct. Nerka and I have disagreed many times over the years, but this issue is NOT one of them.

    There is room for compromise here. The current recreational angling regulations in most States allow anglers to catch multiple species of fish in varying quantities on a daily basis. It's likely that if the average angler had the time and opportunity, they could catch enough fish each day to feed the average family, just based on the current regulations. Ditto for most hunting regulations. If you had the opportunity and time to hunt everyday of the open season (for whatever you're hunting), it's likely you could get enough meat to feed a family (provided you had a big freezer, and a reliable source of electricity. I realize that's not always possible in rural Alaska.)

    But my point is that you don't need to violate the laws or the regs to feed your family. But also realize that, although everyone may be able to do this (legally), our fish and wildlife populations cannot sustain that level of harvest for very long.

    Neither of you read my post, obviously. I gave a hypothetical. I didn't say they were limiting it now. I said what I would do if the day came that the state said that nobody could harvest fish or game for their own....that they said it had to be bought, not caught/killed. And when people start acting like the state owns the resources, they open the door for that. I know it's extreme, but what's to stop it from happening down the line.

    All I was saying is I don't like the idea that we don't have a "right" to fish and hunt, but it's a privilege granted by the state. That means they can take it away from us anytime. I disagree. That was all. Heck, i even clarified under what circumstances I would disobey the law.

  13. #153
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    Neither of you read my post, obviously. I gave a hypothetical. I didn't say they were limiting it now. I said what I would do if the day came that the state said that nobody could harvest fish or game for their own....that they said it had to be bought, not caught/killed. And when people start acting like the state owns the resources, they open the door for that. I know it's extreme, but what's to stop it from happening down the line.

    All I was saying is I don't like the idea that we don't have a "right" to fish and hunt, but it's a privilege granted by the state. That means they can take it away from us anytime. I disagree. That was all. Heck, i even clarified under what circumstances I would disobey the law.
    Already so many people disobeying the law now, why not go ahead and join the party? If it's a mans right and all, why obey any fish and game laws whatsoever?
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  14. #154
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Ak Ex - I think we understood what you were saying. But no matter how you say it, you are not correct. You DO NOT have the right to hunt and fish. It's a privilege that can indeed be taken away either by due process (a violation of the law) or by conservation necessity. This happens on an almost daily basis. Poachers get caught. The State F/W departments open and close seasons, change bag limits, and restrict harvest to protect the future productivity of the stocks and herds.

    In either case, the State has the right to manage F/W resources within it's boundaries, and can take the necessary measures to protect the interests of all citizens of the State, including future generations. As you well know, harvesting fish and wildlife in a manner inconsistent with State law is called poaching; and it's still called poaching regardless of how well intentioned that poaching may be.

  15. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Ak Ex - I think we understood what you were saying. But no matter how you say it, you are not correct. You DO NOT have the right to hunt and fish. It's a privilege that can indeed be taken away either by due process (a violation of the law) or by conservation necessity. This happens on an almost daily basis. Poachers get caught. The State F/W departments open and close seasons, change bag limits, and restrict harvest to protect the future productivity of the stocks and herds.

    In either case, the State has the right to manage F/W resources within it's boundaries, and can take the necessary measures to protect the interests of all citizens of the State, including future generations. As you well know, harvesting fish and wildlife in a manner inconsistent with State law is called poaching; and it's still called poaching regardless of how well intentioned that poaching may be.
    I wasn't saying it wouldn't be poaching....I was saying that if the day came that the state or country told all citizens they could no longer hunt or fish, I would just have to be a criminal because I believe we do have to right to do it, as long as we aren't wasteful. I even gave the gun analogy. If the feds ever said no more owning guns, well, then I guess I would have to become a criminal because some things I believe are a right, no matter what anyone else says.

    Just because the government declares something a privilege and not a right doesn't make them correct...it just sets the law.

    I don't think I am anywhere alone on my stance when given the hypothetical scenarios I have laid out.

    But perhaps I mistook the original comment to be a little too lenient on government "ownership" when it may have just referred to the laws as they are, not necessarily the spirit of the law.

    In any case, this topic is hardly worth continuing. I just wanted people to make sure they didn't get to a place of "well, whatever the state says must be right" because that is when laws begin to change and we begin to lose our legal rights.

  16. #156
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    AK Ex - Fair enough. We will agree to disagree.

    And we'll all move on to a different thread........ Thanks for the discussion.

  17. #157
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    AK I understood you perfectly. However you keep saying the State or Federal government as if they are some group that is independent of the public. So what group are you talking about as for me they do not exist. If the public votes to eliminate hunting and fishing then so be it. If you want to not abide by that law then I will be the first to arrest you - hypothetically. Your defense is bogus and based on no foundation of law or history. The public could eliminate the 2 nd Amendment in the future and your right to bear arms goes away. All the rights you think you have are based on Constitutional foundations. They can change in a heart beat - we are a young country and nothing is cast in stone although some think it is. The South thought they had a right to slavery to the point of civil war. You can see where that got them.

  18. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    AK I understood you perfectly. However you keep saying the State or Federal government as if they are some group that is independent of the public. So what group are you talking about as for me they do not exist. If the public votes to eliminate hunting and fishing then so be it. If you want to not abide by that law then I will be the first to arrest you - hypothetically. Your defense is bogus and based on no foundation of law or history. The public could eliminate the 2 nd Amendment in the future and your right to bear arms goes away. All the rights you think you have are based on Constitutional foundations. They can change in a heart beat - we are a young country and nothing is cast in stone although some think it is. The South thought they had a right to slavery to the point of civil war. You can see where that got them.

    This is perhaps your most ignorant post yet.

    First of all, the South was not fighting solely over slavery, and they did have the right to own slaves. It was a states' rights issue and only changed to a country-wide ban because of the war. When the North won, they used their victory to implement that. Until then, there were states with and states without slavery, and they existed that way for some time. You should have paid better attention in history class because that war was not about slavery...in fact, that was a middling issue.

    As for the rest of your post, you assume too much. I don't believe every human has a right to own weapons and defend themselves or that they have a right to harvest fish and game for their sustenance because the Constitution tells me. I believe those rights are given by God and that no man can take them away, no matter how the public votes.

    For you to act like the state or federal government doesn't act independently of the people shows a complete blindness to the political landscape of the past 50 years, and especially the last 10. I already gave you the PFD example - a decision the public has weighed in on heavily that the state Senate doesn't seem to care about - and the federal list is much longer under the former President. To say that elected officials do the will of the people even 50% of the time would be naive. They are corrupt, self-serving, and do just enough to keep votes. There are few who are actually civil servants.

    "If the public votes to eliminate hunting and fishing so be it" is a perfect example of the wrong stance for a free man to take. There is no "so be it" in that case - there would be a pushback from the citizenry. Just what do you think would happen if the "public" voted to eliminate fishing and hunting and the 2nd Amendment? Do you think the majority of the people would say "so be it" and forget about it? Not a chance. It would be another civil war at worst or a lot of civil disobedience at best. Surely you aren't that ignorant.

    As for you arresting me, there are some hypothetical things I would do should you try to keep me from feeding my family....hypothetically.

  19. #159
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    This is perhaps your most ignorant post yet.

    First of all, the South was not fighting solely over slavery, and they did have the right to own slaves. It was a states' rights issue and only changed to a country-wide ban because of the war. When the North won, they used their victory to implement that. Until then, there were states with and states without slavery, and they existed that way for some time. You should have paid better attention in history class because that war was not about slavery...in fact, that was a middling issue.

    As for the rest of your post, you assume too much. I don't believe every human has a right to own weapons and defend themselves or that they have a right to harvest fish and game for their sustenance because the Constitution tells me. I believe those rights are given by God and that no man can take them away, no matter how the public votes.

    For you to act like the state or federal government doesn't act independently of the people shows a complete blindness to the political landscape of the past 50 years, and especially the last 10. I already gave you the PFD example - a decision the public has weighed in on heavily that the state Senate doesn't seem to care about - and the federal list is much longer under the former President. To say that elected officials do the will of the people even 50% of the time would be naive. They are corrupt, self-serving, and do just enough to keep votes. There are few who are actually civil servants.

    "If the public votes to eliminate hunting and fishing so be it" is a perfect example of the wrong stance for a free man to take. There is no "so be it" in that case - there would be a pushback from the citizenry. Just what do you think would happen if the "public" voted to eliminate fishing and hunting and the 2nd Amendment? Do you think the majority of the people would say "so be it" and forget about it? Not a chance. It would be another civil war at worst or a lot of civil disobedience at best. Surely you aren't that ignorant.

    As for you arresting me, there are some hypothetical things I would do should you try to keep me from feeding my family....hypothetically.
    I know history very well and your post shows you are a fringe element in our society. God given rights are pure bs but go ahead believe fairy tales to justify illegal acts. I really do not care. But your pfd example is just wrong. Elections can change that outcome but you want to chase ghosts. Also I have dealt with people like you. They usually end up in jail.

  20. #160
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    AK I understood you perfectly. However you keep saying the State or Federal government as if they are some group that is independent of the public. So what group are you talking about as for me they do not exist. If the public votes to eliminate hunting and fishing then so be it. If you want to not abide by that law then I will be the first to arrest you - hypothetically. Your defense is bogus and based on no foundation of law or history. The public could eliminate the 2 nd Amendment in the future and your right to bear arms goes away. All the rights you think you have are based on Constitutional foundations. They can change in a heart beat - we are a young country and nothing is cast in stone although some think it is. The South thought they had a right to slavery to the point of civil war. You can see where that got them.
    A fine distinction, Nerka, but a very vital one, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;" Our rights are not assigned us by the Constitution. They are assigned us by our Creator, and enumerated in the Constitution. "Unalienable" is a very, very strong term, meaning they cannot be taken away. I know this discussion is a bunny trail to the original post, but I'm sure it can get back on point.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 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
  •