Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 93

Thread: Unit 26 RAC wants to close Central Arctic Herd no Haul Road Caribou

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear View Post
    Seriously did you even read the first post.

    Seriously, YES.....I read it. Now a question for you, what is a resident of an Apartment building......those who reside in the building or every human in Alaska.....???

  2. #22
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,196

    Default

    Agl are you trying to say non locals or nonnresidents to Alaska? Bear is saying residents of Alaska that utilize those caribou.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    Agl are you trying to say non locals or nonnresidents to Alaska? Bear is saying residents of Alaska that utilize those caribou.

    OH......I know clearly what he is saying. What I am saying is that the rules have changed. He and all Alaskan "Residents" can piss and moan till the cows come home, and when it is all sorted out and done the Federal Government is the "BIG" dog. For decades the Federal Government has been, and will continue to steal States rights. (And this practice will accelerate)

    I don't have children, and my hunting days are mostly history at this point. To me the writing is clearly on the wall, and I see zero chance of a reversal. If I was a young man with a passion for hunting, I would take action at the individual level, to mitigate the impact of this unstoppable course of the future. Now, compound that reality with the nearly 100% expectation that there will be a fee to trespass (Read Hunt and/or Fish) on Native owned lands, and I would be mitigating this with the highest priority, at the individual level.

    Yes......overthrowing the United States Government is an option, but that will be crushed in minutes, if not seconds.

  4. #24
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear
    This is a huge problem for residents. This is what the RHAK should fighting and hopefully are


    RHAK has been fighting all of these special action requests, trying to get Alaskans to come together and recognize that when and if we have real biological concerns and potential to restrict resident hunting opportunities, bag limits etc, that if there is any nonresident allocation that needs to be the first component removed via Board of Game.

    Some may recall, RHAK had a proposal (105) before the BOG at the recent Fbks meeting over concerns with the Central Arctic Herd. Things were much worse than we had thought when we submitted the proposal last May. In October, ADFG announced that the herd had declined severely to less than half the previous estimate we were working with in May. Yet the Department still recommended to the Board a nonresident allocation with a projected 43% total harvest. We fought that at the meeting; I dedicated my entire testimony to it. 2 Board members agreed that was too high of a nonresident allocation, but five didn't, We lost that argument.

    This is the problem folks, even when the Board restricted the resident bag limit from 5 to 2 caribou (which we supported), and restricted cow harvest (which we supported), they went to a 1-caribou bag limit for nonresidents with a season that had a projected nonresident harvest of nearly half the total. That is just not right in our opinion.

    On the federal side, with these special action requests, the feds can't distinguish between residents and nonresidents, all they can do is distinguish between federally qualified subsistence users and non-federally qualified users. Any resident that doesn't live rural in the region is a non-federally qualified user, as is any nonresident.

    That brings us back to the current regs for the CAH that the board passed last month that allow for a projected 43% nonresident harvest. Rationale board gave for that allocation was to placate transporters and guides. Now if you're living up north and you were told the herd has declined by more than half in the last year and your bag limit went from 5 to 2, but they allowed a nonresident season and bag limit that would take nearly half the harvest ... and you're on a RAC up north, that may (justifiably) really tick you off and make you decide to go outside the BOG process.

    In closing, I have asked around and so far I don't see any movement on what the OP posted. Certainly appreciate him posting it! I'll try to get more info and we'll definitely do what we can to stop another special action request to restrict "non-locals" from participating in the CAH hunt on fed lands up north.

  5. #25
    Supporting Member zman313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    18

    Default

    As someone trying to keep an open mind I would say that NR''s never should have been allowed to shoot 5. But I will also tell you that there is more to it than percentages. Many families rely on bou for their families, be it as actual meat on the table or thru guiding, chartering, hunt planning ect. I completely understand why the BOG took into consideration NR hunting for the sake of those involed. The fact of the matter is the new bag limits under the new regs aren't going to decimate the herd any further. In the future bag limits for NR's should stay the same and Resident should go back to the original so long as the herd can support it.

    I also had a conversation with F&G and can confirm the OP statements. Any land owned by the FEDERAL government is at risk for being shut down to everyone other than LOCAL residents. Being that FEDERAL land is the property of all Americans, they all have a say and can use this land. Parks, preserves, refuges, ect, and should make their voice heard.
    I love Alaska, what it means and affords to Residents and Non residents, and if voices aren't heard all but a select few will be wishing we had said something. Not trying to rub anyone the wrong way. Just my thought as ignorant as it my seem.

  6. #26

    Default

    Mark. I don't have hard data. But I trust the tech. He frequents the areas where things come out. I felt compelled that rumor or no it needed to be aired. We can't let the USFWS dictate our land use. It clearly violates our statehood compact. RHAK definitely is the group that needs to have the information to prepare.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaboku68 View Post
    ......... We can't let the USFWS dictate our land use. It clearly violates our statehood compact .........
    To put it simply and without going into all sorts of previous legislation and consequential litigation, the Department of Interior has jurisdiction over the allocation of fish and game on Federal lands in Alaska. The State of Alaska must comply with Federal oversight, or be in violation of various parts of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (circa 1980). In times of shortage or in some cases, even a perceived shortage, the provisions within ANILCA kick in and allocations are ratcheted toward local users or restricted to local users. If the State doesn't comply with Federal law, then things such as the McDowell Case and the Katie John Case ensue and in the end, everyone loses. This is especially so for non-residents and/or residents who are far removed from a resource. Anyway, carry on.

  8. #28
    Member FairbanksFlies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick940 View Post
    To put it simply and without going into all sorts of previous legislation and consequential litigation, the Department of Interior has jurisdiction over the allocation of fish and game on Federal lands in Alaska. The State of Alaska must comply with Federal oversight, or be in violation of various parts of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (circa 1980). In times of shortage or in some cases, even a perceived shortage, the provisions within ANILCA kick in and allocations are ratcheted toward local users or restricted to local users. If the State doesn't comply with Federal law, then things such as the McDowell Case and the Katie John Case ensue and in the end, everyone loses. This is especially so for non-residents and/or residents who are far removed from a resource. Anyway, carry on.
    How does one arrive at a perceived shortage? It seems like there would either be a shortage or no shortage, and a set of biological criteria would be the basis for saying one way or the other. Right?

  9. #29
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FairbanksFlies View Post
    How does one arrive at a perceived shortage? It seems like there would either be a shortage or no shortage, and a set of biological criteria would be the basis for saying one way or the other. Right?
    Anecdotal information by locals of reduced harvests is how one arrives at "perceived" shortages. That is exactly what happened with unit 23. Despite actual numbers not quite being at the ACTUAL shortage level, testimony from area users carried the day and the Sub. Board ran with it. Or at least certain members of the subsistence board.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  10. #30
    Supporting Member zman313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Here's what the person I spoke with at F&G said about the shortage.... If a few thousand bou left the CAH and joined the PCH you would not notice much of an increase in that herd, conversely you would most certainly notice the decline in the CAH. Not to mention any that headed west. Seems like common sense, surely there is a more complicated reason.
    There's a comment by kaboku on another site about the herd being fine., I tend to agree.

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FairbanksFlies View Post
    How does one arrive at a perceived shortage? It seems like there would either be a shortage or no shortage, and a set of biological criteria would be the basis for saying one way or the other. Right?
    A reasonable person with common sense and logic would agree with you. However, the sad truth is that emotions, politics, and personal agendas always get in the way in decision making whether we like it or not. Seems like certain people are using the system to their advantage. Perhaps there is another way to handle this situation. How does ownership of land get determined in the first place? Perhaps the current status of the land that is deemed federal should be transferred over to state control so that reasonable people can manage the game and resources responsibly and fairly.

  12. #32

    Default

    Maybe the Federal Government being twenty trillion in debt, could start selling large track to wealthy individual hunters or wealthy hunting groups.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bushwhack Jack View Post
    A reasonable person with common sense and logic would agree with you. However, the sad truth is that emotions, politics, and personal agendas always get in the way in decision making whether we like it or not. Seems like certain people are using the system to their advantage. Perhaps there is another way to handle this situation. How does ownership of land get determined in the first place? Perhaps the current status of the land that is deemed federal should be transferred over to state control so that reasonable people can manage the game and resources responsibly and fairly.

  13. #33
    Supporting Member zman313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushwhack Jack View Post
    A reasonable person with common sense and logic would agree with you. However, the sad truth is that emotions, politics, and personal agendas always get in the way in decision making whether we like it or not. Seems like certain people are using the system to their advantage. Perhaps there is another way to handle this situation. How does ownership of land get determined in the first place? Perhaps the current status of the land that is deemed federal should be transferred over to state control so that reasonable people can manage the game and resources responsibly and fairly.
    The transfer of Federal land to State control is a major battle right now across many western states, especially Wyoming. Let's say all Federal land in AK is transferd to the state and for some reason they can't afford the tax burden or to maintain the land. Major land sale, and not a good one for those who enjoy using that land. I suggest that any sportsman that thinks this is a good idea throughly investigate for themselves the consequences of what would happen if that the state could not bear the burden of all that land. I personally don't think anyone realizes how much land that is in AK. Mind boggling amount!

  14. #34

    Default

    There are currently existing governments in Alaska, trying to get rid of excess land, because of the high cost of managing said land, and liability of ownership. There have been several tracks of thousands of acres sold to wealthy outsiders by local governments that need the money and can't properly police the land. Often this land sells very cheap on a per acre basis, but because of the hugeness the total amount is beyond the range of all but a few.

    Quote Originally Posted by zman313 View Post
    The transfer of Federal land to State control is a major battle right now across many western states, especially Wyoming. Let's say all Federal land in AK is transferd to the state and for some reason they can't afford the tax burden or to maintain the land. Major land sale, and not a good one for those who enjoy using that land. I suggest that any sportsman that thinks this is a good idea throughly investigate for themselves the consequences of what would happen if that the state could not bear the burden of all that land. I personally don't think anyone realizes how much land that is in AK. Mind boggling amount!

  15. #35
    Supporting Member zman313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Wrangell St Elias is over 13 million acres alone! Don't quote me but I believe Federally owned land is around 220 million acers.

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post


    RHAK has been fighting all of these special action requests, trying to get Alaskans to come together and recognize that when and if we have real biological concerns and potential to restrict resident hunting opportunities, bag limits etc, that if there is any nonresident allocation that needs to be the first component removed via Board of Game.

    Some may recall, RHAK had a proposal (105) before the BOG at the recent Fbks meeting over concerns with the Central Arctic Herd. Things were much worse than we had thought when we submitted the proposal last May. In October, ADFG announced that the herd had declined severely to less than half the previous estimate we were working with in May. Yet the Department still recommended to the Board a nonresident allocation with a projected 43% total harvest. We fought that at the meeting; I dedicated my entire testimony to it. 2 Board members agreed that was too high of a nonresident allocation, but five didn't, We lost that argument.

    This is the problem folks, even when the Board restricted the resident bag limit from 5 to 2 caribou (which we supported), and restricted cow harvest (which we supported), they went to a 1-caribou bag limit for nonresidents with a season that had a projected nonresident harvest of nearly half the total. That is just not right in our opinion.

    On the federal side, with these special action requests, the feds can't distinguish between residents and nonresidents, all they can do is distinguish between federally qualified subsistence users and non-federally qualified users. Any resident that doesn't live rural in the region is a non-federally qualified user, as is any nonresident.

    That brings us back to the current regs for the CAH that the board passed last month that allow for a projected 43% nonresident harvest. Rationale board gave for that allocation was to placate transporters and guides. Now if you're living up north and you were told the herd has declined by more than half in the last year and your bag limit went from 5 to 2, but they allowed a nonresident season and bag limit that would take nearly half the harvest ... and you're on a RAC up north, that may (justifiably) really tick you off and make you decide to go outside the BOG process.

    In closing, I have asked around and so far I don't see any movement on what the OP posted. Certainly appreciate him posting it! I'll try to get more info and we'll definitely do what we can to stop another special action request to restrict "non-locals" from participating in the CAH hunt on fed lands up north.
    Pretty sure this issue has nothing to do with non residents but somehow you turned it into that. Is this 43% the non residents take in the entire area where the herd travels or not. Does it add in local take in other subunits like 25a and other areas in 26

  17. #37

    Default

    Mark (RHAK), your points are good ones, but here's the flaw in your logic that resident priority over non-resident is what matters most when a resource gets squeezed:

    The state and the BOG considers the total contributions of the hunting economy when deciding allocations. Important considerations for any quota should include the legit breakdown of how many of each hunter group contributed to the overall harvest and hunting economy for that resource. Along the Dalton Hwy there's an almost equal distribution of non-resident and resident hunters, which means non-residents contribute MORE to Alaska's economy than residents (specific to the Dalton Highway discussion).

    With this knowledge, it is flawed to declare that residents should have allocations but non-residents should be cut out completely. No sir, that dog don't hunt.

    When restrictions must be applied, there needs to be protection for the hunting industry's non-resident component. There are consequences far deeper than your mission statement, Mark. It's not always appropriate for exercising the "residents first" thing, and this is one issue where I cannot support your group's position. Roughly 3000 hunters visit the Haul Rd corridor each year, and roughly half of those are non-residents who are there because the Dalton Highway represents the last remaining general harvest caribou hunt along a road system in this state. It's a special place and a great affordable hunt for many people. When declines like this occur, the responsible thing to do is ensure every hunter has at least some small opportunity to hunt on federal public lands and get to experience primitive recreation. Does RHAK think Alaskans should own this right completely? What about friends of residents or people who've always dreamed of coming North for a hunt on public lands...? Nah, that just ain't right to cut these guys out of the pie share.

    The announcement of the next WSA is about to get dropped on our laps. That means that GMU 23 (WSA 16-01 continued), GMU 26A, and GMU 26B caribou hunting on federal lands will be closed. Our focus should be to remove the power of these RACs to prevent future misuse of the terms of ANILCA, and demand that federal game management be returned to state authority.

    ABHA has been fighting these closures since spring of last year, and what we've learned is that by the time the public process is engaged, the decisions have been made and the FSB is just checking the box. When we testify at RACs, we're thanked for our comments as a courtesy. The RACs in this region are not acting responsibly and are without a true public voice...this has to be a congressional fight, not a social ploy for member support.

    In the interests of a compliment sandwich....We do really appreciate having RHAK get involved in this issue. Every voice will make a difference.

    Larry
    https://pristineventures.com

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Bartlett View Post
    Mark (RHAK), your points are good ones, but here's the flaw in your logic that resident priority over non-resident is what matters most when a resource gets squeezed:

    The state and the BOG considers the total contributions of the hunting economy when deciding allocations. Important considerations for any quota should include the legit breakdown of how many of each hunter group contributed to the overall harvest and hunting economy for that resource. Along the Dalton Hwy there's an almost equal distribution of non-resident and resident hunters, which means non-residents contribute MORE to Alaska's economy than residents (specific to the Dalton Highway discussion).

    With this knowledge, it is flawed to declare that residents should have allocations but non-residents should be cut out completely. No sir, that dog don't hunt.

    When restrictions must be applied, there needs to be protection for the hunting industry's non-resident component. There are consequences far deeper than your mission statement, Mark. It's not always appropriate for exercising the "residents first" thing, and this is one issue where I cannot support your group's position. Roughly 3000 hunters visit the Haul Rd corridor each year, and roughly half of those are non-residents who are there because the Dalton Highway represents the last remaining general harvest caribou hunt along a road system in this state. It's a special place and a great affordable hunt for many people. When declines like this occur, the responsible thing to do is ensure every hunter has at least some small opportunity to hunt on federal public lands and get to experience primitive recreation. Does RHAK think Alaskans should own this right completely? What about friends of residents or people who've always dreamed of coming North for a hunt on public lands...? Nah, that just ain't right to cut these guys out of the pie share.

    The announcement of the next WSA is about to get dropped on our laps. That means that GMU 23 (WSA 16-01 continued), GMU 26A, and GMU 26B caribou hunting on federal lands will be closed. Our focus should be to remove the power of these RACs to prevent future misuse of the terms of ANILCA, and demand that federal game management be returned to state authority.

    ABHA has been fighting these closures since spring of last year, and what we've learned is that by the time the public process is engaged, the decisions have been made and the FSB is just checking the box. When we testify at RACs, we're thanked for our comments as a courtesy. The RACs in this region are not acting responsibly and are without a true public voice...this has to be a congressional fight, not a social ploy for member support.

    In the interests of a compliment sandwich....We do really appreciate having RHAK get involved in this issue. Every voice will make a difference.

    Larry
    Much respect to you !!

  19. #39
    Member Kickrjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    10

    Default Unit 26 RAC wants to close Central Arctic Herd no Haul Road Caribou

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushwhack Jack View Post
    A reasonable person with common sense and logic would agree with you. However, the sad truth is that emotions, politics, and personal agendas always get in the way in decision making whether we like it or not. Seems like certain people are using the system to their advantage. Perhaps there is another way to handle this situation. How does ownership of land get determined in the first place? Perhaps the current status of the land that is deemed federal should be transferred over to state control so that reasonable people can manage the game and resources responsibly and fairly.
    The transfer of federal lands to state ownership will only serve to fast track people buying up rights to it and restricting access. The view you have is exactly what they want you to think until after it happens and then they are in their "legal right" to sell it off to the highest bidder and you are left wondering what the hell just happened to my public lands?

    Anyone who recreates in this state in any capacity on public lands needs to be informed on this issue on not just talking points. It is a terrifying thought to loose this because if it ever happens, and I pray it does not, then it will not be a reversible thing.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  20. #40

    Default

    Well, I guess there is always the option of paying the Native Corporations $5,000.-- per year, per person for trespass rights. There is a "Rule" called the "Golden Rule"........and it goes like this, "The man with the Gold makes the rules" or "The man with the Land controls the land".

    Your going to loose this fight, little by little, a nibble here and a nibble there, and soon it is all gone. What is the plan for The Federal Government restricting sounds above a given decibel on Federal Lands, because it disturbs the animals and other users of the land (Local Subsistence hunters exempt).

    I am not trying to piss into anyone's cereal bowl, just take an honest look at which way this train is moving, and is picking up speed. Figure out how to avoid getting run over. Don't be the frog in the cartoon that is giving the middle finger to the hawk with its talons extended. This is the Federal Government of The United States of America........not the "Bake Sale" committee of the local PTA in backwater USA.

    One final thought, dividing up fairly that which no longer exists, or is rapidly shrinking, ain't the solution your looking for.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •