Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: A Call for Matt Robus Resignation

  1. #1
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Arrow A Call for Matt Robus Resignation

    Based on what I have read in the ADN today and the recent Alaska Supreme Court decision, I am calling for Mr. Robus to step down IMMEDIATLY!

    He does not care about the interests of Alaskans or hunters.

    As I have stated on another thread.


    Rick Riddel this morning had a good point: Solve the situation and scrap tier II and go to a lottery/draw tags. Tier II violates the Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section I, every Alaskan is equal! Tier II discriminates based on a zip code and income. What do you think would happen if they treated the PFD as Tier II?

    "Officials plan to present the Game Board with options to reword that question, said Matt Robus, director of the state's wildlife conservation division."

    What the hell is this?? I am calling for Mr. Robus resignation!!

    Mr. Robus is part of the problem! Look on page 3 the message from Robus. He states that the ADF&G does 3 things:

    1. Conduct "survey and inventory" operations across the state in order to determine the number and characteristics of wild animals using various habitats,

    2. Using the result of those surveys we develop estimates of how many animals can be safely harvested from each wildlife population,

    3. division works to give hunters knowledge about how and where to conduct their hunts in a safe, effective manner.


    When was the last time surveys were done? 10 or 15 years ago?

    Lets solve the tier II crap by eliminating tier II and let's get some folks in ADF&G (upper management) that care about our State Constitution and get back to a “sustain yield!”

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default I may be ignorant....

    but why does the state even attempt to offer subsistence hunts on state land? We already have dual management and a federal priority, so why does the state even need to consider, let alone provide, subsistence opportunities in the Nelchina Basin?

    BTW, nice rant!

    Tim

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    158

    Default



    ...he resigns at the end of the month..

  4. #4
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default negative comments

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBassking View Post

    He does not care about the interests of Alaskans or hunters.



    Mr. Robus is part of the problem!



    From my experience on this forum, the 2 above statements are "negative comments" and not allowed on here. I assume they will be deleted??
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  5. #5

    Default

    I'm with you emotionally, but in his defense he (like a lot of first year appointees) is playing the hand dealt to him from last year-i.e. the prior administration in effect. Not knowing him from Adam, I suppose in this regard he & F & G get the benefit of the doubt to get it right this year or burn forever-along with the BOG which approves the recommendations!

  6. #6
    Member 8x57 Mauser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southeast Alaska
    Posts
    513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBassking View Post
    When was the last time surveys were done? 10 or 15 years ago?
    If you look here: http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt I think you'll see that surveys are done roughly every other year, and there's about a 2-year delay in crunching and analyzing the numbers to get the management reports published. Ballpark.

  7. #7
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    From my experience on this forum, the 2 above statements are "negative comments" and not allowed on here. I assume they will be deleted??

    I don't feel they are negative. They are a fact based on the evidance at hand.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  8. #8
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jomama View Post


    ...he resigns at the end of the month..

    That would be great. I hope we can get someone in there that can do the job for Alaskans! Thanks

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Default Revise not scrap

    I think that there is some merit to the Teir II hunts. While the system is flawed I think that it also is important for the people near the Teir II animals to have a greater chance to harvest from the local resources. I'm not near a lot of the Teir II areas but I know that if my plans were to subsist off a particular source of game meat but I had to compete with people from anywhere in the world to do it I would be upset. The Teir II animals are a resource not just a hunt to a lot of people. So instead of scrapping the Teir II system I think it needs to be revised so that the people that directly benifit and depend on those animals still have a chance.

  10. #10
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 8x57 Mauser View Post
    If you look here: http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.mgt I think you'll see that surveys are done roughly every other year, and there's about a 2-year delay in crunching and analyzing the numbers to get the management reports published. Ballpark.

    Are these accurate numbers? Or just an estamate based on previous years? It was my understanding that ADF&G hasn't done any accurate studies or surveys in quite a number of years. Am I wrong here?

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  11. #11
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBoater View Post
    I think that there is some merit to the Teir II hunts. While the system is flawed I think that it also is important for the people near the Teir II animals to have a greater chance to harvest from the local resources. I'm not near a lot of the Teir II areas but I know that if my plans were to subsist off a particular source of game meat but I had to compete with people from anywhere in the world to do it I would be upset. The Teir II animals are a resource not just a hunt to a lot of people. So instead of scrapping the Teir II system I think it needs to be revised so that the people that directly benifit and depend on those animals still have a chance.

    These folks have federal subsistence areas.

    I believe that all Alaskans are equal under the Constitution and to save money, agony and all this litigation, Tier II hunts should be eliminated. Every Alaskan should have an EQUAL opportunity to hunt game in Alaska. A lottery type hunt for those areas that can not support a general hunt is the ONLY way to afford equal opportunity for all Alaskans regardless of income or place of residence.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  12. #12
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    .....why does the state even attempt to offer subsistence hunts on state land?....
    The current state subsistence programs began with state attempts to satisfy the federal subsistence entitlement written into ANILCA. Since that federal requirement was based on where the resident lives, there was a suit brought by Sam McDowell which resulted in a ruling that subsistenced based on where the resident lived was unconstitutional (and which proves that Congress violated the Alaska Statehood Act with passage of ANILCA).

    There have been other challenges and various opinions which have cumulatively resulted in state Supreme Court rulings which support the constitutionality of subsistence.

    ....We already have dual management and a federal priority, so why does the state even need to consider, let alone provide, subsistence opportunities in the Nelchina Basin?...
    There's the rub. We've lost multiple times:

    1) We allowed the Alaska Statehood Act to be violated by Congress without challenging it in SCOTUS

    2) We've dug ourselves way over our heads trying to appease the urban/rural demands of ANILCA (which was the violation of The Alaska Statehood Act)

    3) Now we're stuck not only with dual management but dual subsistence programs, neither of which are needed, and which are simply a double entitlement for a minority of residents

  13. #13
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default Thanks, Mark....

    I get that and understand the subsistence dilema between the state and feds, but I'm hung up on why we must provide subsistence on state land. Is it because the AK Supreme Court said it is constitutional to provide subsistence? And...Is that a mandate to provide subsistence on state lands by the AK Supreme Court?

    Why haven't we taken ANILCA to court?

    Tim

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Bassking...with all due respect

    ...I guess it was more of inside knowledge that Robus was retiring next month. Our org has been working on proposing a hunting license/tag fee increase for the next legislative session in order to fully fund ADFG. They haven't had a license/tag increase since 1993. They don't have the required funds to do all the density estimates and surveys they need to do in some areas; they don't pay a commensurate salary to bios compared to what the feds offer; they are understaffed and overworked and must bicker between themselves over the limited amount of funding they do have. Contrary to what most people think, the pred-control programs cost the Department a lot of money because they must (or in some cases, should) do density estimates, surveys, habitat studies etc.

    Overall, what I notice on this board is that many hunters are misinformed on how our system works and which entity sets seasons, bag limits, etc. The Board of Game decides all that, ostensibly with input from ADFG professionals, advisory committees, and the general public. The Tier decisions were not made by ADFG. None of them were. They may have recommended certain aspects, but the Board of Game doesn't have to heed their recommendations, and in many cases doesn't. When issues like new Tier regs come up, the Board of Game asks for the input of ADFG and the input of hunters and advisory committees. ADFG does do survey and inventories of game populations and does provide that data to the BOG so that they can best determine harvestable surplus of wildlife populations and then award permits, tags, make an area a general hunt or Tier hunt.

    Tim, there are many reasons we have not taken ANILCA to court, too much to go into now, and I'm sure many will place the blame squarely on Tony Knowles, but the Murkowski administration also was asked to join the Bondurant case but refused. Just like the Manning case in the state of Alaska, there are often negative repercussions to the outcomes of court cases. They are risky to pursue in that if things don't go your way, you could be screwed even more, just like the Manning decision that will further allow the state to judge eligibility of Tier hunts on income. I see Mr. Manning has recenty stated here that he did not really say what the court documents say he argued. If he reads this, I challenge him to provide the court transcripts that document he did not argue that income was a valid way to decide one aspect of who receives Tier permits.

  15. #15
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    I get that and understand the subsistence dilema between the state and feds, but I'm hung up on why we must provide subsistence on state land. Is it because the AK Supreme Court said it is constitutional to provide subsistence?...
    I am not aware of a specific statement which states that without question. If I looked at all state Supreme Court subsistence decisions, I'll bet I'll find a few. However, the bulk of opinions have clearly gone in that direction.

    For example, this from the recent Manning decision:

    ...D. Equal Protection Analysis

    McDowell’s demanding scrutiny and close scrutiny tests both require that
    restrictions on access to natural resources serve an important purpose. One purpose of
    Alaska’s subsistence statute and its implementing regulations is to ensure that Alaskans
    who need to engage in subsistence hunting and fishing in order to provide for their basic
    necessities are able to do so. In McDowell, we held that this interest is an “important” 38
    one for the purposes of an equal protection analysis. We therefore must determine the 39
    fit between this important interest and the criteria challenged by Manning — the game
    ratio, the cost of food score, and the cost of gasoline score
    .....
    Nowhere can I find any wording by the state Supreme Court in any decision which states that a subsistence priority is in and of itself improper.

    ...And...Is that a mandate to provide subsistence on state lands by the AK Supreme Court?...
    The Alaska subsistence programs do not differentiate between state or other public lands.

    The reason ANILCA is specific to federal lands is (IMO) because if they tried to push this onto state lands under a federal management scheme it would be challenged, and they would lose it all.

    This is all about access. That is what ANILCA was all about. It was a huge law written for the environmental community, and subsistence is a tool which limits hunting opportunities for "city folk".

    This can't be denied by anybody with any sense at all. The primary sponsor of ANILCA, Morris Udall, Congressman from Arizona and member of the Udall political dynasty, was not embarrassed at all in admitting his ties to environmentalism and fanaticism toward Native American issues, despite the fact that ANCSA was crafted differently than any other treaty between the United States and aboriginal Americans.

    In essence, Udall sought the desires (not necessarily the needs) of Alaska Natives and environmentalists, and to Hell with The Alaska Statehood Act, Alaskans as a whole, and Alaska state affairs forever.

    He was a classic political animal, more concerned with his own legacy and that of his aristocratic family than the benefit of the people as a whole.

    ...Why haven't we taken ANILCA to court?...
    Governor Hickel did challenge ANILCA in State of Alaska v Babbitt, which Governor Knowles (beholdened to the Bush vote) promptly dropped with prejudice (which means it cannot be re-initiated). In other words, treason.

    Review the history of subsistence in Alaska here.

  16. #16
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Just like the Manning case in the state of Alaska, there are often negative repercussions to the outcomes of court cases. They are risky to pursue in that if things don't go your way, you could be screwed even more, just like the Manning decision that will further allow the state to judge eligibility of Tier hunts on income.
    Thanks for the info Mark and Bushrat....

    Good point, I remember this from the Manning thread. The outcome of the case may not go your way and could futher muddle the subsistence debate...

    Thanks for reminding me about AK vs Babbit, I remember that now...I'll check out your link too..

    Tim

  17. #17
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Smile No Offense Taken

    BushRat,

    Thank you and I was hoping you would chime in.

    I still believe we should end all Tier II hunts as they are unconstitutional and make it a lottery/draw.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  18. #18

    Default Manning decision had nothing to do with income

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    Thanks for the info Mark and Bushrat....

    Good point, I remember this from the Manning thread. The outcome of the case may not go your way and could futher muddle the subsistence debate...

    Tim
    The recent Supreme Court decision upholding Manning v ADFG, had nothing to do with income in the new regs. The lower court decision did not rule on income as neither party included income in the complaint claims. And neither Manning nor the State included income in their statment of points on appeal to the Supreme Court, thus there was no ruling on income. The lower court decision was affirmed 100%, thats it. The Alaska BOG decided in March 2007 to put income in the new regs, thus decided long before the decision in the Manning case, to put income into the new regs for 2007. The BOG has considered many times in the past to consider income, but now they have put it only in the Unit 13 Tier II Caribou hunt, no other Tier II hunt in Alaska has it.

  19. #19

    Default Manning clarification:

    [quote=Mark;122913]I am not aware of a specific statement which states that without question. If I looked at all state Supreme Court subsistence decisions, I'll bet I'll find a few. However, the bulk of opinions have clearly gone in that direction.

    For example, this from the recent Manning decision:
    In McDowell, we held that this interest is an “important” 38
    one for the purposes of an equal protection analysis. We therefore must determine the 39
    fit between this important interest and the criteria challenged by Manning — the game
    ratio, the cost of food score, and the cost of gasoline score
    .....

    quote]
    It is interesting to note the Alaska Supreme Court did not address the merits of my challenge on the three community-based criteria, that collectively and cumulatively they controlled eligibility by community of residency. Under a true McDowell analysis, which the court did NOT do, all three of the questions should have been looked at cumulatively in the permit process and struck down, and that would have meant a major re-doing the entire Tier II permits, or struck it down all together. The court didn't dare address the true merits of the case. Similarly, the regulations allowing community based points for gas, groceries, and game alternative ratio, were all challenged as violating the enabling statute which does NOT have the words "community based" or "applicants community of residency criteria," thus all three clearly violate the intent of the enabling statute and Tier II should have been struck down, but again the court did not address the merits of the case. After three years, the Alaska Supreme Court opinion was one of the worst I have ever seen, totally ignoring the true merits of the case, and repeatedly stating worthless dictum about other cases without analyzing the issues and facts at bar to justify conclusions of law. The partial dissent Justice Mathews, who was very much in full favor of Manning (i.e., he was NOT speaking against Manning, but against the court majority opinion), clearly stated the three criteria violated the intent of the enabling statute and that all three should have been struck down. It was a very divided court, the majority decision gave very little consideration of the true merits, and what took three years to write should have taken 3 weeks or less, ie, simply affirm the lower court 100%. But we must read between the lines of what the court said, or didn't say, and this court is very dangerously close to overruling McDowell and going totally with native rural preference. The next case it receives will probably not only do away with Tier II Subsistence hunts, but will grant rural preference.

  20. #20

    Default Manning Reply, counter challenge!

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    ...They are risky to pursue in that if things don't go your way, you could be screwed even more, just like the Manning decision that will further allow the state to judge eligibility of Tier hunts on income. I see Mr. Manning has recenty stated here that he did not really say what the court documents say he argued. If he reads this, I challenge him to provide the court transcripts that document he did not argue that income was a valid way to decide one aspect of who receives Tier permits.
    As I stated earlier, I did not argue that income was a better way to determine indivdual ability. The lower court transcripts and pleadings constitute about 8 reams of paper. Income was not in my complaint claims in the lower court, nor either party's statement of points on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's dictum about how income should NOT be used, was all thrown out or disagreed by the BOG for the last year as shown by the new regs in March 2007; thus the dictum (BS) was not bought by the BOG or the AG's office, long before the Manning decision on July 6, 2007. So BushRat, I challenge you to find anywhere in the courts' records to show where I did agrue for income as a better criteria for individual ability, because it just isn't there. You are simply looking for someone to blame the income regulation on, and well its just not that simple. It should be obvious to all that the BOG has been trying for years to get rid of us old timers in the Unit 13 Tier II Caribou Nelchina hunt and put some new people in there, well "income" is the BOG answer, they totally ignored the Alaska Supreme Court's dictum in Manning v ADFG! And guess what, the income reg will stand until some again tries to strike down the Tier II regulations cumulatively violating equal protections, not one by one, like income alone. And I suspect the BOG will periodicly decrease the income level to keep up with inflation, and to make sure all the old timers are moved out. But then all the BOG has to do is just point the sheep to the cliff, and let them go ..... .

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •