Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: Proposal to close caribou and moose hunting on federal land in Unit 13

  1. #41
    Member Arcticwildman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strangerinastrangeland View Post
    That would be all of them.

    Anyone who boarders Fed lands is a local voice, and who better to speak up? These folks here, and those who live in any other area being Federally managed should get a say. Seems right to me.


    If Your, mine, theirs, or our lands, or CityCorp owned lands, Gerneral Foods Corp owned lands, Native tribal lands,etc, etc, etc, have a backyard that is Federal lands and a specific species is low in numbers, itÂ’s already that way, on all Fed lands. Closing such to everyone but subsistence for locals is the first step toward a closure....
    ItÂ’s policy and procedure for the Feds.

    If the lands in which private, or commonly owned or Corporation, Native Tribal lands, or Wallmart land or Honda corps owned lands, etc,etc,etc,etc, etc, etc,..........boarders State lands that have State management, they wonÂ’t, because when they restrict lands to only subsistence use, all Alaskan residents can still access them. That would still be the first step toward closure as well.
    ItÂ’s State law.


    In unit 23, there is exactly one village in the Noatak National Preserve, less than 600 people, right smack in the middle of them lands and itÂ’s citizens got to comment, as well as have their representation speak up for them in NANA.


    Unit 23 is vast, and if hunting sucks on the neighbors good lookinÂ’ green grass, I quit looking......there other places IÂ’d hunt, simply to be successful.

    This thread is 49 years too late, so if weÂ’re looking for change, gotta start with Congress, who lift their fingers to work for the better of this country about as often as a 13 th Moon
    It is not 49 years too late. This has only become an issue in the past few years with the flat out abuse of the federal directives for rural preference that took place. There was ZERO justification for the unit 23 closure. The non local harvest was barely even enough to measure. ADF&G came out and said there was no reason for it and did not support it. It was purely a power play by a certain group of people thanks to the political climate that exists in our country.

    This new proposal is just more of the same abuse of the system that will continue until somebody with enough money and/or political knowledge stands up and takes this to the supreme court. I have zero faith in congress having the balls to do anything except to continue to pander to the special interests that started this mess.

  2. #42
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,278

    Default

    The proposal has not been made yet. The meeting in Copper Center is to take public testimony on the proposal. You should be able to call in.
    This will be a "special action request" to the Federal subsistence board. The Board ONLY has jurisdiction over FEDERAL land. It does not have jurisdiction over private land (Native Corp. lands are private). It does not have jurisdiction over state lands. This proposal would create a patchwork of areas closed to non subsistence users. It would likely be a big mess for enforcement. It would be a big mess for F&G.
    Call the area bio for F&G and see if the state will be attending the meeting in Copper Center.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcticwildman View Post
    It is not 49 years too late. This has only become an issue in the past few years with the flat out abuse of the federal directives for rural preference that took place. There was ZERO justification for the unit 23 closure. The non local harvest was barely even enough to measure. ADF&G came out and said there was no reason for it and did not support it. It was purely a power play by a certain group of people thanks to the political climate that exists in our country.

    This new proposal is just more of the same abuse of the system that will continue until somebody with enough money and/or political savvy stands up and takes this to the supreme court.
    I want to say up front, I mean zero offense. And I get your extremely upset. I think you have been misled about, or are confused about the origin of, or the history of this. I agree with you and others......this sucks, it is unfair, bla-bla-bla, I also think you and others have zero chance of making this corrected.......zero.

    But to even grasp what you are up against to rectify this wrong, you and others need to fully understand the history and origin of this. Simply going on a forum and being pissed is beyond useless. First......fully comprehend this is not a "Native" issue. Yes it look like that, but it is not.

    Want proof........ am not Alaska Native.......I live in unit #7 where I think everyone in unit #7 qualifies for Federal (hunting-fishing-trapping) Subsistence. What if I request that only Unit #7 residents can hunt here, in unit #7.

  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NorthWest Alaska
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcticwildman View Post
    It is not 49 years too late. This has only become an issue in the past few years with the flat out abuse of the federal directives for rural preference that took place. There was ZERO justification for the unit 23 closure. The non local harvest was barely even enough to measure. ADF&G came out and said there was no reason for it and did not support it. It was purely a power play by a certain group of people thanks to the political climate that exists in our country.

    This new proposal is just more of the same abuse of the system that will continue until somebody with enough money and/or political knowledge stands up and takes this to the supreme court. I have zero faith in congress having the balls to do anything except to continue to pander to the special interests that started this mess.
    Congress is truly about useless, that I agree with.


    Read some history, and find your comment time for Federal subsistence guidelines was over in 1970.

    Not to argue, but it is history.

    1971 was also the year the Marine Mammal Protection aft came into law, using the three tier system of qualifying resource use.

    It’s basically dependent on available target species, be it animals or fish ; Commercial/subsistence only/closed to all.

    https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/library/history

  5. #45
    Member logman 49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Just South of Moose Pass
    Posts
    386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    WOW..........I thought Seward, Alaska was bigger. I just checked and the population is: 2,786 and that means everyone in Game Unit #7 qualifies for Federal Subsistence lifestyle hunting and fishing. What a great place to live. Don't know if I ever mentioned the waterfalls on 16 acres.....for sale.
    I don't believe this is true, don't think either Moose Pass or Seward are eligible for subsistence. Hope, Cooper Landing and the place of your abode are however.

  6. #46

    Default

    Well.......you may correct. I had the understanding, any town or city, with a population below 5,000 that everyone qualifies for Federal (hunting-fishing-trapping) Subsistence.

    Would someone please address this.......???



    Quote Originally Posted by logman 49 View Post
    I don't believe this is true, don't think either Moose Pass or Seward are eligible for subsistence. Hope, Cooper Landing and the place of your abode are however.

  7. #47
    Member Arcticwildman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    Well.......you may correct. I had the understanding, any town or city, with a population below 5,000 that everyone qualifies for Federal (hunting-fishing-trapping) Subsistence.

    Would someone please address this.......???
    DOI website lists non rural areas on various maps. Seward is considered non rural along with Moose Pass. I need to make my property in the Caribou Hills my legal address so I can request that it be limited to locals only so I have my own private hunting area.

    https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/non-rural-area-maps

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NorthWest Alaska
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Wildman, you can have a postal address, AND a physical address, as I live roughly 90 miles from my P.O. Box, and I have a history of hunting here, there and in between my camps.
    I reside 4-1/2 to 5 months of the year, fall time on Kobuk River and 7 or so on the Kiwalik River.

    If you live in the Caribou Hills, your comments to the Feds would be heavy in sway, in decisions on Federally administers lands there.

    You can have your subsistence and eat it too
    If you can't Kill it with a 30-06, you should Hide.

    "Dam it all", The Beaver told me.....

  9. #49
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcticwildman View Post
    DOI website lists non rural areas on various maps. Seward is considered non rural along with Moose Pass. I need to make my property in the Caribou Hills my legal address so I can request that it be limited to locals only so I have my own private hunting area.
    https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/non-rural-area-maps

    I would suggest u do a study of the Kenai Fed areas that would be your ‘opportunity’ spots down this way. Also a quick study of the opportunities that would present themselves if u were registered at caribou hills. I think what u will find is virtually NO extra or special hunt opportunities other than some better moose opportunity. All other hunt opportunities are identical to State rules.
    With regard to fishing opportunities, there is SOME bennies, but once again, with State rules being what they currently are there is little to get excited about. State opportunities virtually match the Fed rules.
    Being listed as a subsistence person on the Pen does not extend subsistence rights to other parts of the state. Further, Fed areas on the Pen are relatively tough to access (with a couple exceptions). It’s not like where StrangerInA... resides and has a huge territory to hunt and a many more game animals to take.
    It may very well not be worth your bother to even fill out the pprwrk.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!
    WWG1WGA! QANON

  10. #50
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    Well.......you may correct. I had the understanding, any town or city, with a population below 5,000 that everyone qualifies for Federal (hunting-fishing-trapping) Subsistence.

    Would someone please address this.......???
    Not true at all. I qualify for many subsistence opportunities, but I can't subsistence hunt caribou in Unit 13 even though it is less than 10 air miles from me, while residents of Delta can. I can go hunt wolves on Prince of Wales Island for a longer time period than a resident of Anchorage can.. (go figure). Here's some light reading for you... https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/fi...inal_web_0.pdf
    Bunny Boots and Bearcats: Utility Sled Mayhem

  11. #51
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,395

    Default

    I guess I may have to revise my statement that I said in my last post....
    “Being listed as a subsistence person on the Pen does not extend subsistence rights to other parts of the state.”
    It appears in some cases it does extend to other units. I know the few times I checked into interests of mine in other units I could not participate.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!
    WWG1WGA! QANON

  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    77

    Default

    population thresholds are a component of the process, but the rural determination decision is under the perview of the Federal subsistence board.

    The board is also permitted to take into account rural characteristics, local economy, distance to a grocery store, number of students of workers commuting, and number of students in the school. Moose Pass was lumped into seward because a lot of people commute there to work. The population of seward and moose pass, and the residents in between (i think) is above 5,000. On the other hand, Bethel has a population well above 5,000 people, and they are still considered rural.

    There is a proposal to lump moose pass into the rural area. it will be addressed in 2020. Also, i think the board has to re-evaluate rural determinations after every census.

  13. #53

    Default

    Okay, back to the original subject at hand - this proposal is basically seeking to make Unit 13 exclusively allowed for hunting by residents of Unit 13, seeing as most (if not all) of them would qualify for federal subsistence hunts.

    I talked to F&G today in Glenallen and a few things were confirmed, although they were not allowed to speak to any official stance on this.

    1. They just finished typing their response to it, which seeks to clarify a lot of misinformation in the proposal itself.
    2. If passed, the action would only apply to federal lands, which I was told are a very, very small part of Unit 13.
    3. This has nothing to do with native lands or organizations.
    4. Even if this passes, the state of Alaska, troopers and F&G would not be able to enforce anything since they have no jurisdiction on federal lands.

    Those were the main points given in the conversation, although when I made clear my opposition and concerns, I was encouraged to call in and give my opinion on the matter "if I feel strongly about it."

    I will call in on principal because this should not pass, although at this point it seems like a narrow-reaching action that isn't enforceable anyway.

  14. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post
    Okay, back to the original subject at hand - this proposal is basically seeking to make Unit 13 exclusively allowed for hunting by residents of Unit 13, seeing as most (if not all) of them would qualify for federal subsistence hunts.
    you know that's not correct, right?

    GMU13.jpg

    The topic of the thread concerns ONLY the lands depicted in orange. Its a relatively small portion of Unit 13. I"m not saying i'm for or against this, but i want to listen to this meeting and possibly provide testimony without having to listen to a bunch of fools calling in spouting off about their hunting right to an entire GMU. It's neither here nor there.

  15. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Explorer View Post

    4. Even if this passes, the state of Alaska, troopers and F&G would not be able to enforce anything since they have no jurisdiction on federal land.
    .

    Strange, Not how it works on Federal Land here. Federal LEO and State LEO both investigate and enforce here Chugach National Forest.

  16. #56
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    2,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redmammoth View Post
    you know that's not correct, right?

    GMU13.jpg

    The topic of the thread concerns ONLY the lands depicted in orange. Its a relatively small portion of Unit 13. I"m not saying i'm for or against this, but i want to listen to this meeting and possibly provide testimony without having to listen to a bunch of fools calling in spouting off about their hunting right to an entire GMU. It's neither here nor there.
    Yep....
    ....the 5,000+ state-qualified (Tier, Community), urban subsistence hunters don't want the very few federally-qualified, rural subsistence hunters to be able to have priority on those postage stamp- sized parcels because "principal"....LMAO....
    "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  17. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redmammoth View Post
    you know that's not correct, right?

    GMU13.jpg

    The topic of the thread concerns ONLY the lands depicted in orange. Its a relatively small portion of Unit 13. I"m not saying i'm for or against this, but i want to listen to this meeting and possibly provide testimony without having to listen to a bunch of fools calling in spouting off about their hunting right to an entire GMU. It's neither here nor there.
    that’s just my take. I don’t know what’s right or wrong because I don’t know the intentions in the mind of the man who is proposing this. I do know that when you go to the interior page and read about it (the link in the original post) it doesn’t mention federal lands only, so my feeling is the intent was for all of 13, as crazy as that would be.

    I also don’t know how things work as far as enforcement on federal lands - I just know what i was told by the F&G in Glenallen, and that was that this would be on small pieces of land and ultimately unenforceable.

    just sharing what I learned in a conversation - don’t shoot the messenger

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •