Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: wildlife assets bill

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I am Valley trash.
    Posts
    589

    Default wildlife assets bill

    Just got this email and thought I would past it on.

    Subject: Wildlife Assets Bill


    Friends and interested parties,

    Please contact your legislators in support of HB348. This bill is very important to preserve the integrity of the Advisory Committee and Boards process. We have the most open and public wildlife management process in the nation. We have 80+ freely elected advisory committees and and Boards of Game and Fish that hear hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of public testimony annually. Radical environmentalists have attempted to, once again, circumvent the process by ballot initiative.

    This time it is wolves, last time it was bear baiting, next time it may be commercial fishing, or trapping.

    HB 348 will clarify wildlife as an "asset" of the state similar to the permanent fund, and other resource assets. Case law and the Constitution already strongly support this position, yet we keep spending millions of dollars fighting "Ballot Box Biology". This bill will put to rest, once and for all, these initiative to remove valuable management tools from ADF&G.

    This bill will strike a devastating blow to radicals that would like to see the Alaskan way of life replaced with the "urban environmentalist" lifestyle.

    The other side is very well organized and has already mounted a huge campaign to defeat this bill.

    If there was ever a time for subsistence users and sportsmen to come together and make their voices heard, this is it!

    It only takes two minutes to send a message to all legislators at the link below.
    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/poms/

    The bill may be read at this link.
    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/g...25&bill=hb+348

    Regards,

    Aaron Bloomquist
    Chair - Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee


    "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate."
    -Thomas Jefferson


    "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." -Teddy Roosevelt 1912

  2. #2
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    I've heard of this. Legislation supposedly has been passed in the House this session and Senate action is near which will support the management for abundance goal.

    It has been kept somewhat quiet in order not to alarm the environmental kooks into mobilizing against it. I heard Paul Joslin just got wind of it being pushed here.

    Their goal is to manage for abundance. This goal fits with the Alaska Constitution. Other states (most recently, Utah) had to undergo constitutional amendments in order to manage for abundance.

  3. #3
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    I'm waiting for Homerdave to chime in on this one!
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  4. #4

    Default OK....so they figured it out in Utah.

    and amended their constitution.

    We already have it in our constitution to manage our resource for the benfit of the people.

    Why do we need this bill?

    And, if game is an asset, and I believe it is..........and guides are selling the asset, shouldn't guides have been paying for what they are taking.

    Should that "take" tax be a part of this bill?

    If guides got their hands on the permanent fund and decided to "take" some of that asset we would not need a bill or constitutional amendment to tell us what to do about it? Again.........why do we need this bill?

    This bill, the active management bill (that leaves sheep and goats "out" of the active management equation and considers the resource as one allocation.........meaning the guides, nonresidents, residents and subsistence users are all equal) the exclusive guide lease areas being adjudicated by DNR now and the 10 or so other bills that are before the legislature havening to do with game are all being driven by the commercial hunting interest; for their interest first.

    A sheep, or a brown bear harvest by a nonresident is an asset of the states worth about $5,000.00.

    Of the 1,500 or so sheep and bears harvested by guides last year thats about $7.5 million to "us".

    When are they going to pay "us" for the asset they take?


  5. #5
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    OK....so they figured it out in Utah.
    and amended their constitution.

    We already have it in our constitution to manage our resource for the benfit of the people.

    Why do we need this bill?....
    For the same reason why the guides got guide requirements for brown bear, Dall sheep, and goat for non-residents legislated into law; it's more difficult to screw with than regulations enacted by the Board of Game.

    ....And, if game is an asset, and I believe it is..........and guides are selling the asset, shouldn't guides have been paying for what they are taking.....
    Because nobody has been successful yet taxing the guides for their profiting on the assets. In that respect, mining companies, logging companies, and just about every other resource profiteers don't pay enough in taxes, either (with the most notable exception of the oil and gas industry).

    ....Should that "take" tax be a part of this bill?....
    That's exactly why movement has been kept quiet by advocates; to avoid people screwing with it.

    ....If guides got their hands on the permanent fund and decided to "take" some of that asset we would not need a bill or constitutional amendment to tell us what to do about it? Again.........why do we need this bill?....
    For the same reason why the guides got guide requirements for brown bear, Dall sheep, and goat for non-residents legislated into law; it's more difficult to screw with than regulations enacted by the Board of Game.

    ....This bill, the active management bill (that leaves sheep and goats "out" of the active management equation and considers the resource as one allocation.........meaning the guides, nonresidents, residents and subsistence users are all equal) the exclusive guide lease areas being adjudicated by DNR now and the 10 or so other bills that are before the legislature havening to do with game are all being driven by the commercial hunting interest; for their interest first....
    My understanding is that it was being driven to reduce pressure on the Board of Game system when dealing with intensive predator management. Manage for abundance allows intensive predator management legislatively.

    ....A sheep, or a brown bear harvest by a nonresident is an asset of the states worth about $5,000.00.

    Of the 1,500 or so sheep and bears harvested by guides last year thats about $7.5 million to "us".

    When are they going to pay "us" for the asset they take?
    When you get the tax/royalty structure changed.

    Good luck.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    For the same reason why the guides got guide requirements for brown bear, Dall sheep, and goat for non-residents legislated into law; it's more difficult to screw with than regulations enacted by the Board of Game.
    Ohh; thats a great tactical maneuver for a special interest group. All Advisory Committees should support such tactics. It is good for he process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Because nobody has been successful yet taxing the guides for their profiting on the assets.
    Has anyone tried to impose a tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    In that respect, mining companies, logging companies, and just about every other resource profiteers don't pay enough in taxes, either (with the most notable exception of the oil and gas industry).
    At least some is better than none. Maybe when it comes time to assess this tax Alaskans will get fairly compensated for their asset.

    As far as I can tell 6 to 8 million a year would go a long ways towards supporting "active management".

    It might even make the idea of turning Alaska into a game farm as a legitimate public interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    That's exactly why movement has been kept quiet by advocates; to avoid people screwing with it.
    So whoever sent the message to the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Council to appeal to the people to support this bill:
    • "If there was ever a time for subsistence users and sportsmen to come together and make their voices heard, this is it!"
    Made a mistake? This is hardly a secret meeting spot.

    After all; "We have the most open and public wildlife management process in the nation."

    Senders of the email and Supporters of this bill assumed they could count on the Advisory Councils to ignore the obvious special commercial interest and join the fight against those who would oppose (for what ever reason they might oppose the bill) this bill in its current form?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    My understanding is that it was being driven to reduce pressure on the Board of Game system when dealing with intensive predator management. Manage for abundance allows intensive predator management legislatively.
    Heaven forbid the BOG "system" have any pressure on them to manage the resource as intended by the constitution.


  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Tax on resources

    Our game is one of Alaskas great natural resources. Tax it like oil, gold or any of our other natural resources. Guides are making a living off our resource and some of them dont even live in alaska. They self regulate and play a major part in making the laws. Like the carzy guide requirements for Brown Bear, Goat and Sheep. I agree Avalanche, lets not have BOG do their job and protect one of our most important resources.

  8. #8
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default

    I see this bill as a great bill. Fish already have this protection, which is why we can't manage fish by petition.

  9. #9
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    For the same reason why the guides got guide requirements for brown bear, Dall sheep, and goat for non-residents legislated into law; it's more difficult to screw with than regulations enacted by the Board of Game.
    Ohh; thats a great tactical maneuver for a special interest group.....
    Yes, it is. It has been used for years by environmental extremists.

    Now it's being used against them.

    It's like the old saying goes, what goes around comes around.

    ....All Advisory Committees should support such tactics. It is good for he process.
    No, it's not, but it's a natural progression for a political system that has failed.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    Because nobody has been successful yet taxing the guides for their profiting on the assets.
    Has anyone tried to impose a tax?
    I haven't. I don't have any legislators in my pocket, and know I don't have a chance to do so.

    Originally Posted by Mark
    In that respect, mining companies, logging companies, and just about every other resource profiteers don't pay enough in taxes, either (with the most notable exception of the oil and gas industry).
    At least some is better than none.....
    Yeah, until the oil and gas industry simply leaves for the greener grass on the other side of the fence.

    ....Maybe when it comes time to assess this tax Alaskans will get fairly compensated for their asset.....
    Maybe. But I doubt it.

    At any rate, I'm not going to hold my breath until it happens.

    ....As far as I can tell 6 to 8 million a year would go a long ways towards supporting "active management".....
    Yeah, but it would also increase the guiding industry 6 to 8 million more into political power.

    ....It might even make the idea of turning Alaska into a game farm as a legitimate public interest.....
    Where have you been? Alaska has been a game farm for a lot longer than you or I have been alive, and the subsistence issue split it into half meat ranch (that benefits a tiny fraction of the population).

    Originally Posted by Mark
    That's exactly why movement has been kept quiet by advocates; to avoid people screwing with it.
    So whoever sent the message to the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Council to appeal to the people to support this bill....
    I'm not telling.

    ....Made a mistake? This is hardly a secret meeting spot.....
    Not any more.

    Like I wrote, I was told Paul Joslin caught the clue (you know............AWA? See the "Donate Here" button on the website? "Non-profit"?).

    Apparently, he's quicker than you are.

    ......After all; "We have the most open and public wildlife management process in the nation."....
    Says who?

    Originally Posted by Mark
    My understanding is that it was being driven to reduce pressure on the Board of Game system when dealing with intensive predator management. Manage for abundance allows intensive predator management legislatively.
    Heaven forbid the BOG "system" have any pressure on them to manage the resource as intended by the constitution.
    Heaven pray that somebody does, because the BOG has not been doing so, and neither has the Legislature.

    It looks like the court is going to have to do it, huh?

    Ready for judicial management of fish and game? We've already had plenty, and that's increasingly where we're going.

  10. #10

    Default preciate ya.

    Mostly sad.........all true.

    Cheers.


  11. #11

    Default Predators are not States assets?

    Because "hunters" don't have to salvage the meat; EXCEPT sometimes, depending on the area and the time of year and the species?

    Because; hunters, can not sell the hides and claws; EXCEPT sometimes deepening on the species and even sub-species and the area harvested?


  12. #12
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    All right if you go to the link posted by tv321 above then select "full text" you get what I assume is the full text of the original proposal (HB0348A) followed by two updates (HB0348B & C). In C it appears that they get more specific regarding residential preference. The thing that jumped out at me is that there is no preference listed for SHEEP! Am I reading it wrong?
    here is the link to the three updates
    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/g...=25&bill=HB348

    Here is the update in draft C.

    00 CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 348(RES) 01 "An Act relating to the adoption of regulations by the Board of Game." 02 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 03 * Section 1. AS 16.05.255(d) is amended to read: 04 (d) Regulations adopted 05 (1) under (a) of this section must provide that, consistent with the 06 provisions of AS 16.05.258, the taking of moose, deer, elk, and caribou by residents 07 for personal or family consumption has preference over taking by nonresidents; 08 (2) under (a)(3), (a)(7), or (a)(10) of this section that implement, 09 interpret, or make specific conservation and development of resources and 10 utilization of game must primarily concern whether, how, when, and where the 11 public asset of game will be allocated or appropriated.

  13. #13

    Default Right sheep is out

    and sheep (and goats) is left out of the "active management bill"

    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/g...56C&session=25
    "beneficial use of moose, caribou, and deer populations"

    Leaving sheep out of these bills is a strategic move on the part of the guide industry.
    If they get their long term leases on State land (like the federal concessions)
    then sheep will not be a State asset and can be managed like they are in Canada.......considered a "private" resource with opportunity going first to the person who "owns" the lease.

    Thats my guess as to why........

    What they say is the reason why sheep are left out is that sheep are not considered as "practical" to manage as a source of food for humans.


  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Managed as food source

    If sheep cant be managed as a food source than why is there tier II hunting of sheep for food?

    Terry

  15. #15

    Default not for long

    Quote Originally Posted by Terry View Post
    If sheep cant be managed as a food source than why is there tier II hunting of sheep for food?

    Terry

    Leaving sheep out is a key element of the plan to "remove" sheep from Tier II hunting.

    If the legislature can keep sheep out of these bills the argument is half over.

    Then; sheep are not a "state asset"......like predators are not an asset?


  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    75

    Default

    AVALANCHE: I think you're a little off on the "Guide Tax". Outfitters and guides don't take any rescource. They provide a service to help others take that rescource which if on Fed. lands, everyone in the US owns and has a right to harvest. Also true for state lands once the resident requirement is met and there is enough game for non-res hunters. The guide/outfitter doesn't benefit finacially from the harvesting of an animal. They benefit finacially from the service they provided, not the actual animal. It goes home with the client and no one, including guides can sell or barter game animals. In order to tax a service provider, which a guide/outfitter is, then the state would have to adopt an income tax which you in your chosen profession would also have to pay. I can't see someone like yourself embracing that.

    I also don't see the guide industry as the cause of the collapse in moose numbers. The Guides/outfitters and the APHA were pushing for predator control before it was as generally well recieved by the ave. res hunters as it is now. Plus for the price a guided hunter pays to hunt, they aren't generally after a sub 50" eater moose. It was explained to me by an ADF&G biologist that with the 50" min on moose it is impossible for hunters to cause a significant reduction in moose numbers because there will always be a finite amount of legal bulls(over 50") to harvest and the sub 50" bulls are of breeding age and will breed the cows in an absence of large trophy moose. Also the genetics are there to be passed down by the sub 50" bulls. In other words the same amount of cows are bred and calves will be born and this years illegal bull will be legal next year. Now how this affects the social structure of a moose herd, I don't know, we didn't have time to discuss that issue.

    In my opinion the increased pressure from wolves that went uncontrolled for too long and an increase in resident hunter numbers, along with the increased mobility of those hunters due to ATV use has played a far greater role in reducing moose numbers and holding those reduced numbers which has led to the lack of game we have experienced.

  17. #17

    Default Intent of legislation and case law says different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    Outfitters and guides don't take any rescource. They provide a service to help others take that rescource which if on Fed. lands, everyone in the US owns and has a right to harvest.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ase&no=9930144

    "conduct that involved a sale or purchase of the
    caribou"

    "S 3372(a)(2)(A). A "sale" of wildlife includes the offer or
    provision of "guiding,"


    "[4] Accordingly, we hold that "sale " for purposes of 16
    U.S.C. S 3373(d)(1)(B) includes both the agreement to
    receive consideration for guiding or outfitting services and the
    actual provision of such guiding or outfitting services."

    GUIDES; both hunting and fishing, are selling STATES ASSETS and it would be reasonable for all of us to give up on the BS that hunting and fishing guides are "selling an experience".

    Really..........no one is buying that crap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    In order to tax a service provider

    http://www.legaudit.state.ak.us/page...4/pdf/1408.pdf

    "............the intent of the legislature that the board establish a resource-based management system for allocating big game hunting opportunities among guide-outfitters. The management system was to:"

    3. Provide financial compensation to the State for the commercial harvest of Alaska's big game.

    Guides.........are stealing our resource. It is not like guides "don't know" that they take the States assets and that they are supposed to pay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    I also don't see the guide industry as the cause of the collapse in moose numbers.
    The "cause" of collapse is a dynamic of which "the guide industry" greatly contributes. Not just in the taking of the resource but in the and through their own regulations as implemented.

    Tons of assistant guides independently conduct guided hunts........when by law ONLY a registered guide can sell (take) the publics resource. This one perversion of the regulation has increased all commercial take by HUGE numbers since they conveniently changed the "wording" of the regulations in 1986.........with full intent and knowledge that this "change" would add additional pressure on the States Assets....

    And they are not backing off........taking more sheep and moose than the law allows.

    Just read the intent of the people when they authorized the Big Game Commercial Services Board and see what they are living up to.

    Commercial interest did, and is today, impacting the rate at which our resource is declining.

    TRUE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT WOULD INCLUDE MANAGING THE COMMERCIAL TAKE of prey populations..........[maybe thats why sheep are left out of the assets bill and the active management bill?]

    The contribution comes from 30 years of increasing and expanding commercial interests in our resource.

    This "problem" did not come up over night; and guides move from one closed or limited area to the next opportunity..........further pressurizing the resource that is left.

    Guides need to stand down on moose till this "problem" is under control.

    If we are short on Stocks in our Rivers the commercial fisherman stand down till the situation is resolved.

    Commercial fisherman's "permit's" wont allow them to leave Cook Inlet when the fishing is bad and go to Kodiak to fish...............hunting guides have been operating with the ability to do just that............when one area is in distress..........for what ever reason.........they move on to the next area........thats THE BULL SYSTEM too...........and outside of the intent of legislation authorizing the licensing of guides.

    Commercial hunters should stand down till the situation is resolved and the BOG is authorized to make such an EO.


  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Avelanche: If you would have read further, you would have realized that the term "Sale" was used to allow the enforcement of the Lacy Act in this case of same day airborn hunting and nothing more. Furthermore the Lacy Act strictly prohibits the sale and purchase of wildlife. Through out the written piece there are numerous and clear references to the fact that "Sale" only applied to unlawfull hunting acts and the term "sale" allowed for those acts to be prosecuted under the Lacy Act. I believe you probably did read the whole piece and just decided to slice and dice to fit your argument.

    You also can not compare commercial fishermen and hunting guides. Commercial fisherman harvest a resource and then sell that rescource for a profit. Mines harvest a rescource and then sell it. Hunting guides sell a service that helps an individual harvest a rescource. The Lacy Act prohibits the selling and purchasing of wildlife. That is why we don't have commercial hunters or commercial hunting. We have guides that sell a service to a client. And I don't believe guides are selling an experience though the experience is an important part of the hunt. Like I said, guides sell a service to help others harvest a rescource.

    We hold that a "sale " of wildlife
    for purposes of 16 U.S.C. S 3373(d)(1)(B) encompasses not

    only the agreement to provide guide or outfitting services, but
    also the actual provision of such services.

    The term "sale" pertains to a service and not the actual sale of wildlife.

    [4] Accordingly, we hold that "sale " for purposes of 16
    U.S.C. S 3373(d)(1)(B) includes both the agreement to
    receive consideration for guiding or outfitting services and the
    actual provision of such guiding or outfitting services.4

    Again "sale" is for a service and not an animal.

    The Senate Report indicates that the amendment was intended
    to make the "providing of guiding services used in the illegal
    taking of wildlife or the issuance of illegal hunting or fishing
    licenses . . . . subject to the enforcement provisions of the
    Lacey Act." S. Rep. No. 100-563, at 5 (1988), reprinted in
    1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5366, 5370. Similarly, the House Report
    on the 1988 amendment states that the purpose of 16 U.S.C.
    S 3372(c) is to render "the providing of guiding, outfitting,
    and transportation services . . . used in the illegal taking,
    acquiring, receiving, transporting, or possessing of fish or
    wildlife" subject to the felony enforcement provisions of the
    Lacey Act. H.R. Rep. No. 100-732, at 12 (1988). Thus, both
    the plain language of the statute and the legislative history
    indicate that the provision of guiding or outfitting services for
    the illegal taking of game unambiguously falls within the
    criminal enforcement provisions of the Lacey Act.

    This clearly shows "sale" was ment to allow the prosecution of illegal hunting acts under the Lacy Act. It does not mean a guide actually sells or barters a specific animal for profit like commercial fishermen sell their catch for profit. Further more hunting guides are prohibited from even making any sort of guarentee as to whether a client will harvest an animal. Again, guides sell a service to assist in the harvest of a resource and not the sale of the actual rescource itself.

  19. #19

    Default read farther?

    CONCLUSION

    We hold that a "sale" of wildlife for purposes of 16 U.S.C.
    S 3373(d)(1)(B) encompasses both the agreement to receive
    consideration for guiding or outfitting services and the actual
    provision of such services. We reject Fejes's contention that
    the district court committed instructional error. Accordingly,
    the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


    So, what your saying is that until someone breaks the law............it is an experience and not a sale?


  20. #20

    Default I get your points

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    Hunting guides sell a service that helps an individual harvest a rescource.
    So, nothing changes when guides require a person to be guided?

    What did the legislature mean by this?

    3. Provide financial compensation to the State for the commercial harvest of Alaska's big game.





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
  •