Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The "Ideal" sportsman advocacy group

  1. #1
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default The "Ideal" sportsman advocacy group

    Many of us here have managed to poke holes in the agendas of the many "sportsman advocacy" groups that are supposedly fighting for us in AK. To steal words from the Gov's mouth the biggest complaint seems to be the lack of transparency and the suspicion of ulterior motives. When a founding board membet of the SFW pushes for predator control in an area that they own a lodge it leaves one to feel just a teeny weeny bit justified in that suspicion.
    I wanted to open up a thread to identify the specific goals/idealogy the true MAJORITY would look for in a group they could realy feel good about getting behind and being a part of.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Many of us here have managed to poke holes in the agendas of the many "sportsman advocacy" groups that are supposedly fighting for us in AK. To steal words from the Gov's mouth the biggest complaint seems to be the lack of transparency and the suspicion of ulterior motives. When a founding board membet of the SFW pushes for predator control in an area that they own a lodge it leaves one to feel just a teeny weeny bit justified in that suspicion.
    I wanted to open up a thread to identify the specific goals/idealogy the true MAJORITY would look for in a group they could realy feel good about getting behind and being a part of.

    An organization whose charter stated clearly the Protocols the group would advocate for and defend concerning:

    A)issues related to allocation and
    B)the cost and benefit to the resource owners for the take

    Like: The resource is a public resource that must first be proven to be sustainable before it can be managed as renewable.
    • ANY and all use of the resource benefits the public.


    • Allocation Protocol set in stone.


    1. subsistence use
    2. then personal use
    3. and then recreational
    4. and if/when there is a surplus the commercial interests are considered


  3. #3

    Default

    First they would have to be local IMO most national organizations are to far removed from their membership or have agendas that may or may not be of benefit to Alaskans. Next they would have to be pro subsistence/personal use above all other uses. Third they would have to put more value than on the animal populations that feed humans than on predator populations that compete with humans for food.
    Chuck

  4. #4
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    I'd rather see a resident preference vs a subsistence preference. Subsistence should be only on Federal lands until the state can get management back.

    Lujon, I agree, we got to have someone/group that will advocate for non-commercial interests, because it ain't happening now.

    Tim

  5. #5

    Default

    I'd rather see a resident preference vs a subsistence preference
    Subsistence is a resident preference, all residents have subsistence rights.
    Chuck

  6. #6
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hiline View Post
    Subsistence is a resident preference, all residents have subsistence rights.
    I think his point was that we need an org for the general alaskan resident not just the remote or the poor which seems to be where the current subsistance programs are leaving a bad taste in peoples mouth. The Nelchina herd is THE poster child for that fact. It is a hunt that many feel should bave been made a drawing hunt many years ago.

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
  •