Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: SFW/SFH Alaska, Tyonek Lodge, etc.

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10

    Exclamation SFW/SFH Alaska, Tyonek Lodge, etc.

    My name is Aaron Bloomquist, here's a little about what I know:

    #1 I have been in the field since mid-april (not sitting in front of a computer making up things (slander) about people and groups that I know nothing about). I have noticed that most of the parties participating don't list their names. I have not posted on a forum in years although I do pay money to advertise on this forum (for now) but I was informed that my name was mentioned in several posts with the insinuation that I may be breaking the law.

    #2 I own Full Curl Outdoors, LLC, which operates Tyonek Lodge. I am a new registered guide(#1259). And was lucky enough to secure a lease with Tyonek Native Corporation for hunting and fishing rights on their lands. I have a guide, registered for unit 16-01 on my staff that does the contracting. I communicate with the Fish and Wildlife Toopers and ADF&G regularily and they are aware of my operations. I strive to follow all laws to the letter in my operation.

    #3 SFW/SFH-Alaska does not and will not have any of their bear camps on Tyonek Lands or any other native lands that I am aware of. I volunteered to do much of the scheduling for the SFW/SFH bear effort so I have been a contact for many people. I have since turned the scheduling over to others so I can concentrate on my operation. I am not a board member or a policy maker for either group. SFH/SFW in conjunction with Tyonek Native Corporation, Full Curl Outdoors, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Wonded Warrior Project, and AM-Vets are sponsoring several groups of wounded and disabled soldiers on guided black bear hunts through Tyonek Lodge.

    #4 The sport hunt bait permit was re-instated with intense pressure from the Alaska public, the advisory committees, board of game, and most outdoor groups that were paying attention. If we only had a predator hunt, ALL youth under 16 would have been eliminated from hunting over bait as well as all non-residents.

    #5 As for SFW/SFH needing a guide-client aggreement I think the $30 membership dues hardly meets the definition of compensation. They have spent thousands of dollars on camps and supplies and other expenses. I believe they have also allowed non-member hunters to participate.
    The state defines compensation as:
    "Sec. 08.54.790. DEFINITIONS. “compensation” means payment for services including wages or other remuneration but not including reimbursement for actual expenses incurred"
    SFH has incurred much more than 30$ per person in expenses.

    #6 Those that have said the bear managment effort in unit 16 is just to help the natives are just ignorant racists. The truth is, Anchorage and Wasilla resident kill many times more moose in unit 16 than natives (even under tier II).

    #7 Those that say they are just out to make more money for guides are just plain ignorant. SFW/SFH-Alaska has only one goal: more ungulates for all hunters. Unit 16 will not see a non-resident moose hunt for at least five years even if the moose numbers rebound. Even if this happens I doubt Tyonek will allow me to hunt moose on their lands, ever, as they depend on moose for a portion of their diets. The bear control effort will hurt my business as well as the business of any guide that depends on black bears as a portion of his income. There are no other animals other than bears for most guides in 16-B to hunt. I have helped the effort because I believe it is the right thing to do.

    #8 Helicopters were legal to use for a short time under the predator control effort. The Board of Game authorized their use (twice actually), and ADF&G decided to unilaterally over-ride the board. Helicopters are the only practical way to take the numbers of bears ADF&G has said need to be taken, and spread out hunter effort across the unit.

    #9 If we are going to throw stones, at least throw stones that are based in fact, like this:

    I will not be joining, at any time soon, the so called "moderate" outdoor group that shares a common board member with Defenders of Wildlife (Backcountry Hunters and Anglers). Gloria Flora of Helena, MT just happens to be listed on both the BHA advisory board, http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php?link=board
    and the defenders of wildlife board of directors,
    http://www.defenders.org/about_us/board.php
    All you have to do is read their website and you will find that they also have other board members that belong to Audubon, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy, Friends of the Clearwater, Wildlands Center for the Prevention of Roads, Hells Canyon Preservation Council and the Wilderness Society. Many of these groups are not only anti-access, anti-logging, and anti-development but some actually hold anti-hunting agendas.

    #10 SFW-Utah has no say in how SFW/SFH-Alaska operates. They are two seperate groups. SFH (Sportsman for Habitat)-Alaska is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. SFW is a 501(c)(4). Their boards are made up of a diverse group of Alaskans that are influential in their respective fields. Alaskans (including the SFW-Alaska group) obviously have different priorities than many in the lower-48.

    #11 SFW did not lobby to have any animal exempt from the wildlife asset bill or the intensive managment bill. SFW, AOC, APHA, SCI, and several Alaska native groups teamed up to get the Asset bill passed and it applies to all game. If it eliminates "ballot box biology" as intended, it will be the most important pro-hunting legislation in our state's history. The IM Bill was killed in the senate by Hollis French and the Judiciary committee.



    I'm sure there is more B.S. on here, but I don't have time to read through all of the posts.
    I am in town for 24 hrs and will be back with the bears tomorrow. This forum is a great place for the exchange of ideas and info but some people need to get some fresh air once in a while, and spend less time making up things about people who are actually more friend than foe.

    I am the current chairman of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee, and contribute hundreds of hours of volunteer time and thousands of dollars annually to helping manage our wildlife resources. I have done volunteer work for no less than a dozen outdoor/hunter's groups and seldom turn down a request for help from any group.

    Respond all you want but don't expect a reply for a while, if ever, I will be hunting or fishing till October.

    Keep your rod tip up and your barrel pointed down range.

    Regards,

    Aaron

  2. #2

    Default

    Good luck to you and those you are assisting in taking as many bears as possible out of the area you are focused on. It is a tough area to hunt, way to tough for the majority of those that have openly opposed your efforts. Some simply find it much easier to sit at the computer and spout out what they perceive to be factual. Others pick up on it and run with it, not knowing anything other than what they have read. Liberal minded individuals spend a lot of time and energy "communicating" while those on the opposite end of the spectrum quietly go about doing what needs done. Hope to hear back from you in the winter to update us on your success'.

  3. #3
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Akres: I think if you read back through the previous posts on this subject you will not find that "liberal vs conservative" has anything to do with how the SFW is viewed. The fact of the matter is that many of us have asked direct questions regarding the stance of SFW on issues that are important to us as resident hunters. We have generally found the responses to be combative. That is not a good way to get my $$ and support.
    The commercial implications are very real when board members of ASFW Are purchasing lodges in areas that are currently under predator control orders. Is the goal to increase the game for all of us? Or is it to use a non profit organization to insure a return on investment for a future guide operation? A big game hunting lodge is not worth too much if there is no game but significantly reduce the local wolves and bears and get the preasure off the moose/bou and SHEEP population now we are talking about some value!
    Ultimately I wanted to support SFW and a good look back through the archives here will show that initially I was excited about there potential impact, however the more I looked into it the more questions I had and the more I tried to get answers the more I was met with combative attitudes.
    I am glad to see some info comming out of the SFW camp but I would rather see a direct "this is SFW stance on issue XYZ" and perhaps some supporting information. Most of us feel that APHA has too much power and that the local consumtive users have very little say. A group that supports primarily local consumptive users is what most of us want and SFW has not shown itself to be that group.
    I am interested to see what ABCHA will have to say in response to the above alegations.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Akres: I think if you read back through the previous posts on this subject you will not find that "liberal vs conservative" has anything to do with how the SFW is viewed. The fact of the matter is that many of us have asked direct questions regarding the stance of SFW on issues that are important to us as resident hunters. We have generally found the responses to be combative. That is not a good way to get my $$ and support.
    The commercial implications are very real when board members of ASFW Are purchasing lodges in areas that are currently under predator control orders. Is the goal to increase the game for all of us? Or is it to use a non profit organization to insure a return on investment for a future guide operation? A big game hunting lodge is not worth too much if there is no game but significantly reduce the local wolves and bears and get the preasure off the moose/bou and SHEEP population now we are talking about some value!
    Ultimately I wanted to support SFW and a good look back through the archives here will show that initially I was excited about there potential impact, however the more I looked into it the more questions I had and the more I tried to get answers the more I was met with combative attitudes.
    I am glad to see some info comming out of the SFW camp but I would rather see a direct "this is SFW stance on issue XYZ" and perhaps some supporting information. Most of us feel that APHA has too much power and that the local consumtive users have very little say. A group that supports primarily local consumptive users is what most of us want and SFW has not shown itself to be that group.
    I am interested to see what ABCHA will have to say in response to the above alegations.
    I disagree with your views on the liberal vs conservative issue. Do you not think a Hunting Lodge gone south and turned into a Bear Viewing Lodge within thirty minutes of Anchorage could not turn a profit? I have faith that these hunters have no desire for that to happen though, could be wrong but don't think so. I have a good deal of contact with many many hunters that I feel are on the the outside edge of the Conservative end of the spectrum and they don't even own a computer. I honestly don't think anyone reading these forums has a true understanding of what is really happening in the field. I don't know any Liberals that don't own computers or not take every opportunity they find to spout their perceptions. I don't think you will ever find a grassroots group that solely is going to be looking out for the needs and wants of the "consumptive users". Most in that category are too busy doing all they feel they need to get done in what little time they have to get it done in. Most actually have real jobs that demand a lot of energy and time. Most lead solitary or very closely bonded lives and have little or no interest in becoming a groupie or ringleader. I have long ago vacated the hope of a hero rising to the forefront and championing our cause. Ain't gonna happen. But that don't mean we can't enjoy the few remaining opportunities we have, until they too are diminished.

  5. #5
    Member pike_palace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the 907
    Posts
    2,326

    Default great....

    Now were going to have a million and then some people over at beluga.... Just wonderful. So what your not going to hunt on Native land, even though you have the right to? I can see where this is going. Take up all the public land to keep the natives happy. Way its always been.
    Last edited by pike_palace; 06-05-2008 at 10:58. Reason: question
    "Ya can't stop a bad guy with a middle finger and a bag of quarters!!!!"- Ted Nugent.

  6. #6
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default maybe...

    but I hope they know where the native ground starts.

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10

    Default Not Gone Yet

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Akres:

    The commercial implications are very real when board members of ASFW Are purchasing lodges in areas that are currently under predator control orders. Is the goal to increase the game for all of us? Or is it to use a non profit organization to insure a return on investment for a future guide operation? A big game hunting lodge is not worth too much if there is no game but significantly reduce the local wolves and bears and get the preasure off the moose/bou and SHEEP population now we are talking about some value!

    Ultimately I wanted to support SFW and a good look back through the archives here will show that initially I was excited about there potential impact, however the more I looked into it the more questions I had and the more I tried to get answers the more I was met with combative attitudes.
    I am glad to see some info comming out of the SFW camp but I would rather see a direct "this is SFW stance on issue XYZ" and perhaps some supporting information. Most of us feel that APHA has too much power and that the local consumtive users have very little say. A group that supports primarily local consumptive users is what most of us want and SFW has not shown itself to be that group.
    I am interested to see what ABCHA will have to say in response to the above alegations.
    I knew there was more made up information out there. As far as I know no one from SFW has purchased any lodge much less one in a predator control area. There is one board member that is building a small private fishing lodge in Seldovia (far from any predator control). If you are talking about the lodge I operate (Tyonek Lodge), I am not a board membere and can not speak for the board members. There is no non-resident moose hunting in the are, no sheep for 50 miles and no caribou for 150.

    If you were to read SFW-Alaska's mission statement I think it nearlyexactly what you suggest:
    "To preserve and protect the future of hunting, fishing, and trapping in Alaska and to assure maximum sustained yield for consumptive uses through the conservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and their habitats."

    As for ABCHA, Click on the links provided in my original post, see for yourself. I brought this up to illustrate how some groups may, or may not agree with therir counterparts in the lower-48.

    I'm leaving on a 4:00 plane so if you would like to make up anything else please do it soon so I can speak to it.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pike_palace View Post
    Now were going to have a million and then some people over at beluga.... Just wonderful. So what your not going to hunt on Native land, even though you have the right to? I can see where this is going. Take up all the public land to keep the natives happy. Way its always been.
    SFH has no camps in the beluga area at this time. *deleted* You do not have the right to hunt on Native Land and neither does SFH, it is private property. That is why they don't call it public property. I have leased native land (paid money) for my business (not SFH) and I am hunting bears there right now.
    Last edited by Brian M; 06-05-2008 at 12:29. Reason: negative personal comment

  9. #9

    Default

    Good luck with your hunts Aaron!

  10. #10
    Member akjeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    788

    Default Thanks

    Aaron, Thanks for you service. I sent you a PM.

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

    Default

    Mr Seekins I assure you purchased the Tsusena (sp?) Lake lodge in the unit 13 predator control area recently. That sir is a FACT! As Palin would say, sounds like there is a lack of transparency within the org?

  12. #12
    Member pike_palace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the 907
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Tyonek lands are right next to Beluga. I assume that is where most of their hunts will be based out of.
    "Ya can't stop a bad guy with a middle finger and a bag of quarters!!!!"- Ted Nugent.

  13. #13
    Forum Sponsor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pike_palace View Post
    Tyonek lands are right next to Beluga. I assume that is where most of their hunts will be based out of.
    You assume wrong, Most are remote fly in camps,

    My Tyonek Lodge operation is the only bait hunting based out of tyonek. Most of the SFW camps are remote fly in or boat in camps.

  14. #14
    Forum Sponsor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Mr Seekins I assure you purchased the Tsusena (sp?) Lake lodge in the unit 13 predator control area recently. That sir is a FACT! As Palin would say, sounds like there is a lack of transparency within the org?
    SFW is not participating in any organized predator control in unit 13 and I would be very surprised if Seekins was planning to do any commercial hunting out of anything he owns.

    In addition, there is no non-resident moose hunting, caribou hunting, and most of the sheep is draw, check your facts. This would not be a great lodge as an investment. I can't imagine Mr. Seekins is speculating on a hunting lodge in a marginal, at best, hunting guide area. He has a very sucessful business and plenty of money to hunt as much as he wants without running a guide operation. Maybe you should talk to Ralph seekins and see what his intentions are. I would imagine you will find a completely different story than the garbage you are spewing. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

    I have spent a lot of time in 13 and have never heard of Tsusena Lake, you must have the name wrong??

  15. #15
    Forum Sponsor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine View Post
    SFH has no camps in the beluga area at this time. *deleted* You do not have the right to hunt on Native Land and neither does SFH, it is private property. That is why they don't call it public property. I have leased native land (paid money) for my business (not SFH) and I am hunting bears there right now.
    I see uow this works now, people say derrogatory remarks about a specific race and that's ok. But if you call them racist for saying them the forum delets that???

  16. #16
    Forum Sponsor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by suntiet View Post
    I see uow this works now, people say derrogatory remarks about a specific race and that's ok. But if you call them racist for saying them the forum delets that???
    By the way all of these posts from Suntiet are actually from me, Aaron Bloomquist "wolverine". I am on a different computer.

  17. #17

    Default

    I'm sure you'll find a few things about this website that you won't like.

  18. #18
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by suntiet View Post
    I see uow this works now, people say derrogatory remarks about a specific race and that's ok. But if you call them racist for saying them the forum delets that???
    Please show me where someone said a derogatory remark about a specific race. If I missed it, I will go back and delete it. Please note, though, that making remarks about Native Corporations and how they choose to use their lands is not the same as making derogatory remarks about a race. The corporations and the people are different things.

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    10

    Default

    The post says nothing about native corporations, it says Native land. It is owned by native people. The insinuation is that there is special treatment toward natives. This is just simply not the case.

  20. #20
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine View Post
    The post says nothing about native corporations, it says Native land. It is owned by native people. The insinuation is that there is special treatment toward natives. This is just simply not the case.
    It is owned by a Native Corporation, not individuals who happen to be native. Complaints about the allocation of previously public land to Native Corporations are typically not racist in nature. It is a reflection of frustration by some who have lost access to previously used hunting and fishing lands because of conveyance of those lands to the various corporations who then block access. I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you that many of my closest friends are Native Alaskans. I have spent ample time in rural villages and have nothing but amazement and respect for the Native people of Alaska. That said, I can also understand the frustration that comes with restricted access to vast tracts of lands.

    I read and re-read the post you're referring to. Although his post about taking away public lands to keep natives happy may have been upsetting to you, it was not a direct attack on anyone, nor was it racist. The reply of calling him "a bigot" was a direct violation of the forum rules, however, which is why it was deleted.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •