Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: North slope float hunters....

  1. #1

    Exclamation North slope float hunters....

    You might want to look into this if you plan on hunting up that way. There are several rivers that I know of that will be off limits for hunting and fishing if your not a shareholder, the Killik, Itkillik, Kurupa, Kaparuk rivers to name just a few. http://www.asrc.com/lands/lands.asp?page=entry

  2. #2
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Thumbs down not sure about this...

    As long as you are below the high water mark, you can float any river you want. No native group/burrough/etc.. owns the river. Just the land around it in some cases. If hunting, it is obviously an issue. But for floating a river, or fishing in it, there are no restrictions. Nobody owns the rivers. And for that matter, they can't even spell it correctly. Note the spelling of the "Wullik River" on the link you provided.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  3. #3

    Default and what...

    is the point of closing the area...how do they benefit?
    ...Jackie Bushman is a TOOL

  4. #4
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    Native corporation land (conveyed) is private property. Closing it to public access is an assertion of the corporation's rights as the property owner.

    In some cases the closure leads to tresspass fees, in others shareholder access only.

  5. #5
    Member PatrickH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    253

    Default Non navigable

    The corporations are claiming many rivers are non-navigable even though they are. The Colville and Killik are two examples. If it is a non-navigable river, it can be closed.

  6. #6
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    As long as you are below the high water mark, you can float any river you want. No native group/burrough/etc.. owns the river. Just the land around it in some cases. If hunting, it is obviously an issue. But for floating a river, or fishing in it, there are no restrictions. Nobody owns the rivers. And for that matter, they can't even spell it correctly. Note the spelling of the "Wullik River" on the link you provided.
    Don't know who "they" is, the native corp, or the person who wrote the piece? It was probably a caucasian hired by the corp, truth be told.

    Fact is, the high water mark on years like this pretty much precludes any bank camping or hunting. When the water is at, or above the mean high water mark, you are trespassing on the ground past that. It might suck, but it's the way it is.

    Funny, in the past we talked about guys having to pay $1500 for a "trespass" fee for a bison (the corp. rep was very gracious in helping and posting here) and nobody gave a rat's a&& about the exorbitant fee. {That's $1500 just to walk through native ground to other game areas.} Guys here were spouting "free enterprise" and tripping over themselves praising the native corps for profitting. Hey, maybe that is the case. The corp's. should make it $5000, guys will happily pay from what I read.
    It's a fee that Doyon or others will never get out of me. I'll shoot a largley "free" moose (or elk locally) before I spend that kind of money on a buff. Have at 'em fellas.
    Fees might be necessary, I'm not against some form of compensation, but gouging is something all together different. Sorry for the hijack/rant.

  7. #7

    Default ....

    i think it's a crock as well...so its like a no tresspassing private property type thing? where do the "fees" go? back into the land, to the private "corp", who is the "corp" anyway...can anyone become a member and have access?
    ...Jackie Bushman is a TOOL

  8. #8
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default Slow down..

    I think we are reading too far into this. Reading over the link again, I am hearing mostly they don't want you on their land without a permit. Obviously, that would effect people hunting/hiking on the private lands. It would also encapsulate the use of gravel runways and such. As for floating a river, there is nothing to worry about. While the native organization may say the Colville is a non-navigable waterway, it is not up to them. That is decided by the state of Alaska. If you are in violation (trespassing), who ever is making an ordeal about it will have to call the ADFG or state police. What the heck would the individual do other than give you the stink eye? Nothing. So if the police or fish and game officer came out, they can only uphold state of Alaska laws. What is the problem? I am not suggesting that people should trespass, just saying that "trespass" is defined by state law. Obide by that and you have nothing to worry about. And floating/camping/fishing below high water marks is not trespassing in Alaska. Even if the native organizations wish it was. My advice would be to stay below the high water mark and be polite to anyone you should come into contact with. Which on the north slope, is most likely nobody. If that is not good enough, tell them to call the state police or ADFG.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  9. #9
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default some more info

    Arctic Slope Regional Corp. (ARSC), like any private landowner, is certainly prudent and within their rights to get info out to the public regarding where their private property lies and what is trespass and what isn't, what is allowed and what isn't. However, I have a hard time believing that the Colville is considered "non-navigable" by the state and feds (but I could be wrong). I've got inquiries out to state and BLM hoping they can answer that question.

    In light of the finalization of Native land claims, DNR is working now to clarify the navigability status of the state's rivers so that all Alaskans can legally have access on these waterways where they run through Native lands or other private properties. Just to clarify something Patrick H said, I don't believe Patrick that where a river runs through lands in which one side is owned by "us" (BLM, NPS, STATE), even if it were declared non-navigable, that it could ever be "closed" to access by the public. I imagine camping along the side that is private property, even up to high water mark, could be denied or closed, but not the other side. Indeed, this is a huge issue and we all need to pay attention to what is going on so we don't lose access. Kudos to Patrick H for keeping the 17b easement planning currently going on in the forefront here...hope more will get involved in that process so we don't lose access to our public lands.

    Here's a couple of BLM maps concerning the Colville River land status:
    General Land Status

    Recreational Easement along ARSC Lands

    If you look closely at the 2nd map having to do with Recreational Easements, it seems that there is a 50foot easement on the south and east banks of the Colville, beyond the highwater mark (if I am reading that right) on ASRC lands. This easement covers overnight camping along the river. The north and west banks are BLM public lands. It's always a good idea to find out the land status of areas where you are hunting, and what is allowed.

  10. #10

    Default It was my understanding

    that it was decided a long time ago, that in Alaska especially, a navigable river does not necessarily mean navigable during the summer. It may not be navigable by boat, but it may be very navigable by sno-go. Thus, the temperature of the water surface has no bearing on whether a body of water is "navigable".

  11. #11
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default navigability criteria

    257,

    It's a whole lot more complicated than that, unfortunately. You can find out more on the DNR website:
    http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/nav/nav_policy.htm#CRIT

    Transportation Must Be Conducted In the Customary Modes of Trade and Travel On Water. A finding of navigability does not require use or capability of use by any particular mode of transportation, only that the mode be customary. The courts have held that customary modes of transportation on water include all recognized types and methods of water carriage. Unusual or freak contrivances adapted for use only on a particular stream are excluded. Customary modes of trade and travel on water in Alaska include, but are not limited to, barges, scows, tunnel boats, flat-bottom boats, poling boats, river boats, boats propelled by jet units, inflatable boats, and canoes. In places suitable for harvesting timber, the flotation of logs is considered a customary mode of transportation.
    The mode of travel must also be primarily waterborne. Boats which may be taken for short, overland portages qualify. The courts have ruled that the use of a lake for takeoffs and landings by floatplanes is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish navigability.
    On the link above also suggest reading the Navigability Criteria Disputes.

  12. #12
    Supporting Member AFHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Registered Guide, AK
    Posts
    658

    Default land and animal fee

    I believe this fits into this land access issue.

    I understand they own the land. I will pay the fee or hunt elsewhere. What really chaps my butt and what I will refuse to pay if I ever do get the tag is the Afognak and Raspberry Island animal fee the corps are charging. I will pay your land use, but I will not pay a native corp for an animal the state owns. I can not believe someone has not taken these guys to court on this yet. I know several successful hunters who flat out refused to pay the fee for the bear they wanted to hunt and the native corp did nothing. I believe the native corp did nothing because they knew they would not get one cent, they were wrong to charge for an animal owned by the state to begin with.

    If this does not fit here, I am sorry.

  13. #13

    Default

    I agree, to charge a different fee according to the species of animal hunted should be illegal, if they are going to charge a trespass fee it needs to be set at 1 fee for all species.

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

    Default Fee

    This fee actually has been there for several years, operators have been paying it for a couple years. Up to know, there just has not been much enforcement. Soon it will be like texas, But colder.

    Terry

  15. #15
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    For those planning to hunt near native corporation lands, do yourself a big favor and pick up a land status map from the BLM.

    Native corporation lands exist in varying states of legal status--selected, intirim conveyed and conveyed. Conveyed land has had title transfer completed, intirim conveyed is approved and pending title while selected is just that...selected.

    The corporations control tresspass rights on conveyed and intirim conveyed lands however the announcements/warnings published in the paper often show selected lands.

    While you're at BLM make sure and ask the technician there about any updates since the map came out (They're typically updated every 18 - 24 months)

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
  •