Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: Proposed Construction of a New Subsistence Cabin in Noatak National Preserve

  1. #1

    Exclamation Proposed Construction of a New Subsistence Cabin in Noatak National Preserve

    http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectH...rojectId=19107

    Follow the links on the left...of course they are on the left....like the far left

    NOW the Park Superintendent is looking to more break new ground and permit new subsistence cabins in wild an scenic corridors

    For those who don't know this Park Superintendent has already decided:

    A] to limit residents hunters on the preserve because of a perceived "favorite-time/location conflict."

    B] The Department of Fish and Game's position is there is no justification for the 'limits'....there is a surplus of game.

    C] The Park superintendent has decided that the Park service has a responsibility to protect the commercial hunting concessionaires are not being required to stand down.

    Guys; this Park Superintendent is breaking new ground and if he is successful other Park Superintendents will follow suit...this is not a good situation.


  2. #2
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    .....this is not a good situation.
    But it is:

    1) Not surprising

    2) And not something that we can do anything about

  3. #3

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    1) Not surprising
    I know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    2) And not something that we can do anything about
    Why do you say we can not do anything about it? You mean it's a waste of time to try or there is some legal reason we can not do anything about it?

    I know we can at least put comments in on the "new cabin" issue before January 5th

    The moratorium on limiting residents is also in a public process now so there is an opportunity there to at least be heard.


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

    Default

    Av, not sure this will stay in hunting forum, but wherever it goes I wanted to respond. Sometimes you and me disagree on some things. In the case of the Preserve Superintendent actually possibly advocating to allow the building of a cabin for subsistence purposes within the Noatak Preserve...I think that is a good thing, so this is a case where we disagree.

    If you haven't already, pick up a copy of Dan O'Neill's Land Gone Lonesome. It's about all the bushrats that used to live in what became Yukon-Charley National Preserve, and got ousted one way or another. Cabins were burned down. Permits for new ones denied. I know cuz I was involved and saw it all happen.

    In Dan's book, he advocates that subsistence activities (hunting, fishing, trapping) within Preserves is a good thing, and that the hope is in future that more NPS Superintendents will view consumptive uses in a good light. I totally agree, so in my book the NPS actually willing to allow a new cabin to be built for subsistence purposes within a Preserve is a darn good thing!

    Inre the other issue on limiting resident hunters in the Preserve, we are likely on the same page, though I haven't read up on the actual statements.

  5. #5
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    .....2) And not something that we can do anything about
    Why do you say we can not do anything about it? You mean it's a waste of time to try or there is some legal reason we can not do anything about it?....
    I don't think the Federal Subsistence Board or the National Park Service is much concerned with other-than-subsistence interest in subsistence decisions.

    They obviously don't give much of a rip about the ADFG's position. Why should they care about Avalanche's or Mark's positions?

    .....I know we can at least put comments in on the "new cabin" issue before January 5th

    The moratorium on limiting residents is also in a public process now so there is an opportunity there to at least be heard.
    I wish you good luck.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    They obviously don't give much of a rip about the ADFG's position. Why should they care about Avalanche's or Mark's positions?
    I know; and btw...apparently 'climate change' or 'global warming' which ever you prefer AND 'convince' are the essential 'reasons' Park Service is using to justify the permit to build the new cabin.

    Anyway, isn't there a legal obligation on the part of the State of Alaska to intervene on behalf of all residents on this favorite-time/location conflict decision?

    Limiting residents from hunting even though the Department states clearly there is no shortage of game is clearly crossing the 'subsistence' line.

    What about the commercial hunting concessions?

    Isn't there some legal challenge to be made requiring the Park Service to discontinue the policy of commercial hunting concessions when favorite-time/location conflict 'decision' are made?

    Maybe AOC or SFW will 'look' into it?


  7. #7
    Member Oak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Maybe AOC or SFW will 'look' into it?
    Now that's funny right there.

  8. #8
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    ...apparently 'climate change' or 'global warming' which ever you prefer AND 'convince' are the essential 'reasons' Park Service is using to justify the permit to build the new cabin.....
    To most, global warming can justify anything.

    The Park Service is just being predictable.

    ....Anyway, isn't there a legal obligation on the part of the State of Alaska to intervene on behalf of all residents on this favorite-time/location conflict decision?....
    Not necessarily. It depends on the original Alaska vrs. Babbitt case that our beloved Tony Knowles dropped with prejudice.

    It appeared to me at the time that Knowles essentially dropped the state's interest in Federal subsistence management, but I might be overstating the case.

    .....Limiting residents from hunting even though the Department states clearly there is no shortage of game is clearly crossing the 'subsistence' line.....
    As well as violating Section 101(d) of ANILCA.

    But who's watching?

    .....What about the commercial hunting concessions?

    Isn't there some legal challenge to be made requiring the Park Service to discontinue the policy of commercial hunting concessions when favorite-time/location conflict 'decision' are made?

    Maybe AOC or SFW will 'look' into it?
    I'm sure they're "looking into it" just like you are.

    And to the same end...........

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Av, not sure this will stay in hunting forum, but wherever it goes I wanted to respond. Sometimes you and me disagree on some things. In the case of the Preserve Superintendent actually possibly advocating to allow the building of a cabin for subsistence purposes within the Noatak Preserve...I think that is a good thing, so this is a case where we disagree.

    If you haven't already, pick up a copy of Dan O'Neill's Land Gone Lonesome. It's about all the bushrats that used to live in what became Yukon-Charley National Preserve, and got ousted one way or another. Cabins were burned down. Permits for new ones denied. I know cuz I was involved and saw it all happen.

    In Dan's book, he advocates that subsistence activities (hunting, fishing, trapping) within Preserves is a good thing, and that the hope is in future that more NPS Superintendents will view consumptive uses in a good light. I totally agree, so in my book the NPS actually willing to allow a new cabin to be built for subsistence purposes within a Preserve is a darn good thing!

    Inre the other issue on limiting resident hunters in the Preserve, we are likely on the same page, though I haven't read up on the actual statements.
    Ok, I will get a copy of the book thanks for the suggested reading.

    I am not completely in disagreement with you on the issue of subsistence cabins....anybody can use them and they can not be used for commercial purposes or permanent living.

    In the present case however, this is a designated wilderness wild & scenic river corridor and some of the justifications for the cabin are dubious.

    In addition, it's stated this cabin is likely to create conflicts; so this cabin deal is not all that straight forward when a person takes the time to read the documents.

    There should be little doubt what is happening at the Noatak through this Superintendent is a result of considerable political pressure to do something 'special'. That's fine. I understand that.

    What concerns me the most is the procedure and policy that is being established.........this stuff has NEVER been done and it's clearly political yet will set the course for future actions so it should be 'challenged'.


  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    It depends on the original Alaska vrs. Babbitt case that our beloved Tony Knowles dropped with prejudice.

    It appeared to me at the time that Knowles essentially dropped the state's interest in Federal subsistence management, but I might be overstating the case.
    Well, I think MR. Noatak Park Superintendent just put the State's case back back on the table....maybe GovernorGirl will pick it up.


  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectH...rojectId=19107

    Follow the links on the left...of course they are on the left....like the far left

    NOW the Park Superintendent is looking to more break new ground and permit new subsistence cabins in wild an scenic corridors

    For those who don't know this Park Superintendent has already decided:

    A] to limit residents hunters on the preserve because of a perceived "favorite-time/location conflict."
    And for those of you who are not adept at reading this poster's code, "limit residents hunters" is actually putting in place a moratorium on increasing authorizations for commercial transporters. Agree, or disagree with that position, but at least understand the facts.

    C] The Park superintendent has decided that the Park service has a responsibility to protect the commercial hunting concessionaires are not being required to stand down.
    I'm not 100% sure of what you mean by this since the sentence is a bit mangled, but if you think that the Superintendent somehow stumbled on the idea that it is the NPS' responsibility to protect the commercial interests of existing park concessionaires over other potential competitors, he has done nothing of the sort. The US Congress made that decision and codified it in public law, several years ago.

  12. #12
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    .....It depends on the original Alaska vrs. Babbitt case that our beloved Tony Knowles dropped with prejudice.

    It appeared to me at the time that Knowles essentially dropped the state's interest in Federal subsistence management, but I might be overstating the case......
    Well, I think MR. Noatak Park Superintendent just put the State's case back back on the table....maybe GovernorGirl will pick it up.
    I'm not sure it matters. A case against the National Park Service/Interior Dept. would be just like the Hickel case brought up against Babbitt. It would take years, and all it takes is a subsequent Governor who wants rural points to drop the case for any number of stated reasons for it to go away and, ultimately, be a total waste of money and resources.

    And there's a reason Knowles dropped Alaska vrs. Babbitt with prejudice (so it couldn't be resurrected by the next Republican governor).

    Face it; ANILCA and Knowles screwed this state fully and forever. In essence, statehood was reneged upon.

    Three quarters of this state is a territory once again, and the Feds (fully bought and paid for monetarily and ideologically by the environmental industry) owns them.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    What concerns me the most is the procedure and policy that is being established.........this stuff has NEVER been done and it's clearly political yet will set the course for future actions so it should be 'challenged'.
    It is nothing new, just maybe in this particular NPS area. Denali and other parks have gone through similar public processes for new cabins.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Gakona Ak
    Posts
    1,493

    Default What about emergency use cabins?

    The NPS has a number of emergency use cabins along the same Wild and Scenic river as well as on the Kobuk and in Cape Krusenstern National Monument and lets not forget Serpentine Hot Springs. What are your feelings on those cabins and how the government maintains them?

    Walt
    Northwest Alaska Backcountry Rentals
    www.northwestalaska.com

  15. #15
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northwestalska View Post
    The NPS has a number of emergency use cabins along the same Wild and Scenic river as well as on the Kobuk and in Cape Krusenstern National Monument and lets not forget Serpentine Hot Springs. What are your feelings on those cabins and how the government maintains them?
    If they're for the use of all, they're great. That's what government is for.

    If they're limited to certain people, that sucks. That is exactly what government is not supposed to be doing.

  16. #16
    Member BlueMoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rifle River MI
    Posts
    1,835

    Default Thanks Ave

    I now officially wish to shoot my-self after reading all that repetitive data for the past 30 minutes to try and understand the entire process of Government allowing one person to move off of his private land so that he does not have to go down or up river 2 miles in order to fish the spot he wishes to fish. Who by the way does not wish or may not be able to maintain a bear fence, or that the rocks are slippery where he is at however the rocks may or may not be as slippery where he wishes to go. IMO the entire request somewhat makes you go HUH! The Process even more!!!!!! I did make an attempt to call the Park Manager to see what gives sorry to say he is not available for comment.

    If anyone who has decided to read this entire thread takes a chance on following the link the read is well worth it.

    Very intersing comments. I also now understand why our Gov can get little to nothing done in a timely manner. :-)

    I hope I do not send the wrong message concerning the gents request or the process that is currently in place. I just could not belive the justificaiton to move or build a new cabin on federal land however then again I do not live there nor do I live off the land however if someone does take exception to my comments please note I still have several counsins living on various Reservation across the Dakota's, Minn, and Michigan.

  17. #17

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    I know; and btw...apparently 'climate change' or 'global warming' which ever you prefer AND 'convince' are the essential 'reasons' Park Service is using to justify the permit to build the new cabin.

    Anyway, isn't there a legal obligation on the part of the State of Alaska to intervene on behalf of all residents on this favorite-time/location conflict decision?

    Limiting residents from hunting even though the Department states clearly there is no shortage of game is clearly crossing the 'subsistence' line.

    What about the commercial hunting concessions?

    Isn't there some legal challenge to be made requiring the Park Service to discontinue the policy of commercial hunting concessions when favorite-time/location conflict 'decision' are made?

    Maybe AOC or SFW will 'look' into it?
    If I were you, I would ask Mark Begich and Lisa Mukowski to step up to the plate and get this taken care of and get the one responsible replaced with a local state resident.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    If I were you, I would ask Mark Begich and Lisa Mukowski to step up to the plate and get this taken care of and get the one responsible replaced with a local state resident.
    How do you know their office isn't sensitive to the issue of subsistence hunters vs. out-of-state hunters?

    Since we are in spin mode I thought I'd throw in too

  19. #19
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskaflyer331 View Post
    Originally Posted by Akres
    If I were you, I would ask Mark Begich and Lisa Mukowski to step up to the plate and get this taken care of and get the one responsible replaced with a local state resident.
    How do you know their office isn't sensitive to the issue of subsistence hunters vs. out-of-state hunters?....
    The opening post mentioned limiting resident hunters, not non-resident hunters, and one would think that Begich/Murkowski/Young would be somewhat concerned with the 3/4 of the state population who are railbelt residents and voters.

    Unfortunately, they also know that only a portion of the railbelt residents hunt, and only a tiny percent of those hunters aspire to hunt the Noatak Preserve.

    They'll sympathize with the poor, subsistence hunter every time under such circumstances.

    ...Since we are in spin mode I thought I'd throw in too
    I understand.

    Let's spin some more!

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    The opening post mentioned limiting resident hunters, not non-resident hunters, and one would think that Begich/Murkowski/Young would be somewhat concerned with the 3/4 of the state population who are railbelt residents and voters.
    The opening post - through a creative use of language by the poster - managed to insinuate that the Noatak NP was limiting resident hunters, when it in fact is making no such effort. No hunters - resident or non resident - are being prevented from hunting by the NPS.

    What is being prevented is increases in trip and client numbers for existing for-profit commercial transporters, and increases in the number of authorized commercial transporters within the preserve.

    Since we are all happy to put on our blinders and use personal code to skew the argument, I choose to believe that limiting "commercial transporters" above the arctic circle generally means limiting "out-of-state" hunters.

    If that puts our delegation in the odd position of deciding whether to support resident subsistence hunters over the commercial interests of guides and transporters, well, it wouldn't be the first time. But by all means AVALANCHE should try to push that turd uphill.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •