Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: BoG members

  1. #1
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default BoG members

    Since we're all feeling kinder and gentler towards wildlife, building Karma, and spreading the love, here's a story related to hunters/trappers and hunting and trapping:

    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildl...ents_Container

    I'll quickly sum it up. Certain individuals want non-consumptive use representation on the BoG. They want non-hunters to have a say in the regs that effect you.

    What do you folks think?
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

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

    Default

    Bad idea. The "groups" behind this are the usual suspects; Defenders of Wildlife & AK Wildlife Alliance. Are these the non-extremists that Julie Maier was talking about putting on the BOG? Let's just say, I think Frank Murkowski was right labeling former head of DOW Deborah Williams as an enemy of the state. Remember that?!

    I don't think its a good idea to add individuals who oppose hunting and trapping to the board. They don't have limits/seasons/bag limits, so they can't play, imo.

    Hope that was kinder and gentler'!

    Tim

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Two edge sword?

    On one hand its their resource to utilize and protect also. It does create alot of questions, like how much will they deter to attempt or end the harvest of our resources. Also, the article make's you think about how much more we need to do to protect them. Do you really think they are going to harm anything, and how much if any of there agenda is sponsored from outside?

    Terry

  4. #4
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    .....Certain individuals want non-consumptive use representation on the BoG. They want non-hunters to have a say in the regs that effect you.

    What do you folks think?
    Crush them as quickly and decisively as possible.

    They have plenty of classified lands with wildlife on them that are non-huntable, non-consumptive. Let them co-partner with those land managers and leave the huntable populations to be managed by the BOG.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Myself, NO non-consumptives on the BOG, Alaska has plenty of Federal acreage, parks ie, for wildlife viewers, also tourists are not restricted from going viewing on their own, renting a car, flying out.

    I will equate it as a burr under the saddle, or a thorn in the side.

    We already have the sustained-yield in place, how does a non-consumptive user relate to that.

    The old McKinley park used to promote hunting in their brochures, up the Yanert and on horses. 180

    It generally known its hunters, sportsmen/women who provide large sums of money for wildlife habitat,& conservation (Pittman-Roberts). How much money have the non-consumptive users provided, throughout the years?

    My own personal experience was when the BOG was deciding the boundaries of the second wolf buffer zone abutting Denali park, at noon, halfway thru public testimony, I was near a hallway corner, around the corner was the park superintendent and BOG member, V V Ballen..., they not aware I was there, V V Ballen... said to the park super not to worry about the establishment of a buffer zone, he said "we have the votes"! Now what really bothered me about that, was the rest of the people who were waiting to give their testimony.

    This is a small part of my opinion/reason, for me its based on previous experience with most mentioned in the news article, and more.......

  6. #6
    Member GreenTea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Palmer, Alaska
    Posts
    92

    Default

    As citizens of a representative democracy, the non-consumptive users should have a voice in wildlife management, a place where they can present their agenda.
    But I agree with the others here - the Board of Game is the wrong arena for them. That's for us meat eaters.
    As if the tourism industry doesn't have enough yank in this State????

  7. #7
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    If we ever did institute a wildlife viewing fee to help fund Division of Wildife Conservation (I support such a fee), do you think then that the BOG should have one non-consumptive user as a member?

  8. #8
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DEDWUF View Post
    ......My own personal experience was when the BOG was deciding the boundaries of the second wolf buffer zone abutting Denali park, at noon, halfway thru public testimony, I was near a hallway corner, around the corner was the park superintendent and BOG member, V V Ballen..., they not aware I was there, V V Ballen... said to the park super not to worry about the establishment of a buffer zone, he said "we have the votes"! Now what really bothered me about that, was the rest of the people who were waiting to give their testimony........
    Look how this one worked. A bunch of senators had pork attached to the bill, Murkowski included. Even Begich voted for it in his very first roll call vote. So "a massive lands package that designates new wilderness areas throughout the West" is passed in order to generate a bit of pork barrel spending. Lands classified and shut down.

    If just one acre of that is in Alaska, it is in violation of Section 101(d) of ANILCA:

    ........This Act provides sufficient protection for the national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental values on the public lands in Alaska, and at the same time provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people; accordingly, the designation and disposition of the public lands in Alaska pursuant to this Act are found to represent a proper balance between the reservation of national conservation system units and those public lands necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and disposition, and thus Congress believes that the need for future legislation designating new conservation system units, new national conservation areas, or new national recreation areas, has been obviated thereby.....

  9. #9
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenTea View Post
    As citizens of a representative democracy, the non-consumptive users should have a voice in wildlife management, a place where they can present their agenda.....
    They do. They are free to present proposals to the BOG like everybody else, and they clearly do so.

  10. #10
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terry View Post
    Do you really think they are going to harm anything, and how much if any of there agenda is sponsored from outside?

    Terry
    Defenders of Wildlife is based out of Washington, DC. Don't know where AK Wildlife Alliance is from; actually I just looked, they're from Anchorage.

    Headline on AWA's website: Don't Let Gov. Palin "KILL BABY KILL" Alaska's Wildlife

    These are the folks who want to control (eventually) the BOG. Sounds like a non-hunting/trapping agenda to me.

    Tim

  11. #11
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    If we ever did institute a wildlife viewing fee to help fund Division of Wildife Conservation (I support such a fee), do you think then that the BOG should have one non-consumptive user as a member?
    Precisely why we shouldn't have a wildlife viewing fee! Plus, that sounds REALLY bad; a "wildlife viewing fee."
    That may also negate our ability to complain about the non-consumers paying there share!

    Tim
    Last edited by tccak71; 01-12-2009 at 10:05. Reason: addition

  12. #12
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Crush them as quickly and decisively as possible.

    They have plenty of classified lands with wildlife on them that are non-huntable, non-consumptive. Let them co-partner with those land managers and leave the huntable populations to be managed by the BOG.
    Pretty definitive, Mark. Guess that's how I feel, but would rather tip-toe around it.

    Tim

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    Crush them as quickly and decisively as possible.

    They have plenty of classified lands with wildlife on them that are non-huntable, non-consumptive. Let them co-partner with those land managers and leave the huntable populations to be managed by the BOG.
    Pretty definitive, Mark. Guess that's how I feel, but would rather tip-toe around it.
    They don't tip-toe. Why should we?

    I'm tired of them. They've been vociferously running roughshod on hunters/fishermen/ORV users for years.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Alaska wildlife alliance might appear to spawned in Anchorage, but their "birth" was not Alaskan!

  15. #15
    Member Stickeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE AK
    Posts
    90

    Default

    The way I see it is that the money spent on licenses and that is set aside for conservation etc, this ensures that if there's sustainable populations of game to hunt, then there is plenty to view. People often forget that hunters and fisherman are also the biggest conservationists. No need for a "nonconsumer" on BOG.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    And I would guess Alaska's magazine's co-editor, Nic Jans will but soon if not already, writing an article on why or why not, Alaska's BOG needs or doesn't need a non-consumptive user on the BOG. This is just a 'prediction.

    Last year, Jans wrote a article 'explaining' both sides of the 'wolf issue'. I felt it was slanted. Why? In 1968 Alaska (sportsman, I think) had a story called "Wolf wars", however there was not just one opinion, but at least a half a dozen, including Don Sheldon, Cecila Hunter, Lowell Thomas (jr?). That was a much better summary of 'sides' and way more fair.

    Nic is a excellent writer, but being involved in last years 'wolf politics'', I personally feel, those 'political' issue's failure will just re-direct him to push an agenda, such as Joel Bennet is doing.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    266

    Default

    SQUASH THEM and their idea as QUICK AS POSSIBLE before it happens! It will be long day to remove them if they get into the BOG.

  18. #18
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Tim, I've always found it ironic that the wildlife viewing fee bills that have not passed have failed in part because hunters and hunting orgs didn't support them, for the reasons you gave in your last post: fear that this would give wildlife viewers more say in mgmt decisions.

    The thing is, the wildlife of the state doesn't just belong to hunters and trappers; it belongs to everyone. And the Division of Wildlife Conservation not only must monitor and study various hunted and trapped game species for the benefit of hunters and trappers and overall conservation, but also for so-called "wildlife viewers."

    The term "non-consumptive" user is often incorrectly assumed to mean "anti-hunter." Most non-consumptive users are meat-eaters and support hunting for food; they just don't hunt themselves. The BOG is a seven member panel...it's highly unlikely one non-consumptive user on the Board is going to have much influence on key votes.

    If you've ever heard the interrogation potential BOG members receive from the legislature prior to their appointment...well it is pretty harsh! I can't envision any non-consumptive user who did not support hunting ever being appointed. Then again, current reality is that no non-hunter would ever be appointed either in the political climate and makeup of legislature right now.

    The way BOG members are appointed and confirmed is completely broken and needs to be changed. We DO need a more diverse BOG, definitely, made up of hunters and trappers with differing political and ideological makeups. And I think we should have a member who represents non-consumptive users as well, along with wildlife viewing fees charged so those who don't buy hunting and trapping licenses and tags can help fund DWC.

    Just my opinion of course <grin>. Hey, even current BOG will tell non-consumptive users that they are there to represent them too and hear them out, that that is a part of their mandate as BOG members. Well if that is the case, it does seem odd that there is not even one seat on the Board given to that group.

  19. #19
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terry View Post
    On one hand its their resource to utilize and protect also. It does create alot of questions, like how much will they deter to attempt or end the harvest of our resources. Also, the article make's you think about how much more we need to do to protect them. Do you really think they are going to harm anything, and how much if any of there agenda is sponsored from outside?

    Terry
    We, as in the consumptive users, pay for everybody else's wildlife. Per the Golden Rule we have the most stroke. I'd rather we keep it that way.

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    .....The way BOG members are appointed and confirmed is completely broken and needs to be changed.......
    It is no different than any other political appointment; members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.

    Why should the BOG be any different?

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
  •