Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Ak Hunting News: Game Board Axes Proposals; Considering Other Subsistence Changes

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 1997
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    532

    Arrow Ak Hunting News: Game Board Axes Proposals; Considering Other Subsistence Changes

    This news clip is from Alaska Hunting News. Discussion is welcome, but these robot generated news threads are not monitored by the webmaster.

    From the Anchorage Daily News (2 stories):

    Many, mostly Alaskans from rural parts of the state, told the Alaska Board of Game on Saturday not to change the way the regulations worked:

    "More than 50 Alaska Natives carried signs and walked the sidewalks through an early-morning drizzle Saturday in downtown Anchorage, protesting Board of Game proposals that would radically overhaul the popular Nelchina caribou hunt.

    Later, the wet-haired marchers shed rain jackets and stuffed themselves into a warm hotel conference room, testifying before the board that the proposals would take meat from their tables.

    The Game Board, in a special meeting expected to last through Monday, might end the controversial and highly restricted Tier II subsistence hunt in the Nelchina basin north and east of Anchorage."

    Read the entire story in the Anchorage Daily News >>>

    The following day, the Board rejected two proposals that would have changed the way the program worked:

    "The Board of Game on Sunday rejected two proposals that would alter the state subsistence program, said Kristy Tibbles, executive director.

    But board members today will take up other proposals that could give every Alaskan a shot at participating in the highly restricted Nelchina caribou hunt, she said.

    Board members, meeting in Anchorage today, have said they want to address complaints that the hunt restricts people younger than 38 and encourages applicants to lie to win permits. Many hunters also complain that not enough permits are awarded to meet demand."

    Read the entire story in the Anchorage Daily News >>>


    Read the individual article on Alaska Hunting News...

    We welcome news tips that are useful to the community. Please send tips and links to complete stories by email to webmaster@outdoorsdirectory.com.

  2. #2
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    12,859

    Default

    Can someone tell me where they got the 38 years old number from? I'm 28 and got a Nelchina permit this year (for the first time in many years), and NO, I did not lie on my application. I also have two siblings, ages 30 and 34 that were awarded permits as well.

    -Brian

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    699

    Default i think the BOG has wigged out

    i hear on the news that they will now require permit holders to salvage the hide of moose and caribou ( tier2). who the hell uses a hide for anything useful nowadays? this hunt should be a draw permit.(period)

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    699

    Default Bm....

    i think what they're referring to is the average age before people start qualifying. if you've lived here your entire life at 28, it probably would be different.

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    12,859

    Default

    Well, right...but I heard on the news that it took life-long Alaskans 38 years until they qualify. It almost seemed like they were complaining about lying on the Tier II applications out of one side of their mouth while lying themselves out of the other side. I'm guessing it wasn't intentional, but in at least one news report this age deal wasn't represented truthfully.

    I am curious to hear about the hide salvage deal. If that's actually the case, does anyone know where the idea came from? Was this actually a proposal that was before the board? I'm not so sure that I see the wisdom in that one.

    -Brian

  6. #6
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    12,859

    Default

    Well, I guess the rumor is true. According to KTUU, Tier II hunters will now be required to salvage the hide, heart, tongue, liver, & kidneys. In addition, they're scaling back from 3 to 2 permits per family. Apparently they'll also consider more restrictions in March such as restricting ATV use.

    Hmmm...so how does this all shake out for you guys, both those who win Tier II permits and those who don't? As for me, I'm not vehemently opposed to the new restrictions, but I don't really see the benefit. I guess they're hoping that some people will decide that it's not worth the hassle, thus fewer people will apply. If fewer apply, then maybe we can get to the point where there is a drawing hunt as well. I don't know that I buy this logic, though - I don't think they'll see any reduction in applications. Dropping the family limit from 3 to 2 makes sense in order to create more opportunity, but the rest seems ill-informed.

    Am I wrong here? I'm up for learning...lay it on me!

    -Brian

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    699

    Default I'M opposed to all of it

    the whole thing is stupid.

    what other state makes you:
    haul out hides, kidneys, heads, livers,etc.?

    what other state discriminates based on where you live, where you buy your groceries,etc?

    anywhere else (state) that has a shortage of whatever species has a draw based on a random drawing or a buildup of points so that you are favored if you don't get drawn.

    what will happen?

    we will have dumpsters full of hides,kidneys,heads, and tongues.

    it's just stupid, all of it.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    1,094

    Smile Nelchina

    I think they need to keep tier II. Its about time the old timers and rural Alaskans get something for their efforts. Increasing restrictions is fine with me, but would hurt the very people tier II is supposed to benefit, the old timers who need a wheeler to get around. Salvaging the organs and hide is okay as long as they find someone who wants them. I gave up eating most organ meats a few years ago for health reasons. Random drawings are bad as you dont get to hunt an area despite living there your whole life and some guy from out of state does. People who live up here, tough out the winters and pay taxes do deserve to hunt where they live.

  9. #9
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    12,859

    Default

    I've gotta admit that if I'm asked to bring out the hide (assuming I get a permit next year) that I don't see myself using it. If someone else wanted it, I'd be happy to oblige, but...

    As for the other organs, well, I'm a biology teacher. Always happy to have more dissection specimens! (I'd eat the tongue, but don't have much interest in liver or kidneys.)

    -Brian

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    My dog will be eating some first class meat next year (tongue, heart, kidneys, liver, etc) if we receive permits and score.
    This is the stupidest thing I ever heard of in my life. F&G must be on crack

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley trash.....and proud of it.
    Posts
    813

    Default

    I agree with sollybug. the tier 2 is a good thing, IF its managed right (especially through the application process). I have no problems letting rural residents have priority, then put a certain amount of tags in a draw for city folk. say 75/25. If they are not gonna manage it right, just make it a draw, that way noone has to lie...lol

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    699

    Default how about

    if you think rural residents should have priority, why not sign over your perm. fund check to them as well? after all, they need it more than you. personally, i just don't see what rural residents have done that is so special as to classify them above me.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    699

    Default say what

    "People who live up here, tough out the winters and pay taxes do deserve to hunt where they live."


    yea, people like me.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley trash.....and proud of it.
    Posts
    813

    Default

    sh, what I'm saying is that give it to the rurals. hell, the whole tier 2 is crooked anyways. last I checked tier 2 is supposed to be a subsistance hunt. I dont even put in for tier 2, I dont really hunt bou anymore for that matter. I just want a fair system. as for the perm fund check, its free money that I dont depend on and its just a matter of time anyway before the state finds a way to take it from us.

    theres also the 40mile herd to hunt that doesnt require a fly-in. its a little bit up the road but its available. If people wouldnt have abused the crap out of the system, I would agree with you sh, but screw it, give it to the folks who live in the area.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bethel, Cantwell, Fort Yukon, Skagway, Chevak and Point Hope
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sh View Post
    i hear on the news that they will now require permit holders to salvage the hide of moose and caribou ( tier2). who the hell uses a hide for anything useful nowadays?

    Isn't that what Subsistance is all about. Waste not, want not. Customary and Traditional.

    If you don't want the hide go to the nearest store and buy beef.

    If it was to be done my way, they'ed be required to use sticks and stones in the C&T fashion.

  16. #16
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,991

    Default

    My 2 cents...

    sh
    In response to your "what other state..." questions. No other state has subsistence hunting and the problems that go with it.

    Its no secret that the Tier II model as applied to the Nelchina caribou herd is a joke. This so called subsistence hunt has devolved into a trophy hunt for those Alaskan residents with longevity. When people who live in town drive hundreds of miles out of their way, hauling tens of thousands of dollars of machinery in the process, to "harvest" roughly 400 lbs of meat (3 animals) then simple economics nullifies subsistence as a justification for the hunt.

    Personally I support local preference but that concept violates our state constitution. The only fix that I can see is to modify the existing Tier II point scale to heavily favor those zip codes within the Nelchina herd's home range, basiclly GMU's 13, and parts of 11 and 12. That would limit actual subsistence hunters to less then 1000 households in most years. I would also survey those users to see when they would prefer to hunt and give them two exclusive periods to hunt, 1 in fall and 1 in late winter/spring but
    they would be free to hunt until there tags were filled. Whatever the household limit, I would restrict subsistence hunters to 1 branch antlered bull, per household per season.

    Depending on herd strength and ADF&G's harvest target, the remaining animals would go to Drawing permits for mature bulls and registration tags for cows, calves and non-branch antlered bulls.

    Not a perfect plan but fairer in my opinion to hunters at large without denying the true subsistence users.

    As a final thought, my primary motivation for getting the State to fix subsistence is to get the Feds the hell out of our F&G management.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    699

    Default hmmmm

    i think i'm outnumbered on this one, but i still don't agree. i'm surprised by the number of people who think discrimination is ok ; that is, if every person is not given an equal chance regardless of age, rural/urban, longevity, etc. it just does'nt sound right or fair to me. that's why i think the only answer is a draw permit. if you don't draw one, too bad, you face the same issues as a lot of other people who did'nt either. the states job should not be to guarantee a permit to people just because of where they live or beacuse they lived here 30 years. it is an equal protection issue . i'll let it go at that.

  18. #18
    Member Kurt S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quoted from the Ktuu site;

    “In my opinion, none of these things are broken. It's been working for awhile, and now they want to change everything. It just upsets me,” Dementi said."

    I tend to agree with that statement, with a couple reservations.
    I have no problem with the reduction from 3 to 2 per household, this doesn't effect those that live within close proximity of the area. Those that live in the area pass on the Tier ll as they get 3 per person from the Fed system. Yes, we have two systems here, the State, and the Fed. There are restrictions to both systems, one seems to have to do with income and residence (fed), the other with traditional use, (state).
    As to the constant whine that it's a liars game,(I wonder how valid that is) If you want to stop that, institute a fine of $5000.00 bucks for those caught lying. Further, offer $1000.00 of that in reward for those turning them in. I can assure you, that would stop or severly cut down on that problem.

    I have no clue as to the salvage of the hide, head, and organ meat change. I do salvage the organs as I have people who like it and welcome the donation. The hide and head?
    The proposed wheeler ban? This is interesting. Most trails in existance today are from mining and hunting trails. Those guys used cat's to pull trailers and equipment all over the place to hunt and mine, subsitance as well as guiding in it's early years. You would have to go a long darn ways back to find walk in. You would also have to get rid of outboard motors and modern firearms. Where do you draw the line?
    With the current system, we know the problems, any redo will create a whole new set and knowing human nature, it will still be "unfair" to someone.

    I say leave it alone.

    Kurt

  19. #19
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default "Local preference in times of shortage"

    Lots of politics involved in this. Here's some quotes from the KTUU report:

    “We better define subsistence; if not, we'd have a lot of people who would say, ‘Gee, I don't want to hunt that way. I don't want to bring all that stuff out, or I don't want to hike in and carry it out,” said Board of Game member Cliff Judkins.

    “What the outdoor council would like to see is that those people who are getting guaranteed Tier 2 permits are actually individuals who depend on that resource for their mainstay of livelihood,” said Rod Arno of the Alaska Outdoor Council.

    The Outdoor Council wants Tier 2 restrictions so more moose and caribou from the Nelchina herds will be available through a statewide drawing.

    Villages in the region feel the restrictions will be an unnecessary burden for them to create opportunities for sport hunters.


    Aaarrgghhh, I'm continually amazed at the duplicity and the shenanigans that go on with our Board of Game. So, it appears this is an attempt to "define" subsistence to mean that you take nearly everything, including the hide, even if you have no use for the hide. Further, they may ban atv use for this subsistence activity, which would have "subsistence" hunters saying, "Gee, I don't want to bring all that stuff out. This is too hard." Thus, potentially less applicants, which means more opportunities for others via open hunt or draw, which is imo the sole reasoning behind this decision.


    If there are actually people who depend on caribou in a certain area for the "mainstay of their livelihood," then why would we not want to give them a preference over, say, someone living in a whole 'nuther part of the state? What is wrong with a "local preference in times of shortage"? It just makes common sense that the people living in an area, whatever their income or race, should have the first crack at game where they live when there isn't enough to go around for everyone. After the McDowell decision voided the Subsistence Act, virtually every hunter in the state became a "subsistence" hunter. The state then found that the Tier II "discrimination" met the legal requirements of the common-use clause in our constitution, because it discriminates equally and isn't monopolistic. Meaning, anyone is free to move to any area they want...thus qualifying them for local preference in times of shortage and allowing them "common use."

    This "local preference" idea (which was proposed by both Wally Hickel and Jay Hammond, and most recently by Fred Dyson) is the only way out of the quagmire we are in with the feds...and if it is adopted by more it would pave the way for us to conform with Title 8 of ANILCA and regain state management of our fish and game on most fed lands. Yet many hunters and hunting orgs oppose it, and their vehement opposition is stalling everything. All in the name of an "ideal."

    It's time we became realists.

    Selah,
    Mark

  20. #20

    Thumbs down Tier II

    Quote Originally Posted by sh View Post
    i think i'm outnumbered on this one, but i still don't agree. i'm surprised by the number of people who think discrimination is ok ; that is, if every person is not given an equal chance regardless of age, rural/urban, longevity, etc. it just does'nt sound right or fair to me. that's why i think the only answer is a draw permit. if you don't draw one, too bad, you face the same issues as a lot of other people who did'nt either. the states job should not be to guarantee a permit to people just because of where they live or beacuse they lived here 30 years. it is an equal protection issue . i'll let it go at that.
    sh, let me tell you, you are not outnumbered and AlleninAlaska, I couldn't agree with you more on your post, that hit the nail right on the head. Bushrats comment about "rural preference in time of shortage" is a good one, they should be getting the bulk of the tags when it comes down to it in my opinion. Let them have one fall and one spring caribou, then they have enough meat to get them through a whole year and if they get a moose then thats all the more for them. I know a lot of you will just say that I am jealous that I don't get a tag, well just for your info, I don't even apply for it and to be truthful, I don't need the meat that badly and I know a few people that do get them that are a whole lot better off than me. The whole tier II thing is a joke and should be abolished. There, now I feel better....
    Last edited by AkHunter45; 10-10-2006 at 15:00.

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
  •