Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: what's up with the Anch AC?

  1. #1
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Question what's up with the Anch AC?

    looks like they figure their opinion is good enough to warrant changing AC (alaska code.."law" in other words) just 'cause of who they are... not that there aren't lots of other advisory councils that are supposed to have equal input in the eyes of the BOG.. whether or not one might agree with them is irrelevant when you consider the sheer audacity required to make a proposal like this...


    Anchorage Advisory Committee
    February 21, 2009
    Chairman Aaron Bloomquist

    Boards Support Section
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game
    PO Box 115526
    Juneau, AK 99811
    RE: Agenda Change Request
    Members of the Board of Game
    The Anchorage Advisory Committee; upon submission of this written
    request consistent with 5AAC.92.005 (2), seeks emergency exception
    and
    consent of the Board to accept and change the agenda to consider the
    Anchorage Advisory Committee’s petition.
    On February 3ed 2009, the full committee (13 members) of the
    Anchorage
    A/C voted unanimously to move by written request a petition to the
    Board of Game requesting support for amending AC 16.05.407 “Non
    residents hunting big game must be accompanied” for consideration and
    public deliberation at the upcoming meeting of the Board of Game
    meeting February 27– March 9, 2009.
    In light of the public purpose and duties of the Board of Game and
    the
    Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Games statutory charge to
    manage, protect, maintain, improve the wildlife resources of the
    state, orders can be issued to protect a sustained yield based on
    conservation concerns. We believe the BOG can provide “support” for
    and advance a proposed amendment to AC 16.05.407.
    Recently, just before the statewide hiring freeze was announced by
    Governor Palin, two key people; Corey Rossi, Assistant Commissioner
    for Abundance Management and XX , were hired to enhance the statutory
    duties of office of the Commissioner of Fish and Game and this Board.



    The timing of these hiring’s make evident this Administration is
    committed to measures that enhance efficient and cost effective tools
    consistent with managing for abundance. Obviously, the Administration
    and the Department is best positioned to take what ever steps
    necessary to amend AC 16.05.407 invariable with current conservation
    concerns; especially in particular areas of concern.
    The Boards support of the Anchorage Advisory Committees petition is
    critical if the Administration and the Department can be prompted to
    take immediate action.
    As stated by Assistant Commissioner Rossi in his compass piece in the
    Anchorage Daily News February 21, 2009 “…While some techniques are
    more controversial than others, all are management tools and should
    be
    used properly.”
    The Anchorage A/C is of the opinion that our request for the agenda
    change and Board support of our petition to be sensibly ‘less’ than
    controversial than some proposals before the Board and represents a
    proper management tool.
    Under AS 44.62.220 ‘…if the petition is for an emergency regulation,
    and the agency finds that an emergency exists, the agency may submit
    the regulation to the lieutenant governor immediately after making
    the
    finding of emergency and putting the regulation into proper form.’
    While
    the proposed amendment of AC 16.05.407 may not constitute an
    ‘emergency’ it is unmistakable that out petition is presented in the
    proper venue and form and the purpose of the petition can be
    accomplished without nuisance and is necessary and appropriate.

    Furthermore, the Anchorage A/C’s petition may not rise to the level
    of
    a petition dealing directly with subsistence hunting issues, however,
    the Boards evaluation of our request should not overlook the state
    policy expressed in AS 44.62.270.








    Clearly, nothing is unforeseen or unexpected by any failure to lessen
    the threat to the abundance of prey populations in the areas of
    concern where a biologically allowable resource harvest has been
    found
    to exist.

    Amending AC 16.05.407 now precludes further delay of a regulatory
    action that has been frustrated by the special interest of the
    commercial hunting industry in past Board and legislative cycles.

    Such delay has already become significantly burdensome to the State.
    The state is forgoing tag fees and incurring other immeasurable costs
    associated with the need for predator control and the resource
    remains
    diminished in areas of concern clearly defined by previous Board and
    Departments actions.


    Proposed Action

    Amending AC 16.05.407 “Non residents hunting big game must be
    accompanied”

    Considering the economic downturn and the actual cost to the State in
    dealing with predator issues in critical areas and the danger of the
    already defined areas of deficiency it is determined to be entirely
    consistent with managing for abundance to encourage unaccompanied
    nonresident hunting of predators; particularly in areas of concern.

    The Department and the BOG identified the following areas of specific
    concern as predator control areas. 201, 202, 301, 302, 303. In
    addition to those specific areas, and in an attempt to backstop the
    need for additional predator control programs in the future, the
    Department and the BOG have focused the Departments authority to make
    ‘exceptions’ for ‘0’ sum resident tag fees for grizzly and brown
    bears
    and liberalized resident brown/grizzly bear seasons and harvest bag
    limit regulations in other areas; all due to declining prey
    populations and the intent of intensive management goals to manage
    prey species for abundance.






    In addition to amending AC 16.05.407 to allow nonresident to hunt
    brown/grizzly bears unaccompanied the Anchorage A/C intends the
    amendment to apply to military and their dependents permanently
    stationed in Alaska. Military and their dependents permanently
    stationed in Alaska and by way the proposed amendment should be
    permitted to hunt brown/grizzly bears in any game management unit.
    Not
    unlike the ‘second degree of kindred by blood or marriage’ exception
    to AC 16.05.407 applies to any nonresident hunting brown/grizzly
    bears
    in any game management unit where hunting is permitted.

    The Anchorage A/C believes amendment of AC 16.05.407 fits squarely
    inside the definition of ‘the public interest’ and represents the
    maximum benefit to the people of Alaska.

    The amendment to AC 16.05.407 does not preclude non-residents from
    hiring the service of a registered guide to hunt brown/grizzly bears.

    Clearly, Alaska’s justification to impose legally permissible
    discrimination represented by AC 16.05.407 has not been tested on
    constitutional grounds. However, as many know, there is more than one
    Attorney Generals opinion that the ‘special exceptions’ swirling
    around AC 16.05.407 may not pass the test should the question of law
    be asked for the courts to decide.

    Nonresidents hunt brown and grizzly bears throughout Alaska with
    residents that meet no other qualification other than being a
    resident.

    Nonresidents and residents that meet no other qualification than
    being
    residents are obligated to be familiar with state conservation laws.
    Spike-fork, 50”, 3 brow tines, 4 brow tines, ‘bull’ only, sows
    without
    cubs ect.

    Non-residents hunt other big game including black bears and in the
    presence of dangerous game; unguided. Non-residents fish with bears,
    photograph bears, hike and camp with bears ect.; all either unguided
    or in the presence of a ‘guide’, often without the ‘guide’ meeting
    any
    state sanctioned occupational guide licensing standard whatsoever.



    Nonresidents who have achieved Alaska’s professional occupational
    standards of a ‘registered’ guide are not permitted to hunt grizzly/
    brown bear, goats or sheep unless accompanied and under contract with
    a guide and could be technically ‘guided’ by an ‘assistant’ guide who
    by definition has not met the standard of a ‘registered’ guide and
    may
    himself be a ‘nonresident assistant guide’.

    Nonresidents participate in all activities under the sun in Alaska.
    They engage in outdoor activities regularly, often without guides and
    in all environments throughout Alaska including; natural hazards of
    rugged terrain and inclement weather.

    AC 16.05.407 serves no biological or human management objective.

    Nonresidents annual harvest totals are approximately:
    • 65% of the brown/grizzly bears
    • 50% of the black bears
    • 45% of the sheep
    • 30% of the goats
    • 9% of the moose
    • 6% of the caribou

    AC 16.05.407 continues to encourage untold numbers of non-resident
    hunters to hunt moose, caribou and deer primarily due to the
    additional costs of hunting brown/grizzly bears under contract of a
    ‘registered guide’.

    AC 16.05.407 continues to cost the State untold income in the way of
    brown/grizzly ‘tag’ fees and contributes to the imbalance of predator
    prey populations throughout every game management unit where brown/
    grizzly bears are hunted by the commercial guide industry.

    Management for abundance and managing the resources generally must
    demand consistency.

    It is well known Alaska is experiencing depletion of our resources
    and
    it is not entirely due to predators. The competition to exploit the
    remaining resources and opportunities has predictably escalated in
    the
    true fashion of the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Even in identified
    ‘areas

    of specific concern’ prey species are hunted by the commercial
    guiding
    industry if the hunting has not been outright closed except to
    subsistence hunters.

    It appears inconsistent to declare stocks of critical concern are
    threatened and not consider the reality of
    discouraging non-residents from hunting bears unguided.

    Including, barring nonresidents from purchasing a bear tag to have
    while in the field hunting other game. Or liberalizing harvest bag/
    limits on brown/grizzly bears for residents. To get to the point of
    considering same day airborne taking of brown/grizzly bears as well
    as
    private or commercial use of helicopters to be among other legitimate
    issues raised to address declines in critical stocks without serious
    consideration of the true purpose and effect of AC 16.05.407 seems
    unreasonable and inconsistent to the members of the Anchorage A/C.

    It is the position of the Anchorage A/C that it is consistent with
    the
    obligation to manipulate natural systems for the benefit of people
    including; "measures to enhance, extend, and … provide for higher
    levels of human harvest, including control of predation…” that the
    overall best interest of the State is served by the purpose of
    amending AC 16.05.407 by what ever means the Department and the
    Administration find necessary.

    It is requested the BOG support and advance a proposed amendment to
    AC
    16.05.407.

    Respectfully,

    Aaron Bloomquist

    Chairman, Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee

    CC:
    Commissioner Denby Lloyd
    All Alaska A/C’s
    BGCSB
    SFW-Alaska
    APHA
    AOC
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  2. #2
    Member Riptide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    88

    Default Anchorage AC

    The AAC voted to let a member that was particularly interested in the issue draft the letter for review by the AAC. The copy you see here is a draft for review by the committee.
    Wade Willis


  3. #3
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Huh???

    Riptide,

    Since you are on the Anchorage AC, what are we to make of the part of the letter that says "
    On February 3ed 2009, the full committee (13 members) of the Anchorage A/C voted unanimously to move by written request a petition to the Board of Game requesting support for amending AC 16.05.407 “Non residents hunting big game must be accompanied” for consideration and
    public deliberation at the upcoming meeting of the Board of Game
    meeting February 27– March 9, 2009." ??

    If this is just a draft for review by the Anchorage AC, why was it sent out to the commissioner, the BOG, BGCSB, APHA, AOC, and SFW? (I noted that it wasn't sent to AK BHA, the org I co-chair...I guess we are not important enough <grin>)

    I also found this part interesting:
    "To get to the point of
    considering same day airborne taking of brown/grizzly bears as well
    as private or commercial use of helicopters to be among other legitimate
    issues raised to address declines in critical stocks without serious
    consideration of the true purpose and effect of AC 16.05.407 seems
    unreasonable and inconsistent to the members of the Anchorage A/C."

    Bloomquist and SFW-Alaska are one and the same, and it has been Bloomquist and SFW who are pushing for use of helicopters to transport all hunters (res and non-res) to the SFW bait camps, as well as the snaring of bears at those same camps. So I don't know but there is something very fishy here in this last-minute letter and attempt to add this to the BOG agenda. Especially if it doesn't really have the unanimous support of the Anchorage AC.

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
  •