Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Petition to Repeal Proposal 117 - 15C (Homer) Sea Duck Limit

  1. #1
    Member Waldo2382's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Homer, AK
    Posts
    250

    Default Petition to Repeal Proposal 117 - 15C (Homer) Sea Duck Limit

    Petition to Repeal Proposal 117 - 15C (Homer) Sea Duck Limit

    Some of you may know already, but the Board of Game has lowered Homer area sea duck limit to 2 per day and 4 in possession. This was done with out the support of the biologist or any data. The proposal was created by one person just not wanting people to shoot the bird in the area.

    Buck Brown is fighting back and needs our help. He has created a petition to present to the board of game shortly. What we are asking is for letters or signatures for the petition.

    What you can do -

    1) Write a letter addressed to the Board of Game and send it to Buck at Box 77, Seldovia AK 99663. He is collecting everything to present to the BOG.

    2) Sign the petition and mail to Buck.

    3) Visit this website - http://wildfowltraveler.com/pentition_117.html and sign the petition electrically. The first two have more of an impact, but I encourage you for the minimum of the online form. Please add some comments to the form of your own, this always has more impact.


    The fact that this proposal was passed is scary (you will know what I mean when you read the proposal). There was no scientific data or any user group input. Even if you do not use this area we as duck hunters need to stand together and help fellow hunters out.


    Here is the petition and for your knowledge of the events I have put the Original Proposal 117 and the Summary of changes by the Alaska Board of Game for regulatory year 2009-2010.




    Board of Game
    4/2/09
    re: Petition to Repeal Proposal 117


    We, the undersigned, hereby support the petition to repeal proposal 117 5ACC 85.065. This proposal drastically reduced the number of sea ducks that can be harvest in Kachemak Bay. Resident hunters were dropped from 10 birds daily limit/20 in possession to 2 daily bag limit/ 4 in possession. We feel the original proposal said nothing about regulation changes such as bag limit reductions, and the public was mislead.

    The head state waterfowl biologist Tom Rothe writes, "The department has concluded that the sea duck harvest is not excessive in Kachemak Bay and Cook Inlet". His recommendation for proposal 117 was: "Do not adopt." Surveys from 1999 to 2003 show from 15,000 to 30,000 ducks wintering in Kachemak Bay.

    The Board of Game has made bag limits reductions to sea ducks in 1999 and 2001. State waterfowl biologists write: "The department does not have concerns that sea ducks are being over harvested and concludes that further restrictions to hunting will not provide conservation benefits to regional winter aggregations or populations of sea ducks." We believe that the biologist's conclusions should be validated by maintaining the previous bag limit.

    Dropping of the bag limit is not necessary and was pursued for an individual's personal benefit and was not based on any scientific necessity.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So that all signing this Petition are Educated on the Topic -


    Original Proposal -

    PROPOSAL 117- 5 ACC 85.065. Hunting seasons and bag limits for small game. Modify the sea duck hunting season for Unit 15 as follows:

    Exploitation rates and thresholds of adundnace need to be maintained within easily accessible areas like Kackemak Bay.

    ISSUE: Localized depletion of sea duck species from guided hunting.

    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Depleted areas cannot recover. Most of these ducks are not eaten or utilized.

    WILL THE QUILITY OF THE RESEOURCE HARVESTED BE IMPROVED?

    WHO WILL BENEFIT?

    WHO WILL SUFFER?

    OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED?

    PROPOSED BY: Nancy Hillstrand

    Taken from -
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/g...ok-sc-2009.pdf


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Summary of changes by the Alaska Board of Game for regulatory year 2009-2010.

    Unit 15C, Kachemak Bay, modify resident bag limits to 2 seaducks totla per day, 4 in possession (harlequin, long-tails, eiders-((except spectacled or Stellars')), scoters, common mergansers, and red-breasted mergansers) of any species. Modify nonresident bag limit to 2 seaducks total per day, 4 in possession (harlequin, long-tails, eiders-((except spectacled or Stellars')), scoters, common mergansers, and red-breasted mergansers) of any species, with no change to the season bag limit.

    Taken from -
    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/g...hanges0910.pdf

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    15

    Default

    How the hell does this get done without any body knowing about it??? I can't believe it!! Who the hell is running these boards ?? Are they all antes ?? We have to fight for every inch!

  3. #3

    Default

    Signed the electronic petition and am currently working on one to send to Buck and I started thinking is the votes secret?? can we find out who voted for this thing?

  4. #4

    Default

    Oh, well after a little digging I found out that this lady is a business owner, owns large tracts of land and is Johnathan Hillstrands mom, you may have seen him on Deadliest Catch as the Captain of the Time Bandit.

    So this makes a little more sense why such a BS proposal got passed.

  5. #5
    Member honker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    80

    Default

    petition signed...

  6. #6
    Member akdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I sent the electronic petition, now do we print the same form, sign and mail to the Seldovia address?

  7. #7
    Member Waldo2382's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Homer, AK
    Posts
    250

    Default

    If you signed the electronic petition, you do not have to print out the one below and send to Buck. If you would like, send a letter directed to the BOG to Buck and he'll forward them to the appropriate sources.

    Nancy Hillstrand is a former marine biologist, mother of the Hillstrand Brothers from the Time Bandit, and is the owner of Coal Point Seafood.

    On a side note:
    I've heard really good things about Ed's Smokehouse and Fish processing, I think my buddies and I will be trying that place out this summer.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai, AK
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Thanks for the information for the petition, it is signed and confirmed.

    Thanks Alot
    Jake

  9. #9
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Exclamation don't pick the wrong target, guys....

    Nancy is NOT the mother of the hillstrand bros., although she was married to their father. john (sr.) was a big hunter, and until his death regularly took members of the coal point crew hunting (on his penny) across the inlet. nancy is not an "anti". coal point seafoods is an important business in this community, and employs a lot of people. she is good to her employees and pays them well. there is no reason to make this personal against her, gripe at the BOG if you need to.
    the homer AC "took no action" because the proposal was so poorly worded as to be meaningless. this is just another example of how you can comment on a proposal as it is written, but the BOG can re-write it and pass it with no further opportunity for comment.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  10. #10

    Default

    So, you're saying the proposal she wrote was actually rewritten by the BOG?? What was her original proposal then?? What proof do you have and why would you hold back on this information?

    I talked to the executive director of the BOG and she was very helpful and provided me alot of information that I was able to dig up on their archived website. Her handwritten proposal is exactly the same as the one on this forum so I don't really see where your coming from and your motive for trying to protect her if your a hunter.

    Not a duck hunter fine, but any attack on any hunting group is an attack on ALL HUNTERS..

  11. #11
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Exclamation the proposal is in post #1

    as written...
    "Exploitation rates and thresholds of abundance need to be maintained within easily accessible areas like Kachemak Bay."
    nowhere does this say "change bag limit to 2 per day"... as a matter of fact, it doesn't say ANYTHING about what should be done... and as such was a terribly written proposal that in our estimation had little or no chance of being acted upon. the BOG took it upon themselves to write an actual enactable proposal, and for some reason they settled on 2/day. 4/ in possession....

    now i am NOT speaking for the AC here, but if guided seaduck hunting were not a factor, i suspect that the seaduck take in kachemak bay would be a LOT less than it is... and perhaps there would be no issue with potential over harvest.

    as for the science to support conservation, here is a quote on seaduck biology from a PhD working on eider, whom i contacted to get some info on the issue:
    "Seaducks are an exception to the general pattern of low winter philopatry
    and male-biased dispersal characteristic of other ducks. Both harlequin
    and goldeneyes exhibit very high winter site fidelity, higher than seen
    for most other waterfowl in North America. Harlequins have homing rates in
    excess of 92% to specific sites on Montague Island and western Prince
    William Sound suggesting that wintering aggregations may be
    demographically independent. Therefore the possibility does exist that
    wintering aggregations could be locally extirpated".

    as hunters and conservationists in the roosevelt ideal, we (as hunters) should first and foremost be concerned with the preservation of the resources we utilize, and in this instance it seems to me that increased pressure on a population that is susceptible to local extirpation should trump commercial exploitation.

    i am not saying that the limit should be reduced to 2, but i am saying we should look to the pressures that have resulted in this regulation, and not ignore them when we seek to have the decision revoked or amended.

    should there be a non-resident reduction?

    would 5/day, 10/possession be reasonable?

    should a guided hunters have priority over locals?

    these are all valid questions, and should be considered in the search for a more equitable regulation...

    (and for the record, i don't hunt ducks, but i taxi quite a few duck hunters every fall...)
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    should there be a non-resident reduction?...)
    There already is a reduction for non-residents in the books for sea ducks

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    would 5/day, 10/possession be reasonable?...)
    it is already broken down by species and could be handled in that manner if there is a convservation concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    should a guided hunters have priority over locals?...)
    Where did that come from? How many guides are in the areas that are actively guiding and not just registered? No one should have priority over anyone. Birds are Federal.


    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    (and for the record, i don't hunt ducks, but i taxi quite a few duck hunters every fall...)
    Do you taxi locals or non-residents? How many people are hunting the area? What is the Departments take on all of this?

    Lots of questions, I don't know if there were addressed at the BOG by the department or not. But with this new regulation they were succeful at eliminating any guiding industry there. I bet your taxi service will greatly suffer due to this regulation.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    valdez
    Posts
    30

    Default

    As a side question for homerdave, was Nancy at the BOG meeting pushing her proposal to limit sea ducks? From my understanding she was there making comments on her proposal. So it is not like BOG just decided to right up a reg, it was advised by her personally at the meeting.

    If you think she was not happy with the boards decision have her write a letter and sign the petition, else she is happy with what the BOG did. An anti hunter or not she made the decision to enter the proposal, which had no scientific data. As the head waterfowl biologist of Alaska also said in the petition, Tom Rothe. The small effect the hunters have in the winter season is very small. There is studies showing this not only in our state buy many areas.

    And as yukon mentioned. There are different resident/non-resident limits. Non-residents can only take 4 ducks of each species a season. If anything is hurting the population it is us residents who can take 6 of each species a day. We do more damage everyday and have easier access than non-residents. I do not think the commercial outfits are over benefiting from the resource.

  14. #14
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    yukon,
    most of the hunters i taxi are alaskans, and they primarily target puddle ducks, not sea ducks.

    as far as i know, there are no stringent requirements for small game guiding, and i don't know if a person guiding duck hunters has to register at all.

    duck hunters are not a big enough percent of my business to make a difference in my bottom line.

    as far as giving priority to guided hunters, if just a few guides are responsible (through their service) for the lion's share of a harvested resource, then aren't they being given a priority if they successfully campaign to have a BOG decision overturned and overly generous limits reinstated?

    (for that matter, if a big game guide takes 15-20 bears EVERY YEAR in an area you or i can only take 1 every 4 years isn't that giving a guide priority over you and me?)

    tb,
    nancy was at the meeting, and as far as i know she simply gave her testimony during the public comment session, presented her information, and went home. she didn't meet with the board members elsewhere, nor did she make any specific requests. she simply asked, as she has at nearly every BOG meeting for years, that the board consider doing something to address what she sees as an issue. her information was current and valid, and specific to the species of concern. apparently the BOG considered the data and made their decision based on that.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  15. #15

    Default

    First and foremost, any hunter worth his salt is concerned about conservation and wanton waste more than anything.
    Second I think you are missing the point homerdave, there is no threat to the current waterfowl population in Kachemak Bay. Per USFWS sea-duck joint venture program and the AK's waterfowl Biologist.

    So if poaching and wanton waste is the problem then reducing the bag limit is going to stop the poachers?? Thats like saying taking guns away from the law abiding citizen is going to stop crime.

    Prosecute those poachers under the current laws, but reducing bag limits to solve the problem sounds like some leaf licker tactic to reduce hunter #'s.

    I am still waiting to see the new proposal regarding caribou hunting. After last summers massacre they should reduce the bag limits to ward off wanton wast of game!!!!!

  16. #16
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default i think you are missing the point...

    perhaps there is "no threat to the current waterfowl population" if it is viewed as a whole absolute number, i am sure it varies but is likely relatively stable despite hunting pressure....
    the issue here is not "duck biomass", but conservation of particular species.

    VERY SPECIFICALLY the populations of harlequins and goldeneyes ARE susceptible to local extirpation, and these "trophy ducks" are primarily targeted by hunters who want to have them mounted, not to eat them.
    allowing these birds to be over hunted for wall mounts is just bad stewardship.

    if you have information that addresses these two species and does not just lump them in with all ducks as a group then i would like to see it.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  17. #17
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Probably hijacking this thread here but..........Daaaaavvvveeee........Guides do not TAKE anything. Their clients do. If a guide has 15 to 20 successful clients a year on any species, and that is deemed a problem, then the solution is thru the BoG and regulation of hunters, i.e. CLIENTS. If the resource can support 15 to 20 non res guided hunters, in addition to res hunters, then there ain't much to complain about.
    Don't know much about sea ducks, but doesn't Spraker live down in that area? Maybe he knows something about duck guides/transporters and participated in the writing of the proposal, or re-writing, that was ultimately passed? Maybe he also knows something about res harvest of sea ducks.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  18. #18

    Default

    [QUOTE=martentrapper;476926]Probably hijacking this thread here but..........Daaaaavvvveeee........Guides do not TAKE anything. Their clients do. If a guide has 15 to 20 successful clients a year on any species, and that is deemed a problem, then the solution is thru the BoG and regulation of hunters, i.e. CLIENTS. If the resource can support 15 to 20 non res guided hunters, in addition to res hunters, then there ain't much to complain about.
    Don't know much about sea ducks, but doesn't Spraker live down in that area? Maybe he knows something about duck guides/transporters and participated in the writing of the proposal, or re-writing, that was ultimately passed? Maybe he also knows something about res harvest of sea ducks.[/QUOT

    No MT guides sell public resources. There is no question about that. Just ask any guide convicted of a lacey act violation or look at any court decision related to a lacey act violation that includes a guide.

    Exploiting and commercializing public resources [fish in the river or game on the ground] is prohibited. Guides sell or exploit public resources.

    However, ducks, because they are migratory and federally regulated might be different. I am still looking into that one.

    Even so. When in doubt non-residents can and should be limited to no more than 10% of the 'opportunity'. NOT the 'harvest' opportunity but 10% of the historical resident 'effort'. That my friend is law.

    It is not about how much pressure the resource can stand it is about how much pressure residents are putting on the resource. Non-residents are entitled to no more than 10% of the resident 'opportunity'.


  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    valdez
    Posts
    30

    Default

    homerdave - there are studies showing the high rate of return for harlequin to specific areas for wintering. And this is a big worry in management of this species. It could be possible to hurt that local population. This has been shown by the Exxon oil spill. But here is a lie and yes there is proof. Quote from proposal "Depleted areas cannot recover". We have all of PWS to show that false. The population in western PWS are close to the estimate of birds before the oil spill. So even if they shot all the harlequin in that area they will be back because the overall population in Alaska is healthy. That is the worst case, good habituate will be used. And hunters are doing nothing to the habituate. The populations should never be allowed to go so low and the hunting should be shut down if it even came close to this, but why lie? Not good science.

    Another lie- "Most of these ducks are not eaten or utilized." If this is an issue call F&G AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. And tell Nancy to take pictures or bow numbers, or plate numbers. I have to fellow duck hunters that leave birds behind. No need for it, but no need to change regs because of it. Just fine unethical hunters.


    Also goldeneye have different habits. They are not as localized as harlequin, and this has been shown. They migrate much further and in bigger numbers. I would bet a lot of the birds shot in nov. are not even there a couple weeks later. You see big waves of goldeneye go through that are heading for Washington. This takes different management. That is why all the across the US the divers and sea ducks are managed differently. Some do stay all winter, but not the majority that go through that area.

    I do not think anyone is saying the limits should never change. But give us good data, not a poorly written proposal with nothing. I just think the BOG should be ashamed of their decision, more than Nancy. Nancy did what she felt was right, great! Good for her to stand up. But the BOG should never make a decision on one persons opinion without any data, general public or a guide. Let us see some numbers or something. I bet Buck has more info from the last 17 years of guiding there than Nancy does. Comes with being on the water all winter when no one else is.

  20. #20
    Member Waldo2382's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Homer, AK
    Posts
    250

    Default

    http://seaducks.org/compensatoryadditive.htm

    I think the people of this website have something to do with the proposal.

    Oh, and by the way Homerdave, sorry I made an assumption about Nancy being the mother of the Time Bandit guys. A gal with a name like that and her age, one can kind of make an assumption. As for Coal Point Seafood, they do hire a lot of people, but so does Ed's seafood. Believe me, Coal Point will still have a lot of business from the charter boats and hundreds of other boaters. If anything, I'll at least see how Ed's runs his operation. If that means not waiting the better part of an hour in line to pay for vacuum sealing, fine by me.

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
  •