Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Federal Subsistence and Boone and Crockett

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default Federal Subsistence and Boone and Crockett

    Help me out here guys, I was under the understanding that subsistence kills did not qualify for the record books. Thought I read that a while back about that guy down by Chitna that has killed all those monster rams during subsistence and they couldn't be entered in the books. Whats the for sure deal,set me straight?

  2. #2

    Default

    According to their website they're eligible for entry as long as they meet all other criteria.

    http://www.boone-crockett.org/bgReco...ecords#subsist

  3. #3
    FBKShunter
    Guest

    Default Well?

    Quote Originally Posted by shart View Post
    According to their website they're eligible for entry as long as they meet all other criteria.

    http://www.boone-crockett.org/bgReco...ecords#subsist
    What did you expect? When you got guys with planes hunting under "subsistence" rules. Do you really think they need the meat?

  4. #4
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,155

    Thumbs down bogus

    Its really got nothing to do with income/planes, Fbkshunter. Thats a seperate argument.
    But the fact that some can hunt in exclusive areas, eg: Wrangel St. Elias Park (home of the Swank ram) and can apply for b+c recognition is plain wrong.
    About .0001% or less of society qualifies for the "right" to enter these areas to harvest animals, how can they represent the group as a whole?

    The B+C system is patently unfair. Any subsistence kill should have an asterisk or have no standing AT ALL.

  5. #5
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,061

    Default

    Well look who's jealous!!!!!!!!!
    To some extent, Frank, it's no different than places where res can hunt and non res can't. Plenty of those places in Alaska. If you want to hunt the Wrangells Frank, move to McCarthy.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  6. #6
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,155

    Default funny you mention it....

    I DID buy property near Nebesna, Mike. This was an area which would grant me "subsistence" hunting rights. (Which is a scam unto itself, imho). Like Kelleyhouse said many years ago (paraphrased) "I moved to Tok with money and no desire to "be subsistence", and I have folks urging me to shoot Spring ducks off the nest." Whats up with that?
    Another reason I bought was to get nosey parkies off my back down there. Ultimately I finally figured I didnt want to live amongst the rangers and well, "I fought the law, but the law won." I sold the property.
    No dis here, but I'm tired of the age old argument "move there". The fact is if EVERYBODY moved there the area would no longer qualify for subsistence! Agreed? Maybe it does come back to money and planes per FBKShunters assertions. I wanted to move there but, heck I simply couldnt find the work. The rigs on the trailheads of the Nebesna road are invariably NEW and FINE. Unscientific thinking? yes, perhaps.
    Hey if the pappa pilgrims want to shoot these rams I see no problem. They get special rights for 3/4 curl and "any" bull moose--thats enough! Putting them in the book when they can and do have special access seems wrong, rural priority notwithstanding.

  7. #7

    Default

    I don't post here often, but I've been a "lurker" for many years now. I won't qualify myself as being very knowledgeable on the BC club, but my understanding is this. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that if I was taking a hike, and a came across a huge moose rack, still attached to the skull plate, and qualified for B+C, then it can also be entered. The "book's" purpose is not solely to document hunter killed animals, but just to document the largest animals, whether they die by the hand of man, or whether they die from other circumstances, but still meet the qualifications to be entered. Now you may be asking how that is relevant, but in my opinion, whether it be a fed subsistance hunt, an open area killed animal, or smashed by an F-250, if its big enough, I don't have a problem with it being in the book. Like I said, I am not claiming to be knowledgeable with the workings of the club, so please correct me, politely, if I am wrong. Just my 2 cents.
    J

  8. #8
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    12,860

    Default

    I think you're right, J, in that the purpose is to document exceptional animals. We hunters have changed that purpose to meet our goals as we see them, but you're certainly correct in that they list animals killed by other means. I remember seeing a huge bighorn sheep that was killed by a truck - #1 for that awards period (mid-90s, I think). Anyhow, I don't have a horse in this race...

    -Brian

  9. #9

    Default B&C World Record

    The B&C World Record Black Bear and one of the Grizzly Bears are listed as "Picked Up" under Hunter. I am assuming that nobody shot the animals but that the skulls were found.

  10. #10
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,061

    Default

    Well, now that I've thought about this a while..........The area you use as an example, The Wrangell PARK ( PARK is the key word) isn't a "subsistence" hunt. Regulations for who can hunt in the Parks created by ANILCA were part of ANILCA. Only residents of the area may hunt in the PARK. That reg applies regardless of animal pop numbers. That reg applies no matter how many people live/move there, Frank. (BTW, owning property doesn't make you a "resident" of the area)
    SUBSISTENCE regs apply to non park federal lands and vary according to animal numbers.......and the whims of the Fed Sub. Board.
    I don't totally agree with subsistence regs but they really aren't that different from what every state in this country does by limiting, or prohibiting, non residents before the residents.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  11. #11
    Member Milo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,428

    Default They're just a club.

    You have to remember its a private club so they can set any rules they want - good, bad or stupid. There's really nothing the state or feds have to do with it. I won't say "if you don't like it, move", but I will say "if you don't like it, join". B&C isn't going to change any of their rules unless their membership drives it.

    As for me, I can't say that I really care about the book. Unless perhaps, I shoot a world record whitetail, because then I could make a bunch of cash endorsing junk on the outdoor channel. Yes, I can be bought.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullkurl View Post
    But the fact that some can hunt in exclusive areas, eg: Wrangel St. Elias Park (home of the Swank ram) and can apply for b+c recognition is plain wrong.
    About .0001% or less of society qualifies for the "right" to enter these areas to harvest animals, how can they represent the group as a whole?
    By that thinking, would you also disqualify animals taken on private property where no one else was allowed to hunt there? (not high fence, just a large ranch) Or off a ranch where people had to pay for access? Or any property where a hunting fee was charged? (say on Afognak for starters) What about animals shot on property that was exclusively leased by someone to hunt? How about animals shot on a reservation? What about so called "governor's tags", where the state bids off one tag,many times for more than $50,000? Does everyone have access to those hunts? Should a guy get his name in the record book just because he has enough money to buy all the governor's tags he wants, so basically, he gets private access to untouched hunting in hunts like Oregon's sheep hunt?

    The problem is, the book started as a recognition of exceptional animals. Now people treat it like it is about the recognition of exceptional hunters, but that is far from the case. Many of the animals in the "book" were taken by people who were just plain lucky. Others taken by people who had special access. Some were taken (or not) by unethical hunters who just wanted their name in the book for their ego or because they can make money off the recognition. (Think Kirt Darner. In fact for a really sordid story about shady dealings to get into "the book" go to www.hunts.net and read the story site owner Rich LaRocco wrote about Darner. Scroll down the page to the bottom and click on the link "My dealings with Darner". LaRocco helped Darner write a book or two and then began having doubts about Mr. Darner's honesty.)

    If Boone and Crockett really wanted to stop abuse, one of the first things they could do would be to remove the hunter's and owner's name from all official records of the animals. Just list the animal and where it was taken. That removes a lot of incentive right there and puts the emphasis back on the animal.

    Then you have SCI who's members don't like the B&C scoring system so they created their own. And to make things even better for their well heeled members, they decided that they'd have a catagory for high fenced animals too. That way the rich can surely buy their way into the record books and glory. (many of the high fenced hunting ranches charge you by the size of the antlers on the animal you take, and let you pick out the size before you kill the animal. And they guarantee you'll take one that size, and they have names for their animals. You can look at pictures and pick out the one you want. Therefore, the more money you want to spend, the higher in the "book" you can get your name. Are you a great hunter because you paid a huge fee and sat in a stand until the animal that you were guaranteed to kill comes to or is lured into a spot where you can put a bullet in him?

    What it all boils down to is.....It's the money baby!

  13. #13
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default Well said Rick!

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux
    If Boone and Crockett really wanted to stop abuse, one of the first things they could do would be to remove the hunter's and owner's name from all official records of the animals. Just list the animal and where it was taken. That removes a lot of incentive right there and puts the emphasis back on the animal.
    I couldn't agree more, Rick. It's time we seriously contemplated just such an idea, to put the emphasis back on the animal and general location where it lived.

    Mark

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default

    twodux has some valid points. About 6 years ago some friends of mine killed 2 decent bulls about 25 miles off the road system and had to go get help because one of the meat trailers took a poop on them. Another friend of mine went to their aid and only about 2 miles in on the 25 mile trail he literally almost ran over a 72" bull as he was hauling down the trail at a high rate of speed. He was able to get off the wheeler walk off the trail and shoot this bull at like 70 yards. It ended up scoring over 230 B&C. Now did he kill that bull because of his intimate and technical hunting know how?, hell no. Anybody who would have come down that trail at the time this bull crossed would have killed it. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

    Wasn't trying to stir up a you know what storm here guys, was discussing the topic on anotehr forum and couldn't reember the facts, just remmebered all the hoopla over that guy killing them monster rams down by Chitna. I am not going to get int the topic of subsistence as its a touchy one. I lived in Delta Junction for 3 years and although eligible for subsistence 1 of those years I never harvested an animal under subsistence, instead I drove up the Haul that year and spent $400 on Diesel and killed a dandy 360" Bull with my bow. But I know the locals sure love the road system Caribou slaughter, especially our refugees from the far north east.

  15. #15
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,155

    Default well said indeed.

    Hey I agree, twodux. And I have to add that I have no desire to shoot book animals--never tried for that matter. I shoot whats legal and do it ethically. I've left trophy horns on the tundra like many here.
    If the "book" recognizes "car hits", dead skulls which are found, etc., I think thats fine. I didnt know that was the case.
    And you are right, its become more about the hunter than the animal--to the point of subtrofuge.
    Regarding ranch hunting, well, I guess they qualitfy too under these guidelines. Although I question the ethics of such hunting.
    It IS all about the money and endorsements.
    I saw footage of Jack Brittingham shooting an outstanding deer that defied belief. The animal was carefully fed and nutured for six to seven years to achieve optimal antler growth and trophy status. Although its an outstanding animal and the number one nontypical currently in Texas, I think the way it was achieved is sad.

    Frank

  16. #16

    Default get rid of subsistance

    Why Do we need subsistance.There is a hunting season get your tag and go hunting.Put everything else on a drawing or qouta so everyone can hunt and enjoy Alaska.Get rid of all the lyeing and bull crap politics.True Subsistance hunting is done by so few of the population in alaska.I also belive if the people that live in the areas that need this special hunt should have no problem killing any animals if they live in this area.Lets make hunting fair for all Alaskans.

  17. #17
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,155

    Default legal residence

    Mtrap, If I abided on my property down there in Slana/Nebesna for six continuous months as my primary residence, I would qualify as a rural priority resident, and I could hunt and even ride an atv in the "hard" park.


    F.

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    297

    Default

    AK Cub-
    That was my thread and pics.

    In some areas, (IIRC Kuskokwim subsistence moose?) the antlers must be cut, thereby making them ineligible for scoring. I think all subsistence hunts should be that way - it's meat hunting, right? Same as proxies are now.

    If a guy gets a special season when the woods are quiet and no one else is around, it's not the same as when a guy is choked by ATV exhaust fumes trying to find a freezer-filler.

    That's my take - YMMV!

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default

    Yeah Mike I hear ya on the getting away from the crowds issue. I just never have looked into the trophy qualification thing but a while back here on the old forum there was a bunch of hell raising over the rams some guy was killing under subsistence. As a matter of fact a friend of mine was telling me a story the other day about a guy he knows that was bowhunting sheep in the Brooks this year inside the corridor and had 2 guys from Wiseman shoot the ram out from under him only a mile off the highway. They can do that up there under subsistence, the corridor doesn't apply to them. I have mixed feelings about the issue but really I dont care, I have two animals on my wall at home that qualify for P&Y and I have never certified them, shows you how much I care about the record books.

  20. #20

    Default Because of idiots...

    Quote Originally Posted by trapperschmidt View Post
    Why Do we need subsistance.There is a hunting season get your tag and go hunting.Put everything else on a drawing or qouta so everyone can hunt and enjoy Alaska.Get rid of all the lyeing and bull crap politics.True Subsistance hunting is done by so few of the population in alaska.I also belive if the people that live in the areas that need this special hunt should have no problem killing any animals if they live in this area.Lets make hunting fair for all Alaskans.
    We need subsistence because of all the yahoos who swoop into rural areas with trailer loads of ATV's and airboats. Percentage-wise, those idiots are pretty unsuccessful, but there are hundreds and hundreds of them in a given area, sending all wildlife for miles scattering for their lives, and the people who live in the bush or small rural towns, who moved to those places to get away from all that, can't even successfully hunt.
    Last edited by fullkurl; 11-12-2006 at 18:31. Reason: flames

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
  •