Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71

Thread: Subsistence v Rural Preference

  1. #1
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Subsistence v Rural Preference

    Alaska State Senator Albert Kookesh D-Angoon will be attempting to bring subsistence to the forefront.
    See:

    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_al...ry/909631.html


    Time to take on the Feds?

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    The Senator and his party got cited for over-limit. Apparantly he thinks subsistence means take as many fish as you want. It doesn't. So now he's going to use our court system, his native clout, and his subsistence preference to get his way, and cover up the fact he broke the law.

    It's kinda hard to manage a fishery without limits on fish harvested...subsistence or not.

    Senator Kookesh needs to take his medicine and move on. He broke the law.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Grampy - this is a first. I totally agree with you.

    I wonder if the same hired gun who has been representing the Ninilchik tribe on subsistance issues will come to Alaska to work on this? As you may recall, the tribe can subsistance fish on the upper Kenai since the fish that run up there go past the village and at some time or other they caught some of them so it is customary and traditional to harvest them in the Kenai!! Gotta love the way the feds think.

    With all of the concern over the latest outbreak of violance against native Alaskans I fear the Senator's fight will just make things worse. The issue is not about race but rural preference, regardless of race.....but it will probably be seen as a native vs. non-native issue.

    He needs to man up and pay the fine.

  4. #4
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gusdog44 View Post
    The issue is not about race but rural preference, regardless of race.....but it will probably be seen as a native vs. non-native issue.

    I think you maybe right. If they can distract folks to believe that it is a race issue, then it will cloud the actual issue.

    I am hoping that the State of Alaska will take on the fight to the Feds once and for all. But I am afraid that the final decsion will be made based on the few rather than what is right........

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    I don't think Senator Kookesh has a leg to stand on....

    The limits are specified in federal subsistance regulations, and the permit is issued per federal subsistence requirement. Federal subsistence law also authorizes State law enforcement to act on any subsistence fish in possession. So his gripe with the State isn't going to get him far.

    "CFR 50 100.6(c):

    Upon the request of a State or Federal law enforcement agent, you must also produce any licenses, permits, harvest tickets, tags, or other documents required by this section. If you are engaged in taking fish and wildlife under the regulations in this part, you must allow State or Federal law enforcement agents to inspect any apparatus designed to be used, or capable of being used to take fish or wildlife, or any fish or wildlife in your possession."

    Just another burden on our court system, waste of tax-payer dollars, and an example of how some politicians think they are above the law or can change the law for their own benefit.

  6. #6
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    I read the article this morn and thought, "huh?"

    Now it could be that Kookesh felt he (and others with licenses) was unfairly cited because the officer didn't take into account others in camp who may have had license. The notion that another person was delayed, who had a permit for another 100 fish, and thus they weren't technically over the limit, bears no real legal justification.

    Anyway, if Kookesh wants to fight the citation, fine by me, let the courts decide. But arguing that state wildlife enforcement personnel shouldn't have any authority to cite offenders on federal lands or who are fishing under a federal subsistence permit, seems bizarre. I mean, it's not like enforcement agencies don't combine efforts at times.

    Take this example: upriver from me are fed lands where the moose season is longer if you take a moose on those fed lands under federal subsitence regulations. If I were to take a moose out of season on those BLM lands, it's much more likely that a state AWT would be the person citing me. Based on what Kookesh is arguing, I could take it to court and say state AWT has no authority to cite me on fed lands under federal subsistence regs.

    I don't buy it. Neither would I hope the courts do either.

  7. #7
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    802

    Default Anything ever come of this issue??

    I have not seen any follow up stories on this issue. I know our court system is slow but it has been over a month.

  8. #8
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polardds View Post
    I have not seen any follow up stories on this issue. I know our court system is slow but it has been over a month.

    Me too. I wonder if it was nothing but hot air.......

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default update on Kookesh case...sorta

    ADN has an article today that is interesting:
    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/rural...ry/970340.html

    JUNEAU -- State Sen. Albert Kookesh believes Alaska Natives may be forced to file a class action lawsuit against the federal government to restore subsistence rights secured under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

    The Angoon Democrat is facing trial over a $500 state subsistence fishing citation. He gave a video statement Friday to the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native Sisterhood 97th Grand Camp Convention in which he criticized the state for its handling of subsistence rights.

    Kookesh was in Washington, D.C., for much of the five-day convention.
    Alaska Natives own 45.5 million acres of land and should not be subject to state law because of the federal government's commitment through the ANCSA agreement, Kookesh said.

    "We need to get away from the state as much as we can," he said. "They are not our friend. They've proven that time and time again. Let's make the federal government responsible and sue them if we have to."

    I am really surprised at how far he is taking this whole thing.

  10. #10
    Charterboat Operator kodiakcombo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Old Harbor, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,360

    Default living the life!

    Now Al is living the life we all face in rural alaska, "subsistance" to me is a law that the administrators and enforcers use to limit us in the bush or apease people who have no clue on how we live in the bush.

    One who fishes or hunts always shares the catch, therefore he or she harvests for all. To put a limit on that is ridiculous.

    Limits are for those who harvest for self and know nothing about sharing.

    I listened to this guy bragging about how he was going to be like "us" (refering to vilage residents) when he got his subsistance card allowing him to take 30 halibut a day! and he lived in Kodiak city, I hope he had a lot of family or neigbors who ate that fish.

    We are always on the edge with the law fulfulling our obligation of being a provider for the village. My dad still thinks it s ok to bring in ducks or fish even if its over the limit, we are ruled by the united states and have to abide by those laws, if we want change we have to do what every other cultures does when pushed to thier limits.
    Providing trips for multilpe species for over 20 yrs
    www.kodiakcombos.com

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Real subsistance

    These are the same people that cry "subsistance", "self reliance"" and "tradition" yet go crying to the governement for a handout for the conviences of modern civilization and when the runs are down. Obviously they want the best of both worlds - I guess we all do but they are very vocal about it.

    Subsistance was fine during good years and but meant famine during bad years. In the other civilized parts of the world man got away from subsistance and learned to grow food milleniums ago and the populations and civilization grew along with the food supply. In the remote northern areas the populations reached a saturation point for the avalaible resourses and never progressed very far. Life was tough and harsh much of the time.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  12. #12
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kodiakcombo
    One who fishes or hunts always shares the catch, therefore he or she harvests for all. To put a limit on that is ridiculous.
    Limits are for those who harvest for self and know nothing about sharing.
    How far would you go with that statement? Just because one fishes or hunts under subsistence regs and "shares" the catch, then they don't have to abide by laws or closures? I should be allowed four moose instead of one because I want to share it?

    We have some regs (proxy) designed to facilitate some of that, for people who can't fish/hunt themselves. But to allude that those who live rural and hunt or fish shouldn't have any limits is to just allow for a free-for-all that is not only unfair and likely unconstitutional but could/would severely deplete the resource.

    I mean this with all due respect; I live remote myself and have for many years.

  13. #13
    Charterboat Operator kodiakcombo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Old Harbor, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,360

    Default

    [QUOTE=bushrat;593128]How far would you go with that statement? Just because one fishes or hunts under subsistence regs and "shares" the catch, then they don't have to abide by laws or closures? I should be allowed four moose instead of one because I want to share it?

    It all depends on area and resourses plus the size of community, if YOU and your community or area see the need for restrictions you implement them, not someone from Anc, or Juneau or DC or anywhere else, again it all depends. I understand living on the salt is different than a place that freezes and appears to stand still. Here we have a continuous flow of diferent species for harvesting, when one seems low or is prone to flucuation in abundance you switch your species. Silvers are a mainstay, but sometimes are low in numbers, we ask the state to close the commercial fishing in our area and they usually do, and we should harvest reds traveling by in the spring aswell as silvers in the fall, but if the numbers are low, take it easy on the silvers. Black scoters are the bird of choice, then again if they are low, like they were a couple of years ago we went to whitewing scoters, now the blacks are back again. Cod were abundant, rockfish are abundant so guess what family in Anc are eating? instead of releasing them, I keep them for "someone" whatever travels by we take, it changes with every tide, almost.
    Providing trips for multilpe species for over 20 yrs
    www.kodiakcombos.com

  14. #14
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    ADN has an article today that is interesting:
    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/rural...ry/970340.html

    JUNEAU -- State Sen. Albert Kookesh believes Alaska Natives may be forced to file a class action lawsuit against the federal government to restore subsistence rights secured under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

    The Angoon Democrat is facing trial over a $500 state subsistence fishing citation. He gave a video statement Friday to the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native Sisterhood 97th Grand Camp Convention in which he criticized the state for its handling of subsistence rights.

    Kookesh was in Washington, D.C., for much of the five-day convention.
    Alaska Natives own 45.5 million acres of land and should not be subject to state law because of the federal government's commitment through the ANCSA agreement, Kookesh said.

    "We need to get away from the state as much as we can," he said. "They are not our friend. They've proven that time and time again. Let's make the federal government responsible and sue them if we have to."

    I am really surprised at how far he is taking this whole thing.
    Thanks for posting this Bushrat I shook my head this morning when I read it in the Anchorage Daily Leaflet.

    Yeah...it would be an entirely different thing if he was taking on these issues independant of his current legal woes...but that doesn't appear to be the case. If he really feels so strongly about these big-picture issues, I think he'd realize that he's demeaning them by dragging it all out in this context.

    The "State versus Feds" thing has been relatively quiet for a number of years...but then the Senator gets a little ticket and all of the sudden it's back on the front burner and the State is "not our friend". Sheesh.

  15. #15
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kodiakcombo
    It all depends on area and resourses plus the size of community, if YOU and your community or area see the need for restrictions you implement them, not someone from Anc, or Juneau or DC or anywhere else, again it all depends.

    Jeff,

    Sorry, I just don't buy it. Because you are basically saying that you can and should circumvent the Advisory Committee and BOF and BOG process if you don't get what you feel is best. Certainly you can self-impose limits/restrictions on yourself, beyond what the regs call for, but on the other hand you're saying you should be able to self-impose things on the other side...to basically ignore any laws or regs as you implied your dad does with ducks and fish.

    I get where you're coming from, but if the entire state's rural/village communities did as you called for, we'd surely affect fish and game populations.
    Sincerely,

  16. #16
    Charterboat Operator kodiakcombo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Old Harbor, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,360

    Default hoops, boards, administrators

    I have to admitt I do not have confidence in the BOF or BOG, or any other body that takes issues and listens and acts on testimony. I've done it and nothing positive has happen from particiapting. Look at the IFQs, Area m, limitations of charter boats, whatever lobbist that has the time, money will win.

    THe Area M fishery conflict where the people on the yukon seek closeures to let the salmon reach the rivers and the people on the chain fish for a living need to catch em to make ends meet is an example of how long the conflict has been going on. I attended a meeting addressing this issue and came home to tell my Dad and he laughed and said they been taking about that for years! nothing really has been done to remedy the situation.

    IFQs we all testified on how this negatively effected us that live on the coast and look what happened. Anyone who fished the magical 3 years have the right to fish in my back yard and I do not.

    Limitation on charter boats, we testified that we do not have the numbers on Kodiak to justify the need to cut or cap our fleet, yet it is capped.

    Yes, I have no confidence in the process.
    Providing trips for multilpe species for over 20 yrs
    www.kodiakcombos.com

  17. #17
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Update

    Looiks like it is heating up again..........

    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/afn/story/978389.html

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default The AK Supreme Court got it right

    It is interesting that the native groups are so vocal against discrimination when they are victims yet are so much in support of discrimination based on where one lives.

    The rural Alaskans should be taxed to pay for improved fishing and hunting opportunities for urban Alaskans. Fair should be fair - not a one way street!
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  19. #19
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default Interior Sec. Salazar plans review of federal subsistence program

    Salazar: "The system, frankly, today is broken"

    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/rural/story/984677.html

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Not good!

    Salazar wants to "fix" the system quickly.

    We can bet that whatever the present administration tries to ram down our throats in a hurry won't be good for the hard working tax paying Americans! Hussain Obama's administation is fully of gun haters, animal rights proponents, and other that go against the grain of those of us that love to use the public lands for recreational hunting and fishing.

    Not only do they take our tax dollars to support the people that live in rural America they want to give them our game and fish also. I have no beef with those that want a remote rural live style- I just don't think I should have to pay for it!


    Quote Originally Posted by MRFISH View Post
    Salazar: "The system, frankly, today is broken"

    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/rural/story/984677.html
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •