Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Proposal concerning meat waste

  1. #1
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,397

    Default Proposal concerning meat waste

    There is an interesting article on the www.alaskadispatch.com website concerning the issues that grew out of the Pt. Hope caribou situation. Apparently the regional advisory council up there wants to change the definition of the word "edible meat" so that people can legally leave behind meat they deem to be inedible. Here is a short excerpt. You can read the entire article at this link.

    The Arctic Advisory Committee to the Alaska State Board of Game proposes changing the legal definition of the word "edible" so that hunters "are no longer forced to break the law." The Board of Game is scheduled to meet in Nome in November to discuss this and other proposals.

    Under current law "people are legally required to salvage meat that is in fact inedible and could present a health risk to a person that consumes it," according to the committee, which includes a mix of North Slope Borough employees and residents.

    Hunters are trained to look for swollen joints, abscesses, infection, parasites and other symptoms of disease, and to leave those animals behind, according to the committee. Its proposal states that hunters are taught to kill some animals for purposes other than hunting. One is humane killings to put severely wounded animals out of their misery. The other is killing sick animals to prevent the spread of disease.
    I'm skeptical of this, at best. Any feedback from others out there? I'd be particularly interested in hearing from those that have lived in rural villages. Is there any validity to this at all?

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    There is an interesting article on the www.alaskadispatch.com website concerning the issues that grew out of the Pt. Hope caribou situation. Apparently the regional advisory council up there wants to change the definition of the word "edible meat" so that people can legally leave behind meat they deem to be inedible. Here is a short excerpt. You can read the entire article at this link.



    I'm skeptical of this, at best. Any feedback from others out there? I'd be particularly interested in hearing from those that have lived in rural villages. Is there any validity to this at all?
    Given some of the recent "threads" discussing the ethical aspects of "spotting game" from aircraft - shooting from long distances and a number of issues, it will be interest to see how this one progresses.
    Joe (Ak)

  3. #3
    Member Phish Finder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Searching for more cowbell!
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    There's another thread going on this as well.
    ><((((>.`..`.. ><((((>`..`.><((((>

    "People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they
    just like to pee a lot." --Capitol Brewery

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

    Default

    If you want to debate a proposal, copy and paste it or provide a link. I tried to copy/paste but it's a pdf file. Here is a link to the proposal booklet online:
    http://boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gamei...info/gprop.php
    This proposal in question is #34. It was NOT submitted by the Regional Advisory Council, which is a federal entity. It was submitted by the state Arctic Advisory Committee.

    I would suspect that enforcement will be against this proposal as it places the burden of proof of "inedible" on enforcement. Pretty easy for anyone to say they didn't salvage their meat because it was inedible due to disease. Then enforcement has to go in the field, find the right carcass, and test it for disease.
    I would be very skeptical BoG will buy this one.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    I would be very skeptical BoG will buy this one.
    Yeah, well they bought the BS Ahtna proposal for unit 13 caribou last year, so they are capable of any number of completely idiotic things. People need to make it known to the BOG that this is rediculous. If (and I am only saying "if") the BOG feels that this has any kind of merit, it should be required that the proof of inedible meat is provided through scientific testing done by whoever salvaged the meat. Make them salvage it completely, then if it tests out to be bad, they can dispose of it then. They, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't be given the freedom to just go out and blast a resource that belongs to the entire state for the fun of it then claim it is "tainted" and just leave it out there because they are lazy or had no intention of salvaging it in the first place. It is a huge built-in loop hole in the regs.

  6. #6

    Talking

    "It takes a Village".
    Hillary Clinton stated this. nuff said.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  7. #7
    Member sledhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    244

    Default

    I made a short reply on this subject in the thread
    Reactions to Pt. Hope fiasco by Arctic Advisory
    As far as the fact that they didn't salvage the meat and should BOG change the laws effecting salvage in order to please an organization ? "no" absolutely not. Will they? probably "yes" for corporation owned lands. We live in a country of freedom where all are created equal. But in alaska we have thrown that out and given in to government backed special interest groups in the past. I see no reason this will turn out different. The fear of being politicaly correct is a much stronger fear then the desire to do what is right for all alaskans and the state itself. So I suspect that BOG will change the laws. Personally I don't know why they did not haul them back and throw them in the dump. Burn them and bury them. Its worked so many times before and ADF&G does not go to the village dumps as far as I can tell. Just a small oversight by some of the Pt Hope locals, It won't happen again for a while! When it does if the arctic advisory has any "say so" it won't matter whats killed or wasted on the north slope.
    P.S Anybody heard about the juvenile whale taken by Nuiqsut whaling crews this year?

  8. #8
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,601

    Default

    Note when the all men are created equal was put in our history we must remember many humans in America were not realy concidered men so they were not part of the saying.Now we are all equal but treated different in most places we may go.

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

    Default Changing legal definition of "edible"?

    There have been some genuine instances where a game animal was diseased and truly inedible, and yes, "tradition" was that those animals weren't salvaged for human consumption. (Prior to invention and common use of snowmachine though, you can bet they were fed to dogs.)

    Heck, the Koyukon would leave the meat from "skinny" black bears. It wasn't that the meat was bad per se, just that they had their own customary and traditional use of bears, including that as well as never taking the head/skull or claws, and today we do have differing regs that either apply to units/subunits or whether or not one is hunting under subsistence regs, that are based on those C&T uses and don't mandate the skull or hide with claws has to be sealed.

    So on the face of it, there is some merit to the argument that C&T uses are and have been noted and applied by the BOG (and Feds), and that among Native peoples it did dictate that truly diseased animals were not eaten by humans. As well as some merit that certain animal diseases can pose a health risk to humans.

    Then again, one could argue that the percentage of bears that can pass trichinosis on to humans is a health risk, yet I know under certain subsistence regs all bear meat is required to be salvaged, even for grizz. It just has to be thoroughly cooked to ensure humans don't get trichinosis. One could also argue that "bear hand" poses a health risk to humans who may have a cut or wound on their hands when butchering bears, but like trichinosis there is an easy fix. In one case, thoroughly cook the meat. In the other, wear the proper gloves to protect yourself.

    I once had some float hunters tell me their moose meat "wasn't even fit for dogs." I asked to look at it and they told me that had a sample they intended to show troopers, and showed it to me. It had very slight taenia krabbei cysts, nothing remotely like what you see in the pic on that link. Told them we'd been eating moose meat like that for decades. "Inedible" differs depending on perception among hunters, and it seems clear if the Board of Game were ever to pass a proposal to allow individual hunters to define what is not edible, it would open a huge loophole too many would take advantage of, either because they don't want to pack the meat out, the river is too shallow to float it out, they don't want to pay for extra air charter, or they went on a killing spree with a semi-auto weapon and by golly shot more than they needed.
    (So you can see how far this could spiral out of control and beyond any common sense if we were to try to regulate and allow the non-salvage of any meat that "may" pose a health risk to humans.)

    And so...it seems this latest is an attempt to justify both what happened last year in Pt. Hope and any future waste/non-salvage for whatever reason, and I highly doubt the BOG would pass such a thing.

    We all have a voice. That's the ostensible beauty of our public system of wildlife mgmt. So if you feel strongly on this, send in your comments when the time comes and/or testify at the BOG meeting when this proposal comes up.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    The BOG won't pass this proposal, IMO.

    Edible meat from moose, caribou etc is routinely fed to dogs, thrown away, and or left for scavengers.

    At times, people simply lose their taste for different parts of highly editable meat,,
    and use that as justification for feeding it to their dogs.

    My 'thought' on this 'line',, is to leave that part of this natural 'resource' in the field to feed the 'other' resources.

    Of course, Alaska does have laws.

  11. #11
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,601

    Default

    Haveing delt with the cattle industry I can say some realy ruff meat makes it to the family stove. The slaughter house need only say roll it and the meat is sold as standard or canner without fed inspection. As far as meat waste goes I would guess fishing waste the most every year.

  12. #12

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    As far as meat waste goes I would guess fishing waste the most every year.
    Excellent point. Many have come on this very forum and denounced the edible value of many different species of fish they caught. Only to go on and say they threw it back in the creek or disposed of it after they opened it up. Is there a difference between a humpy, a cod, a halibut, a moose, a caribou or a sheep? Perhaps not. We will see.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  13. #13
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default rut

    Ever eaten a bull caribou in the middle of rut? I think there'd be a lot more trophy antlers on walls with meat left in the field if this law were to pass. One whiff and many would turn right around and leave the carcass. Add lots of spice, smoke and casings, though, and even rutted out caribou can be made edible. This law is going to be totally unenforceable if passed, therefore its highly doubtful it will be passed in current form. The burden of proof is on the troopers to prove it was edible, and by the time they will be able to check out the kill site, in many cases, the meat will have already rotted and truly be inedible.

  14. #14

    Default

    Shot a Caribou a while back, had this guacamole stuff in a couple of places. We cut it out and ate the rest. Still here.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default Done.

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    Make them salvage it completely, then if it tests out to be bad, they can dispose of it then.
    This is the exact state of the law today. Once it is retrieved from the field, you can do with it what you wish... that is, anything at all.

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
  •