Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: AC Proposal to change Haul road boundaries

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default AC Proposal to change Haul road boundaries

    I just got back from the Advisory Council meeting. There is a proposal to make some major changes form the bridge north. Some ideas seem ok, some do not. I do not have the proposal number. Maybe somebody can find it, or Riflemaker can get it for us. Not sure myself how to find it.
    I suggest that all bow hunters find and read the proposal and weigh in as you see fit. If the proposal went through today, the corridor would be reduced to 1/4 mile either side of the road, would start at Coldfoot, and snowmobiles would be allowed.
    I am not saying it is all bad. I am saying be aware of the proposed changes and voice your opinion now.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    122

    Default

    I am not seeing it in the proposal booklet for the upcoming BOG. We had an idividual send us (the ABA) some comments about wanting to change this, however it looked like they were going to take the legislative route and not submit a prop to the BOG. Either way we didn't support the idea of amending the current buffer zone but I am interested in reading the proposal to see if any ideas had been amended from the rough draft we saw.

  3. #3
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pupchow View Post
    I am not seeing it in the proposal booklet for the upcoming BOG. We had an idividual send us (the ABA) some comments about wanting to change this, however it looked like they were going to take the legislative route and not submit a prop to the BOG. Either way we didn't support the idea of amending the current buffer zone but I am interested in reading the proposal to see if any ideas had been amended from the rough draft we saw.

    First off the proposal book out is only a portion of yet to come the interior AC props are due Dec 4th and teh state wide props from the other Ac's are due Nov 6th the book is yet to be released/

    this is on the legislative path with Rep Mike Meyers possibly taking the lead on it.

    If the ABA has a copy to review at their meeting that is coming up this AC memeber is hoping for comments or support of this measure.

    I did disagree that the 1/4 mile bow and allowing snow machines and gun hunters would not cause a conflict....

    of course i was told the increase in traffic would not be an issue and the truck traffic would have to slow down... and was told that you young guys don't remember us old guys hunting off the road when they said it would be an issue then......


    I was able to later tell him... i rememberer driving the road when it was not open to hunters

    the trooper there was against reducing the buffer in short 5 miles or none... it is easier to handle for them..
    the other plan is to remove the buffer up to cold foot..

    THAT i can almost agree with there is little bou hunting there and the moose are draw only


    this is expected to be 2-3 years brewing... seems to me that seekins took this on some time back and got slapped back pretty hard???? or ?????
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  4. #4

    Default

    1/4 mile for the rifle hunters or 1/4 for the bowhunters? 1/4 mile makes no sense, either make it 1 mile or leave it at 5 miles for rifle hunters. They should make it so that bowhunters have to be a minimum of 100 yards from the road as well. I can't imagine hauling a snowmachine from Anchorage to Galbreth Lake or further in the winter, might not be so bad for you Fairbanks hunters though.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    The author does plan to put this through legislatively. Mike Kelly not Meyers, a Rep from FAI is willing to sponsor the bill.
    The 1/4 mile would leave a non-firearm corridor the same as the 5 mile corridor is now. I think the author will pull that as comments, even from S. Quist AST Wildelife Enforcement, said 1/4 mile won't work.
    As far as bowhunters being 100 yards off of the road, that would be another tough enforcement issue. There are already laws about roadway shooting and safety that are enforceable.
    The author did say he sent the info to several organizations and as of yet has NOT received feedback. As I recall, ABA was mentioned. I don't recall him mentioning any clubs or local organizations such as Golden North Archery Association in Fairbanks.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,956

    Default

    I wouldn't support allowing rifle hunters to 1/4 mile of the road, it'll be a blood bath and caribou hunting would have to be severly limited along the road. Personally I don't think the herd would be able to stand the pressure very long.

  7. #7
    Member TWB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill S. View Post
    I wouldn't support allowing rifle hunters to 1/4 mile of the road, it'll be a blood bath and caribou hunting would have to be severly limited along the road. Personally I don't think the herd would be able to stand the pressure very long.
    Exactly.

    Same BOG proposal to limit the # of animals taken in the 40 mile area will then apply to the Haul Road.

    Make it easy - make it dangerous? Foolish.
    We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed

  8. #8
    Member B-radford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    653

    Default

    What would be the point of going up there to bow hunt if the rifle corridor got cut down to 1/4??? I would hate to see this happen, lots of saftey issues involved with bow hunting in an area with rifle hunters.

  9. #9
    Member TWB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B-radford View Post
    What would be the point of going up there to bow hunt if the rifle corridor got cut down to 1/4??? I would hate to see this happen, lots of saftey issues involved with bow hunting in an area with rifle hunters.
    Only feasible fix action would be to split the season
    We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed

  10. #10

    Default

    I don't think the BOG will pass a proposal for any type of firearms hunting inside the corridor and it will have to be taken to legislation in order to pass. I'd much rather see it reduced to 1 or 2 miles from 5, but I think 1/4 mile is too much. I like the fact that we have a bowhunting only area, and I think by putting rifle hunters in too close will ruin it.

    Enforcing the 5 mile restriction seems to currently work, so reducing it to 1 or 2 miles would work just the same.

    Seekins tried to go for too much with his bill allowing off road vehicle use. He tried opening all off road vehicle use for the entire corridor as I recall, including 4 wheelers in 26B. I was relieved to see it not pass, but I would like to see some changes. I think snowmachine use is okay, and can co-align with the BLM approved winter off road season, or by certain months (December-March?). I don't see any problems with off road vehicle use south of Coldfoot.

    An idea that a couple of us came up with when we were part of the ABA was to establish training material and have the hunter pass an online exam to obtain a certificate to hunt off the Haul Road. Basically the same as the Delta Bison orientation. The hunters would have to register to hunt the corridor, and have a copy of the certificate of completion on them while hunting. If a hunter is convicted of a wildlife violation inside the corridor, they will be unable to register themselves to hunt there for a period of 3-5 years. If memory serves me correctly, this is done somewhere else in the state as well. We offered to establish the training material and exam for review by the department.

    This was back when the quarter mile rule was in effect, and everybody but a few were screaming about how it needed to go away. We sat down with the area biologists, wildlife enforcement and a couple others that represented both sides of the issue. Wildlife enforcement wanted the 1/4 mile gone, the individuals pushing for the quarter mile wanted their ethical views to become law for others, and the biologists seemed to either be neutral, or side with their hunting buddies. In the end the FAC's proposal to remove the corridor passed and amazingly, nothing has been shut down, which is what the activists for the 1/4 mile were saying was inevitably going to happen.

    I thought I would throw my 2 Cents in but I spent a little more than that.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Yes I wasn't around but I hear tale of Seekins trying something along these lines before and it "going down in a ball of flames" was the terminology that was used, pretty heated debates it sounds like. I will double check to ensure that a response was mailed to this individual from the ABA with our concerns since he took the time to ensure we were able to review I think he is at least owed a response and explanation of why we won't be backing the idea as written. However I am under the impression that legistlative members have been notified on both sides of this proposal and politcal chess game has begun.

    Personally I am behind the "Haul Road Education" ideas and I know they were re-invigorated after the tundra truck incident. However in pursuing this idea I think between the required funding and man hours there seems to be a diconnect in implementing it with the state. If anyone has any viable ideas I am all ears...

  12. #12

    Default

    From what I recall, the ideas were welcomed, and we were referred to submit them to the board of game as part of the proposal to remove the 1/4 mile restriction. The proposal simply said N/A as the FAC proposal was passed to remove the corridor.

    I'm not sure if the current ABA is willing to help or support this idea. I'm not convinced that it is even needed at this point, it seems as if the complaints and issues have been reduced, so is there an issue to warrant it at this point besides the tundra truck'n boy's? They knew what they were doing was wrong, so a class would have only told them what they already knew.

    I like the idea of stricter penalties for convictions to violations up there. Make it hurt, and make them think more than twice about breaking the rules. Elimination of hunting opportunity is probably the best deterant out there.

  13. #13
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ak River Rat View Post
    The author does plan to put this through legislatively. Mike Kelly not Meyers, a Rep from FAI is willing to sponsor the bill.
    The 1/4 mile would leave a non-firearm corridor the same as the 5 mile corridor is now. I think the author will pull that as comments, even from S. Quist AST Wildelife Enforcement, said 1/4 mile won't work.
    As far as bowhunters being 100 yards off of the road, that would be another tough enforcement issue. There are already laws about roadway shooting and safety that are enforceable.
    The author did say he sent the info to several organizations and as of yet has NOT received feedback. As I recall, ABA was mentioned. I don't recall him mentioning any clubs or local organizations such as Golden North Archery Association in Fairbanks.
    your right Greg, my bad...

    jerod you did miss a good meeting ... how was soccer?

    lol the hardest part of the meeting was the soccer game in the next room being played by 100 5 yr olds
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  14. #14
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerod View Post
    From what I recall, the ideas were welcomed, and we were referred to submit them to the board of game as part of the proposal to remove the 1/4 mile restriction. The proposal simply said N/A as the FAC proposal was passed to remove the corridor.

    I'm not sure if the current ABA is willing to help or support this idea. I'm not convinced that it is even needed at this point, it seems as if the complaints and issues have been reduced, so is there an issue to warrant it at this point besides the tundra truck'n boy's? They knew what they were doing was wrong, so a class would have only told them what they already knew.

    I like the idea of stricter penalties for convictions to violations up there. Make it hurt, and make them think more than twice about breaking the rules. Elimination of hunting opportunity is probably the best deterant out there.

    one thing i am not hearing mentioned... is .


    i thought the corridoor was part of the land use agreements? for the pipe line?
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,956

    Default

    The only 1/4 mile restriction up there in the 12 years I've been here was no hunting within 1/4 mile of the road, and that lasted one season. I'm confused on why getting rid of that would have caused anything to be shut down? Its becoming a lot more popular in recent years and I would hate to see what it would be like if you could use rifles 1/4 mile off the road.

  16. #16

    Default

    Soccer practice was fun, my little squirt is getting pretty good. I'm not sure how we ended up with her being on a North Pole team being that we live on Chena Ridge. At least the games are in town.

    The 5 mile corridor is part of the land use restrictions. That is why it will take a legislative act to remove it and the board of game doesn't have much say in it. They have shot down (pun intended) several proposals in the past to allow for small rim fire and shot gun use for bird and small game hunting inside the corridor.

    Bill, It wasn't that the risk of removing the 1/4 mile restriction was going to shut the area down. It was people saying if we don't do something (like putting the 1/4 mile restriction in place) the whole area will be shut down by the feds. Their feeling was that if we get rid of it, we are going back to ground zero and we are at risk to be shut down again.

    I don't think enough problems were there before with just bowhunters to warrant closing grounds, and that there were other solutions to the issues. If they allow rifle hunting within view of the road, I think the real problems are about to begin.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,956

    Default

    Jerrod, thanks for the clarification. I fully agree allowing rifle hunting within the 5 mile corridor would be the beginning of real, and greater, problems.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Kenai, Alaska
    Posts
    195

    Default 1/4 mile--not!

    This idea (or proposal) is ridiculous and should be opposed by both bow and gun hunters. Is there a doublt in anyone's mind as to the extent of the slaughter that would take place? Do you think the pipeline, or even traffic along the Haul Road would be safe? We all know there are too many idiot's out there and with this regulation the number of gun hunters would increase by at least 500%, possible more. Ya, this would last just one year before it would be reversed. Hopefully, responsible gun hunters will see the problems on the horizon and oppose this idea. Let's keep it a sport and maintain the gun corridor at least 3 miles. Not unreasonable at all, and even an ol' fart like me (60's) could make the round trip with a bou. Except, I'll take the challenge with the bow, even if I did hike in.

  19. #19
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    the basis is that there are 3000 bou a year that need harvest.. and now only about 800 are.

    herd size is about 20K over managment standards due to under harvest and they WANT more harvest.. so...

    how many of you guys COULD take 3 or four?


    how many hunt and fail or only get one... but COULD of taken2?

    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ANCH.
    Posts
    488

    Default opposite side

    I haven't bow hunted since I was a kid chasing whitetails in Michigan. But I feel that the few bowhunting only areas in this state should not be reduced. With all the technology and quality of long range/high power guns available today, I don't see why someone too unwilling to walk a little farther should be able to potentially put the pipeline, road traffic, and bow hunters at risk. Maybe a good option would be to leave one side of the road(the pipeline side) as is with no change to the corridor. The other side maybe reduce the distance from the road to say 2 or 3 miles. While I can see where ATVs or snowmachines would be a good suggestion for those who have physical impairments to prevent acces to the gun use area, I think it should be only available to those who truly need it. If, with my bad knees-legs-back-and shoulder, I could make the hike then why should someone in better shape with more toys be allowed to have any better advantage then me or anyone like or worse off then me. I do feel that one thing that should be considered is the parking problem that this proposal will create. There's already enough people who can't park "right" and become road hazards for ALL that travel the Haul Road. Jus think how bad it will be when you make it as accessible as Chicken Ridge(I think that is what the ATV Thunderdome happens).

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •