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

Thread: BOG decision = bad precident

  1. #1
    Member Alaskan22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Gnome, Ak
    Posts
    787

    Default BOG decision = bad precident

    I've been mulling over posting this or not, but I've decided that I might as well.

    I recently testified at the BOG meeting here in Nome. Just giving my two cents on a few issues (some trapping, some hunting). One of the issues was a proposed GUARANTEE for non-residents a certain number of tags for musk ox in an area. I'm all for allowing access to hunt, and currently it was a 10% maximum to non-residents. I felt that gave them a fair a chance as anyone, and if the number of permits went up, so would the availability for more non-residents to get the drawing tag.

    The issue at point here is a proposal (which was accepted by the BOG) for a guarantee of 10% of the tags for non-residents. (a side note, this individual is a guide out of this area, and also put in proposals for an increase to 20% of the tags for non-residents. That was however not passed).

    What gets me the most was this comment by a BOG for this reason:

    "Board member Bob Bell of Anchorage noted that nonresident hunters provide a significant impact on the Department of Fish and Game's budget through license fees. 'My point is, we should quit vilifying [nonresident hunters] so much,' he said. 'I think this is a very reasonable proposition.'"

    He was then disagree with by a member of the Board and followed up with:

    "'I disagree. I think it's very important we fund this department. If we call it selling [game animals], we then, let's sell them."

    I talked with a member of the Board (I believe it to be this Bob Bell), and he mentioned being a client of this guide, and he also mentioned that he believed pretty much everything the guide fed him (I call it "drinking the Kool-aid" as a lot of it is BS in my opinion).

    I'm all for nonresidents hunting up here. I am however worried that the Board has now made a decision based on FINANCIAL reasons to guarantee our resource to nonresidents.
    Know guns. Know peace. Know safety.

    No guns: no peace. No safety!

  2. #2
    Member Kay9Cop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Not that I'm a fan of guaranteeing hunts to non-residents (I think everybody should get the same chance), but the bottom line is money is what funds conservation efforts. I think the BoG is well within their authority to consider money as a deciding factor.
    "Beware the man with only one gun; he may know how to use it."

  3. #3

    Default I agree

    Alaskan22,

    It will only get worse. That is how the BOG and dept of F&G is going to "justify" their NON-RESIDENT quota's. Instead of fixing the problem of increasing non-resident BIG GAME FEE'S and license fee's, they just decide that they need "so many" non-residents up here hunting to fund their salaries.

    Guess how long it's been since they actually raised RESIDENT fee's?? A LONG DARN TIME! There is no reason RESIDENTS license fee's haven't increased as well as us paying $5 per harvest tag that we get for each species.

    They are using every excuse in the book to "justify" more non-resident hunting and it will only get worse. I have seen it first hand working with the AC that I am on.

    It is a messed up system and ALASKAN'S are slowly going to be "screwed" to death on this one. JMO though!

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

    Default

    Alaskan22, you've hit on a pet peeve of mine, and something I've brought up many times before: How we fund the Division of Wildlife Conservation.

    We are never going to get beyond the fact that non-residents typically provide the bulk of management and research funding in most states, including Alaska. Neither are we ever going to get beyond the guide industry rightly touting the economic benefits they bring to any state. That's just how it is.

    However, the stunning continued low cost of a resident Alaska hunting license (our last increase was way back in 1993!), and the fact we don't even have to pay for tags for moose, sheep, caribou, and deer, allows the influence of non-resident hunters and the guide industry to overly outweigh the influence in many cases of resident hunters.

    Not bashing guides or non-res hunters, certainly want to share our wildlife resource with our non-resident brethren, but things are getting out of hand to where in some cases residents are getting the short end of the stick with increasing lost opportunities. (As an aside, think why, with proposals on the Fortymile caribou hunt coming down to limit general resident opportunities down the line in some fashion, with continued overharvests that exceed the quota and cut into winter resident hunt opportunity ostensibly to "put food on the tables of Alaskans," we still allow unlimited non-resident opportunity for this hunt.)

    I saw Simpson's proposals, had to laugh that after requesting a guaranteed 10&#37; allocation, he also requested a 20% allocation maximum in another proposal. Maybe that was smart of him, now that I think of it, in getting the first one passed <grin>.

    You know the old saying, you get what you pay for. If we Alaskan hunters don't get on board with paying more of our fair share for funding, via license and possible tag fees, our influence wanes and it also opens the door for us to be taken advantage of. You should read some of the threads on mgmt forum that pertain to this.

    In closing, I don't disagree with the Board decision in principal. In many other states non-resident opportunity for many species is capped at 10% allocation, and in some states it is guaranteed. However, other states have worded this in much better ways, to keep things like an exclusive non-res sheep-draw opportunity (like we recently saw happen here) from happening. Where the Board may steer wrong on this, in precedent, is how the regulation reads on this. I haven't seen the exact wording yet.
    Cheers,

  5. #5

    Default

    Why doesn't someone write a proposal to raise the resident license fee and add fee's to all the tags? I am more than willing to pay my share of the cost to fund the Division of WIldlife conservation. Put a $10 fee on moose, caribou, black bear tags and make sheep tags $25, same as brown bear and leave the areas with the predator control program the way it is, free. I know a few years ago they were going to raise the cost but that was eventually dropped.

  6. #6
    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 AkHunter45 View Post
    Why doesn't someone write a proposal to raise the resident license fee and add fee's to all the tags? I am more than willing to pay my share of the cost to fund the Division of WIldlife conservation. Put a $10 fee on moose, caribou, black bear tags and make sheep tags $25, same as brown bear and leave the areas with the predator control program the way it is, free. I know a few years ago they were going to raise the cost but that was eventually dropped.
    well that would have hd to have been written last month andsubmited by 11/6 for the state wide issues.
    "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

  7. #7

    Default

    There's always the next time they ask for proposals. Wasn't saying it needed done at this moment.

  8. #8
    Member lawdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Syracuse, New York, Wasilla, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    193

    Default As a nonresident...

    I see Alaska going the way of Canada. Exclusive guide-use areas will allow nonresident's, who can afford to go guided, to be the gold laying goose. Who blames him for positioning himself to take more nonresident ox hunters? He's probably banking on getting the exclusive use of that area soon. I think you'll see more and more of this. Actually, why even have a nonresident draw? If one guide is controlling an area, then just allocate nonresident tags.

  9. #9
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    I'm fairly certain that license and tag fee increases has to be done legislatively. I don't think that going through the BoG proposal process would work. That being the case, what legislator is actually going to have the nerve to suggest a fee increase and push it through the legislative process? We've discussed this on here, and most resident hunters and fishermen seem vehemently opposed, even as they lose more and more opportunity to non-residents because of funding shortfalls.

  10. #10

    Wink

    Nothing is stopping anyone from giving all they want to the State of Alaska. You can give your entire estate to them if that is what you want to do. Bottom line is: No amount of fees or taxes increases are going to buy you one more opportunity than you're getting right now or even guarantee you will see the same next year. Resident hunters/fishermen use too few commercial services to make an impact. It is the trickle down economics from the local communities that the BOG/BOF focus on and it really helps if you are one of the gang, a friend or family. All this talk of voluntarily paying more for what you are already getting is utter nonsense. To suggest that you can somehow pay enough to buy you extra opportunity, shows how little some know about how things really work within our State Government. It is nothing more than crying over spilt milk and a total waste of internet ink.

    Spend the time it takes to learn the system, develop the relationships needed to effect the change you desire and you will find yourselves more happy with the decisions.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  11. #11
    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 Akres View Post
    Nothing is stopping anyone from giving all they want to the State of Alaska. You can give your entire estate to them if that is what you want to do. Bottom line is: No amount of fees or taxes increases are going to buy you one more opportunity than you're getting right now or even guarantee you will see the same next year. Resident hunters/fishermen use too few commercial services to make an impact. It is the trickle down economics from the local communities that the BOG/BOF focus on and it really helps if you are one of the gang, a friend or family. All this talk of voluntarily paying more for what you are already getting is utter nonsense. To suggest that you can somehow pay enough to buy you extra opportunity, shows how little some know about how things really work within our State Government. It is nothing more than crying over spilt milk and a total waste of internet ink.

    Spend the time it takes to learn the system, develop the relationships needed to effect the change you desire and you will find yourselves more happy with the decisions.
    i am only quoting so homer Dave can read it too....





    but you bring up a point, that is similar though a different industry here in ak...


    The Alaska AG, system was started and promoted and eventually run off by the same system that claimed they wanted it..

    and it came down to the controlling aspects of it all were from out of state..

    be it shipping co. production plants for simple things like packaging. etc etc..

    not to mention the bulk of the product that made up the difference was still lower 48 produce or controlled

    who remembers MAT MAID milk? 22% was Alaskan...


    that same principal is applied here to many of the TOURIST activities here in AK. look how many run up the shingle every may and haul it in come sept. or Oct.. and fly out again..

    look at the Kenai Penn.. Homer, Seward< Valdez, and see the population explode in the summer prices sky rocket and ply wood windows by the end of OCT... look how many guides are lower 48 and have done business with the various forms of government over the years...

    Alaska Grown? lol


    Ted Stephens and Don young had primary stock into many out of state trucking Co's to let it work... as did many others. but they sure made it look like they tried. I was there then and watched it happen and am seeing it now.. but now i am my dad.. and when i sit in the senators office or they sit at my coffee table.. i am better armed then dad was...
    "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

  12. #12
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    I've ask this question before, where does all the fine money go that was taking from people that had BAD hunts and got caught, or turned themselfs in?

    I'Ve been told it goes back to the state, and spread out as needed. ( some going to roads, parks, although they cut the funding for those to, surveys, that I've seen no data on, and it goes on and on)


    ?????????????????????????????


    That money could be used for the F&G fund. PERIOD

    But hey I'm not a politician so what do I know.

  13. #13
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default We've been proposing it for quite a while!

    Quote Originally Posted by Akhunter45
    Why doesn't someone write a proposal to raise the resident license fee and add fee's to all the tags?
    John, it is a legislative matter, but already has support of BOG.

    Here is the last letter we sent:
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters....0Proposal.html

    December 16, 2008
    To: Governor Sarah Palin
    PO Box 110001
    Juneau, AK 99811- 0001

    CC: Doug Larsen, Director
    Division of Wildlife Conservation
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game
    P. O. Box 115526
    Juneau, AK 99811

    Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (AK BHA) believes that the #1 issue facing current and future wildlife conservation and management in Alaska is the lack of proper funding for the Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC).

    Nearly all funding for DWC comes from the sale of resident and non-resident hunting licenses and tags, and matching federal Pittman-Robertson funds. Current Alaska resident hunting license fees on average are 47-97% lower than all the other western states, yet everything in Alaska regarding wildlife management costs much more to accomplish than those same states.

    The last hunting license/tag fee increase was fifteen years ago, in 1993, when resident hunting license fees went from $12 to $25. Since that time the pace of inflation along with no further increases in fees has negatively impacted many aspects of Alaska wildlife management and conservation (that $25 is now only valued at $16.50 in today's dollars), and threatened the future of what was arguably known as one of this country's finest state Fish and Game Departments.

    At a time when many seasoned long-time biologists and managers from ADFG are retiring - many of whom were among the most respected wildlife scientists and researchers in North America - DWC simply does not have the funding to replace them, nor can we compete with the salaries offered by federal agencies. Staff levels have been cut, and we are also losing staff to other agencies that offer higher pay and/or better benefits. The fact is that the state of Alaska - which is known and respected among hunters and wildlife viewers as having some of the most prolific and diverse wild game populations in the world - can no longer carry out the science required to properly monitor and manage the state's valuable wildlife resources.

    Without the necessary scientific research and monitoring of wildlife populations biologists and managers must err on the side of caution when advising the Board of Game on prudent harvest strategies and seasons for many game species. The lack of funding for these necessary studies thus continues to decrease hunter opportunity rather than expand it, and threaten certain game populations we don't monitor as often or as closely as we should, like the Dall sheep populations in the Chugach, Talkeetna, and Alaska ranges. Lack of funding for research and monitoring can also lead to more negative human/bear encounters in certain areas; if DWC, for example, was able to fund a much-needed brown bear population study on the Kenai Peninsula, we may find out that more bears can be hunted and harvested than we currently allow, thus permitting hunters to harvest bears that otherwise may be killed in road collisions or dangerous scenarios involving the defense of life and property that are becoming more common each year.

    DWC has received some general fund monies in the recent past to assist with Intensive Management programs and monitoring, but those funds can't be relied upon and nor are they sufficient for continued monitoring, any future Intensive Management programs DWC must undertake, and the other necessary monitoring and research and staff levels that DWC needs in order to meet its obligation to our wildlife, our habitat, and all hunters and wildlife viewers.

    For the reasons listed above, AK BHA strongly supports a resident and non-resident hunting license and tag fee increase as proposed by ADFG in 2005. This increase would double the cost of a resident hunting license from $25 to $50. Non-resident tag fees for various game species would also go up to be more in line with what other states charge, but not to levels that would make hunting in Alaska less competitive in pricing than in other states or countries.

    The actual specifics and dollar amounts of any increases can and should be discussed and debated in the legislature, but right now AK BHA feels it is imperative that a bill is introduced that is on par with what DWC believes is fair and needed to address this major funding shortfall.

    AK BHA wants to stress that while we fully support a hunting license and tag fee increase, we do not and will not support any mandates attached to a funding increase bill that seek to guarantee higher game population levels, higher harvest levels, lower predator levels, higher success rates, etc. This was a major stumbling block that prevented passage of the last bill that sought to increase funding to DWC. Those kinds of attachments and mandates to a funding increase are unnecessary and unwarranted as our Intensive Management statutes already speak to those concerns.

    Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to throwing our support behind a bill that will adequately fund DWC.

    Sincerely,
    Mark Richards - Co-chair Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
    alaskabha@starband.net



  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Be careful what you ask for. When they start raising all of the resident tags to compensate for money issues you will look back and say "remember when tags were less then half of what they are now." If they start running the tag situation up there like it is in my home state I will give you 10 years and it will be a draw on everything, including all resident tags. I pay more for one elk tag then you guys pay for all of your tags together. A total of at least $120 a year for 1 deer, 1 elk, and fishing. And it doesn't even compare to what you guys have up there. I would let all the non-resident hunters eat the bill and keep your tags the way they are. Dont raise the tags for non-residents until I get back up there
    I hope you guys get it figured out and your great state does not turn in to the great joke, like it is here.

  15. #15
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    I wish more people would take darkcloud's info more seriously.

    I've seen it happen and see it coming here.

  16. #16
    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

    ES... fees and fines all go back into tthe general fund....
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    I've ask this question before, where does all the fine money go that was taking from people that had BAD hunts and got caught, or turned themselfs in?

    I'Ve been told it goes back to the state, and spread out as needed. ( some going to roads, parks, although they cut the funding for those to, surveys, that I've seen no data on, and it goes on and on)


    ?????????????????????????????


    That money could be used for the F&G fund. PERIOD

    But hey I'm not a politician so what do I know.
    "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

  17. #17

    Wink

    NEVER NEVER NEVER offer yourself up to pay a tax at all, much less a higher tax than you are already paying. Those of you that truly know Government, know there is no end to it's wants and needs. Oh, you are willing to pay more, well, guess what, they are willing to spend more. Way more than you could ever pay. The government's appetite for your money is endless. We need to be cutting government, not voluntarily adding to it's demand. I very much advocate the elimination of duplicate duties that the dual management practice (Feds and State) have created. Both entities are doing essentially the same thing. If the Feds want to fund it, let them do it and use the system/data to the state's benefit, not pay for it twice. The state Dept of F&G is Bloated with far too many that do far too little. Do yourselves a favor and go to the offices and take a good walk around and keep your eyes open. Then after doing that, you want to give them more money, write the check in any amount you deem them worthy of, Payable to the State of Alaska. The gals at the desk can and will accept it.

    I honestly think some want government to grow, so their family members can get a good state job and retirement. It is selfish on their part. Don't allow yourself to be caught up in the hype. Letters are cheap to do. Ask any would be organization that you think you might want to be a part of; How much money has your organization donated to the State? Very few have given a red cent, but they have no problem asking others to pay the tab. Think before you jump on this bandwagon.

    My personal opinion is the State needs to do better with less, just like the rest of us. They should be taking care of what they have and not be wanting what they don't have.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  18. #18
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkcloud View Post
    I would let all the non-resident hunters eat the bill and keep your tags the way they are.
    That's the point. Our tags won't stay the way they are - over-the-counter tags won't even exist - if we residents aren't willing to step up to the plate to help fund Fish and Game. If we don't want to pay the bill, non-residents gladly will. Since they'll pay, we'll continue to allocate more and more and more tags to non-residents until everything is a draw-only hunt and residents have a hard time drawing much of anything. Meanwhile, non-residents won't have a problem at all drawing a permit from their "guaranteed" allocation.

    I would gladly pay for harvest tags, and also a higher license fee if it lessened the pressure to sell more of our game to guaranteed non-resident permits.

  19. #19
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    That's the point. Our tags won't stay the way they are - over-the-counter tags won't even exist - if we residents aren't willing to step up to the plate to help fund Fish and Game. If we don't want to pay the bill, non-residents gladly will. Since they'll pay, we'll continue to allocate more and more and more tags to non-residents until everything is a draw-only hunt and residents have a hard time drawing much of anything. Meanwhile, non-residents won't have a problem at all drawing a permit from their "guaranteed" allocation.

    I would gladly pay for harvest tags, and also a higher license fee if it lessened the pressure to sell more of our game to guaranteed non-resident permits.
    The legislature voting to raise tag prices That's a laugh! They are more worried about finding more special interest groups to give FREE tags too! You will have more luck getting them to vote to give firemen and police free tags just like they are now doing for the military!

    Before you flame on understand that I bought my tag in 2007 online from a computer in Iraq when I was still active duty, and I never once thought I was being cheated by funding the research of the animals that I hunt!

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default HAH!

    & here people wan the State of Alaska to regulate Subsistance! BAWHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!Slaps Knee...

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
  •