Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Anti-Wildlife-Waste Statewide BOG Proposal 42 can be found at 42.com

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Arrow Anti-Wildlife-Waste Statewide BOG Proposal 42 can be found at 42.com

    BOG proposal 42 can be read at http://42.com/

    It is an Alaskan Wildlife anti-waste oriented statewide proposal that is currently at the stage of receiving public comments before the BOG officially considers it at the end of January.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    335

    Default waste

    Initialy I like the proposal except ,
    At what level is something considderred waste ?
    Defigning limits and exact parts might come into play?
    One persons definition of waste can be very different if one pursued an arguement ,just to be irrritating.
    After all it could be argued that sense you did not have a use for the fat from a bear it was justafiable waste,but on the other side of the coin there are those that use that fat for the oil lamps and even cooking (yuk)
    It could be strained to the point that entrals that would require a chemical lab to make use of, qualify them as useful, there for illegal to cast off.
    Waste is a point of view that licenses people to push the mark against whom they wish .
    On the other hand , and this should have been policed by hunters them selves , is the waste excersized by felow hunters killing just to kill. A pile of rabbits killed and tossed into the trash.
    Those rabbits were potential food for other game that depend on their availability. Don't hunter safety courses touch on this issue ?
    What I might propose, in stead of making a law, that is going to create grreater anmosity , hunting ethics as a matter school training. Culture an attitude concerning waste and those whom do so with revolsion, because their actions, are the very ones, that give hunting a bad name. arogant and careless.
    But to create a law , I see a tangeled up mess, used to tie up hunters and fishermen. There are no guarentees that the anti groups won't push the absolute limits. Their goal , if you can't hunt , what do you need a gun for? You think I'm over concerned ? I live in california, Arnold betrayed us.

  3. #3
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    Poorly written at best.

    Modify the salvage requirement as follows:
    You may not waste the edible meat of any unspoiled wildlife in Alaska, nor permit it to be wasted or spoiled nor permit it to be used in a manner not normally (or historically or culturally) associated with its beneficial use (for example, use of salmon fillets as fertilizer would be considered waste). Another form of waste explicitly prohibited would be to cause the death of any Alaskan wildlife without harvesting it, (i.e., retrieving it from the field). ‘Waste’ as defined herein can be caused by an action by anyone in the State of Alaska, and can additionally be defined to be possible as the result of an inaction of any person harvesting/taking wildlife or attempting to do so.”
    A possible alternative is to not explicitly define “waste” herein and instead leave that up to local interpretation.
    Several questions come up.
    • Define wildlife.
    • Define edible meat. Heart, liver, lungs, brain, stomach lining, tongue, diaphram? I don't eat any of these, but they are all certainly edible.
    • What is "unspoiled wildlife"?
    • Define harvesting. Is just bringing out the hide harvesting?
    • Local interpretation? Isn't that what got us here in the first place?
    I think the current wanton waste laws are fine. They just need to be prosectuted better.
    Bunny Boots and Bearcats: Utility Sled Mayhem

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default Definitions of waste, edible meat, harvest

    There are some decent definitions of these things if you go to the Hunting Regs pages 26-27, under "edible meat", "salvage", and "take".

    I presented an anti-waste viewpoint on this forum and was encouraged by a moderator that a proposal would be recommended. This is it.

    I agree that this is not an entirely fleshed out proposal, as written; it is merely the best that I was able to accomplish.

    F&G is welcoming comments on it now:
    After reviewing the proposal, please send written comments to:
    ATTN: Board of Game Comments, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526, Fax: 907-465-6094

  5. #5
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    In my experience, and it was only once, with a game board proposal that wants to change a law you'd better have it pretty well spelled out to the "T" as to what verbage you want to change and what verbage you desire it to end up as. I don't see this on the webpage you linked.

    I researched 5 AAC 92.220 Salvage of game meat, furs, and hides and find that it covers pretty much everything already. I need some more clarity on your proposal. Are you proposing that ALL game animals (wolves and bears particularly) have their meat recovered?

    I applaud you getting involved.
    Bunny Boots and Bearcats: Utility Sled Mayhem

  6. #6

    Default Sucks

    The term "edible meat" is a free pass to would be herd hunters and future caribou massacres. My defense would be "I didn't feel the meat was edible so I only took the horns".
    Then after the meat had been in the field for a number of days before the troopers arrived, there wouldn't be much way to prove the meat was edible. IF it was there when they arriced to investigate !
    Same as what is happening at Pt. Hope right now !! Just new verbage for the next round of litigation and lack of prosecution.
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  7. #7
    Member Phish Finder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Searching for more cowbell!
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    The penalty for not following this regulation? 1hour of community service per animal

    I hate to be cynical but there is a readily apparent why it is an option.
    ><((((º>¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·..¸¸ ><((((º>`·.¸¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º>

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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default all animals?

    Quote Originally Posted by AKDoug View Post
    In my experience, and it was only once, with a game board proposal that wants to change a law you'd better have it pretty well spelled out to the "T" as to what verbage you want to change and what verbage you desire it to end up as. I don't see this on the webpage you linked.

    I researched 5 AAC 92.220 Salvage of game meat, furs, and hides and find that it covers pretty much everything already. I need some more clarity on your proposal. Are you proposing that ALL game animals (wolves and bears particularly) have their meat recovered?

    I applaud you getting involved.
    I wouldn't be in favor of re-defining any generally understood meaning of what "waste" is, what "edible meat" is, and such.

    It seems obvious to me that we do have an actual problem regarding wildlife waste, and in addition I think it helps us all to orient our rules to encourage a no waste point of view.

    Thanks for the encouragement. I knew I would and know I still will receive a bit of a backlash for proposing this; though that didn't sway me from my course.

    Thanks for your advice too. I don't disagree with it, though I would add that in addition to the very-goal-oriented way you're looking at this, sometimes the journey can be just as important as the destination.

  9. #9

    Default

    FamilyMan. Why do you say we have a problem of waste? Are you talking about the few bad eggs that make the papers now and then or is there something I am missing?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default is there a problem of waste?

    Quote Originally Posted by woundedknee View Post
    FamilyMan. Why do you say we have a problem of waste? Are you talking about the few bad eggs that make the papers now and then or is there something I am missing?
    At a minimum, we have a problem that involves "who's who" and "where ya from?". I'm not casting aspersions, but you tell me: If it would have been me up there, singlehandedly, that mowed down caribou as the trooper and press reports seem to indicate, do you think:
    - the case would have dragged on this long?
    - that I would have received a greater sentence than the ones of the accused that have settled out of court?

    The answers of course are no, and yes, which means all isn't right.

    Why have other states made waste of wildlife not-legal? Not saying we should just follow other's lead blindly (because we shouldn't), but you tell me the downside of taking an anti-waste stand on this, OK?

    Can you take a stand on the "hunter/fishermen", the "non's", and the "anti's" that are referred to in the proposal? Do you question this logic?

    Also, that today's regs would allow anyone to actually put forth an argument in court that leaving so many caribou in the field was OK... without the act of collecting some samples of that diseased meat for F&G to analyze; they could have given it to F&G when then notified them of encountering such a huge, never-before-documented rampant caribou health problems.

    Except, they didn't file a report. Again, there's more indications that we might have some wildlife waste problems here. But rather than taking that issue to trial here, instead I propose to merely clarify and make clear that wasting wildlife in Alaska is not OK, except for the few instances that could be noted in the regs.

    Also, in discussion of the current caribou case in court, a couple posters here have come forward saying they're privy to not dis-similar situations in the bush. Again, indications that a problem may exist.

    I think it best to be pro-active, and not take a see-no-evil/hear-no-evil/smell-no-evil approach, on this issue. What are the problems with taking a no-waste approach to Alaskan wildlife?

    I don't mind disagreements that remain civil, and thanks to all respondents for that, on this thread. Though I did wonder about whether or not to post this proposal here, I'll admit.

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

    Default

    According to the interpretation that I got in talking to the Fish and Wildlife Troopers the current law was written to do exactly what you are requesting in your prop. The law requires that the edible meat be salvaged and lists the included meat as follows:
    AS 16.30.030. Definitions.

    (3) "edible meat" means, in the case of big game animals, the meat of the ribs, neck, brisket, front quarters as far as the distal joint of the radius-ulna (knee), hindquarters as far as the distal joint of the tibia-fibula (hock), and that portion of the animal between the front and hindquarters; in the case of wild fowl, the meat of the breast; however, "edible meat" of big game or wild fowl does not include (A) meat of the head; (B) meat that has been damaged and made inedible by the method of taking; (C) bones, sinew, and incidental meat reasonably lost as a result of boning or a close trimming of the bones; (D) viscera;
    It specifically says that to salvage means to transport it out of the field to a place where it WILL be put to human use.

    5AAC 92.990


    (49) "salvage" means to transport the edible meat, heart, liver, kidneys, head, skull, or hide, as required by statute or regulation, of a game animal or wild fowl to the location where the edible meat, heart, liver, or kidneys will be consumed by humans or processed for human consumption in order to save or prevent the edible meat, heart, liver, or kidneys from waste, and the head, skull, or hide will be put to human use;
    As far as your view on it being legal to waste meat from animals, I disagree.

    AS 16.30.010. Wanton Waste of Big Game Animals and Wild Fowl.

    (a) It is a class A misdemeanor for a person who kills a big game animal or a species of wild fowl to fail intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence to salvage for human consumption the edible meat of the animal or fowl.
    It is clear that meat must be salvaged, which is the bringing from the field and processed. The wanton wast law makes it clear that this salvage meat will be consumed.

    The definition of Salvage could be changed to "bring from the field and put to human use the meat of any big game animal". Which would add some additional clarity, though I get the feeling that the ambiguity is intentional.

    I did find it interesting that I cannot find the definition of "edible meat" when it comes to bears despite there being laws that require the salvage of it in some situations. Bears are also not listed in the wanton waste laws as a big game animal.

    AS 16.30.030. Definitions.

    In this chapter,
    (1) "big game animal" means moose, caribou, mountain sheep, mountain goat, feral reindeer, deer, elk, bison, walrus, or musk ox
    Since the wanton waste law is specifically focus on big game animals and wild fowl it seems as though one can annihilate bears and bunnies without being subject to wanton waste laws even if salvage is required. I find that perplexing. I imagine you could be charged with failure to salvage the meat but you couldn't be charged w/ the heavier violation of wanton waste.

  12. #12
    Member sledhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Also, in discussion of the current caribou case in court, a couple posters here have come forward saying they're privy to not dis-similar situations in the bush. Again, indications that a problem may exist.

    I being one of the above applaud the Idea. But I see the problem of waste in the bush as being a "here no / see no" for VPSO's and other law enforcement. I believe it will only apply to those in the more populated areas or places where somebody just goes totally overboard. (Pt Hope) If that is your intended target. But I guess you have to start somewhere.

    I believe that the current regs cover all these problems but the problem is getting the state to do an impartial job.

    If you kill it haul it out. If you believe it to be cancerous, diseased or infected throw a tarp over it roll it up in it and haul it out. Call Fish and Game. If you fail to do so you should be prosecuted period. If you kill it haul it home don't process it and then it spoils and you decide it needs to go to the dump. You should be prosecuted for wanton waste.

    It is disheartening though when local law enforcement tells you they just turn their head and are told to do so. More regulations on the problem will do nothing to resolve the problem. It will though create loopholes and viable argument pathways for the legal side of the issue. The way the wanton waste law stands now anybody that can read can understand it it is cut and dried. That is why the other proposal is being presented ("41" I believe) to create escape routes to avoid prosecution for laziness and abuse of alaskas fish and game resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    What are the problems with taking a no-waste approach to Alaskan wildlife?
    It is a good approach. But changing the law of wanton waste is not the solution. Prosecution by more stringent enforcement is the answer.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default we might have to agree to disagree

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    According to the interpretation that I got in talking to the Fish and Wildlife Troopers the current law was written to do exactly what you are requesting ...
    I do disagree. My reasoning was posted on a different thread today so I won't repeat it here.

  14. #14
    Member sledhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Since the wanton waste law is specifically focus on big game animals and wild fowl it seems as though one can annihilate bears and bunnies without being subject to wanton waste laws even if salvage is required. I find that perplexing. I imagine you could be charged with failure to salvage the meat but you couldn't be charged w/ the heavier violation of wanton waste.
    I wouldn't bet on it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You might get an apethetic judge!

  15. #15
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sledhands View Post
    I wouldn't bet on it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You might get an apethetic judge!
    I quoted the law specifically from the actual document. Bears are not considered big game when it comes to THE wanton waste law, and the wanton waste law ONLY applies to big game and wild fowl. It is not ignorance of the law, it is after careful review of the existing statutes as they are written. I included all of the statute numbers as reference in my previous post. I would love for someone to show me where bears are identified as being subject to wanton waste laws. The law is very specific and identifies all animals that it pertains to.

  16. #16

    Default

    This prop is going nowhere.

    The BOG will slam it down so far in the dumps it won't see the light of day. The BOG will retain the perogative to set the standards by which "they" establish what is edible, what is required to be salvaged, when it is required to be salvaged and how it is to be salvaged, for each and every specific hunt or location. Sometimes they establish you must salvage a bear, other times it is OK to leave it. Sometimes they establish that you must salvage guts, bone or hide, other times it is OK to leave it. All this is done on a case by case/hunt by hunt basis and it will not change. Period.

    I recognize your intent, in the prop, but it falls short of conveying the will of the BOG and way outside the bounds of what the BOG is all about. There are personalities and notions that these folks have, that you will never be able to wrap your mind around. You should not take this personal, just realize the frustration you are experiencing, is because you are attempting to effect change well outside your circle of influence. This always results in the feeling of despair, hopelessness, frustration and anger.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  17. #17
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Another "feel good" post from akres!!!!

    Dude, after that last post, I'm getting back undressed and going back to bed.I'll just lay around being depressed, Thanksssssssss!!!

  18. #18

    Default But if he can get

    enough public support to generate AC support he at least would be opening the door to another proposal next time.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  19. #19

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Echo View Post
    enough public support to generate AC support he at least would be opening the door to another proposal next time.
    Mike
    Nope. That too is just not how it works.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  20. #20
    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 Mike Echo View Post
    enough public support to generate AC support he at least would be opening the door to another proposal next time.
    Mike
    i agree, to that point. i wrote 3 sperate props this years and do not expect any fo them to acutally pass.. though it would be nice... even with F&G telling me they may not support one for sure.. i submitted them in an effort to spur some conversation and get things discussed that may have been ignored..regarding this issue.. PROP 34 of the artic region was the near oppist to work with.. the only disscussion it spured anywhere was here on the forum... talk about plauge......
    "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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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
  •