Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: kenai mountain caribou hunting ... read it and weep

  1. #1
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Angry kenai mountain caribou hunting ... read it and weep

    well, if you want to hunt this herd you better hope you get drawn this year ... or move to Hope.
    the chief anthropologist for the subsistence board has determined that residents of hope and sunrise (sunrise? where the heck is sunrise?) meet the requirements to claim customary and traditional use of the kenai mountain caribou herd, the first step towards a subsistence hunt.
    unless the subsistence board does something really unlikely... like deny the application ... this hunt is likely to go away for "regular alaskans".
    oh, and they're likely gonna get moose, too.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  2. #2
    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

    dave can't read your file how about a copy and paist
    "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

  3. #3

    Default

    Want to buy some awesome land in Hope/Sunrise Alaska...........?

  4. #4
    Member ret25yo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Unit 13
    Posts
    1,471

    Default

    you have a corrupt file.. cant open it

    If you cant stand behind the troops in Iraq.. Feel free to stand in front of them.

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    Dave - Does the document explain how on earth a herd that was transplanted there can be considered "traditional"? That is a stretch by any definition of the word.

  6. #6

    Default

    If you can get us a working link or just directions to the information online, I would relly like to check in on that. If what you say is true, it is complete, 100% B.S. Just as we all, or at least anyone with half a mind, knew, AHTNA was just the beginning and now we are starting to see the next stage. It's all downhill from here unless something is done.

  7. #7
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default probably an apple thing

    here:
    January 5, 2010
    ISC 1st Review

    DRAFT STAFF ANALYSIS
WP10-32a
    ISSUES
    Proposal WP10-32a, submitted by Paul Genne and Dennis Ressler, requests a positive customary and traditional use determination for Hope and Sunrise for caribou in Unit 7. The proposal also requested seasons and harvest limits, which are addressed in the analysis for Proposal WP10-32b.
    Discussion
    The proponent is requesting a positive customary and traditional use determination for caribou in Unit 7 for Hope and Sunrise residents because it would re-establish the customary and traditional use of this resource for the residents of Hope and Sunrise. Based on historical reports, caribou were abundant on the Kenai Peninsula prior to the late 1800s (Porter 1893, Sherwood 1974). Large forest fires on the Peninsula in the late 1800s, including a massive fire in 1883 destroyed a significant amount of caribou habitat and contributed to a decline in the Kenai Peninsula caribou population (Leopold and Darling 1953; Sherwood 1974). It is thought that caribou were extirpated on the Kenai Peninsula by about 1912 (Lutz 1956). The Kenai Mountain Caribou Herd in Unit 7 was derived from reintroductions of caribou on the Kenai Peninsula in 1966, 1985, and 1986. The State has had a caribou hunt in Unit 7 since 1972. For more details on the history of caribou in Unit 7, see the analysis for Proposal WP10-32b).
    Existing Federal Regulations
    Unit 7—Caribou
    Customary and Traditional Use Determination
    Unit 7
    No Federal subsistence priority.
    Proposed Federal Regulations
    Unit 7—Caribou
    Customary and Traditional Use Determination
    Unit 7
    Residents of Hope and Sunrise.
    Extent of Federal Public Lands
    Approximately 78% of the lands in Unit 7 are comprised of Federal public lands, consisting of 50% Chugach National Forest lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 23% Kenai Fjords National Park lands managed by the National Park Service, and 5% of lands managed by the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The Kenai Fjords National Park lands are not open to subsistence uses (see Unit 7 map).
    Regulatory History
    The Federal Subsistence Board (Board) has addressed customary and traditional use determinations for the Kenai Peninsula since the inception of the Federal Subsistence Management Program in 1990. The Board adopted the State’s customary and traditional use determinations in 1990. At that time the State determined the road-connected portion of the Kenai Peninsula—which is most of Units 7 and 15—to be a nonsubsistence area. As a result of the State’s nonsubsistence area, the Federal Board then determined that all wildlife resources in Units 7 and 15 had a “no Federal subsistence priority” customary and traditional use determination. For a summary of the regulatory history, see Appendix A.
    The Board has never specifically considered the customary and traditional uses of caribou by residents of Hope or Sunrise. The only customary and traditional use the Board has recognized for residents of Hope is the use of “all fish” in the Federal public waters of the Kenai River Area within Unit 7.
    The Board has recognized the customary and traditional uses of reintroduced species, for example, muskoxen in Units 22, 23, and 26, and deer and elk in Unit 3.
    Community Characteristics
    Hope is a small, unincorporated community located in Unit 7 within the Kenai Peninsula Borough with an estimated permanent year-round population of 148 in 2008 (ADCRA 2008). Hope is recognized as a rural community by the Federal Subsistence Board. Hope is located on the northern end of the Kenai Peninsula, on the southshore of the Turnagain Arm of Cook Inlet, 86 miles from Anchorage to the north and 103 miles from Kenai to the South (Map 1). The community is within the Chugach National Forest and is the northern terminus of the popular Resurrection Trail. Almost half (48%) of the houses in Hope are vacation houses or cabins. There is one school with eleven students. The school and local businesses are the only employment. Hope was founded in 1896 by miners and called “Hope City.” At the turn of the 20th century, about half of Hope’s residents were Native (Mishler 1985). The Hope post office began operating in 1987 (ADCRA 2008).
    Sunrise is only seven miles from Hope and had a year-round population of 22 in 2008 (Map 1). Sunrise is a census designated place and has very little in the way of a community and is considered a “subcommunity” of Hope. Sunrise was established on Sixmile Creek and was the dominant community during the early part of the 20th century, but the population declined and had no residents in 1940 (Barry 1973). Gradually people have moved into Sunrise since the 1940s, but the population continues to be quite small. There are no schools, businesses, and government organizations. Any children in Sunrise would attend school in Hope; Sunrise residents receive their mail in Hope. Because of the close proximity of Sunrise to Hope and the interconnectedness between the two communities, Sunrise is considered a part of Hope for this analysis. All references in this analysis to Hope’s uses of caribou include Sunrise.
    Dena’ina Athabaskans inhabited the Hope area long before the miners arrived. The Dena’ina had a settlement at the mouth of the Resurrection River and one at Chickaloon Bay. Once the miners moved in, the Dena’ina communities declined due to out-migration and mortality from disease (Barry 1973). Some of the Dena’ina moved to Point Possession, another Athabaskan community, 30 miles to the west. The inhabitants of Point Possession were decimated by the flu epidemic of 1918 and the community never recovered (Holmes 1985).
    Hope became connected by road to Seward in 1951 (Buzzell and McMahan 1986). This road system greatly enhanced the opportunity for tourists and seasonal residents to enjoy the wildlife, scenery, and sport fishing available in the Hope area.
    Eight Factors for Determining Customary and Traditional Uses
    A community or area’s customary and traditional use is generally exemplified through the eight factors: (1) a long-term, consistent pattern of use, excluding interruptions beyond the control of the community or area; (2) a pattern of use recurring in specific seasons for many years; (3) a pattern of use consisting of methods and means of harvest which are characterized by efficiency and economy of effort and cost, conditioned by local characteristics; (4) the consistent harvest and use of fish or wildlife as related to past methods and means of taking: near, or reasonably accessible from the community or area; (5) a means of handling, preparing, preserving, and storing fish or wildlife which has been traditionally used by past generations, including consideration of alteration of past practices due to recent technological advances, where appropriate; (6) a pattern of use which includes the handing down of knowledge of fishing and hunting skills, values, and lore from generation to generation; (7) a pattern of use in which the harvest is shared or distributed within a definable community of persons; and (8) a pattern of use which relates to reliance upon a wide diversity of fish and wildlife resources of the area and which provides substantial cultural, economic, social, and nutritional elements to the community or area.
    The Board makes customary and traditional use determinations based on a holistic application of these eight factors (50 CFR 100.16(b) and 36 CFR 242.16(b)). In addition, the Board takes into consideration the reports and recommendations of any appropriate Regional Advisory Council regarding customary and traditional use of subsistence resources (50 CFR 100.16(b) and 36 CFR 242.16(b)). The Board makes customary and traditional use determinations for the sole purpose of recognizing the pool of users who generally exhibit the eight factors. The Board does not use such determinations for resource management or restricting harvest. If a conservation concern exists for a particular population, the Board addresses that concern through the imposition of harvest limits or seasonal restrictions rather than by limiting the customary and traditional use finding.
    Specific information on each of the eight factors is not required because a community or area seeking a customary and traditional use determination only has to “generally exhibit” the eight factors (50 CFR 100.16(b) and 36 CFR 242.16(b)).
    The Dena’ina of the Kenai Peninsula used the wild resources available to them (Osgood 1976 [1937], Ackerman 1975, and Holmes 1985). Dena’ina in the Hope area were harvesting resources at the time of contact with the Russians. Dena’ina communities were established at the mouth of Resurrection Creek and at Chickaloon Bay.
    Existing information indicates that Hope residents traditionally harvested the resources available to them, including caribou. Hunting, fishing, trading, bartering, and trapping of resources were important activities for the early residents of Hope (Barry 1973) and continued to be an important part of Hope residents’ lifestyle into the 1950s (Seitz et al. 1994). Caribou were harvested by the early inhabitants of the Kenai Peninsula (de Laguna 1975, Buzzell and McMahon 1986). Osgood (1976) discusses the use of caribou among the Dena’ina in general, and Ackerman (1975) mentions the use of caribou by the Kenaitze Tribe specifically. Pedersen (1983) discusses the use of caribou in the first half of the 1900s. Seitz et al. (1994) documents the contemporary use of caribou by Hope residents.
    Caribou existed on the Kenai Peninsula until the early 1900s. The last known sighting of caribou during that period was about 1912. Today there are four small herds which are the result of reintroductions in 1965 to 1966 and 1985 to 1986. The Kenai Mountain Herd normally ranges in the area drained by the Chickaloon River, Big Indian Creek, and Resurrection Creek in Unit 7 (FWS 1993:25). The contemporary harvest of caribou is strongly influenced by regulations and restrictions. Hope residents have harvested caribou in small numbers as a result of the limited harvest opportunities on the Kenai Mountain Herd since its reintroduction in the mid-1960s. The first hunting season occurred in 1972 and a State season has occurred every year since. Since 1977, ADF&G has managed the hunt using a limited drawing permit system that has been open to residents as well as nonresidents (McDonough 2007). Generally there have been very few permits available for a large number of people applying for permits, with a 10 to 12% chance of drawing a permit (see Proposal WP10-32a for a discussion of harvest permit history) (Kron 2009, pers.comm.).
    Data are not readily available on the number of caribou harvested by Hope residents from 1972 through 1982, however, a Hope resident reported that he and other Hope residents harvested caribou every year from the Kenai Mountains Herd in Unit 7 from 1972 through 1982 (Marrs 2009, pers. comm.). The ADF&G harvest ticket database indicates that 14 caribou have been harvested from 1983 through 1997 by Hope residents in Unit 7(ADF&G 2007). It has become extremely difficult for Hope residents to get a caribou permit since the drawing permit system was implemented by ADF&G in 1977. No one in Hope has received a caribou permit since 1997 (ADF&G 2007). A local Hope resident, who has participated in about 20 caribou hunts since 1972, stated that he applies for a caribou permit to hunt in Unit 7 every year, but has been unable to receive a permit since the early 1990s (Marrs 2009, pers. comm.).
    A household survey in 1990-1991 indicated that even with low numbers of caribou available to Hope residents during the study year, caribou ranked second to moose among large mammals in frequency of use and harvest quantities (Seitz et al. 1994). During the study period, eight caribou, or about eight pounds per person, were harvested by Hope residents. Of the sampled households, 20% used caribou, 9% hunted and 7% harvested caribou (ADF&G 2009).
    No specific information is available concerning the specific seasons used by the Dena’ina or the early settlers on the Kenai Peninsula to hunt caribou. Current hunting regulations govern the seasons and harvest limits as well as the available permits. Caribou are normally hunted under State regulations from mid-August through September and are part of the seasonal round (FWS 1993:25). Currently there is no Federal subsistence priority for caribou hunting in Unit 7.
    The Hope caribou harvest area is within Unit 7 in a 25 to 30 mile arc south of the community (FWS 1993). This is the area used by the Kenai Mountain Herd and all of this area is Federal public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The ADF&G harvest ticket database indicates that all of Hope residents who held caribou permits to harvest caribou in the Kenai Peninsula from 1984 through 1997 hunted caribou in Unit 7. As discussed previously, no harvests have occurred in Unit 7 since 1997 (ADF&G 2007). Mapping conducted by ADF&G in 1991 indicated that Hope residents harvested caribou in Unit 7 (ADF&G 1991). The area is extremely difficult to get to, usually requiring access by foot or by horse.
    No data are available on the methods and means used by Hope residents to harvest large mammals, including caribou. The area is difficult to access. The primary means of access for all hunters of the Kenai Mountain Herd is hiking in on foot or with horses (FWS 1993:27).
    Caribou meat was traditionally dried, smoked, or frozen outdoors. No data are available concerning contemporary methods of handling, preparing, preserving, or storing caribou by Hope residents. It is likely that most caribou meat is preserved by freezing (FWS 1993:27).
    No data are available concerning the handing down of knowledge of caribou hunting skills, value, and lore from generation to generation.
    In a study conducted in Hope in 1991, most households were involved in giving or receiving wild resources. About 90 percent of household received at least one kind of wild resource from another household. Caribou was received by 13% of households and was given by 7% of households (ADF&G 2009). McCart (1983) also refers to a wide sharing of wild resources in the 1930s by Hope residents.
    Residents of Hope depend on a wide diversity of fish and wildlife resources, harvesting an average of 9.1 different kinds of resources, similar to other road-connected communities on the Kenai Peninsula (Fall et al. 2000:240–245). Almost all Hope households (94%) hunted, fished, or gathered wild foods and 100% used at least one type of wild resource. The per capita harvest of wild resources, measured in pounds of useable weight, was 110.7 pounds while the mean household harvest was 262.2 pounds. The average number of wild resources used in the communities and areas in the Kenai Peninsula ranged from 7.6 (North Fork Road) to 21.5 (Nanwalek) (Fall et al. 2000:240–245).
    Effects of the Proposal
    If the proposal is adopted, a positive customary and traditional use determination for the residents of Hope for caribou in Unit 7 would enable Federally qualified subsistence users to harvest caribou under Federal subsistence regulations from Federal public lands in Unit 7.
    If the proposal is rejected, Hope residents could continue to apply for a State drawing permit to harvest caribou under State regulations, although the competition with applicants from other areas of Alaska, other parts of the U.S., and other countries for one of the 250 permits makes it very difficult for Hope residents to obtain a permit.
    If there are conservation concerns, these would be addressed through the implementation of seasons, harvest limits, methods and means of the harvest, but are not a factor in making customary and traditional use determinations.
    OSm PRELIMINARY Conclusion
    Support Proposal WP10-32a.
    Justification
    Hope (including Sunrise) caribou harvests generally exhibit the eight factors of customary and traditional use determinations for using caribou in Unit 7. The ADF&G harvest ticket database indicates that 100% of caribou reported harvested by Hope residents on the Kenai Peninsula are harvested in Unit 7. Mapping of Hope’s subsistence use areas confirms that caribou are harvested by Hope residents in Unit 7. Early settlers of Hope harvested caribou in the early part of the 20th century in Unit 7. Hope residents demonstrate contemporary use of caribou in Unit 7, though in small numbers as a result of the limited harvest opportunities on the Kenai Mountain Caribou Herd since its reintroduction in the mid-1960s. A Hope resident reported harvesting caribou from the Kenai Mountains Caribou Herd since 1972. From 1983 to 1997, Hope residents harvested 14 caribou from the Kenai Mountain Herd. No one in Hope has been able to draw a permit to harvest a caribou in Unit 7 since 1997; all of the State drawing permits have gone to Alaska hunters from around the State as well as to nonresidents.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  8. #8
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default and the sources...

    LITERATURE CITED
    Ackerman, R.E. 1975. The Kenaitze people. Indian Tribal Series, Phoenix, Arizona.
    ADCRA (Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs). 2008. Community database online, community information series: Hope. Internet: http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm Retrieved January 7, 2008. Juneau, AK.
    ADF&G. 1991. Map databases for Hope, Hope, and Whittier, use areas mapped during 1991 household surveys. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Anchorage, AK.
    ADF&G. 2007. Division of Wildlife Conservation. 2007. Harvest ticket database. Microcomputer database.
    ADF&G. 2009. Community Subsistence Information System, Subsistence Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Harvest records for Hope. Internet: http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/CSIS/ Retrieved: October 15, 2009.
    Barry, M. 1973. A history of mining on the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. Anchorage, AK.
    Buzzell, R.and D. McMahon 1986. Cultural resources survey of the Seward Highway, Milepost 50-65.5, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resrouces, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Office of History and Archaeology. Anchorage, AK.
    de Laguna, F. 1975. The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Philadelphia: the University of Pennsylvania Press.
    Fall J., V. Vanek, L. Brown, G. Jennings, R. J. Wolfe and C. Utermohle. 2000. Wild resource harvests and uses by residents of selected communities of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. ADF&G, Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 253. Juneau, AK. 261 pages.
    FWS. 1993. Draft, Kenai Peninsula, Units 7 and 15, customary and traditional use determination report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management. Anchorage, AK.
    FSB. 1994. Transcript of the Federal Subsistence Board meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. April 12, 1994. USFWS, Office of Subsistence Management. Anchorage. AK.
    FSB. 1995. Background Materials. Kenai Peninsula Proposed Federal Subsistence Regulations for Federal Subsistence Board Meeting, July 13, 1995. Anchorage, AK
    FSB. 1996. Transcript of the Federal Subsistence Board meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. May 3, 1996. Volume V. USFWS, Office of Subsistence Management. Anchorage. AK.
    FSB. 2003. Transcript of the Federal Subsistence Board meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. May 20, 2003. Volume 1. USFWS, Office of Subsistence Management. Anchorage. AK.
    Holmes, C., ed. 1985. Progress report, project F-021-2(15)/(A09812), Sterling Highway archaeological mitigation: phase I excavations at four sites on the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Fairbanks, AK.
    Kron, T. 2009. Personal communication in person with Helen Armstrong, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Anthropology Division Chief. December 2009. Anchorage, AK.
    Leopold, A. and F. Darling. 1953. Effects of land use on moose and caribou in Alaska. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Pages 553-562.

    Lutz, H. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in the interior of Alaska. Tech. Bull. 1133. USFS. Juneau, AK.

    Marrs, B. 2009. Personal communication (phone) with Tom Kron, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Statewide Support Division Chief. September 2009. Anchorage, AK.
    McCart, D. 1983. The Hope truckline and 75 miles of women. Portland: Binford and Mort.
    McDonough, T. 2007. Units 7 and 15 caribou management report. Pages 1-3 in P. Harper, ed. Caribou management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 2004 – June 2006. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest. Grant W-33-3 & 4. ADF&G. Juneau, AK.
    Mishler, C. 1985. Historical demography and genealogy: the decline of the Northern Kenai Peninsula Tanaina. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Anchorage, AK.
    Osgood, C. 1976 [1937]. The ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 16. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press. 194 pages.
    Pedersen , E. 1983. A larger history of the Kenai Peninsula. Adams Press. Chicago.
    Porter, R. 1893. Report on population and resources of Alaska at the eleventh census: 1890. DOI, U.S.
    Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.
    Seitz, J., L. Tomrdle, L., and J. Fall, 1994. The use of fish and wildlife in the Upper Kenai Peninsula communities of Hope, Whittier, and Hope [draft]. ADF&G Division of Subsistence, Technical Paper No. 219. Juneau, AK.
    Sherwood, M. 1974. The Cook Inlet collection, two hundred years of selected Alaska history. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. Anchorage, AK. 222 pages.


    APPENDIX A: Summary of the Regulatory History of the Federal Subsistence Board Customary and Traditional Use Determinations for Caribou on the Kenai Peninsula
    • 1990: Federal Subsistence Management Program established; State’s customary and traditional use determinations adopted.
    • State considers that the road-connected portion of the Kenai Peninsula—which is most of Units 7 and 15—is a nonsubsistence area. As a result, the Federal Board determined that Unit 7 had “no subsistence” determinations for caribou.
    • April 1994: Federal Subsistence Board (Board) deferred all customary and traditional use determinations for all large mammals on the Kenai Peninsula until a process and schedule for making customary and traditional use determinations statewide could be established (FSB 1994).
    • July 1995: Board continued to defer customary and traditional use determinations for Hope and other Kenai Peninsula communities (FSB 1995).
    • May 1996: After an extensive Federal process involving data gathering, public hearings, and court decisions, Board made the customary and traditional use determinations for Unit 15 moose for Nanwalek, Ninilchik, Port Graham and Seldovia, but decisions on the remaining species and communities were deferred until rural determinations on the Kenai Peninsula could be made (FSB 1996).
    • 2003: Board addressed customary and traditional use determinations for moose in Unit 15, but again deferred making customary and traditional use determinations for remaining communities and resources on the Kenai Peninsula until the completion of a report by the Institute for Social and Economic Research on rural determination and methodology and the subsequent review of rural determinations as required by regulation on a 10-year basis (FSB 2003:102).
    • 2006: Board made its final rural determinations in 2006.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  9. #9
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default anybody remember these posts...

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=34478

    not like this just snuck up, i mentioned it well over a year ago too....
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=34478

    not like this just snuck up, i mentioned it well over a year ago too....

    What is a crack-up is that you would be hard-pressed to find a larger nest of non-hunters.

  11. #11

    Talking

    Most on the forum thought it was OK and just fine and dandy for AHTNA to get the Community Harvest Priority hunt. Well.....anybody want to file suit if it comes to be???

    Didn't think so.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  12. #12
    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

    gee Dave i never want to hear another issues about long run together postings


    interesting read..


    off hand guys how many tags does this potentially effect?
    "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

  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 homerdave View Post
    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=34478

    not like this just snuck up, i mentioned it well over a year ago too....
    yeah but then you were being chicken little...you know like when the issue of SFW or others come up too....
    "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 ret25yo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Unit 13
    Posts
    1,471

    Default

    HomerDave for the win....






    WOLF

    If you cant stand behind the troops in Iraq.. Feel free to stand in front of them.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    off hand guys how many tags does this potentially effect?
    This time around, they are listing this hunt as having 250 permits available. The take is usually in the single digits if I recall correctly. Personally, my feeling is that whether it is 1 or 1000 permits effected, it doesn't matter. It would mean yet another area being completely eliminated from the possibility of hunting to everyone but a select "special" group.

  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

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    This time around, they are listing this hunt as having 250 permits available. The take is usually in the single digits if I recall correctly. Personally, my feeling is that whether it is 1 or 1000 permits effected, it doesn't matter. It would mean yet another area being completely eliminated from the possibility of hunting to everyone but a select "special" group.
    i agree, just didn't know what the numbers were.. this is for DC-001? ( i know i could look it up but ...)


    Dave will this be part of the BOG discussion? or at least part of it will have to confer through that prior to any changes.... correct?



    Thanks
    "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

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    Personally, my feeling is that whether it is 1 or 1000 permits effected, it doesn't matter. It would mean yet another area being completely eliminated from the possibility of hunting to everyone but a select "special" group.
    This has been kicked around so much, it is beat up real bad. What is the tipping point, when Alaskan's will say enough is enough? Is there a tipping point or will the general populous say "OK, it was fun while it lasted."

    Seriously guys and gals, the proverbial can of worms was opened last year and as predicted by many, it is escalating and will continue to do so unless the guys in the black robes put a stop to it. Your call, the ball is in your court. Your kids are counting on you to do what is right by them.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  18. #18
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default Same rationale...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Dave - Does the document explain how on earth a herd that was transplanted there can be considered "traditional"? That is a stretch by any definition of the word.
    ... as musk ox. How? Musk oxen were annihilated after firearms were introduced, so eventually musk oxen had to be re-introduced from Canada and became a largely native hunt (or native guided at any rate). Caribou were annihilated from Kenai Peninsula by 1906, so had to be re-introduced in the 60s; now they may become a native (or "rural") hunt as well.

    These are federally driven decisions, and we can expect more such decisions in this political climate which will override the Alaskan constitutional mandate for equal use of resources by all.

    If the herd was natural and most of the folks in those places were of native extraction who had a historic use of the herd, I would have more understanding of such decisions. But the folks in Ninilchik, Cooper Landing, and Hope/Sunrise are really not "rural", and my guess is they are no more native than any other place on the peninsula.

    Now, of course if they gave all pen. people preference in this hunt I might just like that....

  19. #19
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    i have been told by F&G that a subsistence hunt will likely end the drawing hunt 100%.
    as far as the BOG involvement with the subsistence board, my take is that the BOG can say "we don't like this"...
    then the subsistence board can say "tough"...
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  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 sayak View Post
    ... as musk ox. How? Musk oxen were annihilated after firearms were introduced, so eventually musk oxen had to be re-introduced from Canada and became a largely native hunt (or native guided at any rate). Caribou were annihilated from Kenai Peninsula by 1906, so had to be re-introduced in the 60s; now they may become a native (or "rural") hunt as well.

    These are federally driven decisions, and we can expect more such decisions in this political climate which will override the Alaskan constitutional mandate for equal use of resources by all.

    If the herd was natural and most of the folks in those places were of native extraction who had a historic use of the herd, I would have more understanding of such decisions. But the folks in Ninilchik, Cooper Landing, and Hope/Sunrise are really not "rural", and my guess is they are no more native than any other place on the peninsula.

    Now, of course if they gave all pen. people preference in this hunt I might just like that....
    sayak did you read it?

    and do you have any idea where rural starts and stops? Big lake and Houston are not rural... OH wait



    YES

    THEY

    ARE!

    as are the communities you claim are not.

    see there is an entirely different game regulation book.. one that 99.9% of all Alaska's hunters ignore to read and keep up on...


    FEDERAL. SUBSISTANCE you would be surprised HOW MANY hunts you dont attend due to lack of knowledge of them..
    "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 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
  •