Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Hunting on Federal lands?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Deep in Hllary country NY
    Posts
    446

    Red face Hunting on Federal lands?

    Greetings,got a question and I hope to read your opinions what ever they are. I don't feel it's right for a state ANY, state to charge non - res. licence fees for game hunts, large or small, trapping,ect. on these lands, since as a citizen of the US we pay taxes on them and in effect own them together. The argument that the states own the game on these lands does not feel right to me. On state land the states should set any fees they like, but on Federal lands it should be the Federal government and not the states. Set game quotas yes, permit, draw what ever.This should go for any Federal lands in Alaska, lower 48 any place there found. Thanks Bill.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,009

    Default Let me get this straight

    So I guess you're saying you're happy with the dual management of fish and game here in Alaska? You like the way the feds are managing the federal land?

    I do personally, because the feds are better about recognizing a local preference in times of limited opportunity. I'm just seeing if that's what you are saying too.

    Now remember, the feds didn't give Alaska near the amount of land promised at statehood, so there is way more federal land in Alaska than there should be, and way more than any other state. I think in most states, the land started out as state land and some was given to the feds for forts and other things for the good of the country as a whole. In Alaska it was the other way around. The feds had the land and they have doled it out as they see fit.

    Another implication of your idea about federal land in Alaska is that by giving all non residents the right to hunt here, without any say from the state, on federal land you are implying that all non residents should also have the right to influence management of game on federal lands. After all, it does belong to us all. Are you sure you want all the out of state anti-hunters having as much say in the management of Alaska's wilderness as people who live here? Because of sheer numbers, they'd probably have more of a say.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Deep in Hllary country NY
    Posts
    446

    Red face

    twodux, only ment that US citizen= fed. taxpayer, should not be charged a non res. rate on these lands anywhere in the US for any use which they permit. I can't remember if the use fees are diffrent, for fed, parks ect. for res. vs. non res. I don't think they should be. As an Alaskan you should be able to hunt elk in say Colorado on fed. lands and not be charged a non resident license fee. As far as the anti hunting groups who have their own agendas, I believe they are willingly ignorant that Roosevelt and others that set these lands aside were avid hunters, sportsman conservationists.I guess their vision of paradise for the game on these lands is massive game loss due to starvation from overbrowsing, sickness disease ect. Bill.

  4. #4
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,061

    Default

    We currently have the dual game management here in Alaska that you seek. You wouldn't like it if you were really familiar with it.
    I'm guessing you don't live in a state with much federal land. It would be advantageous to you if access to hunting on ALL fed lands in the USA were equal. Not so advantageous to someone, like me, who lives in a state with alot of federal land.
    In reality, you do have the equal access you seek to federal lands. Your free to move to, and reside in, any of our 50 states you choose.
    Now that the 2 bodies of congress are controlled by the dems, maybe you can get your reps to push for a constitutional amendmant so you can legally compete with the millions of other hunters in this country.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  5. #5
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048440/posts

    First off, how did the situation come to be?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Deep in Hllary country NY
    Posts
    446

    Red face

    Martintrapper, your right. I live in NY ,little fed. land massive amounts of state land .I hunt/ backpack 5,6 miles in for black bears, and large deep woods whitetails. It's forever wild land, no quads, 4x4's snowmachines ect.It must stay as is ,no timber cutting so some of the animals tend to be large. Very rare to meet a hunter in there at all,I see a backpacker on occasion but that is rare. Hard to believe it's that remote here in NY in places, but to me it's one of my favorite places this side of heaven. Thanks for your input Bill.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Deep in Hllary country NY
    Posts
    446

    Red face

    Raingull, Interesting link.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Delta Jct, Alaska
    Posts
    900

    Thumbs down Facts

    Just a couple of facts to throw into the discussion.....

    Off the top of my head; Of Alaska's 600,000 square miles...60% is owned by the Federal Government.

    US citizenship or taxpayer status is not required to be a subsistence tag holder on Federal lands.....many holders are neither.

  9. #9

    Default history of federal lands

    twodux: Just a quick history note. With the exception of the original 13 states, land ownership throughout the country was generally initially held by the federal government and then transfered to private hands or to state governments as the population moved westward. The Homestead Act resulted in significant transfer of land from federal government to individual farmers. In addition, the railroad companies were given alternating sections of land along their rail routes as compensation for constructing rail infrastructure.

  10. #10
    Member muskeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hollis
    Posts
    944

    Default Fed F&G management is a nightmare

    I guess many hunters don't understand that the Fed has taken over Fish and Game management (on Fed lands) in Alaska.

    There are 2 separate reg books. One the State of AK and the other the Fed book which regulates hunting and fishing on Fed lands. Mostly the Fed book mirrors the State regs but there are a some major differences. The Fed over the last several has passed many closures to certain user groups. The Fed system is a system of Fish and Game management by Zip Code.

    Take for instance the Deer hunt in unit #2. The State season has an Aug 1st opener with no Doe harvest, 4 bucks. The Fed season is a July 25th opener with the harvest of 5 Deer, one can be a Doe. The Fed law also states that unless you have a Unit #2 Zip Code you cannot hunt (fed lands which is like over 90% of the unit) Deer until Aug 16th with a 4 Buck harvest. So you have 2 reg books saying different things about the same hunt. There are situations like this across the State and it gets a little worse every year with the passing of hunting closures for certain hunters based on their Zip Codes. It is an enforcement nightmare to say the least.

    All this came about because of a rub between ANILCA (the fed law) which states that a rural priority must be in place and the State of Alaska constitution which states all of Alaska citizens are equal when it comes to the harvest of Fish and Game.

    So before you ask for Fed management on Fed lands take a look at the current system in place in Alaska.

    It's a disaster !!!!!!!

  11. #11
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,061

    Default

    Hey long hunter..........NY eh? I'm sure hilary will take up your fight..............hahahahahaha!
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Deep in Hllary country NY
    Posts
    446

    Red face

    Ouch, Martintrapper.

  13. #13
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    and then we should have private property owners manage their lands.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  14. #14
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Why would the federal government own/need land other than for forts, naval bases and small plots for government buildings? The fact that the federal government owns any large tracts of land at all is nothing short of trampeling on the rights of the state and it's citizens. Rant over.

  15. #15
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    They were supposed to dispose of them to the states. They obviously have to have transient property rights or the Alaska purchase could never have been completed, but then to immediate disposal to form a state, territory, or incorporate into a state.

    The only thing I can figure is some section 8 general welfare clause argument (which Jefferson and Hamilton were clear enough on as to specifically being enumerated rights previously expressed and limited to those expressed.)

    I do not know what is taking them so stinkin long to dispose of them? Okay, yeah I do...

    You are correct, they have no legitimate claim to continue to hold them.

  16. #16

    Smile

    For a very detailed account of federal and state powers over wildlife generally see American Wildlife Law --- Introduction. Note however that the discussion there of Indian treaty rights has virtually no direct bearing on AK.

    The situation in AK is indeed complicated by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Each of these statutes is individually a source of enormous consternation, conflict, and complex litigation. When they come to bear simulataneously, as they do on fish and game issues, the result is pretty much incoherent, at least so far. Add the AK Constitution provisions re: rights to the state's resources and it's a lawyer's dream of lifetime employment.

    In other words, summarizing their meaning and effect in an Internet forum thread is hopeless. But that doesn't stop partisans on all sides from trying.

  17. #17
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,713

    Angry Hillary on land issues

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    Hey long hunter..........NY eh? I'm sure hilary will take up your fight..............hahahahahaha!
    "It takes a federal government to raise a state."

    In many ways Alaska is still a colony of the contiguous 48. We haven't been given the right to manage our own affairs.

  18. #18
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    " In other words, summarizing their meaning and effect in an Internet forum thread is hopeless."

    Oh, it's not so hard as all of that. As you stated, we still have not reconciled the Alaska Constitution. It is not hard then to disregard all others and start there since all others depend upon it. It too depends upon another issue, that of the proper role and interpretation of the United States Constitution. That is the real place to start, followed by the Alaska Constitution, which is not all that difficult.

    To include laws made without first settling the original issue is ridiculous. That's like a court in a vehicle theft case that hasn't been settled ruling on the thiefs third cousins appropriate use of the vehicle should the original case swing that way. Re-dick-erous!!!

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
  •