Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: BOG Meeting and Proposals - opinions

  1. #1
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default BOG Meeting and Proposals - opinions

    Curious to get an outline of opinions related to the current proposals submitted to BOG.

  2. #2
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    So, after reviewing all this fun documentation I have to ask all the questions and get the gee-whiz out of my brain.. You know, to help you all prepare your testimony against us ‘emotional’ characters..
    Can anyone correctly define the word subsistence? Oh, okay, since you want to take this to the Supreme Court and the only thing the Supreme Court cares about is correct definitions.. Here, I’ll help..
    “the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life; a source or means of obtaining the necessities of life” To sustain one’s own life.” Anyone here familiar with the legal system? Can you help me out? Does anyone here acknowledge what can transpire post court decisions? So, when you open the door – expect it to hit you in the ass.. Pray that tomorrow you don’t wake up needing to “legally sustain your own life.” I know, heck, can’t help but see 10 years down the road.. Limiting subsistence in any way is a real foolish move legally and with any foresight to the future. Sort of comparable to kicking the stool out from under the people.. Really reminds me of the shady maneuvers utilized in the manipulation the US Constitution..
    Educate me: Can anyone provide to me any other legal definition that protects the rights of the people to LEGALY sustain their own life? Most of us aren’t in that situation at the moment but what if that changed?
    So, for the sake of having an opportunity for sport and for yourself YOU are willing to deprive others of life-sustaining existence? Is that truth?
    I’m sorry but someone needs to see a global perspective beyond the caveman mentality of, “I want, I get.” BETTER yet! Hey, let’s quit providing job security for the bureaucratic BOG and find a solution that ACTUALLY works that doesn’t involve “quotas” and a system of control with an inevitable outcome of failure..

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwolf View Post
    okay, since you want to take this to the Supreme Court and the only thing the Supreme Court cares about is correct definitions.. Here, I’ll help..
    “the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life; a source or means of obtaining the necessities of life” To sustain one’s own life.” .
    Not sure about that definition.

    Because if so, its already legal to shoot and eat any darned thing you see if that's what you need to survive. Under the current regs you're required to tell the troopers all about it when you're able to see them; that is all. Its called emergency something.... but clearly its in the regs now.

    Or am I missing something?

  4. #4
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    Your missing something under the definition of law..
    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Not sure about that definition.

    Because if so, its already legal to shoot and eat any darned thing you see if that's what you need to survive. Under the current regs you're required to tell the troopers all about it when you're able to see them; that is all. Its called emergency something.... but clearly its in the regs now.

    Or am I missing something?

  5. #5
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    The only legal definition is subsistance.. sorry Family Man.. I wish there was more.. So when the entire state gets the legal forthcomming that is all that protects anyone.. Otherwise might as well live in WI, or CO..

    Quote Originally Posted by jwolf View Post
    Your missing something under the definition of law..

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

    Question OK, you made me look it up; here it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by jwolf View Post
    The only legal definition is subsistance.. sorry Family Man.. I wish there was more.. So when the entire state gets the legal forthcomming that is all that protects anyone.. Otherwise might as well live in WI, or CO..
    Hunting regs, page 17, top colored box labeled "Emergency Taking of Game", last paragraph:

    "...you may kill wildlife to save your life or prevent permanent health problems..."

    How is that too much different from the definition of subsistence that I responded to???

  7. #7
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    Try to enforce that okay? When it comes down to feeding your family.. or ask others under the same circumstance..
    Nothing left for me to say.. If you think that protects than great...

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Hunting regs, page 17, top colored box labeled "Emergency Taking of Game", last paragraph:

    "...you may kill wildlife to save your life or prevent permanent health problems..."

    How is that too much different from the definition of subsistence that I responded to???

  8. #8
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwolf View Post
    So, after reviewing all this fun documentation I have to ask all the questions and get the gee-whiz out of my brain.. You know, to help you all prepare your testimony against us ‘emotional’ characters..
    Can anyone correctly define the word subsistence? Oh, okay, since you want to take this to the Supreme Court and the only thing the Supreme Court cares about is correct definitions.. Here, I’ll help..
    “the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life; a source or means of obtaining the necessities of life” To sustain one’s own life.” Anyone here familiar with the legal system? Can you help me out? Does anyone here acknowledge what can transpire post court decisions? So, when you open the door – expect it to hit you in the ass.. Pray that tomorrow you don’t wake up needing to “legally sustain your own life.” I know, heck, can’t help but see 10 years down the road.. Limiting subsistence in any way is a real foolish move legally and with any foresight to the future. Sort of comparable to kicking the stool out from under the people.. Really reminds me of the shady maneuvers utilized in the manipulation the US Constitution..
    Educate me: Can anyone provide to me any other legal definition that protects the rights of the people to LEGALY sustain their own life? Most of us aren’t in that situation at the moment but what if that changed?
    So, for the sake of having an opportunity for sport and for yourself YOU are willing to deprive others of life-sustaining existence? Is that truth?
    I’m sorry but someone needs to see a global perspective beyond the caveman mentality of, “I want, I get.” BETTER yet! Hey, let’s quit providing job security for the bureaucratic BOG and find a solution that ACTUALLY works that doesn’t involve “quotas” and a system of control with an inevitable outcome of failure..
    You mention Subsistence and "sport" hunting but fail to mention where the definitions come from. Most Alaskan "sport" hunters are truly subsistence hunters. The sole difference between Sport and Subsistence hunters by the letter of the law in Alaska is zip code in which each lives.

    The state has based this designation on the availability of commercial food sources to the residents of the region. As the transportation along the road system improves the availability of commercial food sources is increased and likewise the "subsistence" preference should be reduced. At this point most so called rural road systems community residents have a very similar schedule as my Mat-Su valley based family. For the most part people in Cantwell and other towns do like us and make a trip to Costco about every 2-3 months to fill the truck up with bulk foods and supplies.

    The cold truth is that 99% of the people along the road system are in fact subsistence shoppers with the primary hunting grounds being Costco and Sams Club. It is high time that there is a more equitable dispersion of the wild resources across this population which has the same reasonable access to both game and commercial food sources.

  9. #9
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    Sorry, there is a big difference and although I hate the idea – it’s time to bring the dogs in to the little pool argument. Obviously the majority of the folks here come from one side of the spectrum.. Start thinking from the other eh.. Subsistence and the fighters willing to back the idea come from just that.. It doesn’t matter where or how – those are the people fighting to sustain the foundation of the rights of hunter’s period.. The foundation is key.. Break that and you have nothing.. get it? Who will fight for your rights? Destroy THAT foundation and what is left.? Commercial clubs and memberships – profiteers gaining from your rights to sustain your own life is such needed? Eliminate the indigenous rights to subsistence and what DO YOU think will be left in the state of Alaska? You might not like many things happening now but really think about it.. Those rights protect your interest as well.. F-CK, they’re the last rights we got!!! Without a foundation we have nothing.. I think the right to sustain ones own life is and should be that foundation..

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    You mention Subsistence and "sport" hunting but fail to mention where the definitions come from. Most Alaskan "sport" hunters are truly subsistence hunters. The sole difference between Sport and Subsistence hunters by the letter of the law in Alaska is zip code in which each lives.

    The state has based this designation on the availability of commercial food sources to the residents of the region. As the transportation along the road system improves the availability of commercial food sources is increased and likewise the "subsistence" preference should be reduced. At this point most so called rural road systems community residents have a very similar schedule as my Mat-Su valley based family. For the most part people in Cantwell and other towns do like us and make a trip to Costco about every 2-3 months to fill the truck up with bulk foods and supplies.

    The cold truth is that 99% of the people along the road system are in fact subsistence shoppers with the primary hunting grounds being Costco and Sams Club. It is high time that there is a more equitable dispersion of the wild resources across this population which has the same reasonable access to both game and commercial food sources.

  10. #10
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    I say the person willing to sell out those rights are selling out everyone for a PROFIT! They’re willing to take it to the SCOTUS to sell out the “second class” for mere profit and control.. In ten years prove me wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    You mention Subsistence and "sport" hunting but fail to mention where the definitions come from. Most Alaskan "sport" hunters are truly subsistence hunters. The sole difference between Sport and Subsistence hunters by the letter of the law in Alaska is zip code in which each lives.

    The state has based this designation on the availability of commercial food sources to the residents of the region. As the transportation along the road system improves the availability of commercial food sources is increased and likewise the "subsistence" preference should be reduced. At this point most so called rural road systems community residents have a very similar schedule as my Mat-Su valley based family. For the most part people in Cantwell and other towns do like us and make a trip to Costco about every 2-3 months to fill the truck up with bulk foods and supplies.

    The cold truth is that 99% of the people along the road system are in fact subsistence shoppers with the primary hunting grounds being Costco and Sams Club. It is high time that there is a more equitable dispersion of the wild resources across this population which has the same reasonable access to both game and commercial food sources.

  11. #11
    Member Dirtofak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Creek
    Posts
    2,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Hunting regs, page 17, top colored box labeled "Emergency Taking of Game", last paragraph:

    "...you may kill wildlife to save your life or prevent permanent health problems..."

    How is that too much different from the definition of subsistence that I responded to???
    So under that line of thinking..... What if a person believes that all the available protein is contaminated with steroids, etc..... The scientific evidence is looming........................

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default not too far afield there

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtofak View Post
    So under that line of thinking..... What is a person believes that all the available protien is contaminated with steroids, etc..... The scientific evidence is looming........................
    I find that such a coincidence. There is no way that you could know that I actually think that more than your avvveeerrraaage bear....

    Have you eaten red meat outside the U.S.???? I have. Its better. Like game meat is better. Personally, I don't think the USDA works for us; instead they're swayed by yield, which makes money for producers.

    Of course I'd never launch that argument as a reason to go kill game outside of normal hunting regs. But it is what I think.

  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 jwolf View Post
    Sorry, there is a big difference and although I hate the idea – it’s time to bring the dogs in to the little pool argument. Obviously the majority of the folks here come from one side of the spectrum.. Start thinking from the other eh.. Subsistence and the fighters willing to back the idea come from just that.. It doesn’t matter where or how – those are the people fighting to sustain the foundation of the rights of hunter’s period.. The foundation is key.. Break that and you have nothing.. get it? Who will fight for your rights? Destroy THAT foundation and what is left.? Commercial clubs and memberships – profiteers gaining from your rights to sustain your own life is such needed? Eliminate the indigenous rights to subsistence and what DO YOU think will be left in the state of Alaska? You might not like many things happening now but really think about it.. Those rights protect your interest as well.. F-CK, they’re the last rights we got!!! Without a foundation we have nothing.. I think the right to sustain ones own life is and should be that foundation..

    it is a real shame you did not stick around to testify ... especially at the working session there were so very few folks not representing some org, or being represented by an attorney
    "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
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    I’m sorry vince – I misread MUCH of what you had to say..
    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    it is a real shame you did not stick around to testify ... especially at the working session there were so very few folks not representing some org, or being represented by an attorney

  15. #15
    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 jwolf View Post
    I’m sorry Vince – I misread MUCH of what you had to say..
    well often as not it is due to my poor choice of words... presentation and anti-semantical nature of the beast... when i doubt... ASK

    my skin is plenty thick
    "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

  16. #16
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    jwolf, you don't seem to understand that subsistence vs sport has nothing to do with use of the meat or need. It has been based on historic use in the past and more recently the trend has been pushed toward strictly a Zip code basis. Simply put everyone in Anchorage, Wasilla, Fairbanks, Kenai, and numerous other communities are sport hunters based simply on where they live.

    This isn't about subsistence it is all about exclusion. Excluding as many people as possible.

  17. #17
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    It has been based on historic use in the past and more recently the trend has been pushed toward strictly a Zip code basis.”
    You know what I really think? I think you’re spoiled and want everything despite a true “need.” Therefore you have no respect for it.. I think it’s based on some city boy mentality of I want and I get mentality that has nothing to do with the foundation but some simple-minded justification as to why you deserve the same rights as the people who have been hunting and fishing those grounds for 10K years sustaining their life beyond your F-in forums and computer-games.. Open your mind! J-wolf oUt..

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    jwolf, you don't seem to understand that subsistence vs sport has nothing to do with use of the meat or need. It has been based on historic use in the past and more recently the trend has been pushed toward strictly a Zip code basis. Simply put everyone in Anchorage, Wasilla, Fairbanks, Kenai, and numerous other communities are sport hunters based simply on where they live.

    This isn't about subsistence it is all about exclusion. Excluding as many people as possible.

  18. #18
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Isn't about exclusion, it's about traditions and having a human heart

    As far as the recent Nelchina allocation issues heard at BOG meeting, there sure were some interesting positions taken and statements made.

    Chair Judkins continually asked those those who testified if they considered themselves a "subsistence" hunter.

    Here is part of my personal testimony to the Board:
    Cliff has asked many others, “Do you consider yourself a subsistence hunter?”

    It’s always been my own personal belief that anyone, anywhere, who hunts and uses all the meat to feed themselves and their families is a subsistence hunter. And it’s likely many others here agree with that belief

    But that doesn’t change the fact that the state and the feds have to work with legal definitions of subsistence that dictate allocations and priorities.

    I also stated that while I see both sides of the arguments for and against a community harvest hunt, that I still would support some kind of CHP if it was open to all groups who wanted to apply and met the requirements and stipulations.

    Basically, the way I see it, the CHP is about overcoming the state proxy regs and the more liberal fed proxy regs so that Ahtna peoples, like the Gwich'in Athapaskans out of Chalkyitsik, can carry out their traditional ways of hunting and sharing meat among their villages.

    We all have a tradition of sharing. But among many of the Native communities that tradition differs somewhat in that some hunters supplied most of the game meat to their village. Under our newer laws that isn't always legal. But under a CHP it is.

    I understand how controversial this is. It's just a shame we can't find a middle ground of some sort. Something that doesn't just look at the legal side of things but looks at the human side.

  19. #19
    jwolf
    Guest

    Default

    Well said BR!
    As always, your stance/opinion is thought provoking and educated.

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    As far as the recent Nelchina allocation issues heard at BOG meeting, there sure were some interesting positions taken and statements made.

    Chair Judkins continually asked those those who testified if they considered themselves a "subsistence" hunter.

    Here is part of my personal testimony to the Board:
    Cliff has asked many others, “Do you consider yourself a subsistence hunter?”

    It’s always been my own personal belief that anyone, anywhere, who hunts and uses all the meat to feed themselves and their families is a subsistence hunter. And it’s likely many others here agree with that belief

    But that doesn’t change the fact that the state and the feds have to work with legal definitions of subsistence that dictate allocations and priorities.

    I also stated that while I see both sides of the arguments for and against a community harvest hunt, that I still would support some kind of CHP if it was open to all groups who wanted to apply and met the requirements and stipulations.

    Basically, the way I see it, the CHP is about overcoming the state proxy regs and the more liberal fed proxy regs so that Ahtna peoples, like the Gwich'in Athapaskans out of Chalkyitsik, can carry out their traditional ways of hunting and sharing meat among their villages.

    We all have a tradition of sharing. But among many of the Native communities that tradition differs somewhat in that some hunters supplied most of the game meat to their village. Under our newer laws that isn't always legal. But under a CHP it is.

    I understand how controversial this is. It's just a shame we can't find a middle ground of some sort. Something that doesn't just look at the legal side of things but looks at the human side.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    We all have a tradition of sharing. But among many of the Native communities that tradition differs somewhat in that some hunters supplied most of the game meat to their village. Under our newer laws that isn't always legal. But under a CHP it is.
    br,
    Sounded real good when I read it real fast. Faster I read it the better it sounded. Then....I read it again real slow, and....got to thinkin';
    I wonder what "newer laws" is he talking about, that would make it unlawful for a Hunter, any hunter, to share game meat?
    Unless someone can Show Me The Law, I am going to call "HYPERBOLE" on this comment.

    ALL the CHP concept does, is Mandate the distribution. Now if we collectively decide that we want to be Mandated into sharing our meat, then I can see how 'some' might find that a good idea. For those of us that want it to be our choice as to do it or not, well...not so much.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •