Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: speaking of Federal encroachment....

  1. #1
    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 speaking of Federal encroachment....

    Aerial wolf reduction on U.S.F.W.S. lands.

    Alaska's Department of Fish & Game proposed to conduct wolf reduction on Unimak Island a year ago to save the 2010 caribou calf crop. The federal land managers said "no" to the Board of Game proposal to reduce wolf numbers on Unimak Island and threatened to arrest any ADF&G employees for trespass if the state attempted any aerial wolf reduction. The State challenged the USFWS (Service) authority to stop the management action, until the Service could conduct an Environment Assessment (EA), in US District court and lost. So now the public can weigh in on which alternative the Service should take to save the Unimak Island caribou herd (UCH).
    Subsistence and general hunts for caribou on Unimak Island have been closed since 2009 yet the herd continues to decline.

    Alternative B- aerial wolf reduction by helicopters during calving season seems the most likely remedy to save the herd from continued decline.

    It would be worthwhile to mention that in no way does your support for Alternative B, in the Unimak Island caribou herd EA, legitimize the federal encroachment on State game management. Hopefully the State will continue to pursue federal overreach of wildlife management on federal lands in the U.S. District court.
    The Management alternatives for the Unimak Island caribou herd are available online at:
    http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/planning/nepa.htm
    Public comments must be received by January 31, 2011.
    You can submit comments by:
    Email:
    fw7_izembek_planning@fws.gov
    Fax: 1-800-507-8557
    U.S. Mail: GAP Solutions, Inc.
    Unimak Caribou Herd Environmental Assessment
    P. O. Box 2026
    Pocatello, ID 83206-2026

    We can make a difference. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". Pass this email on to like minded friends asking for their help.
    Please forward this email on to everyone on your friendly email list.
    "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

  2. #2

    Default

    Just curious why is the assessment being done in Idaho? Seems like it should be done by people who are involved the herd like maybe local bio's.
    Chuck

  3. #3
    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 hiline View Post
    Just curious why is the assessment being done in Idaho? Seems like it should be done by people who are involved the herd like maybe local bio's.
    thats the Fed side of the house... AK has already done theirs... HERE
    "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

  4. #4

    Default

    The USFW has bio's here in Alaska if they want to manage Alaska wildlife then they should be the one who do it. All that is in Idaho are a bunch of pencil pushers who are more into policy made by other pencil pushers in DC than hands on science. Everyone here should inundate USFW with emails and faxes that is the only way they will ever listen.
    Like you said earlier "it's the squeaky wheel" so let their ears ring.
    Chuck

  5. #5
    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

    Heres what i sent...

    I received this message today.

    Alaska's Department of Fish & Game proposed to conduct wolf reduction on Unimak Island a year ago to save the 2010 caribou calf crop. The federal land managers said "no" to the Board of Game proposal to reduce wolf numbers on Unimak Island and threatened to arrest any ADF&G employees for trespass if the state attempted any aerial wolf reduction. The State challenged the USFWS (Service) authority to stop the management action, until the Service could conduct an Environment Assessment (EA), in US District court and lost. So now the public can weigh in on which alternative the Service should take to save the Unimak Island caribou herd (UCH).
    Subsistence and general hunts for caribou on Unimak Island have been closed since 2009 yet the herd continues to decline.

    Alternative B- aerial wolf reduction by helicopters during calving season seems the most likely remedy to save the herd from continued decline.

    It would be worthwhile to mention that in no way does your support for Alternative B, in the Unimak Island caribou herd EA, legitimize the federal encroachment on State game management. Hopefully the State will continue to pursue federal overreach of wildlife management on federal lands in the U.S. District court.
    The Management alternatives for the Unimak Island caribou herd are available online at:


    I would like to add my comment, that the STATE of Alaska should not be impaired in any form what so ever in the management of our STATES wildlife resources. The Federal land managers need to get out of the way on management issues. Federal land managers in my opinion should only be involved in assisting the state in dealing with open hunting seasons on federal lands. Federal lands have become a bastion of Predatory animals such as Wolves and bears, that deprive local residents of our state a required resource, many of these issues arising today are direct results in Federal impingement of State rights. Where Previously As a territory the people of the state of Alaska had the ability to self maintain and manage Predatory animals.

    The state of Alaska needs un-fettered involvement in Unimak, as well other Federal strongholds of predatory miss-management around our state.

    "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

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,208

    Default

    I'm not an unbiased observer here but......

    This is National Wildife Refuge System lands. It's Federal land. It's managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the continuing benefit of the American people. It's not private land, or State land, or Tribal land. If the State wants to manage wildlife populations on Federal land, they must do so in cooperation with the Federal agency charged with administering those lands. They can't just charge onto those lands and begin shooting, which is exactly what the State was going to do. They wanted to reduce wolves, without any planning or organization (beyond a posse armed with high powered rifles). The Feds wisely said to hold off until they can at least develop a biologically based plan to "manage" the wolves so that the locals can continue to hunt caribou. I don't think that was too much to ask.

  7. #7
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    So it should be managed in the best interest of you down in Washington state and not for the folks that are right there using the land and relying on the resources? Perhaps the locals should petition the federal govt to fly in freezers full of reindeer meat for each of the affected rural residents.

    I wonder how much we could trim out of the federal budget if we turned over 50% of the federal lands and associated administration to the states....

  8. #8
    Member chriso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    I'm not an unbiased observer here but......

    This is National Wildife Refuge System lands. It's Federal land. It's managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the continuing benefit of the American people. It's not private land, or State land, or Tribal land. If the State wants to manage wildlife populations on Federal land, they must do so in cooperation with the Federal agency charged with administering those lands. They can't just charge onto those lands and begin shooting, which is exactly what the State was going to do. They wanted to reduce wolves, without any planning or organization (beyond a posse armed with high powered rifles). The Feds wisely said to hold off until they can at least develop a biologically based plan to "manage" the wolves so that the locals can continue to hunt caribou. I don't think that was too much to ask.
    Just because the federal govt has been steadily and relentlessly overstepping their bounds with regards to states rights over the past couple decades (if not in fact much longer) is no justification for allowing them to continue to do so, nor for accepting their unconstitutional efforts to increase their authority and expand their controls. The original states rights as guaranteed to the original states abd subsequently to all states admitted into the union, did not allow for the federal oversight of indiginous game populations. Only in modern and semi-recent times have we allowed this continual, unconstitutional, expansion of federal authority. When has the Feds ever done something "wisely" in our times? While they wait to develope their biologically based plans... the herds dissappear... as has already proven to be the case in their "reintroductions" of wolves down in the lower 48. Its high time the states stood together and pushed these guys back to DC where they belong... manage that game in their "district" and leave the states alone to their constitutionally guaranteed rights and duties.

  9. #9
    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 LuJon View Post
    .

    I wonder how much we could trim out of the federal budget if we turned over 50% of the federal lands and associated administration to the states....
    wont have to if the Chinese Government calls in their note, while making a new world currancy... all federal lands will be asian owned.. and i suspect the resources beneith them... better learn to BOW!
    "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

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,208

    Default

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has an office in Izembec and Homer that handles issues on Alaska Maritime NWR (which includes lands on Unimak Island). There's no need to ask anyone in Washington State, or even in Anchorage, for assistance.

    Where I come from, cooperation is a good thing. There is no need for the State and the Feds to bang heads over this issue, particularly as it relates to "States rights". Both agencies recognize the urgency of the situation. Cooperation and understanding will get the job done alot faster than fighting it out in the press or in court. I'm sure the residents of Unimak Island want their concerns addressed quickly. Lengthy court fights won't get it done....

    I will degress for a moment:

    I agree that Federal management of fish and wildlife resources in Alaska has gone well beyond what anyone would have expected when Alaska became a State. One of the most important reasons for becoming a State was to allow the State to manage it's own fish and wildlife resources, as evidenced by the unique language in the Alaska State Constitution. However, the Congressional passage of ANILCA in the early 1980's assured rural Alaska residents that "subsistence" would be the highest priority use, and that the Federal government would guarantee that priority. That shift in policy was established by Congress at the request of, and strong support of, the Alaska Congressional delegation. Unfortunately, Federal law was inconsistent with the State Constitution so the State lost it's ability to manage fish and wildlife resources on Federal land. I would have expected the Alaska Congressional delegation to change ANICLA when they had the chance (the GOP held the White House, the Senate, and the House from 2000 to 2006), but the Alaska delegation agreed not to change ANICLA unless there was a consensus within Alaska on how to change it. That consensus never materialized, so the law remains unchanged to this day. As a result, the Federal government's reach into fish and wildlife management, primarily to assure rural subsistence priority, has steadily increased. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Whether that's good or bad depends on who you are, and where you live in Alaska........

    The topic of rural subsistence priority and State vs. Federal fish and wildlife management is something we could argue/discuss at length. I'm willing to go there, but we should start a new thread rather than beat this one any more. If someone wants to go first, I'll add my $.02.
    Last edited by Cohoangler; 01-26-2011 at 09:19. Reason: typo

  11. #11
    Member chriso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    wont have to if the Chinese Government calls in their note, while making a new world currancy... all federal lands will be asian owned.. and i suspect the resources beneith them... better learn to BOW!
    OUCHHH!!!! too true... and too close to home for comforts sake!

  12. #12
    Member idakfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Idaho/Soldotna
    Posts
    224

    Default

    This is quite an interesting topic.

    Why should any state allow the Federal government to control environmental and many other issues in their state? If there is a National forrest in your state, should the Federal government have the final say so as to what activities are allowed there and what species are allowed to thrive or die out. And who really owns the ground, the state or the Federal government? So many of the Federal decisions seem to be made out of political concerns and not the concerns of the residents of that state. It is a States right vs. the Federal government control issue.

    I believe this whole issue should be put on the table in Washington DC. Maybe the Tea Party needs to make States rights a cornerstone of their platform. They seem to be getting their point accross. Does the Federal government really know what is best for everyone?

  13. #13
    Member pike_palace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the 907
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    The Feds need to just mind their own P's and Q's. They can't get their hands on anything without screwing it up. Look at the Post Office for goodness sake.


    "They wanted to reduce wolves, without any planning or organization (beyond a posse armed with high powered rifles). The Feds wisely said to hold off until they can at least develop a biologically based plan to "manage" the wolves so that the locals can continue to hunt caribou. I don't think that was too much to ask." CohoAngler.

    Yes, it is too much to ask. The Feds have no intentions of creating a management system and if you believe they are you really need to get with the program. Having lived in Idaho and have been hearing their little song and dance about wolf "management" for the last 15 years, it's nothing more than just stalling tactics.
    "Ya can't stop a bad guy with a middle finger and a bag of quarters!!!!"- Ted Nugent.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,208

    Default

    idakfisher - Federal lands are managed for the benefit of the American people, all of them. The American people own these lands. That means you and me and every other resident of this country. It does not matter if you live in downtown New York City, or Orofino Idaho. You own these lands. They are not managed for the benefit of a particular State or County or local district. In order for these lands to be conserved for the American people in perputuity, they should be managed at a different level than the State or local level.

  15. #15
    Member pike_palace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the 907
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    idakfisher - Federal lands are managed for the benefit of the American people, all of them. The American people own these lands. That means you and me and every other resident of this country. It does not matter if you live in downtown New York City, or Orofino Idaho. You own these lands. They are not managed for the benefit of a particular State or County or local district. In order for these lands to be conserved for the American people in perputuity, they should be managed at a different level than the State or local level.
    What a bunch of Liberal crap.
    "Ya can't stop a bad guy with a middle finger and a bag of quarters!!!!"- Ted Nugent.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    idakfisher - Federal lands are managed for the benefit of the American people, all of them. The American people own these lands. That means you and me and every other resident of this country. It does not matter if you live in downtown New York City, or Orofino Idaho. You own these lands. They are not managed for the benefit of a particular State or County or local district. In order for these lands to be conserved for the American people in perputuity, they should be managed at a different level than the State or local level.
    So you want the guys that have run the nation into a 14 trillion dollar debt to "manage" stuff? Heck I am sitting at a base in Iraq that sustained about 20 separate indirect fire attacks today and I get to hear our CIC refer to these soldiers efforts as not a priority or just "loose ends" on the tube at lunch... 14 trillion that needs to be paid back out of your pocket, 2 wars still draining them and you want the Feds to pour more money into researching a caribou herd in remote Alaska for your "benefit"? What benefit is that?

    States can manage their own land give it to them and stop paying massive amounts of federal dollars into fed studies, fed salaries, fed pensions, and fed equipment.

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default

    Boy that's a stretch, to say that China will be ownin' large tracts of USF&W Lands & National interests, should they start to sell off bonds they've purchased & require payment on said debt...It would be sold to Private US interests, I'm sure, prior to any "international" buyers...

  18. #18
    Member idakfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Idaho/Soldotna
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Have you ever asked yourself why the Federal-Fish and Wildlife value the wolfs over other species, like caribou and moose in Alaska and deer and elk in Idaho (the two states I live in)?

  19. #19
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    First, there are definitely overreaches by the feds in some areas, but I don't think this is one of them.

    Secondly, it's a sad state of affairs when someone like Cohoangler correctly states the facts and because some don't like or agree with those facts they either get down on the person giving them or label those facts negatively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lujon
    States can manage their own land give it to them...
    With all due respect, what part of the Alaska Statehood Act don't you and others here understand, Jon? We ceded the majority of Alaska lands to the feds with that agreement. Alaskans voted on it and approved. Fed lands are fed lands and nothing is going to change that, and certain fed lands are managed according to different principles and guidelines than state lands. Talk of the deficit or gee whiz the feds can't run their own house so why should they run mgmt of fed lands is meaningless and moot.

    I think that the USFWS agreeing that wolf control on Unimak is the best option is pretty incredible. Don't think we will see that very often.


  20. #20
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    I'm not an unbiased observer here but......

    This is National Wildife Refuge System lands. It's Federal land. It's managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the continuing benefit of the American people. It's not private land, or State land, or Tribal land. If the State wants to manage wildlife populations on Federal land, they must do so in cooperation with the Federal agency charged with administering those lands. They can't just charge onto those lands and begin shooting, which is exactly what the State was going to do. They wanted to reduce wolves, without any planning or organization (beyond a posse armed with high powered rifles). The Feds wisely said to hold off until they can at least develop a biologically based plan to "manage" the wolves so that the locals can continue to hunt caribou. I don't think that was too much to ask.
    This statement begs the larger question: why was so little land conveyed to Alaska upon statehood? States should have control over the fish, wildlife and other resources on what is called "Alaska". The federal government is given the authority under the Constitution for the following in states:"authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, ****nals, dockyards, and other needful buildings..". Arguably the feds owned various refuges, monuments and preserves before Alaska became a state, but that does not mean it should have maintained them. States are sovereign. The resources of Alaska belong to all Alaskans according to our state constitution. The resources of Washington state belong (probably) to Washingtonians. Bottom line: with few exceptions, the federal government should relinquish lands to states, and whatever lands it doesn't relinquish should still be under state jurisdiction regarding fish and game.
    Old time Alaska bumper sticker: "We don't give a dam_ how they do it in the lower 48".

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
  •