Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 64

Thread: This was your last year to hunt unit 22 Ox and Koyukuyk Moose for Free.

  1. #1
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default This was your last year to hunt unit 22 Ox and Koyukuyk Moose for Free.

    Well I might be crying “wolf” but the future has bad possibilities if you urban guys want to hunt rural Ak. registration hunts for free. Here’s what’s happening.

    Last winter, Corey Rossi, Cliff Judkins, and Bob Bell went up to Shish to hunt Ox on a reg. permit. They all 3 hunted with the guide there and all 3 got decent bulls. They knew about the trophy destruction, but were hoping to get some art work/carving done on the horns and use that as the trophy destruction. Didn’t fly. Long story short, they had the destruction done and later got their heads. Judkins wasn’t too happy. He was recently quoted in our local paper, openly expressing his displeasure with trophy destruction.

    The result of this scenario is proposal 223 for the Mar. 4-11, BoG meeting in March. The BoG submitted this proposal themselves. The purpose of the proposal is to review the Depts discretionary authority, under 5AAC 92.052, to use trophy destruction. It is possible the BoG will remove this item as “discretionary authority”.

    So how does this effect you all?
    Currently, the Dept uses trophy destruction as a means to deter hunters from participating in certain hunts. The unit 22 Ox registration hunt is an example. Trophy destruction does not FORBID anyone from hunting. It just causes some hunters to CHOOSE not to hunt. This works well enough that hunts using trophy destruction have very few other “discretionary authority” restrictions. Both the unit 22 Ox hunt, and the 21 and 24 Moose hunts are open to all Alaska residents with unrestricted numbers of permits. It is likely that if trophy destruction is removed from these hunts, hunter participation and resulting harvest will rise. This will force the Dept. to use other discretionary authority means to limit hunter participation. The most likely means will be to have permits available only in certain locations and only at certain times. End result will be that few non locals are able to get the permit.

    The real problem here has not been trophy destruction per se. The problem is the way the Dept. uses trophy destruction. In addition to having the authority to use TD, the dept. also has the authority to choose the trophy destruction level. The unit 22 Ox reg. hunt began with a level of 3 in of the horn tip being removed. Then last year, the Dept. raised the level to cutting the horn at eye level, unit wide. We did need the increase in the 22C hunt close to Nome, but the rest of the units had no problems. Especially the 22E hunt where Judkins hunted. That hunt has a high quota and has yet to even come close to reaching the quota by the Mar. 15 season closure. There was no reason for the increase in destruction there and it could even be argued the level could have been lowered to allow for more hunter participation. Dept. staff in Nome has refused to use TD level as a means to deter hunters from high participation hunts and move them to low participation hunts.

    The unit 21 and 24 hunts are going well according to the area Bio, but I suspect that some sub units could have had TD levels removed or lowered without substantially increasing harvest. I asked the area bio why he doesn’t set quotas for the 21 and 24 moose hunts. His answer was that harvest levels are continually well below allowable harvest and thus no quota is necessary. If harvest levels are below allowable, hunter participation and harvest could be increased. But a total removal of TD in the entire 2 units would likely lead to problems that occurred in the past.

    You can help. The BoG meeting will be in Anch. Again, Mar 4 -11. Testify at that meeting. Talk to your local AC. This proposal could have far reaching effects. Additionally, the Region 5 supervisor (units 18, 22, 23,and 26 are region 5) is in Anchorage. His name is Steve Machida. Stop by and talk with him. I’d be happy if you told him what a poor job he has done in supervising the use of TD out here.

    Of course, you can just do nothing, in which case you’ll continue to see MY Ox hunt pictures (hopefully from that private herd again) and not your pics!!
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  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

    sorry mt.. i forgot to do what you, what you asked me for... will get on it soon as i get some sleep...
    "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

    Thanks for the introduction to this issue. Do you have a link or any information on the article you referenced above? I can't find anything in Google and would like to do some reading and educate myself more on this.
    "He should have been packing a more powerful gun...you have to be a very good shot or very lucky to stop a brown bear with a .357 Magnum." - Rick Sinnott, Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist after a double attack by a grizzly.

  4. #4
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Here is a link to the local paper
    http://www.nomenugget.net/

    I think you have to download the entire issue to read the article about trophy destruction and Judkins quotes.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Or, a conspiracy theorist leaning person might think that these three were out scouting for some trophy hunting opportunities to pass on to SFW. Maybe they push to make this a draw hunt and not a registration hunt. And pass a couple tags along to auction off. Hard to sell what is basically a subsistence hunt, but a coveted muskox tag with trophy potential, now that is a different story. There'd be a lot of demand for that.

    On another note I see some ethical (I know you don't like that word MT) and maybe even legal implications here. First, what are board members doing hunting with a high up in Fish and Game? And what are board members (I believe Bell is a past member?) doing off on their own making decisions that affect all hunters. Their work is supposed to be done in public. They aren't supposed to meet privately and decide to push an agenda. I've known of lawsuits for less. But the mixing of Fish and Game and the board (and past board) in a setting like this stinks to high heaven. Especially when it results in a major change in hunting opportunities.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  6. #6

    Default

    A lot of those hunts that have the registration hunts for AK residents with Trophy Destruction aren't really that hard to draw, with the exception of the Koyo and a few other units. If they did away with with the unlimited registration hunt, how many more tags could Glen toss into the drawing pool, and increase the odds of AK residents to be able to hunt w/o trophy destruction? That is not the most easily accessible area, and it certainly isn't cheap to hunt.

  7. #7
    Member ramhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Last when we stopped in at the Ellas Cabin on the Koyukuk, the F&G boys told us that the BOG was thinking about doing away with the trophy destruction, In 2009 there were 374 hunters , 2010 there were almost 400 hunters come thru their check point, the last year that there was no TD (1999), there were 731 hunters!......although it is not cheap and a long trip, that don’t stop a lot of folks!.......Myself I like it the way it this now, hoping they don’t change anything….IMO

  8. #8
    Member ramhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Why they went to the TD.................this is off the AF&G site


    "The Koyukuk River Moose Management Plan (KRMMP) was developed through the cooperative efforts of the the Koyukuk River Moose Hunters' Working Group (KMWG or “Working Group”), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G or "Department"), and other agencies. The KMWG is a citizen-based advisory body composed primarily of representatives from state Fish and Game advisory committees. The group also includes representatives from the federal Western Interior Regional Advisory Council and commercial operators. Agency personnel have been involved in the planning process as technical advisors.The recommendations of the Working Group were developed through a consensus decision-making process. The process was designed to develop recommendations in time for the March 2000 meeting of the Alaska Board of Game.
    At the March 2000 meeting, the Board of Game adopted regulatory proposals that resulted from the planning effort with a few minor modifications. Later that spring the Federal Subsistence Board adopted several proposals to align federal regulations with those recently adopted by the state. The draft plan remained open for public comment through the fall 2000 hunting season. This provided an opportunity to evaluate how the new regulations were working before the draft plan was submitted to the Board of Game for final approval.
    ADF&G's Division of Wildlife Conservation initiated the planning process in response to concerns about increasing numbers of hunters and harvest levels and potential affects on moose populations, primarily in the lower section of the Koyukuk River. In 1999, 731 hunters were checked at the Ella's Cabin checkstation and reported a harvest of 367 moose. This compares to 299 hunters harvesting 181 moose 11 years earlier in 1988. In addition to human harvest pressures, it appears that predators are having a significant influence. A survey conducted in spring 1999 indicated an approximate 17% increase in wolf populations over the 1994 estimate. Moose surveys conducted in fall 1999 indicated that moose populations have peaked and have possibly declined by 10% or more.
    The KRMMP identifies separate management zones for the upper and lower Koyukuk drainage. These zones are based on differences in moose habitat, populations, and hunting pressure. Using numbers of hunters that participated in the hunt in 1998, the plan recommends establishing a baseline maximum number of hunters in the lower river. This recommendation is based on the consensus of Working Group members on the need to be cautious biologically, and to retain the quality of the hunting experience. The plan identifies the need to monitor harvest levels in the upper Koyukuk River and middle Yukon River area to be sure excess harvest does not develop from displacement of hunters from within the Koyukuk Controlled Use Area (CUA) or other reasons.
    As a result of the planning effort, moose hunting regulations in the lower river within the Koyukuk CUA have been significantly changed. The general registration hunt on the lower Koyukuk River has been changed to a drawing hunt with separate resident and nonresident drawing pools. Separate resident and nonresident drawing hunts help to retain opportunity for nonresidents and commercial guides, but at a much lower level than has occurred in recent years. If resident demand continues to increase however, nonresident opportunity will have to be further reduced or eliminated. Because the plan is based on Alaska subsistence laws in which all Alaska residents are potentially qualified as subsistence hunters, there is potential for subsistence use to increase significantly. If this happens, further restrictive measures would likely be necessary.
    As the need to stabilize moose populations in the Koyukuk has become evident and recommendations have been made to reduce human harvest levels, the KMWG strengthened its recommendations regarding control of predation. Initially the group focused on increasing opportunities to harvest predators. The group then agreed to recommend predator control, including aerial wolf hunting, and to urge preparation of an Intensive Management Plan.
    The KRMMP includes recommendations that involve other agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or that may require legislative action. For example, the recommendation to revise the definition of wanton waste to allow for successful enforcement of cases where meat is removed from the field but is not kept in a condition suitable for human consumption likely requires legislation. Another recommendation requires hunters to hire guides and transporters that are properly registered with the state. The plan urges cooperation with FWS in matters such as enforcement of illegal guiding and transporting and habitat enhancement.
    The KMWG met in December 2000 to review how the regulation changes worked during the fall 2000 hunting season and consider public comments on the draft plan. Members of the Working Group agreed that the fall 2000 season was greatly improved and that both local and nonlocal hunters enjoyed a much higher quality hunt than in the past several years. The group did not recommend any significant changes to the draft plan. The KMWG did agree to recommend that the group continue to meet annually, or more often if needed, to monitor implementation of the plan and possible changes in moose population levels or hunter numbers.
    While the KMWG experienced disagreements along the way, members achieved consensus on most issues and exercised a great deal of cooperation and compromise. The Working Group is to be commended for their hard work and dedication to protect the moose resources of the Koyukuk drainage. The recommendations included in the KRMMP are designed to maintain opportunities and balance the interests of all users within sustained yield and the requirements of state and federal law."

  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 ramhunter View Post
    Last when we stopped in at the Ellas Cabin on the Koyukuk, the F&G boys told us that the BOG was thinking about doing away with the trophy destruction, In 2009 there were 374 hunters , 2010 there were almost 400 hunters come thru their check point, the last year that there was no TD (1999), there were 731 hunters!......although it is not cheap and a long trip, that don’t stop a lot of folks!.......Myself I like it the way it this now, hoping they don’t change anything….IMO
    There have been several members of the BOG lamenting about trophy destruction at the last several meetings, Werther it is Koyo, moose or Nome ox, or Nelchina BOU. The BOG members really dislike making folks do that.

    the subsistence regs are whats kicking them here.. .if it is not a registration hunt, it does not allow for subsistence needs adequately. so it will become a TIER I or II hunt real fast...

    until we can get the State Statute changed to recognize the Federal regs on subsistence... its going to happen this way...

    opening this hunt up for anything more then a registration hunt will shut its access down completely... Tier II... Well we already know what that is...
    "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 bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Mike, thanks much for posting this info. Downloaded the Nome Nugget and read the article, recommend others do so as it has a lot of good info and opinions. Also took a look at prop 223.

    Excerpt from the article:
    “Requiring antlers, horns or any other part of a harvested animal
    to be destroyed or left in the field is contrary to Alaskans’ customary and
    traditional practices,” Judkins said. “It’s just a custom I don’t like to see taken away.”...

    Judkins, who brought the proposal to the board for consideration, believes bringing home and displaying horns or antlers from hunts is a longstanding practice for hunters from all over the state. “If you walk around Nome, Kotzebue, Shungnak, Aniak, Shishmaref, Fairbanks, Anchorage or any other town or village in Alaska, you will see antlers stacked on roofs, in front yards or mounted on walls,”Judkins said.

    “Why do hunters bring these items home? Maybe to brag a little bit. Maybe to show that they are a good hunter and provide for their families. In a few cases to decorate their wall and remind them of the hunt.

    This is the individual’s right.” Judkins’ opposition to the current
    practice stems not only from a philosophical stance, but from experience
    as well. “Personally I have taken caribou in Unit 13 where antlers had
    to be left in the field and musk ox in unit 22 where the horns had to cut off at the eye or left in the unit. In both cases I was hunting for meat; but,
    still, I would like to have brought the antlers and horns home,” he said.
    Judkins said he has long opposed the practice of trophy destruction and his experience with the musk ox finally pushed him to bring the proposal to the board. “It was just the final blow,” he said. The proposal would
    affect more than just musk ox hunts, including some moose hunts in Units
    12, 21 and 24 where antler destruction is required.

    What's interesting about the above is that when these "subsistence" hunts for muskox were originally authorized, they were done under a positive finding of customary and traditional use that determined muskox horns were not traditionally used as trophies in that region.

    With all due respect to Cliff Judkins, chairman of the Board of Game, I don't think it's proper for him to publicly insert his personal beliefs and opinions into the process. I have seen him do this before and it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth as to the overall BOG process being fair.

    I don't necessarily disagree with his opinion on never wanting to destroy any antlers or horns, many of us feel this way. But when the Board itself submits a proposal based solely on the Chairman himself not liking personal "subsistence" hunts he was on that required trophy destruction (and he knew this when he applied for the hunts!), that seek to do away with that trophy destruction requirement...and then by it's very statutory nature this impacts every single subsistence hunt elsewhere that demands a level of trophy destruction, I kinda have a problem with how this was initiated by the Chairman and his influence on the outcome.

    Plus, we gotta stop doing things out of cycle that affects individual regions of the state. This is already killing us financially, Board Support has now limited how many meetings they will pay for an AC member rep to attend, regional F&G staff end up having to fly to meetings that should be in their region etc. This proposal should not be heard now, it should either be heard at a Region V meeting so those in northwest Alaska it most impacts can attend, or it should be in the statewide cycle when/if it can impact these hunts statewide.

    The Koyukuk subsistence moose hunt that requires antler destruction seems to be working well. The whole idea of "subsistence" trophy destruction hunts is to effectively limit the number of applicants by weeding out those who, like Cliff Judkins, don't believe in ever destroying any trophy, those who then will not apply for that hunt...the notion is that the primary reason people go on those hunts is for the meat, that's why they are labeled subsistence hunts.

    In some cases the trophy destruction requirement does indeed seem to limit applicants. Which means there is a much better chance to draw one of those tags. It can keep some hunts registration permit hunts too rather than draws. So it's going to be an interesting discussion on doing away with any or all trophy destruction subsistence hunts.

    Again Mike, thanks for posting up this info, appreciate you informing us all about it.

  11. #11
    Member Alaskan22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Gnome, Ak
    Posts
    787

    Default

    I like it the way it is, and will be writing the board to that effect. These hunts are NOT for the trophies, and this TD discourages a lot of people from coming up (just like it's supposed to). I have an issue with someone who KNEW before hand of the TD, goes on the hunt...and then complains about the TD. That's why the drawings are such a big deal: it allows for a trophy hunt. Just like why I don't just buy a bison of of a ranch.

    That being said I'd like to see more tags issued. It is such a great hunt, and animal, that I think more than just 2 or 3 tags should be available. Make it 10 or so. Just my opinion.
    Know guns. Know peace. Know safety.

    No guns: no peace. No safety!

  12. #12

    Default

    If there is not enough to go around....put it on a registration, First Come-First Served....no different than any other hunt...without rediculous limitations.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  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 Akres View Post
    If there is not enough to go around....put it on a registration, First Come-First Served....no different than any other hunt...without ridiculous limitations.
    how do you get around that "reasonable opportunity" clause in the subsistence law?
    "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 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

    I think this may be a very good opportunity to bring up nelchina and smack them with their own rules, and words...


    Martin Trapper/ Alaskan22.... correct me if i am wrong, but there is also federal subsistence tags for these ox? Similar to Nelchina bou with local preferance? if this comes to pass, and limits are placed... it will assuradly go tier II what are the Fed, limits and tags?
    "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

  15. #15
    Member ramhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan22 View Post
    I like it the way it is, and will be writing the board to that effect. These hunts are NOT for the trophies, and this TD discourages a lot of people from coming up (just like it's supposed to). I have an issue with someone who KNEW before hand of the TD, goes on the hunt...and then complains about the TD. That's why the drawings are such a big deal: it allows for a trophy hunt. Just like why I don't just buy a bison of of a ranch.

    That being said I'd like to see more tags issued. It is such a great hunt, and animal, that I think more than just 2 or 3 tags should be available. Make it 10 or so. Just my opinion.
    Well said.....+1

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    how do you get around that "reasonable opportunity" clause in the subsistence law?
    Not sure vince? but something must be done, and all i see is a huge legal battle in the midst. i know im not liked by alot of the substinace hunters and thats fine by me, i drew a kyokuk tag this last fall but passed on it after drawing and finding the cost of a transporter and trip to gelena, its a no fly zone on top of it. Im a trophy hunter and thats what drives me to go to some of the covedent hunting areas, sure i knew there were restrictions but they have areas like that designed for the interest of the locals to the area. talk about a bad taste in the mouth, it made me loose any and all respect for the locals and managers of game in areas like it. as for a muskox, a animal hunted to nears extiction and now stable, funded by tax dollars and used primarily by locals, well it realy gets my goat! these hunts shouldnt have a trophy destruction nor should any registration hunt, the only hunts that need TD are the tier and tier 2 hunts, those are purely intended for substinance and anything killed by tier hunts should have Td as its for meat and preserveing traditiion abd customs. i have no interest in hunting muskox up north,the cost is outragouse,i can go kill one on a farm for less but i dont farm hunt so its just not on the hunt list, for now ide never spend the money. If there was a way to do away with Td and leave registration hunts for areas with surplus game i would be all for it. however the speacial interest groups that are the problem the locals,and want these areas avoided by hunters by means of making it so they cant trophy hunt and giveing them their own honey hole to suport themselves, wont go without a fight. to me those folks are the enemy in this battle not the guy that gets a registration permit and gets upset because all the work and money put into it cant be preserved in a trophy. i dont waste my time applying for or trying for something that the horns//antlers have to be cutt so its working in keeping me away FOR NOW and that will change soon enouph. I will however will spend countless hours donateing my time, thousands of dollars in donations and voice my opinon over others to do away with TD. Its a poor attitude to have but if rural foks continue to get their own personal hunting grounds sealed off by a vast sea of land, by rediculous regulations and legal stautes that protect their interest, a war is coming. Alaska is growing and its not the rural areas that are doing the growing, if 90% of hunters in the nation knew what issues were going on like this one it wouldnt stand for long, and im just biteing the time waiting for it to change for the benifit and equality of all people, urban and rural, if i give up alot of hunts to the drawing system hunts as a result, well at least everyone had a shot at it. im for one glad to see a challange brought fourth.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Wow Mr Montana, there's a lot of stuff in your post. Still digesting it, but here's what I got so far.

    First, you drew a moose tag, but then didn't bother to use it because of the cost and because of restrictions, so we'll say it was inconvenient. You're mad about restrictions that help the locals feed themselves.

    OK, So you want the locals to be forced to travel to another spot in the state to hunt or give up hunting so more people like you can hunt in their backyard? What about their (the locals) high costs and inconvenience if forced to hunt elsewhere in the state?

    Second, you find trophy destruction offensive when you have to do it, but you feel it's OK to force subsistence hunters to practice it. Well maybe they want a memento of their hunt too. Or maybe some would like to sell their trophy to help mitigate the cost of their hunt. If trophy destruction is so bad, why would you wish it on someone else?

    You wouldn't spend the money to go on the hunt you drew (keeping someone else who would have hunted from getting a tag), but you are willing to spend "thousands" of dollars just to make it harder for the locals to live off of local stocks. That says a lot about you and your me! me! me! attitude.

    Heck, if the chance to go hunting and the memories that go with it, including pictures of your trophy before you have to destroy it aren't enough for you, maybe it's time to get a new hobby.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  18. #18
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mr.Montana View Post
    Not sure vince? but something must be done, and all i see is a huge legal battle in the midst. i know im not liked by alot of the substinace hunters and thats fine by me, i drew a kyokuk tag this last fall but passed on it after drawing and finding the cost of a transporter and trip to gelena, its a no fly zone on top of it. Im a trophy hunter and thats what drives me to go to some of the covedent hunting areas, sure i knew there were restrictions but they have areas like that designed for the interest of the locals to the area. talk about a bad taste in the mouth, it made me loose any and all respect for the locals and managers of game in areas like it. as for a muskox, a animal hunted to nears extiction and now stable, funded by tax dollars and used primarily by locals, well it realy gets my goat! these hunts shouldnt have a trophy destruction nor should any registration hunt, the only hunts that need TD are the tier and tier 2 hunts, those are purely intended for substinance and anything killed by tier hunts should have Td as its for meat and preserveing traditiion abd customs. i have no interest in hunting muskox up north,the cost is outragouse,i can go kill one on a farm for less but i dont farm hunt so its just not on the hunt list, for now ide never spend the money. If there was a way to do away with Td and leave registration hunts for areas with surplus game i would be all for it. however the speacial interest groups that are the problem the locals,and want these areas avoided by hunters by means of making it so they cant trophy hunt and giveing them their own honey hole to suport themselves, wont go without a fight. to me those folks are the enemy in this battle not the guy that gets a registration permit and gets upset because all the work and money put into it cant be preserved in a trophy. i dont waste my time applying for or trying for something that the horns//antlers have to be cutt so its working in keeping me away FOR NOW and that will change soon enouph. I will however will spend countless hours donateing my time, thousands of dollars in donations and voice my opinon over others to do away with TD. Its a poor attitude to have but if rural foks continue to get their own personal hunting grounds sealed off by a vast sea of land, by rediculous regulations and legal stautes that protect their interest, a war is coming. Alaska is growing and its not the rural areas that are doing the growing, if 90% of hunters in the nation knew what issues were going on like this one it wouldnt stand for long, and im just biteing the time waiting for it to change for the benifit and equality of all people, urban and rural, if i give up alot of hunts to the drawing system hunts as a result, well at least everyone had a shot at it. im for one glad to see a challange brought fourth.
    Sorry, but I have a hard time squaring your declaration that you, as a trophy hunter, are vowing to "spend countless hours donateing my time, thousands of dollars in donations and voice my opinon over others to do away with TD", with your claim made in the same breath accusing local villagers of being a "special interest group", with a definitely implied negative connotation (as if you do not represent a special interest group yourself). This smacks of elitism not so thinly cloaked in the guise of seeking "equality". Stating that "Alaska is growing and its not the rural areas that are doing the growing", as if to suggest that surrendering the host to the onslaught of a persistently growing cancer is the only justifiable course of action, doesn't hold water for me. I know this situation likely presents an impossible conundrum and there will likely never be a clean solution, but I have a hard time with obviously well to do folks from big cities espousing arguments that sound for all the world like "my equality is more important than your equality".

    Seems that if you can afford to fly to the far corners of the State to 'equally access' a "subsistence hunt" for a trophy, maybe you should be required to fly in a couple sides of organically raised, grass fed Bison for the locals dinner tables before you're allowed to fly home with your trophy. That would seem to be an equal and fair arrangement.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  19. #19
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Many of you are way off the mark here. This isn't about subsistence. It isn't about trophy hunting. It isn't about pitting hunter against hunter.
    This is simply about managing the number of hunters in the field and thus the harvest. Ideally, all hunts would be harvest ticket hunts. No restrictions on number of hunters. No restriction on non res, etc. Everybody gets to pay and play. The WACH (caribou) is currently this way. There are so many bou we can't harvest enough to effect their numbers. But most populations are not ideal. There are limited number of animals to safely harvest and more hunters wanting to play than the population can afford. Restrictions are necessary. How the Dept. restricts hunters is the next question. Draw hunts are a means to do so. But I ask, do you really want all your chance at hunting a particular species in a particular area to be totally based on the luck of the draw?
    Under 5AAC 92.052, the Dept. has many different ways to limit hunters participating in registration hunts. Look up the reg. TD is only one of those ways. Akres mentioned another.................stand in line on the one day, or at the one location, the dept gives out the permits. Registration permits are NOT applied for. They are given out to whoever wants, or to whoever shows up at the right time. Many (both Ox and unit 21. moose) are available on line.
    The problem is NOT TD or discretionary authority. The problem is the over use of TD in places, and at times, when it is unecessary. But it is up to the public and the ACs to tell the dept they are wrong. Sometimes you can use the biology of the population, if you know it, to show discretionary restrictions are no longer necessary. Of course sometimes you have stubborn, boneheaded area bios and region managers coasting to retirement, that won't do their job properly.

    Vince, I'm still waiting for that address. But to answer your question on fed permits............yes there are fed permits available for unit 22 Ox. These permits do not carry any TD. The feds don't need TD or any other discretionary authority methods. They can legally discriminate by residence. Currently, most all fed permits are only available to legal fed subsistence users and only available in unit 22. Additionally, fed permits are only LEGALLY usable on fed lands.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    499

    Default

    What about making anyone who isn't from the local area (21, 24, 22) restricting them to one moose, or one musk ox every 4 years (Doesn't have to be 4 years just an example time period). No TD, but this way it would reduce the hunting traffic while also giving people that travel all that way the ability to keep their horns, which is always a bonus from a great hunt and many people like me really treasure.
    Eventually the State of Alaska will have to figure out what they're going to do with these situations, and me personally I'd rather see one moose (or some other animal you can name) every so many years based on availability rather than creating more draw hunts or registration hunts. I'm all for giving true rural people a certain preference in their local areas because meat is definitely important for these people to get through the winter, but I don't like then making people from other areas of the state have to go through the drawing system to hunt, or registration hunts with antler destruction. I'd rather see it go to one moose, or etc. so many years in areas that have limited animal availability and a need for rural residents to harvest meat. Obviously if you travel all the way from anchorage to the koyukuk to hunt for moose you are not a meat hunter, but your definitely doing it more for the experience and hopefully a true trophy bull.
    The state of Alaska and the board of game knows that if they remove the trophy destruction rule from registration hunts there would be way too many people doing the registration hunts and would then take away opportunities for the locals to harvest game. If there was 700 people in the late 90's there would be closer to 1000 now. It will be interesting to see what the board of game comes up with.

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
  •