Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RHAK, Preference Points, and Wyoming's proposed bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RHAK, Preference Points, and Wyoming's proposed bill

    How do all these of these tie together?

    https://blog.eastmans.com/thumb-in-y...HPePTw8dMP4jj8

    I'm a life-long Alaskan who like others would like to see game allocations targeted more towards Alaskan's and less for nonresidents. I'm a 100% believer in our random draw process vs a points system. I am also someone who has spent $$ over the past 15 years accumulating preference points in WY, hoping for a once-n-a-lifetime opportunity. I'm none to happy about this direction, but then reflect on what I think about non-residents hunting in "my" state.
    In 1492 Native Americans discovered Columbus lost at sea
    _________________________________________________

    If I come across as an arrogant, know-it-all jerk, it's because I am

  • #2
    Number 1 reason not to have preference points. At any time they can change the rules. Really sucks when you have many years and dollars into it. You are buying something they never have to deliver.

    Happened to me in Colorado. Happened to me in Wyoming.
    Going to happen again in Wyoming.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #3
      I would definetley support something like this here in AK.
      And am against any preference point type system.
      IMHO a moose, sheep, etc. is worth more in the freezer of an Alaskan resident feeding his family than the dollars the tourist spends.
      Again just my personal opinion as I personally see little to no financial benefit from our tourism industry.
      And according to the linked article the Wyoming Fish and Game would have seen a net increase in funding.
      Many residents here have quite a few $$$ tied up in draw hunt fees hoping for those coveted tags as well.
      More tags for must be guided hunters hopefully would mean more $$$ for AK.
      And I support more non resident must be guided guide requirements if it brings in more $$$ to the state of AK.
      It's also a free country which means we can all make decisions on where we choose to live, work, etc.
      I chose Alaska and moved here.
      Some of my Native friends who were born and raised here chose to move out of AK.
      Each state has pros and cons of living there. Fishing and hunting opportunities being a priority for many people like myself meant Alaska was a good choice for me!
      Plus we still have the second degree of kin laws that would still allow for those father/son etc. type hunts and I'm fine with those laws remaining as is.
      More tags for more Alaskans and more $$$ for ADF&G? That sounds good to me.
      Time now to put on my hard hat and prepare for the non resident hunters to start bashing on me for suggesting they loose more of their cheap AK hunts!lol
      "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

      "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

      Comment


      • #4
        I got a bunch of money in Wyoming preference points like some of you, but I fail to see where this article materializes the doom and gloom eluded to. Ya a bill was put forth, but the article states it was DOA. Id perhaps view this optimistically and say the system will remain status quo for atleast the near future. I dunno

        Comment


        • #5
          This continues to put pressure on the Game and Fish Department to allocate more and more hunting opportunities to the residents of their states regardless of the financial repercussions.

          Something to think about.
          I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
          I have less friends now!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Kinda like we do here?

            Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
            This continues to put pressure on the Game and Fish Department to allocate more and more hunting opportunities to the residents of their states regardless of the financial repercussions.

            Something to think about.

            Comment


            • #7
              More resident opportunities? Are the residents lacking opportunity? In 22 years of guiding the only animals a non resident ever harvested with me that a resident couldn’t have went and got themselves was Kodiak brown bear. As a resident I see no lack in my opportunity to hunt. I do however seen people blame a non resident for their lack of success. When it could actually even be another resident to “blame”.
              Www.blackriverhunting.com
              Master guide 212

              Comment


              • #8
                Sure residents have lots general open hunt opportunities to hunt you can't deny that.
                But come the 21st your going to hear a lot of people annoyed they didn't draw any of the tags they wanted.
                A few more of those tags in residents hands might be a good thing IMHO.
                Why are non residents entitled to a set percentage of our game animals?
                Oh that's right so the guides can make a living off of them. And I suppose so ADF&G can sell some nonresident tags.
                Should Alaskan residents have a say in what percentage of our harvestable game animals go to nonresidents or should we leave that strictly to the board of game to decide?

                Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk
                "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

                "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
                  Sure residents have lots general open hunt opportunities to hunt you can't deny that.
                  But come the 21st your going to hear a lot of people annoyed they didn't draw any of the tags they wanted.
                  A few more of those tags in residents hands might be a good thing IMHO.
                  Why are non residents entitled to a set percentage of our game animals?
                  Oh that's right so the guides can make a living off of them. And I suppose so ADF&G can sell some nonresident tags.
                  Should Alaskan residents have a say in what percentage of our harvestable game animals go to nonresidents or should we leave that strictly to the board of game to decide?

                  Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk

                  A few more tags? So a couple people are happy. What about the rest? Still gonna be complaining. At what point does it stop. Not everyone is gonna get everything they want. I’m not sorry I feed my family off the investment of a non resident. I also don’t shoot my own sheep or moose unless I’m blessed with a ditch tag by my house. I guess I could not guide and take all my kids out for sheep and kill more animals than I do guiding.....but that would be taking someone else’s “animal” just like that non res was in the first place. So what’s the difference? I shoot it or they shoot it? I know no one heres gonna be shooting it. I haven’t seen a resident in the field in years.
                  Sorry if I feel like this is all misdirected. But it sure seems that way from a Guy straddling the resident/non resident fence. I believe non residents are entitled because they are Americans. Just be thankful there’s a guide requirments. Unless you want all non res to go unguided and drawing only. Then you’ll have all of them
                  Here doing it as cheaply as possible and that will put them right on top of most resident hunters. There’s a bigger picture here.
                  Www.blackriverhunting.com
                  Master guide 212

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That's great that your making money off of the resources of Alaska.
                    Would you feel differently if you were not a guide making money off of these animals?
                    If let's say your the average Alaskan resident hunter trying to draw a tag to get your child their first sheep, goat, brownie etc.would you have a differing opinion?
                    I'm sure you realize that many Alaskans just see the tags they didn't draw and the pics of dead animals the non residents got online.
                    Sure a few tags really would make little difference in the grand scheme of things.
                    I guess I'm thinking we should be on par with what other states do for our residents(on nonresident hunts in other states).
                    Last I heard we were still a little undervalued in our tag prices. But that may have been fixed with that rate hike a couple years back.
                    But if other states are looking at reducing nonresident hunt opportunities shouldn't we stay on par with them?
                    Or should we allow them more tags then they allow us?
                    I suppose that's the just of this thread based on the linked article isn't it?
                    That other states are considering reducing nonresident hunt opportunities and as Alaska residents should we consider the same thing if they pass such regulations?


                    Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk
                    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

                    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't think residents go on sheep hunts to specifically "fill the freezer" non res should be able to hunt here. I should be able to go to another state and hunt there. People dont draw tags and feel they have to blame something other then odds.

                      Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
                      I will never be a "Prostaffer" its not that I am not good enough
                      but its because I refuse to pimp products for free.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Alaska is a state with states rights - residents should have preference

                        Originally posted by BRWNBR
                        I believe non residents are entitled because they are Americans.
                        Jake, this really hit a nerve with me. We are Americans, yes, and we pledge alligiance to the flag and our country...but we are also Alaskans with states rights that allow us to benefit from being residents.

                        Article 8 of our state constituion declares that our wildlife resources are held in public trust for Alaskans, for their "maximum benefit" and "common use." Nonresidents ain't "entitled" to any of our wildlife resources according to federal and state laws, but we can and do let them particpate. And we should.

                        But unlike every other western state, Alaska doesn't place limits on nonresidents. Look at our draw system, when it's draw it means there aren't enough animals to go around for everyone. So for draws, most all western states give a clear preference to their residents, typically a 90/10 split. This is what RHAK advocates for. But it doesn't happen here.


                        Originally posted by BRWNBR
                        Just be thankful there’s a guide requirments. Unless you want all non res to go unguided and drawing only. Then you’ll have all of them.

                        The must-be-guided (MBG) law is the root of our problems, it gave a subsidy to guides unlike any other state which resulted in the powerful guide lobby we have now that seeks to preserve and expand nonresident hunting opportunities in Alaska. The MBG law is also one of the worst things to happen in terms of bringing in revenue to the Division of Wildlife Conservation.

                        Sheesh, we have 8,000 nonresidents coming up to Alaska on DIY hunts every year from southcentral to interior to NW and Arctic on moose and caribou hunts and how many of those guys would just love to be able to take a grizz on those hunts, but we don't allow it. They can't afford a 20 grand guided hunt but they can afford the $1K for the tag. There is no safety argument that they need a guide; they are already out there where bears roam and get into their camps. We want more bears taken in many areas of the state, and in many areas we have a brown bear bag limit of 2 for nonresidents. Think of the money we could bring into the state if we offered a couple hundred unguided brown bear permits to those 8K guys that come up here to hunt moose and caribou. 6 chances at five bucks a pop to apply, you have to buy a $160 hunting license to apply, and if you win it's $1K for the tag. That's 200 grand right there, and with matching federal Pittman-Robertson funds we end up with 800K. Add the license and permit fees and we're well over a million brought into the Department without a MBG Requirement. And most of those guys would not be successful, there are no conservation concerns, spread it out over every region and unit of the state.

                        Look, we want nonresident Americans to have the opportunity to hunt in Alaska. I mean, I do, RHAK does, most of us do; I love having friends from lower 48 come to hunt with me for moose and caribou. To expericnce Alaska. Tens of thousands of Americans though, will never be able to experience a sheep or brown bear hunt though because they just don't make that kind of money to pay a guide.

                        Bottom line Jake, your argument that we are all Americans should lead you to the conclusion that we shouldn't force other Americans to hire a guide at $20,000 to be able to hunt grizz and sheep in Alaska. Just my opinion, and a long one it is <Grin>

                        Mark Richards
                        www.residenthuntersofalaska.org

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mark Richards for governor...
                          "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            But unlike every other western state, Alaska doesn't place limits on nonresidents. Look at our draw system, when it's draw it means there aren't enough animals to go around for everyone. So for draws, most all western states give a clear preference to their residents, typically a 90/10 split. This is what RHAK advocates for. But it doesn't happen here.


                            Think of the money we could bring into the state if we offered a couple hundred unguided brown bear permits to those 8K guys that come up here to hunt moose and caribou. 6 chances at five bucks a pop to apply, you have to buy a $160 hunting license to apply, and if you win it's $1K for the tag. That's 200 grand right there, and with matching federal Pittman-Robertson funds we end up with 800K. Add the license and permit fees and we're well over a million brought into the Department without a MBG Requirement. And most of those guys would not be successful, there are no conservation concerns, spread it out over every region and unit of the state.



                            [/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

                            So which is it? Limit non resident tag opportunity and push for the 90/10 split in favor of Alaskan residents? Or give nonresidents more tag opportunities?

                            Why not just give all those 8,000 non residents the opportunity to buy a brownie tag over the counter for $1K if it's about the money for the department. Even if only half of them do that's $4M before the matching funds from the fed's. I'm not advocating this by the way.

                            I've drawn 2 tags in 15 years of applying and in all of those 13 years that I didn't draw anything it never crossed my mind to blame a non resident for a missed opportunity.

                            Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
                            The more you talk, the more I wish I was deaf.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              RHAK, Preference Points, and Wyoming's proposed bill

                              Originally posted by BRWNBR View Post
                              More resident opportunities? Are the residents lacking opportunity? In 22 years of guiding the only animals a non resident ever harvested with me that a resident couldn’t have went and got themselves was Kodiak brown bear. As a resident I see no lack in my opportunity to hunt. I do however seen people blame a non resident for their lack of success. When it could actually even be another resident to “blame”.
                              I’d agree that residents have pretty amazing opportunities in Alaska, but the Kodiak bear issue that you mention isn’t minor. Why should non-residents have such dramatically better odds of hunting Kodiak than residents? Is there any reasonable justification for that? As a resident I’d be lucky to draw a Kodiak bear tag twice in my lifetime, but if I move out of state I am virtually guaranteed to win a tag if I sign a guide client agreement with the right guide. Basically a non-resident can buy their Kodiak tag, whereas residents have an exceptionally low chance to win a tag in the draw.

                              To my understanding, there is no hunt anywhere else in the United States that gives preference to non-residents. There are others as well, such as the middle season for sheep in Eagle River. One tag is allocated, and it is only available to non-residents. There should never be a hunt open to non-residents where there is not at least a concurrent resident opportunity.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X