Mat Valley Moose Range/Wasilla Cr. Salmon Habitat Conditions

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 68 Bronco
    replied
    Done Deal ?

    Wasilla Cr. Headwaters Trail construction contract has been awarded. There is at least one major surprise in store for the contractor that may be interesting to witness.
    The project will significantly impact prime moose and grouse habitat on the 'Moose' Range (no indications whatsoever this was appraised by agencies involved), but will be some improvement for fish habitat even though 'low water crossings' designed by USFWS! will still kill fish (the Matanuska Moose Range Plan specifies properly installed culverts and bridges for crossings, but that still in place plan is headed for rewrite.)
    Effective management and enforcement, as always, will continue to be an issue exacerbated by increasing traffic.

    The 'process' in getting to this juncture has been the most convoluted and exclusionary public land management administering effort as one could possibly imagine. Embarrassingly so, and a victory for unfettered access over sensitive habitat :

    http://dnr.alaska.gov/projects/las/#...orttype/detail
    Note that this is an "Early Entry" permit and that MSB has yet no easement for this project on State owned public land. Early Entry permits avoid further public process/testimony, especially in this case when 'Public Testimony' at Palmer Depot was at the end of a completed MSB Wasilla Creek Headwaters plan and was simply subject to "...any questions?." The Depot presentation was funded by a $10K grant via Mat Su Trails and Parks Foundation. ( Similar use of an Early Entry permit was employed even before the KRPUA Plan was final.)
    Inclusive stakeholder testimony for any public land plan development should be made available at or near the beginning of the 'process', as is usual. (Previous posts and available documents confirm the closed nature of this plan development.) MSB added an additional reroute (mislabeled for a considerable period as a 'temporary route') for which no public testimony has occurred.
    The Jonesville Plan, while many Moose Range trails and anadromous fish waters exist outside its physical boundaries, speaks to DNR's non-committal approach to Moose Range issues while seeking needed remedies. Calls to DNR have ranged from "... we probably won't even comment " on the Jonesville Plan, to recently posting regarding the interplay of the Moose Range Plan (https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/jonesville/), which is something at least.

    No final solutions, obviously, but not a stretch to say this mix is complicated and that DNR may be viewed as abdicating responsibilities for State owned public lands to Mat Su borough - outside the Jonesville Plan boundaries. Whether more public involvement is forthcoming is questionable. Three things are certain, the unattended original Moose Range Plan is still in effect and being violated even by agencies, land ownership is a matter of record, and habitats remain at risk. The concept of intact sustainable ecosystems remains absent in our resource management considerations for recognized sensitive areas.

    More information can be found on MSB's Procurement pages, the Jonesville PUA Plan docs, Wasilla Creek Headwaters Plan, and DNR web pages.
    Last edited by 68 Bronco; 1 week ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • 68 Bronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Spanner View Post

    Not the one I was talking about, and the gate in question someone has removed it completely.
    Interesting - Thanks for clarifying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spanner
    replied
    Originally posted by 68 Bronco View Post

    I reckon I'll cave and accept the duty to inform that gate has been there on the west end of the trail for decades and is utilized occasionally for reason by Div. of Habitat and Div. of Forestry - assuming that is what is being referred to and being the only one known of.
    Not the one I was talking about, and the gate in question someone has removed it completely.

    Leave a comment:


  • 68 Bronco
    replied
    Originally posted by Spanner View Post
    Interestingly someone has put up a fairly nice gate in the Moose Range on the main trail from the Murphy Road trailhead. I have double-checked with the Matsu Borough maps, and it's still public land, I will try to contact DNR next week and see if they put it up or if it is a power grab from one of the local landowners.
    I reckon I'll cave and accept the duty to inform that gate has been there on the west end of the trail for decades and is utilized occasionally for reason by Div. of Habitat and Div. of Forestry - assuming that is what is being referred to and being the only one known of.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daveinthebush
    replied
    OnX maps is great for determining land status. I tried to find my rear property marker that I have not seen in years. OnX had was able to pinpoint it within a couple of feet and with a pin pointer we found it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spanner
    replied
    Interestingly someone has put up a fairly nice gate in the Moose Range on the main trail from the Murphy Road trailhead. I have double-checked with the Matsu Borough maps, and it's still public land, I will try to contact DNR next week and see if they put it up or if it is a power grab from one of the local landowners.

    Leave a comment:


  • 68 Bronco
    replied
    Originally posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Except, as you're well aware, Alaska for most intents and purposes has no LE and virtually no one is willing to pay for any.
    Precisely.
    Last edited by 68 Bronco; 11-08-2021, 22:49.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daveinthebush
    replied
    Originally posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    I fully understand that "booby trapping" your own property could get you in trouble.
    Many states have laws against it. I do believe states started cracking down after a policeman jumped a fence and landed on a board with nails.

    Leave a comment:


  • kasilofchrisn
    replied


    Originally posted by anchskier View Post

    As justified as it may feel at times, you are correct that setting any kind of "booby trap" would definitely get someone in legal trouble, even on your own private property.
    I fully understand that "booby trapping" your own property could get you in trouble.
    What I was referring to was the fact that you can set up a fence on your own property.
    Maybe in this sue happy society we live in you can still get sued if someone ran into that fence?
    But I don't have an issue with someone stringing up an electric fence around their property whether it's to define their property boundaries or to keep in domestic animals

    Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • anchskier
    replied
    Originally posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    A side by side with a roof on it or a large off-road truck would most likely just break such a wire.
    Were someone to get hurt by this and you were proved to be the person who installed it I can imagine you would be getting a visit from the troopers and possibly some criminal charges.
    Setting up booby traps on public land is quite likely frowned upon.
    A fence on your own private property is a different matter.

    Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk
    As justified as it may feel at times, you are correct that setting any kind of "booby trap" would definitely get someone in legal trouble, even on your own private property.

    Leave a comment:


  • iofthetaiga
    replied
    Originally posted by 68 Bronco View Post

    A very good suggestion, Thanks!

    And yes, LE should have done this, or other effective means, long ago in order to enforce the 1986 Moose Range Plan...
    Except, as you're well aware, Alaska for most intents and purposes has no LE and virtually no one is willing to pay for any.

    Leave a comment:


  • 68 Bronco
    replied
    Originally posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    Have you considered setting up some game cameras to catch some of these culprits?
    I know that technically you shouldn't have to do this yourself.
    But if you were able to catch some pictures/video of these people that they were able to use to identify them it may help.
    Just a thought.
    I don't live in your area,but if I was closer to you I have one I would loan you.


    Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk
    A very good suggestion, Thanks!

    And yes, LE should have done this, or other effective means, long ago in order to enforce the 1986 Moose Range Plan which specifies "..winter travel only for motor vehicles.." on the wetlands. Had that plan been attended through all these years, we would not be today at a juncture certain to compromise even more sensitive habitat.

    Leave a comment:


  • kasilofchrisn
    replied
    Originally posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    Nov. 7, 2021 Update

    Here we are 5 yrs. later on this issue!

    Large ORV's have created yet another destructive ingress/egress at the main channel crossing of Wasilla Cr., moving to the N. side of the previously done damages. Photo 1 shows the new approach, a steep drop into these F&G cataloged anadromous fish waters. Photo 2 shows more increases in prior damages. Meanwhile, MSB moves forward with the plan to to see the Moose Range Plan 'updated' even though DNR has made ..." no commitment.." (pg. 4-4 found in the linked document JPUA Final Draft). The Mat Valley Moose Range Plan remains unattended/unenforced as fish habitat is degraded.

    https://www.matsugov.us/2-uncategori...ate=msb_bolide

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6193.JPG
Views:	302
Size:	147.8 KB
ID:	2776821

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6196.JPG
Views:	294
Size:	64.1 KB
ID:	2776822










    Have you considered setting up some game cameras to catch some of these culprits?
    I know that technically you shouldn't have to do this yourself.
    But if you were able to catch some pictures/video of these people that they were able to use to identify them it may help.
    Just a thought.
    I don't live in your area,but if I was closer to you I have one I would loan you.


    Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • kasilofchrisn
    replied
    Originally posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    I understand that during the war this type of problem might have been solved by piano wire strung 4' AGL.
    A side by side with a roof on it or a large off-road truck would most likely just break such a wire.
    Were someone to get hurt by this and you were proved to be the person who installed it I can imagine you would be getting a visit from the troopers and possibly some criminal charges.
    Setting up booby traps on public land is quite likely frowned upon.
    A fence on your own private property is a different matter.

    Sent from my S41 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • iofthetaiga
    replied
    I understand that during the war this type of problem might have been solved by piano wire strung 4' AGL.

    Leave a comment:

Footer Ad Module 300 x 300

Collapse

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X