Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Support for AK Wild Sheep Foundation or RHAK (Resident Hunters of AK) ?

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

  • #91
    Thoughts on Proposal 51?? If you take a 2nd degree relative hunting now the take counts against both, in other words you can only kill one animal between you.
    "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by stid2677 View Post
      Thoughts on Proposal 51?? If you take a 2nd degree relative hunting now the take counts against both, in other words you can only kill one animal between you.
      I was listening in yesterday and I thought they decided against that one?
      Michael Strahan
      Site Owner
      Alaska Hunt Consultant
      1 (907) 229-4501

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Michael Strahan View Post
        I was listening in yesterday and I thought they decided against that one?
        Carried with an amendment today. Anyone want to put a pro-resident spin on this one??

        "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by stid2677 View Post
          Carried with an amendment today. Anyone want to put a pro-resident spin on this one??
          What was the final language?
          Michael Strahan
          Site Owner
          Alaska Hunt Consultant
          1 (907) 229-4501

          Comment


          • #95
            The legislators approved the 2nd degree of kindred rule, so this is how the BOG goes around it.. I saw this one coming, this with the 1-4 rule will have a big effect.

            "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by stid2677 View Post
              The legislators approved the 2nd degree of kindred rule, so this is how the BOG goes around it.. I saw this one coming, this with the 1-4 rule will have a big effect.

              Steve, you posted the original language of the proposal. But you said it was amended. What does the proposal look like in its amended form?

              The reason I ask is because yesterday's discussion was unfavorable. Spraker specifically didn't like the idea that a resident would have to use his tag. Do you have the exact amended language?
              Michael Strahan
              Site Owner
              Alaska Hunt Consultant
              1 (907) 229-4501

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Michael Strahan View Post
                Steve, you posted the original language of the proposal. But you said it was amended. What does the proposal look like in its amended form?

                The reason I ask is because yesterday's discussion was unfavorable. Spraker specifically didn't like the idea that a resident would have to use his tag. Do you have the exact amended language?
                I don't know how it was amended. But you can see on the BOG page it Carried as amended.
                "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by stid2677 View Post
                  I don't know how it was amended. But you can see on the BOG page it Carried as amended.
                  Hmmm.

                  Well, I can't comment on it without knowing what they passed. The amendment could have significantly altered the proposal.

                  I certainly don't favor it as it was written, and I heard Board members (most notably Ted Spraker) comment against the impact it would have against residents, just yesterday. But of course that was the original language. We need to see what they actually passed for any commentary on it to be relevant.
                  Michael Strahan
                  Site Owner
                  Alaska Hunt Consultant
                  1 (907) 229-4501

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Michael Strahan View Post
                    Hmmm.

                    Well, I can't comment on it without knowing what they passed. The amendment could have significantly altered the proposal.

                    I certainly don't favor it as it was written, and I heard Board members (most notably Ted Spraker) comment against the impact it would have against residents, just yesterday. But of course that was the original language. We need to see what they actually passed for any commentary on it to be relevant.
                    The amendment was removing the part that would have allowed the NR to fill the resident draw permit. Only applies to general harvest.
                    "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by stid2677 View Post
                      Carried with an amendment today. Anyone want to put a pro-resident spin on this one??

                      Sure...The second degree of kindred "loophole" will be used less, leaving more Sheep on the mountain for residents.

                      Comment


                      • Does anyone have a link to a transcript of the public testimony, and of the final decisions of the Board of Game?

                        I'd like to hear some of the info straight from the horse's mouth before I make up my mind on a few things.

                        Thanks!

                        -Mike
                        Michael Strahan
                        Site Owner
                        Alaska Hunt Consultant
                        1 (907) 229-4501

                        Comment


                        • I tried to read thru these five pages of comments to catch up a bit and still find myself a little blow away.
                          Why this new RHAK group or whatever it is, why they don't get a prop to the BGCSB and get a move on limiting a contracting guides number of sheep clients or number of assistant guides guiding for sheep would be wayyyy simpler that how this is all unfolding. Guides don't want sheep hunting opportunities to disappear or go to draw! They would be way better off knowing they could only take four (or whatever) sheep hunters a year and plan that way rather than dance around the ifs and maybes of a draw. If a resident group would be able to figure out a way to feed the idea to the BGCSB in a way that looked like it will save the long term sheep hunting opportunities for non residents they'd buy it I think. At the same time it would ease pressure in congested areas and open up some space for the resident hunters that "feel" locked out.
                          At the same time prohibit the perverbial foot in the door of 1 every 4 or drawings getting started up ect. Just my idea. Don't beat the dead horse, don't even kill it! Just ride it.
                          Www.blackriverhunting.com
                          Master guide 212

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by stid2677 View Post
                            Thoughts on Proposal 51?? If you take a 2nd degree relative hunting now the take counts against both, in other words you can only kill one animal between you.
                            Steve,

                            I have a note out to Ted Spraker on this one. I clearly heard him speak out against it because of the negative impact it would have, and I was very surprised to hear that it came back up again and actually passed. So I asked him to please send the actual amended language, along with the Board's thinking on the issue.

                            I also told him that the fact that APHA sponsored it, and it would clearly have a negative impact on resident hunters (who would probably let their relative kill the animal), makes it appear that APHA is trying to feather their nest. While not all nonresidents hunting with relatives would be forced to choose a guide, some will. The result will be a benefit to the guide and an erosion of the "second degree of kindred" hunters.

                            Once I hear back from Ted, I will post whatever facts I have. I'm trying to limit most of my comments to facts, without too much speculation. Trying, but not sure if I'm succeeding!

                            -Mike
                            Michael Strahan
                            Site Owner
                            Alaska Hunt Consultant
                            1 (907) 229-4501

                            Comment


                            • The amendment was the removal of the language that said a non resident 2nd degree of kindred hunter can hunt a residents drawing permit. Personally I think this is a good proposal, and will benefit the "average" resident in the long run. The 2nd degree of kindred rule has been vastly abused, and this will leave a few animals on the mountain for residents to hunt.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by J in AK View Post
                                The amendment was the removal of the language that said a non resident 2nd degree of kindred hunter can hunt a residents drawing permit. Personally I think this is a good proposal, and will benefit the "average" resident in the long run. The 2nd degree of kindred rule has been vastly abused, and this will leave a few animals on the mountain for residents to hunt.
                                Here's my concern:

                                If I take my dad (nonresident) sheep hunting, and we can only shoot one sheep between us, I'm going to let him take that animal. Now, according to this proposal, I'm done for the season. I cannot shoot a ram, right? In a general sense, this leaves one more ram on the mountain, but that ram is available to anyone with a tag (not just residents). But for this resident, it's over for the season.

                                If we couple this with the new requirement for one sheep every four years for nonresidents, my dad won't be coming back next year, so I could hunt sheep then. But in the end, it results in LESS opportunity, not more, for residents hunting with relatives.

                                Anyway, I will let you know what I hear from Ted, if he has time to write back while the discussion is still active.

                                -Mike
                                Michael Strahan
                                Site Owner
                                Alaska Hunt Consultant
                                1 (907) 229-4501

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X