Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Looks like RHAK is going public

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

  • Looks like RHAK is going public

    Alaska Dispatch Article today.

    https://www.adn.com/article/20160411...ska-board-game


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • #2
    Interesting...not totally factual but he got his point across The comments are the end were "fun" to read. As Alaskas population increases we are going to suffer more separation and division on all issues. Tip of the iceberg. I was sad to read this article.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BRWNBR View Post
      Interesting...not totally factual but he got his point across The comments are the end were "fun" to read. As Alaskas population increases we are going to suffer more separation and division on all issues. Tip of the iceberg. I was sad to read this article.
      What did you decide is not factual?

      Comment


      • #4
        Off the top of my head he said they couldn't both hunt grizzly ever, wouldn't it work in a two bear limit area? One for each or am I misunderstanding the new reg?
        Www.blackriverhunting.com
        Master guide 212

        Comment


        • #5
          The rest as I recal was mostly wording, "solely", "intent", "unfair", words that are meant to sway a readers opinions. But not based off factual information.
          Comments like the following give the impression that 60-80
          Percent of the total Population of sheep are being taken by non res, again worded in a way to sway readers into being drawn in.
          "Nonresident guided sheep hunters are taking 60 percent to 80 percent of our sheep in some areas ".

          First I've ever heard this one....and I've been in the "industry" for just shy of 20 years.
          "The guide industry does not appreciate that nonresident relatives of Alaska residents can come up here to hunt a must-be-guided species without having to hire a licensed guide."

          I spoke with a guide in the wrangles once,
          One of the ones that's commonly refernced when people talked about "locked up areas". His problem with residents wasn't that they hunted, but that they didn't have any qualms about shooting small sheep. He just wished they would at least hunt for mature Rams to keep the hunting quality high. This was back when it was not all full curl restrictions in unit 11. Ironically that locked up area, a resident aquantaince of mine takes a charter in and hunts it almost every year. Killed several great sheep.

          Marks letter really drags a nasty blanket over all guides and lumps the APHA in with the term "guide industry"
          Almost the entire time. Two things which are vastly different. I've never met a guide that didn't like residents,
          The biggest issue guides have had with residents is just how they hunt/treat an area. A common lack of caring about the longevity of an area, leaving parts of camp sights, trash, cutting trails, boats and planes buzzing other hunters and not hunting an area for its potential. Ie immature game, Kodiak bears, or the sheep situation I mentioned above.

          Guide industry is NOT anti resident hunters.
          Www.blackriverhunting.com
          Master guide 212

          Comment


          • #6
            Wow.

            So I'm a Registered Guide, and I have an organization out there claiming to speak for me, though I am not a member.

            I'm also a resident, and now I have an organization out there claiming to represent my interests, and I'm not a member of that one either.

            Am I supposed to thank someone?

            I don't believe I have ever read anything like that from within the hunting community over all the years I've lived here. It's inflammatory, divisive, misleading, and presumptuous. Inflammatory because it paints all guides with the same brush. Divisive because it pits hunters against each other. Misleading because it uses extreme examples to give the impression that an issue is much larger than it really is. Presumptuous because it assumes it is representing all resident hunters.

            Thanks, but no thanks, to both groups.

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

            Comment


            • #7
              Here's a great example of the kind of misrepresentation I found in the article, and this is a direct quote, in context:

              Meanwhile, a guide can take as many nonresident sheep hunting clients as he can book with absolutely no restrictions on the guide whatsoever.


              Really? No restrictions at all? So how does that work on our many permit hunts?

              I guess it's like that famous quote about China: "Whatever you say about China is true somewhere." Yes, there are areas where an unlimited number of nonresident sheep hunters could (theoretically) go. But are there not also areas where an unlimited number of resident hunters could (theoretically) go as well? But to write an article that said, "In a given season, resident hunters can kill as many sheep as they like." would sort of skew things a bit, wouldn't it? It's not really a forthright statement.

              The whole article reads like a hail Mary pass with three seconds on the clock, in hopes of knocking a Board member out before confirmation takes place.

              I know a few people who are in this organization and I consider most of them friends, for my part. I don't believe they would have had a hand in something like this.
              Michael Strahan
              Site Owner
              Alaska Hunt Consultant
              1 (907) 229-4501

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Michael Strahan View Post
                Wow.

                So I'm a Registered Guide, and I have an organization out there claiming to speak for me, though I am not a member.

                I'm also a resident, and now I have an organization out there claiming to represent my interests, and I'm not a member of that one either.

                Am I supposed to thank someone?

                I don't believe I have ever read anything like that from within the hunting community over all the years I've lived here. It's inflammatory, divisive, misleading, and presumptuous. Inflammatory because it paints all guides with the same brush. Divisive because it pits hunters against each other. Misleading because it uses extreme examples to give the impression that an issue is much larger than it really is. Presumptuous because it assumes it is representing all resident hunters.

                Thanks, but no thanks, to both groups.

                -Mike
                Respectfully; I don't believe one person generally stating what many of us feel is divisive, so much as it demonstrates the fact that we disagree. (Mark's statement isn't the root cause of divisiveness, it's an articulation of the fact that we are already divided). Seems there are more or less two camps: those who propose that the guide industry as it presently exists/operates is good for Alaska/Alaskans; and those of us who believe otherwise.
                ...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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by iofthetaiga View Post
                  Respectfully; I don't believe one person generally stating what many of us feel is divisive, so much as it demonstrates the fact that we disagree. (Mark's statement isn't the root cause of divisiveness, it's an articulation of the fact that we are already divided).
                  I agree in part with what you're saying. But it's one thing to be an observer of a division, and another entirely to jump in the middle of it and further polarize people with the kind of remarks I read in the article. That's a few degrees beyond. And from my perspective, the division is not nearly as dramatic as the article makes it appear. Just a cursory look through the hunting regulations should convince just about anyone that this state has a very strong resident preference.

                  Anyway, this has all been hashed out many times. I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm just expressing some shock over the tone of the whole thing, and at what it appears to be.

                  One thing we will have to disagree on; this was MUCH more than one person making some remarks. That person is representing an entire group, and is therefore speaking as their representative, is he not? I maintain that he's claiming an even broader reach than that, with implications that he's backed by the entire resident hunting population.

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "The whole article reads like a hail Mary pass with three seconds on the clock, in hopes of knocking a Board member out before confirmation takes place."


                    I think this sums it up. First step to changing law if the current board don't agree.....change the board. Pick one you don't think will agree with you, get rid of them. Replace with a person who agrees with your ideals and motives. THEN some
                    Proposals will go your way and APHA will be powerless!!! (Insert evil laugh here lol)
                    But can't change the board seat unless there's a villain to sacrifice to the horde. Enter mr turner. Black eye him to the public so you have the general public on board, makes these things much easier
                    To accomplish.

                    This article had a purpose. I don't think it was about non residents hunting sheep.
                    Www.blackriverhunting.com
                    Master guide 212

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Michael Strahan View Post
                      I'm just expressing some shock over the tone of the whole thing, and at what it appears to be.
                      I think people are fed up, and are going to start pushing back harder against what they perceive as a now longstanding, biased ("corrupted" if you will) system, which does not have the best interest of Alaskans at heart.
                      ...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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        At least not the Alaskans like them. It does have the best interest of some Alaskans
                        Www.blackriverhunting.com
                        Master guide 212

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by iofthetaiga View Post
                          I think people are fed up, and are going to start pushing back harder against what they perceive as a now longstanding, biased ("corrupted" if you will) system, which does not have the best interest of Alaskans at heart.
                          I agree that *some* people don't like the way things are at present. But as I have pointed out many times, and have backed it up with actual accounts, there are MANY resident hunters who are enjoying the overwhelming benefits and opportunities to hunt all species here. Whenever I mention the folks I know, it is quickly discounted. My point is that we are hearing from a vocal minority, on BOTH sides of this. Neither represents a majority opinion; they are just the loudest voices in the conversation right now.

                          I agree that if RHAK doesn't get what it wants, they will likely become louder and louder.

                          We will have to disagree on whether "the system" has the best interests of Alaskans at heart. My hunting regulations say differently, on almost every page. As they should.

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BRWNBR View Post

                            But can't change the board seat unless there's a villain to sacrifice to the horde. Enter mr turner. Black eye him to the public so you have the general public on board,
                            So you don't agree that Turner has a conflict of interest?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tsunami View Post
                              So you don't agree that Turner has a conflict of interest?
                              I don't agree that he has a conflict. Not within the context of the Board of Game, where conflict of interest is standard operating procedure. I don't say that to disparage any of the board members. They are who they are. It's up to the governors to appoint wise arbiters to the board, and governors don't generally do that. Rather, they appoint rent-seekers.

                              Within that context Turner isn't any more conflicted than the next member.

                              That said, he absolutely should have disclosed is association with the Nonresident Hunting Preservation Fund. Lesson learned I guess.

                              I'm certainly not pleased with the composition of the BOG, and when we talk about "divisiveness" I think we have to recognize which user groups and interests are not represented on the BOG and we need to realize that being shut out of the deliberative process is as divisive as it gets.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X