Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Looks like RHAK is going public

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    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
    Mike-
    You keep inferring that Scott and Steve are successful (along with the guy flying his plane in) every year to discount the argument about non-resident allocation issue. But, Proving Trails is on record as supporting a draw for non-residents because of crowding issues. If you keep using them as your example why residents already have preference, I think you are shooting holes in your own argument.
    And if RHAK doesn't get what they want--they SHOULD get louder. That is the point of forming the group. Residents aren't getting treated fairly by a board that is heavily weighted to guides. The recent changes by BOG prove that out.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by HikerDan View Post
      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.
      It's not that Turner did not disclose just the Non Resident Hunter Preservation fund.

      He did not disclose when he had a exclusive guide concession (sheep) in ANWR.
      He did not disclose his conflict with his USFW exclusive guide concessions vs USFW attempts to end state management of 10's of millions of acres
      He did not disclose that his hunt broker activities

      Failure to disclose is a violation of his duty.

      Failure to disclose is far different than participating AFTER disclosures are announced...

      Comment


      • #18
        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?
        And I'm a Kenai sportfisherman who unfortunately has a 501C3 "Charity" lobbying in Juneau for increased taxes on people in my area to fund their "conservation" projects. We can both thank the current structure of nonprofits for all of this. Bleh.

        I hunt quite a bit, but I've never guided (or been guided), and don't sheep hunt. I also don't fly, but would like to. I was happy to see the no-spotting law. It's IMO getting out of hand in some moose hunting areas also. I feel that hunting with a plane is similar to fishing with a net. It's different, and easier to kill stuff, therefore it needs to be regulated differently.

        I'm personally ok with the once every 4 years thing for the next of kin hunt, but could see how some dislike it. I was disappointed to see the proposal pass which makes the kill count towards both people's tags. That just sucks.

        I see the amount of money people spend on hunts, and am ok with a little less opportunity of my own so that we may have the economic boost from guided hunting trips. So long as we do everything we can to keep that money in our state. That said I like to see things kept fair, and hate seeing board shenanigans.

        Comment


        • #19
          Not to kick sand on others but once more I'd like to reiterate that Alaska does NOT have a "next of kin" law....we have a "second degree of kindred" [mother in law] rule

          I'm not a guide and I do think it is time for some limitations but I don't feel that we Alaskans owe your non-resident brother-in-law a chap hunt for a coveted specie. As we lay blame at the feet of guides and transporters we should consider cleaning up our own back yard. This second-degree-of-kindred hunting is significant.

          Second degree of kin [parent/child brother/brother] would be more acceptable and much more enforceable IMO!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by VernAK View Post
            Not to kick sand on others but once more I'd like to reiterate that Alaska does NOT have a "next of kin" law....we have a "second degree of kindred" rule.....

            I'm not a guide and I do think it is time for some limitations but I don't feel that we Alaskans owe your non-resident brother-in-law a chap hunt for a coveted specie. As we lay blame at the feet of guides and transporters we should consider cleaning up our own back yard. This second-degree-of-kindred hunting is significant.

            Second degree of kin would be more acceptable and much more enforceable IMO!
            The better thing to do would be to do away with the "non resident must be guided law". Then a non resident is a non resident and if they want to hire a guide, hunt with their 2DK or on their own it eliminates all the special interests and loop holes and of course leads to putting all non residents on a draw.

            Comment


            • #21
              Mike I never said I didn't think turner was hiding anything. Just said that that article was pointed at him and getting him off the board by gaining public support. Nothing really to do with resident hunting issues....yet.

              Dropping the guide requirement will increase non resident hunting in Alaska. Which is backwards from what everyone is trying to do. The only reason a special interest group or individual would want MORE non res would be for establishing
              A bigger problem and getting the non res draw established.
              If you want less non resident in the field. Keep the guide requirement and limit their seasons so they aren't the same as residents. Make non res sheep season only in September, give residents the August portion to go out uncontested and kill the legal sheep first....simple fix. This isn't a huge complex issue. Unless we now have more issues than I was originally aware.
              Www.blackriverhunting.com
              Master guide 212

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BRWNBR View Post
                If you want less non resident in the field. Keep the guide requirement and limit their seasons so they aren't the same as residents. Make non res sheep season only in September, give residents the August portion to go out uncontested and kill the legal sheep first....simple fix.
                This is actually a really good idea, assuming that residents are leaving as many "surplus" Rams on the mountain as we are led to believe. Let the largely incompetent or casual residents take a shot at the low hanging fruit early and then let the professionals come in afterwards and successfully find the smart rams that weren't easy for the locals to get.

                I think I sound snarkier than I mean to. It really is a good idea, if in fact the surplus exists that we are told exists. And, if that surplus doesn't exist, I would like to think that these fine outdoors men from the Lower-48 would still enjoy their half-month in the mountains as much as I do when I don't bag a trophy.

                When are you throwing your name in the hat for the BOG Jake?



                Although... I harvest Caribou meat in August and pretend to hunt sheep in September. Would this mean I need to get a new hobby for the fall?

                Also, I can not support using the guide requirement to limit non-res participation. If we only want so many non-res in the woods, we should only allow so many non-res in the woods. I'm ideologically opposed to limiting that population by allowing the wealthy hunters to come to Alaska while keeping the riffraff out.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by BRWNBR View Post
                  If you want less non resident in the field. Keep the guide requirement and limit their seasons so they aren't the same as residents. Make non res sheep season only in September, give residents the August portion to go out uncontested and kill the legal sheep first....simple fix. This isn't a huge complex issue. Unless we now have more issues than I was originally aware.
                  Similar proposals have been made to the BOG. Unsurprisingly, all have been shot down.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Of course they were shot down. APHA didn't submit them.ha Maybe this new RHAK
                    Or whatever it is should get
                    Together with APHA and talk some stuff out. Maybe try to find a common ground to submit a prop together? Save the guide industry and save the residents, address it as a common interest rather than a "your stupid and selfish".

                    Put together s prop, email it to all the guides out there, get support that way instead of belittling people and an entire industry with a article.

                    I can't run for the BOG. I make a living off Alaskas resources...conflict of interest. Lol
                    Www.blackriverhunting.com
                    Master guide 212

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Exactly, wouldn't a resident hunter on the BOG have a conflict of interest when voting on proposals that would benefit residents?

                      Originally posted by HikerDan View Post
                      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