Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another good opinion piece

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

  • Another good opinion piece

    This is a "compass" piece like the one written by bushrat. I enjoyed this one immensely. Hit's some important points.



    http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/707314.html
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  • #2
    Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
    This is a "compass" piece like the one written by bushrat. I enjoyed this one immensely. Hit's some important points.



    http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/707314.html

    Agreed, but if we really want to manage for abundance does it make any sense at all to be giving away so much of our resources to nonresident hunters?

    I just don't see the 'truth' in advertising with this abundance management theory including all the energy that goes into constant annual tweaking of game regulations to sustain a commercial hunting guide industry?:confused:

    WHY would Fleenor leave that little bit of 'truth' out of his compass piece?

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for sharing this, martentrapper. I'd agree that some good points were made.

      Comment


      • #4
        With honest passion

        were both Mark Richardsons and Craig Fleener's articles written.

        As I read Craigs piece, I thought that it would be cool to have Ms. Ashley Judd sitting in the same room as Craig.
        She holding in her lap and petting her Cocker spaniel as Craig Fleener
        explained the true subsistance life to a quiet and attentive audience. With the honest and true validation of a Native Alaskan Elder talking with precise language and expression,... I would imagine it would be difficult for someone to attempt a debate of his plea.
        But then again...,, it could not happen, as those that oppose his opinions could care less of his heritage. because...
        You can't fix stupid.....

        Thanks for pointing them out for our reading pleasure.
        Max
        When you come to a fork in the trail, take it!

        Rentals for Canoes, Kayaks, Rafts, boats serving the Kenai canoe trail system and the Kenai river for over 15 years. www.alaskacanoetrips.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Beware

          Subsistence hunters need to beware of getting involved with any plans trumpeted by the AOC and SFW and like minded organizations. #1 reason is, these organizations are against subsistence hunting and rural priority. After they flex their political muscle on the predator control issue, they are just as likely to flex it trying to get rid of rural preference. To these groups, subsistence hunters are just another predator who gets in the way of their members for hunting opportunity.

          Probably won't happen this year, but when the habitat gets destroyed from too many animals and a bad winter hits and game populations plummet, who are they going to have to blame when they've already gotten rid of the predators? Subsistence hunters, that's who.

          If game populations take off like they plan, there will be an even bigger industry grown around it than there already is. Everybody might be happy for a while, but I doubt subsistence hunters will be pleased with the influx of outsiders. But when the inevitable downturn in game populations occurs, do you think the big money making machine of a hunting industry will meekly say, "It's best this year if we leave what little game there is to subsistence hunters"? Not much chance of that. They have the money and the political influence.

          I can hear them now..... "There wouldn't have been any animals out there for those people if we hadn't gotten rid of all those pesky predators. We earned the right to be able to hunt by growing Alaska's game population. If they need food, too bad. They need to leave the villages and get a job!"

          Beware of making bargains with the devil.
          An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
          - Jef Mallett

          Comment


          • #6
            What I think this piece and the one by Bob Bell miss are a discussion of the methods of predator control. I am in favor of managing for abundance, and I certainly agree with much of what they have to say with regards to food being a priority in our game management. This piece doesn't mention the means that are being suggested to achieve these goals, however. We need to have a discussion of whether engaging non-residents in predator contol, using helicopters, and snaring bears are the right direction to go in the pursuit to grow moose and caribou populations.

            Comment


            • #7
              Looks like Dux is just as confused about game management in Alaska as Goalie is over on the bowhunting forum.
              Dux, the state does not have a rural priority. Mr. Fleeners piece is about STATE pred control. State and private lands are the only places any kind of serious pred control can be done by the state.
              Rural pref. only applies under fed (ANILCA) law and only applies on fed land. The SFW, AOC only have proposals before the BoG and this has no effect on the federal rural pref.
              The state uses the Tier system to protect subsistence uses during times of pop. down turns and tho this system is not a "rural" preferance, it does account for where one lives. When the inevitable down turn comes, and pop's of a certain species fall below a certain level, it won't matter what the "big money hunting machine" wants. State law will send hunting into the Tier I or II system and locals will have a preferance.
              For the most part, dux, your crying wolf!
              I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
              I have less friends now!!

              Comment


              • #8
                predator control

                For all you out there who think predator control is the great panacea that will solve all of Alaska's hunting problems, it might be a good idea to take a look at south central deer hunting to see what is likely to become of such a plan.

                Deer were transplanted to Kodiak and Prince William Sound in the early 1900's to fill a void in local hunting opportunities. The islands where these deer live have few predators. Kodiak has only brown bears which are poor deer hunters. Prince William Sound has Brownies and on a few islands black bears. There are no wolves. In the beginning, the great habitat and lack of predators allowed both populations to grow until bad winters and winter browse problems started a series of crashes. What happens is the herds out-breed their winter range. You send too many animals into a bad winter and before they die off, they strip and severely damage their winter range. This has a two fold effect. First you get the die off, then you are left with a winter range that won't support near the numbers it did in the past. It can take decades to recover. I've seen reports about the Prince William Sound winter range and the damage it received in the late 50's or early 60's. It took decades for the damage to be undone. I'll try to find something online and post a link.

                The thing about deer in these two areas, when the hunting is good, it's great. But then you pay for it with the bad years to follow.

                Is this what Alaskans want for the rest of their big game?
                An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
                - Jef Mallett

                Comment


                • #9
                  MT

                  Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
                  Looks like Dux is just as confused about game management in Alaska as Goalie is over on the bowhunting forum.
                  Dux, the state does not have a rural priority. Mr. Fleeners piece is about STATE pred control. State and private lands are the only places any kind of serious pred control can be done by the state.
                  Rural pref. only applies under fed (ANILCA) law and only applies on fed land. The SFW, AOC only have proposals before the BoG and this has no effect on the federal rural pref.
                  The state uses the Tier system to protect subsistence uses during times of pop. down turns and tho this system is not a "rural" preferance, it does account for where one lives. When the inevitable down turn comes, and pop's of a certain species fall below a certain level, it won't matter what the "big money hunting machine" wants. State law will send hunting into the Tier I or II system and locals will have a preferance.
                  For the most part, dux, your crying wolf!
                  I'm not crying at all MT. But a lot of Alaskan hunters will be if this folly is carried out.

                  You forgot to mention that the reason there is a federal rural preference is because the state refused to have a rural preference. That is because of the AOC and their supporters. THEY fought Alaskan rural preference, and the Feds stepped in. That right there should show rural users the intentions of the AOC and now the SFW. Seems the a lot of the same people are involved with both.

                  Tier l and tier ll are a joke. It is a "who's the biggest liar" contest. It also gives people who have the means to hunt anywhere, a way to push aside local hunters who can't afford to travel for their hunting. I'll bet you'd just love it if some guy from Anchorage beat you out for a tier ll permit in your locale and you had to travel to the Mat-Su or Kenai to do your hunting.

                  But you're protected by that Federal rural preference and you know it. So you can sit out there and be smug. But the State and the AOC and SFW don't care about a whit about you. As they grow in strength and power tho, don't be so sure they won't come after your preference on a Federal level. You'd better believe that with their connections, they are planting a bug in somebody's ear.

                  At least you admit there will be an inevitable down turn.
                  An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
                  - Jef Mallett

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    MT

                    And MT, when the inevitable crash comes, It's sad to think you will have to depend on hunting those federal lands that have no predator control to make your living. That might bring a tear to my eye.
                    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
                    - Jef Mallett

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
                      Mr. Fleeners piece is about STATE pred control. State and private lands are the only places any kind of serious pred control can be done by the state.Rural pref. only applies under fed (ANILCA) law and only applies on fed land.
                      Game don't know the difference between federal land and state land.

                      When the feds decide that the states intensive management scheme is threatening the 'natural' system as defined in the enabling preserve legislation and ANILCA we will see changes on our opportunities to hunt federal lands.

                      Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
                      The SFW, AOC only have proposals before the BoG and this has no effect on the federal rural pref.
                      Bull. What APHA-SFW-AOC consistently propose are measure that are moving the feds a step closer to take a different approach to 'human use' management in preserves. Non-local hunters should be very aware and very concerned about the blow back potential of APHA-SFW-AOC proposals.

                      In fact just look at the Noatak....there is not even a shortage of game and the Feds are dreaming up ways to keep non-local hunters out.

                      It is absolutely evident that APHA-SFW-AOC or even the State are not standing up to the Feds at the Noatak. They all just rolled over. WHY? Because the Noatak superintendent did NOTHING to address the exclusive use and joint use commercial hunt guide concessions contracts and that's just fine with APHA-SFW-AOC.

                      So non-local hunters got the boot and locals and the commercial hunt guide industry skated.

                      APHA-SFW-AOC or even the current administration gives nothing more than lip service to the non-local...non-guided hunters interests.

                      Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
                      The state uses the Tier system to protect subsistence uses during times of pop. down turns and tho this system is not a "rural" preferance, it does account for where one lives.
                      APHA-SFW-AOC have and never will do anything to keep an area from going to the tier implementation stage. They just keep on taking till there is no alternative but to impose the tier scheme.

                      Even though the NPS (Noatak) had the ability to stand down the commercial hunt guiding concessions contracts; cancel the contracts....they didn't.

                      The problem is the state has no way, and clearly no intent of limiting the commercial hunt guiding industry BEFORE we get to the implementation of tier protocols and APHA-SFW-AOC is just fine with that.

                      Obviously, Fleenor is riding for the brand.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think I'm gonna let the BOG make their determinations, based on all the input from individuals and the different organizations. Some say the fix is in, if thats truely believed by those that think it, they probably won't go before the BOG, at least I would'nt, I wouldn't waste my money and time thinking I could go and change a corrupt group.
                        As far as 'inevitable crashes' go, look at the history of Unit 13 Moose crashing. I blame only three 'things' that caused the crash, Tony Knowles, Friends of Animals and Defenders of wildlife. I testified these three things in front of the BOG in Juneau, while Knowles was still in office.
                        My thinking is more along with what MT said.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dedwuf

                          Your opinion doesn't mesh with the biologists who were in the field during the decline.

                          From 1997

                          http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index....hntbul4#batin

                          THE biggest problem in unit 13 was habitat. A few select quotes.

                          "A large part of the Unit 13 moose range is sub-alpine, which is little affected by forest fires. This is generally good moose habitat. And while moose densities in these areas may now be fairly high, productivity is not as high as in the past, when moose were fewer and the population was growing.

                          Which brings us to the double-edged sword in Unit 13 moose management.

                          Testa explains: “Biologists don't want to increase the moose densities in 13 by very much because productivity—which at its best in the unit is only average for moose—would likely decline. For example, the twinning rate in unit 13A is only about 12%, one of the lowest reported in Alaska or Canada. This is why the department is not managing the entire unit to produce dramatically higher moose numbers, even though a few areas could possibly support a small increase.”

                          In simplified, Unit 13 moose management terms, if 2+2 equals 4 moose, then 2+4 may still equal 4 moose. An increase in moose numbers will not necessarily lead to more moose to harvest.

                          Because of declining moose habitat, wildlife viewers, hunters, and photographers should not expect to see the same numbers of moose in many areas of Unit 13 as they may have seen in the past. "

                          Now I don't know about you, but to me that says the biologists didn't want to increase moose numbers because twinning rates showed that the unit was habitat stressed already. All increasing the numbers would have done is add to the problem. Also at the time numbers started down was a time when there was a large influx in the use of ATV's for hunting. PEOPLE were getting into areas they hadn't previously hunted. There were less safe areas for animals to get away from the crowds.
                          An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
                          - Jef Mallett

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No tears from me, dux. You base your statements on what has happened in your particular area. For the most part, those experiences aren't relevant to the rest of the state. The rural pref. currently doesn't do much for me. That is because animal pops where I live and hunt are decent, and no protection is needed. We are actually removing closures out here on moose and musk ox. Most places I choose to hunt these days are not federal land. Whatever downturns may or may not come here will likely not be such that we need to panic, or run to federal land, etc. etc.
                            AV, I've been on the Fed RAC here for 4 years now. I just don't see the problems you warn of. There will always be some problems with managers, etc. Any major changes would have to come from congressional legislation, and that will be difficult. Other changes will have to come from the Fed board which will be available for public comment, just like the game board.
                            The real problem with the fed-state thing is the failure of Tony Knowles to take the rural pref/subsistence issue to the high court and see if it really was constitutional.
                            I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
                            I have less friends now!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
                              I just don't see the problems you warn of. There will always be some problems with managers, etc. Any major changes would have to come from congressional legislation, and that will be difficult.
                              not to hijack the thread...just using what is happening at the Noatak to illustrate a point.

                              I agree that congressional legislation is not likely and the problem is managers.

                              If the State does not even stand up to 'managers' and APHA-SFW-AOC lobby federal managers to do things like "managers" have done in the Noatak for instance then before you know it we have all federal manager independently establishing 'policy' outside of their authority.

                              That's exactly how exclusive and joint use federal commercial hunting guide concessions came to pass. Now, as in the Noatak case, these commercial hunting concessions are viewed by the PS as some kind of 'partnership' and 'managers' are willing to shut out the non-guided interest to protect subsitence AND commercial hunting.

                              Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
                              Other changes will have to come from the Fed board which will be available for public comment, just like the game board.
                              Yah...we know how that works.

                              Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
                              The real problem with the fed-state thing is the failure of Tony Knowles to take the rural pref/subsistence issue to the high court and see if it really was constitutional.
                              Governorgirl is not even challenging 'managers' authority; let alone rasing a court challenge.

                              Though gree that Knowles dropped the ball big time what governorgirl is doing by letting the Noatak manager get by with establishing policy outside of his authority is just as bad...if not worse.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X