Feds are @ it again...

[sayak]

Yep Alaska is #1 for receiving fed money per person. For every $2,500 we give in tax they give us back $15,000
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/08/03/states-that-get-the-most-federal-money/3/

Maybe it would be different IF they allowed Alaska to develop our resources instead of reducing us to a welfare state dependent upon federal aid. I believe the feds want us subservient, dependent and submissive.

 

[0321Tony]

Maybe it would be different IF they allowed Alaska to develop our resources instead of reducing us to a welfare state dependent upon federal aid. I believe the feds want us subservient, dependent and submissive.

Amen to that

 

[4merguide]

Amen to that

Yep...:ditto:

 

[iofthetaiga]

Maybe it would be different IF they allowed Alaska to develop our resources instead of reducing us to a welfare state dependent upon federal aid. I believe the [oil companies and other extractive industries] want us subservient, dependent and submissive.

........

 

[sayak]

I won't trade barbs with ya 'taiga. You're a big government guy and I'm not. We'll never see eye to eye on such issues and that's OK.

 

[iofthetaiga]

I won't trade barbs with ya 'taiga. You're a big government guy and I'm not. We'll never see eye to eye on such issues and that's OK.

My point being it wasn't "the Feds" who just gave OUR money for OUR resources back to the oil companies, so they could add it to their already ginormous profit margin. "The Feds" dump gross amounts of money INTO this state; the residents squander it, suck up to the extractive industries, and virtually BEG to be treated as a banana republic. And we blame it on 'the Feds"? That's delusional.

 

[Amigo Will]

It was the feds saving us from pebble and Anchorage giving the tax money.Even Fairbanks the oil town voted to not give the oil money away and 65% of the SE said tax them. I do also believe though that government would prefer all to live in bigs cities for easier controll of the people so go figure. I like the idea of using resourses but not raping them to be stockpiled in Japan and China.

 

[sayak]

Anyway... back to the refuge and the move away from allowing a bloated population of brownies remain largely unhunted. Sorry Amigo and Taiga, but this is more of a local/Southcentral issue. As I've been reminded before, by a certain individual, we don't have a politics forum anymore (yet a certain individual always wants to get in on one... hmmm).

 

[Amigo Will]

I know they took a fare number of bear this spring.Will the fall season do as well? Any idea how many of the browns taken were over bait. For hard Brownie regs look at Wrangell with spring only hunts.Total of four brown bear taken sence 2006 when this reg went into effect,we have lots of bears just no season to hunt them because they are still in the snow.

 

[BowhuntAK]

I recently spent a day in Kotz. With time to kill I stopped by the NPS building to view the displays on the local forest and fauna. I was approached by a very eager young employee/intern and she started her basic shpeel. I listened cordialy until she mentioned that the staff was "here to protect our parks". I asked if they were being invaded? She looked at me very inquisitively and asked "what do you mean?" I asked if the parks were being invaded by a foriegn country. She said "no". So I had to ask, "who are you protecting the parks from?" She took a long pause not sure how to respond. Then she said it, "we are protecting our parks from trespassers". I asked, "you mean Americans." She was stumped and started looking for assistance. I had no real bone to pick to I asked where she was from and she said "Maine". I said "huh" and walked away. She was a pleasant young lady and she did her best. The problem is simply that the feds have it all wrong.

 

[sayak]

I recently spent a day in Kotz. With time to kill I stopped by the NPS building to view the displays on the local forest and fauna. I was approached by a very eager young employee/intern and she started her basic shpeel. I listened cordialy until she mentioned that the staff was "here to protect our parks". I asked if they were being invaded? She looked at me very inquisitively and asked "what do you mean?" I asked if the parks were being invaded by a foriegn country. She said "no". So I had to ask, "who are you protecting the parks from?" She took a long pause not sure how to respond. Then she said it, "we are protecting our parks from trespassers". I asked, "you mean Americans." She was stumped and started looking for assistance. I had no real bone to pick to I asked where she was from and she said "Maine". I said "huh" and walked away. She was a pleasant young lady and she did her best. The problem is simply that the feds have it all wrong.

They are merely espousing what they have been taught in their university Resource Management classes. And a goodly portion of them do not hunt, fish or trap, nor do they understand those who do, or the history of Alaska. Many are transplants who have carried their ideas north with them, rather than trying to understand traditional use of resources in Alaska. Most of this has taken place in the last 30 or so years. The feds I worked for and interacted with in the 70s were hunters and fishermen. Many even trapped. It is a colonialistic way of administrating federal land that we have to deal with today.

 

[iluvatar]

Yep Alaska is #1 for receiving fed money per person. For every $2,500 we give in tax they give us back $15,000
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/08/03/states-that-get-the-most-federal-money/3/

This is completely WRONG. There ia an article online TODAY about this an Alaska isn't even in the top ten

 

[iofthetaiga]

I recently spent a day in Kotz. With time to kill I stopped by the NPS building to view the displays on the local forest and fauna. I was approached by a very eager young employee/intern and she started her basic shpeel. I listened cordialy until she mentioned that the staff was "here to protect our parks". I asked if they were being invaded? She looked at me very inquisitively and asked "what do you mean?" I asked if the parks were being invaded by a foriegn country. She said "no". So I had to ask, "who are you protecting the parks from?" She took a long pause not sure how to respond. Then she said it, "we are protecting our parks from trespassers". I asked, "you mean Americans." She was stumped and started looking for assistance. I had no real bone to pick to I asked where she was from and she said "Maine". I said "huh" and walked away. She was a pleasant young lady and she did her best. The problem is simply that the feds have it all wrong.

Just a guess, but maybe she felt she was protecting our parks from this: http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/142638-The-Pigs-of-Alaska

 

[limon32]

I'm just curious what tax money given or taken has to do with bad biology in the name of saving animals which aren't in danger of extinction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[martentrapper]

Generally, hunting on Fed land is controlled by the Fed Subsist Board. It might pay to inquire where the RACS around the Kenai stand on the refuge changing things on their own. There should be RAC meetings in Oct.
Find out who the RAC chairs are and speak with them. Go to the meeting.

 

[cormit]

The State and the Feds do not agree on how best to manage brown bear populations. When the State decided to allow baiting for brown bear, their management direction became even more inconsistent with the Feds. The federal management guidelines are more likely to error on the side of conservation ..... not necessarily a bad thing.

The States track record for wildlife management has not always been rock solid either. After eliminating the spike/fork slaughter for a few years ..... there are now more bulls here on the peninsula. That was short lived.

The ADF&G also seems to embrace somewhat of a "vermin" attitude about all predators that eat moose. Some Alaskan hunters feel an obligation to shoot any bears and wolves that are encountered ...... as though this were providing some much needed service to wildlife management. Federal wildlife management has a different view of apex predators and their value in maintaining healthy ecosystems.

In my neighborhood ..... many brown bear hunters make their way to the federal lands of Tustumena Lake where brown bears are still congregated at salmon streams. These are difficult locations to sort out boars from sows. Sows with cubs have to be very cautious and opportunistic to get a share of the salmon while avoiding aggressive boars. The sows and cubs are more likely to be at the stream mouths and usually the first encountered by hunters.

Maybe the Feds position on brown bear hunting on federal land ..... while more cautious ..... isn't all bad either.

 

[limon32]

What bothers me about the Feds and brown bears is that they refuse to acknowledge there is a carrying capacity and this surplus availability of brown bears.

They also refuse to acknowledge the possible correlation between the recent bear hunting increase and decrease in DLPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cormit]

I don't think the Feds refuse to acknowledge those things ...... they just have a different opinion about them. The large scale logging of lands between Homer and Kasilof in the late 90's made huge and long lasting changes to suitable brown bear habitat. Bears were forced to relocate to new areas ...... those areas already had resident bear populations. Lots of problems with that and lots of DLP incidences resulted too. It has always been difficult to get accurate brown bear counts and still is. Determining whether there is a harvestable surplus needs to be done prudently .... that's where the State and the Feds probably disagree. Increase hunting opportunity in areas where there are higher DLP kills makes sense as opposed to shooting them where they are feeding along salmon streams. Brown bears at Tustumena Lake for example are not the ones eating the neighbors pigs and breaking into peoples back porches.

What bothers me about the Feds and brown bears is that they refuse to acknowledge there is a carrying capacity and this surplus availability of brown bears.

They also refuse to acknowledge the possible correlation between the recent bear hunting increase and decrease in DLPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amigo Will]

Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak and Admiralty Island, densities as high as one bear per square mile. May take one bear every four years. KPen not close to one bear per square mile but may take one bear every year.

 

[limon32]

Brown bears at Tustumena Lake for example are not the ones eating the neighbors pigs and breaking into peoples back porches.

I know several Kasilof residents who would beg to differ.

Brown bears are known to have a 60 mile home range, Tustumena is 20 some miles long?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk