Unit 23 NW Arctic RAC at it again...now they want to close moose

AGL4now

Unavailable
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
9,616
Reaction score
627
speakers-corner-london-free-london-things-to-do-3.jpg
 

33outdoorsman

Active member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
521
Reaction score
70
Location
Anchorage
It will be a sad day when federal lands become exclusive hunting preserves. Let's hope this doesn't go through.
 

AGL4now

Unavailable
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
9,616
Reaction score
627
It will be a sad day when federal lands become exclusive hunting preserves. Let's hope this doesn't go through.


What would you be willing to trade.......??? Would you be willing to accept a shorter season for "Non-Residents" of the sub-unit. And an extra 30 days to the season for residents of the sub-unit.
 

33outdoorsman

Active member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
521
Reaction score
70
Location
Anchorage
What would you be willing to trade.......??? Would you be willing to accept a shorter season for "Non-Residents" of the sub-unit. And an extra 30 days to the season for residents of the sub-unit.

Often, already done. For instance in south central some subsistence users get an August 10 start for moose and a bonus October to November season on the Kenai refuge. Plus fork and 3 brow tine that general season hunters don't get. If subsistence users in unit 23 don't have a bonus season or less antler restrictions than general hunters that is their fault.

So nothing would need to be traded. I'm saying all US residents who contribute tax dollars towards these lands should be able to access and utilize them. Hunting and fishing were the main reasons national wildlife refuges were created and they were not created for private hunting reserves for certain people only.
 

AGL4now

Unavailable
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
9,616
Reaction score
627
Is that a belief......or is there a contract that states that. This not about what is fair and/or right. (Note: I basically agree with you in principal) We have this silly idea that we have some rights or some influence over the Federal Governments actions that effect us. Question: How is that assumption working out for us.....??? Answer: Not very well.


I'm saying all US residents who contribute tax dollars towards these lands should be able to access and utilize them. .
 

bushrat

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
5,706
Reaction score
718
Location
Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
Jan 24 hearing in Kotz - call in, express your opinion

Jan 24 hearing in Kotz - call in, express your opinion

https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/new...ife-special-action-request-wsa17-02-regarding

[FONT=&quot]Public Meeting information is below:
Kotzebue[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m, Tuesday, January 24, 2017[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Northwest Arctic Heritage Center
171 Third Avenue, Kotzebue, Alaska 99752[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Teleconference: TOLL FREE (877) 638-8165[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Passcode: 9060609

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Federal Subsistence Board is committed to providing access to this meeting for all participants. Please direct all requests for sign language interpreting services, closed captioning, or other accommodation needs to the Office of Subsistence Management by calling (800) 478-1456, by emailing [email protected], or (800)-877-8339 (TTY), at least seven business days prior to the meeting.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Additional information on the Federal Subsistence Management Program may be found on the web at www.doi.gov/subsistence or by visiting www.facebook.com/subsistencealaska.[/FONT]
 

J in AK

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
609
Reaction score
63
Mark, can you provide a brief synopsis of RHAK's stance, and how they plan to approach this issue?
 

bushrat

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
5,706
Reaction score
718
Location
Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
RHAK's position continues to be that using the fed system to restrict non-local residents when a caribou or moose population is not in a Tier situation is not fair or right and it certainly isn't what our state constitution intended. When, where, and if we have real conservation concerns for a caribou or moose population we need to look at restricting nonresidents first.

As far as the "locals" in Unit 23, we've argued that these federal actions don't leave the door open to allow their own relatives who now live outside the region to come home to hunt on fed lands, all the feds can do is to restrict all non-local hunters, which includes residents and nonresidents. We've also argued that these closures created crowding and conflicts on state lands, places below high-water mark etc.

Our basic position is that
residents are all brother and sister hunters no matter where we live or how or why we hunt. Any resident who harvests an animal and utilizes the meat to feed himself or family is a subsistence hunter. Excluding your brother and sister hunters before first excluding the nonresident component is not the answer to any perceived or real problems.

Once these kind of special action requests get momentum, they tend to steamroll and of course as many know this isn't the only region of the state where this is moving fwd.

I'll talk to Chris McKee ahead of the call on Jan 24th; I don't think they have allocated enough time for public testimony. Anyway, hope folks do take the time to weigh in.





 

Gulkana Rafting

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
1,762
Reaction score
74
Location
Gakona Ak
"Once these kind of special action requests get momentum, they tend to steamroll and of course as many know this isn't the only region of the state where this is moving fwd".

This is where the real problem is at. If the hunters don't come out strong against this Unit 23 will become a private hunting reserve for the residents of unit 23. We are talking about a unit as large as Indiana. And this is coming to other units as we speak. Fight it now or don't bother when it comes to the road system.

If there is biological data to support a closure than it should be closed to ALL hunting. Remember that I am a federally qualified subsistence hunter guys! This is local political power and no science.

Walt
 

KJH

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
150
Reaction score
13
Location
South
This is political correctness, party pandering, and making reparations for something. I couldn't agree more that once this gets rolling, it can't be stopped. Federal lands should be open for usage to all citizens. Allowing one group to have an advantage isn't right.

Back when they had the meeting for the Caribou closure, I felt that hundreds of comments from non-subsistence hunters would be needed to offset one subsistence hunter comment. I hope the pressure is there, but it doesn't feel right. I hope this new administration looks at this with a open eye and gives some common sense policy interjection.

Walt is right- if science shows there is a reason to stop hunting, then all hunting should be stopped.
 

AGL4now

Unavailable
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
9,616
Reaction score
627
Walt is right- if science shows there is a reason to stop hunting, then all hunting should be stopped.

And whom do you really think this would impact. For sure not the rural residents. It would only impact the NON-rural residents.
 

KJH

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
150
Reaction score
13
Location
South
And whom do you really think this would impact. For sure not the rural residents. It would only impact the NON-rural residents.

AGL4now: I'm not sure I understand your comment... my apologies. I'll try to clarify and hope I address your question.

My point is that if there is a herd population problem it needs to be managed to a resolution and suspending hunting is a tool/method to do that. I'm not qualified to say if its the correct method or not. But from my perspective if it is the method used- to get the maximum management benefit, it would need to be suspended for all involved. If you suspend hunting for everyone for a period of time, the recovery impact would seem to be greater. I could be wrong.

Using politics, to achieve a special interest agenda is not herd mamagement. Its similiar to the Black Lives Matter Movement... on the surface it seems like a legit purpose but as you dig deeper its only a special interest exercising a method to achieve something else. Political correctness is only a enabler for it. Decisions and actions are based on emotion, not science...

Using biological science to analyze, understand, and make decisions is a method of herd management. This method seems similiar to when someone has an illness and the medical professionals determine that there are a few options but there is one that has been tested and proven to get the best results to cure the illness. They select that treatment method based on fact, testing, and science... not emotion. Only giving half the treatment doesn't give the person the best chances of a cure (similiar to limiting only some hunting).

I, like everyone else here, wants to see flourishing game populations. I believe science is a better method to manage the herd. If herd management is the issue, than that is my stance on it. These seem like actual solution to me: All hunting or no hunting, changing limits, adjusting seasons, sex harvest rules, methods of take, etc. but only if applied uniformly.

If keeping a way of life, tradition, or another cultural agenda is is the issue then using herd management as the vehicle to achieve it is wrong. No amout of science applied will fix it. No amount of emotion will fix it either.

There is nothing wrong with different regulations, seasons, fees, etc. for non-residents. All states exercise that right. But Alaskans are all Alaskans, subsistence or not. Taking away something from one Alaskan and not the other for a non-herd management reason seems wrong. One group surely loses.

I realize that because I'm a NR, my opinion isn't worth reading to many of you... I accept that. But my position that stopping all hunting, if the real issue is a herd management problem, is good for all involved including the herd. I would think every group involved would want this to happen for a while to ensure the long-term future of the resource. If this issue is really a local vs. non-local, rural vs. non-rural, subsistence vs. non-subsistence, resident vs. non resident, or native vs. non-native, or non-native vs. the world then "herd management" is a only a false cover to get to a place where their special interest is achieved.

Sorry for the ramble... I'm not sure if my point was articulaed or not.
 

AGL4now

Unavailable
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
9,616
Reaction score
627
It was communicated, and very well, in my opinion.

It is a fact that all governments derive their legitimacy, and continue to maintain their legitimacy by their power to enforce laws and regulations. While a the Alaska government might have some degree of success at enforcing laws and regulation onto those who visit a rural area for purposes of hunting (Mostly at choke-points like public airports, etc.) it totally lacks the ability to enforce those regulations on those residing in said rural geographical location.

Hence my post: "And whom do you really think this would impact. For sure not the rural residents. It would only impact the NON-rural residents".


...........Sorry for the ramble... I'm not sure if my point was articulaed or not.
 

KJH

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
150
Reaction score
13
Location
South
AGL- I understand you point completely now. Point well taken here. The ability to enforce, or lack of, will determine some of the success for sure.
 

Bear

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
3,136
Reaction score
190
  • Like
Reactions: KJH

Bill S.

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
100
Location
Anchorage
Did you notice this "request" is different from the caribou in one major way. The caribou restriction is only subsistence hunters living in the CMU can take caribou. For moose all you have to b e is a federally recognized subsistence hunter. So a federally recognized hunter from Anchorage will be able to go up[ there to hunt.
 

Top