Going along with the subject of Subsistence hunting in Alaska, I have this question...
Why does the Federal Government have so much land in Alaska?
Alaska is not the only part of the US which was paid for by the Federal government. The whole Louisiana Purchase was paid for by the Feds. Yet they don't still own the huge percentages of land like they do in Alaska.
Even in States with large percentages of Fedeal land I don't see the kind of involvement in the management of fish and game as here in our State.
Any clues on just why the Feds chose to stay here and rule this State the way they do?
Posts: 778 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 23 May 2002
Well in Alaska you need a State of Alaska sport fishing license to fish in saltwater no matter how many miles you are from the beach. State waters end after 3 miles but you still need a state license to fish beyond that. I believe Flordia does not require a license to fish in marine waters but I could be wrong.
[ 10-04-2003, 14:58: Message edited by: Allen Glore ]
Posts: 1058 | Location: Lodge Grass, MT. Sitka, Bethel, Fort Yukon, Chevak, Skagway, Cantwell and Pt. Hope Alaska | Registered: 24 June 2000
I don't know about Alaska, but in the lower 48 the BLM land is that land that was not homesteaded, thus never occupied. The homesteading in Alaska would be quite the challange as compared to other states. I am no expert, just stating my opinion. Good shooting.
Excellent question Allen. I'm tempted to ask a charter captain down in Ninilchik about it. He's been in the business for over 25 years and he would have an interesting take on the subject I'm sure.
Posts: 4168 | Location: Texas | Registered: 18 June 2001
I would surmise that the end of the homesteading act with much of AK still being in 'public domain' resulted in it's turnover to the federal government. I could be worse, it could all be owned by separate people that won't let you hunt or charge you $$$$$$ to do so!
The feds have closed off large portions of the state to hunting over the years, including a large percentage of the sheep range. For example, Wrangell-St. Elias and Lake Clark National parks are enormous, unvisited and unhuntable now, they used to be premier sheep hunting locales. Just 'cause you can hunt the fed land this year doesn't mean you'll be able to next year.
I'd like to be a person who can afford a decent piece of recreational property here, but it's either highly expensive, or there's already a pile of people on what little land is available, thanks to the land locked up by the feds and the state.
quote:Originally posted by phurley: I don't know about Alaska, but in the lower 48 the BLM land is that land that was not homesteaded, thus never occupied. The homesteading in Alaska would be quite the challange as compared to other states. I am no expert, just stating my opinion. Good shooting.
For the most part I favor the Libertarian Party, but I have to depart from their philosophy on this point. There is no reason why everything has to be privately owned, and most particularly in the case of what we have as BLM land. It is best that it is held in common, and we can all hunt it or just sleep on sage flats when we've had enough of bosses and wives.
Tribal ownership of wild land was one of the ideas Native Americans had right, as opposed to ownership by the king and prohibitions against ordinary subjects using it. We are fortunate that the idea survived contact with European philosophy.
Posts: 14824 | Location: Moreno Valley CA USA | Registered: 20 November 2000
Tom, The feds control about 67% of Alaska. Another 21% is controlled by the State. 88% of this state is pretty much locked away from the opportunity of private ownership. It amazes me that the feds control more of this state than any other group. This in a state that is more than twice the size of Texas. So basically if you made all of the federal land in Alaska a different state, it would be the largest in union.
What it boils down to is that private citizens (excepting native corporations) only have the opportunity to own less than 1% of the land in the state. That just does not seem right.
Posts: 1508 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 09 August 2002
quote:Originally posted by Yukon Jack: Tom, The feds control about 67% of Alaska. Another 21% is controlled by the State. 88% of this state is pretty much locked away from the opportunity of private ownership. It amazes me that the feds control more of this state than any other group. This in a state that is more than twice the size of Texas. So basically if you made all of the federal land in Alaska a different state, it would be the largest in union.
What it boils down to is that private citizens (excepting native corporations) only have the opportunity to own less than 1% of the land in the state. That just does not seem right.
No, that seems like a little more tribal ownership than what's needed. Incidentally, if my wife was a little more receptive to the idea, I'd be up there too.
Posts: 14824 | Location: Moreno Valley CA USA | Registered: 20 November 2000
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon}
Good shooting.