Things are kinda slow, so I thought I'd drop a cherry bomb in the room to liven it up

Before respsonding, consider Meriam Websters defintion:

Main Entry: sub�sis�tence
Pronunciation: s&b-'sis-t&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin subsistentia, from subsistent-, subsistens, present participle of subsistere
Date: 15th century
1 a (1) : real being : EXISTENCE (2) : the condition of remaining in existence : CONTINUATION, PERSISTENCE b : an essential characteristic quality of something that exists c : the character possessed by whatever is logically conceivable
2 : means of subsisting : as a : the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life b : a source or means of obtaining the necessities of life

What I find interesting is that the issue of harvesting game has to do with subsisting, not subsistance. The definition of subsistance seems more to do with what is existing, or dare I say, traditional.

I dare say that since there isn't enough game to go around to fulfill everyones desires, that no one will be happy with whatever political decision is made to deal with the issue.

Paul,

I lived up here just about my whole life (except when the Navy told me I had to live elsewhere), and this issue always seems to show it's ugly little head. It's like trying to define the meaning of life, and everyone has the right to life! Is one group of people better then the other? It just goes on, and on...........

[ 10-03-2003, 07:25: Message edited by: CK ]

Well, I don't want to start any fights, lord knows I don't. And since I live in Girdwood, it doesn't apply to me, but...
I do believe that in times of low game populations, there should be a rural preference. I've lived in rural places before and realize that some of those folks can't just go to the grocery and pick up their food. That is not to say it is that way in every rural location, but it is in some. It would really turn my stomach to see someone from Anchorage fly into someplace in their 50K or 100K airplane and taking game out near a village where the people are just scratching by. Not saying that would be the case, but it is more likely to happen than vice versa.

Just my opinion.

A resident is a resident is a resident.

I think rural preference is a crock.



[ 10-04-2003, 09:15: Message edited by: RMiller ]

RMiller
I see you are a trophy rack hunter!

KMule
I am an OFFICIAL scorer...
Will offer my measuring services for free on this
rack.

I'll even measure the old fashioned way--by hand

Gents,

My problem with the subsistence issue is the fact the Feds are in on the deal. If it was strictly a State function, I'd be much happier.

In a few GMU's, the Fed rules do not match State regs. I had planned a great moose hunt east of Yakutat this Fall. We rented a Forest Service cabin starting a couple days prior to the State moose hunting season dates. That was in April. But in July, when the Fed regs were published, I learned that non-Yakutat residents (even Alaskans) could not hunt Federal lands for another week past the State opening day. Well, the whole darn area is Federal land, so in effect the Fed rules superceded the State regs.

What I found strange, is that by Fed regs residents of Yakutat can hunt the Federal subsistence dates in the GMU where I live, yet the reverse is not true.

Another example...

The Feds restricted Prince of Wales Island deer season for a couple weeks except for residents of POW island. Not only that, they allowed the residents of POW to hunt earlier than State regs allow for anyone else. Yet the Fed rules allow residents of POW to hunt the my GMU during the Federal subsistence season in my area.

I pointed these discepencies out to the Federal biologist in Juneau. He sounded a bit surprised, as if they hadn't realized the double-standard they had created. He was a very nice guy though. He suggested I submit a request for these rules to be reviewed the next time the Board met. I suspect that if I did that, the Board would add in restrictions for the Yakutat and POW residents, removing their right to hunt in my GMU. As opposed to allowing us the right to hunt their areas. Since I don't want to be responible for more restrictions, I have not asked for that review.

If I had my way, we'd get the Feds out of Alaska game management, and handle it in-State.

The only thing I like about it is that I am allowed to be a proxy hunter for another(as many as I can) rural resident of Unit 18 for Caribou.

Allen,

Hunting for the elders, or the invalid, is a tradition I think is honorable.

I should hope, that the State would allow for such a thing, if the Feds were removed from the picture.

[ 10-04-2003, 14:45: Message edited by: BW ]

BW, you can be a proxy hunter for anybody that is a Unit 18 resident from the age that they are allowed to get a tag to as old as they can be. I think that 12 is the youngest age allowed to have harvest tags but don't know for sure.

Does anyone have any information on what happened
between the Fish and Wildlife Agency and the natives concerning the harvest of young Geese and the robbing of the eggs from nests. I read an article years ago about the devastation it was causing to the Whitefront Geese.

They should take as many white goose eggs as they can because of how badly the geese are destroying the habitat. They are going to crash one of these days because of the habitat destruction and it will not only be the white geese that are harmed. One reason why there are now spring seasons in some of the Midwest Flyway states with no limit restrictions. Don't even have a three shot plug law during this spring season. Not that many white geese have a summer home in Alaska, mostly over in Northern Canada.

Allen,

This was in the Yukon River Delta and it was Brant and Whitefront Geese that were being wiped out. I think the White Geese nest farther North on the Tundra.

Can anybody explain to a Brit how come some Americans are more equal than others???

Regards

Pete

Is AK the only state that has a direct Federal involvement with hunting regulations? I know the Feds are involved with national waterfowl regs, but I have never hunted a state that they were involved at such a local level.

I've hunted deer, elk, etc in many western states and do not see the feds directly involved. in setting seasons etc.

How did this happen???

Why Alaska and not other states with reasonably large federal land holdings?

[ 10-09-2003, 18:39: Message edited by: Westman ]

It is a complex issue. Basically, the State of Alaska Constitution declares equal access to all citizens for game. The Feds say that rural native residents have a priority to game. The Feds gave the state several years to create a rural priority, but it never happened. So, the Feds have begun to take control over fish and game on some Federal land.

One reason the state has never worked out a resolution to the issue is that some politiceans find that it is their best interest to create and sustain a rift between rural and urban residents over fishing and hunting rights.

I truly believe that the majority of subsistance users and hunters could come to an amicable agreement on the issue.

In reality, the issue is much more complex, because there are to an extent 4 groups involved, native and non-native, both urban and rural. Then you also add the question of exactly what is rural.

Interesting...

So, if I read this right, the Feds became involved due to the States inability to resolve the issue on it's own.

So, now we have two gov't entities involved. This can't be a good recipe for resolving this issue, can it?

I'll have to pay more attention to this issue. I am woefully under educated on it.

Thanks.

Allen,

Thanks for catching that, I mis-typed.

That said, there is an underlying, unspoken presumption by many that it is at least partially a native issue. I don't think the issue can be fairly discussed, or understood w/o bringing in the issue of native rights. I'll be so bold to speak for urbanites by saying that what comes to mind when saying rural is a village in the bush, with a mostly native population. This doesn't mean that I have anything against natives, far from it. But, we need to understand the presumptions and assumptions made by people when discussing the issue.

It is a very, very complex issue, one of states rights, one of individual rights, and one of native peoples rights. Many fault the 1980 Anilca act as the cause of the problems.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that there isn't enough game to meet the demand of all users, and then what is the equitable way to split up what game is available? If someone lives where there is just a small store, and all goods are brought in via a small plane, and most people rely in wild game because they don't have a job that can pay for the food available at the store, do they have more right to the game? If someone lives in a small town, but there are trucks that constantly bring food to the store, and cars and rv's full of tourists that provide a cast influx to the area, do those people have the same right to claim subsistance on the game? If someone lives in Anchorage or Fairbanks, but chooses to spend all his free time hunting and fishing to fill his freezer to provide wild game for his family, does he have more right to the game then someone who just wants the antlers or hide, and will donate the meat so as not to be in violation of wanton waste laws?

Is the Federal government going to do any better job keeping those competing interests happy?

The problem with this whole mess is that it has nothing to do with managing the resources, it all has to do with people management. I do not like the Feds involved in our people management. But the State would rather have 10 non-residents hunting on a game population before it would the resident population. There is more money in non-resident tags than there is in resident tags. Every tag the State sells to non-residents it gets 3 times that amount from the Feds.

It amazes me that people who live with the animals year around, whose families have been hunting them since time immemorial, for whom hunting is supposedly a religion, amd whose lifestyle is supposedly geared toward living off the land, view themselves as such poor hunters that they cannot compete with some yahoo from Anchorage who shows up for a few days to hunt.

I would submit that the perceived scarcity of game in many if not most cases has as much to do with the burgeoning human population in the bush as anything. HIstorically, guided hunters and urban residents did not hunt in the same areas as the locals (unless they were hunting with them). But the rural residents are much more numerous and now have access to snowmachines, motor boats, ATVs, etc., and have greatly expanded the areas in which they hunt (as they have had to because the traditional hunting areas cannot provide for larger population). And the urban populations have likewise increased. Thus, the problem.

Paul, You are naive if you think this can be resolved by the state absent a repeal of the rural preference in ANILCA.

Allen, whether you like it or believe it, race is an issue. I prefer not to go into that in public, but I will refer you to the halibut subsistence regs which grant members of Alaska native tribes who reisde in urban areas the subsistence rights as well.