quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:
This seems to be the issue people are having with this argali-like dall sheep. Based upon what people know of sheep hunting, that seems like a lot of effort to get some food. Granted, this may have been the first animal he ran into, but it seems unlikely.

No doubt the hunter in question may have very specifically been trophy hunting with his subsistence tag but on the other hand just like when I was lucky enough to take a eurasian widgeon while subsistence waterfowl hunting this past spring, sometimes luck or Providence does happen. Occasionally trophy game species do walk out in front of the meat hunter. I haven't looked into where the hunter was lucky enough to take this ram but in truth places like Tok or Kaktovik are not rich in game species other than migratory and therfore un dependable caribou and sheep.

Sometimes subsistence hunters or fishermen are allowed to partake in resource rich environments or opportunities. In Bristol Bay subsistence fishermen (Like Mark Young used to be,) are allowed to take for personal use as much of the bountiful salmon return as he and Sadie saw fit. Undoubtedly Mark filleted dozens if not hundred of salmon in his time here that other outdoorsmen would have considered trophies and had taxidermed ASAP. Should Mark hae been censured for susbsistence harvesting said trophy game species?

Resource rich environments like Unit 17 do yield both an abundance of game for the subsistence outdoorsman and an abundance of trophy game for the outdoorsman whether subsistence or trophy pursuing. Requiring the destruction of the trophy for the subsistence outdoorsman would be a waste of effort and an insult to the game species.

Steve,

You and Scott can pee on eachother as much as you like. I actually think both of you may have been more than a little out of hand but I don't think you are qualified to say the below. Rural Alaskans are extemely friendly to strangers and my observation over 22 years was that their tolerance for others was way above anything I had ever witnessed. If you think moving to the bush for the phenominal fishing, hunting and adventure at the expensive of giving up an urban lifestyle is socially dropping out I will plead guilty.

frankly you are representative of the typical unfriendly social dropout so common in the Alaska.


Andy,

Your beginning to sound like the old adrook. Careful!

quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
Interestingly enough I have not as of yet been banned from a free internet forum. Have you ever been banned from a free internet forum.?

Oops.


Dillingham, Alaska's village idiot and resident sanctimonious PC blowhard loses yet another internet pissing contest and resorts to the old "Weren't you banned and came back on here?" ad hominem attack. Is that the best you can do, Coretta?

Scott, you are waaaaaaayyyyyyyy too politically correct to ever be banned from ANY internet forum, let alone this one. Don't you have an adult diaper to change and a "Re-elect Obama Rally" or a "Wannabee Alaskans from other States for Gay Pride Parade" to attend rather than to bore the rest of us with your drivel?

There you go on the GAY thing again. Hmmmm!

Mark

quote:

You and Scott can pee on eachother as much as you like. I actually think both of you may have been more than a little out of hand but I don't think you are qualified to say the below. Rural Alaskans are extemely friendly to strangers and my observation over 22 years was that their tolerance for others was way above anything I had ever witnessed. If you think moving to the bush for the phenominal fishing, hunting and adventure at the expensive of giving up an urban lifestyle is socially dropping out I will plead guilty.

Mark,
I really don't care what you think I'm qualified to speak on. This has turned into a pissing match with a sour tranplant to Alaska who for the very first time since I've been on AR has chastised somebody for an unsuccessful hunt (bear).

A HUNT YOU SOLD ME...........

I'm done with the subject.

Steve

Mark certainly has an interesting approach towards garnering repeat business from clients.

Andy,

Scott is my client too and if you'll notice I said I thought his exchange with Steve had gotten out of hand on both sides. Actually I don't know what my booking business has to do with any of this with the exception of the fact that the principals happen to be my present, pasted and future clients of mine.

If I made some general comment like all rural Georgia residents are related to eachother or all urban Arizona residents have 3 illegals working in their homes someone would tell me in no uncertain terms that I was wrong and had not spent enough time in those states to be qualified to make such an outrageous statement. I was only bringing the same thing to Steve's attention concerning his statement about unfriendly people and social rejects in Alaska.

Mark

quote:

all rural Georgia residents are related to eachother

Hey, I resemble that remark.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:
This seems to be the issue people are having with this argali-like dall sheep. Based upon what people know of sheep hunting, that seems like a lot of effort to get some food. Granted, this may have been the first animal he ran into, but it seems unlikely.

No doubt the hunter in question may have very specifically been trophy hunting with his subsistence tag but on the other hand just like when I was lucky enough to take a eurasian widgeon while subsistence waterfowl hunting this past spring, sometimes luck or Providence does happen. Occasionally trophy game species do walk out in front of the meat hunter. I haven't looked into where the hunter was lucky enough to take this ram but in truth places like Tok or Kaktovik are not rich in game species other than migratory and therfore un dependable caribou and sheep.

Sometimes subsistence hunters or fishermen are allowed to partake in resource rich environments or opportunities. In Bristol Bay subsistence fishermen (Like Mark Young used to be,) are allowed to take for personal use as much of the bountiful salmon return as he and Sadie saw fit. Undoubtedly Mark filleted dozens if not hundred of salmon in his time here that other outdoorsmen would have considered trophies and had taxidermed ASAP. Should Mark hae been censured for susbsistence harvesting said trophy game species?

Resource rich environments like Unit 17 do yield both an abundance of game for the subsistence outdoorsman and an abundance of trophy game for the outdoorsman whether subsistence or trophy pursuing. Requiring the destruction of the trophy for the subsistence outdoorsman would be a waste of effort and an insult to the game species.

Scott, I know often times meat hunters luck into trophy animals. I have heard of quite a few examples of that with world record whitetail deer. I can even think of a time where I was hunting in Montana and, if my tag had said "good for any animal," I'd have been putting it on a huge Bighorn sheep because it was the first thing I walked into (they were down low feeding). I am not doubting that this sheep was the first animal he ran in to, just saying it's a very small chance it was. It would be similar to if I posted over on the African section that I shot a 100% free range lion in South Africa. It could very well happen, but I'd have a lot of skeptical people about it.

I agree that destroying the trophy would be an insult to the animal. As I mentioned in my previous post, instituting a method to prevent trophy hunting (like a holding period) seems like it could help prevent or curb trophy hunting with subsistence tags. Like I said, I don't know what a full proof way to pass judgment on someone is if they're abusing their subsistence tag privileges or not.

quote:

Brett is a new arrival in Anchorage that has obviously bought the urban bullshit spewed in the Anchorage gun shops concerning subsistance. A huge amount of Alaska residents don't realy understand that subsistance does not mean unregulated and unlimited hunting.

Mark, many of us non-understanding Anchorage guys wouldn't oppose "subsistance" if it really existed. In my mind, DEPENDING on wild game means you'd starve without it, not simply that you'd have less money left over for new snow machinces and bingo if you had to spend more on groceries. That situation doesn't exist in AK anymore. Having more disposable cash to spend on other things is a subsidy, and is applicable to everyone who eats what they havest.

Fly over the west coast in springtime and you'll see scores upon scores of headless walrus washed up from Hooper Bay to Point Hope, all shot in the name of subsistance, but missing only their ivory. A gentleman in Hooper Bay told me that he shoots every one he sees because even the ones that sink eventually wash up in the spring anyway. A guy in Nome explained how he waits to shoot until they draw a breath, and if he instantly kills it it "shouldn't" sink. When I lived in bush AK two villages were killing two walrus per year for every man, woman, and child, all in the name of subsistance. That's about 4000lb of meat per person per year. Even the Russians complained! The feds finally had to cease stopping for fuel when flying from Anchorage because as soon as they'd land folks would alert the villages and folks would disappear and clam up, making enforcement virtually impossible.

Go to Shishmiref in the spring and look at the rotting piles of seals used for dog food in front of every other house, while half of the men are still out seal hunting. I counted 13 rotting polar bear hides in various shades of green to gray in one village. A teenager in Shaktoolik told me he "sank" (his words) 17 belugas with his 30-06 before he got one to his boat. He was laughing and bragging. He also bragged about running a wolf to exhaustion with his snowmachine and then killing it with a screwdriver in the ear.

About 10-12 years ago I remember the feds stopping a subsistance sheep hunt on federal land based upon the logic that the expense on flying into the Brooks far exceeded the value of the meat recovered, and that therefore the hunt couldn't really be a good faith effort to put food on the table.

I'm not opposed to people putting food on their tables for thei families, but enforcement is vitually zero.

I know many, many Alaskans that don't abuse the privilege, but a significant percentage do. That isn't Anchorage gunshop talk, it is what I witnessed with my own two eyes, as I sure you have too in your 22 years. I'm not trying to flame, but please don't be dismissive that others can't possiblly understand the issue. Many people understand it all too well.

Best Regards,

Bob

+1 Bob

Excellent post Bob.

Bob,
Your the man! Could not of worded it any better myself.

Bob,

I do understand about abuses of subsistence as well as you guys and perhaps more so but poaching and slauaghter for the sake of slaughter have nothing to do with the essence of subsistence. These practices sicken me.

My statement about Brett believing the BS spewed in the Anchorage gun shops was far to general and I apologize to anyone that might have been offended by that. I should have said something like Brett probably has not lived in AK long enough to have an educated opinion about a subject as contentious as subsistence.

This thread started off as a discussion about taking trophy animals on a "susistence hunt". I agree with Scott King that if a trophy is taken on a subsistence hunt that is of no consequence as one dead moose is one dead moose. If one lives in a subsistence area and is mostly intereted in a big moose should he take his hunt out of his home area?

The subsistence issue is a political one that probably will never be settled to everybody's satisfaction but I see no issue with it for bush residents as long as it is used within the intended perameters. Like I said poaching and wholesale slaughter are something else that I have a serious problem with.

Mark

quote:

This thread started off as a discussion about taking trophy animals on a "susistence hunt". I agree with Scott King that if a trophy is taken on a subsistence hunt that is of no consequence as one dead moose is one dead moose. If one lives in a subsistence area and is mostly intereted in a big moose should he take his hunt out of his home area?

The subsistence issue is a political one that probably will never be settled to everybody's satisfaction but I see no issue with it for bush residents as long as it is used within the intended perameters. Like I said poaching and wholesale slaughter are something else that I have a serious problem with.

Mark, I agree with all of the above, including the fact that we'll never please everyone. I've got no problem with folks filling their freezers when resources are abundant and competition for them is low, as is the case in a great many remote areas. A dead moose is a dead moose, and I don't eat antlers either. I (like you) get fired up by the abuses that as a practical matter are next to impossible to stamp out.

To me the key is that competition for the resource should to be low (harvestig something that would otherwise go to waste, such as salmon above the escapement), and the benefit from the resource should reasonably exceed the expense of getting it in order to qualify as a subsistance hunt (or fishery), otherwise make it a draw open to everyone.

Jusy my opinion, and as you pointed out, I sure many others will disagree which is fine by me.

Cheers,

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Brett is a new arrival in Anchorage that has obviously bought the urban bullshit spewed in the Anchorage gun shops concerning subsistance. A huge amount of Alaska residents don't realy understand that subsistance does not mean unregulated and unlimited hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
What really does it matter what happens with the trophy? Advocating the destruction of the trophy value only highlights the petty jealousy of non eligible hunters.

Me thinks we assume too much. For starters I'm not a mindless follower of gun shop BS or anything else for that matter. Secondly anyone (I sincerely hope) who's known me for more than 3 seconds knows I'm not a jealous person. That said my objection isn't to rural priority. My objection is to people who aren't in need filing for, getting, and then using subsistence/Teir 2 tags for trophy hunting as a backup incase they don't draw in the general draw. The idea of destroying the trophy is to discorage abuse of subsistence/teir 2 hunts by trophy hunters working the system. As Mark said I am new and am probably missing some facts/local thought on this matter. That said what is the difference if any between Teir 2 and subsistence? Perhaps I'm confusing subsistence wtih teir 2 tags? So again without being beat up am I missing something?

Brett

I for one want the native to be allowed to have subsistance hunts when ever they want. With 1 major caveat; Do it the same way their great great Grandpappy's did it. No white mans guns, outboard motors, rubber boots,nylon nets, aluminum skiffs ect.
No free trips to Anchorage to the FREE native hospital either.
That'll be real subsistance

quote:

Maybe not out of my ability to pay, but I'm certainly not going to pay as much as $20.00 per pound for salmon out of Fred Meyer in Anchorage if it is unavailable here in DLG.

Well, next time you get to Anchor-town, New Sagaya market has Alaskan silvers on sale for $4.99/pound. I don't think I've ever seen salmon sold for $20/#. Anywhere.

The problem a lot of us have with "subsistence" issues is that it involves "choice". Is it subsistence to use Lowe's and Costco bush deliveries? Subsistence for sheep hunting (protein), but not hardware and preprepared food from a big box store?

Federal subsistence is much different than Tier II. Federal subsistence resulted from Jimmy Carter and ANILCA. All the federal land ended up having communities that could hunt on the federal land for subsistence. If you live in one of these communities you can hunt on the federal land following federal regulations. It is something that simply isn't going to change. It is part of ANILCA and will take an act of CONGRESS to change it.

As for hunting in the park where this sheep was shot, there is absolutely ZERO flying into the park and hunting. Fact is, you can't use a plane to access it at all. These guys put their life on the line to get into the area they were at. Kudu's to them.

While I understand the urbanite's and their contention with federal subsistence, it is not going to change and in reality, I am glad to see that "some" people can subsistence hunt these sheep, otherwise they just die of old age. Everyone has the chance to hunt these animals, but you must "move" to a community that is approved to hunt on whatever federal land you live near.

I find the comments that "they" can hunt like their ancestors did quite humorous. That is something that ALWAYS comes up in the subsistence debate. Well folks, are you going to use a bow and arrow, spear, or snares? I doubt it.

Is there waste?? HELL YES, happens all over. It is unfortunate and sad, but is what happens.

There is no reason to "be a hater" of those that can hunt on federal land. It is something that isn't going to change. And yes, after living in rural AK for most of my life, I have no problem with "locals" getting a bit of an advantage to harvesting game over outsiders. I for one, know how much time and $$ I spend killing predators to help moose, caribou, and sheep.

quote:

Originally posted by Northway:
I have no problem with "locals" getting a bit of an advantage to harvesting game over outsiders.

You mean your fellow Alaskans as "outsiders"?

What about "All men being created equal" or is it some more than others?

I have been to DLG and must say if you can put up with that place go ahead and move there and shoot your subsistence animals. I like my huge house and huge swimming pool, thank you very much.

I used to live in Alaska. I thought about staying there permanently, but it dawned on me all of the fun happens in about 5 months. In May I bear hunted (some years), in June I salmon fished. July was reds and more importantly, scouting for sheep and getting in physical shape for sheep hunting. August was sheep hunting. Sep was caribou and moose. By Oct I was done and turned to skiing and bird hunting once the snow started. By the end of summer I was exhausted.

It dawned on me that only sheep and grizz required a guide; I could do caribou, moose, and salmon on my own no matter where I lived (actually when I left the state you could still hunt goats without a guide as well). So what does a guided hunt cost? It became kind of a simle math exercise: can I make more than 20K living outside or not? And I also realized that I wanted to hunt many other critters outside of Alaska.

In retrospect, I would have never started my software business if I stayed in Alaska, for the simple reason flying to the lower 48 every week on business is a bit of a stretch. And to do it from DLG? No way. So I have no regrets.

Scott is obviously a guy who likes to hunt and fish. He moved to DLG to take advantage of the lifestyle that living there provides. Apparently, we could all do it if we wanted. I say more power to him.

Maybe the rule for subsistence should be limited to natives, but I am sure that opens a whole can of worms as well. Or maybe it should be based on income...after all, a guy who lives in DLG and hunts in Africa isn't exactly penniless, is he?

My understanding is that teir 2 hunts are need based or suppose to be. I assumed subsistence hunts are the same. Are subsistence hunts need based?

Brett

Brett,
Who knows?????????? If I draw a tag for the Koyukuk moose I get to keep the antlers. If I don't draw a tag am still allowed to shoot any bull moose in the name of subsistence but then have to cut one of the antlers in half and surrender it to F&G.

Don't need the meat although we want it and prefer it to beef. So last year we spent $4,000 for gas so we could shoot a "subsistence moose".

Right, wrong, or indifferent it is the law.

Bty, nice fat meat eating bull you shot Son and I are heading up there next weekend so if you have any tips on where to hunt would appreciate a PM as we never hunted that area before.

Cheers.

The subsistence issue on federal land was proving what communities used the federal land prior to ANILCA for subsistence activities. Thus, the situation we are in now. These communities were proven "users" of whatever federal land there is and are deemed "subsistence" hunting only. Again, there is different types of federal land and the subsistence activities discussed where this big sheep was shot is in the "hard" park which does not allow sport hunting. The preserve part of the park allows all hunters to participate in the hunts.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Guys,

This is pretty interesting. Three ACST clients discussing subsistance. Regardless of the jibes you guys are giving eachother I really think Scott is the only one that understands the subsistance issue. He lives it as did I for 22 years. The subsistance preference gives the folks living in the remote areas of Alaska a priority as far as fish and game goes. So what? If you choose to live in the urban areas of Alaska, along the road system or out of state that is your choice. There is absolutely no reason that you should have the same access to fish and game as Scott. Scotts life and of course he chose it is more difficult with less goods and services available to him.

The abuse of subsistance is a different issue but when the subsistance priority is followed properly it does not hurt the game and fish populations. As Scott says most of the opposition to subsistance is based in jealousy by Alaska residents that for one reason or another have chosen to live in the ruban areas.

Brett is a new arrival in Anchorage that has obviously bought the urban bullshit spewed in the Anchorage gun shops concerning subsistance. A huge amount of Alaska residents don't realy understand that subsistance does not mean unregulated and unlimited hunting. When I lived in Dilligham the limit was one bull moose and five caribou. Guess what? That was the limit in unit 17 regardless of whether I was from Anchorage or from Dillingham.

I think the bottom line is that this subsistance priority is open to any Alaska resident or any US citizen that wants to move to the bush. The point is that the majority of people do not want to live the bush lifestyle so why would they get the advantage of living in the bush?

Mark

Interesting what happens when one is gone for a weekend.

As I said, I don't have a problem with the local population making the rules for how the resource is utilized.

Scott is there, and knows what is done up there. I willingly admit he knows a heck of a lot more about Alaskan bush life up there. So do you, Mark.

BUT-

Why do they insist on this word "subsistence" here?

It definitely seems, especially the more I read on this issue that it has very little to do with actual subsistence.

It does raise hackles. It looks like something that was politically done to do something that would otherwise not have gotten through the political process. If it is a form of local preference, call it such. It has NOTHING to do with subsistence, even if it is overtly reasonable to give people who live in the area a chance to hunt/fish that people who don't live in the area may not have.

I can't see people who live where and as Scott does would have any problems with getting rid of something that is blatantly abused at times, if they still get to hunt and fish as long as it is not abused?

Why is it that Alaskans like Scott get to hunt duck as subsistence while the cajuns in Louisiana are routinely arrested for the same behavior? Do the cajuns not deserve to eat too? Are cajuns somehow wealthier than guys who hunt duck for subsistence yet can afford to hunt in Africa multiple times? Yes, I get that congress passed a law, and it is aimed at preserving the native's (Innuit) way of life. That is still not explaining why it is the way it is for others either.

Scott, your comments on the fish and game taxes are true- you do pay something, but is it any more than I or any other lower 48 person pays? You haven't refuted the argument (which I believe is partly how local preference was upheld in court) of the Alaskans pay less in taxes (specifically) than the Arizonan who can't hunt desert bighorn? So why is there a logical reason to give the local people improved access than anyone else? Before you get upset, please realize I'm not saying there isn't, I am just asking what it is, other than "That's what congress says" for a response. Someone else commented on his "subsistence" moose costing $4000 in fuel costs. This seems to point out that this is a lifestyle choice.

I will state that I am not entirely unfamiliar with the abuses of subsistence hunting and fishing rights. Here in MN we have some indian tribes that have some "subsistence" rights to fish and game in the state. They gill net and sell walleye out of a lake that has extremely restrictive walleye fishing, and is regularly stocked by my tax dollars. They allegedly throw away other game species they catch because it is not worthwhile- sounds like the same deal that another posted here about seals being slaughtered for dog food in the name of subsistence.

If one can afford an African hunting trip, one can obviously afford to buy food (logically). It seems to prove that this is not true "subsistence" hunting. You can say all you want that "You don't understand" to me- I'm asking for some logical statement as to what I'm missing here. I'm not attacking anyone, and freely admit if I was in the position to do so, I would, but that doesn't make it right. Isn't the comment that "if we don't police the abuses of hunting ourselves, someone else will do so for us" a common one?

I realize that there may be folks that disagree with me, but while I understand that the big trophy hunter types may feel that a local subsistence hunter has "unfair advantage" over other hunters(true), the record level of any animal is about the animal, not the hunter. I don't have a problem with any free chase hunter getting credit for his trophy. In this, I agree with you on whether this should be allowed in the books, although I may disagree with you about the whole concept of "subsistence hunting" as applied to a substantial number of Alaskans.

Chuck Butler

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
If one can afford an African hunting trip, one can obviously afford to buy food (logically). It seems to prove that this is not true "subsistence" hunting. You can say all you want that "You don't understand" to me- I'm asking for some logical statement as to what I'm missing here. I'm not attacking anyone

This is my exact point plus for some people it's a trophy hunt when the draw fails. My understanding yet again is this was meant to be need based not lifestyle CHOICE based. Yet again I ask is this meant to be need based or not?

Brett

Brett, you are the Man! Glad you got a moose.

I believe for most in Bristol Bay Subsistence Harvest is a matter of choice. As I have mentioned before I certainly could afford to purchase any fruit, veggie, meat or potato I desired. Why would I? I do live in a region that supports an abundant by anybodies definition supply of fish and game and I am allowed to save money, (for african adventure,) by utilizing the local supply. The resource is not in danger, I am legally withing my allowance. The easiest example is the salmon. The beach is less than a mile from my house, the net's cost is negligible, and the supply of the best healthy protein is unlimited. I am not educated on all the exact reasoning behind the allowance I am given but I do believe residential preference is significant.

I am getting the impression that the issue is a matter of semantics. The label "Subsistence" seems to get stuck in the craw while "Local Preference" or "Resident Priority" seems fine. In Oregon and many other western states residents are given a tag priority over non residents and in some cases to the total exclusion of the non residents. This practice is not labeled "Subsistence" and so it seems fine. Perhaps no one would blink and eye if the subsistence ram in question were re labeled a "Locals Only" hunted ram. Bighorns are taken in the Lower 48 with this kind of exclusivity. With some trepidation I'll suggest that if a person were to move to Texas in order to qualify for Coues Deer permits, drew said permit to the exclusion of many other non residents and harvested a fantastic buck the hunter would be roundly applauded. I was going to use the state west of Texas as an example but Gawd the acrimony!

If thats all we're down to is arguing over labels or titles or names than darn ain't we lucky.

I think that in some cases like waterfowl and polar bear the native organizations have made a "Historical Use" arguement and have been accorded a bag limit so to speak. Interestingly enough, Federally protected Marine Mammals as a legal group have a "Native Hunter" only allowance, (no Whiteys) and yet the Federally protected waterfowl are allowed to be harvested by Rural Hunters of all ethinticities. Now I know I spelled that word wrong.

Chuck the fees paid by residents for hunting are something but the reason I mentioned the high fees for non residents was to make a point, (and I did mention before,) that no resident hunters and tourists in general are a significant source of revenue for the ADFG and the state in general. Tourism is important.

I am sure I haven't really clarified anything. Outdoor opportunities for residents and non residents alike are abundant. It doesn't appear that Subsistence Priorities slowed down Brett on his moose hunt or the other guy on his sheep hunt. What really is the problem?

Thanks Scott. I just see a lot of wanton abuse of our resources and I would rather sacrifice a little today for a better tomorrow. It worries me that people abuse the Teir 2 hunt drawing. My understanding is that the teir 2 hunts are need based. I know a number of people who apply for them and receive them. As I stated earlier teir 2 seems to be viewed by many as a back up plan rather than a way to fill the freezer because times are tight. That's why I think destroying the trophy is a good thing. If you remove the incentive for the trophy hunters some will not look to abuse the system. Regardless I don't think it would be a bad idea to "tighten up" the proverbial belt! I've seen some serious waste and breaking of game laws already.

Brett

The issue again with this big sheep was the fact that only qualified subsistence users can hunt there. There is no issue with them "hurting" future populations as it is only a limited number of people that can do it, there, lies the problem as people just haven't accepted the fact that the fed's have their rules and they aren't changing in my lifetime. Subsistence does happen, but at a much different view than 50 years ago. Like Scott pointed out, subsistence is the same as "local preference" just words is all it is and is not a state system where all qualify for "subsistence" which in that circumstance, no one complains because they all can partake in those hunts!

All this subsistence talk??????? Bottomline, without subsistence tags, hordes of outside hunters coming in, the resource will go down quick. Many of the locals don't even hunt until the outside hunters are gone. If they didn't have subsistence tags, the locals would shoot whatever they needed anyway and higher numbers would be harvested than the resource can stand. At least with subsistence tags, they can keep a handle on the take, no joke. It's all about fresh meat.

I probably should of left this one alone but I just couldn't help myself.

I read the story on this ram, he wasn't taken anywhere close to where this guy lives. It took them several days to get to it. And I ask this question, how do you think this ram was found? By accident while hiking the area?? I'd bet good money that he was found by the hunters who hired someone to fly them around to look for a big ram.

And as far as moving to this area to qualify hunting in the park, sorry but the regs state quite clearly that you have to have hunted this area for a very long time to be able to do this hunt and you cannot qualify for it unless you have a relative who's lived there or you marry someone that has lived there since these regs were written. So you can't just simply move there and in a year go off and hunt sheep in the park.

So there it is in a nutshell. I could care less if they put it in the book or not, what I care about is the fact that they used "subsistence" regs to trophy hunt and you know they used an airplane to spot it.

No way in hell someone is going to hike into that god forsaken country to scout for sheep. If he wanted a ram for meat he could have killed one a lot closer than this one.

Scribner is pretty canny with his hunting efforts. He has returned from many hellholes empty handed. This was a case that somebody who knew that the West fork of Nizina glacier has produced huge sheep with thin bases.

Scribner has spent seasons mapping out Skull Lake without success. Trekking up to Middle Mountain with limited success. Going into Hanagita valley without success. Hunting Nelson mountain with limited success.

He knew that the country could produce and that that Nizina river was very dangerous.

Sincerely,
Thomas

I can't believe anyone would get upset about the guy taking this animal. It's not like any of us outside the subsistence area would have an opportunity to hunt it anyway. Why would you care if he took a monster trophy or a ram with a small curl? Either way, it's a dead ram inside the hard park, unavailable to folks living outside the area.

So, if an Alaskan resident kills a huge moose in one of the "resident only" areas in the state, should they have to destroy the antlers because non-Alaska residents can't hunt there? Dead critter is a dead critter, why get upset if its a huge animal or not.

I'd love to hunt the hard park, but can't. Doesn't make me upset that at least someone does get to.

Last one up the Nizina Glacier is a ROTTEN EGG !
AK

A few random thoughts about the subsistence subject.
Brett: Subsistence and Tier II are neither based on "needs based."
Subsistence is based on where you live. You can leave Anch and move to Dill. Nome. Kotz and in a year or so, you will qualify for a subsistence permit, no matter what your income is. I'm pretty sure this is a Fed. regulation, and is in direct violation to our Constitution.
Article VIII, section 3....
Where ever occurring in the natural state, fish wildlife and waters are reserved to the PEOPLE for common use.
The Tier II is a state regulation.
Tier II is based on several things.....
1 Where you live.
2. Where you spend most of your money.
3. How many years have you eaten meat from the Unit you are applying for.
4. How many miles do you live from the Unit applied for. etc. etc..
The rules change every year or two.
I qualify for a Tier II moose hunt. I get drawn every year that I apply. I've hunted that unit for 44 years. I disagree with the fact that I qualify and you don't. "THE PEOPLE" in the Constitution does not mean that I qualify because I have hunted there more than you have.

The wording of subsistence and Tier II regulations were very carefully thought out. They wanted to restrict the take of fish/game to natives/Indians only. They knew if they did that, it would go to court and they would lose because of discrimination by race.
Tier II was instituted as a "salve" for the folks that did not live in an area that qualified for subsistence. The old "give them a bone and they won't go for the steak on the table" trick.
Conclusion...Where you live has absolutely nothing to do with whether you qualify for subsistence/TierII or not, if you go by our Constitution. It plainly says "ALL PEOPLE". Pretty simple really.
The feds are violating our Constitution by regulating subsistence, and the state is violating it by regulating Tier II.
Side note....Ex Governor Jay Hammond qualified for subsistence because he had a house on Lake Clark.

Like shooting a hundred pound elephant for government employee rations! Just shouldn't be done! If someone wants to shoot the monsters for the hide and horns and not for food, let them pay to do it like everyone else. If someone needs the food, how about shooting the broomed old bruiser?!?!?

As a trained wildlife biologist and guide I have been involved with F&G issues in Alaska for over thirty years and find it funny that the same folks who fought tooth and nail against having to first bring the meat out before the trophy antlers are the same folks who are now against local "subsistence" hunters having to cut the antlers or horns of their subsistence trophy.

"Subsistence trophy" is an oxymoron. One subsists on food the trophy is for your ego.

Anyone who knows me will tell you how anal I am when it comes to salvageing every last fragment of meat. I know I've been accused of being rediculas about how closely I scrape bones for the meat.

Haveing said that the trophy of an animal is a beautifull thing that will last long after the last turd made from the flesh of the animal is flushed down the toilet.

In my opinion forcing subsistance hunters to distroy a trophy is in it's own way a form of want and waste, It's just a draconian law foolishly aimed at curbing abuse, How about gun control people, kind of rings the same bell dos'nt it?

I applaud your ethics and you are right about the trophy lasting however the purpose of a subsistence hunt is to allow folks who really need the meat to have a chance at it and the hunts are typically later in the season when the animals are more vulnerable. That is the problem I have with sport and trophy hunters using the subsistence season to take trophy animals in order to get their name in the record book.
In a perfect world it would be a non-issue but the state and Feds can not fully agree on who really is a qualified subsistence user. Is it where they live or how much they need it financially?
Under the current patchwork of regs there are too many folks who, simply because of where they choose to live, are willing to take advantage of the system and use the opportunity to trophy hunt under the guise of subsistence hunting. There are an awful lot of folks living "in the bush" who make yearly salary well in excess of six figures yet still whine about "needing" subsistence. In addition I know a number of Federal employees who have only lived in the state little over a year but who claim subsistence priority because they live in an area declared as rural.
In many areas of the state, including around my homestead, there are air taxi's and outfitters offering fly-in winter subsistence hunts for trophy bull moose during the December hunt and advertising how large the trophies are.

If you can afford to pay $2000 to $3000 or more for a chartered Beaver or C-206, simply for the chance to get 500-700 pounds of meat, you are not subsistence hunting - even if it is legal.
The law requiring the cutting of horns is meant to eliminate those sorts of abuses. It is simply to make sure that any trophy can not be entered into a record book simply for the hunters ego. Even if they are cut you can keep them, have them glued together if you want, and use them as a reminder of the hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Under the current patchwork of regs there are too many folks who, simply because of where they choose to live, are willing to take advantage of the system and use the opportunity to trophy hunt under the guise of subsistence hunting.

Phil I totally agree with your last post, but this quote for me is my thoughts on this and the real take away.

Brett

Originally posted by 458Win

quote:

the purpose of a subsistence hunt is to allow folks who really need the meat to have a chance at it

Originally posted by 458Win

but the state and Feds can not fully agree on who really is a qualified subsistence user. Is it where they live or how much they need it financially?

Phil - I'm not disagreeing that there is a problem, Actully I'm quite P/Oed about the abuses on the tier 2 hunts in unit 13,
Basicly people who are good liers get unit 13 tier2 permits and those of us who have homes there and other investments but who are honest about prior use get to watch all the Anchorage hunters with a rifle in one hand and a proxy in the other have at the resource. These guys don't care about the trophies.

The point is when the system is so broken that the way to fix it is to force the hunters to distroy the trophy then the whole law needs a fix not a patch to address a specific problem.

Trophy distruction is not going to stop the abuse in GMU13 and any effect it might have on other hunts will be minimal.

Like you stated in the quote above the state has to fight all the P.C. groups who will dictate who qualifies for subsistance and everyone wants to be in that group.

My point is simply that trophy distruction is an indicator that the law is already to convoluted. I don't belive that trophy distruction is an answer to the problem I think trophy distruction is a red flag that screams we have got to rethink this thing. There has got to be a better way.

The system may not be broke but due to the Feds it is badly bent. Still, I see no reason to make a subsistence hunt inviting for those seeking trophys. The "trophy" is not destroyed but is only made inelligible for inclusion in record books.