quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
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.

There may be areas where you can do that, but not up in the Koyukuk. If you are hunting moose in the Koyukuk area and you didnt draw a tag you are required to cut one palm in half, and then surrender the half you cut off to F&G when you check out of the area.

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
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.

There may be areas where you can do that, but not up in the Koyukuk. If you are hunting moose in the Koyukuk area and you didnt draw a tag you are required to cut one palm in half, and then surrender the half you cut off to F&G when you check out of the area.

.......except a taxidermist friend of mine told me that he regularly has clients shoot bulls there on the subsistence hunt and cut a plywood replica of the side to be cut along with pictures before the rack is turned in to have the side destroyed. Then he creates the exact rack of the moose shot.

Brett

The entire purpose of the hunts are so that rural folks can have an extra season in order to take much needed meat. It is not so that folks can have another season to hunt for trophy males. Somewhere along the line the future and health of the game has to be considered.

I see a in this issue with crop damage bear and deer tags in Wis. I see the farmers useing them as gifts to freinds and family instead of what they are surpose to do. Most farmers shoot just enough to be able to get their payments.

One I know was hard press the last day he was able to apply for crop damage payments to shot one more deer. I saw deer in his feilds all summer I could have shot. But didn't even know he had tags until he was complaining he hadn't killed enough.

The system is broke some of the same one piss and moan about traspassers and people shooting their deer but still want the money.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
The entire purpose of the hunts are so that rural folks can have an extra season in order to take much needed meat. It is not so that folks can have another season to hunt for trophy males. Somewhere along the line the future and health of the game has to be considered.

458, you mentioned earlier you're experienced with game management and guiding in AK. I assume you are aware Subsistence Hunting and Fishing is managed and regulated by both our ADF&G and the USFWS? I am under the impression that the ".....health of the game....." is being "considered."

pdog, I suspect there is no similarity between crop damage white tail tags and Alaskan subsistence permits. I agree with 458 when he mentions the purpose of subsistence tags being available for rural folks to take much needed meat. Yes im my case I could afford to pay for beef to be purchased in Anchorage much like the road belt residents of AK but the near $.90 per pound to ship that beef from Anchorage to Dillingham seems silly to spend when for something like $40.00 in gas and oil I could ride out north of here and hunt quality game meat via snowmachine next month. Yes I did take a bull this fall so no I will not be getting a second bull in the winter hunt but even that fall trip only required two days lost work, perhaps $300.00 in gas and incidental food costs.

I couldn't and wouldn't try to tell anyone I know anything about subsistence issues outside of Unit 17. I certainly don't know all there is to know about subsistence inside the unit boundary, but it is obvious to me from living here and participating in the practice that there is little abuse and the resource is thriving. The health of the moose herd in Unit 17 is outstanding. The ADF&G is expanding seasons in order to take advantage. Unit 17A now allows for aircraft transport to and from the field, not just in and out of airports. A new access allowance as of the last three years or so. The herd here utilized in large part for subsistence is growing.

I haven't seen an arguement made in this thread yet regarding the decline of the dall sheep population in and around the area hunted by the outdoorsman in the original post. That being true (I think,) I can only conclude the real issue remains either jealosy over limited access tags or the semantics of a subsistence label.

Scott I have no trouble with people using the tags as They are intented for.

The issue is not with people hunting for subsistence it is if they are abusing the system/tags for other reasons.

To me subsistence hunting means the first decent sized moose, bear or what you have a tag for comes along you shoot it for meat. If your hunting for meat and meat comes along you shoot it. Same with the crop damage tags means if you have tags and you see deer/bear in the crops you shoot it no matter what the size.

It dosen't mean you hold out for bigger horns ect.

If the tag holders are using the tags for any other reason then they are not using them properly.

Same with the crop damage tags if they are being used to truely kill the critters that are doing damage. No problem But way to many of them are being used to get certain people more hunting time. ect. It takes 7 years in Wis to draw a blk bear tag I see no reason to have crop damage bear tags. If the bear population is that low and we have propblem bears raise the number of tags up open up the propblem areas to tag holders and have them kill the bears.

For years Wis had a check of box that said are you willing to hunt problem bears I know of no one who ever got the call but I know of farmers who where issed crop damage tags.

So shoot your meat I have no trouble with that but if any body is using them to trophy hunt. It is not right.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Scott I have no trouble with people using the tags as They are intented for.

The issue is not with people hunting for subsistence it is if they are abusing the system/tags for other reasons.

To me subsistence hunting means the first decent sized moose, bear or what you have a tag for comes along you shoot it for meat. If your hunting for meat and meat comes along you shoot it. Same with the crop damage tags means if you have tags and you see deer/bear in the crops you shoot it no matter what the size.

It dosen't mean you hold out for bigger horns ect.

If the tag holders are using the tags for any other reason then they are not using them properly.

Same with the crop damage tags if they are being used to truely kill the critters that are doing damage. No problem But way to many of them are being used to get certain people more hunting time. ect. It takes 7 years in Wis to draw a blk bear tag I see no reason to have crop damage bear tags. If the bear population is that low and we have propblem bears raise the number of tags up open up the propblem areas to tag holders and have them kill the bears.

For years Wis had a check of box that said are you willing to hunt problem bears I know of no one who ever got the call but I know of farmers who where issed crop damage tags.

So shoot your meat I have no trouble with that but if any body is using them to trophy hunt. It is not right.

How do you regulate that?

In a game rich area like Unit 17 where I live a) a hunter is just as likely to run into a big'un as they are a "meat bull," and even were a fellow like myself, (and I do,) pass on the little ones waiting for a big bull I still fail to see the damage to the abundant resource or the violation of the spirit or rule of the allowance.

My subsistence tag as photographed in my hunt report posted on this forum reads "Any bull,". Any bull means a little bull with little quarters or a big bull with big quarters. Sure its bigger antlers too but I ate big moose steaks last night.

As has been mentioned before, a dead moose is a dead moose. I or we eat dead moose. Whether or not the moose or sheep or caribou is of trophy quality, whether or not the trophy is recorded in a book, I or we are still eating dead meat.

The largest bull moose my hunting party have taken are a 72", 68", 66", 65" and down from there. in the aforementiond bulls cases, each set of antlers are taxidermed and displayed appropriately and all except for the 65" have been fully consumed. How that is wrong I just can't wrap my head around.

The subsistence hunt I usually participate in is the moose hunt in Unit 17C. Moose tags are available for Alaskan residents only, (much like many bighorn sheep, elk and mtn goat tags in the lower 48 are available to residents of those states only,) and 9 out of 10 years I am able to reduce a bull to possession. The exclusion of non Alaskan residents in Unit 17C for moose does nothing to restrict non residents from hunting moose in the rest of Unit 17 but does allow me as a resident an advantage at freezer filling. How is this not right as you say?

I don't know about others, but when I go meat hunting (which is most of the time), I like young succulent bulls or cows; not antlers

Scott,

I have agreed with you about if its local preference, its fine. The state and feds will do what they will.

However, I am sure you can also see if you are going to call it subsistence, and you are using it as subsistence, you take the meat when its available. Yes, its that semantics argument again.

Maybe they could solve the whole trophy thing for moose by putting the "subsistence" hunts later in the year- as I recall there are late moose hunts after the moose shed their antlers. Then who cares which moose you shoot? If you are shooting only for meat, why would you care what his trophy is, to reverse your argument? In fact you seem to be saying that you know the purpose of the hunt, but since they can't enforce it in that manner, its OK to use it in an abusive manner because its unenforceable.

You also have to admit that Alaska does do things quite differently from the lower 48. This does void a lot of your argument that its OK because the lower 48 does local preference hunting. To start off with you have that constitutional provision that game is available to all of the residents. In the lower 48, someone who lives in a metro area of the state has the same right to any resident tag as someone who lives rurally (with the exception of landowner tags and indian tribal lands to my knowlege). How then is it OK for a Dillingham guy to have access to "subsistence" moose in 17C while a Fairbanks guy may not get it?

When I was up there, I did not meet a single hunter (guide, guided, or local) who thought the system was logical, efficient, or fair. They had no problem using it to get meat, but they to a man or woman admitted it could and should be done better- but likewise most Alaskans I met sure didn't trust the state, much less the feds to come up with something better.

Chuck Butler

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Scott,

I have agreed with you about if its local preference, its fine. The state and feds will do what they will.

However, I am sure you can also see if you are going to call it subsistence, and you are using it as subsistence, you take the meat when its available. Yes, its that semantics argument again.

Maybe they could solve the whole trophy thing for moose by putting the "subsistence" hunts later in the year- as I recall there are late moose hunts after the moose shed their antlers. Then who cares which moose you shoot? If you are shooting only for meat, why would you care what his trophy is, to reverse your argument? In fact you seem to be saying that you know the purpose of the hunt, but since they can't enforce it in that manner, its OK to use it in an abusive manner because its unenforceable.

You also have to admit that Alaska does do things quite differently from the lower 48. This does void a lot of your argument that its OK because the lower 48 does local preference hunting. To start off with you have that constitutional provision that game is available to all of the residents. In the lower 48, someone who lives in a metro area of the state has the same right to any resident tag as someone who lives rurally (with the exception of landowner tags and indian tribal lands to my knowlege). How then is it OK for a Dillingham guy to have access to "subsistence" moose in 17C while a Fairbanks guy may not get it?

When I was up there, I did not meet a single hunter (guide, guided, or local) who thought the system was logical, efficient, or fair. They had no problem using it to get meat, but they to a man or woman admitted it could and should be done better- but likewise most Alaskans I met sure didn't trust the state, much less the feds to come up with something better.

Chuck Butler

Chuck,

As I think has been mentioned previously, all Alaska residents are eligible to participate in this subsistence hunt made available to us by the state here in Unit 17. We do usually have as many as(2) additional subsistence hunting in December and January that as you say are sort of during and after the moose have shed their antlers. It can be harder to identify sex when antlers are shed. Snow for travel acess is un dependable in January or December. The September opportunity is prefered and the meat is in better shape pre rut rather than post. You're just wrong to suggest I or we are abusing the system by showing interest in taking trophy quality animals. As I wrote not long ago, dead meat is dead meat. One way or another I want to finish the season cutting and wrapping moose to be stored for the season. I usually do so and in fact did this year with a 65"er. Whether or not this was the first bull I had opportunity at I fulfilled the intent and purpose of the state's allowance. Wanted a moose, got a moose. Antlers unimportant. This year it was a 65", about four years ago it was a 36". I have both sets of antlers in addition to the others. The herd is not diminished, the opportunity for resident and non resident hunters is not reduced.

To paraphrase, you asked why am I so stuck on keeping the trophy?,........Why are you so stuck on destroying my property?

We do things different so we have to be different? I'd like you to site the statute.

I hope you don't me lending little credence to the subsistence opinion polling you did during your hunt here. I sure am glad you had a great time and did so well tho'!

You regulating my intent as a subsistence hunter seems to me hard to do other than via trophy destruction and I still haven't read a valid reason why to do so. In my opinion. Again, I can only speak reasonably intelligently regarding the comings and goings out here, but in this case, (I think,) it doesn't seem neccesary. The herds health is being considered as some seem to not be aware and it is flourishing. There are many quality opportunities for non residents to participate state wide and locally and as Mark Young noted back a little while we are happy they do so. As to the semantics of the label that as you mention seems to be stuck in your craw, well,.........try a drink of water. The hunter in the original post has still not been shown to have damaged the resource in a federally manage subsistence hunt. Not that it matters who managed it. I remain under the impression that the opposition is nothing more than envious and stuck on childish concepts of fairness that simply are not true, don't exist and it'd be better for them to learn to live without sooner than later. "Life isn't fair,".

Scott, Since you live in such a "game rich area" as you refer to it as, why do you supose there even has to be a seperate subsistence hunting season ?
And do you think that if, or when, some big project like the proposed Pebble Mine is developed and brings in an influx of the thousands of workers it claims it will support, and who will all soon claim local preference, will the area remain as "game rich"?

Phil,

First I'd like to say I respect your expereince and our mutual friends speak highly of you but I think your off base on this subsistance thing.

I think there is a seperate subsistance season mainly because the native folks want it and in Alaska it is the politically correct thing to do. Yeah! There are other reasons but I think the native issue carries a great deal of weight. If anyone thinks it doesn't matter try to get the 223 banned as a big game rifle. We all know how far that has gotten unless something miraculous has happened since '04 when I left the bush.

To other posters on this subject:

As far as subsistance being fair it is extremely fair and as Scott keeps saying it is availalbe to all AK residents. You just have to live in a subsistance area. It is every AK resident's choice to live were they do. Yes it is! So if you choose an urban area with urban advantages why would you expect to have the same hunting priveleges as someone living in New Stuyahok?

As far as cutting your racks in two etc if you kill a big moose on a subsistance hunt that just sounds like some crazy poop to me. So if a guy lives in an area where there is a subsistance hunt and he wants to keep his horns intact he should hunt somewhere else? Really?

When AK, F&G came out with the special any bull moose permit in Unit 17 I always got one but only to cover me if I f#$#&* and shot a 49.5" bull as I always looked for a big one. I'm not ashamed of that in the least. Once again that special tag was and is available to any AK resident they just have to come to Dillingham to get it.

Subsistance in it's current form has problems and in some cases promotes waste which is my bitch about it. On the other hand don't tell me if you live in a subsistance area that you should not take advantage of it to your benefit.

I also think if you have not lived in rural AK your opinion on subsistance has very little validity. In my opinion you can't really know what you are talking about unless you've lived it.

Mark

Scott,

You are right in that I was/am confusing the Tier I/II subsistence hunts with the other resident hunts. I guess I need to read the rules immediately before I start going off memory on things like that.

Still, with the commentary about how points accrue it seems obvious that the ability to afford and your need for meat are part of the "justification" that a subsistence hunt is necessary.

I still stand by that the Alaskan regs are a lot different than the lower 48 regs that I am familiar with. That's fine, its Alaska's right to set its rules in a manner that it wishes to, but it makes a comparison to lower 48 local preference (resident vs. nonresident) hunting illogical. You already have NR vs. Resident hunting seasons/areas. I can't say that I have ever seen a different way of determining whether a game animal was a legal animal based on where the hunter was from before.

I'm not even going to get in to the federal regs which are absolutely wrong in my opinion- but that should be brought up with the feds.

As to the comment on "destroying your property" it kind of depends, doesn't it... According to the regs, in a lot of situations the tropy is the property of AKFG, no? If AKFG decides that all subsistance antlers are their property, would you feel the same about looking for a big moose? Now, I am somewhat taking the devil's advocate position here, as I could care less what you shoot, if as long as as you put it, the health of the herd is not impacted adversely. I'm just stating that 1. if the hunt is intended at getting meat, you get the first acceptable meat source. 2. The regulations are set as they are because its impossible to regulate "intent".

As to the comment on whether or not you take advantage of the legally offered situation- I admit that you would have to be a pretty odd duck, or MUCH more principled individual that I to turn it down.

As a final comment on "fairness"- Everyone can realize that something is not fair and drive on. I don't think the comment that life is not fair, and I need to deal with it is quite right. You would likely be a serf somewhere if there had not been a recognition that something was not fair and someone tried to correct it in the distant (or not so distant based on one's world view) past.

What am I doing about it? Politely suggesting to those that can do something about it consider fixing it. I am not going to hold my breath for it to change, but if I made you think about this issue, I did what I wanted to do. Noticeably, a large number of your fellow Alaskans seem to see trouble with the system too.

In any case, I agree that this has gotten pretty far afield when the issue that started the whole thread was a guy getting an absolutely beautiful sheep in an area where his fellow US citizens are prohibited from hunting by the federal government. Thanks Jimmy.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Scott, Since you live in such a "game rich area" as you refer to it as, why do you supose there even has to be a seperate subsistence hunting season ?
And do you think that if, or when, some big project like the proposed Pebble Mine is developed and brings in an influx of the thousands of workers it claims it will support, and who will all soon claim local preference, will the area remain as "game rich"?

As to your first question, no real good idea. As you claim experience I'd have thought you'd have know the answer and that yes in fact 17 is game rich.

As to the second, you're off topic and I've previously discussed the issue ad nauseum with you.

You certainly seem to be very certain of yourself, are you a fool or fanatic?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Scott, Since you live in such a "game rich area" as you refer to it as, why do you supose there even has to be a seperate subsistence hunting season ?
And do you think that if, or when, some big project like the proposed Pebble Mine is developed and brings in an influx of the thousands of workers it claims it will support, and who will all soon claim local preference, will the area remain as "game rich"?

As to your first question, no real good idea. As you claim experience I'd have thought you'd have know the answer and that yes in fact 17 is game rich.

As to the second, you're off topic and I've previously discussed the issue ad nauseum with you.

You certainly seem to be very certain of yourself, are you a fool or fanatic?

Scott,

Just curious, but having read many of your posts regarding subsistence hunting I am curious as to how long have you lived in Alaska. Are you native or a transplant from the lower 48? In my experience it seems that the most zealous in their convictions are usually the most recent in their conversions. This seems to hold true whether it's religion, politics, or hunting.

Robert

Mr. King.
I wish the best for you. I have enjoyed subsistence hunting including preference for much of my life. I actually harvested some caribou on the Kobuk with a screwdriver while they were swimming across Onion Portage.
Phil probably is one of the most experienced and timeless repositories of hunting knowledge on the planet. He presently is hunting goats and deer on Kodiak but it is incredible the hunting opportunities and experiences that he has had. Bob Kern has pictures of him with his Ovis Ammon Marco Polo Argali from Tajikstan.
He has been in the hunting business during the right time and is "resource" oriented. He knows his stuff.

The WSTE is a mess. Koyukuk is a mess. Both are screwed up because certain groups have access to BOG and politicos and Parkies completely feel that they should have power over everybody else.

There are several subsistence hunters who have 180 inch sheep that are never seen outside of the basin. There are also hunters who have taken sheep outside of the Park that would make top 10 BC that don't have them entered. Imagine a Top 10 Whitetail deer that never gets entered.
There is a bit of mystery when it comes to Dall sheep. There are lots of missing trophies that are not entered.

Until his hunts were revoked the World Record PY Dall Ram was taken by a serial killer. Tony Russ now has the WR Pope and Young ram. There are no other critter that has the envy and obsession that big dall rams have. You see this in this post.

Sincerely,
Thomas

Mark, I am fully aware of the real reasons behind the "rural" preference -- just as you should be aware that a high percentage of rural hunters who actually live a genuine subsistence life-style (in contrast to many of the folks who post here and cling to their rural subsistence rights in order to shoot trophy animals to boost their ego as great hunters) actually abhor any form of trophy hunting or trophy hunters.

Everyone on here seems to be in agreement that the Federal System is either broken or wrong. But that only leaves us all with a State system that treats everyone equally and gives no one preference no matter where they live.
Which way shall it be?
As one who has lived a rural lifestyle for the past thirty-two years I fully understand and support the many folks who actually need and depend on subsistence. But there are so many folks taking advantage of the system it ruins it for everyone.
Why should a full time federal employee in King Salmon, lawyer in Bethal, oil field employee in Barrow, or commercial fisherman on Kodiak or the Alaskan peninsula who make $250,000 per year get more preference for game than a native who lives in Anchorage who has to survive on minimum wage or food stamps?
In addition there are regulations by individual agencies like the National Park Service that also create a two tier system and allows some folks to legally hunt sheep on federal lands and keeps others out.
I don't have any easy answers to any of this but do recognise that the system is primarily broken because of human nature and the folks who use (take advantage of ?) the system just because they can. The law of having to cut a horn or antler on subsistence only hunts is simply a method to try and stop that. I am sure that F&G would love to hear any better solutions.


Scott, I was asking you the questions, as you usually seem to have answers and opinions on most subjects. I was not argueing about the Pebble mine but simply asking your opinion of how well the game rich area that you now live in would fare with an influx of new hunters.
And like Thomas, I too was wondering how long you have lived in the wilds of Dillingham and how you make a living?

glad I'm out of this argument even tho' I live the style that is in question. lots of good points from both sides and surely some great animosities as well. The ram shot is a beaut for sure! The work to get it must have been great, one can "suppose" all they want. Facts of abuse exist in all manners of hunts whether it is a Ak. resident or an "Outsider" tag. Funny stuff that "strive" is. lol

I have been hoping to keep this from becoming an argument as both sides of the subsistence issue have valid points. I was hoping to explain the complexities of the issue to those readers outside of Alaska, as well as explain why those F&G managers who regulate the subsistence hunts chose to require that trophies be rendered ineligible for inclusion into record books.

All that said, I'm off on my deer and goat hunt tomorrow as the winds have died down here on Kodiak.

Phil,

Ok! So you don't recognize that people who live in the bush have less access to shopping, medical care, a road system and it is what 40% more expensive to live in the bush than Anchorage? Just those factors create challenges not encountered by urban residents? Yes in my case and I believe in Scott's we chose those disadvantages to be able to have superb hunting and fishing. I'm sure you can see what I'm driving at. We choose what we want to do. If you CHOOSE to live in urban AK regardless of the color of your skin there is no reason that you should have the same hunting and fishing opportunities as a rural resident.

(in contrast to many of the folks who post here and cling to their rural subsistence rights in order to shoot trophy animals to boost their ego as great hunters)

Phil, The above was uncalled for. So given your above statement is not your livelihood based on boosting one's ego. I obviously because of my occupation have no problem with what you do but aren't you saying that anyone that looks for trophies is on some ego trip? That sounds derogatory to me.

I understand that subsistance in its purest form should be for poor rural residents that get a lot of their sustenance from the land and water. So you tell me who qualifies. The guy that hunts from his beat to shit Lund and old outboard or guy that hunts from his $50,000 jetboat. They both claim that they get their sustenance from the land and water. Where do we draw the line.

I'm personally far more concerned with a guy that shoots 9 moose in a season because he thinks it is his birth right than the guy that shoots one moose regardless of its size and uses all of it.

Mark

Subsistence means just that. If someone kills a record book animal on a subsistence hunt, why does anyone care? Only those who get their ego hurt would care. Look, if I'm out providing for my family and I run across a spike moose that will give my family 450-500 pounds of meat a year and I have to go out and kill another to make up for it, it doesn't make sense. Especially if I can go out and kill a bull that provides nearly 1,000 pounds of meat, heart, kidney, marrow,etc... and not have to expend the money or energy to kill two make up for it. So what, if that larger moose carries record book antlers.

After all, according to all record keeping organizations, it's more about the animal than hunter...

A 45 or 48" dall sheep is more than likely to provide more dinners than a ewe or sub full curl ram, right? Why does anyone care? It's in a "hard park" area of a flippin' National Park, that if subsistence hunters don't get to hunt, no one will period.

Get rid of the "hard Parks" and maybe most residents of those states will change. Until then, I'm happy that residents that live in areas and suffer through the hard park restrictions, actually can provide for their families.

Anyone who argues differently is looking for fame or some type of ego stroking. There are massive sheep, goats, moose, caribou, etc out outside of hard park boundaries. Just because trophy hunters can't find them is not a reason for residents of the hard parks not to bring home protein. Yes, in Alaska's case, most of the biggest bodied animals, carry the biggest horns or antlers.

Want to see a real issue with subsistence, check 9's where brown bears are considered a subsistence resource whil moose aren't. That doesn't make any sense at all...

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Wilde:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Scott, Since you live in such a "game rich area" as you refer to it as, why do you supose there even has to be a seperate subsistence hunting season ?
And do you think that if, or when, some big project like the proposed Pebble Mine is developed and brings in an influx of the thousands of workers it claims it will support, and who will all soon claim local preference, will the area remain as "game rich"?

As to your first question, no real good idea. As you claim experience I'd have thought you'd have know the answer and that yes in fact 17 is game rich.

As to the second, you're off topic and I've previously discussed the issue ad nauseum with you.

You certainly seem to be very certain of yourself, are you a fool or fanatic?

Scott,

Just curious, but having read many of your posts regarding subsistence hunting I am curious as to how long have you lived in Alaska. Are you native or a transplant from the lower 48? In my experience it seems that the most zealous in their convictions are usually the most recent in their conversions. This seems to hold true whether it's religion, politics, or hunting.

Robert

I tell myself to just never mind. Arguing is pointless. Just never mind and get on with your day.

I now find myself in the position of defending myself. Yippee.

Brett lives in AK for months and posts asertions of "GROSSLY abused," and "wanton abuse," in months he's been able to conclude that.

Chuck from Minnesota writes that "waterfowl,.......supposedly federal resource," has no problem mixing other state and federal programs and blends tier 2 stuff with what going on in Natl Parks and western AK. Yet having polled the guides and outfitters during his vacation here he hopes he's made me think about it.

The roadbelt residents uniformly do not favor subsistence as a concept or policy as is noted in posts read previous to this one.

Other rural posters like Northway and Zhurh that live in and around the areas in question like it and even defend it.

DPhillips, (location in the state of AK unknown,) noted that, "I can't believe anyone would get upset,...."

Then of course theres .458, the apparent trophy bear guide writing about trophies being for the ego and venturing the idea that, "Somewhere along the line the future and health of the game has to be considered." "30 years" of experience with fish and game issues has perhaps muddled his memory since there are several regulatory bodies of both state and federal nature that manage the health and future of the game that hold regular, well publicized open to the public meetings.

And I'm defending myself?

Totally completely seriously, I do not mean to offend anyone other than maybe those two dipshits from way back on the 2nd page that were recently banned again. Brett, Joel, Chuck. .458, I respect all of you, and undoubtedly would enjoy spending some social time with any of you but no I am not going to take your opinions as seriously as you'd like on this rural Alaska issue. If I've raised any hackles with you I sincerely appologise but I hope you can see my point. Posters with obvious and or gapeing holes in their understanding of an issue or posters with obvious personal reasons to oppose an issue aren't going to carry much weight.

More than once I have clearly noted that I am not an authority by mine own or anyone elses standard on this or any subject. .458 sneers that I "seem to have answers and opinions on most subjects," and yet for example I do not believe I comment on most subjects posted on the Alaska Forum here on AR or really any of the forums on AR.

FWIW I've lived in rural AK for 13 years. I am involved in the construction trade and not only have never spoken with or done business with anyone even remotely involved with the Pebble Mine, I've also never been to the site or really within say 60 miles of the place. For myself, hunting and fishing is a sport of hobby that also exclusively supplies my fish and meat portions of my meal. I do not buy or eat beef, pork or chicken. True on thursday I did eat turkey but we also had smoked waterfowl taken during our local Federal spring subsistence season.

As of this morning having discussed and debated this issue for months now, no single opponent of subsistence has either been able to provide evidence of herd health decline due to any facet of current subsistence practices in general or this sheep hunts case in particular. It appears to me the bur in the oppositions saddle remains semantics and jealousy.

To all responders to this topic but the afore mentioned two dipshits, am I ever able to enjoy the pleasure of your company I will freely and humbly stand for a backhand across the face for and real or percieved slights I may have given.

Good post Scott (althogh I did have to read that last sintance three times before I got it)

This subject is really way too convoluted for all of us to get on each others bad sides with.

Mr. King I believe that in reality my point is the best one. The entire system is broken.
Subsistence hunters get special privilieges but its not really well defined what a subsistence user is.
Case in point to hunt the Kobuk Valley National Park you have to be a local resident for five years. WSTE is one year of residence in a local community. You get over 60 in WSTE and you can hunt Dall Sheep for an extra month. Anuktuvuk Pass or Arctic Village you get village permits. Its all arbitrary and Feds basically can pick and choose what they give and don't give. Many locals from 13 are actually pissed about this sheep because they like the quiet silence of being left to their own thing. I have seen subsistence abuses. I had a JH kid in Ambler shoot a cow and calf moose more than 200 times with a 22 lr and watch them die in misery. I turned him in and people were ticked off at me. Too Bad we all have morals and ethics and I won some friends and enemies that day.
I have also seen how the Koyukuk people from Nulato get pushed around by political elites within the village and the advisory councils based in Soldotna or Ketchikan or some such. They have a right to get ticked. They favored the trophy destruction because getting up to Three Day Slough takes a lot of capital and it worked to almost crush their spirit to see hunters go up there shoot a big moose and then dump the moose quarters past the FG cabin on the way back to Fairbanks. Yeah, I have been on boats where my Native buddy cut off a Fairbanks hunter and jumped his can because he did just that.

Urban hunters or those from the road system have their problems too. I went up the Steese this year and I will never go again. Too Much Rambo. I also had the distinct pleasure of having my son have his first opportunity for shooting a legal moose thwarted by some bar chick who set off some kind of airhorn to scare the moose when we were only about 50 yards away from it set up for the shot.

The Outdoor councils often times make a mess of things as well. BLM and NPS are jerks who are often from outside and want to decide what is best for those of us living in Alaska.

Alaska is one of the only places that I know that if I wanted to get an opportunity to draw a permit on Kodiak Island where the big ones are that I would have to move out of state and then come back and go hunting with my son. It seems that it is almost a sure lock for outof staters to get those good permits.

I would like to see how outraged the Montana boys would be if we in Alaska have a 40-50 % chance at getting a Missouri Breaks Bighorn while they had less than 1%.

There are some Chugach management Sheep hunts where there are no resident permits only some for nonresidents. What does that mean. The system is so complicated that we have three different regulation books and the regulations change constantly. I am afraid that it is going to get worse.

Trophy Destruction is a terrible deal but I think that it is much more of a bitter pill that we can't do stuff that marked Alaskans in the past. The old time Alaska is nearly past and the outdoor big money people are going to be taking over.

Phil is good for his understanding of the resources for the whole state. He tries to be an example for guides throughout the state and he walks the walk. That is why he gets so many recommendations and can charge what he charges.

I am not doubting your concern for the resources and I realize your argument is based on a reality that is hard for people living a upper middle class life can't understand. You have to buy stuff at about double or triple going retail in Anchorage and have to deal with all of the backlash of prejudice that White people have toward Natives when they go to town and then they bring home the hate and give it to you in sugared gastanks or stolen snogo parts. The cost of living on Road system is so much less that it took me three years to pay off my debts from living and teaching in the Bush. As a single wage earner I had to pay out more than I got paid.

I don't think anybody is wrong in this argument. My view is that the entire system is broken and the resources are being mismanaged with too much outside government taking too much control over the resources.


BTW... I have a lifetime 13.44 park permit and can hunt WSTE for the rest of my life. The problem is that as a teacher I sure as heck can't get back to the big ones in the window of opportunity where I could get there. Bret could hunt there too if he sold that double rifle of his and bought hard park property to hunt off of.

I probably will tick off more people than you Mr. King or Mr. Young but the reality is that there needs to be a constitutional convention about game resources. An agreement for the future of hunting in Alaska needs to be developed in such a way or there will no hunting in much of the state or special local seasons that involve illegal activities. I hear that this is what is happening in Delta and it could spread through out the state.

I still have places that I hunt that I see no one and I can do so legally with the limited time that I have to do so.

I appreciate everything that everybody is saying but I really think that this mess needs to be straightened out quickly.

Happy Holidays all.

Sincerely,
Thomas

Scott,

Thanks for the time you spend in responding.

I know I don't know all that much on the subject, and the education you have given me on this subject is appreciated, even if you may have been pretty frustrated with me.

It seems that most people here are capable of having a civilized argument, after all. I'm not completely convinced of the need for the seasons, or that they are done right, but you did make your point that it is much more complex than I thought it was.

I owe you a beverage of your choice if we ever get a chance to meet, and the same goes if you feel the need to do the face slapping thing too.

Chuck

Looks like there are two basic issues at stake: who gets a privilege and what they do with it.

Eligibility is a rather convoluted mess and I do not know the details enough to respond on this matter.

I will say, however, that I do not agree with the practice of obtaining permission under the guise of subsistence use and then deliberately TROPHY hunting. I have no problem with seeking out larger animals or Lady Luck gracing someone looking for steaks as long as the hunter's intent matches the intent of the permit.

For example, an article by Scott Haugen, in a SPORTING magazine, is the story of his "subsistence" sheep hunting. Haugen passed up many rams in what is an obvious trophy quest and practically gloated about the size of rams he shot. That is abusing the privilege!

Thats the problem PWS, law enforcement is stretched so thin up here it cant be enforced, unless they get lucky.

I really could care less if someone is doing a subsistance hunt for moose and they drop a 70"er, but if it was for meat (as it is intended for), who would care if you have to destroy the trophy?, if it bothers you that much it is trophy hunting, bragging rights, whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by Joel/AK:
I really could care less if someone is doing a subsistance hunt for moose and they drop a 70"er, but if it was for meat (as it is intended for), who would care if you have to destroy the trophy?, if it bothers you that much it is trophy hunting, bragging rights, whatever.

+1 I just don't get it. Subsistence hunting to me is going out to take meat for the freezer to feed your family because if you don't you won't have food to eat or there will be a greater financial/physical burdon on you and your family. If you're subsistence hunting you shoot the first legal animal you see. I could understand if a person out subsistence hunting for a family of 7 decides to pass up a spike/fork because it just won't be enough meat for the family. I get that. If the next legal animal that meets their needs is a 70"+ by all means shoot away. I like Phil and a few others just don't get how a single professional, couple, or small family out their with great monitary means can honestly look someone in the eye after going out and passing up multiple legal animals that would meet their meat requirements to shoot a bull with a trophy rack and tell someone thats subsistence hunting with a straight face. Beyond me. Have the balls to call it what it is. Trophy hunting.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
Have the balls to call it what it is. Trophy hunting.

....and if that's what you're doing then you should be doing it with everyone else in the state during the trophy season.

Brett

Either way this guy took a great trophy. I also doubt he took it off of his front porch, and i could imagine he worked his butt off to get the animal.

ADF&G > Subsistence


Mission Statement

To scientifically, quantify, evaluate and report information about customary and traditional uses of Alaska's Fish and wildlife resources.



Contacts Licenses/Permits Regulations News Publications



ADF&G > Subsistence



Arctic Interior Southcentral Southeast Southwest Western
DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE


Mission Statement

To scientifically, quantify, evaluate and report information about customary and traditional uses of Alaska's Fish and wildlife resources.

Core Services

Research, quantify, and provide the resulting information to the public about customary and traditional uses by Alaskans of fish and wildlife resources.
Provide scientifically-based information for fisheries and wildlife management programs; and to Board of Fisheries and BOard of Game for their use in evaluating reasonable opportunities for customary and traditional uses.

Background

In 1978, the Alaska Legislature passed the Alaska subsistence law requiring that subsistence uses of fish and game be authorized and protected, and established the legal basis for the Division of Subsistence within the Department of Fish and Game. The division's main duty lies in the area of human dimensions research which focuses on understanding human systems, that is, people and their ways of living, using systematic methods of gathering and analyzing information developed for the social sciences, including interviews, mapping, surveys, direct observation, and participant observation. We maintain the public's trust by adhering to high ethical standards in carrying out our research, obtaining community approval before beginning research, including local residents directly in the research process, providing proper confidentiality, and presenting study results to community representatives before publication. The division's professional staff is a combination of social scientists, biologists, and local subsistence experts who study and report on:

wild resource harvests and uses,
seasonality of fishing, hunting, and gathering,
methods of harvesting and processing,
harvest levels,
sharing and trading subsistence foods,
geographic areas used,
cultural and economic values attached to subsistence,
types of groups that work and share together,
trends in resource use patterns, and
resource issues that need resolution.

ALASKA STATUTE DEFINING THE WORK OF THE DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE:

Sec. 16.05.094. Duties of the section of subsistence hunting and fishing. The section of subsistence hunting and fishing shall:
(1) compile existing data and conduct studies to gather information, including data from subsistence users, on all aspects of the role of subsistence hunting and fishing in the lives of the residents of the state;
(2) quantify the amount, nutritional value, and extent of dependency on food acquired through subsistence hunting and fishing;
(3) make information gathered available to the public, appropriate agencies, and other organized bodies;
(4) assist the department, the Board of Fisheries, and the Board of Game in determining what uses of fish and game, as well as which users and methods, should be termed subsistence uses, users, and methods;
(5) evaluate the impact of state and federal laws and regulations on subsistence hunting and fishing and, when corrective action is indicated, make recommendations to the department;
(6) make recommendations to the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries regarding adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations affecting subsistence hunting and fishing;
(7) participate with other division in the preparation of statewide and regional management plans so that those plans recognize and incorporate the need of subsistence users of fish and game. General Information
Frequently Asked Questions
Staff Listing

State of Alaska | ADF&G | Sport Fish | Wildlife | Commercial Fish | Subsistence | Boards | Admin
Webmaster • OEO Statement • Terms of Use • Privacy • Copyright © 2010


Contacts Licenses/Permits Regulations News Publications



ADF&G > Subsistence



Arctic Interior Southcentral Southeast Southwest Western
DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE


Mission Statement

To scientifically, quantify, evaluate and report information about customary and traditional uses of Alaska's Fish and wildlife resources.

Core Services

Research, quantify, and provide the resulting information to the public about customary and traditional uses by Alaskans of fish and wildlife resources.
Provide scientifically-based information for fisheries and wildlife management programs; and to Board of Fisheries and BOard of Game for their use in evaluating reasonable opportunities for customary and traditional uses.

Background

In 1978, the Alaska Legislature passed the Alaska subsistence law requiring that subsistence uses of fish and game be authorized and protected, and established the legal basis for the Division of Subsistence within the Department of Fish and Game. The division's main duty lies in the area of human dimensions research which focuses on understanding human systems, that is, people and their ways of living, using systematic methods of gathering and analyzing information developed for the social sciences, including interviews, mapping, surveys, direct observation, and participant observation. We maintain the public's trust by adhering to high ethical standards in carrying out our research, obtaining community approval before beginning research, including local residents directly in the research process, providing proper confidentiality, and presenting study results to community representatives before publication. The division's professional staff is a combination of social scientists, biologists, and local subsistence experts who study and report on:

wild resource harvests and uses,
seasonality of fishing, hunting, and gathering,
methods of harvesting and processing,
harvest levels,
sharing and trading subsistence foods,
geographic areas used,
cultural and economic values attached to subsistence,
types of groups that work and share together,
trends in resource use patterns, and
resource issues that need resolution.

ALASKA STATUTE DEFINING THE WORK OF THE DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE:

Sec. 16.05.094. Duties of the section of subsistence hunting and fishing. The section of subsistence hunting and fishing shall:
(1) compile existing data and conduct studies to gather information, including data from subsistence users, on all aspects of the role of subsistence hunting and fishing in the lives of the residents of the state;
(2) quantify the amount, nutritional value, and extent of dependency on food acquired through subsistence hunting and fishing;
(3) make information gathered available to the public, appropriate agencies, and other organized bodies;
(4) assist the department, the Board of Fisheries, and the Board of Game in determining what uses of fish and game, as well as which users and methods, should be termed subsistence uses, users, and methods;
(5) evaluate the impact of state and federal laws and regulations on subsistence hunting and fishing and, when corrective action is indicated, make recommendations to the department;
(6) make recommendations to the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries regarding adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations affecting subsistence hunting and fishing;
(7) participate with other division in the preparation of statewide and regional management plans so that those plans recognize and incorporate the need of subsistence users of fish and game. General Information
Frequently Asked Questions
Staff Listing

State of Alaska | ADF&G | Sport Fish | Wildlife | Commercial Fish | Subsistence | Boards | Admin
Webmaster • OEO Statement • Terms of Use • Privacy • Copyright © 2010





Copied from the state website.

"....customary and traditional,...." does not seem to me to be needs based.

Now if you would post the Federal laws - which are the ones that really matter since they have officially taken over the regulation of subsistence hunting in the state - and then interperate and compare the two of them for us please.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Now if you would post the Federal laws - which are the ones that really matter since they have officially taken over the regulation of subsistence hunting in the state - and then interperate and compare the two of them for us please.

And here with your decades of experience I though you could regale us with the essay you request of me.

The moose hunt that I participate in is a state hunt. See above.

The waterfowl hunt I participate in is federally managed and if you can't find it in yourself to look up the reg's yourself let me know and I'll see what I can muster.

Scott,

To argue the point, reading that it seems that the whole purpose of that division is to study subsistence use and then report to other agencies that then will make the appropriate quota, etc.

After you busted my chops on the fact that I didn't know the difference between the various subsistence hunts, I looked at this too- and it doesn't say much there. There are some other rather legalistic pages that spell out in great detail I, II and other hunts which I'm sure you are familiar with. They don't say anything about the purpose of the hunt, but they do vaguely enumerate how you qualify for points for the I and II hunts- and by what they list, it does have a fair amount of needs testing (things like how far from the road, how much game you ate, how long you lived and obtained subsistence from the area, gas prices, income, etc. some more needs based, some less.) I know you know much better than I how it works, and what the process is to use it. What I'm beginning to wonder is do you understand why it is that way?

They also state under (2) that they will determine how much food use there is, and under (4) that who is a recommended subsistence user can change based on their, game and fisheries analysis as to who is appropriate to use the resource.

Believe me, I work in a government job... That mission statement is very vague in what if any authorized use it recommends. I strongly suspect that any decision goes through a politician(s) who is(are) more concerned about reelection than the health of the herd. In fact, the first part shows that they are more worried about the human dimension than any impact on game... probably more comfortable to research than flying over ice in a super cub counting moose. Dept of Game is probably more the folks concerned with the actual health of the herds in state land proper.

Again, don't take this wrong. I would be getting my protein the same way if I could, as moose is quite tasty (had it again tonight...Delta meats does a real nice moose hot dog.) But if your goal is a big moose, isn't the body size of any over 50" bull pretty much the same (ie within 5-10% of net meat weight)? So why bust yourself up trying to shoot a 60"+ moose just for food? I'm not saying its illegal, because I know its not. I'm just saying if you are actively trying for antler size (principally), its trophy hunting... I was a trophy hunter, but I paid well over $1K just to air freight my meat to me- and I asked for my whole hide to make leather out of it- are you suggesting that trophy hunted animals are wasted illegally? I'm sure some are, but that doesn't mean that I want the system to not change- if they can come up with a way to reduce the waste even more, I'd be all for it.

Maybe I can help clarify Tier II. I was involved, in a small way, with writing the original regulation for Tier II. It was instituted because the folks on the road system were raising so much hell over the subsistence BS, the state decided to throw a "bone" to them to quiet their voices. Even though I was involved, I do not agree with Tier II.
I usually qualify for the Tier II moose hunt in Unit 16B. I've been hunting that area for 43 years. My opinion, I have no more right to shoot a moose there than any other Alaskan resident, however, I apply and always get a permit.
Now I'll throw this into the mix. If the antlers are REMOVED from the unit, the TROPHY value must be removed by the antlers being sawed by ADFG. Let me give you an example. If I kill a trophy moose,(I live in Nikiski), the antlers must be sawed. If someone who lives in Tyonek kills a moose, the horns are not sawed. Does that make sense?
Here is the application questions asked for a Tier II permit.
1. How many years have you hunted or eaten meat from the unit.....1 point for each year for a maximum of 50 points
2. What is the maximum number of years any one living member of your household, including yourself has hunted or eaten meat from from the unit...... .2 points for each year for a maximum of 10 points.
3. How many days did you spend hunting, and fishing during the past regulatory year? Maximum of 25 points for this question.
4. Over the past year, in what community did you buy most of your food?
Maximum of 25 points.
5. Over the past year, in what community did you buy most of your gasoline.
Maximum of 30 points.
The questions are changed almost every year. The point being to eliminate anyone living in Anchorage, Kenai, Nikiski from this hunt. That is the only thing I can think of, to explain the application questions and the regulations.
Again, I disagree with this crap, but, I will be sending in my permit application tomorrow.
I won't comment on subsistence. You probably wouldn't like them.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
But if your goal is a big moose, isn't the body size of any over 50" bull pretty much the same (ie within 5-10% of net meat weight)? So why bust yourself up trying to shoot a 60"+ moose just for food? I'm not saying its illegal, because I know its not. I'm just saying if you are actively trying for antler size (principally), its trophy hunting...

Calling a spade a spade..........

Brett

Contacts Licenses/Permits Regulations News Publications



ADF&G > Subsistence



Arctic Interior Southcentral Southeast Southwest Western
Frequently asked questions
about subsistence fishing and hunting in Alaska

Note: these answers to "frequently asked questions" focus primarily on subsistence hunting and fishing that is regulated by the Alaska Board of Fisheries and Alaska Board of Game and managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Some subsistence and fishing in Alaska is regulated by agencies of the federal government. We include some general background on these federal programs below. However, the appropriate federal agency should be contacted for more detailed information about these programs. These include:

Subsistence hunting and fishing on federal lands and waters regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board and administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management.
Subsistence hunting for marine mammals: for sea otters, polar bears, and walrus, the US Fish and Wildlife Service; and for seals, sea lions, and whales, the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Subsistence hunting for migratory waterfowl the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council
Subsistence fishing for halibut , the National Marine Fisheries Service

Q. What is subsistence fishing and hunting?

A. Subsistence uses of wild resources are defined in Alaska state law as the "noncommercial, customary and traditional uses" of fish and wildlife resources for direct personal or family uses as food, shelter, fuel (e.g. firewood), clothing, tools, or transportation. The subsistence uses of wild resources also include making and selling handmade articles out of non-edible by-products of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption. Customary and traditional uses of wild resources also include barter, sharing, or limited and noncommercial exchange of fish and wildlife resources for minimal amounts of cash (customary trade) for personal or family use (Alaska Statute 16.05.940[33]). Subsistence fishing is fishing for or possession of fish for subsistence uses and subsistence hunting is hunting for or possession of wildlife parts for subsistence uses. To qualify to participate in subsistence fishing or hunting a person must be an Alaska resident, meaning he/she has lived in Alaska for 12 consecutive months. Furthermore, all subsistence hunters must have a valid hunting license and in areas where subsistence fishing permits are required, a valid subsistence fishing permit. Depending upon the area and the resource, subsistence fishers may use nets, seines, fish wheels, long lines, or other types of gear as defined by the Alaska Board of Fisheries.

Q. Does "subsistence" only mean hunting and fishing for food?

A. Certainly food is one of the most important subsistence uses of wild resources. In the 1990s (the last period for which a comprehensive estimate is available), average rural subsistence harvest statewide was about 375 pounds of food per person per year. That is more than the U.S. average consumption of 255 pounds of domestic meat, fish, and poultry per year. (The average American uses a total of 1,371 pounds of all foods per year.) However, there are other important uses of subsistence products, such as:


Clothing: Wild furs and hides are still the best materials for ruffs (wind guards), mittens, parkas, kuspuks, clothes lining, and mukluks (winter boots) in many regions.
Fuel: Wood is a major source of energy in rural homes, and is also used for smoking and preserving fish and meat.
Transportation: Fish, seals, and other products are used to feed dog teams.
Construction: Spruce, birch, hemlock, willow, and cottonwood are used for house logs, sleds, fish racks, and many other items.
Home goods: Hides are used as sleeping mats. Seal skins are used as pokes to store food. Wild grasses are made into baskets and mats.
Sharing: Fish and wildlife are widely shared with neighbors who cannot harvest for themselves because of age, disability, or other circumstances.
Customary trade: Specialized products like seal oil are bartered and exchanged in traditional trade networks between communities. Furs sold to outside markets provide an important source of income to many rural areas.
Ceremony: Traditional products are used in funerals, potlatches, weddings, dances, and other ceremonial occasions.
Arts and crafts: Ivory, antlers, grass, wood, skins, and furs are crafted into beautiful items of art for sale and enjoyment.

All of these uses of wild resources are recognized and protected in law. Subsistence is a rich pattern of living, of which food is but one important part.

Q. How are subsistence fishing and hunting different from sport fishing and hunting?

A. General hunting and sport fishing are not classified as customary and traditional uses under regulations adopted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Board of Game. Another difference is that while subsistence fisheries employ efficient gear such as nets, fish wheels, and long lines, most sport fishing is limited to rod and reel. Although sport fishers often retain a portion of their catch for food, the primary goal of sport fishing is recreation. Sport fisheries are open to non-Alaska residents, while only Alaskans may participate in subsistence fisheries. Wild resources taken in sport fisheries may not be bartered. In many areas of the state, regulations for general hunting for Alaska residents and subsistence hunting are the same for game populations with customary and traditional use findings. Non-resident hunting regulations often include shorter seasons and smaller bag limits. The Alaska Board of Game adopts registration hunt or Tier II permit requirements when it is necessary to limit participation in subsistence hunts.

Q. How is subsistence fishing different from personal use fishing?

A. Personal use fisheries differ from subsistence fisheries in that they do not meet the criteria established for customary and traditional fisheries (5 AAC 99.010) or they occur in nonsubsistence areas. They are similar in that they use more efficient gear than rod and reel. Personal use fishing includes fishing for finfish and gathering shellfish for personal use. Fish or shellfish harvested using a personal use permit cannot be sold or bartered (AS 16.05.940[24]). Personal use permits may be obtained only by Alaska residents who have a valid sport fishing license. Examples of personal use fisheries that can be reached by automobile from Anchorage and Fairbanks are the dip net fisheries that take place in the lower Kenai and Kasilof rivers, the dip net fishery that takes place in the Copper River at Chitina, and the personal use fisheries on the Tanana River in the Fairbanks Nonsubsistence Area.

Q. Who decides what is a subsistence fishery or a subsistence hunt?

A. Except in nonsubsistence areas, the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Board of Game identify the fish stocks and game populations that are customarily and traditionally taken for subsistence purposes. To do this, the boards follow the "Joint Boards of Fisheries and Game Subsistence Procedures" that lists 8 criteria describing a subsistence fishery or subsistence hunt (5 AAC 99.010). Each board then adopts regulations that provide Alaska residents with reasonable opportunities to participate in the harvest of these fish stocks and game populations.

Q. What is a nonsubsistence area?

A. The Joint Board of Fisheries and Game is required to identify nonsubsistence areas, where dependence upon subsistence (customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife) is not a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life of the area or community (AS 16.05.258(c)). The Alaska subsistence law lists 12 socio-economic characteristics that the Joint Board examines when it defines nonsubsistence areas. The Joint Board has identified 5 nonsubsistence areas in Alaska (5AAC 99.015):



Ketchikan Nonsubsistence Area Juneau Nonsubsistence Area Anchorage-Matanuska/Susitna-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area Fairbanks Nonsubsistence Area Valdez Nonsubsistence Area

The Alaska Board of Fisheries may not authorize subsistence fisheries in nonsubsistence areas and the subsistence priority does not apply. Personal use fisheries provide opportunities for harvesting fish with gear other than rod and reel in nonsubsistence areas. Likewise, the Alaska Board of Game may not authorize subsistence hunting in nonsubsistence areas. General hunting regulations provide opportunities for taking wildlife in nonsubsistence areas.

Q. Is subsistence for Natives only?

A. No. Both Alaska Natives and non-Natives may participate in subsistence fisheries and subsistence hunts as established by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, the Alaska Board of Game, and the Federal Subsistence Board. In Alaska state law, subsistence uses include the customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife outside nonsubsistence areas, regardless of ethnicity.

One exception pertains to subsistence hunting of marine mammals. Under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, only Alaska Natives who live on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean may harvest marine mammals for subsistence purposes.

Q. Who makes Alaska subsistence hunting and fishing regulations?

A. State regulations for subsistence hunting and fishing are developed by the Alaska Board of Game and the Alaska Board of Fisheries through the proposal process. ADF&G employees provide background information in the form of staff reports and technical comments on regulatory proposals during the deliberative process; ADF&G employees also provide administrative assistance to the boards. For background on the boards and the board process, including information on how to submit proposals to change regulations, click here.

Q. What about federal hunting and fishing regulations?

A. For the most part, subsistence hunting and fishing on federal lands and waters in Alaska are regulated under provisions of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Exceptions include marine mammal hunting, migratory bird hunting, and subsistence halibut fishing. Under ANILCA, eligibility to participate in federal subsistence hunting and fishing is limited to rural Alaska residents. Federal subsistence regulations are developed by the Federal Subsistence Board and are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management (OSM). For more information about the federal subsistence program, including federal subsistence regulations, go to the OSM website.

Q. What is the Federal Subsistence Board?

A. The Federal Subsistence Board is the decision-making body that oversees the Federal Subsistence Management program in Alaska. The Board is composed of directors of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Forest Service, and a chairman appointed by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture.

Q. Do I need a license to go subsistence fishing?

A. No. However, you need to check the regulations to learn if a subsistence permit is required for the fishery you want to participate in. If a permit is required, you can obtain a permit, free of charge, at ADF&G offices. Click here

Q. Do I need a license to go subsistence hunting?

A. Yes. All hunting under state regulations requires that you obtain a resident hunting license. Click here for information about obtaining a hunting license. You may also need to obtain a subsistence permit before you go subsistence hunting. Check the regulations for the area and species you wish to hunt. Link to regulations

Q. What about getting a “subsistence license� for hunting?

A. There is no special “subsistence hunting license.� A hunting/trapping/sport fishing license is available to Alaska residents who have received assistance from state or federal welfare programs, or who meet income guidelines. Click here for more information. Again, this is not a “subsistence license� but rather a special provision for individuals with limited incomes. Some Alaska residents who meet age or military service requirements may qualify for a free permanent identification card.

Q. Isn’t subsistence eligibility based upon need?

A. No, all Alaska residents are entitled to participate in state-administered subsistence hunts and fisheries in Alaska, unless the Alaska Board of Game or the Alaska Board of Fisheries determines that there is an insufficient harvestable surplus of a particular resource to provide for all subsistence uses. In those cases, the respective regulatory board restricts the number of Alaskans who can participate in a subsistence hunt or fishery based upon (1) the customary and direct dependence on the animal population by the subsistence user for human consumption as a mainstay of livelihood and (2) the ability of the subsistence user to obtain food if subsistence use is restricted or eliminated. This is referred to as Tier II subsistence management and is based upon Alaska Statute 16.05.258.

Q. Is subsistence a type of welfare for people with low incomes?

A. No. Subsistence is not a welfare system for people with low incomes. In fact, households with the highest incomes in rural communities usually produce the most subsistence foods. Households with the lowest incomes usually produce less subsistence foods.

This makes sense if subsistence is seen as a family enterprise. Households with the lowest incomes in the community are commonly the very elderly, single mothers with young dependent children, and young single persons or young couples who are just getting started. These households also very likely cannot subsistence fish and hunt very well. They often lack the time, the labor, and the equipment to harvest effectively. They usually eat subsistence foods or use subsistence products produced by other households in the community.

The households who produce the most subsistence foods in a community are usually households with large, mature labor forces that are fully equipped for hunting and fishing. Usually, these are households with mature parents and several mature children. They have the labor and equipment to harvest wild foods. They typically produce extra subsistence foods to share with elderly relatives, the less fortunate, and young adults. The mature households also usually have greater monetary incomes because there may be several household members with jobs.

Because of this, rural communities would suffer extreme hardship if subsistence hunting and fishing were limited to only households with low incomes. This would cut out the most productive households in the community.

Q. What is a “Tier II hunt?�

A. The Alaska Board of Game determines whether a game population can be harvested under the principle of sustained yield. If the population can be harvested, the board then determines what amount is reasonably necessary for subsistence uses. If the population is sufficient, the boards can provide for all consumptive uses (e.g. sport and subsistence.) However, if the population falls below a certain level the board must eliminate all consumptive uses other than subsistence. If the population is not sufficient to provide a reasonable opportunity for Alaskans to participate in the subsistence hunt, then the board can distinguish among subsistence users. A Tier II hunt takes place when the board must distinguish among subsistence users through limitations based on the customary and direct dependence of the game population and the ability of the subsistence user to obtain food if subsistence is eliminated or restricted. Click here for information on Tier II hunts. The Alaska Board of Fisheries follows the same process for Tier II fisheries.

Q. Where can I get a subsistence fishing permit?

A. State subsistence fishing permits are available to Alaska residents, free of charge, at ADF&G offices. In some areas, permits are also available from vendors in local communities. Not all subsistence fishing permits are available at all ADF&G offices, so check the following table for the fishery in which you are interested. Fishery Contact Information

Q. If I have a subsistence permit, can I hunt and fish wherever I want and take as much as I want without limits?

A. Generally, the answer is no. Subsistence hunting and fishing, like all other harvest opportunities, are subject to reasonable regulations, including seasons and bag limits. If you want to subsistence hunt in Alaska, whoever you are and where ever you live, you must obtain a resident state hunting license. Go here for information on how to obtain a license. Most big game harvested under subsistence hunting regulations also must be reported to the ADF&G through submission of a harvest report available from most ADF&G offices and license vendors or available over the internet here.

Although, a sport fishing license is not required to subsistence fish in Alaska, in many parts of the state a subsistence fishing permit is required. Permits require harvest reporting, and, in many cases set harvest limits to ensure sustainable resource management. In some parts of Alaska away from urban and road-connected areas, subsistence hunting permits and subsistence fishing permits are not required and subsistence fish harvests are not limited by daily or annual bag limits. However, rules against wasteful taking apply throughout Alaska.

With increasing numbers of Alaskans interested in participating in subsistence hunting and fishing, regulations and permit conditions have become more common to provide for sustainable management. Conditions can include harvest reporting, moose antler restrictions, salvage requirements, gear and harvest timing restrictions, and limits on the number of animals that can be harvested. Alaskans wishing to participate in subsistence hunting and/or fishing should contact their local ADF&G office to determine what licenses or permits might be required.

Q. Where can I subsistence fish?

A. Alaska residents (individuals who have lived in the state for 12 consecutive months) may participate in subsistence fisheries that have been established in regulation by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. In many cases, a permit must be obtained before fishing and a record of harvest must be maintained on the permit and returned to ADF&G at the end of the season. For subsistence fishing regulations by area, click here. For a table that shows where subsistence fishing permits may be obtained, click here. Always consult the regulations before fishing.

Q. Where can I subsistence hunt?

A. Alaska residents (individuals who have resided in the state for 12 consecutive months) may participate in subsistence hunting of any game population for which the Alaska Board of Game has made a positive customary and traditional use finding. However, some hunts, especially those easily accessible by road, such as the Nelchina caribou hunt in Game Management Unit 13, are very popular, so participation may be limited. Click here for a link to Alaska hunting regulations. You may also contact the Wildlife Information Centers operated by the Division of Wildlife Conservation by clicking here.

Q. Where can I subsistence hunt and fish around Anchorage?

A. Anchorage, and most of the areas along the road system in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the Kenai Peninsula Borough, have been designated by the state Joint Board as being in a nonsubsistence area, which means that there is no state subsistence hunting or fishing allowed. However, Alaska residents may participate in personal use and sport fisheries and general hunts within nonsubsistence areas. Contact the Wildlife Information Center at ADF&G in Anchorage for information about hunting opportunities in the Anchorage Area. Contact the Sport Fish Information Center at ADF&G in Anchorage for information about personal use fishing opportunities in Southcentral Alaska.

Q. Where can I subsistence hunt and fish around Fairbanks?

A. The Joint Board of Fisheries and Game in 1992 established the Fairbanks Nonsubsistence Area, which includes the Fairbanks-North Star Borough and portions of Game Management Units 25C, 20A, and 20D as depicted in the map under "nonsubsistence areas," above.

Subsistence hunting and fishing regulations do not apply within the Fairbanks Nonsubsistence Area; however, general sport and/or recreational hunting opportunities are provided within the Fairbanks Nonsubsistence Area, as are sport fishing and personal use fishing opportunities. Contact the Division of Wildlife Conservation at (907)459-7206 and the Division of Sport Fish at (907)459-7228 for more information about hunting and fishing opportunities in and near Fairbanks.

Q. My relatives are visiting me from outside the state. May they assist me with my subsistence fishing?

A. No. Only Alaska residents may participate in subsistence hunting and fishing. This includes operating boats, deploying fishing gear, and removing fish from nets, fish wheels, and hooks. However, anyone may help with processing the fish. However, nonresidents may not be "in possession" of unpreserved subsistence harvested fish. This answer is based upon the definitions in Alaska Law, specifically the statutory definition of “subsistence uses� where subsistence is limited to Alaska residents (AS 16.05.940(33)), the statutory definition of “take� (AS 16.05.940(34)), and the statutory definition of subsistence fishing (AS 16.05.948(30)).

Q. May I give some of my subsistence fish and game to others?

A. Yes. The definition of subsistence uses in Alaska state law provides for the customary and traditional trading, bartering, and sharing of fish and wildlife resources with others for personal or family consumption (AS 16.05.940(33)). In fact, sharing subsistence caught fish and wildlife is a fundamental characteristic of communities that follow a subsistence way of life. For example, it is estimated that while 60% of households in rural Alaska harvest wildlife, 86% of households use wildlife. Similarly for fish, 83% of rural Alaskan households harvest fish, while 95% of households use subsistence-caught fish.

Q. May I give some of my subsistence fish to my relatives who live outside of Alaska?

A. Yes. The definition of subsistence uses in Alaska Statute provides for customary and traditional uses of wild, renewable resources by an Alaska resident “for direct personal or family consumption�, or “sharing for personal or family consumption; in this paragraph, ‘family’ means persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and a person living in the household on a permanent basis� (AS 16.05.940(33)). However Non-Alaskan residents may not be in possession of unpreserved subsistence harvested fish or game. If you give fish or game to Non-Alaskans, make sure it has been frozen, smoked, canned, dried or otherwise processed.

Q. May I have my subsistence fish and game processed at a commercial facility?

A. Yes. As long as the processed fish or game is not for sale. There is nothing in statute or regulation that prohibits an individual from having subsistence caught fish or wildlife processed at a commercial facility.

Q. May I trade or barter my subsistence fish?

A. Yes. The definition of subsistence uses in Alaska Statute provides for the customary and traditional trade, barter, and sharing of fish and wildlife resources with others for personal or family consumption. “Barter� means the exchange or trade of fish or game, or their parts, taken for subsistence uses (A) for other fish or game or their parts; or (B) for other food or for nonedible items other than money if the exchange is of a limited and noncommercial nature (AS 16.05.940(2)).

Q. May I sell some of my subsistence fish or some of the dry or smoked fish I make from my subsistence fish?

A. Generally, the answer is no. The state subsistence law recognizes customary trade as the limited noncommercial exchange for minimal amounts of cash. However, subsistence fishing regulations forbid the purchase or sale of subsistence-taken fish, their parts, or their eggs, except that it is lawful to buy or sell a handicraft made out of the skin or nonedible by-products of fish taken for personal or family consumption (5 AAC 01.010(d)). An exception to this is if the Alaska Board of Fisheries has made specific findings that recognize customary trade of a fish stock, which they have in only 2 cases: the customary trade of herring spawn on kelp in Southeast Alaska (5 AAC 01.717) and the customary trade of finfish in Norton Sound-Port Clarence area (5 AAC 01.188). Permit or record-keeping forms are required if participating in customary trade under state subsistence regulations, other restrictions may apply.

Customary trade of fish pertains to whole fish “in the round� or otherwise unprocessed. Any exchange for cash of processed fish, such as smoked or dried strips or portions of fish or canned or jarred fish requires adherence to food safety regulations administered by the Alaska Department of Environment Conservation. Click here for more information on permit requirements to sell processed fish.

Q. What is customary trade?

A. State law recognizes “customary trade� as a subsistence use and defines customary trade as “the limited noncommercial exchange, for minimal amounts of cash, as restricted by the appropriate board, of fish or game resources� (AS 16.05.940(8)). As with any use specified in the definition of subsistence uses, customary trade is required to be customary and traditional (AS 16.05.940(7)), and noncommercial (AS 16.05.940(33)). Customary trade is not the same as “barter,� which is separately defined as “the exchange or trade of fish or game, or their parts, taken for subsistence uses (A) for other fish or game or their parts; or (B) for other food or for nonedible items other than money if the exchange is of a limited and noncommercial nature� (AS 16.05.940(2)).

Currently, the subsistence fishing regulations state, “unless otherwise specified in this chapter, it is unlawful to buy or sell subsistence-taken fish, their parts, or their eggs, except that it is lawful to buy or sell a handicraft made out of the skin or nonedible by-products of fish taken for personal or family consumption� (5 AAC 01.010(d)). The Alaska Board of Fisheries has made 2 customary and traditional use findings for customary trade of fish stocks. One is the customary trade of herring spawn on kelp in Southeast Alaska (5 AAC 01.717) and the second is customary trade of finfish in Norton Sound-Port Clarence area (5 AAC 01.188).

The Federal Subsistence Board has recognized regional differences and defined customary trade differently for separate regions of Alaska. Federal customary trade regulations allow federally-qualified rural residents to exchange in customary trade subsistence-harvested fish, their parts, or their eggs, legally taken under federal subsistence regulations from waters under federal jurisdiction, for cash from other rural residents of Alaska. Federal customary trade regulations provide for rural residents to trade fish, their parts, or their eggs for cash from individuals other than rural residents, if the individual who purchases the fish, their parts, or their eggs uses them for personal or family consumption. If you are not a rural resident, you may not sell fish, their parts, or their eggs taken under federal subsistence regulations. Click here for more information on Federal subsistence fishing regulations.

It is important to keep in mind that state and federal customary trade regulations do not preempt laws regarding the processing and sale of food for human consumption. All foods sold for human consumption must comply with food safety laws and regulations. Click here for more information on permit requirements to sell processed fish.

Q. Are there studies of subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska? Where can I find the findings of these studies?

A. The Division of Subsistence produces a Technical Paper Series that describes contemporary subsistence activities throughout Alaska. Copies of most technical papers can be found on the ADF&G website and in selected libraries. Click here to connect to a list of technical papers. The Division also maintains a Subsistence Land Use Map Collection, and a Community Subsistence Information System that is accessible on the department website.

Q. How much salmon is harvested in subsistence fisheries in Alaska each year?

A. In 2006, the most recent year for which information on a statewide level has been compiled, just over 1 million salmon were harvested in subsistence fisheries in Alaska. The Division of Subsistence prepares an annual Alaska Subsistence Fisheries report that appears as part of the division’s Technical Paper Series.

Q. How can I go subsistence fishing for halibut?

A. This is a federally-managed fishery. Regulations for subsistence halibut fishing in Alaska are adopted by the federal National Marine Fisheries Service based on recommendations from the federal North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Under these regulations, you must be a resident of one of specifically - designated rural Alaska communities or a member of specifically designated Alaska Native tribes to participate in the subsistence halibut fishery, and you must obtain a Subsistence Halibut Registration Certificate (SHARC) from the Restricted Access Management (RAM) division of the National Marine Fisheries Service before fishing. For more information, contact RAM on the internet here.

Q. Who can subsistence hunt for marine mammals in Alaska?

A. Subsistence hunting of marine mammals is governed by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Under the MMPA, only Alaska Natives who reside on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean may harvest marine mammals for subsistence purposes. Under the MMPA, creating and selling authentic Native articles of handicraft and clothing from marine mammals is allowed and subsistence hunting must be accomplished in a nonwasteful manner. No marine mammal taken for purposes of creating and selling authentic Native articles of handicraft and clothing may be sold or otherwise transferred to any person other than an Indian, Aleut or Eskimo, or delivered, carried, transported or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, unless being sent to a registered tannery for processing, or sold or transferred to a registered agent for resale or transfer to an Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo, or it has first been transformed into an authentic Native handicraft item or piece of clothing, or it is an edible portion and sold either in an Alaska Native community or to an individual Alaska Native for his or her consumption. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the management of polar bears, walrus, and sea otters. The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for the management of sea lions, seals, and whales.

Q. Who may hunt migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska?

A. Spring and summer migratory bird customary and traditional subsistence hunting in Alaska is managed by the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC) under federal regulations in 50 CFR Part 92. Permanent Alaska residents living in a village located within an included harvest area are eligible to harvest migratory birds and eggs for subsistence purposes provided they have appropriate licenses and stamps. Generally, village areas located north and west of the Alaska Range, along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak, are subsistence harvest areas. Also included as subsistence harvest areas are individual community areas that petitioned for inclusion, such as Gulkana, Gakona, Tazlina, Copper Center, Mentasta Lake, Chitina, Chistochina, Tatitlek, Chenega, Port Graham, Nanwalek, Tyonek, Hoonah, Craig, Hydaburg, and Yakutat, among others. If you live south or east of the Alaska Range and your area or community of residence is not listed above, then you are not eligible to participate in spring and summer subsistence hunting of migratory birds and waterfowl. Spring and summer subsistence hunting of migratory birds open for subsistence harvest is regulated by regionally specific regulations, which can be found here.

Fall and winter migratory bird hunting from September 1 through March 10 is managed under separate federal regulations in 50 CFR Part 20 and state regulations in 5 AAC 85.065. Fall and winter migratory bird hunters should consult the regulations found here or contact their local ADF&G office. Fall and winter waterfowl hunting is open to Alaskan residents, nonresident military personnel, and nonresident alien hunters provided they have applicable licenses, stamps and proof of enrollment in the Harvest Information Program. There are also restricted areas and areas closed to waterfowl hunting. Furthermore, hunting times are regulated regionally such that hunters should consult with regulations or otherwise contact their local Fish and Game office for more information.

Q. Are subsistence foods safe to eat?

A. Overall, wild fish and wildlife are high quality, nutritious, and healthful foods. For advice about the consumption of fish, see “Fish Facts and Consumption Guidelines� at the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, Epidemiology Section. Every year, the State’s Division of Environmental Health issues bulletins warning about the dangers of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) from consuming clams and other shellfish from uncertified beaches. For more information, go to here and here. For information about wildlife diseases click here.

Q. Is big game (like moose or caribou) the main subsistence food?

A. As a general rule, no. Many small communities in Alaska depend on a great number of wildlife and fish resources, not just moose and caribou. In fact, Division of Subsistence research shows that the main type of subsistence food harvested by Alaskans is fish; 60% of the state's subsistence harvest by weight is fish, including salmon, halibut, herring, whitefish, cod, and Arctic char-Dolly Varden, among others. On the other hand, land mammals represent 20% of the state's subsistence harvest, marine mammals are 14% of the harvest, birds are 2%, shellfish are 2% and wild plants are 2%.

Of course, the types of foods people eat vary from place to place. For example, subsistence fishing is a smaller item in extreme coastal Arctic areas, where caribou, seals, whales, and walrus are the major subsistence resources.

Q. Does subsistence take most of the fish and game?

A. As a general rule, no. In the 1990s, commercial fisheries took about 97% of the statewide harvest of fish and wildlife; subsistence harvesters took 2%, and sport hunters and fishers took 1%.

Of course, these proportions vary by area. In the areas with roads, the sport harvest is usually larger than the subsistence harvest. In the areas without roads, the subsistence harvest is larger than the sport harvest. But commercial fishing is the clear leader in overall volume.

Q. Does subsistence involve money?

A. Yes. Rural families use money in order to purchase basic goods and services: fuel oil and electricity for heat, light, and power; family goods like clothing and shelter; and subsistence equipment like guns, ammunition, fishing nets, power motors, gasoline, rain gear, and so forth. Money is used to invest in the tools for hunting, fishing, and gathering.

It is a common misconception that there is no money in traditional subsistence economies. However, trade and commerce have always been part of subsistence systems. Goods have been traded for thousands of years in Alaska. The commercial fur trade with European markets began about 300 years ago, bringing European currencies and goods into Alaska. Thus, commercial enterprise and money have been part of traditional subsistence economies for a long time.

Rural Alaska's economies operate differently from urban economies, however. In Alaska today, the rural economies are "mixed economies," where families and communities live by combining wild resource harvests with commercial-wage employment. Monetary jobs tend to be few and unstable. Monetary incomes tend to be small and insecure. Economic activity tends to occur in family groups, rather than business firms. Economic ventures tend to be small scale. Economic goals tend to be for the benefit of family groups, rather than the monetary profits for business firms. These are major differences. Because of this, Alaska is a pluralistic society, with "mixed subsistence-cash economies" existing side-by-side with the "industrial capital economy" of the population centers of Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and most other communities along the road system.

Q. Is subsistence compatible with wildlife conservation?

A. Rural communities depend on the land for subsistence. It is to their advantage to maintain undamaged land and ecosystems, so wildlife are abundant. Most subsistence communities have customary rules for treating the land and the ecosystem. These rules have been passed on through the generations and include: "Do not waste," "Take only what is needed," "Treat the animals with respect," "Do not damage the land without cause," among others. It is believed that if the rules are followed, then the land will continue to provide. Subsistence peoples are the original conservationists, although they may not use that word, because their very lives depend on it.

This is not to say there is perfect compliance with customary rules, as with any group of people. However, today most people still comply with the traditional rules and practices. They comply, even when there are additional government rules and regulations governing land and resource uses. In fact, rural areas commonly must obey 2 sets of laws: those from the state-federal administration, and those handed down from their forebearers as customary law.

The federal Alaska National Interest Conservation Act (ANILCA) recognizes the compatibility of subsistence and wilderness values. ANILCA protects subsistence uses in most parks, preserves, refuges, national forests, and wilderness areas. Subsistence peoples and traditional uses are part of the natural ecosystem and have helped to maintain it for generations.

Q. Is subsistence compatible with wilderness?

A. Yes. Most areas designated as "wilderness" today are the traditional homelands of subsistence peoples. Alaskans have been living in and using these areas for thousands of years, and continue to do so. These areas would not appear pristine and undamaged today -- and therefore classified as wilderness -- if rural Alaskans had not been good stewards of the lands, fish, and wildlife. The lands are wilderness now, because subsistence is compatible with wilderness.

Q. Why don't subsistence hunters use bows and arrows?

A. Subsistence requires equipment that works, is safe, and is sustainable with ecological and economic conditions over the long term. Most subsistence hunters stopped using bows and arrows over a century ago in Alaska. Other methods of harvesting fish and wildlife such as fish weirs, caribou corrals, and moose snares, were outlawed many years ago. Rural Alaska has been using guns for hunting longer than America has been using automobiles for transportation, since the 1860s in most areas.

Subsistence equipment is usually small scale, appropriate technology. It is efficient and modern. Equipment commonly includes fish nets, fish wheels, aluminum skiffs with small out-boards, snowmachines, binoculars, and citizen-band radios. These may be used alongside dog teams, skin boats, smoke houses, and fish basket traps, depending upon the areas and conditions.

Q. Is subsistence disappearing?

A. Subsistence is constantly changing, but as a whole, there is little evidence that it is disappearing as a way of life in Alaska. In rural Alaska, subsistence activities are among the most highly valued parts of the culture. Subsistence harvests still are essential parts of the rural economy. In most rural places, children continue to learn how to capture wild foods and prepare them for use by the family and community.

Nevertheless, some things do threaten subsistence. Roads into rural areas usually result in declines in the subsistence way of living. Roads bring about ecological change, increased competition for wild resources, and in-migration of groups that do not hunt and fish for subsistence. Unregulated commercial harvesting that depleted fish stocks and game populations resulted in declines in subsistence in certain areas in Alaska. Examples of this include commercial whaling and commercial walrus hunting in the Arctic, and large-scale commercial salmon traps in Southeast Alaska. Unreasonably restrictive access to traditional harvest areas or species may threaten subsistence over time. State and federal subsistence laws are intended to help bring about regulations beneficial to the subsistence way of life. In general, any change that depletes wild resources, reduces access to wild areas and resources, or increases competition between user groups can create problems for subsistence.


General Information
Mission Statement
Staff Listing

State of Alaska | ADF&G | Sport Fish | Wildlife | Commercial Fish | Subsistence | Boards | Admin
Webmaster • OEO Statement • Terms of Use • Privacy • Copyright © 2010



Right or wrong, the ADFG and its governing boards and therefore the state legislature and therefore the residents of AK seem to clearly not define or regulate subsistence based on "Needs".

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
But if your goal is a big moose, isn't the body size of any over 50" bull pretty much the same (ie within 5-10% of net meat weight)? So why bust yourself up trying to shoot a 60"+ moose just for food? I'm not saying its illegal, because I know its not. I'm just saying if you are actively trying for antler size (principally), its trophy hunting...

Calling a spade a spade..........

Brett

Clearly the cut and paste from the ADFG website spells out the lack of interest the state has in subsistence as a needs based program.

Good news! the AK legislature still meets regularly, you can try for a change.

Very true Scott.

Brett

The problem for the state - and most folks who live in it - is that the Feds officially have taken over management since our definition of subsistence does not jive with their version. Until we can solve that dilemma, and come to an agreement, we are going to have this patchwork/ FUBAR set of regulations that pits urban "sport" hunters vrs rural "subsistence" hunters.