They also said that if it is recreational, then it is sport hunting and fishing....

If they stuck to that, and if it was provable, I suspect that there would be a dramatic decrease in subsistence.

I know I'm not going to change your mind...

Originall psted by >458

quote:

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

Phil thats spot on and I think is the real problem. This whole discussion has been convoluted where one poster has spoken of state subsistance regs and another has replied quoteing federal subsistance regs.
It is true that the feds hold the trump card and much of the states subsistance laws where written by mandate of A.N.L.C.A.

If the state would have been allowed to manage our resources without federal input like every other state is allowed I think we would not even be haveing this dicussion.

quote:

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

Guys,

My thoughts on the above is so what? Subsistence as practiced does not fit your personal definition of subsistence. Once again so what?

Talked to your legislators if you don't like it as it stands. Lots of luck on that one. Subsistence is a huge political hot potatoe.

The original thread was about whether it was right for the guy to take the big sheep in a subsistence area. The answer is YES because it is perfectly legal.

Not that anyone cares but I'm not commenting on this anymore. I read over this yesterday and found that I almost word for word am repeating what I said in the beginning. So it is obvious to me I'm wearing out my fingertips for nothing as the mantra "It's not subsistence. It's trophy hunting" seems to be just as loud now as it was when Snowolfe started this thing and Brett made his first post on the thread.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Subsistence as practiced does not fit your personal definition of subsistence.

I guess my question is Mark who's definition of "SUBSISTENCE" would be met by a 250k+ earner going out and using a subsistence hunt to hunt trophy moose. It would have to be a pretty "loose" defenition. Local priority makes a heap of sense for subsistence. It wasn't something I'd previously considered, but it doesn't make sense having needy people travel half way across the state to participate in subsistence when it's at their back door. I think Phil is on the right track with this one. The Feds and the State need to get on the same page and subsistence hunts and teir hunts need to be need based through a qualification system that really evaluates need.

Brett

.....actually the Feds probably just need to leave us the hell alone and let us manage our own state.

Brett

Local preference makes the most sense - say anyone can subsistence hunt within 25 or 50 miles of where they live - I used to have discussion with Jay Hammond about this and it was also his preference but it runs afoul of our constitution which grants equal status to ALL Alaskans when it comes to natural resources. --- With the exception of commercial fishing which took a constitutional ammendment to allow some folks to have commercial access while others were left out.

But the federal A.N.L.C.A. law says we must give preference to "rural" residents - without defining what and who is rural.

This is where it gets messy and I think that the Feds have entirely too much power. Presently the Sheep Management reports by the Bios for hard park have pressed for years that the hard park area should be managed for all users to spread the distribution of hunters over a greater area.
She(the biologist who manages this area and wrote the state management report) hunts this area so she is going against what might be a personal utility or interest. She is arguing that for the betterment of the resource that Sheep Count area 26 should be turned from Park to Preserve for the sustained population and health of all of the Sheep in unit 11. Conversely, the Park Service specifically relies on the FG survey data for their management information and reports per population. Yet they won't budge.

The Feds basically can do what they want. I say this full knowing that they are reading this. We have park rangers who would illegally guide individuals for bison in the Chitina River Herd using Park Service equipment or shooting wolves for personal gain. There have been more than a few big sheep taken by Park Service personal where they have a comparative advantage by knowing the land.

Certain rural residents say from Tok can hunt sheep subsistence but can't hunt goats subsistence. Goats in historical times used to range as far at the Mentasta Mountains on the south side of the Alaska Range. This was when there were fewer sheep and more goats during the gold rush period. The Park Service ignores this historical evidence and just says do the users from ToK demonstrate customary and traditional subsistence use of mountain goats. Because no one had hunted them when the report was being processed it was decided that they shouldn't be able to hunt goats.

I still argue that the entire system is broken and those who understand the elements of the system might have an unfair advantage over those who don't.

There is another point as well. I have seen a trend of people not really wanting to push themselves to get to the tough areas. The original sheep post describes how it took nine days for the hunters to walk up the Nizina River and then go up the West Fork. While it is not season and a great sense of macho attitude might be present- lets not kid.... How many people out there are willing to go through alders for nine days to get to a location where they may or not be sheep at all. I bet many readers have treasured Alaska Yukon Trophy Rams Won and Lost by G.O.Young but how many people are willing to go to that extreme. The problem is that we don't know how or where when we have enough time and shape to do it and we don't have time or the intestinal fortitude to do it when we get older and know where to go.

There are several locations around the state that can produce a super ram but because of the broken system, changes in weather patterns and a decreasing resource base problems present themselves.

I know that this is another rant but some people might not realize that customary and traditional subsistence in this case is a young man and his friend busting their guts into an area where they had established a hunting tradition pre-park backpack hunting in to the wilds. The other hunters that I know that pursue this philosophy generally are just as successful with sheep this big in areas outside of the park. The hunters are teachers and for what its worth the fact that Copper River School District starts about 10 days later than most of the other school districts in the state gives these guys the opportunities to follow a tradition that has been demonstrated by people like Lew Bradley or Charlie Van DeGraw. Teachers through Alaska's past have always been some of the most successful sheep hunters because they had the entire summer to conduct gear tests and scouting expeditions. Like anything else the more time you are out in the woods, the better you get at a particular thing. I bet that if you would follow the summer scouting trips of some of these teachers that you would be surprised to find that they get out all over the state and pull out big ones in areas that might seemed wiped out.
Teachers in the rest of the state don't get a real sheep season. Society has pushed school to be ten days longer in Preservice days and this has pushed the school year to start earlier.

Thus, this sheep is an anomaly. It is an outstanding trophy and due to changes in weather patterns and continuation of the broken system it will be a less and less common occurence.

Sincerely,
Thomas

Just to clarify, Started this thread only to report there are big rams still alive and well and that a nice trophy was harvested.

Had zero intentions of starting a subsistence debate. Trying to keep any thread here on topic is like trying to mix oil and water, it ain't gonna happen.

Snowwolf, by any accounts it is a fantastic trophy

I agree and it is a shame that over the last 1-2 years this deterioration has been allowed to happen. It seems many times it is the same guys who take things off topic and then want to bicker every time. It seems some guys are here to bicker like children, instead of have mature serious discussion.

I have no dog in this fight, but the fact is these bush dwellers elected to be bush dwellers. No one forced them to live in the sticks.

Why should the stickies get a free ride for a state resource when others don't?

Will, When you live 300-400 miles from the nearest road system and everything from fuel for your outboard or snowgo to TP has to either be flown in by small aircraft or obtained locally, the ability to hunt for meat is important. Sure there are some folks who have moved there and could afford to move away but the vast majority in most villages are locals who were born there, it is their home and they may not have the means or desire to leave.
It is for those folks that the subsistence laws were written and it was meant to give them priority hunting rights - where there is a scarcity of game and not enough to support a full sport hunting season
The problem is that human nature beng what it is there are always some relatively wealthy rural residents, some with aircraft - including a lot of Federal Employees from the National Park Service, US F&W Service, as well as state employees like teachers - who use those seasons to sport hunt for trophies. As others have pointed out here - if you are turning down perfectly good meat animals in order to shoot a larger trophy , you are trophy hunting. And that is the reason the state requires that horns and antlers be cut so as not to be elegible for inclusion in record books.

The reason for local rural preference goes like this. You have seen emergencies like Katrina or tornadoes when everybody makes a mad rush to the local walgreens and buys everything in the store. When the local preference is removed people from Anchorage, Matsu or Fairbanks fly in hunt and take many of the more local game and then fly out. The Minto Winter moose hunt is a prime example of this. Even though Minto is on the road system every winter a large group of hunters rushes out to Minto to get a registration permit that they can hunt with their snowmachines. There is so much of a rush for these permits that the locals seldom get them.

Local rural bush often lower income folks can't afford 85 dollars for a 20 pound ham. Many of these people are like the wonderful small town people found in other rural areas of the country-they have a very hard time in more suburban areas. An example of this was a group of SW Yupiq peoples came in to Anchorage with big fishing checks one season in the mid 1980s. They purchased brand new trucks and cars and promply wrenched them in many very creative ways. The reason why is that they believed that you drove cars like they did on the Dukes of Hazard and that is all you would need to know. The Dukes of Hazard was on Ratnet and it was a popular show. They felt that that was the proper way to drive cars. Alaska is unlike every other state in union in that we don't have highway infrastructures and we have a lot more federal involvement in our fisheries and natural resources.

ANILCA provided special provisions for the people of rural Alaska who are probably more endangered than the Polar Bear and the Seals of the Arctic. They are slowly getting priced out of living in an environment that is truly rich unique and wonderful.

Sincerely,
Thomas

My wife mentioned last night that she paid $10.00 for a jar of peanut butter over the weekend. Last I knew milk was more or less $8.00 per gallon.

As the information from the f&g mentions, subsistence allowance is not based on need but rather on "Traditional and Customary,".

Were subsistence based on need I would not be inclined to allow warantless access to my bank accounts, freezers or other private property in order to gain a governments agents blessings.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
I have no dog in this fight,

Then you should stay out of it. No one here gives a rat's ass about what you do in Kansas, so quit piping up about what we're doing in Alaska.

The problem.....Anilca is in direct violation of the Alaska Constitution.
Section 8.3...."Where ever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for COMMON USE."
The way I read that, If you live in Aniak or Anchorage, you should have the same rights to hunt anywhere in the state.
I remember when Anilca was passed. Ted Stevens said, "Lets pass it now, because we need to build the pipeline. We will amend it later."
Mike Gravel said,"Let's vote it down and get it right the first time."
Gravel was right. Stevens was paying off his supporters. He never tried to amend it.
The feds should be sued to stop this BS. They have no right telling us how to manage fish, wildlife or waters, in Alaska.
If we want subsistence and Tier II, we should amend the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
My wife mentioned last night that she paid $10.00 for a jar of peanut butter over the weekend. Last I knew milk was more or less $8.00 per gallon.

As the information from the f&g mentions, subsistence allowance is not based on need but rather on "Traditional and Customary,".

Were subsistence based on need I would not be inclined to allow warantless access to my bank accounts, freezers or other private property in order to gain a governments agents blessings.

Scott you are correct but it's the "Traditional and Customary" ruling that is also a problem. Since it applies to folks who have recently moved to rural areas and who use snowmachines, motor boats & airplanes.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
My wife mentioned last night that she paid $10.00 for a jar of peanut butter over the weekend. Last I knew milk was more or less $8.00 per gallon.

As the information from the f&g mentions, subsistence allowance is not based on need but rather on "Traditional and Customary,".

Were subsistence based on need I would not be inclined to allow warantless access to my bank accounts, freezers or other private property in order to gain a governments agents blessings.

Scott you are correct but it's the "Traditional and Customary" ruling that is also a problem. Since it applies to folks who have recently moved to rural areas and who use snowmachines, motor boats & airplanes.

I am unaware of any current subsistence or sport hunter in AK that does not utilize snowmachines, motor boats or airplanes or some other kind of fossil fuel powered transportation regardless their AK tenure. I believe the majority of outdoorsmen for maybe as much as the last 50 or more years have had similar aid.

quote:

Originally posted by Chisana:

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
I have no dog in this fight,

Then you should stay out of it. No one here gives a rat's ass about what you do in Kansas, so quit piping up about what we're doing in Alaska.

Hey man, take it easy. Chuck and Will and the rest pay tax on the federal property that some subsistence activity occurs on. I'm sure their interesting in knowing why some are given preferential treatment on real estate they "own,"

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Hey man, take it easy. Chuck and Will and the rest pay tax on the federal property that some subsistence activity occurs on. I'm sure their interesting in knowing why some are given preferential treatment on real estate they "own,"

It was outside influence that got us where we are now and I guess you're okay with it. Same mentality that keeps us from maximizing our oil revenue.

My main objection was to Will's denigration of rural Alaska residents and their motivations, not the idea that all citizens have a stake in how federal lands are managed.

If I recall correctly Joe Miller is from Kansas. I guess there's my shot back to Will.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

I am unaware of any current subsistence or sport hunter in AK that does not utilize snowmachines, motor boats or airplanes or some other kind of fossil fuel powered transportation regardless their AK tenure. I believe the majority of outdoorsmen for maybe as much as the last 50 or more years have had similar aid.

So Scott, do you think that a person who lives in a rural village like Circle, and who owns his own airplane, should have preference on subsistence game in Dillingham, that is 400 miles away from his home, than someone who lives and works in Eagle River ?

How about limiting those who qualify for subsistance to individuals who's family income is less than $50,000.00 a year and they would only be qualified for subsistance hunts withen 50 miles of their home.
Seems to me that would pritty much weed out any chance for abuse and at the same time adressing any needs for the rural residents who truely need subsistance.

True subsistance in AK is really more of a fish issue anyway so why do we keep carrying on about a sheep taken legaly in an area regulated by N.P.S.
I think most of us feel like N.P.S. regulates there lands for hippies and granola heads anyway and most of us would jump at the oppertunity to legaly hunt inside a National park.

There are so many angles to this issue most of us really don't understand the complexity of what we are talking about.

I thought Randy kind of put this thing to bed but it seems we can't let a sleeping dog lay.

quote:

Originally posted by Akshooter:
How about limiting those who qualify for subsistance to individuals who's family income is less than $50,000.00 a year and they would only be qualified for subsistance hunts withen 50 miles of their home.
Seems to me that would pritty much weed out any chance for abuse and at the same time adressing any needs for the rural residents who truely need subsistance.

True subsistance in AK is really more of a fish issue anyway so why do we keep carrying on about a sheep taken legaly in an area regulated by N.P.S.
I think most of us feel like N.P.S. regulates there lands for hippies and granola heads anyway and most of us would jump at the oppertunity to legaly hunt inside a National park.

There are so many angles to this issue most of us really don't understand the complexity of what we are talking about.

I thought Randy kind of put this thing to bed but it seems we can't let a sleeping dog lay.

Aww,.. we're just talking here and I don't see as it matters too much. The Subsistence issue is what it is and all the dissagreement isn't likely to change our differing opinions or the law. Maybe Brett has already started his letter writing campaign to the respective legislators. He knows as well as the rest of us do how un effective that'll be.

The problem with setting an income limit would be the intrusion of the gov into my private life to prove so or say so. I'll be darned if I'm going to and I don't think any American should allow for some ADF&G or USFWS agent comb my bank accounts, freezers, wood sheds, and basements investigating the basis for my "need,". What if the agent thinks I'm hiding evidence of a lack of "need" over at my in laws house or at my neighboors house. Is a raid there warranted also? What if I make $45k in 2010 and $75k in 2011? is it a three year average like farming? How much Fish and Game budget should be dedicated to "Subsistence User Investigation? Maybe it'll fall to the Troopers.

.458 your circuitous questions are nonsense. When you said, "Since it applies to folks who have recently moved to rural areas and who use snowmachines, motor boats &airplanes.", you insinuate that snowmachines, motorboats & airplanes are a recent and modern addition brought in by non resident or non traditional subsistence users. Just as when you insinuate that herd or game health is not being considered thats a load of baloney and maybe your the only one that doesn't know it. Specfically, motor boats and airplanes have been used for subsistence and sport hunting in AK for what? 80 years? 60 years? Snowmachines for 50? 40?

Not that what I think matters, but no I don't mind and maybe you do know .458 that state law allows for, (as an example,) any Any Alaskan resident to participate in our local subsistence moose hunt. If Brett, AKshooter, or some of the other posters here would like to come out I'd even gladly assist, they seem like nice fellows. maybe not so much you. Preference of you from Circle over Randy from Eagle River is more of your nonsense here in DLG since our moose hunt is a state hunt and all Alaska residents are eligible. with your purported experience you should know that.

Scott, you seem to think that my simple questions to you - like how a large influx of outside mine workers moving into an area might affect game populations ? or why some residents should have preference over others ? are "nonsense, circuitous questions" ? Is that why you find them so hard to answer and why you avoid answering them? Or is it because you don't fully comprehend what has been written.
I stated very clearly and early on that the health of the game herds is THE reason the state F&G requiring that trophies be rendered ineligible for inclusion in record books. That has absolutly no bearing on putting food on the table.

Like most new immigrants You seem to think that you have special insights into the Alaskan bush and how it should be run and you obviously vehemently oppose anybody who's opinion differs from yours.

I suggest that if you want to continue expounding on all your new found wisdom about Alaska and how F&G should run subsistence that you start a new Post. I am done with this one.

Originally posted by Scott King

quote:

If Brett, AKshooter, or some of the other posters here would like to come out I'd even gladly assist, they seem like nice fellows. maybe not so much you.

Thanks Scott I appriciate that. Actully I already know 17 quite well all the same thanks anyway. Most of us here are OK guys you and .458 win have just gotten yourselves a little crossways, I'm sure you would find him quite a good guy in peron.

Originally posted by .458 win

"like how a large influx of outside mine workers moving into an area might affect game populations"

Phill that is absoloutly my biggest fear. We have both been around long enough to remember what Alaska was like pre pipeline. BTW I caught Pebbles lawers in a lie printed in ADN yesterday. I did correct it though with a message to Nancy Wainwrite. I know off topic.