News

Locals only

no hunting

No Hunting/Wikimedia Commons

Most Alaska moose and caribou hunters headed for the Nelchina Basin next month best start honing their map reading skills, invest in a good GPS or maybe both given new federal hunting rules.

The Department of the Interior this week announced it is closing more than 1.2-million-acres of public land in the area to everyone but local subsistence hunters.

“The (Federal Subsistence) Board approved a closure in (Game Management) Units 13A and 13B only for the 2020-2022 regulatory cycle due to its necessity for reasons of public safety and continuation of subsistence uses,” a federal communique said. “The Board limited the closure to Units 13A and 13B because this is the area where most overcrowding, disruption of hunts, and serious safety concerns have occurred.”

There is no shortage of caribou, but local hunters – who number in the hundreds – have complained about competition from thousands of hunters from Alaska’s two major urban areas.

Most of those who hunt the nearly 5.4-million-acres of wilderness roughly bounded by the Glenn Highway in the south, the Alaska Range mountains in the north, the Cooper River in the east, and the Susitna and Tyone rivers in the east come from the Anchorage or Fairbanks metropolitan statistical areas home to about five out of every seven Alaskans.

Almost 7,000 of them applied for state subsistence permits to hunt the area this year. The hunt was once limited to several hundred drawing permits that attracted primarily trophy hunters.

Later, as the Nelchina caribou herd increased in size, it was annually opened to a couple thousand Alaskans who competed on a points basis to see who got to hunt the state’s most accessible caribou herd.

The points scheme scored people on income, personal or family hunting experience in the area, place of residence and more, and it was contentious.

As a result, the Alaska Board of Game several years ago changed the regulations to allow all Alaska residents to obtain subsistence caribou permits if they agreed to limit their caribou and moose hunting to GMU 13.

Board members thought they’d found a solution to a long-running dispute. They underestimated how many people would forego hunting elsewhere in order to get a permit.

Subsistence is the Alaska term for hunting for food, and the new regulations set strict rules for GMU 13 hunters. Hunters who applied for and received permits, along with members of their household, were prohibited from hunting for caribou or moose elsewhere in Alaska.

Prior to Oct. 1, they were also required to pack out the meat of a caribou with the forequarters, hindquarters, and  ribs still attached to the bone and then report the kill within three days.

Hard work

Packing out meat attached to the bone just adds to the difficulty of hauling a carcass out of the field unless a hunter has access to an all-terrain vehicle or a boat on some of the area’s rivers and creeks.

A good size bull caribou will provide about 100 pounds of boneless meat. Bone-in requirements almost double the weight for anyone packing out the load.

Local hunters have complained that the influx of hunters from Alaska’s two major population centers has pushed caribou away from the Denali, Richardson and Glenn highways – the only major roads in the vast area – making it harder for them to kill a carbiou within easy packing distance of their car or truck.

The Federal Subsistece Board was established by the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 which created more than 104 million acres of new national parks and widlife refuges in the 49th state along with establishing a rural priority for the subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife “when it is necessary to restrict taking in order to assure the continued viability of a fish or wildlife population or the continuation of subsistence uses of such population.”

The Board is dominated and controlled by rural Alaskans. ANILCA has never before been used to shut the majority of Alaskans out of hunting areas simply because subsistence users didn’t like the competition.

It has been used to limit kills when there weren’t enough fish or wildlife available to allow participation by everyone wanting to join in the harvest. The new rule turn parts of GMUs 13A and 13B into something akin to private hunting reserves.

To qualify to hunt the areas under federal rules, you must establish a “primary, permanent home for the previous 12 months within Alaska and whenever absent from this primary, permanent home, (have) the intention of returning to it. Factors demonstrating the location of a person’s primary, permanent home may include, but are not limited to: the address listed on an Alaska license to drive, hunt, fish, or engage in an activity regulated by a government entity; affidavit of person or persons who know the individual; voter registration; location of residences owned, rented or leased; location of stored household goods; residence of spouse, minor children or dependents; tax documents; or whether the person claims residence in another location for any purpose.”

Resident versus residence

How much time one must spend in that place to maintain it as a “permanent home” is a subject that has been much debated in the state and occasionally litigated. Some Alaskans engaged in small fishing businesses have argued that though they spend most of their time “Outside,” as Alaskans call the lower 48, they are mainly on the road promoting their products while there and the home to which they return during the fishing season is their permanent residence.

The Alaska Outdoor Council, the state’s largest hunting and fishing organization, is protesting the federal action.

Rod Arno, the Council’s executive director, said it is time for the state and the Alaska Congressional delegation to weigh in to protect state authority to manage fish and wildlife as other states do.

He noted that some hunting seasons are only two weeks away and most hunters have been blindsided by the federal action.

Less than two years ago, then-Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke reaffirmed the primary role of the states in the management of fish and wildlife within their boundaries, but various entities from environmental organizations to commercial fishermen have regularly tried to pull in federal managers if they thought their interests would be better served by federal management.

The United Cook Inlet Drifters Association (UCIDA), the region’s most powerful commercial fishing lobby, sued to force the federal government to intervene in salmon management in the federal waters of the Inlet. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, a federal entity with little experience managing salmon, is now trying to figure out how to manage there.

The lastest suggestion from UCIDA is that the Council should take control of management of salmon from the Inlet to the headwaters of spawning streams. 

Should that happen, some involved with the litigation have suggested that it could force the state to open the Kenai and Kasilof rivers, personal-use dipnet fisheries – now limited to Alaskans only – to all fishermen and women under the terms of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The issues are fraught with politics. The Kenai dipnet fishery operates in a non-subsistence zone the state Board of Fisheries created at the insistence of commercial fishermen worried that a court-ordered subsistence fishery then in operation could result in a subsistence priority.

As is now being demonstrated in the Nelchina Basin, the subsistence priority is an excellent tool for one interest group to leverage resources – or in this case preferred hunting conditions – from other interest groups.

UCIDA was worried dipnetters with a subsistence priority would use it to up their limited catch of sockeye salmon.

 

 

 

 

 

59 replies »

  1. Most hunting in the US is done in rural areas, so if they close rural areas to non-residence hunters where does that leave everyone who can’t hunt in their backyards? The safety excuse is the biggest laugh, I have driven trough those areas during the times when Caribou were crossing the Glenn and there was a hunter in every turnout, I drove the Denali once in November and some . The warden was there around Tangle lakes there were a huge crowd of hunters in a turnout. The warden was there and I asked what as going on, he said there was a herd of 10,000 caribou out in that broad valley and that there were only 2 hunters on foot out there. He also said that these were all federal hunters and if if I had a draw permit and drove a few more miles in to get out of the Federal area, there were lots of caribou and no hunters and he was right, I got a nice bull. I would have been nervous hunting on foot where the big herd was with all those federal hunters standing around on the shoulder of the road glassing through their scopes. The feds have no business whatsoever being involved in game management. These concessions were given up by “Uncle Ted” to rush the pipeline through. The first time I hunted unit 13 was 49 yrs ago.

  2. I liked this part of the ADF&G Press Release on the FSB takeover of state management authority- “the State is actively exploring its options to challenge this unnecessary and illegal closure of federal lands to non-rural hunters.”

    40 plus years of abuse of the State of Alaska’s authority to manage migratory game species across a checker board pattern of federal, state, and private (largely ANCSA owned) by the Feds should have taught the state leadership something. Everyone should know by now, dual management of public resources doesn’t work. Tell us now, if it takes an act of Congress to allow the federal subsistence board to legally do what it’s doing, make it so. Then the state can manage to provide harvestable surplus for non-federally qualified rural residents on state lands.
    ADF&G staff would have much more time to manage once they were free of dueling with the Feds over and over again.

  3. Thankfully ADFG is opposed to this illegal action by the feds.

    ADF&G Strongly Opposes Illegal Closure of Federal Lands to Non-Federally Qualified Alaskans
    The Federal Subsistence Board recently closed federal lands occupied by the Nelchina caribou herd to non-federally qualified users. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is the principle manager of this herd and strongly opposed this action. There was simply no biological justification to close this hunt to non-federally qualified hunters.

    A state authorized youth hunt for caribou opens August 1st. We encourage participation in this
    hunt. State lands remain open to hunting. This hunt provides Alaskans, whether rural or urban, an
    opportunity to pass on the hunting heritage that makes Alaska unique. Taking away this the youth hunt on federal lands is an unjustified intrusion into state management rights gained at statehood and reinforced with the passage of ANILCA.

    The State is actively exploring its options to challenge this unnecessary and illegal closure of federal lands to non-rural hunters.

    Doug Vincent-Lang
    Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

    file:///C:/Users/sirra/Downloads/07-31-2020%20Federal%20Nelchina%20Closure.pdf

    • If the state believes there is surplus then they are free to reduce restrictions snd allow a larger harvest. More permits. Feds cant easily stop em . Caribou are migratory so feds restriction in one area has minimal impact. So your argument is groundless . Especially as tge person you quoted was mostly spewing non scientific propaganda or at minimum an opinion. . No exact numbers. Was it you who In one of your prior posts you said an in accurate statement that alaska is only state with feds management of land or game ? The states have been deeling with it for a long time . In many ststes yi diferent degrees. Think of tge Taylor grazing act that culminated with malhuer blm office being occupied by states rights groups. A protestor was murdered. Shot in tge back . Taylor grazing act limited the use of public land . Arguably unnecessarily. Similar to what’s occurring with unit 13 . Im 120% against federal overreach and against management by feds of stste land . Or the wildlife. That said tge feds have a point thst must be taken into consideration. The needs and desires of locsls . If you dont allow tge feds to protect locals then community governments must be made stronger so they can be more fully involved in protecting their immediate residents way of life and ability to feed themselves. Currently alaska is faltering in that area if consideration. Just because you want something in this society doesn’t mean you get to have it . A lot of our laws are based on need and historical use .

      • DPR,

        Your post is just short of being illegible. The Feds DO NOT manage game in any other state. You claim to be against federal overreach but you are in full-throated support of it. Which is it, do you support the long arm of the feds deciding game management in Alaska or do you not?

      • Steve o, thanks for being clear and polite. I do not think my post was anywhere near illegible ,but I understand if you felt that way . I think we must have a misunderstanding about federal game management. NSWS . Look up federal fish and wildlife management refuges . The feds manage these lands . their are over a hundred refuges in the US states ,nearly every state where the feds have near complete power to say what goes as in what uses are allowed and what restrictions.1903 was start date I think . So from my understanding you are incorrect. Perhaps you have a different idea of what management is ?? Do you just mean hunting? Please clarify as there must be unintentional disconnect. You say im in full throated support of federal overreach- you again and again misunderstand what i say . Im against federal management of game in Alaska . Im Also against ignoring rural communities opinion on how their local areas are impacted. Ive tried now for many posts to explain to you that feds involve themselves when they see people mistreated or see massive mismanagement. When they see issues that impact rural communities. I think Alaska needs to get on the ball so feds are less apt to over reach and think they need to step in . It can be argued that is within the law. Lets keep the feds out by doing a better job of protecting communities way of life .

      • DPR,

        The reason the Feds have stepped in here has nothing to do with mismanagement of the common resource, it has to do with some people wanting ease of access and less competition. There is no biological reason to restrict hunting in this area in this manner…none. This started years ago with closures in area 23 or 26 and will continue until all federal land in this state are closed except to those who pass whatever purity test is in place.

        If you look into national wildlife refuges you will find that hunting is allowed on many of them and it is done by state regulations, once again the feds do not manage game animals, the states do
        https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/why-hunting-is-allowed-on-refuges/ All of that is besides the point, since the lands that the feds closed in area 13 are not wildlife refuges. But I have to hand it to you, that was a nice try at justification of this federal overreach that you claim to be opposed to.

      • Oh, and no thanks is required for my being clear and polite…it’s something that should be expected not congratulated. I only wish more would practice it.

      • Steve o, you are partially right partially wrong. Look up , feds seeking more hunting on refuge lands . The feds completely control access and hunting to my understanding. Even what animals. I believe once hunting is allowed its under state regs but federal control. At federal whim. I haven’t closly studied as I never really needed to . but thats the basic idea . Feds say what goes . In refuges period. They have tyrannical control. I think around 400 of them and millions of acres. They totally control the usages . In all states. Study up a little and you will know more than i . They destroyed many family’s pioneer areas with land redesignstion in early 1900 . President declared it a refuge. FDR. Thats why I mentioned Bundys . They are still fighting about it . Look em up . Putting their lives on line . Imprisonment . Feds murdered one a few years ago big attempt to cover up with lying agents. Dishonest courts . I digress. So as to original discussion. I dont have time to fully explain again but the jist is the feds think they are doing right thing. Protection of animals and communities wzy of life defenders. . Trying to establish balance . You are taking to narrow of view point. ( Alaska should take up this cause more fully because its honorable) Yes you are right. Feds shouldn’t be in these states managing these lands and animals. They have no right in my opinion. My opinion doesn’t travel very far and tge courts currently agree with tge feds . Maybe and hopefully it will be struck down. Feds think its their right or rather responsibility to watch over and assure for posterity. For right or wrong thsts their intentions from tge lawsuits ive read. You completely misjudge how strongly i agree and support states rights. When push comes to shove my life loyalty is with tge state. Perhaps that’s foolish because tge states strength comes from tge strength of tge federal union. But im in agreement that states should manage all wildlife and lands . That said i stand for protection of remote communities because they could easily be overwhelmed due to population difference and therefore under representation in state government. Lets reverse it and say glennallen had more population than anchorage or population centers . All of a sudden anchorage way of life could be threatened by glennalens whim . The largest population is similar to a bully and its unbalanced in representation. Yes its public lands but impacts effect some more than others. Communities make ststes and nations stable and strong. They are important to protect. Microcosms for families to grow . Its not right for the many to trample on tge few . Especially if their is no survival need . Alaska must take this into consideration as we have innumerable remote communities and homesteads . People live here for a certain type of life style . Diversity is strength. Historical lifestyle should be protected if people still choise to live as such . Hopefully you can begin to understand this angle. Its about more than a few people wanting a private hunting preserve . Its about survival for a way of existence. Poo poo it as you wish . I know you will . Bottom line doing whats best fir management of resource for Alaskans has many facets. Its not as simple as i want mine which will effect you but i dont care . I don’t expect you to understand but I tried. Now you certainly may have an argument that there is plenty of game and more permits should be issued. The state can decide that by the numbers while working in tandem with biologists . Now im going to also say you may have a point if feds are indiscriminately shutting off hunting from most people for non viable reasons. If thats tge case as you say then the state should investigate. At any way i agree with you the feds should not be involved. Alaska should dtep up and balance out communities needs more carefully. As well as individual personal needs .

      • DPR,

        This isn’t refuge land, there is no reason to discuss it as if it is refuge land unless you think the federal overreach is somehow tolerable. I know about the folks in Nevada and the standoff in Oregon, that has nothing to do with this since that is an entirely different issue…even if it deals with the same overlord.

        I completely understand the argument that smaller rural communities with a traditional hunter gatherer lifestyle should have access to the fish and game in their local area, they do by being in the area 24/7/365. All of the personal use fisheries around the state illustrate this. If I live in Kenai I have better access to the Kenai personal use fishery than a person living in Sitka, but we as residents all have the equal opportunity to access that common resource. What the feds have done is remove the equal opportunity to access a commonly held resource, that is wrong on any and all accounts, just like if they said only residents of Kenai could dipnet for Kenai sockeye or only residents of Kasilof could dipnet for Kasilof sockeye.

        The reason for this closure is about people wanting an exclusive hunting preserve and they want it on public land, land that belongs to you and me and every Alaskan and every American, only a few people can hunt on OUR land. That is wrong.

      • Steve o, yes this is not refuge land , tge reason we were discussing refuge land was because you said feds don’t manage game or land in any other states, well that was incorrect. They do manage in all other states to one degree or another . Heres part of why it’s important and probably technically illegal. That refuge land wasn’t refuge land until President declared it such . Was it under fed jurisdiction before some how ? Thats not tge wsy I remember it and thats not how bundy family lawsuit reads . Feds usurped it , he had free range for generations . So in effect right or wrong tge feds are treating alaska very little different when looked at since 1800s . You claimed they were . Well to my understanding the treatment is similar. Ok i will go with your flow . Let’s separate refuge land from discussion. Agreed ? So here we have tge feds managing hunting in Alaska not on refuge land . Its even more under fed jurisdiction. “National preserves and other federal lands” if im not mistaken thats the areas Craig has brought up . You can find its boundaries on a game management map . Alaskans claims to management of it are even more tenuous than many refuge lands because it was all determined during first years of Alaska statehood during land divisions and native claim settlement eras. So politics and deal making for whatever thsts worth . Wheras I believe many refuge lands were created by presidential proclamation which may very well be illegal under constitution but legal under what supreme courts have chosen to interpret law . ( still illegal because constitution higest law of land – but legalized because constitution gave court power to decipher and rule on cases of law ) similar to our prior discussion. Hopefully these anti constitutional interpretations will be struck down some day . So as it stands these are national preserves and feds get to rule on national preserves. Now heres tge kicker. The Alaska constitution requires equal opportunity. Well we all have equal opportunity to move to unit 13 and be able to hunt under federal regulations. So currently it’s arguable that feds are meeting alaska law requirements . Should the feds be managing game in Alaska? No they should not . How do we get them out of Alsska ? One devil of a fight through court and maybe just tge right politicians willing to deal with situation and perhaps a trade or buyout if feds have any financial claim to this land . Right now i cant remember all the ins and outs of those preserves but it could be researched again. Hope this makes it more clear for you steve o. Am i pissed tge feds are usurping Alaska right to self govern ? Yes i am . We all need to pull together as one and get them out . When i have more time i plan to work on it before i die of old age . Hopefully we can all push together and see results in our lifetime but sadly im not going to hold my breath but our efforts wont be wasted and goid things are worth waiting snd working hard for .

      • DPR,

        I have never said the feds can’t won’t or don’t manage lands, obviously they do that. They do not manage game in any other state, the states are responsible for game management in every other state. I guess migratory game birds are managed by the feds since they migrate over and through the whole country, I forgot about that but obviously that is a completely different and unrealated issue.

      • Steve o, I would like to agree with you because i feel the same as you but the facts present themselves otherwise than your opinion. The feds do manage game , fish and wildlife. Throughout the United states . They userped this power by arguing that their right to conduct treaties with foreign nations and control intra state commerce gives them the rights to manage game animals. Because, as they put it – state ownership of animals is legal fiction . Because animals travel between states , between nations and limeted populations in a state effects animal species world wide. One state cant manage game population effectively because another state may have different methods causing an issue on overall population. The feds tip toe around as carefully as possible by saying the states can manage their game populations at the jurisdiction of the federal decisions . Now do not take my word for this . As its not how I would prefer it to work. Please look up and study some resources- (legal dictionary- state and federal government share authority and management of fish and game in United States. ) see (federal lands Wikipedia- ) see (American wildlife law an introduction) also its very important to note that the feds and law sees the rules change ,and become even stronger if the states dont own the land in entirety . As in refugees ,parks , preserves, purchase agreements, trade agreements, and especially if its considered native land in any way because tge constitution considered tribes or natives seperate nations and gave the federal government sole oversight of treaties and agreements. So im sorry steve but you are wrong for better or worse. The feds manage game country wide . Blatantly for migratory birds . Migrating animals are very clearly under federal jurisdiction. Much as I would like to disagree with the feds claiming oversight of management of game my opinion counts for nothing. Sadly as law currently stands all animals and fish could be considered under federal jurisdiction because management in one state or country effects populations in many countries. Thankfully the feds dont push to hard on this subject and alow states to do most of the work and hands on management. But not all . Feds have final say which is management. Its becouse they have effectively argued in court the states dont own the populations and thst constitution gives feds rights to conduct treaties with foreign entities. So management is having final say . You can step that up by saying ownership actually has final say , well feds arguments are that states dont own the populations. I dont like it and dont agree because i say tge states were foreign nations to begin with and never ceded ownership of animals , fish or game to feds. So perhaps there are legal arguments against the feds oversight but it must be fought out in court and let me say it won’t be easy due to yesrs and years of legal precedents. Not to mention that the supreme court is federal and is likely to weigh opinions towards benefits of strong federal oversight. So im sadly of the opinion we may be screwed even though we have valid argument and in my opinion a correct constitutional one because (rights not directly outlined by constitution are reserved for the states or for tge citizens) no where in constitution does it say the feds have right to oversee game management within the states . Except the Supreme Court is given jurisdiction on legal matters wich gives feds defacto right to manage game populations. Anyway dont take my word fir it – study up and you will be more informed than i . Good day

      • Steve o, heres an interesting thought. America purchased Alaska with United states federal public money. Alaska has never paid back this public money debt . Would our legal grounds for complete self management/ governance be stronger if we paid back that public money at market value with interest? Or did tge fed completely waive ownership intrests when it allowed us to become a legal state ? Be interesting to explore tge repercussions of having been bought with public money. Versus one of tge original 13 colonies.

      • Steve o , im a fan of joe vogler and past supporter harboring desires for elaskan in depenance . As in complete autonomy. That way feds would have no jurisdiction. That might be one way to resolve the over reach . Thst said being separated ftom union would probably be foolish due to our apparent inability to support ourselves as well as trying to defend ourselves. We would probably be begging to be taken back in for safety. But I might give that very foolish notion a whirl just for kicks . Im addicted to liberty. Hopefully nothing like Independence will ever come to pass unless our infrastructure and economy is massively upgraded as we would be very vulnerable.

      • I just checked my hunting/fishing/trapping license it is issued by the State of Alaska, so are my harvest tags and my draw permits. The hunting regulations are done under state statutes and the regulation book is issued by the State of Alaska. I have never had to buy a Federal hunting or fishing license, I have never had to buy a Federal harvest tag, I have never had to buy a Federal draw permit. I have held many hunting and fishing licenses in many states and they are all issued by the State, not the feds. Migratory birds being the exception and I don’t hunt them so I’m not sure how that process works.

  4. Such drama. For the record, the Copper River / Nelchina Basin has plenty of moose, caribou, wolves, black and grizzly bears. Anyone who lives here or seriously hunts or traps here knows that. The Nelchina Caribou Herd is even over objective! This is a power grab by the Federal Subsistence Board and it’s dividing Alaskans unecessarily through allocation decisions. We need to fight back as Alaskans (and yes I’m a federally qualified hunter). Watch out for your neighbors, help and support them, rural and urban. Time to re-evaluate hunting and fishing in Alaska. The terms subsistence, personal use and sport no longer adequately describe our outdoor pursuits, if they ever did. These resources belong to all of us. Let’s allocate them fairly through new State regulations and work to disband the Federal Subsistence Board, taking the Office of Subsistence Management with them. We can do this if we would just work together.

    • Basin hunter . I disagree. There is not plenty when you compare game animals to number of potential hunters in Anchorage and Fairbanks who would love to whack 1-10 caribou each not to mention guides and out of state hunters. (In the 50s /60s nelchina used to be awesome place for guides to take 3-10 anchorage hunters in a group and cycle in a new group every 3 days for a month and help them each get a caribou. ) even huge numbers of drop off hunters would love to do that now by airplane or boat all you need is transport license and hunters having equal access to tge resource. Dont the guides deserve to make money and support themselves off nelchina / basin herd . Just like comm fish ? Be thankful they treat game a bit different than salmon. Alaskan hunters used to take 5-10 caribou each back in the 50s on a regular basis . 5+wasn’t even uncommon through the 80s and 90s . How long do think it would take to wipe the heard clean after a few years of that ? Open it up equally to 50,000 anchorage hunters ? Count the moose and caribou in that area . Whats to say all 400,000 anchorage residents shouldn’t get a fair share? . Our population has grown in last 50 years alot ! Its public resources you say . You haven’t been hunting unit 13 very long or you would remember why it was restricted and why there was a crash and predator control. Or maybe you just don’t understand game management? I like to eat game meat alot ! When i start taking what I consider my share you may relize your share is pretty small after a few years. You say nelchina herd has met objective- (so you say) Well its that way because its been limited to subsistence use carefully and careful allocation of permits based on very carefull management. It would be absolutely gone if true equality had been enacted. ( That wouldn’t have been best management of resource for Alaskans) Also you may think the animal numbers are high but I would argue they are not compared to what it used to be . I used to see a lot more moose and caribou. Also if throw in a few extra permits, hard winters , and predation you will be singing a different tune . You are incredibly short sighted and dont relize how hard game management has worked to get nelchina caribou and moose on the map so there’s something to argue about. Open it up you say and get rid of subsistence boards ? Are you a guide with an ax to grind or just a mis guided hunter ? Dang – think on it a bit ! I argue we all do have equal access to the resource. Any one of us can move there and hunt . Thats 100% equal. No one is stopping anyone from moving there . Its 100 % equal as is . Have a great day !

      • “its that way because its been limited to subsistence use carefully and careful allocation of permits based on very carefull management” actually any Alaskan that puts in for the tier permit and agrees not to hunt caribou or moose in any other unit gets the permit. There is also a number of draw hunts for the area.

        And Anchorage doesn’t have 50,000 hunters, but when facts don’t matter…

      • steve o, re read medreds article- educate yourself. He mentions the game department didn’t realize how popular forgoing other hunt areas would be to get a nelchina permit . Thus there is a potential management issue of high demand for pemits or rather tags . Yes there are draw permits. Thanks for pointing out the careful management. As to tge 50,000 hunters- you weren’t paying attention to the concept. If you open up nelchina for equality/ permits for anyone who wants them you would soon find 50,000 applicants . If not this year then soon . Steve o , comprehension and forsite matter . ( thats why in my writing I mentioned population growth in alaska ) thought and thinking matters steve o . Two can play tge game of beeing condescending. Or using inuendo to try and make someone look bad . Why dont you contribute something positive rather than just selfish, i want mine, i want mine , gimme gimme. You are welcome to move to nelchina just like anyone else can . Then you can get yours . The name of this game is resource management for all alaskans forever, not just steve o s , this hunt season. For disclosure- i dont currently live in a federal subsistence management area. So i dont get any any special treatment of any kind.

      • DPR,

        Yes let’s read the article Craig wrote, shall we? “Almost 7,000…applied for state subsistence permits to hunt the area this year.” 7,000 Alaskan residents, not 50,000 Anchorage hunters. Those are the facts. Drawing tags are a different story, if memory serves there were somewhere around 2,000 of those this last year for caribou and a bit over 100 for moose. So if all of the hunters hunted their permits that doesn’t even total 10,000 hunters.

      • Steve o, and what do you think those tag requests would be ,if there was if there was no restrictions?(loss of privlage to hunt outside of nelchina is a major restriction) what would occur If it was just open ? Do you seriously think there will never be 40,000 hunters in anchorage? Especially if tgere weren’t restrictions ? You are trying to equate 7,000 tags with tge number of potential hunters. Or at minimum you trying to say only 7,000 are intrested in hunting nelchina. An in inaccurate correlation. Or assumption. Do you think the demand will never grow for those tags ? Im not going to waste my time with you until you start trying to look st tge biger picture. At least make valid attempt. I recognize you feel left out . You are welcome to move to nelchina if you want to hunt under federal regs or be like everyone else and apply for one of those tags that eliminate your hunt privileges elsewhere. Guessing you dont want to sacrifice that much to get what you want . You want your to have cake and eat it to . So whats your number of allowable gaurenteed tags before its to many and effects the herd or game population? Are you so naive that you think hunters in major population centers cant effect nelchina herd numbers? You claim there are not 40 k hunters in anchorage. Right now you may be correct. Two years from now ? 50 years . Look ahead . Whats the number of hunters in anchorage? Or in population centers in general.? So think of it this way . Game management must stay ahead of planning curve . If feds gaurenteed permits to anyone in population centers then some years hunting demographics would shift dramatically and put intense pressure on tge herd . Perhaps wiping it out . Or causein delayed recovery. They cant predict how many people will choose a guaranteed permit each year . Thus they cant manage a herd effectively which causes massive ups and downs which doesn’t follow constitutional intent . Though if its linked to nelchina residents they can perdict number of potential hunters thus animals taken . Thus herd management. It Is a broader picture than just what steve o wants . Its very easy to unbalance herds by allowing unlimited guaranteed permits ( even if you restrict those permits by limiting hunt areas ) by population centers . Effectively directing hunters to nelchina. It makes management unbalanced. Spreading the pressure on game population is a better management policy.

      • Steve o , im guessing you are frustrated because you really do want your whole cake to eat . You live in kenai area which the feds consider rural if im not mistaken- probably based on incomes or gas prices or whatever. If im not mistaken ,the feds changed the rules and now require direct habitation in unit 13 areas to garner residency / tag a hunt caribou moose ,benefits for areas in unit 13 under federal jurisdiction and considered rural,whereas before people from kenai got to hunt in designated federal rural areas guaranteeing you a caribou permit or two without loosing your kenai hunting privileges. So you didn’t have to apply through state regs gor permits . Is that the case ?

      • DPR,

        As much as you want to make this about me and as much as you seem to enjoy your ad hominem attacks against me, this has nothing to do with me.

        This is about Federal Government over reach and management of game in this state.

        Not that it matters, because it doesn’t, but I’ve hunted area 13 one time in my life. It was on a draw tag and it wasn’t crowded by any stretch of the imagination, of course I did my homework and knew when and where to go to avoid the crowds…something any good hunter does. Here’s a little known open secret about hunting, if you go where the crowds aren’t you have a better chance at seeing game and having a successful hunt. That is why some people have petitioned the Feds to close public land and access to a public resource, because they apparently don’t know that little known open secret.

        Once again, this isn’t about me but please feel free to keep trying to somehow make it so.

  5. Steve o, So here is my recommendation to resolve the issues surrounding nelchina or restricted by residence parts of unit 13. Since you feel your rights are reduced or unequal, lets all Petition the feds to remove the restriction as its segregational and tyrannical to have their footprint in alaska. . Put in its place a restriction on allowable equipment. Thats more fair and closer to alaska constitutional intent . No one gets a privilege some one else doesn’t have. Ban motorized usage . That reduces impact on the resource and surrounding areas. . also ban firearms. You can still carry for bear protection as thats constitution but cant kill game animals with firearms except in emergency . That eliminates most of the impact and is even more traditional use . Now its fair and everyone from all alaska can hunt anywhere and its equal opportunity but without guarantees of success. Very American . Equality. Long bows and spears and canoes , kaysks. No motors . Hand thrown rocks allowed. No nets or traps . Limit equipment and not people. Near equality. No pack animals either unless you have legally handicap tags. Sled dog teams limited to 1-3 dogs in winter . Only close legal relations can help pack meat . No one can hire a packer . Now we are getting closer to equal opportunity. I say we enact it statewide. Im all for it . The only exceptions are for tge extreme elderly or legally infirm, Family members can proxy hunt using firearms for them but must donate away the antlers or claws . Solves all the problems, Reduce impact and creates equality. Lets do it statewide. Equality. This will take the pressure off the resource and reduce health problems. 😉 Take that covid-19

    • If there is still to much pressure on resources or frustration from impacts then limit methods further and disallow using machines on road ways to access hunting areas . Walk to nelchina. Or your preferred hunt fish site . Steve o , are we equal enough yet ? Btw that might be even to extreme or to equal for my blood but id give it a whirl.

      • The Native Alaskans used to have to walk regionally to hunt or fish . The tyones would fish near mouth of big su then walk to unit 13 to at least butte lake just before mclaren river or further for caribou and moose . Hunting black bears near trapper creek. Even as late as early mid 1900s . Thats a couple hundred miles each way. Stashing game meat under rocks in valleys along the way . Tangle lakes has some of earliest native presense found in alaska I believe. Obviously many other native groups traveled long distances by foot , canoe . Natives from south east traveled crazy distances. some came all the way from south east to tyone area to raid and trade . So i say we abolish restriction by residence and take up long distance hunting and fishing trips again. Complete equality for steve o . I will do it .

      • DPR,

        Nice use of reductio ad absurdum. Next time try not to get so wrapped around the axle.

        You keep trying to make this something that it isn’t. Public land and a public resource, that’s what this is about.

      • Steve o , I thought you were about equal opportunity. This solves your problem. Everyone would have equal rights on public land . You could walk to public land by my house and I could walk to public land by yours . Low impact use no more feds management of fish and game and its in line with alaska constitution . No more division by location or special privileges for user groups . If you don’t understand the issues at hand why dont you just say so ? If you dont have the ability to understand a discussion and the nuances of the issues just say so . Your idea of absurd is walking or using traditional methods. My idea of absurd is you not trying to understand what goes into a federal decision. Btw – nice word and good job deflection from the issue .

  6. The easiest solution is to simply make it harder. How about no shooting within 500 yards of the road? The Denali Highway is a total goat f#$@ as soon as the word gets out the heard is near it. As a person that benefits from the current Fed Subsistence program, I am first and foremost a hunter, and safety a side, the annual Denali shooting fest just feels wrong. Because I choose to hike in away from the crowds,(and out of small arms range), rather than sit in a lawn chair with the other “hunters,” I often times don’t fill my tags. And that’s ok too.

  7. Hopefully the feds will next step in on the loss of King Salmon in the Cook Inlet. The tributaries around Willow have been closed to King fishing for over 5 years now and it appears that we are facing an Endangered Species in the Upper Cook Inlet. Why won’t state biologists acknowledge this concern? It was just announced that the Kenai is closed as well to sport fishing for Kings (which has happened year after year as well). We have seen nothing but a lack of management coming out of the state F&G offices…this has been seen with every species from predator control annihilation of wolves to commercial over-harvesting of salmon. I am sure there are a lot of locals over in Nelchina that are happy the feds stepped in…bravo that someone cares about conservation of the wildlife!

    • Steve stine,I don’t think feds stepped into nelchina for wildlife conservation but i do agree with you 100% on kings . Something needs done . You are right about susitna valley. It’s inexcusable state wide . Peninsula, susitna, kuskokwim delta , the Yukon- its a complete disaster! Even copper kings are struggling a bit . Kings were alaskas gem . Their loss is a travesty! It needs declared a disaster and they should be put on an endangered species list or whatever it takes to get funds to resolve tge issue.

      • DPR,
        There is more to the Unit 13 story than Craig includes above. The state has tried for years to cover up the over harvesting of that area by implementing aggressive predator control programs that further stripped the region of important wolves and bears. Instead of limiting the hunters from the urban areas, the state F&G board chose to kill more wolves & bears in the hope that it would allow the high harvest rates of moose and boo to continue. I wonder where the feds will stand on the predator control programs that have been ongoing in Unit 13? According to the state website it is still active at this time. How do the native residents feel about predator control in Unit 13…do they want to allow the area to heal from over harvesting…is this one of the reasons why the feds are stepping in?

        http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=intensivemanagement.unit13

    • Steve, i know its not a common thing anymore in Juneau, but wildlife managers where just following the law, when there was a reduction in bear and wolf populations. Sorry about the law getting in the way of your agenda.

  8. Ok first craigs concerns are correct and in line with the common concept of equality.Strangely that’s only at first glance. My thought is not popular. Nor in line with that. Alaskas constitution inadequately protects Alaskans and their lifestyle in rural areas. Thus the feds step in . The state game laws need changes to more adequately protect rural lifestyle especially within 100 miles of communities. People in nelchina live there to be away from anchorage Fairbanks lifestyle. To live a rural life unharrased by the crowds of people . Its truly almost like living in two different cultures or two different historical moments at once . The reason its not equal as it appears at first glance is because nelchina community’s cant send 100,000 hunters with Rv , giant toy haulers boats and countless careless 4 wheelers to hunt and harras every game animal from palmer to Girdwood . Imagine if nelchina sent hords of hunters to kill all tge goats and block traffic along turnagain arm or parked 500 rv in costco parking lot while hunting and left no where for anchorageites to park while shopping or 1,000 camouflage hunters invaded the anchorage greenbelt forcing the bikers and walkers to use sidewalks because the regular paths were utilized by hords of hunters on sideby sides . The bears anchorageites / hillsiders love to see would be shot and killed. Bullets would whistle by houses , parents would fear fir errant bullets hitting a child, guns would boom at all hours and machines would pull in and out of private drive ways at all hours of tge night. Anchorageites would be forced to shop farther away say at kenai. They would have to get their gas at trapper creek because the nelchinans used every drop of gas from the municipality of anchorage. Then the nelchinans would disappear from anchorage but leave trash scattered every where pooping in parking lots and the roads and greenbelt trails would be rutted , destroyed until there was 2 foot of snow to heal the scars. Thats how remote communitys feels when anchorageites hords come . Like they were raped pillaged and left . 😉 Anchorageites dont have to experience this like rural communities do every year,so in reality when rural or remote communities are not protected adequately it is frankly not an equal situation. Besides if i was an anchorageite I would want laws changed to spread out hunting season dates and sites so the experience could be more quality and relaxing rather than competive hunting. Whats that ? It just doesn’t feel right. So a couple solutions is to change laws . Rural preference for hunting 100 mile circumference around rural communities. Permits for animals would be spread over a larger chosen time frame . Fall to march . Hunting season would be much longer . Permits would be printed with animal, place ,and hunt date to spread hunting pressure timewise and place wise . More winter hunting. = better meat hunting and spread out hunters less trail damage. The hunter would have some lee way to choose but he would get preference to choose in his 100 mile circled hunting area . Larger cities would have smaller circles or borders . Because those people chose to live in highly populated areas. Really small communities could over lap a bit . Hows them apples . I don’t expect anything like that to happen but it should. Alaskans politicians and game boards need to step up. Something needs done because i dont want the feds involved at all . Icky .

      • Stevo o , yep . I figured you might identify with it . Btw just because I argued against you doesn’t mean I didn’t think you were mostly correct. There were just certain details that are important to remember when assuming someone is guilty. Disregarding them is dangerous in our society. Trust me I totally felt for your point of view. Beyond comprehension. Also did you notice my final statement in that conversation line and how i later first hand checked the site?

      • DPR,

        I like having my cake and eating it too, I would do it all the time if I could, but alas I would need to move far away to do so…or at least farther away than I find convenient, but that’s kinda the point isn’t it. Having the right to hunt in my backyard and fish in yours is the same thing as you having the right to fish in my backyard while hunting in yours. The fish and game are the common resource of the citizens of this state and nation, allowing access to a public resource on public land is against the common understanding of what a common resource is and against the understanding of what public land is. The Feds should not be managing the game in this state at all, period, full stop, end of story. They do not manage game in any other state.

        There are places where one resident lives on one side of a street and his neighbor across the street have different rights to hunt, not just in their own backyards, but all around the entire area.
        In many cases one guy will literally hunt for an animal and kill it in another guys backyard that the guy whose backyard it is can’t legally shoot. How is that acceptable in your eyes? If any Alaskan from anywhere in Alaska can go to the Kenai, Kasilof, Fish Creek, Copper River, areas around Homer and catch salmon, why can’t those same Alaskans go anywhere in Alaska and catch game? Do we have classes of Alaskans that are allowed more rights than others? I know I know, but we shouldn’t have classes and our constitutions say as much. Remember having a priority doesn’t mean shutting literally every other user group out when there is no resource related reason to do so, other than locals no likey.

      • Steve o . Let me just say you are technically right but physically wrong. Incidentally all over America there are people who technically have the same rights but factually do not because of factual physical class stratification of wealth , job pay, physical handicaps, age , experience, health and even sex . Real life hard facts . Complete equality is in part a myth. Or at best must be qualified as to what it was meant by all men are created equal. Or have equal rights. With different real life stratification comes real life on the ground opertunity- differences in factual physical liberty are inevitable and even factual physical freedom. Healty people have more liberty than weak or sick people. Devils are in the details. Fishermen do not have the same effects on wildlife and surrounding areas as hunters. Fishermen use a benign net thats relatively harmless..wheras hunters use firearms that are quite violent if not used safely. A bullet strikes violently from a distance even impacting those with sound it misses with lead . wheras a net is pretty quiet and rarely scares wildlife or injures anything but fish . Its just different. In short its apples and oranges in more ways than one . Thus not fully comparable. Im going to give you several examples of inevitable inequality. Rich humans with resources have physically more opertunity and in effect right to hunt in more areas of tge state and tge world they can more easily travel further more often. . Wait we should have equal rights to hunt but wait a rich man can afford time off from work, airplane tickets, machines ect . Wheras a poor man can only afford to hunt locally. Where the equality? It’s frankly harder for a poor man to fill his freezer and rural residents have less job opportunity. Should not their lack of opertunity be offset by easier access to local animals to fill their bellies? Large Cities in effect have private job reserves so shouldn’t rural areas get partially private game reserves as an offset due to disability of location?? Without complete wealth equality tge rights are in effect stratified. Its a fact if life . The poor man has less stress upon death than a rich man who has an estate to prepare . Doesn’t tge rich man have tge right to peaceful death just as much as tge poor man ? You would think he does but he cant take advantage of that right due to wealth responsibility’s. There are always trade offs and ineffect differences in actable or accessible rights . As well as responsibilities. Im a man i cant functionally give birth so in effect i was born unequal without the right to birth or abortion. Situation rights are inherently/ incidentally different for each person. All men are created equal. Well an invalid cant function to cast a vote . Whers the equality in that . So i ask did you move to kenai for near complete seclusion and fishing opertunity? Are dippers massively or marginally impacting your ability to survive and function? If you live in nelchina are hordes of hunters impacting your ability to live life and provide for your family ? I would say net impacts by dippers on tge kenai are less than impacts by hunters on nelchinans. Nets barely scare fish and dont tear up trails to any degree. Other hunters have massive impacts on otger hunters ability to hunt tge area . Fishermen not so much . Shoulder to shoulder is the norm . So we just cant compare the two . The feds didn’t close tge area to out of area campers . Just a certain impacted use or resource – not the land access . Now if kenai fishermen were unable to get their winters fish due to anchorageites you would have a larger point. That said I understand completely what you mean and I would like to agree with it . In part because rural preference could curtail peoples opertunity . But I identify with and understand the problems rural hunters deal with. Alaska has a problem with a massive influx of hunters , fishermen and recreators into rural areas. Its going to become worse and we need balanced solutions for user groups. Carefully thought out. Evidently you are impacted greatly by tge hordes of fishermen decending on kasilof beach. So maybe your argument is also valid. The feds just haven’t recognized it yet .

      • “Where the equality?” In the opportunity and equal access, the state ought not decide who gets access to what based upon wealth or lack there of. Let’s not forget the rural priority that already exists isn’t based upon wealth but simple location, that location grants a better ability to access right off the bat. If you can step out your door and shoot a moose or caribou you have better access than anyone in Anchorage and wealth has nothing to do with it.

        And you’re right about the comparison in one regard, there’s comparison on the numbers involved. Many, many more take part in the personal use fisheries than hunt in unit 13 and their impact on the local area is far, far greater than the nonlocal hunters to the entire unit 13 area. I don’t fish the Kenai or the Kasilof, or many of the other frequently used rivers on the Kenai that are overpopulated with nonlocals. So in your mind my access has been impacted and the fisheries should be shut down to allow only locals to catch fish locally? I don’t think so, it’s a common resource and should be treated as such, just like the game in this state, keep the rural priority even but when vast swaths of public land in this state are inaccessible so you can have greater access of ease while hunting there is only one word for that…wrong.

      • Steve o , im very glad you are now arguing for equal access to the resources of kasilof / peninsula fisheries . Good job . Since its a public resource should it not extend to equality on quantity of fish allowed per individual? Therefore commercial fishermen should get exactly the same amount as personal use ! You say the state should not decide who gets what resources based on wealth or lack therof . Thus every alaskan should be entitled to be given a boat and permit to commercial fish. You said it yourself alocation of public resources should not be decided by weath or who has what. Effectively your words . I agree . But life doesn’t work that way steve . I do want my 1,000 + fish per day like comm fish . Technically their usage is also personal as they use tge money from fish to feed themselves. It’s exactly the same just diluted . Its also possible we should extend your concept to all alaskans . Divide the resources equally because they don’t all have the wealth to access them . This is your concept at work. How many fish is that per person in Alaska? This is your concept at work steve . Lets go with it . Wait ? Is that borderline socialism? I might classify it as common sense capitalism because then we could give each man a net to catch his share or use super efficient fish traps and divide the profits even to those who as you say are wronged by lack of access . Or wealth inequality. Lets skip all that and get back to meat of discussion. You presented a false reason the feds are limiting nelchina access. You said you said the access to game is based on location. You are misunderstanding the situation. The feds are saying rural residents have a lifestyle that’s dependent on game . Wealth and job opportunity has everything to do with it . There are limited ways to feed yourself in nelchina. Say it steve – jobs create wealth. Jobs and wealth are limited in nelchina. Game meat feeds rural families and has higher life and death importance to rural families that dont have access to jobs . Massive influx of city dwellers into nelchina effect rural families abilities to harvest game and feed themselves. Rural families have historical life and death need of game and the tradition that goes with it is their historical lifestyle that holds their rural communities and families together. Meat in nelchina equals a job / wealth / tradition/ survival. The feds respect tradition and survival. Large cities have other options and resources to feed themselves that nelchinans dont have access to . For a strong nation feds must protect and balance all resources and citizens needs . Stealing the ability of nelchinans to support themselves damages our society and has ripple effects. For social strength nelchinans way of life needs rural preference . Location happens to determine need and historical use . Its not location limits access . Its location is a determiner of use . Btw I respect you immensely steve and understand what you are saying. I feel the same way . I want equal access to those caribou/ moise bears ect . Sadly my wants dont trump someone’s needs . I want lots of things. If I truly need that caribou i can move to nelchina.

      • Steve o, i wrote a fairly detailed post in reply to your last statement but it didn’t come through tge internet for some reason, im not going to repeat it . So in short. You are backwards. People all over America get acces to different items / resources based on wealth. Its just life and tge way it is . Some people cant get food stamps or free health care because their not poor enough. State determined that . Some people cant hunt away from home because they are not rich enough. Its just life . State limits commercial finishing permits to those that can afford to buy them on the market. State sells land to those who can afford to buy . State basically sells private land access to the moderately wealthy. Especially if you want a piece in south east to live on. Now where you went wrong in trying to understand nelchina is its based on need and traditional use . that is linked to location. Its need and traditiona but prooven by location. That location uses hunting for community survival and has fewer job options than anchorage. Say this to yourself- jobs equate wealth . Jobs equate food . Moose equate food . Anchorage or Fairbanks equate jobs . Which equate food . To a nelchinan moose equate a job and food . They have fewer replacement options than anchorageites or even kenais . Its life . Needs and traditional use come first in tge feds mind . Evidently tge feds thought tge city dwellers were effcting nelchinas ability to resolve need and fill traditional use . If you or anybody wants to hunt nelchina moose or caribou and you truly feel you need them then you are free to moove to uber cheap land in nelchina. Live a more traditional lifestyle. In direct touch with tge land . Thats how feds view it I believe. Filling a need . Some people need to live close to their roots . It keeps community and culture diverse . Makes society stronger. Hopefully that makes sense .

      • DPR,

        Nothing you just mentioned is a common resource, fish and game are a common resource. I understand your need to try and obfuscate because having your cake and eating it too is super cool as long as you get yours…everybody else be damned. I hope you caught all the fish you need for the winter and have no competition during any of your hunts.

        Here in America we don’t yet guarantee equal results just equal opportunity, although that principle is quickly slipping away while this group or that decides they are special in someway and more equal than the next guy. I’m glad you are one of those who is more equal, at least somebody is.

      • Steve o, it wasn’t obsufacation you just cant follow a train of thought and got lost . You were in over your head . You hate facing facts that arnt in your favor or in line with your world view . Thats ok . It’s normal. Most people are that way. I made a mistake, I thought i was speaking to an above average intellectual. Try harder next time. I will try to remember not to befuddle you next time. I forgot , complex -is not your happy place. Also You still owe me that moose steak dinner . Btw – the jokes on you – I am not privileged in one way and will not have any access to the part of unit -13 in question. Nor have i ever had special hunt privileges. Nor do i get 5a license. Also im glad your head still lives in imaginary myth land and can pretend America guarantees equal opportunity. I wish it was that way . America has never gaurenteed equal opportunity. Never has and probably never will. Its a nice dream though. As to whether I think its right or wrong that the feds restricted parts of unit 13 hunting- well im just not sure . I presented you with part of the reasoning. Be it right or wrong is tougher to say . I say rural life in Alaska should take precedence because its a culture that is fast disappearing and at one time was what made up the historical use of alaska and preserves in living form a lost part of our history. Btw – unit 13 isnt the only place in Alaska that defines the tags or animals you can hunt by where you live . Its all through the alaska state game regs .foreign to alaska people are even more limited to what they can hunt . Its based on residence . Lower 48 ers are limited more than anchorageites or kenias and have to pay more for tags and hire guides for certain animals an expense only the rich can afford. They also are limited to certain animals. Thats not the equal opportunity you dream of . People from outside America are even more limited to where and what they can hunt in alaska and must hire a guide for all big game animals. Very expensive only the rich can afford. Equal opportunity. Dream on .

      • Steve o , I shouldn’t have taken a condescending tone . I fell into your trap of pettiness. I apologize for my immature behavior. It was weak of me . Have a great evening.

      • Hahaha, thanks for the apology with further insults in it…classy! Don’t worry though no hard feelings, I’ve been called plenty of names from those who are unable or unwilling to explain their point of view in a civil manner and can only resort to ad hominem attacks.

        For the record and so there is no doubt, I definitely have a below average intellect, can’t follow a thought, and I despise facts. Enjoy having and eating your cake DPR.

      • Steve o , you are the master of ad hominem attacks and should look up their definition then look in the mirror. Though you are right sometimes i fail in this area also .

      • DPR,

        I took your advice and just looked up ad hominem again, it still means what I thought. As it turns out they haven’t changed the definition. But then since I have below average intellect, can’t follow a thought, I am in way over my head, along with being petty, backwards, and befuddled, I also despise facts…well according to you anyways. Yep, I’m the master all right. Nice chat, let’s do it again real soon.

      • You win steve o , your sense of humor trumps mine . Btw – those weren’t ad hominem attacks ment to allude to your argument being any less meaningful or correct. Those were just plain old descriptors of what it appeared you were going through. Examples of Why we couldn’t connect on a plane of thought 😉 ( perhaps a bit foolishly condescending and asinine but not ad hominem) Lets talk again soon. Just remember I respect your argument as totally valid just not encompassing. Have a great evening!

    • Steve o . Nearly everything is based on wealth in this state and country. Access to resources is based on wealth to a high degree. Fair or not i cant say . Wealthy people can take time off from work and fly to brooks range to hunt sheep. Or fly out and fish the South east . Wealthy people can send their kids to the best schools. Education is definitely a resource. Even a book is called a resource. Now if i try to stick to just animals and land that you call public resources . Poor people factually do not have enough wealth to have access to fly anywhere and hunt or fish on a repeated basis. In effect remote land becomes private hunting reserves for the wealthy and tge poor do not have access. The wealth and job challenged people may need to hunt in their immediate vicinity. Yes its based on location but tge choice of this location was was used as a determining factor of need for use and keeping with tradition . Wealth effects a persons ability to aply for drawing tags . Or even regular drawing permits for hunting anything from buffalo to caribou. If i have more wealth i can put in for more drawing chances . Repeatedly until i draw a permit. Such a system reduces odds for the poor to get a chance to hunt from the draw system. Effectively creating a private big game reserve for the wealthy. Or well off . Does that also fit your definition of “wrong” btw i dont think they should only allow kasilof fishing for locals . You misunderstood my words . I don’t think your ability to harvest peninsula fish has been impacted enough to shut out anyone else. I just thought you could petition the feds to see your loss . Or the impact to your culture. Do I think the feds should dictate alaskan game laws? No I don’t. That said i can see why the feds step in . I guess first you need to get that land out of fed control.

  9. Thanks Craig, very interesting. The Title 8 ANILCA chickens are really flying home to roost now. I doubt this will be the last place this happens. The state needs to amend its constitution so that a priority can be given to real subsistence users and not used car salemen in Anchorage and Fairbanks.

    • Hmm 😐. Used car salesmen need to eat and enjoy life too . They might even be employing a Freind and therefore feeding families. Might even be paying takes to support wefare and served in tge military risking life and limb to keep the rest of us able to go hunting. Got to be a balance.

  10. Yep, Governor Mike Dunleavy could “stand tall”, tell the Feds to butt out.

    Congress did not create the federal regulatory board that voted to ban non-local moose and caribou hunters from hunting on federal public lands in Alaska on July 16th. The Secretaries of the U.S. Department of the Interior and Agriculture made the Federal Subsistence Board up, they could make the board go away with the signing of a pen.

    Of course it would be helpful if Alaska’s Congressional Delegation would help out. But so far after 40 years of struggle over “dueling fish and game management” in Alaska they have done nothing to help. There is no other state in the Union where the state does not have fish and game management authority. Fish and game management authority is given to the state’s when they enter the Union. The federal law, ANILCA, did not take that authority away.

Leave a Reply to SDM Cancel reply