If allowing someone to bait for bears and others not to, like you said in your previous post, then yes I would.
I honestly see this being very similar to the feds closing caribou hunting to “non locals” in some areas for no reason scientific reason.
Fair enough. I guess I don't feel entirely the same and/or this slight loss doesn't bother me much, as everyone is still free to pursue these animals in these places using methods and means that line up with most states define as "fair chase."
Now the fed closures up north for caribou and sheep and in unit 13 during covid are absolutely something to get fire up about. In those cases, the fed subsistence board made decisions that directly contradict the science and data and absolutely locked a bunch of people out of hunting opportunities entirely. Totally egregious and unacceptable in my mind. Of the various land access and hunting issues going on in AK at the moment, I am surprised this one hasn't been more in the spotlight as it has way more potential to impact large groups of people as compared to banning a few seldom used methods and means in a few places.
As for the feds role in wildlife management, like most others here, I am of the mindset that hunting and fishing are best managed by the states. That having been said, the feds had and have the original authority to manage wildlife and natural resources on fed managed lands and elsewhere. They delegate most of that authority to the states and continue to do so until/unless the states permit things that contradict existing federal laws, regs, and directives, which is what has happened here with this predator control issue.
A group with the University of Montana put together a pretty good summary about this state vs. fed wildlife management authority issue a while back.
As for the slippery slope argument, which is how this thread should have started out and been labeled, yes it is real and something to be aware of and fought against when it pops up. This is not that though.
Sport hunting and fishing on fed public lands in customary and traditional ways is not in danger in Alaska and never will be. The ANILCA was and is one of the most widely supported pieces of legislation in history and in it these hunting and fishing rights are enshrined.
Contrary to popular belief, these fed land managers are not free to make and amend rules based on personal preferences, morals, or ethics. As the previously linked rule making proposal outlines, they have to justify their proposals based on existing laws, regs, and mandates. If they pull stuff out of their butt that is arbitrary, capricious, and not back=stopped by legal authority and/or laws, the conversation never gets started.
I do find it concerning that the pendulum can swing somewhat widely from administration to administration and decision on both sides of the issue, based on who is in charge, are deemed to be "right" interpretations and applications based on existing law.