Federal Proposals to CLOSE Alaska's GMU 23 and 26A to caribou and moose hunters

[william schmaltz]

It seemed like when this was implemented a few years ago, there wasn't much of a dispute that hunters could hunt below the mean high water mark because of the designation of the federal lands up there. I believe the Sturgeon case made it concrete how submerged lands are designated, but it was mostly focused on if that included land within the preserve.

From my limited experience in GMU23, it seems like the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze to try and get a boat from the village to the places caribou hunters are flow into in August and September. Which is where the fight lies, the caribou haven't been making their way to the easy access spots near the village where the locals historically have found em. Or so they say.

 

[Cheechako]

Emailed my written comments on Friday. If given the opportunity, here are my public hearing comments:

I support ANILCA and believe it to be crucial for the protection of the subsistence and traditional use needs of the native people of Alaska. It created the law that empowers this board to take actions like this one. That law is carefully written and must be understood so, I would like to quote from the section pertaining to these types of actions if I may: “The Board may make such temporary changes ONLY after it determines that the proposed temporary change will not interfere with the conservation of healthy fish and wildlife populations, will not be detrimental to the long-term subsistence use of fish or wildlife resources, and is not an unnecessary restriction on non-subsistence users. (36 CFR 242.19 b1)​

The law also requires this board to consider TRADITIONAL USE PATTERNS when taking these actions. (36 CFR 242.18 a4)​

And, the law further gives this board authority to DENY such actions …”which the Board determines is not supported by substantial evidence…” (36 CFR 242.18 a4)​

​

​

WSA21-01​

Is an unnecessary restriction on non-subsistence users, ​

Is NOT supported by evidence, and​

Its approval could potentially be detrimental to long-term subsistence.​

The Law places the burden of proof on the FSB and the RAC.​

The NSRAC has provided you NO evidence that the subsistence of their region is threatened or that NFQU are effecting changes to it. In fact the minutes from their November 3rd, 2020 meeting record proof to the contrary meaning WSA21-01 is an unnecessary restriction.​

I assume this board, like I and other hunters, is familiar with the fact that prior to 1949, the caribou did not use the Buckland/Selwik flats area for wintering and that the Kobuk Valley people would go to the Upper Noatak to get caribou. This is exactly what has been happening recently including in 2020 and subsistence has been achieved. Board members Mr. Kramer and Mr. Shiedt said as much in their meeting in November.​

This is consistent with traditional use patterns for decades.​

The study published in 2017, conducted in a joint effort by the NPS and The Wilderness Society, found that sport hunting and the use of airplanes had no impact on the migration patterns of caribou.​

On multiple occasions, the RACs have been informed that this proposed closure will not have a biological effect on the subsistence harvest.​

And, the population data of the WACH as well as resent harvest estimates for subsistence do not support this action.​

Finally, please understand that if you approve WSA21-01 despite it being an UNNECESSARY restriction on non-subsistence users, and without the support of evidence, you will actually be in violation of the very law that grants you this authority. Such behavior will only encourage the members of the ten regional advisory councils to write more of these erroneous proposals.​

Perpetuating this abusive use of ANILCA and using it as a tool to improperly strip other Americans of their right to public resources invites challenge that could lead to permanent changes. This puts the Secretary of the DOI in a compromising position and it threatens the stability of ANILCA itself. Yes, this action could be very detrimental to the legitimate protection of subsistence long-term. This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf one too many times!​

So I urge you to DENY this wildlife special action, send a clear message to all of the RACs, and put an end to this abusive use of a noble Act.​

​

Thank you.​

Do you have a link to that NPS/ wilderness society study?

 

[Clarktar]

Sent my letter in. Awesome to see all the engaged sportsmen!

 

[Catag94]

Here you go.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s40462-017-0095-z.pdf

 

[pjh360]

E-mail sent!

 

[Nick Muche]

If they are no longer easily accessible [the caribou], then how are they killing umpteen thousand each year? Seems they've found a way to adapt, like many of us have to do annually, based on the same factors...pressure, weather, the animals behavior, predation, habitat loss/gain, etc.

 

[Catag94]

In an effort to to make a lot of information on the WACH more easily accessed for those who wish to take a deeper dive, here are a number of links:

Public hearing and info

Most recent WACH Management Plan - Adopted in August before the NASRAC voted to proceed with the eventual WSA21-01 proposal in November.

Effects of environmental features and sport hunting on caribou migration in northwestern Alaska - an NPS study published in 2017

11/3/20 RASRAC meeting minutes during which they discussed and voted to make this proposal - focus on pages 17-37 and then 84-102. Also notice how much coaching Mr. Stevenson from the OSM gives them.

ANILCA - the actual law - Title 16 of the USC chapter 51

36 CFR Part 242 - SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA

ANILCA in pdf format

2/22/21 North Slope RAC meeting to discuss support of WSA21-01

2/23/21 NSSRAC meeting minutes

Sturgeon vs Frost

Submerged lands Act in the Law

Learn the history of the WACH movements and distribution

This should keep you entertained when tent-bound!

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Another great question. I can't answer for the state vs fed argument because apparently the Sturgeon Vs Frost case will "only be acknowledged" by the local jurisdiction, implying the feds still plan to assert their perceived power below mean high water mark as they interpret the laws for a specific region or river system they manage. Meaning, on one hand Gov Dunleavy has asserted Alaska rights to all lands below mean high water to include the streambed on navigable waterways in the state. On the other hand the Feds claim rivers in their respective public lands are federally patrolled and enforced. When both sides have a hand on each of your shoulders it will be your responsibility to act and hunt legally by state rules and federal rules, and then claim your right to hunt below mean highwater mark on any stream that can be navigated with 1300-lbs or more. 4-6" depth is what this law means to me because I have created rafts that do it and have proven viable commerce for 25 years on streams with no names considered "non-navigable" by the feds. I would love to challenge the feds to compare their list of navigable waterways to my own. That to say, another gray area that has yet to be determined between state and federal land managers. Travel and hunt at your own risk, which what makes Alaska so ******* great.

If though, for example, you're camped below mean high water on federal lands within the closures and your harvest stumbles and dies above mean highwater debris...you will have to make a decision to retrieve that animal and trespass into closed terrain. That's a problem, legally, but not ethically. In Alaska you must recover and salvage all edible meat from big game, even that means dragging that critter back onto state land to finish your legal business. Therefore, you might have to battle your case in court if that scenario was realized and you were caught "trespassing for hunting" on closed federal land. It's still a gray area, and I believe this gray area might also eventually be challenged by "our user group" in ways that forces factual requirements by the FSB when ruling FOR closing public lands in Alaska instead of basing them on hunches of begrudged subsistence users. I simply won't stand for it anymore. It's wrong and prejudice against non-local hunters and public land owners.

Shot placement and confidence in state sovereignty is all I need. High water line is often 50-100 ft or more beyond the shoreline, which has always been enough room to safely and ethically dispatch caribou and moose while camped near flowing water.

As for the question of user conflict between local boaters and planes landing below mean highwater in proposed closed areas: Not plausible due to the standing controlled use zone upstream along the Noatak River, which extends farther upstream than locals are known to travel except on high water years during migrations, which is rare indeed. These control use boundaries prevent planes from landing for supporting hunting activities, so pilots select areas for p/us outside of the CUAs and far from local subsistence activities.

You'll hear Natives claim conflict is greater on the Squirrel river and Noatak, but that's not true. The squirrel has always had reasonable high guide presence in certain pockets, and Natives have co-existed with this rule for forty plus years. That river system is heavily patrolled by LEOs, and the only time issues come up for realzies is when local subsistence users get drunk and decide to create conflict themselves by traveling into guided territory with angst and ill regard for non-locals. The Noatak argument is a dead one because of the always increasing CUA along its course.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

New call in time period for this friday, now 3-7pm Alaska time zone (and continuing after 7 if more on the line).

 

[Razz]

Email sent last night. Thanks Larry and others for keeping us updated. Agonizing over my hunt planning .

 

[Cheechako]

In an effort to to make a lot of information on the WACH more easily accessed for those who wish to take a deeper dive, here are a number of links:

Public hearing and info

Most recent WACH Management Plan - Adopted in August before the NASRAC voted to proceed with the eventual WSA21-01 proposal in November.

Effects of environmental features and sport hunting on caribou migration in northwestern Alaska - an NPS study published in 2017

11/3/20 RASRAC meeting minutes during which they discussed and voted to make this proposal - focus on pages 17-37 and then 84-102. Also notice how much coaching Mr. Stevenson from the OSM gives them.

ANILCA - the actual law - Title 16 of the USC chapter 51

36 CFR Part 242 - SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA

ANILCA in pdf format

2/22/21 North Slope RAC meeting to discuss support of WSA21-01

2/23/21 NSSRAC meeting minutes

Sturgeon vs Frost

Submerged lands Act in the Law

Learn the history of the WACH movements and distribution

This should keep you entertained when tent-bound!

This is awesome. Thank you.

 

[Bambistew]

If they are no longer easily accessible [the caribou], then how are they killing umpteen thousand each year? Seems they've found a way to adapt, like many of us have to do annually, based on the same factors...pressure, weather, the animals behavior, predation, habitat loss/gain, etc.

That was one of my points i made in the letter I sent off. The harvest has remained constant for decades, and 40 years ago there was 1/2 to 1/3 as many caribou, yet they still killed 12-15k.

I included a question asking if any studies have been conducted to prove that 2-stroke motor noise and getting shot point blank in the head out of a boat have any effect on the migratory patterns of caribou? I mean if they are scared of planes or hunters who land 5+ miles away... then you'd think the experience of seeing your caribou buddy blasted 3ft away from you by some dude in a boat would have a similar effect. I imagine the use of boats has increased substantially in the last 40 years as well.

I just find it hard to fathom how the proponents can argue that their harvest is being impacted, when there is no evidence proving that their harvest is actually being impacted.

 

[Nick Muche]

I included a question asking if any studies have been conducted to prove that 2-stroke motor noise and getting shot point blank in the head out of a boat have any effect on the migratory patterns of caribou?

Sir, you may have WON the internet for the day... haha

 

[z987k]

The waste by non locals argument is interesting. From the time I spent working in kotz, I saw a lot of locals throw a lot of caribou in the dumpster. We'd go get it out and salvage what we could.

 

[kwackkillncrew]

2-stroke motor noise and getting shot point blank in the head out of a boat have any effect on the migratory patterns of caribou?

before anyone tries to say this doesnt happen, watch life below zero.

 

[RyanT26]

before anyone tries to say this doesnt happen, watch life below zero.

It’s the way the ancients did it.

 

[Murphy]

I'd speculate the ancients didn't have outboards or rifles. Their argument is down right pathetic. They don't want a single outside hunter in their territory, but they damn sure accept all that our tax money provides.

 

[Bambistew]

It’s the way the ancients did it.

Its been done that way for a long time. Their traditional areas along the river are more or less protected with the air transport corridor ban. The belief that a few hundred non-local hunters spread out over 20,000sq miles can set up a barricade for a 10 of 1000s of caribou is laughable at best. I've shot caribou and had hundreds walk by it and me within 20-50 yards. They just kept heading where they were going.

I don't have an issue with subsistence hunting, but I have an issue with selfishness. There is plenty of animals to hunt and harvest for everyone, there is zero reason to exclude a few people. When the echo chamber of hatred is all you hear, its easy to blame the other guy. Perception vs reality doesn't ring true in this case either. The burden is on them to prove that their hunting is being impacted.

The fact that they don't question their own actions as it relates to caribou movement is odd, or I guess its not. Playing victim is always easier to convince others.

 

[RyanT26]

Its been done that way for a long time. Their traditional areas along the river are more or less protected with the air transport corridor ban. The belief that a few hundred non-local hunters spread out over 20,000sq miles can set up a barricade for a 10 of 1000s of caribou is laughable at best. I've shot caribou and had hundreds walk by it and me within 20-50 yards. They just kept heading where they were going.

I don't have an issue with subsistence hunting, but I have an issue with selfishness. There is plenty of animals to hunt and harvest for everyone, there is zero reason to exclude a few people. When the echo chamber of hatred is all you hear, its easy to blame the other guy. Perception vs reality doesn't ring true in this case either. The burden is on them to prove that their hunting is being impacted.

The fact that they don't question their own actions as it relates to caribou movement is odd, or I guess its not. Playing victim is always easier to convince others.

I agree with you, my post was sarcasm.

 

[Nick Muche]

Thanks Larry for making time!

Episodes – Tundra Talk Podcast

tundratalkak.com