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

[Catag94]

Thanks Larry for making time!

Episodes – Tundra Talk Podcast

tundratalkak.com

Yes indeed. Thanks for sharing that link., I enjoyed listening.

Something else I thought of, and will add to public comments on Friday, is the that through work of the WACH WG the latest Management Plan was adopted. This data also led to the EXPANSION of harvest for caribou in unit 23. In the Current Regulation period, the Harvest of BULL Caribou has been EXPANDED to NO CLOSED SEASON for residents. However, the RAC wants to then request the FSB close both 23 and 26 to 4-500 hunters for 60 days! And, by the way, in all likeliness this group of hunters is only interested in or allowed to harvest BULL caribou. This points only to discrimination.

 

[mcseal2]

I re-sent my email today with my address and information on it. Thanks to those who posted here to let me know that was necessary.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Yes agreed Catag94. Also NWRAC submitted this proposal first in October 2020 (invalid excuse was COVID and was rejected by OSM) and deliberated ad nauseum with OSM to reshape this proposal on Nov 3 BEFORE caribou typically show up close enough for Kotz residents to harvest. However...

Here is a video I shot in mid July on the lower Nimiuktuk River (GMU 23 and 5 miles upstream of the Noatak confluence) 4 months prior to that Nov 3 meeting where RAC members continued false claims that caribou are "late" and freezers are empty and that non-locals are to blame for not allowing cows and young bulls the chance to layout trail networks along historic pathways. These networks are laid down in July by THOUSANDS of cows and young bulls from this herd and I witness active networking every other year that fish and float these rivers in July. If their claims were true, and they are not, wouldn't that make my video evidence and personal sightings of scores of hundreds of caribou moving south and west to the Noatak river in July a complete farse for 2020? Other past videos on my Youtube channel showing char and sheefish trips in this region also capture video evidence of healthy numbers of "trail blazers" very active in July on these GMU 23 river systems, all feeding south into the Noatak River. Their argument that non-local hunting in mid august prevents trailblazers from stabilizing the migratory pathways, thus ensuring a continuation of subsistence use opportunities, is the actual farse.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Here's an oldie but goody from a JULY trip on the Kelly and Kuguroruk rivers during the year of rapid decline of 50% of the herd...still trailblazers sacrificing life and limb to lay down networks of safe trails for the herd.

What I didn't show in this video are the 8 cows we found shredding upstream of this encounter by wolves, leaving this calf and others to fend for themselves in hostile environments completely unrelated to my non-local skin color.

 

[Catag94]

Another good document to shed light on historic hunting by the Subsistence hunters.

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_7/NWRS/Zone_2/Selawik/PDF/Uqausriptigun%20for%20WEB%20PDF%20single%20page.pdf

 

[BigHunterification]

Here's an oldie but goody from a JULY trip on the Kelly and Kuguroruk rivers during the year of rapid decline of 50% of the herd...still trailblazers sacrificing life and limb to lay down networks of safe trails for the herd.

What I didn't show in this video are the 8 cows we found shredding upstream of this encounter by wolves, leaving this calf and others to fend for themselves in hostile environments completely unrelated to my non-local skin color.

Thanks for all of the info Larry. Great videos too. What an incredible experience that would have been with the baby bou. I have had that happen once to me with a calf elk while cow chirping in the timber but mom quickly called her back. Did she lure in any wolves for you? She meet back up with the herd or left for the wolves?

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Unknown outcome for this little calf. The ground was covered for a mile with recent tracks, so my guess is she rendezvoused with the herd as an orphaned calf. The wolves went with the herd too I'd guess. I saw a few random cows while fishing that mile section, but most of the ones I spotted were shredded piles of bones and scraps.

 

[Voyageur]

Well, tonight's the night. I sincerely hope everyone who is able calls in. I'll be sitting in turkey camp while I await my turn to speak.
@Larry Bartlett question for you....as a nonresident I am not nearly as familiar with the history of the caribou herds and the hunting of them as are those of you who are AK residents. I have decided therefor to keep my remarks generic in nature and simply say I oppose closing the units to non-local hunters. I also plan to remind them there is no scientic evidence supporting their desire to do so.
In your opinion is that sufficient, or should I go into more detail?
Thanks.

 

[Catag94]

I think the odds of this passing are growing more slim. I also believe that this will be challenged in court if it somehow does. The FSB has something far different on their hands now than they did in 2016/2017.

edit to add: This is to give confidence and to encourage even more calls not to give reason not to call! We need everyone.

 

[mcseal2]

I reached out to all the guys I have hunted AK with in the past. Also some guys that want to in the future and have asked me questions. Most of them also enailed.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

The way the "count" system works for analysis of decisions by the FSB, as it was described to me by facilitator Stevenson, is:

One opposition based on unsubstantial evidence and lack of biological or state support = the same weight as 100 oppositions citing the same thing. The FSB panel analysis that input and weighs the plausible outcomes based on policy and ANILCA Title 8. However, civil unrest is a palpable alternative to their passing this closure, and if we all vow to challenge this closure if passed without state support, biological necessity, or reasons with substantial evidence backing the closure, potential civil disobedience is a direct consequence for the federal land managers and LEOs to consider. Just by the shear number of us who are willing to hunt below mean high water to skate around this arbitrary proposal (and would not do if kept open to non-locals)..the weight of our unrest is certainly more than a single vote in opposition because it has potential to escalate to tangible user conflict.

I'm truly not an expert testimony provider, but the best defense is the most logical factual reason for opposition. Stick to the facts, avoid slander, and be brief in your Opposition to WSA21-01.

 

[Catag94]

The way the "count" system works for analysis of decisions by the FSB, as it was described to me by facilitator Stevenson, is:

One opposition based on unsubstantial evidence and lack of biological or state support = the same weight as 100 oppositions citing the same thing. The FSB panel analysis that input and weighs the plausible outcomes based on policy and ANILCA Title 8. However, civil unrest is a palpable alternative to their passing this closure, and if we all vow to challenge this closure if passed without state support, biological necessity, or reasons with substantial evidence backing the closure, potential civil disobedience is a direct consequence for the federal land managers and LEOs to consider. Just by the shear number of us who are willing to hunt below mean high water to skate around this arbitrary proposal (and would not do if kept open to non-locals)..the weight of our unrest is certainly more than a single vote in opposition because it has potential to escalate to tangible user conflict.

I'm truly not an expert testimony provider, but the best defense is the most logical factual reason for opposition. Stick to the facts, avoid slander, and be brief in your Opposition to WSA21-01.

Very well said sound and informed advice sir.

 

[wind gypsy]

The way the "count" system works for analysis of decisions by the FSB, as it was described to me by facilitator Stevenson, is:

One opposition based on unsubstantial evidence and lack of biological or state support = the same weight as 100 oppositions citing the same thing. The FSB panel analysis that input and weighs the plausible outcomes based on policy and ANILCA Title 8.

Larry, I'm not sure I fully follow the above statement, can you help clarify? Are you saying a basis of reasoning for opposition provided by one person is worth the same whether it's provided by one person or 100?

 

[Nick Muche]

He's saying if 100 people use the same rationale for opposition, it still is only 1 reason to oppose.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Nick is correct.

 

[Sourdough]

He's saying if 100 people use the same rationale for opposition, it still is only 1 reason to oppose.

So........if three thousand call-in and say........"I oppose this, I really-really-really want to be able to hunt there". That only counts as one vote, in opposition and not three thousand......???

More then five decades I have been to some degree effected by this "type" of government action, as Alaskan hunter and guide. Over the last 50 plus years the quality of hunting-fishing and guiding in Alaska has deteriorated. Yes.....there is a wide range of factors that have contributed to this deterioration.

You need to come up with a better plan then fighting every one of this type actions. I am not saying don't fight. I am saying realize that inch by inch who is winning and who is loosing. And if it appears clear your side is loosing consistently over-all, better formulate a new plan.

I look back at what hunting and fishing was in Alaska more then fifty years ago, and what remains today..........and it is easy to project what conditions will be like in thirty or fifty years.

Just my opinion, but it appears there is a massive force that will continue to oppress hunting and fishing in Alaska.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

agreed Sourdough. But yes, 3000 opposed for the same reason is one reason to oppose. It's not a vote. The FSB seems prideful in their use of "analysis," as in totality of circumstances. If for example there were 3000 opposed and the NWRAC had supported their proposal with substantial (or any) evidence, then the WSA proposal would most likely be adopted based on previous precedence.

I agree wholeheartedly that federal management of a renewable state resource makes zero sense. And we are, as non-local hunters, left to reaction vs. proaction.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

I'm "on hold" now standing by for testimony! Shitty easy listening tunes!

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Some great testimony from many of you so far, as well as Alaska State Wildlife Commissioner, Alaska BHA and John Sturgeon to name only a few great spiels. Between what you guys are providing and their testimonies there is plenty of sound opposition to this WSA. Again, thank you all for contributing your time on this issue.

 

[Clarktar]

Great contributions from non-local folks so far. I'm still waiting my turn.