Hold on to your GMU 23/26A Shorts boys

[LongWayAround]

It seems to me that they should not legally be able to announce new closures during the same year.

In my very biased opinion, this issue affects those of us traveling to the region much more than those who live there. If the governing bodies rule for a closure, so be it. It should, however, not be allowed to be instituted until at least the following year. People who are already invested should at least have a reasonable period to adjust their planning.

One item that struck me from the above doi document is the total lack of support from the Alaska wildlife troopers.

 

[WalterH]

This is probably a question for Alaska folk like Larry: if state lands remain open, and you can hunt between the median high water marks along rivers, are you essentially restricted to hunting bank to bank on a waterway? That is what it sounds like to me. Is it even feasible to successfully carry out a caribou hunt with that time of limitation to where you can walk/spot/stalk and hunt??

My understanding is that the State's claim to submerged lands, which include the lands below the mean high water mark, that are otherwise surrounded by federal land is specific to "navigable" rivers only.

Looking at data from the state, it doesn't look like there are any "navigable" rivers north of the Brooks? Is that right? So this hunting the rivers only thing may not apply at all in GMU26? Is that right or am I missing something.

Maybe Larry or someone who knows more about this stuff can elaborate as I am currently a bit confused and definitely don't want to get jammed up if the closure happens and I wind up hunting up north as currently planned.

 

[Catag94]

I think you’ll find “navigable” includes “raftable”. Nonetheless, you can learn much more by studying Sturgeon vs Frost.

STURGEON v. FROST

www.law.cornell.edu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WalterH]

I think you’ll find “navigable” includes “raftable”. Nonetheless, you can learn much more by studying Sturgeon vs Frost.

STURGEON v. FROST

www.law.cornell.edu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the link. I've definitely paid attention to that case, as most Alaskan's have. My understanding is that "navigable" is a specific legal term or designation, and not simply a question as to whether or not someone can get down it in a raft or canoe, etc?

The Alaska DNR mapper data shows which rivers the state has designated as "navigable," none of which are north of the Brooks based on what I am looking at. Just trying to make sure I am not missing anything.

Alaska Mapper - New Map

 

[AlaskaMark]

Alaska Mapper - New Map
"Omission of any waters from this map is not intended as a designation that it is not navigable."

Plenty of the rivers north of Brooks are classified as navigable. Depends on how you look it up:

https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/docs/regulatory/NavWat.pdf

On the question of whether one can legally hunt on federally closed areas within the mean high water mark on navigable rivers (state owned), the answer is yes. And that was part of the problems created by past closures, adding more crowding to the Noatak.

 

[WalterH]

Alaska Mapper - New Map
"Omission of any waters from this map is not intended as a designation that it is not navigable."

Plenty of the rivers north of Brooks are classified as navigable. Depends on how you look it up:

https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/docs/regulatory/NavWat.pdf

On the question of whether one can legally hunt on federally closed areas within the mean high water mark on navigable rivers (state owned), the answer is yes. And that was part of the problems created by past closures, adding more crowding to the Noatak.

For some reason when I'd looked at the DNR site in the past I hadn't seen the nav waters disclaimer. When I looked just now this popped up.




There is a lot of super good info I hadn't seen before on the "unlocking alaska" page that is linked there, but I'm still fuzzy on a few things, like this...




If you look at the PDF that includes the maps of these "pre-statehood" withdrawals, everything N of the Brooks, for the most part, is on one of the maps.

So Mark, it would seem to me that the answer isn't quite as simple as "someone says it's navigable so we can hunt it." Right? Navigable, as it applies to ownership, seems to be a pretty narrow and specific definition with regard to legal implications.

Take the Colville River for example. It flows through fed land so the closure would affect the lands surrounding it. It is listed as "navigable" on the document Mark shared, but the AK DNR map has it marked as non-navigable. It is on one of the maps showing withdrawn lands that "may possibly block" state ownership according to the disclaimer. WTF??

 

[Catag94]

The SCOTUS ruling in the aforementioned case was based on the fact the United States of America does not hold title to the land beneath navigable waters in ALSAKA nor does/can it hold title to running water. This made the Nation river (in the case above) Non-public land which in ALASKA (the only state this is true) non-public land even within the bounds of a public land (park) may NOT be regulated as part of the park. (Made true for Alaska by sec. 103(c) of ANILCA)

 

[AlaskaMark]

So Mark, it would seem to me that the answer isn't quite as simple as "someone says it's navigable so we can hunt it." Right? Navigable, as it applies to ownership, seems to be a pretty narrow and specific definition with regard to legal implications.

Yes, that is correct, and the state is still fighting over classification on rivers not yet classified as navigable.

The whole "navigable" issue is quite ridiculous; I went through it where I used to live, which was same Upper Yukon area as the Nation River where Sturgeon hunted within Yukon Charley Preserve. I lived on the next drainage to the west. We have a well-reported history of people using boats on those rivers, but the definitions of navigable seem skewed toward making it incredibly hard and costly for the smaller rivers (that are still navigable in reality by smaller watercraft) to attain classified status. Sturgeon was able to win because the Nation had finally been classified as navigable prior to his case.

 

[Catag94]

While the DNR shows the rivers on the North Slope as non navigable, the Draft analysis prepared by the OSM would lead one to be somewhat confident that none of unit 26A will be closed. so, perhaps the classification wont matter. Here's to hoping!

 

[Catag94]

The final Analyses are now posted for SWA21-01a

Federal Subsistence Board | U.S. Department of the Interior

Future FSB meetings

www.doi.gov

More importantly, there is one final public comment opportunity on 3/21/2022 prior to the FSB convening on 3/30/22.
A telephonic work session is scheduled for March 30, 2022, beginning at 1p.m. The purpose of this work session is for the Board to further discuss and take action on WSA21-01. The revised analysis will be available at least one week before the teleconference, at https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/board.

"While this work session is open to the public to listen in, a public comment session will not be provided during the Board’s teleconference since the Board will have previously held public hearings on this issue on April 21, November 17, and December 2, 2021, and March 21, 2022. The public is invited to listen in by calling the telephone numbers below. When prompted, enter the passcode.

Board Work Session Information:

Wednesday, March 30, 2022 from 1 p.m. – 4 p.m.
Teleconference Toll Free: 888-942-9690
Passcode: 6071806

 

[Catag94]

A few excerpts from the analysis (WSA21-01a (caribou)) and my thoughts in the bullet points.


According to the OSM data collection and analysis, “..Much of the non-local harvest is concentrated” North of the Noatak River within the Noatak National Preserve.

Non-federally qualified users have been hunting caribou in Units 23 and 26A for decades, and caribou continued to migrate past Unit 23 communities in the fall. Thus, it is unclear why non-local hunting activity would be having an undue effect on caribou migration timing and routing in recent years.

-And yet, there seems to be very little change in the timing of the caribou migration crossing the Noatak river.

Delay in migration appears to be occurring between the Noatak and Kobuk Rivers (see “Biological Background”). Since 2017, substantially fewer GPS-collared caribou have also crossed the Kobuk and Selawik Rivers (and the Noatak River, but to a lesser extent).

OSM considers a full closure of Federal public lands in Units 23 and 26A an unnecessary restriction on nonsubsistence users and does not support a full closure. And… Additionally, closing hunting to non-Federally qualified users on Federal public lands in Unit 26A is not warranted.

-Closing portions of the Noatak National Preserve north of the Noatak River should also be considered “NOT WARRANTED” and therefore, an UNNECESSARY restriction on nonsubsistence users.

To date, scientific research has not been able to demonstrate large-scale or long-term impacts of air traffic alone on caribou migration (Dau 2015, Fullman et al. 2017).

In truth, scientific research has more accurately disproven this claim.

Ultimately, the Board’s decision will be guided by the objectives of Title VIII of ANILCA to provide a subsistence priority on Federal public lands while conserving a healthy caribou population and ensuring the continuation of subsistence uses of this resource.

• WITH NON-SUBSITENCE USERS REPSENTING SUCH A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL HARVEST (3% OR SMALLER), HOW CAN ONE CLAIM THAT THE GOAL OF PROVIDING SUBSITENCE PRIORITY IS NOT CLEARLY BEING MET WITH CURRENT RESTRICTIONS.
• Further, the Non-Local Harvest of caribou is so small, that 100% elimination of it (which is not possible) would likely have close to no effect on the caribou migration patterns, or subsistence harvest whatsoever.

In conclusion:

• FULL REJECTION OF WSA21-01(a) is the only fully justifiable option given all the OBJECTIVELY KNOWN FACTS.
• The OSM’s option of approval with modification should include limiting the closure to extend no further north that the Noatak River itself.

 

[LongWayAround]

I might be blind but... When is the call in period today?

 

[Catag94]

Good question. I don’t see anything on their website but in a couple places, (draft analysis and final staff analysis) it definitely says their is one today. I’ll call the office to ask about it and let you know what I learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Catag94]

I just got off the phone with the office of subsistence management. They confirmed that there is a public hearing today from 1500 to 1800 Alaska time. I was told the reason for this public hearing is because there was new information that has come to them since the last analysis. They are going to get it posted on their website and said that it not being posted was an oversight. They are also going to email me the call-in phone number and passcode which, once I get it, I will share.

 

[LongWayAround]

I'm very curious as to what this new information could be.

Was there any indication from your conversation?

 

[AlaskaMark]

The new info is the population estimate of the WACH at 188,000 animals, which puts it in "preservative" mgmt according to the WACH Working Group plan.

This is the call-in information that was already sent out, for today's public hearing:
Monday, March 21 from 3pm – 6pm (or until the end of public participation)
Teleconference: Toll Free: 1-800-779-2712
Passcode: 5653753

 

[Catag94]

Public Hearing Information:

Monday, March 21 from 3pm – 6pm (or until the end of public participation)
Teleconference: Toll Free: 1-800-779-2712
Passcode: 5653753

 

[william schmaltz]

Surprised at the lack of post-meeting discourse here. I had to deal with unforeseen kid stuff and missed it all. Anyone have a summary or updated timeline?

 

[LongWayAround]

Surprised at the lack of post-meeting discourse here. I had to deal with unforeseen kid stuff and missed it all. Anyone have a summary or updated timeline?

I listened to most of it but missed the very beginning and end.

In total, I heard three locals voice support for the proposal. Dozens of people from Alaska and the lower 48 spoke their opposition.

Of the supporters, one said "people were sneaking into their village" (I wasn't sure what that meant). Another mostly talked about moose (already highly restricted), and added caribou as an afterthought. The third more or less said the caribou don't come through like they used to and blamed planes.

The opposition included numerous conservation/sportsman's groups and plenty of non-affiliated speakers. Generally, the lack of scientific data based footing was the main reason for opposition. Several Alaska-based groups, as well as the fish and game spoke out.

In my biased opinion, the opposition has a much more coherent argument with citable facts. While the supporters had pretty rambling comments that were somewhat difficult to follow.

 

[Catag94]

I listened to most of it but missed the very beginning and end.

In total, I heard three locals voice support for the proposal. Dozens of people from Alaska and the lower 48 spoke their opposition.

Of the supporters, one said "people were sneaking into their village" (I wasn't sure what that meant). Another mostly talked about moose (already highly restricted), and added caribou as an afterthought. The third more or less said the caribou don't come through like they used to and blamed planes.

The opposition included numerous conservation/sportsman's groups and plenty of non-affiliated speakers. Generally, the lack of scientific data based footing was the main reason for opposition. Several Alaska-based groups, as well as the fish and game spoke out.

In my biased opinion, the opposition has a much more coherent argument with citable facts. While the supporters had pretty rambling comments that were somewhat difficult to follow.

Thanks for the really good summary. Unfortunately I never made it onto the call. (Funeral service for my FIL). In my experience from last year, etc., I would completely agree with you. I think that’s why the OSM analysis included comments “traditional knowledge” vs “Western Science”. I found this premise considerably distasteful. It is a cheap attempt to cover for the fact that the proponents and local RACs have no real facts to support a closure. The herd count estimate was a gift that fell into their lap, but event that doesn’t support their theories that FNQS hunters are delaying or rerouting the caribou.
I for one earnestly believe that subsistence SHOULD get priority, but I also think an fair number of the locals use this to simply exercise prejudice and thereby comply abuse ANILCA. It’s shameful.