Hold on to your GMU 23/26A Shorts boys

[Catag94]

perhaps this image from the analysis of the proposed closure helps:
It is everything that is hashed. So all of the Noatak National Preserve AND the BLM between the rivers. Then, they added the small amount of preserve land in 26a along the Nigu.

 

[CGSwimmer25]

A word of caution for those that might choose to continue on with their trip to unit 23 and try to skirt this closure by hunting caribou on the river bars below the mean high water mark…I spoke with a Park Ranger last year who was checking licenses in the area via helicopter. They WILL cite you if you are in the area hunting caribou, regardless of if you’re on the river bank. You may win in court but not sure having your animal confiscated and having to hire a lawyer and come back to Alaska for a court case would be worth the trouble.

Another suggestion for those that find a different area to hunt caribou in Alaska. When you get back from your successful trip and are eager to post on social media before your bags are even unpacked…LEAVE THE DETAILS OF YOUR TRIP TO PRIVATE MESSAGES!! Post your pictures for everyone to congratulate to and give you likes, but leave all other information to yourself. Maybe if more people had practiced this there wouldn’t be a closure up there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Catag94]

Any of you know how likely it is that the caribou will be in the State land north and east of Ambler in the second week of September?

 

[cjc5062]

How successful can one expect to be in the state lands? We are scheduled to be dropped in by Jared at Golden Eagle Outfitters 2nd week of September, like Catag94. Hoping the transporters can still drop us off in good locations.

 

[Jclark225]

Same here. Are the caribou for sure South of 26a by September? (Newbie question, this was going to be my first trip)

 

[Catag94]

The table on page 29 of the analysis would give me hope regarding higher elevation (southern boundary) of unit 26a having caribou in the second week of September. Next question is can you get in there?

 

[Catag94]

A word of caution for those that might choose to continue on with their trip to unit 23 and try to skirt this closure by hunting caribou on the river bars below the mean high water mark…I spoke with a Park Ranger last year who was checking licenses in the area via helicopter. They WILL cite you if you are in the area hunting caribou, regardless of if you’re on the river bank. You may win in court but not sure having your animal confiscated and having to hire a lawyer and come back to Alaska for a court case would be worth the trouble.

Another suggestion for those that find a different area to hunt caribou in Alaska. When you get back from your successful trip and are eager to post on social media before your bags are even unpacked…LEAVE THE DETAILS OF YOUR TRIP TO PRIVATE MESSAGES!! Post your pictures for everyone to congratulate to and give you likes, but leave all other information to yourself. Maybe if more people had practiced this there wouldn’t be a closure up there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Nope just wolf hunting and fishing! Here are my tags.

 

[cjc5062]

The table on page 29 of the analysis would give me hope regarding higher elevation (southern boundary) of unit 26a having caribou in the second week of September. Next question is can you get in there?

Do you have the link where I can get a copy of the analysis? Can’t seem to find it.

 

[Catag94]

Do you have the link where I can get a copy of the analysis? Can’t seem to find it.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/wsa21-01a-post-deferral-caribou-fsb-508.pdf

 

[Catag94]

The more I think about it the more upsetting it is that the BLM rep added the 26a portion of the Noatak National Preserve along the Nigu.
Two things:

The OSM was neutral and was willing to support the closure with the modifications they mentioned OR a full rejection. If you can fully support a rejection of this, then any closure, by default, becomes an Unnecessary one. The addition of land the OSM found no support for is certainly an Unnecessary restriction on non-subsistence users.

This clearly violates the law.

36 CFR 242.19(C):
"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 nonsubsistence users. The Board may also reopen public lands to nonsubsistence uses if new information or changed conditions indicate that the closure is no longer warranted."

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Fellas, it is imperative that we keep our basic legal rights in mind before jumping into a fit. The state governor has stated that all lands below mean high water line are state owned and managed landscape legal to taking of game by laws set by the state BOG. Unless the state presents an emergency order for bag limits and legal hunting closures for caribou within these closed lands on federal waterways, it is legal to pursue your caribou hunt as long as you camp and harvest game below the mean high water line.

I will plan my hunt there now that this appears final, but allow your air transporter the flexibility to help your group navigate this closure despite the closure intent to limit our physical participation of this season and next.

Please don't despair about your long awaited hunt plans. Trust the state boundaries and take solid care of your harvests. Do your thing and don't be scared about enforcement encounters, but stay below mean high water inside these closed areas and do your best to absorb the value it provides.

That's what I'll be doing anyways. I pray for a federal LEO to cite my harvest efforts. This might be an opportunity NFQ hunters need to make a supreme court ruling on this matter, because I don't believe the state would prosecute a hunter who harvests a bull below mean high water in these closed areas. Please let me be the first to be cited.

 

[z987k]

A word of caution for those that might choose to continue on with their trip to unit 23 and try to skirt this closure by hunting caribou on the river bars below the mean high water mark…I spoke with a Park Ranger last year who was checking licenses in the area via helicopter. They WILL cite you if you are in the area hunting caribou, regardless of if you’re on the river bank. You may win in court but not sure having your animal confiscated and having to hire a lawyer and come back to Alaska for a court case would be worth the trouble.

Another suggestion for those that find a different area to hunt caribou in Alaska. When you get back from your successful trip and are eager to post on social media before your bags are even unpacked…LEAVE THE DETAILS OF YOUR TRIP TO PRIVATE MESSAGES!! Post your pictures for everyone to congratulate to and give you likes, but leave all other information to yourself. Maybe if more people had practiced this there wouldn’t be a closure up there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a pretty good way for that Ranger to open themselves up to personal litigation. If they damn well know they are violating the law, and openly admit it, you'd have a real good chance of piercing their qualified immunity. Since Sturgeon v. Frost is well established in every circuit - the SCOTUS and certainly the 9th, you'd probably not even need that. Go after everything of any value in their life in civil court, all your court costs for defending the illegal citation. The park service as well since they'd have the money to pay you, but if a Ranger is going to willfully disregard the law, take everything from them personally. They should die with so much still owed to you they can't pass a dollar to an heir.

If you're contacted, while legally hunting, I'd discreetly record everything, which you should always do with any LEO encounter. They make a statement like that and they're cooked.

I'd also not say a damn thing to them. As is your right.

While you will have to hire a lawyer, the state is very interested in protecting the Charlie River decision. It would be a repeat of it.

 

[CGSwimmer25]

Fellas, it is imperative that we keep our basic legal rights in mind before jumping into a fit. The state governor has stated that all lands below mean high water line are state owned and managed landscape legal to taking of game by laws set by the state BOG. Unless the state presents an emergency order for bag limits and legal hunting closures for caribou within these closed lands on federal waterways, it is legal to pursue your caribou hunt as long as you camp and harvest game below the mean high water line.

I will plan my hunt there now that this appears final, but allow your air transporter the flexibility to help your group navigate this closure despite the closure intent to limit our physical participation of this season and next.

Please don't despair about your long awaited hunt plans. Trust the state boundaries and take solid care of your harvests. Do your thing and don't be scared about enforcement encounters, but stay below mean high water inside these closed areas and do your best to absorb the value it provides.

That's what I'll be doing anyways. I pray for a federal LEO to cite my harvest efforts. This might be an opportunity NFQ hunters need to make a supreme court ruling on this matter, because I don't believe the state would prosecute a hunter who harvests a bull below mean high water in these closed areas. Please let me be the first to be cited.

Again, contact the Park officers that will be issuing the tickets yourself and post what they say will happen when you’re hunting on the river bars. Yes, you’ll probably win in court but will non-resident hunters really want the trouble of coming back to Alaska for court?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CGSwimmer25]

That's a pretty good way for that Ranger to open themselves up to personal litigation.

If you're contacted, while legally hunting, I'd discreetly record everything, which you should always do with any LEO encounter. They make a statement like that and they're cooked.

I'd also not say a damn thing to them. As is your right.

You don’t have to say a damn thing to them. When they see you in a closed hunting area with a caribou carcass they’ll have all they need to cite you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRTreedogs]

Again, contact the Park officers that will be issuing the tickets yourself and post what they say will happen when you’re hunting on the river bars. Yes, you’ll probably win in court but will non-resident hunters really want the trouble of coming back to Alaska for court?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds to me like you're just trying to scare everyone off so that you can have whats left to yourself.

 

[Catag94]

Remember, you have every right to be in the federal land to use it for any purpose other than caribou hunting. So, I have a hard time believing they are gonna site people for being there.
Now, to your point, if you have a caribou carcass, that’s another story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRTreedogs]

Fellas, it is imperative that we keep our basic legal rights in mind before jumping into a fit. The state governor has stated that all lands below mean high water line are state owned and managed landscape legal to taking of game by laws set by the state BOG. Unless the state presents an emergency order for bag limits and legal hunting closures for caribou within these closed lands on federal waterways, it is legal to pursue your caribou hunt as long as you camp and harvest game below the mean high water line.

I will plan my hunt there now that this appears final, but allow your air transporter the flexibility to help your group navigate this closure despite the closure intent to limit our physical participation of this season and next.

Please don't despair about your long awaited hunt plans. Trust the state boundaries and take solid care of your harvests. Do your thing and don't be scared about enforcement encounters, but stay below mean high water inside these closed areas and do your best to absorb the value it provides.

That's what I'll be doing anyways. I pray for a federal LEO to cite my harvest efforts. This might be an opportunity NFQ hunters need to make a supreme court ruling on this matter, because I don't believe the state would prosecute a hunter who harvests a bull below mean high water in these closed areas. Please let me be the first to be cited.

I booked a hunt because I wanted a big beautiful Alaska adventure.
Not to tip toe around.

 

[CGSwimmer25]

Sounds to me like you're just trying to scare everyone off so that you can have whats left to yourself.

It’s not that hard to contact the park service and get this information for yourself. I hunt areas that aren’t flooded with non-residents posting on social media. There’s nothing to “have for myself” on the Noatak, that area is now CLOSED to non-locals. Seems pretty clear to me. Do your due diligence and feel free to post when the LEO you speak to tells you to go ahead and hunt below the high water mark. Ain’t gonna happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[z987k]

It’s not that hard to contact the park service and get this information for yourself. I hunt areas that aren’t flooded with non-residents posting on social media. There’s nothing to “have for myself” on the Noatak, that area is now CLOSED to non-locals. Seems pretty clear to me. Do your due diligence and feel free to post when the LEO you speak to tells you to go ahead and hunt below the high water mark. Ain’t gonna happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the other hand if he specifically tells you, that you cannot hunt there or will be cited, a) record everything and then b) take it to the Alaska attorney General.

 

[BRTreedogs]

...