Hold on to your GMU 23/26A Shorts boys

[thinhorn_AK]

there is a report posted by Larry actually that is interviews with elders. That was what i am referencing.
Uqausriptigum: in our own words, a Selawik Refuge publication based on 2003 interviews

I know all about elders. Their stories are nothong but good old days stories. things used to better just like all old folks say. As I mentioned earlier, the subsistence lifestyle is nothing but a hobby for 99% of folks and a memory for elders.

Heck, Im good friends with an "elder", he lies about stuff I'm watching happen...."Oh I got 75 kings in my net yesterday".....when I was there with him and we got 3 kings.

 

[AlaskaMark]

I lived subsistence for 32 years, 60 raven miles from the nearest village. Native friends who lived in the villages used to tell us we lived more Native than they did, like the old days away from the villages. I was mentored in part by Native Gwichin elders, and spoke with some who were around when the first white man arrived. Was immersed in Native Athapaskan culture and respect and understand it well. Bad feelings still linger of course.

Went through similar issues of non-local hunters being dropped off, competing with us for our food. No hunter wants other hunters around, but I sure as hell did not believe that other hunters somehow were not allowed and should all be restricted. We all have different ways of dealing with things, my attitude was to adapt and make the best of it. So I would engage with those hunters I met on the river, inform them of our lifestyle and where we were and that we had comms if they ran into problems, that if I saw any wanton waste I'd turn them in. Made some friends along the way, shared some fires, at times we mutually helped each other out. Made enemies of those I turned in for wanton waste.

It made it harder in ways to fill our meat shed, for reasons having to do with living remote, no freezer. We couldn't take a moose til mid-Sept, though the season opened on the 5th. It had to be cold enough to hang the meat quarters whole, and then freeze soon thereafter. We'd have a bull hanging around the cabin and then a fly-in hunter would take it on the 10th. I'd help butcher and we salvaged everything that was left for the dogteam. That was how we adapted. We never accepted meat from others, though plenty wanted to give it to us to avoid floating/dragging it out and taking care of it. That in particular I know is the one issue that gets under the skin of many rural residents...that some hunters don't want the meat, aren't there for the meat, yet villages seem very happy to accept well-cared-for donated meat.

Some out NW and North Slope don't want any non-local hunters, and have used and are using either the Board of Game and FSB to impose limits or restrictions or closures. As was pointed out, we now have controlled use areas where aircraft aren't allowed over large areas. Pilot orientations and efforts to curb wanton waste and spoiled meat. And past closures. and continuing WSAs. The WACH Working Group was formed to deal with these issues, yet did not live up to their own internal agreements on when restrictions should take place.

The FSB and lack of congress involvement in fixing it is the real problem. They are not following the law and the regulations. Here's their own guidelines on when restrictions or closures can take place: “The Federal Subsistence Board may take a Special Action to restrict, close, open, or reopen the taking of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands and waters. Such actions are taken to ensure the continued viability of a particular fish or wildlife population, to ensure continued subsistence use, or for reasons of public safety.”

There are no conservation concerns at this time for the WACH's viability. Subsistence needs are being met. There are no public safety concerns. Re aircraft, there is no evidence that aircraft are disrupting caribou migrations. Most all of us, I do believe, if the game population was in trouble and subsistence needs were not being met, would support a closure.

As far as rhetoric, both sides need to tone it down. White guys need to stop assuming things about Native culture and Native guys need to stop assuming that somehow hunting is not as important to us culturally as it is to them.

I'm as frustrated as Larry, gone through and seen the same things. The facts don't support this closure request, and that's all that needs to be stated really. Anything else just ends up firming up each sides negative opinions of the other and does more harm than good.

 

[ppumil]

I lived subsistence for 32 years, 60 raven miles from the nearest village. Native friends who lived in the villages used to tell us we lived more Native than they did, like the old days away from the villages. I was mentored in part by Native Gwichin elders, and spoke with some who were around when the first white man arrived. Was immersed in Native Athapaskan culture and respect and understand it well. Bad feelings still linger of course.

Went through similar issues of non-local hunters being dropped off, competing with us for our food. No hunter wants other hunters around, but I sure as hell did not believe that other hunters somehow were not allowed and should all be restricted. We all have different ways of dealing with things, my attitude was to adapt and make the best of it. So I would engage with those hunters I met on the river, inform them of our lifestyle and where we were and that we had comms if they ran into problems, that if I saw any wanton waste I'd turn them in. Made some friends along the way, shared some fires, at times we mutually helped each other out. Made enemies of those I turned in for wanton waste.

It made it harder in ways to fill our meat shed, for reasons having to do with living remote, no freezer. We couldn't take a moose til mid-Sept, though the season opened on the 5th. It had to be cold enough to hang the meat quarters whole, and then freeze soon thereafter. We'd have a bull hanging around the cabin and then a fly-in hunter would take it on the 10th. I'd help butcher and we salvaged everything that was left for the dogteam. That was how we adapted. We never accepted meat from others, though plenty wanted to give it to us to avoid floating/dragging it out and taking care of it. That in particular I know is the one issue that gets under the skin of many rural residents...that some hunters don't want the meat, aren't there for the meat, yet villages seem very happy to accept well-cared-for donated meat.

Some out NW and North Slope don't want any non-local hunters, and have used and are using either the Board of Game and FSB to impose limits or restrictions or closures. As was pointed out, we now have controlled use areas where aircraft aren't allowed over large areas. Pilot orientations and efforts to curb wanton waste and spoiled meat. And past closures. and continuing WSAs. The WACH Working Group was formed to deal with these issues, yet did not live up to their own internal agreements on when restrictions should take place.

The FSB and lack of congress involvement in fixing it is the real problem. They are not following the law and the regulations. Here's their own guidelines on when restrictions or closures can take place: “The Federal Subsistence Board may take a Special Action to restrict, close, open, or reopen the taking of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands and waters. Such actions are taken to ensure the continued viability of a particular fish or wildlife population, to ensure continued subsistence use, or for reasons of public safety.”

There are no conservation concerns at this time for the WACH's viability. Subsistence needs are being met. There are no public safety concerns. Re aircraft, there is no evidence that aircraft are disrupting caribou migrations. Most all of us, I do believe, if the game population was in trouble and subsistence needs were not being met, would support a closure.

As far as rhetoric, both sides need to tone it down. White guys need to stop assuming things about Native culture and Native guys need to stop assuming that somehow hunting is not as important to us culturally as it is to them.

I'm as frustrated as Larry, gone through and seen the same things. The facts don't support this closure request, and that's all that needs to be stated really. Anything else just ends up firming up each sides negative opinions of the other and does more harm than good.

I lived subsistence for 32 years, 60 raven miles from the nearest village. Native friends who lived in the villages used to tell us we lived more Native than they did, like the old days away from the villages. I was mentored in part by Native Gwichin elders, and spoke with some who were around when the first white man arrived. Was immersed in Native Athapaskan culture and respect and understand it well. Bad feelings still linger of course.

Went through similar issues of non-local hunters being dropped off, competing with us for our food. No hunter wants other hunters around, but I sure as hell did not believe that other hunters somehow were not allowed and should all be restricted. We all have different ways of dealing with things, my attitude was to adapt and make the best of it. So I would engage with those hunters I met on the river, inform them of our lifestyle and where we were and that we had comms if they ran into problems, that if I saw any wanton waste I'd turn them in. Made some friends along the way, shared some fires, at times we mutually helped each other out. Made enemies of those I turned in for wanton waste.

It made it harder in ways to fill our meat shed, for reasons having to do with living remote, no freezer. We couldn't take a moose til mid-Sept, though the season opened on the 5th. It had to be cold enough to hang the meat quarters whole, and then freeze soon thereafter. We'd have a bull hanging around the cabin and then a fly-in hunter would take it on the 10th. I'd help butcher and we salvaged everything that was left for the dogteam. That was how we adapted. We never accepted meat from others, though plenty wanted to give it to us to avoid floating/dragging it out and taking care of it. That in particular I know is the one issue that gets under the skin of many rural residents...that some hunters don't want the meat, aren't there for the meat, yet villages seem very happy to accept well-cared-for donated meat.

Some out NW and North Slope don't want any non-local hunters, and have used and are using either the Board of Game and FSB to impose limits or restrictions or closures. As was pointed out, we now have controlled use areas where aircraft aren't allowed over large areas. Pilot orientations and efforts to curb wanton waste and spoiled meat. And past closures. and continuing WSAs. The WACH Working Group was formed to deal with these issues, yet did not live up to their own internal agreements on when restrictions should take place.

The FSB and lack of congress involvement in fixing it is the real problem. They are not following the law and the regulations. Here's their own guidelines on when restrictions or closures can take place: “The Federal Subsistence Board may take a Special Action to restrict, close, open, or reopen the taking of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands and waters. Such actions are taken to ensure the continued viability of a particular fish or wildlife population, to ensure continued subsistence use, or for reasons of public safety.”

There are no conservation concerns at this time for the WACH's viability. Subsistence needs are being met. There are no public safety concerns. Re aircraft, there is no evidence that aircraft are disrupting caribou migrations. Most all of us, I do believe, if the game population was in trouble and subsistence needs were not being met, would support a closure.

As far as rhetoric, both sides need to tone it down. White guys need to stop assuming things about Native culture and Native guys need to stop assuming that somehow hunting is not as important to us culturally as it is to them.

I'm as frustrated as Larry, gone through and seen the same things. The facts don't support this closure request, and that's all that needs to be stated really. Anything else just ends up firming up each sides negative opinions of the other and does more harm than good.

Well said and from a perspective I cannot have. Let the evidence and science guide us together to maintain a shared resource.

 

[cod007]

Larry, those “muther fuckers” are looking our for their people and rely on moose and caribou for food.
Federal lands in that area are traditional inupiaq territory transferred to the federal government after ANSCA. I think it’s worth being cognizant of the “WHITE” privileges you have as a US citizen to hunt and enjoy that land.

You should be more respectful of the rights and opinions of a people who have lived there for thousands of years and predate the state of alaska, the United States, or adfg’s caribou counts.

You by no means need to agree with them, but you do owe them respect.

There. Fixed it for you!
And.... eff that!!!

 

[Cheechako]

There. Fixed it for you!
And.... eff that!!!

Cod007 I don’t put words in your mouth. Don’t bastardize mine.

 

[cod007]

Cod007 I don’t put words in your mouth. Don’t bastardize mine

This land is myyy land, this land is yourrr land, from the gulf stream waters, to the New York hiways.
I guess u could always try to better explain this statement for those of us that can’t follow your logic.
“. I think it’s worth being cognizant of the privileges you have as a US citizen to hunt and enjoy that land. “

 

[CoStick]

Is this discussion Treaty based?

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Mark you're the most knowledgeable and even headed citizen I'm aware of involved in this issue (and many others). Much respect for your time and long history of doing for unselfish reasons.

A quick note to all of you guys who may not know Mark: Many years ago (maybe 17 years ago) I placed a group or two on his "bush homestead river" and he contacted me with his crowding concerns. Two men with different agendas and perspectives on public land use in this one little corner of remoteness. After his concerns were voiced, I agreed to never place another group on "his river" simply to respect his lifestyle and resolve the conflict. While I had every right to use this river corridor, it wasn't in the best interests of his way of life. The heart of this story is that perspectives are important and valid regardless of ethnicity and zip codes. The result of our brief conversation was complete dissolution of user conflict and a mutual awareness of respect for each other. This proved to me that it is possible to coexist without one taking too much from the other, but both sides have to accept responsibility for a better end result. I wish it were that simple with rural communities especially in hotspot hubs like Kotz...but history has proven this to be impossible given the political powers wielded through ANILCA, the OSM and RACs and WGs influence on the BOG.

Like an open wound, it takes direct pressure to stop the bleeding. Curious if organizations like RHAK can levy or pursue litigation or reform to ensure evidence-based pursuits of these closures vs the willy nilly nuisance of Kramer, Enoch and cronies from repeatedly using the RAC and WG and FSB to effect their personal agendas? In other words, can we pool community funds for the cost of a political pressure dressing?

Our efforts have been side by side nearly a decade now at great personal expense from both of us and we've gained virtually no traction in that needed direction.

What is your honest assessment of what really needs to happen to slow or stop these ridiculous proposals from the roots and to avoid our constant reactivity vs proactivity?

 

[AKDoc]

If the purpose of any hunter restrictions is to protect and preserve a resource, then decisions regarding hunter access and harvest opportunities should be first based upon objective field data specifically concerning the strength of that resource and the harvest data of that resource. That's where decision making must start if the concern is truly to protect and preserve a resource.

​

If objective field data and harvest data support the need to limit harvest numbers for a hunting year to preserve a threatened resource, then I support local access priorities...not total local access exclusivity.​

​

If the data noted above does not support the need to protect a threatened resource, then I personally do not support local access priority of a federally protected resource that uses tax payer's money.​

If objective field data and harvest data are not part of any proposed restriction and/or ignored, then there is by default some alternate purpose for a proposed restriction...not protection and preservation of a resource.

Under an alternate purpose for a proposed restriction, it often becomes a legal and divided political process, which is exactly what we appear to be watching (again) in this specific scenario. Hence, the need to use our voices (again) to advocate for our access to resources on federal land that is protected/funded through our collective tax dollars. While an unfortunately reactive process (as opposed to proactive), it is again needed right now...I will be using mine (again). From a proactive perspective, it would be refreshing to see the same federal entities involved in this current process to be actively and steadfastly facilitating and engaged in genuine and meaningful dialogue within and between user groups to reduce user conflict. Perhaps that has been and is occurring regularly as I described and I am simply unaware...but I would not bet on that.​

​

As a long time Alaskan, I've had the opportunity to travel to many remote villages throughout our state for work-related purposes as well as recreation. As just one example, I have been to almost all of the villages on the Y-K Delta for consultative work. So many wonderful experiences and local people over the years...I was given a Yup'ik name by the mother of a boy that I had helped (she gave me the same name as his). I also have had many very troubling and eye-opening awareness experiences along the way...such is the truth about our realities, regardless of zip codes. The "Hollywood narrative" is not the reality of rural existence in Alaska, nor is it the reality of my relatively urban neighborhood.​

 

[AlaskaMark]

What is your honest assessment of what really needs to happen to slow or stop these ridiculous proposals from the roots and to avoid our constant reactivity vs proactivity?

Larry,

It's just gonna take more time.

Congress needs to reexamine the entire federal system, how members of SRCs and RACs are chosen, and how the FSB operates that is at times not in accordance with ANILCA guidelines. We've had no luck with any of our congressional delegation getting that to happen. Politics being politics, and the Native vote very important, "subsistence" has always been the third rail and noone wants to open a can of worms. Can't blame them.

Another issue is fed turnover. We've had some good fed members, and some not so good, and when someone new comes in it can be problematic in that they don't have knowledge with the issues and experience with how the FSB is supposed to operate. For regional AK directors of FWS, NPS, BLM, USFS, BIA, it's mandated that they serve on the FSB, regardless of their knowledge and experience. As anyone can see from attending or listening to meetings, some of those members are much more knowledgeable than others, ask questions, pursue truth and accountability. The only thing has has stopped some of these WSAs that weren't really based on conservation concerns or needs not being met, are the fed Director votes. That's how we "won" the WSA seeking to shut down all non-local hunting of the Central Arctic Herd, it was a tie vote

Which leads to the public members and their role on the board. The chair told me once, when I asked him if he would explain what he envisioned his role as, that he felt his role was to support the RACs and rural peoples. In talking with some of the public members over the years, you can only imagine the pressure they are under. They want to support "their" people and there does not seem to be anything, any information, any biological data, that will get them to vote no. Essentially then, there are always 3 yes votes from the public members. I don't hold it against any of the public members. I get it...we all just need to realize that's always the likely outcome of the vote from the public members.

As more time goes by I think the still-existing divides will lessen. Folks don't know, if you lived north of the Yukon you never had to even get a harvest ticket to take caribou. The Board of Game only recently instituted requirements that everyone had to have a state permit to hunt caribou. Naturally, Native peoples see this in a negative way after so long just going out and taking caribou without a permit and now having to figure out how to get one online or from a vendor and then send it in or report. The North Slope borough along with subsistence household surveys had been sorta keeping track, and people want that to remain the same. This became an issue with WSA 21-01...everyone who hunts caribou in Units 23 & 26A, whether it is a fed subsistence hunt or state hunt, is required to have the RC 907 permit. When ADF&G went to compile harvest numbers, only 10% of locals had picked up a permit, the rest did not comply. All the non-locals complied, which is why we have accurate non-local harvest data. This actually hurts the locals because had they all complied and they really were unable to fill their permits, there would be concrete evidence that subsistence needs are not being met. So again, time will help in that hopefully more locals will understand the importance of tracking harvests and complying with permit requirements.

Enforcement - there is no real enforcement or penalties and as any wildlife manager knows, we can't have good wildlife mgmt without proper wildlife enforcement. When I have testified, I always mention that the FSB system doesn't differentiate between non-locals who live in Alaska or those who live in another state or country, and that these WSAs when passed end up making it illegal for their family and friends who for whatever reason now live in a more urban area, of the state, to come home to hunt on fed lands. Privately, I'm told they still do and nobody says anything. What about those who harvested caribou without an RC 907 permit? That's not legal. But nothing is happening. Neither state or fed agents are really enforcing it yet and agencies know it will be a quagmire.

It's 2021 but parts of Alaska are still caught between the present and the past, and having to adapt. It's hard. From my perspective, all we can do is try to build relationships based on mutual respect, understand the pov of rural residents and Native culture, acknowledge where problems exist, and advocate for a fair system whereby "non-locals" (especially non-local Alaskans) are not considered the enemy.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Thorough response! Well as always, holler when you need a hand of support. Thanks for your energy and stay healthy. Might be a struggle we pass down to the next gen but much respect for your public service.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

AK Doc, i was called a name once in Barrow I didn't understand, " Qimmiq." I asked her what that means and she said a different word, "akiak." Her niece said that maybe she means your spirit animal. I was dragging away that weathered 'bou carcass from a public hearing. I haven't been back and did not feel very welcome.

 

[AKDoc]

AK Doc, i was called a name once in Barrow I didn't understand, " Qimmiq." I asked her what that means and she said a different word, "akiak." Her niece said that maybe she means your spirit animal. I was dragging away that weathered 'bou carcass from a public hearing. I haven't been back and did not feel very welcome.

I'm laughing LB! I, too, have been to Barrow...only a couple times for work...never tried to learn Inupiat so I can't help you! I did try to learn Yup'ik, and I sucked at it.

Every village is different for sure...you are well aware of that nuance LB. Some I have personally liked much more than others...BTW, so far we are matched in preferences on an N of 1.

Sorry for the thread departure sir!

 

[bpietila]

I lived subsistence for 32 years, 60 raven miles from the nearest village. Native friends who lived in the villages used to tell us we lived more Native than they did, like the old days away from the villages. I was mentored in part by Native Gwichin elders, and spoke with some who were around when the first white man arrived. Was immersed in Native Athapaskan culture and respect and understand it well. Bad feelings still linger of course.

Went through similar issues of non-local hunters being dropped off, competing with us for our food. No hunter wants other hunters around, but I sure as hell did not believe that other hunters somehow were not allowed and should all be restricted. We all have different ways of dealing with things, my attitude was to adapt and make the best of it. So I would engage with those hunters I met on the river, inform them of our lifestyle and where we were and that we had comms if they ran into problems, that if I saw any wanton waste I'd turn them in. Made some friends along the way, shared some fires, at times we mutually helped each other out. Made enemies of those I turned in for wanton waste.

It made it harder in ways to fill our meat shed, for reasons having to do with living remote, no freezer. We couldn't take a moose til mid-Sept, though the season opened on the 5th. It had to be cold enough to hang the meat quarters whole, and then freeze soon thereafter. We'd have a bull hanging around the cabin and then a fly-in hunter would take it on the 10th. I'd help butcher and we salvaged everything that was left for the dogteam. That was how we adapted. We never accepted meat from others, though plenty wanted to give it to us to avoid floating/dragging it out and taking care of it. That in particular I know is the one issue that gets under the skin of many rural residents...that some hunters don't want the meat, aren't there for the meat, yet villages seem very happy to accept well-cared-for donated meat.

Some out NW and North Slope don't want any non-local hunters, and have used and are using either the Board of Game and FSB to impose limits or restrictions or closures. As was pointed out, we now have controlled use areas where aircraft aren't allowed over large areas. Pilot orientations and efforts to curb wanton waste and spoiled meat. And past closures. and continuing WSAs. The WACH Working Group was formed to deal with these issues, yet did not live up to their own internal agreements on when restrictions should take place.

The FSB and lack of congress involvement in fixing it is the real problem. They are not following the law and the regulations. Here's their own guidelines on when restrictions or closures can take place: “The Federal Subsistence Board may take a Special Action to restrict, close, open, or reopen the taking of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands and waters. Such actions are taken to ensure the continued viability of a particular fish or wildlife population, to ensure continued subsistence use, or for reasons of public safety.”

There are no conservation concerns at this time for the WACH's viability. Subsistence needs are being met. There are no public safety concerns. Re aircraft, there is no evidence that aircraft are disrupting caribou migrations. Most all of us, I do believe, if the game population was in trouble and subsistence needs were not being met, would support a closure.

As far as rhetoric, both sides need to tone it down. White guys need to stop assuming things about Native culture and Native guys need to stop assuming that somehow hunting is not as important to us culturally as it is to them.

I'm as frustrated as Larry, gone through and seen the same things. The facts don't support this closure request, and that's all that needs to be stated really. Anything else just ends up firming up each sides negative opinions of the other and does more harm than good.

In my opinion this is spot on. Both sides can do better. There isn’t an easy or quick fix.

 

[bpietila]

Paul another aspect of this is the price of groceries in rural Alaskan communities. If you go to a grocery store in kotzebue you’ll see this first hand. Prices are exorbitant for basic necessities and hunting is key to food security especially when global supply chains are being disrupted by COVID. This might be kind of a stretch, but I think some of the consternation by locals is that people from outside are flying thousands of miles and spending large quantities of money to come and compete with them for their groceries. In other words, you want to hunt these caribou, while they need to.

You can probably understand why they are trying to restrict access in this context.

For context that is the current price of a ham at the local store.

 

[ppumil]

View attachment 345070For context that is the current price of a ham at the local store.

I do not understand. That is my point. You have always been markedly higher in price due to your location and that will not change. I pay an incredibly higher percentage in taxes here in WA than you do so should I have more access due to that. IT IS NOT PART OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT. This is a social issue that needs to be addressed away from this. We are managing a resource and there is a claim for it being needed as a food source but there is no data collected that is accurate and valid. If you want me to support your need then at least show it to me.
The history showed marked difficulty getting caribou in the past before any hunting pressure was even there.
I have been reading my ass off and see no valid data (I read medical literature for my job here so I do have the knowledge to see if data is valid). The argument to make it easier for those who want to get caribou for subsistence at the expense of my rights. There is no evidence that the planes or the 161 caribou on avg taken each year by hunters like me are any issue. Subsistence harvest takes over 95% of animals harvested (usually over 12,000 taken a year)which also include cows which impact the herd the greatest. This is purely to get me out of your hunting area which by the way I already am due to restrictions already in place. I am sorry the herd is far away but it is not my fault and don't take my rights away on our land.
Once again this illustrates the tactic of distracting from fact to get what you want. Using political hot topics that are really not part of the herd health, numbers, or regulations. I see no data to support the claim for closure and therefore I stand firm for my right to hunt right now.
Sincerely,
Paul Wolff Pumilia, MD

 

[Cheechako]

I do not understand. That is my point. You have always been markedly higher in price due to your location and that will not change. I pay an incredibly higher percentage in taxes here in WA than you do so should I have more access due to that.

Paul, I think some perspective on the challenges of living up here is an important part of this discussion.

As you pointed out you do pretty well and live in Washington which has relatively affordable groceries etc. Rural alaska has low employment rates and a high cost of living.
Ignore those facts if you want, but I think it’s relevant to the context of this proposal and the conversation.

 

[Sourdough]

I stand firm for my right to hunt right now.

But.......someone else went out and found the game FOR you, you did not Hunt the game, you did not "scout" the area, someone else scouted for you, hunted for you. You simply killed an animal someone else did the hunting part.

Where is the "sport" in having someone land you in the middle of a migrating herd of Caribou.

I am unclear what we should call this experience. Seems far removed from the classic concept of "hunting".

I am 75 y/o and have been hunting for 68 of those years, 52 of those years Alaska resident hunter, and retired hunting guide. I know what I consider hunting. Now this is just my opinion, but when I open the cabin window or door, and shoot a moose, or caribou, or wolf, or black bear, or brown bear..........I don't consider that "hunting". I am not sure what it should be called, but the "hunting" part was not included.

Hunting has been slowly corrupted, over the decades, it is now a High Production, High Profit, fast food take-out type experience.

 

[william schmaltz]

But.......someone else went out and found the game FOR you, you did not Hunt the game, you did not "scout" the area, someone else scouted for you, hunted for you. You simply killed an animal someone else did the hunting part.

Where is the "sport" in having someone land you in the middle of a migrating herd of Caribou.

I am unclear what we should call this experience. Seems far removed from the classic concept of "hunting".

I am 75 y/o and have been hunting for 68 of those years, 52 of those years Alaska resident hunter, and retired hunting guide. I know what I consider hunting. Now this is just my opinion, but when I open the cabin window or door, and shoot a moose, or caribou, or wolf, or black bear, or brown bear..........I don't consider that "hunting". I am not sure what it should be called, but the "hunting" part was not included.

Hunting has been slowly corrupted, over the decades, it is now a High Production, High Profit, fast food take-out type experience.

Give it up. This isn't the place.

 

[ppumil]

Paul, I think some perspective on the challenges of living up here is an important part of this discussion.

As you pointed out you do pretty well and live in Washington which has relatively affordable groceries etc. Rural alaska has low employment rates and a high cost of living.
Ignore those facts if you want, but I think it’s relevant to the context of this proposal and the conversation.

I said exactly the opposite of what you just wrote. I acknowledge this issue but point out it does not have baring on closing this to me. Those issue need to be addressed by other means and are not part of this topic.
I am not discounting them or ignoring them as you suggest. It is not a unique problem to rural Alaska. I can go little towns in any state and tell you the same story.
The people of that area have every opportunity and the herd is healthy by the data. Most rural areas in America do not have that so Alaska is unique in providing that resource. I am very privileged to do this but that doesn't make me a bad person. I have worked my ass off as a doctor during COVID and risked my life so don't even go there. To say I need to give my rights up cause i am more privileged is NOT DEMOCRACY. You think it is so cheap here then you are always welcome to come to this state. That is the beauty of America. I moved here from the South and it is ridiculously expensive to me. Guess it is all about perspective.
I could chose to move there and try to make a living. It is my tax money being used as well as yours. The amount we pay should not give more privilege or less. THAT WAS MY POINT! The fact is those making less in my state would never be able to see their land up there. I acknowledge that and point out it is another issue for another venue. We are talking about hunting rights and management of a resource here. My point is sticking to facts relevant to to the issue. If you have data showing I am some kind of problem then OK but don't give me the I am poor card and that is why you as a rich doctor need to give it to me. I can assure you I am not a "Rich Doctor" and work my ass off to do one of these trips every few years if I am lucky.
As you point out about perspective and background, You should take that to heart responding to me for you know nothing about me. You made your judgement based on my title and location. Shame on you!