Native Corporation Closes Access to Copper River Bison

[207-12A]

Not to hijack this thread but the NR issue and the issue with Ahtna do have some similarities…

Non Alaska resident Americans are not denied the opportunity to hunt Dall’s Sheep, mountain goats, or brown bear. They essentially just have to pay more (separate discussion on whether that is right or wrong). Ahtna has removed the same option - paying, in its entirety. That’s flat out denying access. Some similarities on the surface, sure, but in my opinion this is a whole different level. P.S my dream hunt is DIY backpack Wyoming Mule Deer. Lot of areas I can’t access without a guide either.

 

[Dexter Grayson]

I hope this is a temporary thing, I’ve done the hunt and it’s not entirely impossible without using ahtna land but it sure stacks the deck against you. I wonder if this change sticks if it will drive the draw applicants down. Would definitely make me second guess putting in for the hunt.

 

[WRO]

Sounds like the natives don't like non-resident hunters either. I thought the proper Rokslide response was to just be grateful you have any opportunity at all.

They'd love them if the state would issue tags for them to sell

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[grfox92]

Yeah, didn't he have to raft down and then walk up a feeder stream to get to public land that he could hunt?

Yes, and then He almost died trying to get the meat and hide out walking a raft down the river. He fell in and the water was cold and almost lost motor function.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[william schmaltz]

Not to hijack this thread but the NR issue and the issue with Ahtna do have some similarities…

The blatant misunderstanding of the non-resident guide rule in Alaska on this site and what most local Alaskans outside the guide industry think of that rule is always amazing. The only way to compare this to the guide rule would be if Alaskans said you simply can't hunt state land unless you are a resident. You can book a hunt for any of the 3 must-be-guided animals today for this fall. There are virtually unlimited numbers of tags and opportunity. Have at it, noone is stopping you.

OR, If you don't like the rule, you can do what myself and so many others did. Stop crying and move here to hunt. It's that simple. Last I checked, Ahtna isn't accepting applications for white folks to become shareholders. That well is closed off.

All of the Alaskan hunting groups just spent a month in all out war to salvage non-local hunting rights in Units 23 and 26. Units where most of the non-local hunting is done by nonresidents. They brought it to national attention and fought like hell so everyone's voice was heard to hopefully make a change. And in return every time there is an issue with land access in Alaska, there are the same jealous, ignorant, and vindictive people making comments about the must-be-guided rule. Do you think less opportunity for Alaskan residents is going to expand or further limit opportunities for non-residents in the future?

Hopefully the OP can still pull off the hunt and/or the state can come up with some sort of resolution for access. I'll be following closely and jumping in to help where I can.

 

[Squincher]

The blatant misunderstanding of the non-resident guide rule in Alaska on this site and what most local Alaskans outside the guide industry think of that rule is always amazing. The only way to compare this to the guide rule would be if Alaskans said you simply can't hunt state land unless you are a resident. You can book a hunt for any of the 3 must-be-guided animals today for this fall. There are virtually unlimited numbers of tags and opportunity. Have at it, noone is stopping you.

OR, If you don't like the rule, you can do what myself and so many others did. Stop crying and move here to hunt. It's that simple. Last I checked, Ahtna isn't accepting applications for white folks to become shareholders. That well is closed off.

All of the Alaskan hunting groups just spent a month in all out war to salvage non-local hunting rights in Units 23 and 26. Units where most of the non-local hunting is done by nonresidents. They brought it to national attention and fought like hell so everyone's voice was heard to hopefully make a change. And in return every time there is an issue with land access in Alaska, there are the same jealous, ignorant, and vindictive people making comments about the must-be-guided rule. Do you think less opportunity for Alaskan residents is going to expand or further limit opportunities for non-residents in the future?

Hopefully the OP can still pull off the hunt and/or the state can come up with some sort of resolution for access. I'll be following closely and jumping in to help where I can.

If NR can stop crying and move there to hunt, why can't you stop crying and hunt bison in the area where it is still allowed?

 

[tdhanses]

Ignoring a denial in access with the justification being an unrelated denial in opportunity isn’t going to improve anything for anyone. Outdoorsmen should take all access and opportunity issues head on, rather than playing the whatabout game.

Unless that issue is reducing nonresident opportunities, then residents just go with the flow in all western states and AK.

But before long sounds like residents in AK won’t be able to hunt if not native, seems like the natives keep reducing opportunities.

 

[tdhanses]

The blatant misunderstanding of the non-resident guide rule in Alaska on this site and what most local Alaskans outside the guide industry think of that rule is always amazing. The only way to compare this to the guide rule would be if Alaskans said you simply can't hunt state land unless you are a resident. You can book a hunt for any of the 3 must-be-guided animals today for this fall. There are virtually unlimited numbers of tags and opportunity. Have at it, noone is stopping you.

OR, If you don't like the rule, you can do what myself and so many others did. Stop crying and move here to hunt. It's that simple. Last I checked, Ahtna isn't accepting applications for white folks to become shareholders. That well is closed off.

All of the Alaskan hunting groups just spent a month in all out war to salvage non-local hunting rights in Units 23 and 26. Units where most of the non-local hunting is done by nonresidents. They brought it to national attention and fought like hell so everyone's voice was heard to hopefully make a change. And in return every time there is an issue with land access in Alaska, there are the same jealous, ignorant, and vindictive people making comments about the must-be-guided rule. Do you think less opportunity for Alaskan residents is going to expand or further limit opportunities for non-residents in the future?

Hopefully the OP can still pull off the hunt and/or the state can come up with some sort of resolution for access. I'll be following closely and jumping in to help where I can.

Yeah it’s the babysitter requirement most aren’t fond of, that is just another way to keep nonresidents away. Either reduce our opportunities or make us pay $20k, either way you look at it it’s the same outcome.

 

[tdhanses]

Non Alaska resident Americans are not denied the opportunity to hunt Dall’s Sheep, mountain goats, or brown bear. They essentially just have to pay more (separate discussion on whether that is right or wrong). Ahtna has removed the same option - paying, in its entirety. That’s flat out denying access. Some similarities on the surface, sure, but in my opinion this is a whole different level. P.S my dream hunt is DIY backpack Wyoming Mule Deer. Lot of areas I can’t access without a guide either.

It is private property, so what your saying is no landowners should have denial rights and that if they do t allow access we should just stop managing wildlife.

 

[WRO]

Yeah it’s the babysitter requirement most aren’t fond of, that is just another way to keep nonresidents away. Either reduce our opportunities or make us pay $20k, either way you look at it it’s the same outcome.

For every guy who can go hunt sheep, bears, or goats in AK without a guide and not die, there's 5 dipshits from the se that would need to hit the button spot button to unfuck themselves

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

For every guy who can go hunt sheep, bears, or goats in AK without a guide and not die, there's 5 dipshits from the se that would need to hit the button spot button to unfuck themselves

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

But shouldn’t that be ones own personal choice/risk?

 

[Marbles]

But shouldn’t that be ones own personal choice/risk?

If the government started sending bills for the rescue, sure. The reality is that people will claim personal choice/risk while utterly refusing to actually carry the full risk. SAR operation can cost hundreds of thousands, and that is not even discussing the personal risk to rescuers. It is hilarious how many people think socialized SAR is a right.

That said, the guide requirement is something I actually find annoying even as a resident.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Is this indian land under Sec of Interior or just bought and incorporated under Inc, owned by a tribal entity?

 

[AlaskaMark]

Ahtna lands were conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settelement Act (ANCSA).

As to this latest decision by Ahtna not to issue any tresspass permits for the Bison draw hunts, it's problematic in several ways, not the least of which is that the Department would like to issue more permits to keep the herd in check, and hunting only on state owned lands will not do that. Bison are also not a subsistence animal under our state laws, and all wildlife is managed by the state (the feds can, however, nix pred control programs on fed lands). So Ahtna members can't somehow get to hunt bison on their lands via the fed system.

It's private land and Ahtna can do as they wish on their lands it terms of denying access, as can other Alaska Native Corp landowners. Hoping that discussions with F&G can resolve this.

 

[tdhanses]

If the government started sending bills for the rescue, sure. The reality is that people will claim personal choice/risk while utterly refusing to actually carry the full risk. SAR operation can cost hundreds of thousands, and that is not even discussing the personal risk to rescuers. It is hilarious how many people think socialized SAR is a right.

That said, the guide requirement is something I actually find annoying even as a resident.

No there is SAR insurance that is realatively cheap. I bet more residents needed rescued then nonresidents each year, if you took away the babysitter requirement you will not see a vast increase in SAR cases or nonresident hunters as other costs are still high, resident or not. Make SAR a personal liability, resident or not. Some places you pay a few $$ to SAR as part of your license cost, there are easy ways to cover SAR costs. Making someone pay a babysitter isn’t the answer for SAR.

 

[tdhanses]

Ahtna lands were conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settelement Act (ANCSA).

As to this latest decision by Ahtna not to issue any tresspass permits for the Bison draw hunts, it's problematic in several ways, not the least of which is that the Department would like to issue more permits to keep the herd in check, and hunting only on state owned lands will not do that. Bison are also not a subsistence animal under our state laws, and all wildlife is managed by the state (the feds can, however, nix pred control programs on fed lands). So Ahtna members can't somehow get to hunt bison on their lands via the fed system.

It's private land and Ahtna can do as they wish on their lands it terms of denying access, as can other Alaska Native Corp landowners. Hoping that discussions with F&G can resolve this.

Not sure why the department would be concerned, they could just change it and issue a special native license for native lands to keep them in check and then a license for everyone else on state lands.

Kind of like here in the lower 48, issue landowner tags and let them do as they please with the tags.

 

[Dexter Grayson]

No there is SAR insurance that is realatively cheap. I bet more residents needed rescued then nonresidents each year, if you took away the babysitter requirement you will not see a vast increase in SAR cases or nonresident hunters as other costs are still high, resident or not. Make SAR a personal liability, resident or not. Some places you pay a few $$ to SAR as part of your license cost, there are easy ways to cover SAR costs. Making someone pay a babysitter isn’t the answer for SAR.

You seem a little bitter about the guide requirement!

 

[AlaskaMark]

Not sure why the department would be concerned, they could just change it and issue a special native license for native lands to keep them in check and then a license for everyone else on state lands.

Kind of like here in the lower 48, issue landowner tags and let them do as they please with the tags.

Alaska is not like the lower 48, we have a very unique constitution that would not allow that under our "common use" clause in Article 8.

 

[Squincher]

Alaska is not like the lower 48, we have a very unique constitution that would not allow that under our "common use" clause in Article 8.

It seems the native set up in Alaska is far different than anywhere else. Is the native owned land in Alaska considered sovereign as it is the lower 48? I know tribes down here operate completely independently of any state statutes or constitutions.

 

[Marbles]

No there is SAR insurance that is realatively cheap. I bet more residents needed rescued then nonresidents each year, if you took away the babysitter requirement you will not see a vast increase in SAR cases or nonresident hunters as other costs are still high, resident or not. Make SAR a personal liability, resident or not. Some places you pay a few $$ to SAR as part of your license cost, there are easy ways to cover SAR costs. Making someone pay a babysitter isn’t the answer for SAR.

No, the system is not set up like that. I disagree with how it is set up, but I deal in reality, not ivy tower ideals. Most SAR is carried out by the State or the Fed in AK, niether will ever send a bill and that insurance will go unused.

I did not say making someone pay a guide was the answer, though as someone else did I can see where the confusion comes in. However, your personal choice/risk argument is demonstrably too simple to encompass reality. Of course, the same can be said for the argument that SAR is the reason for the guide requirement.

I'm not aware of statistics that separate out residents from non-residents. Considering that the state has a population of only about 730,000, and that 2.2 million people visit the state every year it would not surprise me if tourist where rescued more often. But, as those residents are here year round and exposed to more risk, it could go the other way.

Trying to compare the guide requirement to what Ahtna is doing is apples to oranges. What Ahtna is doing is a functional ban on hunting (if Alaska said non-residents could not hunt on state land). Ahtna could require hunters pay a Ahtna share holder guide, but instead opted to close off access (or they could have upped the fee). They have the legal right (just like the State could ban non-resident hunters), but having the legal right does not equate to playing fare and others have the right to complain (like you have the right to regarding the guide requirement).