Native Corporation Closes Access to Copper River Bison

[MattB]

This is an unfortunate decision.

Neither here nor there, but I find the notion that being an AK resident has a significant bearing on the likelihood of requiring SAR to be pretty ridiculous. I bet I have hunted more days in AK than a large % of AK residents, and mostly unguided. Never an issue.

More to the point, I don't think the guide requirement has much to do with hunter safety. It is about monetizing the resource, which generally benefits the residents and the state.

 

[Marbles]

More to the point, I don't think the guide requirement has much to do with hunter safety. It is about monetizing the resource, which generally benefits the residents and the state.

Agree. I'm not sure how much it helps the residents though. I would personally like to see the guide requirement lifted. But, the guiding industry has a far greater interest in keeping it in place than the voting public in Alaska has of lifting it.

 

[Deadfall]

If it makes you feel any better, natives here can hunt anything they want and do so all year long. Wherever they want. Don't even have to have a tag. Atleast how it is in montana and other western states.

 

[tdhanses]

You seem a little bitter about the guide requirement!

Bitter no, just think it’s silly and then silly to hear people complain about not having access to private.

 

[tdhanses]

Agree. I'm not sure how much it helps the residents though. I would personally like to see the guide requirement lifted. But, the guiding industry has a far greater interest in keeping it in place than the voting public in Alaska has of lifting it.

Are many residents guides? Seems like a large number are not AK residents but maybe that’s just how it seems do to the internet.

I personally don’t see how it benefits residents, maybe a few less people using charter services but then again plenty use them for caribou unguided. I think the issue is people in AK feel it’s a right since they have had that opportunity for a long time, come to the lower 48 and get a tag that has zero public land and you’ll see the state isn’t there to hold anyone’s hand that doesn’t have access.

It’s never a Ban on hunting because you can’t access private lands, it is on public but that’s not the case. Success may just not be as easy with less area to hunt.

 

[tdhanses]

If it makes you feel any better, natives here can hunt anything they want and do so all year long. Wherever they want. Don't even have to have a tag. Atleast how it is in montana and other western states.

With zero quota in some cases.

 

[tdhanses]

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).

I do wonder since SAR is year round, it would make sense more residents use it then anyone but I could be wrong.

I‘m just saying complaining about not getting acces to private really isn’t a valid argument and that the guide requirement is really a bigger thing to argue vs landowner rights.

 

[Marbles]

I do wonder since SAR is year round, it would make sense more residents use it then anyone but I could be wrong.

I‘m just saying complaining about not getting acces to private really isn’t a valid argument and that the guide requirement is really a bigger thing to argue vs landowner rights.

I feel the State should not pay to maintain a non-native species on private land as the only argument for the state to manage such herds is public hunting opertinities (at least that I am aware of). So, very limited public access means the Copper River herd of invasive species should be opened to year round, no quota hunting. Leave it to the land owner to keep the animals off public land if they want them. Not the State's problem.

Working together, as has been done historically, is probably better for everyone. But, if one side wants to unilaterally stop, the other should as well on principal.

 

[MattB]

Are many residents guides? Seems like a large number are not AK residents but maybe that’s just how it seems do to the internet.

I personally don’t see how it benefits residents, maybe a few less people using charter services but then again plenty use them for caribou unguided. I think the issue is people in AK feel it’s a right since they have had that opportunity for a long time, come to the lower 48 and get a tag that has zero public land and you’ll see the state isn’t there to hold anyone’s hand that doesn’t have access.

It’s never a Ban on hunting because you can’t access private lands, it is on public but that’s not the case. Success may just not be as easy with less area to hunt.

How many AK residents take a commercial airline flight up from the lower 48 to hunt in AK (airport jobs and associated fees)? How many pay non-resident fees (increased revenue subsidizing residents)? How many stay in hotels during their intra-state travels? Rent cars?

I think a lot of non-residents become conveniently naive when it comes to conversations about how much more non-resident hunters contribute to the economy than a resident hunter does.

 

[tdhanses]

I feel the State should not pay to maintain a non-native species on private land as the only argument for the state to manage such herds is public hunting opertinities (at least that I am aware of). So, very limited public access means the Copper River herd of invasive species should be opened to year round, no quota hunting. Leave it to the land owner to keep the animals off public land if they want them. Not the State's problem.

Working together, as has been done historically, is probably better for everyone. But, if one side wants to unilaterally stop, the other should as well on principal.

What’s the state paying, seems like the herd is feeding on reservation land mostly. I don’t know all the ins and outs but why did the state reintroduce the herd where they mainly would feed on private land? The state won’t be out anything if they sell the majority of tags to the reservation for the same price, just not seeing the issue other then for those that want to hunt that aren’t apart of the reservation.

State walks away then the res can do as they please, kill them all or manage them for the res. Really not seeing any downside other to hunters outside the res And assume they figured that out an hence the change.

All this comes down to is people feel they should be allowed access to private lands because historically that was there, to me private is private and their choice. Most states pay for damages from wild game to private lands, AK is different and sounds like this is new to some up there but in the end it’s the reservations land and they can deny access.

 

[tdhanses]

How many AK residents take a commercial airline flight up from the lower 48 to hunt in AK (airport jobs and associated fees)? How many pay non-resident fees (increased revenue subsidizing residents)? How many stay in hotels during their intra-state travels? Rent cars?

I think a lot of non-residents become conveniently naive when it comes to conversations about how much more non-resident hunters contribute to the economy than a resident hunter does.

That wouldn’t change if the guide requirement went away, all things that happen either way.

 

[MattB]

That wouldn’t change if the guide requirement went away, all things that happen either way.

And if AK decided to limit the % of tags that are allowed to go to NR's? There is more than 1 lever, just like we see in western US states.

With the natives pushing to limit non-native opportunity in AK, there will likely be a down stream effect on NR's.

 

[Htm84]

What’s the state paying, seems like the herd is feeding on reservation land mostly. I don’t know all the ins and outs but why did the state reintroduce the herd where they mainly would feed on private land? The state won’t be out anything if they sell the majority of tags to the reservation for the same price, just not seeing the issue other then for those that want to hunt that aren’t apart of the reservation.

State walks away then the res can do as they please, kill them all or manage them for the res. Really not seeing any downside other to hunters outside the res And assume they figured that out an hence the change.

All this comes down to is people feel they should be allowed access to private lands because historically that was there, to me private is private and their choice. Most states pay for damages from wild game to private lands, AK is different and sounds like this is new to some up there but in the end it’s the reservations land and they can deny access.

I don’t exactly remember who introduced them but they dropped them off in the 40s I think about 150 miles north of where they are now. They dropped like 20 or something off on nebesna road. I don’t think they live exclusively on native land. The natives just own a lot of the land along the river so they by default control access to the herd. I believe you can still go up side streams under the high water mark to get to state/fed land. The native corps were smart. They saw how the Indians got ****** in the lower 48.

 

[tdhanses]

And if AK decided to limit the % of tags that are allowed to go to NR's? There is more than 1 lever, just like we see in western US states.

With the natives pushing to limit non-native opportunity in AK, there will likely be a down stream effect on NR's.

They have that right but it would really hurt the economy there more then not having access to private land, pretty unlikely until resident opportunities for native species decline, remember this isn’t even a native species.

 

[AK Shane]

I have to disagree with those who say that the state shouldn't put any effort towards these bison because they are a non-native species. There have been bison in Alaska for thousands of years. Around the late 1800''s the last of native wood bison were gone from Alaska. Mainly wiped out by over hunting. In the early 1900''s plains bison were introduced into Alaska to help replace the wood bison. At the time wood bison weren't reintroduced because they were almost extinct in North America. So plains bison took their place. The Plains bison may not be exactly the correct bison species but bison are a native species to Alaska and should be maintained as such.

I don't know when the Copper River herd was introduced but if it took place in mid 1900's the land ownership was likely much different. Statehood in 1959 and ANILCA surely changed the land ownership makeup.

With that said, I don't agree with Ahtna closing this last. Then again, I don't agree with much of anything Ahta does.

 

[Marbles]

What’s the state paying, seems like the herd is feeding on reservation land mostly. I don’t know all the ins and outs but why did the state reintroduce the herd where they mainly would feed on private land? The state won’t be out anything if they sell the majority of tags to the reservation for the same price, just not seeing the issue other then for those that want to hunt that aren’t apart of the reservation.

State walks away then the res can do as they please, kill them all or manage them for the res. Really not seeing any downside other to hunters outside the res And assume they figured that out an hence the change.

All this comes down to is people feel they should be allowed access to private lands because historically that was there, to me private is private and their choice. Most states pay for damages from wild game to private lands, AK is different and sounds like this is new to some up there but in the end it’s the reservations land and they can deny access.

The time of introduction was well before the Alaska Claim's Settlement Act that created native corporations and gave those corporations land. I'm pretty sure most AK Natives would get pissy about calling their land a reservation. It is corporate owned land and belongs to the corporation's shareholders.

Edit: paragraph deleted. End edit.

Drawing tags generate significantly more income ($10x3795 for 25 tags) it should be clear to anyone who has bothered informing theself in any way that simply selling those 25 tags to Ahtna shareholders will not generate the same income and that is before the costs of license that are required to enter the lottery are taken into account or the $900 non-resident locking tags.

 

[Marbles]

I have to disagree with those who say that the state shouldn't put any effort towards these bison because they are a non-native species. There have been bison in Alaska for thousands of years. Around the late 1800''s the last of native wood bison were gone from Alaska. Mainly wiped out by over hunting. In the early 1900''s plains bison were introduced into Alaska to help replace the wood bison. At the time wood bison weren't reintroduced because they were almost extinct in North America. So plains bison took their place. The Plains bison may not be exactly the correct bison species but bison are a native species to Alaska and should be maintained as such.

I don't know when the Copper River herd was introduced but if it took place in mid 1900's the land ownership was likely much different. Statehood in 1959 and ANILCA surely changed the land ownership makeup.

With that said, I don't agree with Ahtna closing this last. Then again, I don't agree with much of anything Ahta does.

Great point, I now have to retract what I said about stopping management, thank you for informing my ignorance.

 

[207-12A]

How many AK residents take a commercial airline flight up from the lower 48 to hunt in AK (airport jobs and associated fees)? How many pay non-resident fees (increased revenue subsidizing residents)? How many stay in hotels during their intra-state travels? Rent cars?

I think a lot of non-residents become conveniently naive when it comes to conversations about how much more non-resident hunters contribute to the economy than a resident hunter does.

This is a frankly laughable argument. To say that non-residents contribute more to the Alaska economy because you vacation here maybe once a year? I moved here, put money into this economy every day, take dozens of trips a year to remote little towns to hunt and fish. Not to mention pay taxes, own a home here, fly (more than once) to and from the lower 48 to visit family, all of that. Sorry your tag costs a little more and you have to travel twice to get an Alaska hunt in. But for those of us that live here, we contribute a lot more than you do. That’s why state residency perks are a thing.

 

[william schmaltz]

Agree. I'm not sure how much it helps the residents though. I would personally like to see the guide requirement lifted. But, the guiding industry has a far greater interest in keeping it in place than the voting public in Alaska has of lifting it.

Good luck explaining this. There is a similar response on this site every time an Alaska tries to explain the politics of the guide requirement and why it exists.


From the people I know, I would say the vast majority of residents hunters would like to see the guide requirement gone and a limited nonresident draw system similar to what is in place in the rest of the country take it's place. Nobody seems to want to hear that and do something about it. They would rather play the "if I can't have it no one should" game. I've said it before on this site that every political debate that takes place in AK should have the question: "Will you appoint/approve BOG and BOF members that prioritize commercial interests or personal use/subsistence interests?" Holding politicians accountable for how they handle nominations is the best way to change the tide of everything favoring commercial interests in AK. That and/or a bunch of money to rival the guide lobby in Juneau.

 

[207-12A]

I will say I appreciate the discussion that this sparked. Landowner rights are extremely important to me, I just see this case as more of an access issue. Fish and game relies on hunters to manage this herd, I’m guessing there will be more tags allocated next year to make up for the depressed success rate with the loss of access on Ahtna land.