New SE Alaska limits on blacktail deer. 1-Buck

[kwackkillncrew]

while doing some research, just 1 village (roughly 200 people) received 119,000 acres from the BLM,. The Locals (of the village) and the FSB is saying there is not enough land for them to hunt on, so they pass regs to allow only qualifed users of the area to hunt the public BLM land as well. It hasent happed in this area yet, but since other corporations have started setting precendent, its bound to happen in the near future. THAT should be more concerning to meat eater and the other people who are worried about federal lands being transfered to the state. And this is just a small case...

 

[Johnboy041586]

Just more government bureaucracy that serves special interests.

Special interests? Special like the residents of the area? What an awful thing to do, preserve the wildlife by limiting the non residents from killing all the deer in a given area....

 

[NevadaMike]

Special interests? Special like the residents of the area? What an awful thing to do, preserve the wildlife by limiting the non residents from killing all the deer in a given area....

Well yes and no. We are talking about federal land that belongs tall of us not Alaska state land. Also, Other Alaska residents are not permitted to hunt their either yet the people of POW can hunt others places in Alaska or the rest of the country. What gets me is subsistence was established to put food on the table for native communities and small communities. Here is the definition when it was established.

"Subsistence hunting was defined as the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption, including food, shelter, fuel, clothing, and tools. This definition was established under federal law to prioritize subsistence use in Alaska."

Back in the day when it was established the communities were so small they granted subsistence to entire communities without income qualifications. That is no longer the case and they are granting it to large cities like Ketchikan. POW has grown dramatically and while there are certainly families that depend on this source of protein, there are tons of residents that do not. If you are a "subsistence hunter" on POW should you be flying out to Idaho and paying $800 for an elk tag? I don't know the answer but is sure does not feel right.

 

[kwackkillncrew]

according to google there is roughly 200 million acres of federal land in ak. That is larger then every US State (other then AK of course). the federal subsistence board in conjuction with local entities and native corporations are slowly shutting down Lower 48 States worth of federal lands to 99.9% of hunters to benefit .1%. Lands are always best in federal hands.......sure

 

[Banana_Horn]

Special interests? Special like the residents of the area? What an awful thing to do, preserve the wildlife by limiting the non residents from killing all the deer in a given area....

At face value it seems like a good thing, but the federal subsistence board prioritizes management not on biological/population data of the wildlife, but on the socioeconomic whims and complaints of “subsistence” users.

While these subsistence users might seem like a population that deserves special treatment due to their unique circumstances on where they live, it’s not like they’re all highly disadvantaged villagers and such. Some are. Most aren’t. Most were probably shooting plenty of deer anyways would be my guess. They’ll just have to out up with less crowds now. These are not restrictions based on wildlife concerns, but people concerns.

Another example, if you’re a subsistence user from Glenallen, Gakona, Tok, etc, you can hunt sheep IN WRANGELL ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK. My guess would be that 99% of anyone doing that is NOT doing it for the food. That in my opinion is a special interest group of users getting extremely preferential treatment. You can bet your ass that there are people out there that maintain a residence in those places just so they can reap the benefit of that rule. While this is a divergence from the deer restriction on POW, it is the same BS mechanism allowing for it.

 

[Johnboy041586]

At face value it seems like a good thing, but the federal subsistence board prioritizes management not on biological/population data of the wildlife, but on the socioeconomic whims and complaints of “subsistence” users.

While these subsistence users might seem like a population that deserves special treatment due to their unique circumstances on where they live, it’s not like they’re all highly disadvantaged villagers and such. Some are. Most aren’t. Most were probably shooting plenty of deer anyways would be my guess. They’ll just have to out up with less crowds now. These are not restrictions based on wildlife concerns, but people concerns.

Another example, if you’re a subsistence user from Glenallen, Gakona, Tok, etc, you can hunt sheep IN WRANGELL ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK. My guess would be that 99% of anyone doing that is NOT doing it for the food. That in my opinion is a special interest group of users getting extremely preferential treatment. You can bet your ass that there are people out there that maintain a residence in those places just so they can reap the benefit of that rule. While this is a divergence from the deer restriction on POW, it is the same BS mechanism allowing for it

Your not entirely wrong. My view point as Alaskan resident is slightly different. To me it's irritating to hear a big uproar from people about not being able to come here and shoot more animals. To me it doesn't matter much if subsistence hunting is not based on income. People that live in AK endure long shitty winters, high price commodities, etc. That is the price we pay to have access to these lands and resources.