NPS threatening to close 20 million acres in Alaska to some types of hunting

[Ucsdryder]

Kinda hard to really care if one of the states that’s screws non res the hardest loses hunting opportunities.

Except that there’s the whole precedent deal. If you don’t think this will spread to a state you actually care about you’re crazy.

 

[sneaky]

Strange how the federal govt controls so much land out west.

And not a damn thing wrong with it. You want to privatize it and let China buy it all? That would be so much better.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

What other state lets non-res hunt deer, elk, moose, black and brown bear, sheep, goats and caribou over the counter?

Gotta have a guide for about half those animals on the list

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[f16jack]

Let's keep the comments pleasant. The discussion I think I started was should the govt (fed, state, local) be reducing hunting opportunities?. I would prefer they didn't.

 

[WalterH]

Let's keep the comments pleasant. The discussion I think I started was should the govt (fed, state, local) be reducing hunting opportunities?. I would prefer they didn't.

Do you think that it is fair to classify what is being proposed here a reduction in hunting opportunity?

 

[Ishisube]

I can buy a moose tag every year in Alaska. Even though I've never hunted moose there, I wouldn't mind. Even though I may never hunt the area that the NPS is looking to restrict, I think it's bad for us, as hunters, to lose opportunity.

We got so many moose in Alaska you can't even avoid them if you wanted to! I've gotten a handful of face to face pictures of them and been chased more times than I would have liked.

 

[diamond10x]

Do you think that it is fair to classify what is being proposed here a reduction in hunting opportunity?

If allowing someone to bait for bears and others not to, like you said in your previous post, then yes I would.

I honestly see this being very similar to the feds closing caribou hunting to “non locals” in some areas for no reason scientific reason.

 

[f16jack]

Yes. The summary of the proposed rule is as follows:
"The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. This proposed rule would prohibit certain harvest practices, including bear baiting; and prohibit predator control or predator reduction on national preserves."
Management of bag limits, seasons and methods of take should be left to the states. Predator hunting. Wolves, bears, foxes. Lynx, etc. This should fall under Alaska game management, not non-scientific federal directives.

 

[f16jack]

When we change methods of take it's a slippery slope.
Some states have prohibited using dogs for bear and cougar hunting. Some hunters see no issue with this, feeling it may not be "fair chase."
But, when all hunting with dogs is banned they will finally protest. "But I'm a pheasant hunter, how can I be successful?" The answer, "walk more."
Methods, seasons, bag limits belong to the states.

 

[mtwarden]

It's out of the anti hunting textbook 101; eliminate trapping (or some other less than popular) first- not many will fight it or even care; next eliminate a species that can be taken- maybe a predator and then maybe shorten some seasons, maybe make it that only indigenous folk can hunt half the area. Pretty soon it's all gone.

They know exactly how to play the long game.

Do you think that this is something the NPS was thinking about on their own? I don't think so, someone(s) with an agenda are pushing it and pushing it for a reason.

 

[ddealy2022]

The National Park Service (NPS) is currently accepting public comment on a proposed rule that would override state law and prohibit certain state-authorized hunting on approximately 20 million acres of National Preserves in Alaska. The NPS proposed rule is based on bogus concerns about public safety and moral opposition to certain hunting that the NPS deems to be non-sporting. Alaska’s Congressional delegation, Governor, and legislature have all expressed opposition to the proposal. Make your voice heard as well, and stand up for the rights of hunters everywhere. Message your lawmakers. Here is a proposed email: To: [email protected] Subject: Stand Up for Alaska Hunting and Trapping! Dear Regional Director Sarah Creachbaum I strongly oppose and urge you to withdraw the proposed rule to restrict hunting and trapping on National Preserves in Alaska. This rule reduces hunting opportunities, with no conservation benefit for wolves, bears, or caribou. It attempts to bypass state law in violation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). ANILCA protects the public’s right to hunt on National Preserves in Alaska. For over 60 years, the State of Alaska has successfully managed fish and wildlife populations. Alaska effectively balances subsistence and sport hunting; private, state, and federal land ownership; and state and federal hunting and trapping laws. The proposed rule attempts to sidestep Alaska’s management authority and obstructs the State’s ability to continue to properly manage wildlife. The National Park Service admits that these hunting activities have no negative conservation impact on bears, wolves, or other species. The number of animals harvested from the hunting at issue is extremely low. Nor does any of this hunting pose a public safety risk. The very limited sources on which the proposed rule relies do not support this conclusion. Adopting this rule will enhance neither conservation nor public safety. Yet the rule will unnecessarily limit hunting access on 20 million acres of remote federal lands, and restrict the customary and traditional hunting of Alaska Natives who no longer qualify as subsistence users. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this critical issue. Again, I oppose and strongly encourage you to withdraw the proposed rule. Sincerely,

Have some career experience in gov't affairs. The email needs to reference the proposed rulemaking file# RIN 1024-AE70.
AND... when I sent my email, git an autoreply - Director Creachbaum is out of town. So Cc Assoc. Director Grant at [email protected] or Creachbaum's assistant, Yolanda Tankersly, at [email protected].

 

[f16jack]

Have some career experience in gov't affairs. The email needs to reference the proposed rulemaking file# RIN 1024-AE70.
AND... when I sent my email, git an autoreply - Director Creachbaum is out of town. So Cc Assoc. Director Grant at [email protected] or Creachbaum's assistant, Yolanda Tankersly, at [email protected].

Thanks.

 

[f16jack]

Have some career experience in gov't affairs. The email needs to reference the proposed rulemaking file# RIN 1024-AE70.
AND... when I sent my email, git an autoreply - Director Creachbaum is out of town. So Cc Assoc. Director Grant at [email protected] or Creachbaum's assistant, Yolanda Tankersly, at [email protected].

Original posting edited with these changes.

 

[ianpadron]

When we change methods of take it's a slippery slope.
Some states have prohibited using dogs for bear and cougar hunting. Some hunters see no issue with this, feeling it may not be "fair chase."
But, when all hunting with dogs is banned they will finally protest. "But I'm a pheasant hunter, how can I be successful?" The answer, "walk more."
Methods, seasons, bag limits belong to the states.

You're 100% spot on. The slippery slope idea is real.

Why some hunters are still OK limiting any previously legal method of take is a mystery to me, divide and conquer I guess.

I don't trap, probably never will, in fact, it kind of rubs me the wrong way. However, I support trappers fully, because I know after they get shut down, they're coming for me next.

Don't give an inch.

 

[f16jack]

You're 100% spot on. The slippery slope idea is real.

Why some hunters are still OK limiting any previously legal method of take is a mystery to me, divide and conquer I guess.

I don't trap, probably never will, in fact, it kind of rubs me the wrong way. However, I support trappers fully, because I know after they get shut down, they're coming for me next.

Don't give an inch.

Concur. I have trapped, and I have hunted bears over bait. These are simply methods of take.

 

[dirtytough]

Now I am curious, what state provides better non resident opportunities than Alaska? I know they require a guide for sheep, goats and grizzly bear but any nonresident could write a check and be hunting them next season. I could apply for a life time in all the states in the lower 48 and not ever draw a goat or sheep tag. Forget all about hunting grizzlies down there.

What other state lets non-res hunt deer, elk, moose, black and brown bear, sheep, goats and caribou over the counter?

You guys are right. Alaska is the most non res friendly state in the US. I mean they let me guide non res for sheep as a non res. Thanks AK for letting me guide up there and babysit other hunters. Even though I can hold someone's hand I'm not capable of holding my own hand.

Except that there’s the whole precedent deal. If you don’t think this will spread to a state you actually care about you’re crazy.

It will spread. That's the short sightedness I mention coming from most residents. First non res will/are getting less and less of the pie. Eventually there won't be a pie because the few residents that live in western states that actually care is such a small percent of the population they won't have a voice. So good job residents, keep pushing away your allies.

Usually when a non res ask why they can't hunt wilderness in Wyoming, why allocations aren't the same on federal land, etc, since they pay for it. They are told "you are more than welcome to come out and camp, hike, etc on federal land, you just can't hunt on it." Well guess what. Residents are more than welcome to camp, hike, etc on fed land also. They just won't be able to hunt it either one day. That day will be sooner and sooner the more greedy and greedy residents get.

 

[mtwarden]

^ ahh gotcha- so throw the baby out with the bathwater?

perfect - exactly what the antis want- divide and conquer, looks like it's working pretty good for them

 

[WalterH]

If allowing someone to bait for bears and others not to, like you said in your previous post, then yes I would.

I honestly see this being very similar to the feds closing caribou hunting to “non locals” in some areas for no reason scientific reason.

Fair enough. I guess I don't feel entirely the same and/or this slight loss doesn't bother me much, as everyone is still free to pursue these animals in these places using methods and means that line up with most states define as "fair chase."

Now the fed closures up north for caribou and sheep and in unit 13 during covid are absolutely something to get fire up about. In those cases, the fed subsistence board made decisions that directly contradict the science and data and absolutely locked a bunch of people out of hunting opportunities entirely. Totally egregious and unacceptable in my mind. Of the various land access and hunting issues going on in AK at the moment, I am surprised this one hasn't been more in the spotlight as it has way more potential to impact large groups of people as compared to banning a few seldom used methods and means in a few places.

As for the feds role in wildlife management, like most others here, I am of the mindset that hunting and fishing are best managed by the states. That having been said, the feds had and have the original authority to manage wildlife and natural resources on fed managed lands and elsewhere. They delegate most of that authority to the states and continue to do so until/unless the states permit things that contradict existing federal laws, regs, and directives, which is what has happened here with this predator control issue.

A group with the University of Montana put together a pretty good summary about this state vs. fed wildlife management authority issue a while back.

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=faculty_lawreviews

As for the slippery slope argument, which is how this thread should have started out and been labeled, yes it is real and something to be aware of and fought against when it pops up. This is not that though.

Sport hunting and fishing on fed public lands in customary and traditional ways is not in danger in Alaska and never will be. The ANILCA was and is one of the most widely supported pieces of legislation in history and in it these hunting and fishing rights are enshrined.

Contrary to popular belief, these fed land managers are not free to make and amend rules based on personal preferences, morals, or ethics. As the previously linked rule making proposal outlines, they have to justify their proposals based on existing laws, regs, and mandates. If they pull stuff out of their butt that is arbitrary, capricious, and not back=stopped by legal authority and/or laws, the conversation never gets started.

I do find it concerning that the pendulum can swing somewhat widely from administration to administration and decision on both sides of the issue, based on who is in charge, are deemed to be "right" interpretations and applications based on existing law.

 

[dirtytough]

^ ahh gotcha- so throw the baby out with the bathwater?

perfect - exactly what the antis want- divide and conquer, looks like it's working pretty good for them

Oh I forgot. Non res should be good little boys and girls and keep funding, writing, fighting, etc. Whenever and for whatever residents need help with. Gotta keep that resident play ground perfect for residents.

"You are good to hike, bike, and camp on federal lands. You just aren't allowed to hunt on federal lands unless we allow you too, you entitled non res. If you don't like it move here."

"No don't move here. (insert state) is closed."

"Please help!! Us residents might not be able to hunt on federal lands!!"

"What you won't help us anymore? Just because us residents are doing our best to cut your percent of tags and opportunity everywhere. Even on federal lands. You are helping the anti's divide and conquer"

So if non res get tired of getting a smaller and smaller percent of the pie and decide they won't help residents fight anti hunting issues that come up, they are helping the anti's divide and conquer. But I've never once seen a resident of the west say residents are helping anti's divide and conquer when they keep cutting and cutting the non res %. It just shows how entitled residents are.

 

[mtwarden]

Those damn entitled guys in the West, when will they ever learn