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, |
Hopefully those that are interested in this issue take the time to read the proposal, background, etc. rather than take this factually inaccurate and seemingly intentionally misleading post at face value.
As has been pointed out on several past threads on the same topic, what is being proposed for re-restriction here is very narrow in scope and doesn't functionally limit or restrict any real hunting opportunities, land access, etc. Additionally, the proposed restrictions would only apply to "sport" hunting and "sport hunters."
Going back to 2015, it was pointed out by some fed land managers and members of the public that some "intensive predator management" practices allowed by the State directly conflict with some existing federal laws and regulations, including ANILCA. One of the stated purposes (see the proposal and background) of these limited restrictions is to be consistent with ANILCA's definition of sport vs. subsistence hunting and what is allowed under each. Fed land managers like the NPS have to operate under existing laws and mandates that expressly prohibit manipulating one population of wildlife for the intended benefit of another.
No "hunting access" will be limited. Under the proposed regs, "sport" hunters wouldn't be allowed to use a few methods and means that are allowed for "subsistence" hunters, like killing bear cubs, sows with cubs, bears in dens, and baiting bears, etc. These methods and means may still be employed by qualified "subsistence hunters" including but not limited to rural residents and Alaska Natives.
Being no fan of the feds, I am generally OK with what is being limited here. Perhaps with the exception of bear bating. I do think that the "public safety justification" is pretty weak and stretching quite a bit. Most of the preserve lands up here are remote and about the only people that would be interfacing with the bears are the hunters trying to kill them. Typically attempt at some green weenie tree hugger stuff there.
Also, ANILCA didn't steal any land from Alaska and give it to the feds. It did, however, turn a bunch of BLM land into conservation system units like preserves, monuments, wildlife refuges, etc. Common misconception.
Rail against big brother if you must, but make sure you are arguing matters of fact and providing accurate info to others in the process please.
Thanks.
