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

[diamond10x]

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.

I think your frustration is directed in the wrong direction. IIRC the guide requirement was implemented and pushed by the Alaska Professional Hunter Association not residents. Very same thing with WY and a non-resident hunting wilderness, pushed by guides.

 

[z987k]

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.

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.

Do you have an example of a state that is more open to non-resident hunting that Alaska? I can't think of one. With the exception of the guide requirement, you can hunt everything a resident can. No points, no draw required.
The guide requirement is pushed by the guides. Not the residents. We don't care so long as you're not shooting sub legal rams. Which is a problem even with residents.
I can't for the life of me think of a reason that you'd need a guide for a brown bear. There's no size requirements. They're all legal. It's just a jobs program.

 

[prm]

Has BHA released a response indicating their position?

 

[f16jack]

Has BHA released a response indicating their position?

Don't know. I tried their website but it was down.

 

[mtwarden]

I couldn't find it on their site; sent them an email on Friday (guessing folks were gone already) and asked them if they were aware of it- see if I get a reply Monday.

 

[jonboy]

I worked for the Park Service for a short period of time at Grand Teton. The fact that those in charge openly complained of the elk hunt and having to witness the carnage, wanted to hold a memorial service in remembrance of the animals that were hit and killed by vehicles, as well as not being able to make a decision on kind of coffee maker to install in the new administration building (The conflicting issue being that a regular old-school coffee maker, if all the coffee is not consumed, is considered wasted energy and leaves an unnecessary carbon footprint; the other modern style leaves a mountain of plastic waste due to the K cups) leads me to believe that decisions on management of land and animals will always be based on emotion rather than logic and science.

 

[207-12A]

The Park Service has posted the comments it received (https://www.regulations.gov/docket/...Number=2&sortBy=postedDate&sortDirection=desc). Much to everyone's surprise, they are overwhelmingly in favor of the ban. Once again, anti-groups are much more effective in drumming up support to curtail hunting, no matter how small of a bite it may seem.

Some points to note:

1. Hunters aren't always looking out for your best interests. From the Seward Peninsula Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council's comment: "the Council unilaterally agreed that as this Proposed Rule will only impact sport hunters, and not Federally qualified subsistence users, then they support the proposed new language". Call me immature, but I'll be hard pressed to support any future FQSU-benefitting actions. At least one Native Corporation (Ahtna) opposed the rule, but only so far as it would affect their shareholders, not hunters at large.

2. Crickets from your favorite hunting advocacy group. Try throwing in 'BHA', 'Howl for Wildlife', 'Meateater', 'Boone', 'Pope', "RHAK' etc. into the comments search bar. It's possible that these groups submitted mailed written comments, but come on guys.

2a. Groups that did comment against the ban: Alaska Professional Hunters Association, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, Alaska Outdoor Council, SCI. Maybe you can find more, but the silence from big money groups is deafening. Are our dollars only going towards R3 and instagram flat-brimmers?

3. ADF&G strongly opposed the rule. For some of the F&G-bashers to consider.

I don't bait bears, don't hunt them in their dens, and don't shoot caribou in the water. But I'm completely opposed to federal overreach of a state's right to manage it's game populations, at least until a state proves it cannot do so. I'm frustrated at the lack of opposition to this one.

 

[mtwarden]

^ sad

They just keep nicking away slowly, so slowly no seems to pay much attention