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

[f16jack]

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. Deadline March 27. Message your lawmakers. Here is a proposed email: (edited) To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [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 (rulemaking file# RIN 1024-AE70) 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,

 

[z987k]

All forest, preserve and BLM land in Alaska needs to be transfered to the state. Leave the feds with nothing but the actual parks themselves.

 

[f16jack]

All forest, preserve and BLM land in Alaska needs to be transfered to the state. Leave the feds with nothing but the actual parks themselves.

Concur. 13.2 million acres were taken from Alaska in 1980 when Wrangel-St. Elias park was formed. How much more federal land grab will occur?

 

[Beendare]

The war against hunting by the current administration continues

 

[mtmiller]

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[Ishisube]

People making decisions from DC over the will of Alaska itself is akin to a foreign takeover. Heck, there's even another country in between the two. The Constitution was made to hobble government takeover of power over the people of the country, but it's been completely ignored of late.

 

[f16jack]

People making decisions from DC over the will of Alaska itself is akin to a foreign takeover. Heck, there's even another country in between the two. The Constitution was made to hobble government takeover of power over the people of the country, but it's been completely ignored of late.

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

 

[Beendare]

Sadly, this has become political…the last thing we hunters want to face is politics.

The sooner we all realize;
1) We cannot avoid the politics
2) we need to do at least a small part to stop this madness

Then….we can go about our hunts and be happy.

I am a life member of SCI and a couple other outfits for those reasons. SCI has a powerful legal team and Lobbyists that fights these battles for us….

Its a small investment. If you wait until it comes to your backyard by then it’s too late.

 

[f16jack]

Sadly, this has become political…the last thing we hunters want to face is politics.

The sooner we all realize;
1) We cannot avoid the politics
2) we need to do at least a small part to stop this madness

Then….we can go about our hunts and be happy.

I am a life member of SCI and a couple other outfits for those reasons. SCI has a powerful legal team and Lobbyists that fights these battles for us….

Its a small investment. If you wait until it comes to your backyard by then it’s too late.

Concur. I've been a life member of SCI for over 30 years. They focus on pro hunting legislation at the local, state, federal and international level. (Think possible U.N. restrictions on small arms that could prevent you from taking your hunting rifle over national borders.)

 

[CJ19]

But Clowntalk told me that this administration is good for public land hunters.

 

[t_carlson]

The Constitution was made to hobble government takeover of power over the people of the country, but it's been completely ignored of late.

For about the last 100 years or so.

But Clowntalk told me that this administration is good for public land hunters.

Clowntalk is where all the smart people are. I can't believe they would get that one wrong.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Concur. I've been a life member of SCI for over 30 years. They focus on pro hunting legislation at the local, state, federal and international level. (Think possible U.N. restrictions on small arms that could prevent you from taking your hunting rifle over national borders.)

It’s a shame we don’t hear more about SCI, everything I gather on them is that they are a really solid hunting organization and one of the only with real political teeth.

 

[mtwarden]

Federal Register :: Request Access

Thanks for posting the link, sent my comment

We have a couple of thousand members on this site; I could be wrong but if each person were to respond with their comments, I think that would have some sway

 

[f16jack]

Thanks for posting the link, sent my comment

We have a couple of thousand members on this site; I could be wrong but if each person were to respond with their comments, I think that would have some sway

That would be nice. I don't know that I plan on ever hunting that territory, but it would be a shame for it to be taken away. Of course, a random presidential directive (the new way of making laws in the U.S.) could take it away with the swipe of a pen.

 

[dirtytough]

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

 

[WalterH]

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.

 

[f16jack]

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

I understand your frustration.
but, if I try to get a moose tag here in Utah it's years of points, and then a once in a lifetime tag. 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.

 

[gbflyer]

Pissing match between the state and feds is what it amounts to. Normal stuff here.

 

[Homer]

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

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.

 

[z987k]

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

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