Federal Proposals to CLOSE Alaska's GMU 23 and 26A to caribou and moose hunters

william schmaltz

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
470
Location
AK

Clarktar

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
3,117
Location
Fairbanks, AK
The Federal Subsistence Board (Board) will hold a teleconference on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. to take action on Temporary Wildlife Special Action Request WSA21-01.
The public is invited to listen in; however, public comments will not be taken. To join the teleconference, dial toll-free (800) 857-9670, passcode is 6992079.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

Jeff1980

Newbie
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Messages
5
The staffs analysis and meeting agenda have been posted to the announcement site. I haven’t read thru it all yet but I wonder if it gives any hints as to which way this will go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Razz

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
52
Location
Nestled between the Tetons & the Big Holes
The staffs analysis and meeting agenda have been posted to the announcement site. I haven’t read thru it all yet but I wonder if it gives any hints as to which way this will go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scanned thru it, saw this on page 75.....
OSM CONCLUSION
Support WSA21-01 with modification to only close moose hunting to non-Federally qualified users in
Unit 23 from Aug. 1-Sep. 30, 2021.


Hopefully this will be the outcome, but they say “it isn’t over till the fat lady sings”
 

Catag94

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
67
Saw the same. This is positive and seams more justifiable given actual scientific data and expected effects.

I like that the concept of NFQ users still having legal access to all areas below mean high water mark was referenced in a few places as support for the closure having little impact. (See first paragraph on page 71 as an example)

I also like that the law (ANILCA) was quoted and then used especially when pointing out that the closure could be considered an unnecessary closure on the “28% of NFQ users who do not access the land via aircraft”.

So together, unnecessary closure on the NFQ users who don’t use aircraft for access AND no impact on those who do because they can still land and harvest on gravel bars below MHW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
OP
L

Larry Bartlett

Senior Member
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
910
The best outcome from these FSB analysis are the detailed supporting statements that justify the decision. These little nuggets of "reason" can be used verbatim in future public testimonies by you and me when the attempted closures are pushed forward in the future for the same reasons as ones in the past. We get smarter with the language and logic used by the FSB each time they decide on a closure.
 

william schmaltz

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
470
Location
AK
I don't recall how the vote went a few years ago. How did the NPS, BLM, USFS, and USFWS vote? Assuming the local votes and BIA votes were for the closure, one of them four agencies would've had to also vote for the closure. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hopefully votes are cast based off the decisions outlined in the OSM report. But our Secretary of the Interior has a track record that suggests she will put perceived native rights above science and logic if any influence of how this vote goes makes it to her office.

Maybe this will be the rare occasion that public input is taken into account. What the Japanese Prime Minister just said about hosting the Olympics this summer while 80% of it's citizens are against the games sum up government's take on public input well - "we're listening, but won't be guided by public opinion." That should be the quote on the outfacing front wall of every federal building.
 

Catag94

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
67
I don't recall how the vote went a few years ago. How did the NPS, BLM, USFS, and USFWS vote? Assuming the local votes and BIA votes were for the closure, one of them four agencies would've had to also vote for the closure. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hopefully votes are cast based off the decisions outlined in the OSM report. But our Secretary of the Interior has a track record that suggests she will put perceived native rights above science and logic if any influence of how this vote goes makes it to her office.

Maybe this will be the rare occasion that public input is taken into account. What the Japanese Prime Minister just said about hosting the Olympics this summer while 80% of it's citizens are against the games sum up government's take on public input well - "we're listening, but won't be guided by public opinion." That should be the quote on the outfacing front wall of every federal building.


In the 2016 WSA (WSA16-01) US Forrest Service rep., Beth Pendleton voted in favor and it must have surprised the the ARD of OSM. See below:

"MR. PELTOLA: Okay, Mr. Chair.
Roll call vote.
Bureau of Land Management.
MR. CRIBLEY: Opposed.
MR. PELTOLA: National Park Service.
MR. FROST: Oppose.
MR. PELTOLA: US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
MS. CLARK: Opposed.
MR. PELTOLA: Public member Brower.
MR. C. BROWER: Yes.
MR. PELTOLA: Public member
Christianson.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes.
MR. PELTOLA: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
MR. LOUDERMILK: Yes.
MR. PELTOLA: US Forest Service.
MS. PENDLETON: Yes.

MR. PELTOLA: Excuse me?
MS. PENDLETON: Yes.

MR. PELTOLA: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN TOWARAK: Yes.
MR. PELTOLA: Motion passes,
five/three."

Worse is the following from that analysis:

"OSM CONCLUSION:
Oppose Special Action Request WSA16-01."


Edit to add:
I noticed that in the
analysis of WSA16-01, the four letters received as public comments prior to the analysis were included. All those supported WSA16-01. I wonder why the one received prior to the analysis for 21-01 were not included??? :p
 
Last edited:

AlaskaMark

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
28
Couple things caught my eye in the OSM analysis.

First, on every single proposed federal regulation change it states that a state registration permit is required and that the fed lands closed don't apply to federally qualified subsistence users "hunting under these regulations."

So at what point are fed enforcement officials going to actually enforce that, cuz only 10% of the hunters even register and pick up the RC 907 permit?

Secondly, I recall the first time I heard at one of the RAC meetings one of the locals use the word "nonresident" and I thought he was specifying those who did not live in Alaska, but it was clear later on when multiple people used that word they actually meant all non-locals, including Alaska residents. The OSM analysis did the same darn thing in the brief summation of ADFG position: "Additionally, the State argued that this closure would have negative economic consequences and would prevent non-residents with ties to the area from hunting on Federal public lands."

What "non-residents" have ties to those areas? None. It is Alaskan residents who've for whatever reason moved to more uban locations that have those ties. It's resident Alaskans! The state and ADFG never said that "non-residents" have ties to those areas. So why is OSM showing the same bias as locals in defining all non locals as nonresidents?

I doubt any of the public RAC members will vote no on either closure. So get in touch with the federal agency directors/staff and let them know your thoughts, and to at minimum go with the OSM recommendation to not approve the closures to caribou hunting.
 

ddavis_1313

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
586
Anyone else waiting to see what happens before booking a hunt? I’m locked and loaded for me and my wife in 2022 on a drop hunt. But I’d hate to pull the trigger and get shafted....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LongWayAround

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
1,181
Anyone else waiting to see what happens before booking a hunt? I’m locked and loaded for me and my wife in 2022 on a drop hunt. But I’d hate to pull the trigger and get shafted....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's exactly where I'm at.
 

ddavis_1313

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
586
That's exactly where I'm at.

6b9e797cd757d4c46656fada23dbcde9.jpg

That’s my hunting and adventure buddy. She’d walk through hell and back with me and never complain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

VenaticOppidan

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
132
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Anyone else waiting to see what happens before booking a hunt? I’m locked and loaded for me and my wife in 2022 on a drop hunt. But I’d hate to pull the trigger and get shafted....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are booked for 2022, which is why this is of interest to us. After talking with the public relations, Robin, she let me know that this would be for this year 2021, regardless of ruling, and could be brought again next year. If hunting is prohibited, they would go through the same process next year

After the call and verdict we are gonna talk to our transport and see what our audible options will be if suit is brought again next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ddavis_1313

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
586
My outfitter just sent me this and said we are good to go!!! Just booked my trip for 2022. Doesn’t look like they are going to side with this crap again after 2016 proved no change in migration or anything. Moose was affected though so I’d read through that part if moose is ok your list.

4c6f495c2820845bd9c03b229f903d1d.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LongWayAround

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
1,181
You have an outfitter and dates picked out? My wife said do it anyways. Lol. Shes fine hunting gravel bars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yea, we've been talking for awhile. I just haven't sent the deposit. My hunting partner and I are going to discuss after the meeting.

I figured it could be brought up again next year but am interested in the precedent for this season.

I'm pretty committed regardless and will figure out a way to make the most of it.
 

ddavis_1313

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
586
Yea, we've been talking for awhile. I just haven't sent the deposit. My hunting partner and I are going to discuss after the meeting.

I figured it could be brought up again next year but am interested in the precedent for this season.

I'm pretty committed regardless and will figure out a way to make the most of it.

My outfitter just texted me. Said they are good to go on caribou this year and that they can try next year but good luck Bc they stated there was no change after 16 when they limited the hunting. Just reduced moose bc he said the numbers are really dropping due to the number of bears


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
202,989
Messages
2,095,668
Members
50,993
Latest member
DavyCrockett
Top