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

Catag94

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
39
I understand they will use any argument (false or not) to push their cause. I just think that in federal land, legally using it, financially supporting the conservation that has likely increased the natives’ ability to find game, and then donating some of the meat to assist them in subsistence seems like a fair deal for a 60 day window of time. Surely the feds will consider all these and much more.
 
Last edited:

gbflyer

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
703
I understand they will use any argument (false or not) to push their cause. I just think that in federal land, legally using it, financially supporting the conservation that has likely increased the natives’ ability to find game, and then donating some of the meat to assist them in subsistence seems like a fair deal for a 60 day window of time. Surely the feds will consider all these and much more.

The meat has nothing to do with it. They don’t want anyone else there. Plain and simple.
 

Catag94

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
39
I get that is their true intent/feeling, but I doubt the federal government closes the unit on that basis. It seems they are trying to show damage to their subsistence and I am just wondering how much improvement to their subsistence can be attributed to the very hunters they want denied access. It is likely prudent on us as stakeholders to be able to demonstrate this.
 

Nick Muche

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
3,511
Location
Alaska
The shenanigan's that took place in Unit 13 this past year set a very scary precedence...
 

gbflyer

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
703
I get that is their true intent/feeling, but I doubt the federal government closes the unit on that basis. It seems they are trying to show damage to their subsistence and I am just wondering how much improvement to their subsistence can be attributed to the very hunters they want denied access. It is likely prudent on us as stakeholders to be able to demonstrate this.

Larry was too kind to say it but if someone perceived you wasted a mouthful of rib meat as an example you are going to get dimed to the Trooper. Meat donations are asking for trouble. Sad situation.
 

CGSwimmer25

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
113
Location
Alaska
I get that is their true intent/feeling, but I doubt the federal government closes the unit on that basis. It seems they are trying to show damage to their subsistence and I am just wondering how much improvement to their subsistence can be attributed to the very hunters they want denied access. It is likely prudent on us as stakeholders to be able to demonstrate this.

Please explain what improvement out of state hunters have done to improve subsistence in unit 23? Frankly, I don’t blame their frustration given the chaos that goes on up there the month of September.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

trapperJ

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
66
Location
All over AK
I get that is their true intent/feeling, but I doubt the federal government closes the unit on that basis. It seems they are trying to show damage to their subsistence and I am just wondering how much improvement to their subsistence can be attributed to the very hunters they want denied access. It is likely prudent on us as stakeholders to be able to demonstrate this.
The Feds have been known to pander to certain user groups. Hopefully that don't happen this time.
 
Last edited:

trapperJ

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
66
Location
All over AK
Please explain what improvement out of state hunters have done to improve subsistence in unit 23? Frankly, I don’t blame their frustration given the chaos that goes on up there the month of September.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hell I don't like seeing other people when I'm out hunting but I'm not trying to get everyone else kicked off of public land. With the river buffers and the liberal subsistence regs it would be a hard place to starve to death if you were a local resident..
 
OP
L

Larry Bartlett

Senior Member
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
861
Ya see, that's the real point CGSSwimmer25. There isn't any craziness going on up there in September. For years Air taxis have their guests come in and out under the radar as much as possible, and give them advice on how to behave in Kotz. Tight control over meat care persona. If there were real issues, by now a native with a cell phone would have captured something to boast about. Nothing! Hunters arrive, repack, get on a bush plane and go afield. They return very much the same way with the exception of maybe a dinner or breakfast at a local place and shuttle to drop off meat and gear at the airport 500 yards away from the charters.
 

Catag94

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
39
Please explain what improvement out of state hunters have done to improve subsistence in unit 23? Frankly, I don’t blame their frustration given the chaos that goes on up there the month of September.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not claiming that it had, but rather wondering if it could be shown to have some positive impact.
Here is a quote from the minutes of the 11/3/20 teleconference board meeting in which the RAC moved to make another special action request to close hunting for all non qualifying federal subsistence hunters for this fall. This is an excerpt from one woman’s input:

“ But we are people in season diet, and when an elder -- how many elders call me up. Attamuk if you get caribou can you share with us, I would share, but not this year, I'm not stingy, I didn't get any completely myself.”

My point is that if they are suggesting that they are going hungry and blaming that on outside hunters and the transporters, which it seems they are, then knowing how much caribou and/or moose meat was donated to them by these hunters/transporters would be good. The RAC encouraging those same donations would also be good. As it is, I am not aware of the RAC or any other extension of the Subsistence Advisory Committee organizing and encouraging meat donations. This just makes it more clear that their primary objective is to rid others of the resource.
 

Nick Muche

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
3,511
Location
Alaska
It seems to me, they've (I am not lumping them all in) gotten lazy and they think more land and less people will all of a sudden make a dramatic difference in their ability to obtain meat. I don't think it's that cut and dry, but they seem to think keeping outsiders out will somehow magically make their problems go away. The outside impact to their caribou population is a few % of the harvest.
 

AK_Skeeter

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
381
Location
Becker Ridge, Alaska
Unit 26a encompasses three different caribou herds: Teshapuk, Central Arctic, Western Arctic
The proposal seems to include all three herds, despite no justification.
Non-subsistence harvest percentages of each of these herds is relatively small.
 
OP
L

Larry Bartlett

Senior Member
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
861
Yes and it was solely the Northwest Regional Advisory Committee who included 26A in the proposal without first notifying the Northern Councils in that entire region. They clumped 26A into the closure because the chair of RAC (Enoch) said he and his family "sees planes flying through Aggie pass up the noatak to the border of the GMUs and the planes are effecting the migration." So the chairman of this RAC can see all that shit from a single ground-level camp 120 miles from the action? No sir. Their entire argument for this closure is founded on hearsay idealism, and I've debunked all their claims with the above video proof of caribou being caribou amidst non-local presence and the aircraft that transport them. I expect proof otherwise from those who threaten my subsistence food source.

Read those transcripts guys, from page 84-102 for the full breadth of the conspiring bias against "Lower 48 hunters, non-locals and air transporters." The RACs are the linchpin and the OSM and FSB is the mechanism of our lost rights. Non-locals have no representation or support in matters that effect our right to hunt on Alaska public land. This is not the authority of federal government, it's the state of Alaska. This "subsistence argument" is invalid and the state doesn't support the closure because there is zero biological necessity. If people aren't getting caribou it's because they aren't hunting hard enough.

This proposal is malicious and fabricated without one single shred of evidence for "conservation threats" or of non-local impacts on "continued subsistence use" of the Western Arctic Herd. The RAC was even spoon fed the language above by the acting Supervisor of OSM. He's a fisheries biologists, acting as supervisor of a federal office, and wording the RACs proposal for them to ensure a successful proposal.

Again, no sir. Illegitimate authority only results in defiance.
 
OP
L

Larry Bartlett

Senior Member
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
861
Skeeter, ...and the Teshekpuk Lake Herd is non-migratory and surrounded by state land amid 26A. Where are non-local hunters going to go with a federal lands closure in that region...? Yup. Sate land that has caribou nearby. What impact is this displacement pressure going to have on the herd and the village community that relies on them for food? Not a good one.
 

Catag94

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
39
Larry,
Your testimony in 2017 as seen in your video link was incredibly powerful. Any chance of a similar performance this time?
 
Top