|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
sb85
Posted by KirovPDR on Oct 13 2005
This is a tough subject and many good points have been made on both sides of the issue.
My line of thinking goes more along the lines of equal access to all. By that, I mean that you shouldn't have to be rich or a marathon runner to be able to hunt in Alaska. But on the same note, you should have to have some ethics to be able to access certain areas regardless of the means of access.
Many people that I know are simply unable to buy boats, fly-ins or guide services to be able to get into an area that has a good probability of producing an animal that they will use to feed their families for the next 8-12 months. On the other hand, an ATV is many times more affordable and easier to maintain/ride/haul to and from hunting areas.
Environmental impact is a crucial element of deciding whether or not to allow access to ATV's and other off road vehicles. I've seen first hand the damage these vehicles can and do do to the areas they travel through, and it can be controlled. There is nothing sadder than the hunter that has good ethics, walks in 5 miles off the Dalton, hunts for days through snowstorms, windstorms and sub-freezing temperatures, gets nothing, then walks back out to leave and sees the people with the $25,000 boats and 10 giants caribou racks.
Why not make the Dalton corridor accessible to ORV's by drawing only, much as Denali Park holds the road lottery every year. Strictly control the number of riders/parties that gain the access, and fine all involved if the area is trashed, or the trails left by the riders? This would sure motivate all involved to police their own, and assist with clean-up if there is a problem. If 100 riders were allowed in, and ALL were fined $100 for any problems, that would allow a $10,000 fee to be paid to clean up the problems.
While I understand the ramifications of riders on the tundra, I also disagree that hunting in Alaska should be for only the wealthy that have the means with which to access the areas that others cannot get to, or afford to get to (which is how it looks to be going). I have laughed repeatedly at the editorials in the News-Miner from people that have doubtfully EVER been out on the tundra or into ANWR and never will. But these people cry foul that others would LIKE to get there to provide for their families because of an environmental impact they themselves have never seen.
I applaud the others that have posted on this subject, and you've given me pause to consider a few things that I had missed previously. I am certainly not bashing anyone because this forum definitely has a better rounded view of the real problems than you can find anywhere else on the subject. I would just hate to see this bill defeated by people that have never been there to see what they are talking about, or by the rich wanting to keep the less fortunate out of their hunting areas.
Previous: more sb85 ovis Oct 13 2005
Next: KirovPDR ovis Oct 13 2005
 Message Thread:
|
