|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Ok, let's see if i can respond.
Posted by martentrapper on Mar 03 2006
Where do I start. Hmmmmmmmm..........well........I don't live in unit 23. I live in unit 22, in Nome. The ad comm I'm on concerns itself with hunting/fishing in the northern part of unit 22.
What I support, Mark, both individually, and as an ad comm member, is managing the wildlife according to state law. That means that me, and we, don't get to restrict who hunts out here unless the number of animals of the species concerned, is below what is necessary for a harvestable surplus. In fact, Mark, we rarely can restrict who hunts, unless the numbers allow us to. While you may have seen comms PROPOSE restrictions, I would doubt you have seen the BoG pass those restrictions without corresponding numbers. Generally, this states administration, and even the last admin. wil not support limits on who hunts UNLESS, according to state law, the harvestable surplus falls below a certain level. IF, and usually only IF, the numbers fall below a given level, the state HAS to restrict who hunts. It is often not a choice. This is written into codefied regs, I believe. At a certain point, an area will enter tier 1, such as is now the case in unit 23, and I think we are in that situation for moose in unit 22 also. If numbers continue to fall, we then enter tier 2. That results in further restrictions on who hunts a particular species. I support these regulations. I don't support restricting who hunts just because a group WANTS the area all to themselves. This would be much like I did not support you, Mark, when you asked on this forum to have 25 miles of the Kandik all to yourself, cuz you lived there. Even tho that unit has a decent hunt season and even a fed season before the state season.
I do not "practice just the opposite approach" in my role on the AC. If you would like to investigate that, email Charlie gregg in Kotz and ask for the minutes of our meetings.Charlie is the coordinator for our comm. If you would like, I can provide names of folks who have attended meetings, who can verify I do not support restricting access.......unless the numbers require it.
What else do I need to answer? Hey, are you keeping a file on me? Where did you pull up that quote? Man, now I really feel important......hahahaha. Since you asked about my statements in that quote, let me explain. First, I want to reitterate, I live in unit 22, not 23. The ad comm I am on deals with unit 22, the northern portion. There is a diferent ad comm for the southern part. Much of unit 22 is in a tier 1 situation for moose. This results in moose hunting being closed to non res. Do you know how the state determines if an area is tier 1 or 2? Let me explain. The state developes numbers for certain areas that meet subsistence needs for that area. This number is called the "amount needed for subsistence". The area bio or bios also have to come up with "harvestable surplus" figures. When the harvestable surplus (HS) is ABOVE the amount needed for subsistence (ANS) we have general season hunts. Everyone is welcome. When the HS approaches or equals the ANS, we go into tier 1. Non res hunters get shut out. When the HS falls below the ANS, we then go into tier 2 and it's a big mess.......wouldn't you agree? Again, this is all done according to state law, and for the most part, us ad comms can't keep you furinors out otherwise. I support this system. I think it works for the most part. Now your probably asking which part of unit 22 has an overabundance of moose. Sub unit 22c still has a general hunt, open to non res. However, we have alot of hunters in Nome, and the 3 roads allow alot more access in 22c. Our moose season in 22c is a registration hunt, with a quota. Anyone can hunt, but once the quota is met, it is closed. I supported that. The evidence of overabundance is in the fact that the bull cow ratio is low, and we also have a cow season with a quota to bring the ratio up. Also, F&G has done some browse surveys, and initially it looks like there are enough moose in 22c that they may overbrowse certain areas during high snowfall winters.
Now, is it just plain selfish to support local preferance when game pops are low? I don't think so. As I said, state law requires the local preferance. Surely you don't expect me, or my committee, to go above the law, right? Also, why would a non local want to hunt in an area that has a low pop. Success ratios would be down in that area. If ya gotta spend big bucks to go somewhere, might as well go where the hunting is good. All this management stuff is to keep a decent number of critters available equally. When numbers fall, I'm not sure I can come up with a more fair way to restrict access than by registration hunts, drawing hunts, etc. In my mind, it makes more economic sense to allow those closest to the resource first crack at it.........when numbers are low.
Hopefully I've answered your questions. Got any more quotes you'd like me to explain? Who else you got a file on? hahahahaha.
Of course, what I've explained here only applies on state and private land. The feds are a whole nother ball game. Why don't you explain that to the folks here?
Previous: Contradicting martentrapper Mar 03 2006
Next: Restrictions Barron Mar 03 2006
 Message Thread:
|
