|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
More management
Posted by martentrapper on Mar 22 2006
Thanks for weighing in, David. It's good to hear from someone who had a bio background and is familiar with the wildlife laws that govern a bio's job.
For the most part I agree with your post. However, I think we all know that wildlife surveys leave alot of fudge room. I'm not familiar with how the state has determined the "amount necessary for subsistence" in that area, but I'm quite sure that the AB there has a fair amount of wiggle room when determining "harvestable surplus". I don't doubt that most ABs in rural areas will err on the side of subsistence, thus favoring locals eventually. While the regional director may make the ultimate decisions on supporting new regs, I suspect he will mostly defer to the AB.
375 is in a tough position. He doesn't live in the area he hunts. Our management system favors local input, which I would have to agree with, in most cases, but that doesn't mean locals are always right. The proposal that passed and brought about this new permit system was not iniated by the state. It was made by the AC for that area. Hopefully, the biological info from the area supports the decision. I do think that the state is just moving hunters farther down the river and ultimately we will end up with the entire Yukon R. drainage off limits to most everyone except locals.
For those of you interested, you should also keep track of federal proposals and changes in subsistence regs. Much of unit 21 is federal land and if moose numbers go down more we could end up with access restrictions on federal land in that area. The state and the AB have a hand in those decisions quite often.
I agree that we should be involved in the BoG process. But since I'm a member of an AC I would like to point out something. The state pays for an AC member to attend BoG meetings. Those who have a private interest in the area, such as 375, have to fund their time at a BoG meeting out of their own pocket. While we can all submit written comments, and I hope 375 did so, this current BoG gives alot of credence to testimony at the meeting and that again favors locals.
Someone wanted to know about cutting antlers. This particular registration hunt requires destruction of the trophy value of the antler. That means cutting thru the palm of the anlter and I think, you have to turn in the part you cut off. 375 asked about seeing antlers in Tan. and Ruby that weren't cut. Both villages have areas around them that did not require cutting. I doubt you can get an accurate tally of who was supposed to cut and who wasn't by just walking thru the village. Most locals who had to cut the antler would have left it in the field and just brought back the part to turn in.
Someone also wanted to know the definition of a "true hunter" I don't know the definition, but I suspect that some of the other regulars on here might.
Previous: Wildlife management David Johnson Mar 22 2006
Next: problem? monster Mar 22 2006
 Message Thread:
|
