Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Who you voting for?

For governor that is? I haven't decided yet, but I know my vote won't go for Fran Ulmer. I've been registered since I was 18, but this will be the first time that I've ever voted!
<br>
<br>I tried to vote once before for the next President(who is Bush now), but I was in basic training at the time and the damn Army wouldn't even let me vote for who I wanted to!
<br>
<br>All they said was, "thank your recruiter for that!".

I tell you what...I watched the debate on TV, and this is DEFINATELY the time to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. Neither one impressed me (I'll be voting for Murkowski no matter what) but he looked like a moron up there.
<br>
<br>We need a pro-gun, pro-hunting, NON-democRAT in there!

This will be an interesting election, without a good candidate, but Fran scares me simply because she has obviously been in Tony's camp for a long time and has too much guilt-by-association to be trusted with anything. I believe Tony is the worst governor we have ever had from the hunters' perspective and allowing Fran to continue his ways for another 4 years would be way too risky.
<br>
<br>The commercial fishing industry is so upset with Tony that they are mostly going to be voting for Frank. My fear is that Frank is already convinced he has it wrapped up and that is not the right attitude. Frankly, he is a few wolves short of a pack himself.
<br>
<br>Fran has been shmoozing the AK Outdoor Council for the last few weeks, but they are pretty strongly against her.
<br>
<br>Could be a terrible election for sports hunting...
<br>art

But who are you voting for, Sitka? Frank? This is sort of like a poll for us Alaskan posters.
<br>
<br>So far,
<br>
<br>Frank: 2 votes (including mine).
<br>Fran: 0 votes
<br>
<br>

I already voted (absentee at the diamond center) since I'll be in seattle next week. Just like what was already siad. Lesser of 2 evils and frank got my vote.

Grudgingly, Frank gets my vote...

Stats so far,
<br>
<br>Frank: 4 votes
<br>Fran: 0 votes
<br>
<br>We need more voters here, guys.

Frank for me too.

Damn, who pissed on Fran?!
<br>
<br>Frank: 5 votes
<br>Fran: 0 votes

I just drove around S Anchorage a little bit this am, made a point to drive by a few lower income areas and some higher ones. I saw NO Fran signs on houses, and Frank signs everywhere...
<br>
<br>I was surprised at the huge difference. While Frank winning the suburban vote is pretty much a foregone conclusion, he must win it very decisively to win the statewide vote, I believe. I think it might happen...
<br>art

I'm going to grit my teeth and hold my nose, then vote for Frank. He grudginly gets my vote but only because Fran's initials indicate what probably would happen to shooters/hunters if she wins.
<br>batch

I agree; I'll grudgingly vote for Frank.
<br>I don't like either of them, but he's the lesser of 2 evils.
<br>To heck with fixing the fiscal gap, if we lose ground on the hunting and equal access to natural resources issues, we'll never get it back.
<br>
<br>I'm probably one of the few people in the state who would just as soon get rid of the Dividend. I think it just invites in people who come here just for the short term, and who don't care about this state. I think many of these new people are clueless about hunting and fishing, too. We're getting more and more non-hunters in this state, and if some of these issues ever come to a general vote, they could control the outcome.

I agree Ann. I think they should make it a 3 or 5 year period before you qualify for the dividend. that way it cuts down on some military that does 3 years and leaves the state. I'm not knocking military, I was military up here but I got out and stayed. Alot of people abuse it.
<br>
<br>As for losing our rights thats why the constitutional convention cannot pass. With how hot the urban/rural hunting issue is, I know what one of the first topics on the ballot would be and we (urban) would lose.

Just like almost everyone else I'll barely be giving the nod to Frank.
<br>
<br>Joel S,
<br>Very few people in the military take advantage of, or even claim the PFD. Most people don't claim it after they leave, and a lot of military people never even become Alaskan citizens. If they want it, it's their right to claim it while being stationed here. Let's not talk about taking another benefit away from people serving our country.
<br>
<br>Jim
<br>
<br>

Frank: 8 votes
<br>Fran: 0 votes
<br>
<br>I hope Fran ain't reading this!!

My vote goes to Frank. I have had enough of the present administration and their weack-knee reaction to environmentalists and bunny huggers.
<br>
<br>Also, they didn't fight for the fishing industry, twice vetoed the UA Land Grant, threatened closing the Steese Hwy (for politics), etc.
<br>
<br>Just this week the wolves "buffer zone" around Denali was expanded without any good reason. The game board itself has turned into an animal right group (or so it seems). Right now there are more anti-hunting/trapping resolutions being brought up by animal right groups. You can read about some of these at the AOC web page.

new2alaska,
<br>I beg to differ. I'm not gonna turn this into a pissing match but I know alot of military abuse the dividend. I also know 1 or 2 that havent claimed it because they knew they wouldnt live up here after there tour. I respect that. Lets be realistic, free money....hmmmm
<br>
<br>

Frank: 9 votes
<br>Fran: 0 votes
<br>
<br>I'd just say cash out the dividend and be done with it.

In reality, both military and civilians abuse the Permanent Fund Dividend. But there are lots of others that take advantage of it simply because it is not illegal to do so. All it takes is one year to become a legal resident of Alaska, so anybody from overseas and the Lower-48 can apply for the PFD as long as they can prove they have been here for the correct period of time. It does not matter if you aren't a US citizen, since all that is required is residency.
<br>
<br>All one needs is a legal address in Alaska, and to prove that one has been here for at least one year. So military, civilians, legal aliens, etc. can legally receive a PFD check.
<br>
<br>To change the residency period of time would require changing the Alaska Constitution. That's the reason why the Zobel's?? won in Court against the State of Alaska in the early 80's. The Constitution was on their side, so they got their PFD even though they were newcomers. Things like these happen every day in Alaska; people leave the Lower-48 in hope to land a job and get a PFD check shortly after, but I imagine that more civilians, from students to fishermen do it at a larger number than military members.
<br>
<br>Well...the main thing is to stay united, at least until we can vote for Frank. After the election, we can argue a little about the PFD.

Just a note from another military type here...
<br>
<br>I've seen military people get the PFD who've had no intention of staying in Alaska. Can't give any percentages though, as it's not usually a big topic, even during the application period each Spring.
<br>
<br>During my first 4 years in Alaska, stationed at Ft. Wainwright, we did not apply for the dividend. After switching Services, and being stationed in Kodiak, we did start receiving the dividend. That was when we decided to make Alaska our permanent home.
<br>
<br>I personally will not allow my name to be used as a reference for anyone who I feel is not serious about staying here. It's my opinion that the Permanent Fund money belongs to Alaskans, and I will not support any abuse.
<br>
<br>Quite frankly, the type of people who would lie about such things, exist in both the military and the civilian populations.
<br>
<br>However, having lived in Alaska for 15 years now, I would never support any effort to restrict the military from receiving the PFD. There's too many folks like me, who work hard to stay here, and we don't deserve to be lumped into a group that cannot recieve the PFD simply because we are military.