Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska McKnight...Hope your POW hunt went well...

Ah. I know where that's at. I've just never seen it as an acronym. I was wracking my brain trying to make it something other than "Prisoner of War". I thought perhaps it stood for some sort of special hunting privilege from the controversy in the thread. Between working at an airport, having been a commercial flight student, and all my military buddies, I can't keep all the acronyms straight anymore.

Flyboy--Heheh, you're not the first one to be confused. By the way no special hunting privilege exists here; it's just subsistence regs that are being debated; some apparently feel that POW isn't "rural" enough to enjoy subsistence status. I disagree, and that's the gist of the debate. Some folks also seem to believe that subsistence regulations are "unfair" and poor policy in general, which I also disagree with. However, I may have expressed myself a bit poorly in my original response by implying that Ketchikan hunters were all a bunch of poachers; this is NOT what I believe but my post may have been a bit inflammatory and thus sparked the subsistence debate. Mea culpa.

OK many of us know how we got to this point .... Fed restrictions on certain user groups for Deer hunting on Prince of Wales ...

It's where we go from here ....

I would think with the 'Mother Board' actually discussing, in the recent past, re-designating Ketchikan to Rural and the actual re-designating of Saxman to Non-Rural ......

That in the wake of the Brinkman Study .... showing a prolific Deer heard on the Island .... showing that there is no reason by lack of Deer that a POW resident needs are not being met .... that when the call for Proposals comes up and several are submitted to realign the Fed Law to The State Law of the Aug 1 opening of Deer season ....

The 'Mother Board' will be required by the Law of Section VIII to rule in favor of that proposal ....

Many persons believe that Section VIII can only be implemented by a time of shortage ...

Not quite sure your point here. And have NO idea what "the Brinkman study" is--it certainly isn't a Forest Service (fed) study that I'm aware of, and as POW is over 90% federal lands, a state sponsored study ain't gonna change anything subsistence regulation wise.

In point of fact, the feds have taken many hits on their "outdated" deer model, which is a population estimation tool used in creating timber sale documents. It IS outdated, but no new methodology has been forthcoming in the past 10 years, unless you count studies done by Greenpeace type organizations.

The deer herd on POW DOES suffer when several harsh winters in a row happen (as has been the case the past 2-3 winters). That, plus added pressure from non-resident hunters, does impact the herd. From my experience, though, you are right; the deer herd on POW is pretty darn healthy and there are lots. We'd like to keep it that way. I never said that Island resident needs aren't being met...I just have a personal issue with some non-resident hunters who come here every year to bag their black bears and take a truckload of nice bucks out if they don't live in a subsistence area. But, most of them are hunting within their legal rights, so I have nothing more than an opinion on that practice. I hunt within MY legal rights, which means I can take 4 bucks and a doe, starting in late July on POW. And I appreciate that and think, considering the healthy deer population, that there is NOTHING wrong with that.

As for an earlier poster's comment about how many deer we can eat--I personally can easily eat 3 entire deer in a calendar year. I know a couple (no kids) who carefully document their consumption, and they go through 6-8 deer and additional game animals like antelope every year. People, that's ALL the meat (besides salmon) that most of us eat--we simply don't buy steak, burger, even much poultry, at the local store--it's too damn expensive and not good quality. So I really don't think the subsistence limit is over the top--if the herd population does start to suffer, it should be the NON-RESIDENT folks who are first cut on limits/hunting availability, not subsistence limits that should suffer. Subsistence users ought to be protected first, not sport hunters.

Cool...where do you sign up for subsistence antelope?



And you're somehow under the impression that you are the only people who live that lifestyle? The only difference is I take my game and fish under Alaska's rules, not Federal entitlement rules.



Are you prepared to tell the people from Saxman and Metlakatla that they shouldn't be hunting on "your" island too? Because they aren't POW residents, but they have the same subsistence privileges there that you do. Even though Saxman is actually closer to the Safeway than my house is. I would be willing to make a small wager that more than 50% of the "GD KTN" hunters you referred to are actually from Saxman and Met, and are hunting under Fed subsistence rules, not AK sport hunting rules.

Thoughts on that?

Dennis

Entitlements are entitlements and there is no defense for demanding a hand-out.

BTW I get a tier II caribou tag almost every year and I would dearly love to see the whole program evaporate...

As I mentioned in an earlier post Todd Brinkman is finishing up a 5 years study of POW Deer. Through the U of A and supported by the ADF&G and the USFS ...

When we (the Unit #2 Deer Subcommittee of the SE Regional Advisory Council) proposed the current regulations (extra July dates, early Aug closure for non-rural, and a 5th Deer for Rural Residents of units 1,2 and 3 on POW Island) and the 'Mother Board" passed into Law ... we knew solid Biological info on POW Deer was on the horizon.

When Todd's study is wrapped next year the issue will be revisited. Todd's study should be very through as to how many Deer there are on POW, how many die naturally, how many POW residents eat/need, how many leave the Island, past-current-future Deer population trends and much more.

Todd's report and several years of data from the 'Hunting Report' that we formulated will be made public.

IMHO the findings from all this info will show no need to restrict any user groups because there is no 'time of shortage' which is required by Section VIII to restrict any user group.

Harvest of Deer on the Island (actually all of SE AK) by Non-Alaska Residents is very minimal .....

Well, as far as subsistence regulations go, I'm of the school that would prefer to live off wild game as much as possible even though I currently live in a city of 400,000 if I only had the freezer space. It just needs to be managed properly, which, having lived on the Kenai - and I still keep up with the Joneses up there - unfortunately seems to mean "managed best for the tourists, residents be damned".

Does it work for the blacktail as it does for salmon with a certain number for head of household and then a different amount per person under the household?

You know, Dennis, I already clarified my OP that pissed you off...not going to keep apologizing for something that was a joke, albeit a joke in questionable taste.

I don't know what "entitlement" you're referring to; this must be your term for legal Federal subsistence regs.

Subsistence antelope--give me a break, you're being deliberately obtuse; they hunted those in a different state; I'm just illustrating the amount of game animals that a relatively small family can consume, in response to your post.

No, I'm actually fine with anyone from a SUBSISTENCE area hunting under SUBSISTENCE regs hunting on POW, and, as I'VE ALREADY SAID, I'm OK with many of the people from KTN too, although I firmly believe that some abuse what should be considered a privilege for sport hunters to come to POW to hunt. I'm letting this one die.

Who knows which way the board will rule in the future ...

Meanwhile you will have your July / Aug season without any Ktown hunters around.

It sure has been a good season and I have heard of lots of nice Bucks being taken.

Dang, I didn't realize I was stirring up so much trouble trying to kill a deer!

Not your doing...you just visited the hornet's nest, you didn't stir it up .

Sorry I missed your call last week...

Dennis

Not your fault; a post I made sorta came across sour and it just grew nastier from there; I'm agreeing to disagree at this point!

So-called subsistence regulations will bring out the strongest emotions.

My pard is a B%C measurer. A year ago (or was it two, now) I posted pics of a really, really big bull moose a fella in Ninilchik shot during a subsistence season. It scored 224 5/8 green IIRC. It was the biggest, nicest rack I've personally seen.

Someone lifted the pics from here and put them on the Outdoor Directory Forums. They then created an enormous $hit storm over there.

After 60 days, pard calls the hunter and asks if he is planning to bring the rack for a remeasure. He said "your friend screwed me with the pics, so I don't think I want to go through that again" or similar.

My purpose was not to ignite an anti subsistence thread here or there. I just wanted to share pictures of an impressive bull.

However, I think this illustrates how the subsistence regulation beget feelings of special entitlement for some (or not) and different classes of citizens with disregard for what the state constitution says.

*sigh* Thought I was done, but you're right--this debate creates a lot of passion and intensity.

I personally have no problem if you take a big animal in a subsistence area--as long as you're obeying the regs. I'd MUCH rather see a big animal taken by a non-subsistence hunter in a sub. area than a truckload taken out of a subsistence area by non-sub. hunters.

"So-called" subsistence regs are possibly some of the most common-sense natural resource rules in our nation today. They offer more time and chances for people to harvest game who live more like Americans used to 100 years ago. These regs are carefully developed in total COOPERATION with state legislation, and while some subsistence regs do NOT seem to be in the best interests of some groups of users, most are appropriate.

I don't feel "entitled" to $hit. I do, however, appreciate the federal regs which have been developed that help keep a way of life alive...the consumption of wild game on the table all year round. Because I live in a rural area near large tracts of federal lands, I enjoy the privilege of being able to harvest more game, for longer seasons, than those who don't. On the other hand, if I couldn't do this, I would have a hard time putting food on the table, so how much of a "privilege" it should be considered is open for debate. This used to be simply a way to survive; now it has been regulated due to increasing population and need for game laws that preserve population while making it possible for citizens to rightfully harvest enough game to live off of in their area.

Why anyone would have a problem with most (not all--some are questionable, like the Steelhead subsistence, for example) of these federal regs is incomprehensible to me. I must draw the conclusion you're simply angry that perhaps where you live, there isn't federal land, and state laws aren't quite as liberal and you can't bag as many animals. Give me a break; even hunting stricly under state sport regs, in this area you can STILL harvest 4 bucks per permitee--just not a doe. And you can still hunt for a very long season, compared to almost anywhere -48. Either move to a subsistence area if you really need that doe/three weeks of hunting time or or stop effing whining.


Yes, it is an argument that brings out impassioned responses on both sides. No one who abides by subsistence regs is "disregarding" any state regulations or laws. We are just fortunate enough to live in areas with large tracts of federal land, which is managed for "multiple use" for all different types of use by the public in mind, including the harvst of fish and game for the table. We also have to cope with other difficulties/expenses of living that more urban residents do not encounter. I have absolutely no sympathy for anti-subsistence stances, as long as the feds and state work together to make sure populations don't suffer and all residents get fair treatment. Some folks live in areas which I do think should be considered subsistence areas, and currently aren't. That is probably the only legitimate complaint I can see.

You have made precisely my point...



If Sitka and Saxman are "rural", then so is Ketchikan. That alone demonstrates how bizarre the regulations are. When you understand the original intent, written into the law by Stevens, Murkowski and Young, you understand even more how flawed the concept is.

I don't think anyone is suggesting you shouldn't be able to harvest the game and fish you need or want to feed yourself and your family. I know I'm not. But any time resources are divided inequitably, the people on the downhill side will have a right to complain.

And you're right -- absent the slur on Ketchikan hunters, I probably would have left the whole subject alone, because there is literally no point to it. You have apologized for that, and I accept your apology.

Now I'm really done too...

Dennis

Did you word this poorly, or are you really saying that in 4 1/2 months of the regular (not including the early opener for residents that qualify for subsistence) season you can't shoot your 4 deer? That one extra deer and the two weeks extra hunting are what save you from not being able to eat? I ask because you then go on to state this....



You live in the heartland of hunting and fishing and you can't fill your freezer with enough venison/fish from the regular season to sustain yourself for the winter? Give me a break!

BTW, I too qualify for subsistence harvests as a rural resident, and I particiapate in subsistence fisheries and hunting.

Methinks if you suck that bad, subsisntence regulations ain't going to save you.........and perhaps rural life isn't for you.

Hey, I know exactly where you live (or used to anyway) and I'm not saying what you implied at all. I can get all of my subsistence deer in probably 3 weeks of hunting; maybe less, if I wanted to. But for those with busy family lives/full time jobs, traveling, etc., it's pretty nice to be able to do an early-season alpine hunt and NOT compete with non-residents. Wouldn't you agree? What particular problem do YOU have with subsistence regs? You live here too.

Not sure what you mean by "all of your subsistence deer"? You get ONE subsistence deer.

But you stated that if it weren't for subsistence seasons you would have a hard time putting food on the table. Perhaps I am reading it wrong?

Have yet to do even a late season alpine hunt and see anyone, the only time I ever encounter any other hunters is driving to/from the places I hunt....

I don't buy that argument, nor do I see a connection with "subsistence regulations" and crowds. Is far as I understand, they weren't written so rural residents could be alone in the woods. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.