NG Article - Alaska Bear/Wolf Hunting

[seeth07]

I don't have a ton of experience there either, however, I did spend some time in Shishmaref hunting muskox a number of years ago.

One of the cool things about doing hunts like that is getting to spend time with the native culture there, eye-opening to say the least and a good way to get a first hand look at things like you're discussing.

With such short days, you have lots of time to talk with the native people that live there and of course, being hunters, doesn't take long to start talking hunting. The guy we hunted with, Clifford, had a son, John, just a little younger than me and we talked about hunting a lot. He took out some photo albums and started showing me pictures of their hunting, much different than anything to do with how we hunt. There was one series of pictures of a walrus hunt they did, they essentially float up to them while they're lounging on a piece of ice and let them have it. In the pictures, there was a group of 5 walrus on a piece of ice, I asked which one they would pick out to shoot. John asked me what do you mean which one would we pick out? I said, well, which one would shoot, biggest, closest, what? He just bluntly said, "shoot them all". Pretty much went that way with most of their hunting, near as I could tell. The caribou there were about the spookiest animal I've ever seen in my life and that's because I believe every chance to kill one is taken.

Point is, I don't believe in a true subsistence situation, like that in Shishmaref, there is much worry about "conservation"...in fact I would argue the definition they would use, is not even close to what I would use for that word.

I think what it boils down to is that there are so few people up there actually subsistence hunting, that its convenient to use words like conservation when describing (falsely I believe) to what they're doing because it doesn't impact the resource enough. Secondly, in situations like that, I don't really care how, when or where they go about killing what they feel they need to live. Finally, I don't believe the natives there give 2 chits what the State, Feds, or anyone else tells them regarding how, what, where, or when they hunt for subsistence. Also fair is that the resources are abundant enough, that even what we would view as far from conservation minded hunting, just doesn't make enough difference to really have an impact on wildlife (there are a few exceptions, but I don't want to get in the weeds).

Long way of saying, this whole discussion and "problem" between the fed/state jurisdiction on what is allowed and not allowed, regarding the native's subsistence hunting seems like a big fat non-starter to me. The way these cultures have hunted for a long time probably never have followed the regulations of the State or the Feds and likely never will. Surely they have never aligned with what we perceive as ethical, conservation minded sport hunting. But, make no mistake, what we do share is the spirit of hunting and that we're both hunters...just from a much different frame of reference.

Thanks for sharing all of that Buzz. I agree and follow pretty much every point you make. Maybe you are right in that they don't look at hunting from the same viewpoint as us when it comes to conservation but the point I was just trying to make is that since these native tribes (which you are right in that the true amount of native tribes is a super small portion this day in age) have been doing this for generations, there clearly is some kind of conservation in that they have not wiped all of the animals from the landscape. And now that is even with the pressure of non-natives hunting these animals for mostly pure enjoyment. They don't harvest a surplus past what the village needs to survive and maybe you are also right in that in order to do that, they have to kill everything they can when the opportunity presents itself. I.E. catching an entire herd of caribou crossing a river and using the water to their advantage to slaughter an abundance of them.

 

[BWALKER77]

I don't have a ton of experience there either, however, I did spend some time in Shishmaref hunting muskox a number of years ago.

One of the cool things about doing hunts like that is getting to spend time with the native culture there, eye-opening to say the least and a good way to get a first hand look at things like you're discussing.

With such short days, you have lots of time to talk with the native people that live there and of course, being hunters, doesn't take long to start talking hunting. The guy we hunted with, Clifford, had a son, John, just a little younger than me and we talked about hunting a lot. He took out some photo albums and started showing me pictures of their hunting, much different than anything to do with how we hunt. There was one series of pictures of a walrus hunt they did, they essentially float up to them while they're lounging on a piece of ice and let them have it. In the pictures, there was a group of 5 walrus on a piece of ice, I asked which one they would pick out to shoot. John asked me what do you mean which one would we pick out? I said, well, which one would shoot, biggest, closest, what? He just bluntly said, "shoot them all". Pretty much went that way with most of their hunting, near as I could tell. The caribou there were about the spookiest animal I've ever seen in my life and that's because I believe every chance to kill one is taken.

Point is, I don't believe in a true subsistence situation, like that in Shishmaref, there is much worry about "conservation"...in fact I would argue the definition they would use, is not even close to what I would use for that word.

I think what it boils down to is that there are so few people up there actually subsistence hunting, that its convenient to use words like conservation when describing (falsely I believe) to what they're doing because it doesn't impact the resource enough. Secondly, in situations like that, I don't really care how, when or where they go about killing what they feel they need to live. Finally, I don't believe the natives there give 2 chits what the State, Feds, or anyone else tells them regarding how, what, where, or when they hunt for subsistence. Also fair is that the resources are abundant enough, that even what we would view as far from conservation minded hunting, just doesn't make enough difference to really have an impact on wildlife (there are a few exceptions, but I don't want to get in the weeds).

Long way of saying, this whole discussion and "problem" between the fed/state jurisdiction on what is allowed and not allowed, regarding the native's subsistence hunting seems like a big fat non-starter to me. The way these cultures have hunted for a long time probably never have followed the regulations of the State or the Feds and likely never will. Surely they have never aligned with what we perceive as ethical, conservation minded sport hunting. But, make no mistake, what we do share is the spirit of hunting and that we're both hunters...just from a much different frame of reference.

Good post, BuzzH.

 

[2rocky]

Buzz reminded me of a point I like to make when people want indigenous populations to have a "sustainable harvest".

That is you have to have Economic sustainability before you can have Ecological sustainability. There is no point worrying about what you are going to eat 5 years from now if your more pressing concern is what you are going to eat today. This is why sustainability is most often a "first world problem".

When an elephant is worth enough to feed a village for a year there is less incentive to "kill the golden goose". Making that value a community value is a big part of what wildlife management is in Africa.


Just thinking about the tangent discussion....Carry on..

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Buzz reminded me of a point I like to make when people want indigenous populations to have a "sustainable harvest".

That is you have to have Economic sustainability before you can have Ecological sustainability. There is no point worrying about what you are going to eat 5 years from now if your more pressing concern is what you are going to eat today. This is why sustainability is most often a "first world problem".

When an elephant is worth enough to feed a village for a year there is less incentive to "kill the golden goose". Making that value a community value is a big part of what wildlife management is in Africa.


Just thinking about the tangent discussion....Carry on..

How do you deal with species level impact.

Sure natives v. settlers, sustainable harvest is a settler idea.

But what about humans versus XYZ animal. What happens with subsistence hunting in various places drive species to extinction? (Thinking more Africa bush meat, gorillas, less Alaskan caribou.)

Honestly I have no idea what the right stance is ... just wondering about your thoughts.

 

[2rocky]

I had a rancher tell me "We have supported 6 generations on this ranch. Are you telling me that we are not sustainable?" When your continued survival depends on one species or a few species, your management will favor those species to the exclusion of others.

I think as outsiders we project OUR values on to a landscape and it's residents. We think because we live in big nice houses, drive cars and pay someone to cut our lawn that we are smarter.

When in actuality we just shorten the timespan of population dynamics to something we can measure within or lifetimes. Left to it's own devices, a predator/prey relationship will have a boom/bust cycle and will either reach a balance (I hate that word) or result in one or the other becoming extinct, or moving to another area, or depending on another food source.

Take a look at the Human Population dynamics of the Lower 48 since the 1400's. We have only been preaching "sustainability" for less than 100 years. And look what a difference it has made in wildlife populations amid a greater human population density than ever before. But it took a change in Values for that to happen.

To answer your Question wllm, just look at what happens in our own country when a natural resource is used up. When the people run out of the resource, they move to the next place that has it. The ones left behind have to find a new economic "prey" (in the West that is tourists). Look at Wallace Idaho as an example. Particularly the population. The same happens in subsistence communities. the Human population decreases when the resource dries up. We have a hard time with that in modern day because "life is precious" I tend to think life is awful cheap, but living expensive...

21st century solutions don't work for people who want to live in the stone age. That's because the 21st century solutions come with 21st century tradeoffs.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I had a rancher tell me "We have supported 6 generations on this ranch. Are you telling me that we are not sustainable?" When your continued survival depends on one species or a few species, your management will favor those species to the exclusion of others.

I think as outsiders we project OUR values on to a landscape and it's residents. We think because we live in big nice houses, drive cars and pay someone to cut our lawn that we are smarter.

When in actuality we just shorten the timespan of population dynamics to something we can measure within or lifetimes. Left to it's own devices, a predator/prey relationship will have a boom/bust cycle and will either reach a balance (I hate that word) or result in one or the other becoming extinct, or moving to another area, or depending on another food source.

Take a look at the Human Population dynamics of the Lower 48 since the 1400's. We have only been preaching "sustainability" for less than 100 years. And look what a difference it has made in wildlife populations amid a greater human population density than ever before. But it took a change in Values for that to happen.

To answer your Question wllm, just look at what happens in our own country when a natural resource is used up. When the people run out of the resource, they move to the next place that has it. The ones left behind have to find a new economic "prey" (in the West that is tourists). Look at Wallace Idaho as an example. Particularly the population. The same happens in subsistence communities. the Human population decreases when the resource dries up. We have a hard time with that in modern day because "life is precious" I tend to think life is awful cheap, but living expensive...

21st century solutions don't work for people who want to live in the stone age. That's because the 21st century solutions come with 21st century tradeoffs.

Some great points.

A college friend's husband is from the Grenadines we've discussed the substance whaling down there a fair bit.

It's more 17th century trade offs and I don't necessarily think those folks want to live in that era... but very similar idea.

 

[seeth07]

Anyways, back to basis of the thread topic, I've been trying to find examples of where in the lower 48 there is actually a federal law prohibiting a type of harvest that is more strict than the state regulations. Anyone able to help find examples that they know of?

 

[BWALKER77]

I had a rancher tell me "We have supported 6 generations on this ranch. Are you telling me that we are not sustainable?" When your continued survival depends on one species or a few species, your management will favor those species to the exclusion of others.

I think as outsiders we project OUR values on to a landscape and it's residents. We think because we live in big nice houses, drive cars and pay someone to cut our lawn that we are smarter.

When in actuality we just shorten the timespan of population dynamics to something we can measure within or lifetimes. Left to it's own devices, a predator/prey relationship will have a boom/bust cycle and will either reach a balance (I hate that word) or result in one or the other becoming extinct, or moving to another area, or depending on another food source.

Take a look at the Human Population dynamics of the Lower 48 since the 1400's. We have only been preaching "sustainability" for less than 100 years. And look what a difference it has made in wildlife populations amid a greater human population density than ever before. But it took a change in Values for that to happen.

To answer your Question wllm, just look at what happens in our own country when a natural resource is used up. When the people run out of the resource, they move to the next place that has it. The ones left behind have to find a new economic "prey" (in the West that is tourists). Look at Wallace Idaho as an example. Particularly the population. The same happens in subsistence communities. the Human population decreases when the resource dries up. We have a hard time with that in modern day because "life is precious" I tend to think life is awful cheap, but living expensive...

21st century solutions don't work for people who want to live in the stone age. That's because the 21st century solutions come with 21st century tradeoffs.

They may want to live in the stone age as long as you consider power boats, snowmobiles, ATV's, high powered rifles, etc "stone age".

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Anyways, back to basis of the thread topic, I've been trying to find examples of where in the lower 48 there is actually a federal law prohibiting a type of harvest that is more strict than the state regulations. Anyone able to help find examples that they know of?

"Hunting: Hunting is only permitted on the Refuge Units B and C (species specific) and is authorized up to 1 hour before sunrise. Hunting is prohibited within 100 feet of all roads and parking areas. All State regulations in addition to Refuge regulations apply, including State shooting hours for Jackson County. Hunting of the following migratory game birds is allowed in Unit B (not allowed in Unit C) in accordance with Colorado State regulations, but these hunts are limited to shotgun hunting with non-toxic shot only: duck, coot, merganser, Canada goose, snipe, Virginia and Sora rail, and mourning dove. Refuge Units B and C are open to sage grouse and rabbit hunting in accordance with Colorado State regulation, but these hunts are limited to shotgun hunting with non-toxic shot only. "

Rules and Regulations - Arapaho - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

www.fws.gov

.

 

[seeth07]

"Hunting: Hunting is only permitted on the Refuge Units B and C (species specific) and is authorized up to 1 hour before sunrise. Hunting is prohibited within 100 feet of all roads and parking areas. All State regulations in addition to Refuge regulations apply, including State shooting hours for Jackson County. Hunting of the following migratory game birds is allowed in Unit B (not allowed in Unit C) in accordance with Colorado State regulations, but these hunts are limited to shotgun hunting with non-toxic shot only: duck, coot, merganser, Canada goose, snipe, Virginia and Sora rail, and mourning dove. Refuge Units B and C are open to sage grouse and rabbit hunting in accordance with Colorado State regulation, but these hunts are limited to shotgun hunting with non-toxic shot only. "

Rules and Regulations - Arapaho - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

www.fws.gov

.

What part of this is different from the state regulations? The non-toxic part for the sage grouse/rabbit hunting? If so, then thanks for sharing as I would agree that this is an example.

I don't understand the hunting hour one. It is worded awkwardly for me to fully understand.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What part of this is different from the state regulations? The non-toxic part for the sage grouse/rabbit hunting? If so, then thanks for sharing as I would agree that this is an example.

I don't understand the hunting hour one. It is worded awkwardly for me to fully understand.

Limiting to non-toxic shot, making it shotgun only, only for specific species. Closing hunting for various species that are in season in that unit etc.

Hunting regulations are going to be a bit more uniform in the lower 48, especially as there is little subsistence hunting (any?). I imagine any difference will be non-toxic ammo requirements, weapon restrictions, hours of use (sunrise to sunset rather than 30 min before/after), species that can be pursued, use of dogs, and then possibly restriction on baiting on USFWS lands in states that allow baiting.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Limiting to non-toxic shot, making it shotgun only, only for specific species. Closing hunting for various species that are in season in that unit etc.

Good example.

It is very common for National Wildlife Refuges to have more restrictive regulations than the state. Park Service as well, obviously. These two agencies do not operate under multiple use mandates, thus have more latitude to impose stricter regulations in keeping with their individual agency missions.

 

[seeth07]

Limiting to non-toxic shot, making it shotgun only, only for specific species. Closing hunting for various species that are in season in that unit etc.

Limiting to non-toxic shot - you got a for sure example there. If the state says you can hunt rabbits with lead and on federal land you can't, I'll agree on this one.

Make it shotgun only - Where does it say that? It just says that "shotgun hunting with non-toxic shot". From the snip you sent it looks like you can rabbit hunt with a .22 and it can even be a lead bullet in that .22

Specific species - What species can't you hunt under an open state season on this property? Your snip doesn't state that certain species can't be hunted.

Closing hunting - An area is closed because it is a designed "refuge" for that species. States designate "refuges" as well on their state properties so I don't see that as anything different.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@seeth07
Limiting to non-toxic shot - you got a for sure example there. If the state says you can hunt rabbits with lead and on federal land you can't, I'll agree on this one.

Make it shotgun only - Where does it say that? It just says that "shotgun hunting with non-toxic shot". From the snip you sent it looks like you can rabbit hunt with a .22 and it can even be a lead bullet in that .22

No- it's limiting you to a shot gun with steel, hunting rabbit with lead ammo would be illegal on the refuge. The state reg is different
"Refuge Units B and C are open to sage grouse and rabbit hunting in accordance with Colorado State regulation, but these hunts are limited to shotgun hunting with non-toxic shot only. "


Specific species - What species can't you hunt under an open state season on this property? Your snip doesn't state that certain species can't be hunted.
"The Refuge is closed to all other hunting including: Moose, Deer, Prairie Dogs and Coyotes. "
Any species not specifically enumerated cannot be hunted.

 

[MTLabrador]

Anyways, back to basis of the thread topic, I've been trying to find examples of where in the lower 48 there is actually a federal law prohibiting a type of harvest that is more strict than the state regulations. Anyone able to help find examples that they know of?

There’s plenty of NWRs that restrict what species you can and can’t hunt and which dates. Bowdoin NWR for example is closed to big game hunting. The CMR NWR traditionally closed to mule deer hunting several weeks before Montana’s general deer season closed, though that has changed in the last few years. More strict regulations than the state hunting regs happen all the time.

Also from the CMR regulations:
All wildlife species not specifically listed in these regulations are protected. This includes, but is not limited to, badger, bobcat, bear, cottontail rabbits, jack rabbits, moose, mountain lions, prairie dogs, snakes, wolves and other wildlife.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@seeth07 if you really want to open a can of worms dig into a few years ago when the Fed shut down hunting of caribou on federal land to anyone who didn't live within the Unit.

Unit 23, I believe. So Alaska residents from say Fairbanks could only hunt on state lands in that unit, but locals could hunt the federal land. There are a bunch of threads about it.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Not being able to enter a waterfowl blind until a certain time, limits of 25 shells per hunter, restrictions on boat usage, just to name a few.

 

[seeth07]

Closing a species to all members just aligns with the idea of a "refuge" so that makes sense. I wouldn't call that a change in regulations from federal to state. You have me an example on the non-toxic shot and the limitation of rabbits to shotguns only.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Closing a species to all members just aligns with the idea of a "refuge" so that makes sense. I wouldn't call that a change in regulations from federal to state. You have me an example on the non-toxic shot and the limitation of rabbits to shotguns only.

Lol tough crowd

What exactly is the premise we are working off of at this point?

I think we all basically agree that states should make fish and game laws.

 

[seeth07]

What exactly is the premise we are working off of at this point?

I was just wondering how many Federal lands have a restriction on the way to hunt or fish that basically overrules what a state would allow in the lower 48.

If on a state waterfowl area they don't have anything that says you can't use lead shotgun shells for bunny hunting and then there is this one federal area in the state like you mentioned that does, that would be a prime example. I personally was just having a hard time finding where its as wacky in the 48 on federal lands as it was in Alaska.