AOC Mission: "Dedicated to the preservation of outdoor pursuits in Alaska - hunting, fishing, trapping, and public access - and conservation of the habitats upon which they depend."
31st Annual Fairbanks Dinner & Auction Fundraiser
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Westmark Gold Room
No-host Bar open at 5:00pm, Diner @ 6:30
813 Noble Street, Fairbanks, AK 99701
Call (907) 456-4447 or email Boyette@gci.net
Door prizes, Silent and Live Auctions, Wall of Guns.
Special deal for staying overnight at the Westmark with Continental Breakfast included
Call: 800-544-0970 by Oct. 25th
Use Code: AKOD110714
21st Annual Mat-Su Banquet Thank you
at Evangelo's resaurant
The banquet was sold out and a huge success.
Thanks to our generous Supporters
Please support them
Alaska Frontier Fabrication
3rd Annual Kenai Pennisula Banquet Thank you
at Soldotna Sports Center
Thanks to our generous Supporters
Please support them
AOC 2014 General Election Candidate Questions
Dear Candidate, running for state office in the 2014 general election,
The Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) Board of Directors has prepared these ten questions for candidates running for state office in the November general election. A member of the legislature is not prohibited by the Legislative Ethics Act, AS 24.60.160, from soliciting or accepting campaign endorsements. AOC's intent by providing candidates with these questions is to;
For those candidates who are unfamiliar with AOC please look at AOC's bylaws and past positions on the AOC website, http://alaskaoutdoorcouncil.org/
For additional information, you may wish to review the state's comments to the U.S. Department of Interior regarding question #1.
Q1: Recent Federal Court rulings have stirred the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to propose rulemaking that would allow the Secretary of Interior to take Alaska Native lands into trust status. DOI taking Alaskan tribal-owned lands into “trust” status would be analogous to establishing Indian reservations or “Indian country”. Tribes could receive many lands from regional and village native corporations by gift or sale - and then request their transfer to trust status. Historically DOI has accepted virtually all requests. The state and municipalities would then be precluded from any taxation (property, liquor, cigarettes, most gasoline, etc.), licensing or regulation (fish, game, environmental, most gaming, liquor, tobacco, marijuana, etc.) on these lands. Such a regulatory action by DOI would negate the clearly stated intent of the 1971 Alaska Native Lands Claim Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Would you, if elected to state office, request that Alaska's congressional delegation introduce and support legislation in the U.S. Congress to amended Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to prohibit further federal acquisition of Alaska Native lands into trust status?
Q2: While federal law, ANICLA Title VIII, established a full-time fish and game subsistence use priority for rural residents on federal lands and waters, the State's law is quite different; it provides a priority to fish and game to all Alaskan residents for subsistence use only when the harvestable surplus falls below the amounts necessary for subsistence use (ANS), established by the Alaska Board of Game (BOG). The BOG, however, has supported/adopted/proposed maintaining a subsistence priority even when the harvestable surplus is above the ANS. This favors some Alaskans over others.
Would you oppose re-confirmation of Board members who vote to provide a subsistence priority game regulation when the harvestable surplus is above the “amount necessary for subsistence”?
Q3: The most popular non-commercial fishery in the state for Alaska residents is the Upper Cook Inlet personal use fishery, with over 34,000 Alaskans participating in 2011 harvesting over 600,000 salmon.
Would you support legislation to give this fishery a priority over other fisheries when the predicted allowable harvest cannot sustain the expected combined harvest by all user groups?
Q4: The past few state administrations have promoted programs they call “Roads to Resources.” Simply put, these are new state-financed road corridors on state land providing access to significant natural resources, particularly minerals or oil and gas.
Do you believe Alaskans, citizens of the “owner state”, should be able to use these roads? Do you believe there are situations where the public should not have access on such roads?
Q5: While much is made of federal land managers restricting access to the public land they manage, there are also many areas where Alaskans' access to state land is restricted. Access on State lands and waters is reasonably permissive, but there are areas where restrictions on state land access may be questioned.
Would you support legislation that would require the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop a plan to mitigate actual or potential trail damages before further restricting regulated motorized use on public domain?
Q6: Last session Senate Bill 201 passed the legislature and was signed into law repealing Alaska Statute 11.46.350(c), thereby removing the requirement that private property be posted in order for criminal trespass laws to be enforced. It is now the responsibility of the individual to know who owns the property that they want to access.
Would you support additional funding to DNR to 1) establish where public-private property lines are, and inform the public of such, and 2) identify easements and corridors where the public can legally access their public land without trespassing on private land?
Q7: The state land designation of “forest” allows resource development, conservation, habitat enhancement and public access. Since statehood the human population of Cook Inlet has increased from 100,000 residents to 450,000. The Susitna River drainage is the largest contiguous piece of state owned land in all of Cook Inlet and is surrounded by restrictively regulated federally owned lands.
Would you support applying an Alaska State Forest designation to a large tract of state land in the Susitna valley drainage?
Q8: A primary component of Alaska culture is the harvest of fish and game for personal consumption by state residents. Similarly, long before statehood, a strong economy has developed around the taking of fish and game for its trophy value. Conflicts between the two user groups is made apparent by the number of proposals submitted to both the Boards of Fisheries and Game to restrict commercial guides/outfitters and transporters.
Do you believe that these two uses can co-exist? If so, would you support legislation establishing areas of use for commercial guides/outfitters and transporters—and providing for regulation of these uses?
Q9: Alaska Statute 16.05.340 establishes the cost of resident hunting and fishing licenses at $25 and $15, respectively. Other high profile hunting and fishing destinations charge residents more than Alaska in order to raise funds for maintenance and restoration of fish stocks and game populations. AOC believes Alaska's resident hunting license fees are low and some tag fees would be appropriate. Also some non-resident tag fees should be raised.
Would you support increasing resident license fees and establishing certain game tag fees if there was a strong assurance from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game that increased funding would go toward providing for improved game management?
Q10: In 1975 the Alaska legislature voted to split the Boards of Fisheries and Game into two separate boards because of the excessive work load required to manage and allocate Alaska's fish and game resources. Today, almost 40 years later, AOC feels the Commissioner's job of managing and allocating fisheries resources leaves inadequate time to address game management with equal effectiveness.
Would you support legislation creating two separate commissioner positions within a single department - a Commissioner of Fisheries and a Commissioner of Game - to lead the ADF&G? Or as another alternative would you support requiring that a Deputy Commissioner be specifically appointed for both Fisheries and Wildlife with both having to be confirmed by the legislature?
Congratulations to our
Winchester Model 70 "Alaskan" - 300 Win. Mag.
Winner – Murphy Crocket (still has not been contacted, phone number not current)
Winner – Pat Mourin
Winner – Ashley Shoemaker
Land Acquisition in the State of Alaska
Attached is the link to the Federal Register proposed rule which if adopted would negate the enacted Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) by allowing the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) to transfer 44 million acres of fee simple lands to trust status in Alaska on a case-by-case basis.
What does that mean to Alaska outdoor folks? At worst 225 recognized tribal entities and possibly 12 Regional and Village Corporations could manage fish and game on their lands. The disruption to fish and game management due to the checkerboard pattern of land ownership in the state is incomprehensible.
While it is doubtful that any amount of comments from the Alaskan public will make a difference on whether or not DOI adopts this proposed rule the public does have an opportunity to submit comments up until June 30, 2014. Information on where to submit comments by either mail or email is available in the attached link.
Contacting Alaska's congressional delegation may also be of some value.......
“The Alaska Native Subsistence Co-Management Demonstration Act of 2014”
Tell Alaska's lone U.S. Representative Congressman Don Young to drop any attempt to pass federal law allowing private individuals or corporations to manage, and allocate the harvest of wildlife, on state or private lands in Alaska.
Federal intervention into wildlife management on federal lands has been enough of a disaster already. ( two recent example; caribou on Unimak Island, moose on the Kenai Peninsula) Alaskans don't need to put up with any further fragmentation of game management. More federal overreach into state management and allocation of publicly owned game resources won't help put anymore wildfood on Alaskan's dinner table. It will only further divide Alaska's hunting public. Let your Congressman know how you feel about more federal laws taking game management authority away from the State of Alaska.
Please be sure to keep your comments respectful and constructive.
Please send your comments to:
Erik Elam at email@example.com or 202-225-5765.
Here is the site for the hearing on co-mgt. bill