Opinions

National Park Service assault on Alaska hunters mustn't stand

Joel Hard, deputy regional director for the National Park Service, in a recent Alaska Dispatch News commentary published on Sept. 9, 2014, ignores not only the state of Alaska's role in wildlife management but advocates for his personal values over the state's constitutional responsibilities and fails to respect the state's primary authority as a manager for sustainable populations.

He personally objects to "Shooting wolves and coyotes when they are at the den with young pups. Using artificial light to take black bears and their cubs in dens. Using food like stale bread and bacon grease to attract grizzly bears and then shoot them," and continues, "These are not the Alaska hunting practices I learned growing up in Southeast Alaska, and they weren't the sport hunting practices that Congress anticipated some 35 years ago as it debated the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act."

Mr. Hard is correct in his personal views here; as a young man in Southeast Alaska, he would likely not have practiced these activities. However, had he grown up elsewhere in Alaska where these are traditional practices he would have. And that's the problem I find with Mr. Hard, his assertion that his personal values or ethics should trump those of the local users who requested these practices be recognized by the Alaska Board of Game. Throughout Mr. Hard's commentary he uses the word "values" as a means to repudiate federal legislation.

The majority of Alaskan hunters are designated as non-rural or sport hunters. Providing wild food for sustenance and connecting families to the outdoors is embraced through customary and traditional practices. This is especially important to women hunters like me who are a rapidly growing demographic and value outdoor activities as a result of sustainable fish and wildlife management. The recent direction of the National Park Service to assert its ideology on Alaskans is a blatant assault on the non-rural hunter who the NPS belittles as "sport" hunters. The intent of the NPS seems no less than to exclude mankind as resource managers and conservationists and effectively eliminate man's ability to use wildlife, whether people live in the urban part of the state or rural.

The NPS, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service are currently seeking to revise the process for preempting the state's fish and wildlife management authority despite the clear intent by Congress for the individual states to hold that authority. Additionally, the NPS is not consistent with the implementation of ANILCA's authorization of sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves. ANILCA, as federal legislation, was enacted to protect Alaskans from egregious actions of overreach by these federal agencies.

What is most perplexing about Mr. Hard's statements is his assertion that the proposed NPS regulations will have no effect on subsistence users. This fails to recognize that most rural hunters subsist under state general regulations and seasons, not federal. Each of the regulations Mr. Hard objects to was requested by a person who qualifies as a rural subsistence user and not the "sport" hunter he derides.

What is even more mystifying is the NPS's peculiar justification for implementing its proposal. During a recent Alaska Board of Game meeting, a Native elder expressed his opinion on the ethics of taking animals, which concluded, whether "... one deems a particular harvest practice as unacceptable, we don't worry about what others think of our traditional practices, we worry about efficiently getting it in the freezer." What is the difference between a hunter who is a qualified subsistence hunter (rural) and a sport hunter (non-rural) taking a brown bear over bait; either way it's a harvested bear. The same reasoning was used with the Fish and Wildlife Service closure of brown bear hunting on the Kenai to sport hunters, but which left the federal season open. By their perverse reasoning, bear baiting is only ethical if you have the correct zip code? It is ignorant to think that the NPS non-interactive management practices will not affect subsistence users.

ADVERTISEMENT

The King Cove road, the Sturgeon Navigable Waters case, the brown bear hunting closure on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, and the near extirpation of the Unimak Island Caribou Herd are all examples of "self-granted" discretionary authority being used by federal agencies to preempt the state of Alaska's responsibility for its traditional role as a principal manager of our wildlife resources and to exert their ethics on Alaskans. Our economy, quality of life and food sustenance are vital to Alaskans. The anti-hunting, anti-human agenda from these federal agencies is becoming more painfully apparent by their tenuous reasoning and subversion of the commitment from Congress to protect the Alaskan people and our way of life.

I hope my fellow Alaskans see through the hype and pandering the NPS shamefully produced and consider the effect of these regulations on all Alaskans, rural and urban.

Elaina Spraker was raised in Alaska and lives in Soldotna. She has been a longtime hunter rights advocate, conservationist and clinic director for the NRA's "Women on Target" and "Teens on Target" firearm training programs.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

Elaina Spraker

Elaina Spraker was raised in Alaska and lives in Soldotna. She has been a longtime hunter rights advocate, conservationist and clinic director for the NRA's "Women on Target" and "Teens on Target" firearm training programs.

ADVERTISEMENT