1 SOUTHEAST ALASKA FEDERAL SUBSISTENCE 2 REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING 3 4 PUBLIC MEETING 5 6 VOLUME II 7 8 Saxman, Alaska 9 March 17, 2010 10 9:00 Clock A.M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 SOUTHEAST ALASKA FEDERAL SUBSISTENCE 2 REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING 3 4 PUBLIC MEETING 5 6 VOLUME II 7 8 Saxman, Alaska 9 March 17, 2010 10 9:00 clock a.m. 11 12 13 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: 14 15 Bertrand Adams, Chairman 16 Michael Bangs 17 Michael Douville 18 Merle Hawkins 19 Harvey Kitka 20 Floyd Kookesh 21 Jack Lorrigan 22 Cathy Needham 23 Patricia Phillips 24 Frank Wright 25 26 27 28 29 Regional Council Coordinator, Robert Larson 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Recorded and transcribed by: 45 46 Computer Matrix Court Reporters, LLC 47 135 Christensen Drive, Suite 2 48 Anchorage, AK 99501 49 907-243-0668 50 [email protected] 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 (Saxman, Alaska - 3/17/2010) 4 5 (On record) 6 7 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: Good morning everyone. 8 Take your seats, please, and we'll get started. 9 10 (Pause) 11 12 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: Good morning everyone. 13 I just want to say that last night was very special. I 14 think the performance of the Cape Fox dancers had a 15 very strong and convincing message for us as members of 16 this Council. To have been invited up there to sit as 17 your leader I want to give credit to all of you for 18 making me the type of person that I am right now. You 19 guys have honed my skills and helped me move along and 20 I just need to give you that credit and put it on 21 record. I really appreciate working with you all and 22 look forward to working in this capacity in the future. 23 24 Gunalcheesh. 25 26 Thank you very much. 27 28 We're going to try to move along pretty 29 rapidly as we possibly can today, so we're now on item 30 number 13, review and make recommendations on wildlife 31 proposals. Before we start that I have a gentleman who 32 would like to make a comment on a whole bunch of these 33 proposals. It looks like maybe all of them. So Mr. 34 Barry Brokken, would you please come forward and we'll 35 take your comments right now and it will be on the 36 record and you don't have to come up again after that. 37 38 Thank you. 39 40 MR. BROKKEN: Thank you very much. I'm 41 Barry Brokken and I was sent here as the representative 42 for the Juneau-Douglas AC for the Department of Fish 43 and Game for the State. On January 7th it was a first 44 for us and we were invited to participate in discussion 45 on some of these wildlife proposals. We actually only 46 address the ones we felt kind of concerned our 47 particular area. Mr. Bangs was there to inform us 48 essentially of how the RACs operate. I think most of 49 our members were pretty unfamiliar with this entire 50 process. Cal Casipit was there as well to kind of help 130 1 us through the understanding of the subsistence program 2 and where it is at this point in history. 3 4 I think for expediency purposes I will 5 just go through the proposals that we discussed and how 6 we supported or opposed. If you have any questions 7 regarding how those were determined, I'll do the best I 8 can through recollection on how these votes came to be. 9 10 The first we dealt with was Wildlife 11 Proposal 10-06 and we supported that proposal. 10-11 12 was subsistence hunting in the Juneau area and that was 13 opposed. Proposal 10-13 was supported. 10-14 was 14 unanimously opposed as was 10-18. Proposal 10-19 was 15 supported. 10-20 was actually split. We had 11 16 members present and the vote was 4/4 with 3 abstaining. 17 10-21 was unanimously opposed. 10-23 was opposed. 18 10-24 was opposed and 10-25 was opposed. Those last 19 three dealing with various wolf closure or modification 20 seasons. Those are the only ones. 21 22 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: Is that it? Okay. 23 Mr. Larson would like to know what you did with 21. 24 25 MR. BROKKEN: There was an awful lot of 26 discussion on this proposal and in the end I found it 27 interesting and I'll inflect some of the comments that 28 we heard here yesterday. A similar discussion was 29 taking place at our meeting. A lot of people that 30 various members knew that in fact did go to Hoonah and 31 hunt were either to be with family members hunting, 32 they grew up there, they had moved to Juneau or other 33 communities for economic reasons. 34 35 A lot of people in Juneau feel they 36 have close ties to Hoonah and to have that restricted 37 to only Hoonah residents eliminating Gustavus 38 residents, Angoon, essentially all other communities, 39 was not what they wanted to see and probably in the end 40 not in the best interest of the resource, particularly 41 on the subsistence level. If a Hoonah resident left 42 for any length of time, he wouldn't be able to come 43 back or she wouldn't be able to come back and hunt and 44 partake in that activity. 45 46 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: Thank you. 47 48 MR. LARSON: Was it supported or 49 opposed? 50 131 1 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: Was it supported or 2 opposed? 3 4 MR. BROKKEN: That was opposed 5 unanimously. 6 7 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: It was opposed. Okay. 8 Patty, do you have a comment, question for Mr. Brokken. 9 10 MS. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair. You went 11 through 10-20 to 23 too fast for me. 12 13 MR. BROKKEN: 10-20 was -- and I'm 14 going to need to look at my minutes on that. If memory 15 serves, it was very similar to 19. I believe that the 16 consensus on 10-20 was that the current regulations 17 without them in front of me, I believe the 18 non-subsistence user season opens August 15th, so 19 there's currently a two-week period where Federally 20 qualified users essentially have a separate season 21 prior to the arrival of any non-qualified hunters and I 22 believe that that was -- just kind of felt that that 23 was adequate. 24 25 Then I see that also it was supported 26 on 19, which also altered the season for the antlerless 27 and that was supported -- it actually made the 28 antlerless season earlier and the main reason for that 29 -- the logic behind that vote being that I think they 30 were just a little more concerned with getting on to -- 31 I may have this backwards as I'm looking at this. Yes, 32 19 was supported in that rather than having the 33 antlerless season October 15th through December 31st, 34 which was after the rut, and you would be harvesting 35 potentially pregnant does. That just wasn't in the 36 best interest of the resource and hence the split on 37 the 20th. Kind of encouraging that two week for the 38 subsistence user prior to non-subsistence. 39 40 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: Thank you, sir. Any 41 more questions or comments. 42 43 (No comments) 44 45 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: Thank you, sir. 46 Appreciate it. 47 48 MR. BROKKEN: Thank you very much for 49 your time. 50 132 1 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: You bet. Mr. Larson, 2 you have a notation on which ones they supported? You 3 do? So when it comes time for addressing those 4 proposals we should note what their position is. 5 6 I got a note here that the resolution 7 that you have before us for consideration, Patty, 8 Sealaska would like us to defer the resolution until 9 tomorrow because I think they want to come in and make 10 some comments about it as well. So if it comes up you 11 know we'll just go ahead and wait for it tomorrow. 12 13 MS. PHILLIPS: (Nods affirmatively) 14 15 CHAIRMAN ADAMS: Okay. Let's do 16 WP10-01. Mr. Brokken, there's a procedure that the 17 Council goes through their -- you know, they give an 18 analysis and then it's open for comments as I explained 19 yesterday and we take it from the governmental agencies 20 and you've already done yours, so you're already on 21 record as to what your positions are on all of these 22 proposals. 23 24 But the criteria that we follow to 25 determine whether a proposal is a good one or not are, 26 number one, is it supported by substantial data. You 27 know, we look at the analysis and is there enough data 28 to really help us understand that this proposal is a 29 good one. Is there a conservation concern. Then how 30 is it going to affect either way on subsistence and 31 non-subsistence users. Those will be things that the 32 Council members -- we always try to -- when a motion is 33 made, whoever the motioner was, give their reasons why 34 in the outline. If there's no conservation concern, 35 there's a lot of data to support it.