Alaskan Politics (statewide and nationwide) (Metlakatla, Hope: to buy, income tax, non-resident)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by nocturnal rooster

Personal attack. Geez calm down people. I actually don't know anybody who has been knocked up before marriage. Then again I've always used a rubber too.

you can be serious? You don't know anyone that was pregnant before they were married? We are not asking you about your personal sex life activities for heavens sake, but thanks for sharing that infomation with the entire board....

Nita

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by nocturnal rooster

That post went right over your head. Do you really think Palin would have what it takes to run a whole country if McCasket bit the dust?

my or my, little child, you are so clever with your name calling!!!!

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

This is almost funny, the way you continually slam people who don't share your worship of your queen.

Too bad about the Palin kid.



Maybe a better question here is whether Todd has what it takes...

We do have something to be proud of about her though. She's doing a great job of making sure that McCain doesn't win the election.

not slamming anyone that doesn't share my views, if I did I would be slamming many of my very good friends and a few family members: I am slamming people who revert to stupid name calling like a child and anyone who whould even bring up Bristol. Whether or not Sarah is ready to be President has nothing to do with her daughter having a child out of wedlock. Add to that the guy makes a statement like, he has never known anyone to be pregnant before they were married...Either he is about 14 years old or lives in a monastery. Of course I don't know how many monasteries there are in NH?

Nita

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

You left some of it out:

"No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State. This section does not restrict the power of the State to limit entry into any fishery for purposes of resource conservation, to prevent economic distress among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood and to promote the efficient development of aquaculture in the State."

Thus a defense of subsistence fishing rules/rights, as people rely on the resource for livelihood (survival in other words) is easily formed, including when read with the other section I pointed out earlier.

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with your personal views about how the Alaska State Constitution should be interpretted. Just because the Governor "supports and defends" the state constitution doesn't make her against native Alaskans.

By your own interpretation, you would exclude 20%+ of the Alaskan native population from subsistence fishing because they live in an urban environment. Does that make you against native Alaskans? Would it be fair to say that you want to "destroy native cultures" because you want to exclude urban native Alaskans?

Upholding the state constitution is the Governor's job, whether you agree with it or not. It has nothing do with being for or against native Alaskans or destroying Alaskan native culture, and everything to do with upholding her oath of office.

[akck]

Originally Posted by nocturnal rooster

That post went right over your head. Do you really think Palin would have what it takes to run a whole country if McCasket bit the dust?

Actually yes, she's about as qualified as anyone else who wants to be president. First off, one person doesn't run the country. They have staffs thet handle much of the work. The departments are run by other people. Also there are two other branches the judicial and legislative that are there for checks and balances. Secondly, most people who take on the job, come with no prior experience and all learn on the job. Why should she be required to have full experience before taking it on?

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Glitch

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with your personal views about how the Alaska State Constitution should be interpretted. Just because the Governor "supports and defends" the state constitution doesn't make her against native Alaskans.

By your own interpretation, you would exclude 20%+ of the Alaskan native population from subsistence fishing because they live in an urban environment. Does that make you against native Alaskans? Would it be fair to say that you want to "destroy native cultures" because you want to exclude urban native Alaskans?

Upholding the state constitution is the Governor's job, whether you agree with it or not. It has nothing do with being for or against native Alaskans or destroying Alaskan native culture, and everything to do with upholding her oath of office.

State rules versus federal. With so much federal lands I'm sure the urban natives could get what they want. I'm talking about subsistence rules in general not just natives.

[Metlakatla]

I believe that prior to 2002, most Alaska governors supported a change to the state constitution that would favor the rural residents.

[Marty Van Diest]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

State rules versus federal. With so much federal lands I'm sure the urban natives could get what they want. I'm talking about subsistence rules in general not just natives.

I have a friend in one of the villages who gets a moose every year. He never brings back the horns because that just attracts attention. He said he always makes sure he shoots the moose on federal land because the state won't mess with him that way. I asked him how he knows whose land is whose when he is out there. With a wry grin he just said that wherever the moose falls...that's federal land.

I don't begrudge him from getting his moose because he always uses all of it and he is hunting a long ways away from any town or even from any village.

But I have been told by a state fish and wildlife trooper that about 1/2 the moose killed on the road system are killed out of season. I believe that is likely close to reality. They call it "homesteader season". That bothers me.

Am I off the subject now?

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Marty Van Diest

I have a friend in one of the villages who gets a moose every year. He never brings back the horns because that just attracts attention. He said he always makes sure he shoots the moose on federal land because the state won't mess with him that way. I asked him how he knows whose land is whose when he is out there. With a wry grin he just said that wherever the moose falls...that's federal land.

I don't begrudge him from getting his moose because he always uses all of it and he is hunting a long ways away from any town or even from any village.

But I have been told by a state fish and wildlife trooper that about 1/2 the moose killed on the road system are killed out of season. I believe that is likely close to reality. They call it "homesteader season". That bothers me.

Am I off the subject now?

Tell him to get a good GPS so he knows he's on federal land.

You know one thing that bothers me about the fish/game laws in AK: that when I move there, my first year there I'm a "non-resident" and to get a hunting/trapping license (trapping license only available as a combo with a hunting license) costs $250 plus any big game tags if I go after big game (hundreds more). I could swallow the $250 so I could trap (doesn't take too many martens to pay off the license fee) but in the fine print: it expires dec. 31 of the year it's issued. So that's 2 licenses at $500 total if I want to trap all winter my first year, and unless I stick with small game for hunting, hundreds more (don't think I'll be hunting moose my first year ). That's just crazy.

Maybe I should see where the closest federal land is to my property, "homesteader season" sounds nice.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

State rules versus federal. With so much federal lands I'm sure the urban natives could get what they want. I'm talking about subsistence rules in general not just natives.

No, they can't. Under the federal subsistence rules, rural residents are given preference, not native Alaskans. Because I don't live in an urban environment, I am given preference under the federal system over native Alaskan families living in Eklutna because they are considered urban.

Too accuse Gov. Palin as someone who wants to "destroy native cultures" because she merely upholds the state constitution is not only inaccurate, but also being deliberately deceptive, at the very least.