Daily Sitka Sentinel

Subsistence Board Delays Deer Hunting Decision

By GARLAND KENNEDY

Sentinel Staff Writer

Three proposals that would have limited deer harvest for some hunters on Chichagof and Admiralty islands were discussed but not acted upon at a meeting of the Federal Subsistence Board in mid-April. A fourth proposal aimed at curtailing some deer hunters in Lisianski Inlet was rejected outright.

The proposals considered by the board sought to reduce the deer harvest by non-federally qualified hunters in order to increase hunting opportunities for rural residents.

Initially put forward by the Southeast Alaska Regional Advisory Council, a group of 12 that advises the Federal Subsistence Board under the Department of the Interior, the proposals represented the interests of communities in Southeast that qualify for a federal subsistence designation.

The eight-member Federal Subsistence Board includes three Alaskan members and five representatives of federal agencies.

The four changes proposed to the board in April included closing the western part of Admiralty Island to non-subsistence hunters between Sept. 15 and Nov. 30 (WP22-07), and reducing the bag limit for non-subsistence users in the Northeast Chichagof Controlled Use Area to two male deer (WP22-08). The other two proposals from the council include a suggestion to close Lisianski Inlet to non-federally qualified subsistence hunters between Oct. 15 and Dec. 31 (WP22-09), and to reduce the non-federally qualified bag limit in that area to four deer from the current total of six (WP22-10).

Details are posted on doi.gov/subsistence/archives.

The vast majority of public comments submitted prior to the meeting opposed all four proposals.

The suggested closure on Admiralty Island drew 57 comments against and one neutral. None were in favor. Out of 46 who commented on the Hoonah proposal, 44 were opposed and two were neutral. 

Of comments regarding closure of non-subsistence hunting around Pelican, 63 were against, one was indifferent. No one was in favor.

Under current regulations, bag limits in Unit 4 are the same for federally qualified as well as non-qualified hunters.

A hunter may take up to six deer in Unit 4 between August 1 and December 31. Anterless deer may be taken only after September 15. However, on Chichagof Island in the vicinity of Hoonah and Tenakee Springs, the current bag limit is three deer.

In Southeast Alaska, the only communities not considered federally qualified for subsistence hunting are Juneau and Ketchikan. All residents of Sitka are considered to be federally-qualified subsistence hunters.

The proposals the board deferred would applied to residents of Ketchikan and Juneau, as well as to hunters coming from the rest of Alaska or from out of the state. Sitkans, as members of a community eligible for federal subsistence hunting, would not see their bag limit or season reduced by any of the proposed changes. None of the proposals would limit hunting for any user group on Baranof Island.

The online Subsistence Board meeting was from April 12 to 15, but the transcript of the meeting was published this week. It’s available at https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/library/transcripts/federal-subsistence-board.

The Interior Department Office of Subsistence Management (OSM) and Alaska Department of Fish and Game opposed all four proposals.

Regarding proposal 22-07, which would have shut down deer hunting for non-federally qualified users around Angoon for much of the hunting season, the OSM wrote:

“Based on available data, hunting effort and harvest success rates of subsistence users have been stable and favorable over the last 20 plus years, suggesting that the closure is not necessary to continue the subsistence uses of the deer population. Deer populations within the area are healthy and there is no conservation concern for deer on the west coast of Admiralty Island, indicating a closure is not necessary for conservation reasons.”

In both written and oral testimony delivered in the meeting, individual speakers, the OSM, the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game stressed the healthy nature of the black-tailed deer population in Alaska Game Management Unit 4, which encompasses Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof islands.

During the meeting, Tongass National Forest biologist Robert Cross spoke against the proposed Admiralty Island restrictions.

“Deer populations within the area are healthy and there is no conservation concern for deer on the west coast of Admiralty Island, indicating a closure is not necessary for conservation reasons… The deer population is healthy, making a closure unwarranted. The proposal is not based on sound science or justified by data,” Cross testified.

The Southeast Regional Advisory Council supported the Angoon and Hoonah proposals, but split on the two items that would impact hunting around Pelican.

“The local council member testified that Angoon residents are having a hard time getting deer. A decrease in competition from other non-federally qualified users will be beneficial to subsistence users,” Southeast RAC member Don Hernandez told the board. “The proposed closure is not necessary for conservation purposes, but it will be necessary to ensure continued subsistence uses by residents of Angoon whose harvest levels have fallen in recent years.”

The board didn’t discuss all four proposals in detail at the April meeting, instead centering conversation around the suggestion to limit non-federally qualified harvest around Angoon.

Just as on Admiralty Island, in the area around Hoonah on northeast Chichagof Island, the Office of Subsistence Management told the board that deer populations are healthy and further regulation is not needed.

“Restricting non-Federally qualified users to two male deer annually in the proposal area does not appear necessary because deer populations in Unit 4 are high and may be approaching carrying capacity in some locations,” the OSM reported. “Restricting non-Federally qualified users to two male deer annually in the proposal area does not appear necessary for the continuation of subsistence uses. The average annual success rate for Hoonah deer hunters has been increasing since 2008.”

The Office for Subsistence Management likewise opposed the pair of proposals, 22-09 and 22-10, aimed at curtailing non-subsistence hunting in Lisianski Inlet.

Speaking on all four proposals, Fish and Game wildlife biologist Steve Bethune said there is no evidence to support claims that federally qualified users need additional protections.

“The department could not find any support for the contention that competition from federal users and non-federally qualified users was hindering the federal harvest in any way,” Bethune told the Sentinel. “In fact, we found just the opposite, that competition is actually decreasing between federally and non-federally qualified hunters.”

In contrast, Hoonah city administrator Dennis Gray supported the proposal to limit outside hunters from pursuing deer in the Northeast Chichagof Controlled Use Area.

“That would definitely have a beneficial impact for Hoonah residents for sure,” Gray told the Sentinel by phone last week. “Subsistence hunters are typically only local anyway… That will make a big difference because we definitely have a high rate of Juneau participation because of our sheer number of road miles. They come over and cruise the roads and they can pick up their (deer) and then leave, and of course it’s always something that doesn’t sit well with locals… ‘Juneau hunter’ is a derogatory term.”

Retired ADFG fisheries biologist Mike Bethers testified to the board in opposition to the proposals. In a follow up interview with the Sentinel, he said he supports subsistence hunting but sees no need for restrictions at this time.

“I don’t have a problem with subsistence having a priority if there’s a conservation issue,” Bethers said from his home in Juneau. “I don’t have any problem with that. But given the current deer population, I’ve got a lot of problems with any reduction in hunting opportunities by anyone. I think we ought to let Fish and Game manage the resource.”

Some raised concerns that if the proposals passed into regulation, hunters who moved from villages to cities would be hurt because they would no longer reside in areas recognized for federal subsistence rights.

“The proposal may also have the unintended consequence of preventing non-federally qualified users with local ties to the area from participating in subsistence activities,” said Cross, for the Tongass National Forest. “Many people from Angoon and other rural areas moved to Juneau to seek employment, but return to these communities to participate in subsistence harvesting with family and friends.”

Speaking from Hoonah, Gray said people with familial ties in town could find workarounds from the subsistence exclusion Cross mentioned.

“If you have enough familial ties, you can get around that by going out with your cousin or brother or uncle… There’s proxy hunting that can take place,” Gray said. “So I don’t think it’s going to be as big a deal, because they’ll have enough family ties to work around that.”

While the board didn’t act on three of the four Unit 4 hunting proposals on the table, one suggestion was taken up, only to be voted down.

Proposal 22-09 sought to prohibit deer hunting by non-federally qualified users around Lisianski Inlet from October 15 to December 31. This proposal was rejected as part of the board’s consent agenda. A less restrictive proposal, 22-10, meant to reduce the non-federally qualified user maximum deer harvest in Lisianski Inlet from six to four deer, survived the meeting and was deferred along with the Hoonah and Angoon proposals.

Following discussion and testimony, the board voted unanimously to table the three remaining deer hunting proposals until a future meeting.

Gene Peltola, a Subsistence Board member representing the Bureau of Indian Affairs, proposed the postponement.

“As a board member in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I’ve been supportive of closures in the past. Although when we discussed other closures, we wanted to be as specific as we can be. And like the testimony we received and analysis which was given in discussion with some of my colleagues, I’d like to put forth to the board for their consideration to defer… and ask that be taken up for consideration in the winter meeting,” Peltola said.

The board agreed to this, but did not set a specific date for a renewed discussion on the matter.