Excerpt from story below

Proposals 3 and 38: Closure for Non-Residents

As part of the regulatory process in Alaska, the Board of Game has regular meetings and considers proposals for regulation changes. Anyone can submit a proposal, which allows the public a great opportunity to participate in the wildlife management process and enact meaningful change in the hunting and trapping regulations. This also means that the BOG regularly fields a number of outlandish, crackpot proposals that would never pass muster. Regardless, each proposal is considered and a quick vote can pass it.

Proposals 3 and 38 will be debated and voted on during meetings that are scheduled for Jan. 26-29 in Kotzebue. If passed, proposal 3 would close Units 21D Remainder, 22, 23, 24B Remainder, 24C, 24D, and 26A to all non-resident caribou hunters. Proposal 38 would close Unit 23 to non-resident caribou hunters. Proposals 2, 36, and 37 would reduce bag limits for resident hunters, but it’s unclear whether those reductions would have any impact on the subsistence harvest on federal lands.

State regulations currently allow five caribou per day (cows or bulls) for residents, with a year-round season on bulls, and a seven-month-long season for cows. The Federal Subsistence regulations also allow five caribou per day with a year-round season for bulls, and an eight-month-long season for cows. 

If approved, either of these proposals (3 and 38) would result in one of the most widespread losses of hunting opportunities for non-residents that the state has ever seen — with little evidence to support it. 

Read Full story on OutdoorLife here

You'll need to submit comments and also support or oppose #3 & #38 when then you click the below link.  

Based on the information in the article, here are ten talking points on why proposals #3 and #38 should be opposed:

1. Limited Impact of Non-Resident Hunting: Non-resident hunters have a minimal impact on the caribou population, primarily harvesting bulls, which are less critical to population growth compared to cows and calves.

2. Natural Population Fluctuations: The Western Arctic Herd has historically undergone significant population fluctuations, suggesting that the current decline might be part of a natural cycle.

3. Economic Considerations: Closing non-resident hunting could adversely affect local businesses and services that cater to these hunters, such as charter services.

4. Conservation through Hunting: Regulated hunting, including by non-residents, can be a tool for effective wildlife management and conservation.

5. Subsistence Hunting Impact: The proposals do not address the more significant impact of subsistence hunting, which accounts for a much larger annual harvest.

6. Precedent for Wildlife Management: The closure could set a concerning precedent for wildlife management, potentially leading to more extensive restrictions without clear scientific backing.

7. Lack of Scientific Evidence: There is insufficient scientific evidence directly linking non-resident hunting to the decline in the caribou population.

8. Cultural and Recreational Loss: The closure would deny non-residents the cultural and recreational experience of hunting in this unique region.

9. Potential for Better Management Practices: Instead of outright closure, improved management practices and regulations could be a more effective approach to ensuring the herd's sustainability.

10. Need for Comprehensive Approach: Addressing caribou population decline requires a comprehensive strategy that considers all factors, including climate change and habitat loss, not just hunting regulations.

Click Here To Submit Your Concerns on #3 & #38