In a unanimous decision the US Supreme Court rules in favor of Alaskan moose hunter.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...er-over-alaska-park-access-idUSKCN1R71PK
The Ninth Circuit had ruled against the hunter (figures) several years ago. The SCOTUS said the Ninth circuit got it wrong and told them to look at it again. They got it wrong again. It looks like the SCOTUS has ruled definitively this time in favor of the hunter. I'm looking forward to reading the entire ruling.

This appears to be a big win for States Rights.

I just read the opinion; pretty amazing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-949_6kgn.pdf

The Obama appointed Justice Kagan even said, "That means Sturgeon can again rev up
his hovercraft in search of moose".

YES!

About time! I tried to find verbage regarding the actual boundary being “mean high water” or such. No luck.

At one time I had a copy of the ANILCA act, but I have lost it some place. At any rate, at the time they were working on that legislation Ted Stevens pushed through a provision in that bill that guaranteed that "customary and traditional use" would continue to be allowed on all federal lands set aside by that act. It was one of the special provisions that applied to Parks and Refuges in Alaska that does not apply in other states.

Problem is, that clause, if I remember correctly, set off by it's self in the ANILCA act, and was kind of isolated. The act is a pretty thick stack of paper with many different sections and sub-sections. Some sections provide for what authority parks and refuge managers have in setting terms and regulations pertaining to use of the lands. In addition, Federal laws that pertain to all other states are in place that provide federal land managers certain authorities for regulating Federal lands. None of these sections mentions the fact that, when it comes to Alaska, these regulatory powers are subject to the provision which pertains to "customary and traditional use". As a result of that omission we have a lot of regulations in place on all the parks and refuges in Alaska that disregard that part of the law.

Without acknowledging the "C & T use" clause throughout the ANILCA act it is easy to over look that clause when the Federal land managers are writing up individual land use rules. Furthermore, it appears that the courts and lawyers consistently fail to consider that clause in cases like the one above. It seems to me that John Sturgeon could have won his battle with the Park on that argument alone.

It also appears to me that the land managers in this state are, and have been for some time, writing laws that are themselves "against the law." Exactly who is the outlaw here?

Sorry this is kind of long and maybe not worded the best, but I have to run.

Waggler, thank you for the link. I'll I have to finish reading the courts decision later tonight. Good news though.

I think it is pretty well acknowledged throughout much of rural Alaska that the Park Service is the outlaw. Certainly they believe they ARE the law, but not subject to it themselves.

In legal terms, the "boundary" in fresh water is "ordinary high water." In practical terms, this is the line where woody vegetation establishes.

In salt water (tidal influence) the boundary is a "mean high tide."

The Park Service arrogantly believed (before this decision...!) that our river was included in "their" park.

I believe that this decision reaffirms that "their" park happens to be alongside of OUR river and OUR river is not included in their park!

Pete

For folks in Fairbanks.... we will be celebrating the SCOTUS decision tomorrow (Thursday) at Compeau's on Boat Street at noon.

Cheap Compeau will obviously be promoting his boats and snowmachines, but he is also providing free hotdogs and brats to celebrate!

Pete

I have read, that the NPS and others state that "Katie John" ruling was not effected. I do not believe that is total correct. the new decision by the supremes states that the State has management over navigable waters. That means State laws and regulations are in effect on navigable waters.

State law via the McDowel decision (post Anilca), That all Alaskans are eligible to participate in subsistence. This is different from the federal diffination of who is eligible who may participate in subsistence. Basically those who are rural qualified.

So my point is the new ruling allows Alaskans, not based on there zip code or community, to participate in subsistence opportunities on navigable waters to the normal high water means, that flow though federal lands.

Does that mean our granddaughters will be there ??

Not so sure about that, Al! If anything, it will take more court time to affirm state managment of fish!
mt

Nah, they will be in school.

Kaiya needs to maintain good attendance for now. I'm taking her out of school for a week to go turkey hunting next month.

Jason and I will represent the clan. I will slug down an extra brat on behalf of YOU...!


pb

Sort of interesting that the story has already faded away and been phased out in the ADN.

That is what the SCOTUS gets for rendering an opinion that liberals don't agree with!

Pete

True that!!

Good one. I had the same idea but thought “can’t be...my youngest is right here beside me.

Nah, they will be in school.

Kaiya needs to maintain good attendance for now. I'm taking her out of school for a week to go turkey hunting next month.

Jason and I will represent the clan. I will slug down an extra brat on behalf of YOU...!


pb
[/quote]

My kids save their time off of school for our geese hunt too. Morgan had 100% attendance last year until the hunt came up

Ryan,

Its a "priorities" thing.....! I am just so happy that my granddaughter wants to hunt with me (and her other grandpa...)

She is lucky to have TWO crazy grandpas!

Pete

She and I were talking turkeys when she was here last week. She's excited to do it again this year!.

I gave her several tips .


Hopefully you and Jason can keep up with her this time.