There's an additional irony to Burris' adjunctive attempt to portray this as an assault on Bush life. Burris, who is a longtime member of the Alaska Outdoor Council, knows full well the AOC has always opposed any sort of game priority for rural residents. At both the level of the Board of Game as well as the Legislature, they have fought any real subsistence priority. Indeed, if you read the hunting regs and state law you find as far as they govern the situation Burris is considered a subsistence hunter despite being an urban hunter just as much as someone living out in the middle of the Bush.
He tries to paint anyone opposing aerial hunting as also opposing healthy ungulate populations in his final paragraph which is so laughably and demonstrably erroneous I'm surprised he thinks anyone will buy into it.
Too, he glosses neatly over the fact that in order to get an initiative on the ballot the effort has to garner a percentage of the previous election's voter count as signatures on the initiative. In the case of the present initiative, that means already 56,000 Alaskans have signed petitions to have it put before the voters. As mentioned, in 1996 and 2000 Alaskan voters banned aerial hunting. So what Burris is essentially saying is a majority of Alaskans in 1996 and 2000 were anti-hunter, fake this and that; that the 56,000 signers of the present initiative petitions are also the same. Those are rather amazing numbers and claims.
The initiative process is a direct process whereby you, the Alaskan voter, can tell your Legislature and government exactly what your wishes are and can thereby make them abide by them. Burris and the AOC oppose this ability and are working hard to remove your right to do so. This is one of the "victories" to which he lays claim....stopping Alaskans from having their say on how their resources are managed.
Dobieman / Fairbanks AK |
