Single Page
Smart Alaska Game Board decisions drowned out by bad callsThe biggest problem with Alaska's latest rush to intensive management of wildlife was ablaze on the Internet this week. And the problem is this: the good killing programs get smeared along with the questionable killing programs. A very sensible decision by the Alaska Board of Game to allow state wildlife biologists to shoot some grizzly bears on the North Slope of the Alaska Range -- using airplanes if they must -- got lost in the hysteria of what the Los Angeles Times called "a new package of (Alaska) policies criticized even by some hunters." The story appeared not only on the L.A. Times website but on a legion of others linking to it a sensational story with this headline: "Alaska expands aerial shooting of bears". The headline makes it sound, to the uninformed, like there must be a lot of aerial shooting of bears going on in the 49th state now. There isn't. What the state proposes is something new, and for good reason. All of this, unfortunately, got lost in the tumult of what appears to be, even to some reasonable people Outside, an Alaska war against predators. "In some parts of the state, wolf pups can be gassed in their dens, bear cubs and sows can be hunted, and wolves shot from helicopters," wrote reporter Kim Murphy. It's all true, and some of it is justified. "The stepped-up measures are designed to appease long-standing concerns among a broad swath of Alaskans about declining populations of moose and caribou, upon which much of rural Alaska depends for food," Murphy added. Give her credit for bending over backwards there in an effort to be kind to Alaskans. Areas of rural Alaska -- not "much of rural Alaska" depend on moose and caribou for food these days. Those areas depend vitally on moose and caribou, but much of rural Alaska is now clustered in regional hubs that in some ways have more in common with other Alaska cities than the rest of the Bush. And the historic reality is that all of Alaska has long depended far more on salmon than any wildlife. There aren't all that many big-game animals in this state. Not to mention that the "long-standing concern" come not from rural Alaskans but predominately from urban hunters. Hunters like me. In some cases, these concerns about predation are justified. In others, they reflect what can only be described as a poor understanding of Alaska ecology. Moose and caribou need winter food to survive. They can't find it if it no longer exists, as is the case now on good parts of the newly forested Kenai Peninsula, or if it is The reality a lot of hunters don't want to accept -- the reality a lot of Alaskans of all stripes just don't grasp -- is that this is a really, really good place to be a bear. Bears are like tourists. They come out in the summer. They feast on the bounty of Alaska through those few, glorious months of the midnight sun. And then they disappear for the winter. Bears can survive in parts of Prince William Sound where there is so much snow that people have to dig like gophers to keep from being buried alive. Bears have evolved beautifully to deal with this. They sleep the winter away, which is why the natural order of things in this state is lots of bears, a few moose, a few wolves, and depending on the time, place and circumstances, a lot of caribou. They roam in herds. There are usually either many or none. Man's power to change this natural dynamic is limited. There are, without argument, situations in which killing wolves and bears will help moose and caribou survive, and thus over time increase their numbers. There are also, without argument, situations in which killing wolves and bears will only decrease the numbers of those animals while doing little or nothing to increase the numbers of moose and caribou.
One issue that I haven't seen addressed in the recent articles about current Alaska game management policies is, what are the current numbers of human hunters in Alaska compared to ten, twenty, or thirty years ago? As the numbers of Alaska's human meat/trophy hunters increase, is it AKF&G's policy that game populations must keep pace with increased numbers of human hunters, regardless of whether or not that means killing increased numbers of competing predators? I.E., if we humans can't control our own population, is the only alternative eliminating most, or all of those species that compete with us for game? Good point. Control the HUMAN predators also. Good point. However, rather than focus on that question it seems the more obvious concern of Alaskans would be why the Board of Game does NOT consider first; when prey populations are declining, to QUIT selling so many non resident's hunting licenses for moose/caribou etc. Such proposals have been put before the Board of Game before. For that matter the Board of Game; if it truly were managing our wildlife first and formost for the non commercial benefit of all Alaskans, could propose their own solution to the unsustainable practice of selling unlimited numbers of hunting licenses to non residents. But the politically appointed Board of Game chooses to expand the commercial exploitation of bears AND continue the illogical practices of selling unlimited numbers of moose and caribou hunting licensees to non residents. It's really weird that the majority of residents of Alaska; who are conservationists at heart, just sit back and watch as the Board of Game wreaks absolute havoc on all of our wildlife populations. So, regardless of whether a person is a hunter or not we sit idle while the only true beneficiary of the 'system' are groups like Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife and their partners in crime...the Alaska Outdoor Council and the Alaska Professional Hunters Association. It is a pathetic situation and as unlikely as it seems Governor Parnell and Board of Game members likely understand that the majority of Alaskans are conservationists and at least intuitively know...the continued practice of selling unlimited numbers of hunting licences to non residents is flat wrong. But Parnell and his appointed Board of Game count on the majority of the conservation community to do nothing while they cater to the special interests of the commercial hunting industry in Alaska. There are two ways to slow down the Board of Game. The legislature could do it or through a citizens initiative. Require the Department of Fish and Game to compare Alaskan residents hunting efforts to Non residents efforts and then require the Board of Game to limit non residents to no more than 10% of the total opportunity to hunt our pubic resources. At least that type action would control the NUMBERS of hunters by limiting non resident opportunity and cap the potential for growth and exploitation of Alaskans resources by the commercial hunting industry. That industry is a 2 to 3 hundred million dollar a year industry made up of 300 or so people (not all of which are residents) that depends entirely on the availability of public resources MADE available to them through the State of Alaska's practices of selling to non residents unlimited numbers of hunting licenses. That's what's driving the bus...unlimited sale of hunting licenses to non residents. And, Alaskans could put a stop to that and should. Given the pathetic state of the planet, a direct result of consumption associated with massive human overpopulation, consumption of meat by humans should be given the lowest priority, not the highest. Yes I agree. But given the SOA population is LESS than San Francisco....??? " Muskox are dumb animals that gather in a circle to try to defend themselves." Wow, that's shallow! Would you recommend a square or perhaps a triangle. Tell us oh Sage Medred wiser then the Musk Ox. That was a good run Craig, now back to opinion pieces? This article is void of studies backing up your "responsible predator control". For an outdoors guy I think you are missing some serious points that resonate with most people, hunters included. Balancing the effects of taking( "good killing" ) "trophy" animals, the healthiest most vital to a population, while leaving perhaps less fit animals to reproduce instead, meanwhile "responsibly controlling predators"- those that eat the weak and sick of the herd, are the truely contentious issues of the debate. The fact remains, moose, wolves bears, salmon, were all doing pretty good before modern man came to Alaska. It is the introduction of a new top predator (man) which has shifted the equilibrium in the ecology and mans big fat brains that tell us we think we can engineer ecosystems like game ranches to produce the desired harvestable stock. At odds now are the hot headed trigger happy "meat hunters" and history telling us that mans attempts at manipulating nature usually backfire. Regardless, i appreciate you taking this on but encourage you to pump some science into the policy debate. That is after all the greatest deficit in the current conversion. Actually, history would tell you that the removal of prime preditors does produce much larger harvestable game herds. You only have to look at the removal of wolves from the lower 48 and the huge herds of deer, elk, moose, and bison that used to exist prior to their reintroduction. And the subsequent decline/decimation of those herds when wolves were reintroducted. Naaaa! Epic FAIL! Check out this movie: http://www.greenfireproductions.org/ It'll show you the full ecological impact of predator control in the West. Brother, you need to talk to the farmers and ranchers in those elk, deer and buffalo areas, many will tell you a different story. Then there are those two piece big game hunting tags in those areas, one part for the hunter when you harvest the animal and the other to the landowner who get cash for his part in repairing his fences and feeding the starving animals breaking through them. Have you been to Jackson Hole, Montana or Idaho lately or any of that prime elk and deer country? It is over-run with rural development, cabins, ranchettes, and roads, people things which have taken away natural wildlife habitat, but like many who move to Alaska and love to see moose and bears in the view, but immediately scream for their destruction the minute they browse on their landscaping project. If you want a real eye opener, visit Yellowstone as soon as the road opens in the Spring and before they Rangers haul away or destroy hundreds of the dead or starving elk and deer. There just is not enough reproductive habitat to sustain something nature long ago determined she had a better method to deal with. The reality that a lot of Alaskans don't want to grasp is that highways kill a lot of moose, stop building the damn highways, and build fences to keep the moose off of them, and bridges so they can get over them.... |
Comments