Single Page
Uneasy about new Alaska bear snaring? Time to speak up.In an eloquent commentary that he wrote for the Anchorage Daily News (“Predator Control Demeans Us All,” Feb. 4), bear hunter and big-game hunting guide Karl Braendel both sang the praises of the “mighty grizzly,” that “wilderness ‘boss of bosses,’” and bemoaned the fact that his peers in the guiding industry have largely remained silent since the state of Alaska expanded its predator-control policies to include the snaring and shooting of grizzly bears. In a direct appeal to those peers, Braendel wrote, “I know how many of you feel about the big bear. I’ve heard grumbling here and there. Many of you guide in areas not slated for bear control -- at least not yet -- and maybe you are in a little bit of shock by what’s going down. You guys know better than most just how cool the grizzly is; the big bear deserves better, we deserve better. I urge you to step up and make a stand. Everyone who loves bears should make a stand. They are easily our most magnificent animals.” Some might take issue with that last comment, since magnificence, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. But it seems to me that anyone who holds even the slightest amount of respect for “the big bear” would oppose the brutally inhumane tack that the Board of Game (BOG) and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) are now taking to “control” grizzly numbers in parts of Alaska. To date it’s only been an “experimental” program in Unit 16, across Cook Inlet from Anchorage. But at its March meeting in Fairbanks, the BOG will decide whether to expand the snaring and killing of both grizzly and black bears to other parts of the state. (Though it doesn’t seem to have gained much notice, the BOG has already approved plans to conduct a brown and black bear snaring effort in Unit 19D, the McGrath area, beginning June 30.) Because I don’t run in those circles, I can’t say what buzz, if any, Braendel’s commentary has generated within the big-game guiding community (he’s told me he hasn’t heard much from other guides). But I do know that others have independently expressed their opposition to snaring. Terry Holliday, president of Safari Club International’s Alaska chapter, told the L.A. Times, “I personally disagree with the snaring of the bear. “If you want a lower bear population, they [state wildlife officials] can do it in different ways. It’s not humane. You shoot something, you kill it. If it’s properly done, it’s bang, and it’s over, with the animal not suffering. But when you go out and you start snaring animals and whoever’s doing it, say, the weather’s bad and you can’t get back for several days, here’s a bear sitting there in a snare with a bucket on its foot.” And in written comments made to the BOG, Robert Fithian, a master guide and executive director of the Alaska Professional Hunters Association, expressed his group’s concerns that a proposed expansion of an existing predator-control program in Unit 19A (within the Kuskokwim River drainage) would add “brown bears of any age class [and] the snaring of brown bears.” Because it’s a more charismatic animal and greater trophy, the inclusion of grizzlies in the bear-snaring effort has upped the ante, increased the opposition to the snaring and killing of bears, but I and many other Alaskans oppose the snaring of any bear, whether black or brown (grizzlies and brown bears of course being the same species). Like Braendel, I’ve been surprised that Alaskans haven’t been more upset by the state’s latest and most extreme policy to kill off wolves and bears. It should be emphasized that never in our state’s history has the BOG allowed snaring to capture and kill bears. One reason for the lack of public outcry may be the media’s inattention. Though I’ve written a few pieces about the snaring of black bears and, more recently, brown bears in that Unit 16 experiment, Alaska’s media only began to pay attention this winter, when a bunch of wildlife scientists (nearly 80 of them, all with Alaska connections) protested the practice -- and were joined in that protest by former Gov. Tony Knowles. This is ridiculous! When will the Alaska Fish & Game grow a brain??? Maybe they should go to Az., & learn from their Fish & Game whatnreal conservation is all about! STOP THIS nonsense! What is so ridiculous? Those of us who want to increase the number of animals that feed people? The only nonsense is all the uninformed and half-informed armchair bio's who know more than those in the field. I happen to live in unit 16, the one that is attracting all the attention. I have seen what predator control has done for the moose. I have watched our local moose population go from the dump's to what it is today, a growing herd that is still very fragile, but it is growing. To jwcehc: Regarding you comment: "Alice and Scott, still waiting for at least one conflicting article from a former ADF&G biologist. You know you have seen them........" Still waiting for you to come up with conflicting comments from a former ADF&G Bio. Or any reputable biologist. If you have seen them please contact the author(s) and encourage them to contact the Dispatch. "Like Braendel, I’ve been surprised that Alaskans haven’t been more upset by the state’s latest and most extreme policy to kill off wolves and bears" That is because most Alaskan's would rather eat moose than brown bear. I have lived in 16B the last 14 years and have watched the moose populations go steadily downhill. It has only been the last couple of years that you can see 2yo moose calves in January. I am very pro predator control where and when it is needed. Unit 16 is not a great trophy area for moose or bear, but it is a traditional area for local and urban meat hunters who want food and not trophy's. I am a guide and love to watch bears as much as I like to hunt them. But the fact is anyone who spends big bucks with a guide to hunt any bear, brown or black, wants big. Outfitters know that and go for the areas that produce the big ones. Unit 16 brown bears do not compare with the Alaska Peninsula or Kodiak's for size. Nor do the black bears of 16 compare the the coastal blacks of PWS or the Gulf. Just more examples of the 19th Century Lizard Brain thinking of tyrants dedicated to the eradication of all animal species. The exact same thinking which resulted in the total eradication of many species within North America as the human murderers invaded every inch of the continent. In the lower 48 and much of Canada, wolves, bears, elk, bison, pronghorn antelope were just a few which were "hunted" to the brink of extinction. In the East of the Mississippi areas, elk, moose, bears and many bird species were completely wiped out by the turn of the 20th Century. Across the Western areas, all wolves and other predators were "bountied" for extinction by the cattle ranchers. Their heirs demand the same extinction practices today. Bill both your native friend and yourself need to be more careful. Athabascan grizzly snaring around Cook Inlet was commonly practiced by the Dena'ina and is documented in the ethnographic literature. Snares made of beluga skin were used. Come on Bill you missed one of the most important tools to use in this issue. I haven't looked at the agenda or proposals for the Fairbanks meeting of the BOG. But, if there are proposals to be considered at that meeting, identify them and the public should submit their written and or oral comments. Its the right of every Alaskan. Keep them to the point. And yes at times the BOG and BOF may seem to ignore the preponderance of testimony, but they can't do that forever and opponents / proponents are on record directly before the primary regulating body. All the editorials and letters to editor etc are much more easily brushed off but if you manage to get a massive weight of opinion one way or the other the board will have an awkward time moving against it. [edit - I took some time to look up the BOG website] "Written comments may be submitted to the Board of Game at any time before the proposal is taken up by the board in deliberations, but as a practical matter, written comments should be submitted to the Boards Support Section office at the above address or fax number by 5:00 p.m. Friday, February 17, 2012 to ensure inclusion in the board workbooks." http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.meetinginfo It appears to me that proposal 141 would be primary target for those opposed to snaring bears. In some cases I really support predator control. In some places I think the elimination of land and shoot wolf hunting or similar has allowed wolf populations to grow very large. In some places the brown bear populations seem to be very very abundant. But I am increasingly concerned that the current BOG and a vocal contingent of extremists are trying to create Alaskan game populations and hunt opportunities that have only existed in their delusions and the hyperbole of tourist / hunting guide pamphlets. Much of our habitat in its current condition won't support the game populations they want even if all predators are eliminated. Are we victims of our own hype? This sounds like we are still in the age of the Cave Man. This is an outrage and a poor way to control any population. Put in the Publics eye with pictures and I guarantee that you will have a fire storm against it. Please show some respect for what makes Alaska great. The Wild and strong!Controling populations but hunting is much more human than leaving a bear in a snare to suffer for hours and hours. No, the controlled & regulated use of snares for bears certainly does not strike me as something about which a responsible person ought to have an "uneasy" reaction. The author here says, quote: "Like Braendel, I’ve been surprised that Alaskans haven’t been more upset by the state’s latest and most extreme policy to kill off wolves and bears." Kill off wolves and bears? Eliminate them? That sounds ... inaccurate. Snares are efficient & effective. Teaching & training for them can be done safely, and in ways that capture the imagination & attention very well. Good training, of course, is the key to skilled & appropriate use of the tool. Control any game animal with hunting as the harvest method. Snaring is not needed and is not ethical. These are not vermin, these are top of the food chain, masters of their domain. They deserve better! STOP snaring the Grizzly. Wow, another article against preditor control. Imagine that in the AK Dispatch. Bill makes many good points. Here are related points I made in a letter to the BOG on 16 February 2012 ETHICS Hunting Ethics: Should harvesting bears be “fair chase”? As the BOG well knows, bears were once treated as vermin throughout North America. It took decades of effort by wildlife biologists educating the public about bears to win for them the status of game animals. This was done for many reasons. First, many hunters consider bears the supreme North American trophy animal due to their physical prowess, reputation for defensive fierceness, and keen intelligence. Even though black bears are less respected than brown bears in Alaska and other areas where the two species share the same habitat, most of our continent has only black bears. So most hunters in most states have high regard for black bears, as well as brown bears, as trophy animals. The pride they take in harvesting a bear is directly related to the status of bears in the public mind. Degrading bears back to vermin status, as is represented by snaring, degrades bear hunting and bear hunters. Killing bears, except in DLP, should be strictly limited to fair chase methods. Second, bears are North America’s ecological equivalents of great apes. They are among the most intelligent of all land animals, and among the most ready to peacefully coexist with humans in situations where they do not perceive us as competitors for prized foods. This, along with their reputation for defensive fierceness, makes bears particularly attractive to viewers – who often find close viewing one of the most rewarding experiences of their lives. Treating bears as vermin is especially loathsome to viewers, and degrades the experience of viewing even in spots where snaring is not known to be underway. Is Snaring Intolerably Cruel? Yes, this kind of snaring is, especially if the snare is elevated so far that a snared bear would be held at least partly upright by the snare. It is cruel to the snared bear; and if this animal is accompanied by its mother or offspring, this animal’s plight is cruel to them too. Anyone who doubts the cruelty should put him/herself in the bear’s place and hang there for several days until someone comes along to “put you out of your misery” (by freeing you). Contrary to statements that snared bears just sit quietly, I have seen serious wounds to the legs of snared bears, and the bears became “calm” only after violent efforts to free themselves failed and the animals succumbed to “despair” and “depression.” Furthermore, when a snared bear is approached by a human, that “calm” bear can erupt in panicked aggression, as I saw numerous times when I snared bears for research purposes. ECONOMICS AND LEGALITY Would Snaring or Any Other Form of Intensive Management Maximize Non-Hunting Benefits to Alaskans, In Accordance With Our State Constitution? No. Quite the contrary. The US Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that wildlife viewing generates around $700 million per year for Alaska’s economy, a big (but unspecified) fraction of which is for wolf and bear viewing (USFWS 2007). My own estimate, based on very fragmentary information, confirms a benefit of at least $50 million annually for bear viewing. Even my own smaller estimate represents a major boon to numerous Alaskan communities, a boon that is especially important as other resource-based industries are declining. Wildlife viewing supports not only tour companies, but airlines, water taxi services, gas stations, restaurants, lodging services, and numerous other businesses. According to Alaska’s Constitution (as stated by one of its signers, Vic Fisher), wildlife should be managed for diversity as well as productivity, for the benefit of all Alaskans. There is no provision in the Constitution for maximizing benefits for one segment of Alaskans to the detriment of other segments – which is precisely what Intensive Management does, whether the method of harvest is shooting or snaring or using jawed traps. The needs and preferences of viewers are just as important as the needs and preferences of hunters. Even those of us who prefer eating moose and caribou are keenly aware that we can’t pay bills with meat. So we object to the BOG promoting Intensive Management in areas, times, and ways that seriously impact our businesses or those of our employers. So far, the BOG has neglected to sit down with representatives of the ecotourism industry involved in wildlife viewing to determine how moose and caribou numbers can be increased without decimating populations of wolves and bears. Ideally, our clients should be able to view both ungulates and large carnivores, in addition to smaller predators, birds, and marine mammals. SCIENTIFIC How Would Snaring Bears Affect the Health of Moose Populations? Which moose are targeted by bears?: Black and brown bears sometimes kill moose, especially calves, adults debilitated by age, pathogens, injuries or exhaustion from rut. Reducing the number of bears in an area could potentially reduce the number of moose dying of natural causes and thereby increase the number of moose potentially available for harvest by humans. But reducing bear numbers too far can be harmful to moose, as explained below. How do losses to hunters differ from losses to predation? Humans normally don’t harvest calves, and our harvests don’t focus on debilitated adults. Instead of culling out the poorest individuals, we tend to select the best. Furthermore, our harvests are concentrated in areas with easy access, whereas predation is more uniformly spread across the habitat. Hence, even if we harvested the same number of moose formerly taken by wolves and bears, impacts on the moose population would not match what the ungulates have evolved to withstand; so the impacts could be much heavier. Do wolves and bears feed moose? Yes. Both wolves and bears transport large amounts of marine derived nutrients onshore where these nutrients enrich moose browse, particularly that in riparian zones, including zones in or near moose winter habitat. This occurs, of course, via wolves and bears consuming salmon, then depositing scraps of salmon and salmon-rich dung on shore. The BOG should evaluate how much reducing numbers of bears and wolves would reduce abundances of these nutrients, and how that in turn would affect birth weight and survivorship of moose calves, as well as how it will affect future productivity of the salmon fishery. (Nutrients stored in terrestrial plants and soil eventually end up back in streams.) I have seen no indication that the BOG has considered how drastically reducing numbers of bears (or wolves) is likely to affect long term carrying capacity of moose habitat. This oversight should be corrected immediately, before numbers of bears (or wolves) is further reduced. The BOG should show how the nutritional benefits predators provide to moose compare with the impacts of predation at each density of moose, wolves, and bears, and then strive for the optimum densities, not minimum densities of wolves and bears. Is Carry Capacity the Optimum Density for a Moose Populations? No. Carrying capacity is maximum sustainable density, which is much higher than optimum density. Ideally, the term refers to long-term sustainability. However, it is all too often used to mean short-term sustainability, even if a population that large over-browses and thus damages its habitat, thereby lowering CC in future years. The BOG has repeated emphasized its goal of keeping ungulate populations as close as possible to carrying capacity of their habitats. Why? As BOG Vice Chair Ted Spraker should have explained to anyone unfamiliar with the term’s technical definition, “carrying capacity” refers to the maximum number of animals that can be sustained on a given area of habitat. This is analogous to cramming as many clowns as possible into a car. Driving down the road with people sitting two or three deep in a car is a sure way to crash. Wildlife populations crowding their habitat are also vulnerable to crashing, because their members tend to be small in body size, malnourished, diseased, and infested with parasites. Hence, they have poor rates of reproduction and offspring survival. At carrying capacity bulls may also have small antlers. Is this really the kind of moose population that the BOG thinks that Alaskans want? It’s the kind of population we currently seem to have on the Kenai Peninsula, and nothing the BOG has proposed so far is likely to improve the situation. Why not aim for a population density where the health, vigor, reproduction, and survivorship of moose are maximized? As Mr. Spraker should admit, this occurs at densities well below carrying capacity. Classical management theory estimated that populations are most vigorous at roughly 50% of CC. But more recent studies suggest that optimum density might be closer to 70% to 80% of CC. Can Sustainable Yield From a Moose Population Be Maximized at Carrying Capacity? No. Just the opposite. As Mr. Spraker should know, sustainable yield is not maximized, but minimized at carrying capacity. For at CC, 100% of reproduction goes to replacing losses to natural mortality and to non-hunting human-caused mortality. At What Density is Sustainable Yield Maximized” This is called “optimum density” – which, as mentioned above, seems to occur at 70% to 80% of CC. Does Intensive Management Really Maximize Sustainable Yield? Although “maximizing” sustainable yield sounds good on paper, it’s not the title that matters so much as its real world meaning. The term’s conventional meaning in the field of wildlife biology is the highest number of animals that can be harvested after accounting for all losses to natural causes, which includes predation, and to other human impacts such as vehicular collisions. It does not mean the highest harvest after eliminating predation and other sources of natural and human-caused mortality. Given that the BOG’s goal apparently is minimizing predation and perhaps other sources of natural mortality, it should coin a term for harvest under those specific conditions. For the BOG to instead usurp and corrupt “maximum sustainable yield” with a critically different meaning could be misinterpreted as duplicity or ignorance – which I trust would not be accurate. What Do Carrying Capacity and Sustainable Yield Have to Do With Snaring Bears? Mistaken notions of CC and sustainable yield are the justification for Intensive Management, and thus for snaring. The BOG should demonstrate that IM justification still exists when the issue of low moose numbers is rephrased in terms that are valid both semantically and empirically. Sincerely, Stephen F. Stringham, PhD REFERENCE CITED Steve, are you not the same moon bat that claimed that hares were the real reason for the decline of moose on the Kenai, and that by not killing wolves that they would clean up the hare problem? Of course on that article, you listed yourself as President of WildWatch LLC and a Consulting Wildelife Biologist. Amazing how many hats and titles you wear when it suits a need. Alice and Scott, still waiting for at least one conflicting article from a former ADF&G biologist. You know you have seen them........ During 2006-2009, when hares were peaking in Denali National Park, Stephen F. Stringham, PhD Scott here. Disagreeing in a comments thread is just fine. But if anyone would like to register an opinion in essay form, especially a contrarian one, regarding this or any other issue facing Alaska, send it to the email address listed at the end of each commentary featured in our pages: commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com. This isn't hunting or fair chase. It's a means of reducing predator populations. Touchy-feely, soft liberals don't get it and never will. "Touchy-feely, soft liberals don't get it and never will." Bambi, Grizzlie Adams, and all that stuff. Not to mention, the long-running attempted Californication of Alaska. (Seems not to be panning out so well in Oregon, anymore.) My question is: How did things come to such an un-PETA state of affairs as to allow for snaring bears? Freedom is not free they say... Democracy fails if the people do not make their voice's and votes heard. The board of game is just a symptom of the disease. The core issue is the fact that we have had three consecutive governors that have no brains. Parnell has proven himself to be captain "sub zero" when it comes to conserving Alaska's great renewable resources, our wildlife. Parnell thinks a game farm is a biblical utopia, where man rules, and nature is relegated to a "feed lot", where financial profit is the only goal. Parnell thinks poacher Corey Rossi was good for Alaskan's. Parnell thinks stacking the Board of Game with commercial hunting guides provides fair and equal representation to ALL Alaskans. Clearly, Parnell thinks leadership is best demonstrated by systematically creating a dictatorship that worships nothing but short term financial profits! Its time to get rid of him! VOTE PARNELL OUT OF OFFICE! Thank you, Bill As a lifelong hunter, I am both shocked and shamed by what is happening to state wildlife management. The ethical base that used to underlie both the profession and the practitioners seems to be lost. Noone with any integrity could support the state's predator control program. It is time to examine how instant gratification and greed has replaced what was an honorable activity that tied the hunter into the web of life. |
Comments