Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Ak Hunting News: Preservationist Groups Try to Halt Alaska's Wolf Incentive

  1. #1

    Arrow Ak Hunting News: Preservationist Groups Try to Halt Alaska's Wolf Incentive

    This news clip is from Alaska Hunting News. Discussion is welcome. This news feed is robot generated.

    The Alaska Wildlife Alliance, the Defenders of Wildlife, and the Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club are seeking an injunction in State Superior Court in Anchorage to halt the State of Alaska's $150 incentive program that is designed to boost wolf reduction efforts, according to the Anchorage Daily News.

    Using the dictionary defense, the groups are saying that cash rewards constitute a bounty. The state says the payments are an incentive, and since they apply to specific areas only, are not a bounty.

    Read the story in the Anchorage Daily News >>>



    We welcome news tips that are useful to the community. Please send tips and links to complete stories by email to webmaster@outdoorsdirectory.com.

  2. #2
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Unhappy Not surprised

    ..or impressed for that matter. There was also a nice little commentary in the ADN yesterday by a hyphenated-named woman on the matter of wolf control. I'm tired of these misguided crusaders; hope their ballot initiative fails badly!

    Tim

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Thumbs down

    Flim Flam con's still at work in Alaska and the Lower 48. Sucking the gullibles wallets.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bethel, Cantwell, Fort Yukon, Skagway, Chevak and Point Hope
    Posts
    967

    Default

    I hope they succeed and put a stop to at least one Welfare Program in Alaska.

  5. #5
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Some points on wolf control
    -Bounties are Illegal, it doesn't take a rocket scienentist to figure that out.

    -Their ballot initiative will pass for the third time.

    -This season shows that a sustained wolf controll effort will not work without heavy governmental subsidising
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Thumbs up

    Additional points on wolf control; -incenitives are not bounties, common sense points out the difference, - who knows what the voters will do?- heavy goverment subsidizing?,, anyone in your family accept a PFD from the Alaska goverment?

  7. #7
    Sponsor Becky99588's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Glennallen, AK
    Posts
    120

    Default not working?

    AK_powder_monkey, have you been to Unit 13 recently? This is the 4th year of the L&S program and it will reach wolf population objectives for the 2nd year in a row. Moose harvest has increased about 45% since 2001 and twice as many Nelchina caribou permits have been issued since the program started. Oh ya, forgot the best part, no govt. subsidies needed in this unit.

  8. #8

    Default ak powder monkey???

    Man, what is up? You are greener than a new leaf in the spring! Sound like one of those guys that likes to hunt, but doesn't want anyone to kill a wolf or bear???? Do something useful to help hunters.

  9. #9

    Default Predator control

    If the state of Alaska wants to control the population of wolves without paying a bounty, they need predator control agents. A qualified predator control person can selectively reduce the wolf population to desired levels or eliminate the problem all together. A lot of states have totally eliminated wolf populations within their borders using qualified personnel. Those persons didn't use airplanes to accomplish this type of control either. Predator control agents totally eliminated the Red Back wolf in Texas over a 5 year period, it can be done.
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  10. #10
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default Why is it REALLY needed?

    My understanding was that the wolf control program was initiated to increase ungulate numbers for subsistance (ie harvest not sport). If that is the case why is Willow Air service (as an example) advertizing guided moose in McGrath?? I'm all for harvest of wolfs but come on, state helicopters and aerial shooting? Thats like saying theres not enough true hunters and trappers in this state to get the job done.
    How many of us think that increasing numbers of moose and boo for sport hunting is enough of a justification for aerial wolf hunts and bounties? I'm just curious.

  11. #11
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by politicalbio View Post
    AK_powder_monkey, have you been to Unit 13 recently? This is the 4th year of the L&S program and it will reach wolf population objectives for the 2nd year in a row. Moose harvest has increased about 45% since 2001 and twice as many Nelchina caribou permits have been issued since the program started. Oh ya, forgot the best part, no govt. subsidies needed in this unit.
    Could that also be due to the years from 2001 -2006 being very light winter with very little snow? Of course not there only one thing that affects moose populations and that is the number of wolves in the area
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  12. #12
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northway View Post
    Man, what is up? You are greener than a new leaf in the spring! Sound like one of those guys that likes to hunt, but doesn't want anyone to kill a wolf or bear???? Do something useful to help hunters.

    I just like fair chase that all, if you can outwit a wolf on foot more power too you, go ahead and shoot it sell the fur thats a nice little $300 bonus. If you feel you need to shoot a griz to prove your manhood go for it put your rug next to your fireplace. Myself I prefer to take animals that I can eat, animals that taste far better than beef and give me a sense of connection with nature and the land. I am just very skeptical at predator control working without seriously harming the state. I look at what happened in the lower 48 and I don't want it to happen here, wolves were wiped out completely and now deer overrun everything, which is great for hunters but this is Alaska the reason hunting in ALaska is so special is because hunting here is hard, we don't need to limit our predators to increase the number of people who drive a quad off the end of petersville road and actually get a moose, nor do we need to increase the number of people who drive their RV across the denali highway and nail a caribou. We cannot let alaska because wyoming or montana or texas, sure if you go to one of those places you will find some game but in Alaska the hunting is hard and thats how it should be. I won't vote to end airborn hunting of wolves, if people want to do that to prove their manhood good for them, I'll just laugh at them and say "whatever man" but we don't need to subsidise those people because its not efficent enough.

    In the 1930s there was a limit on dolly varden and eagles because they ate salmon, it didn't do anything to increase salmon numbers. Now in Southcentral AK we can fish the heck out of pike and it does very little to rebuild trout and salmon populations.

    I just think the state could spend their money and their effort on predator control when we could be spending money and effort on more important projects that will give us a better understanding game instead of just going trial and error.

    I also think that predation plays a very important role in game management, there can olny be so many moose in a given area and humans can never replace the role of predators in keeping the numbers in about the right amount, maybe if we as hunters and a society started saying: "well if we see a cow with twin calves we'll take one calf" that is just not going to happen. Lets face it there are some very good aurguments against predator control. There are some good aurguments for it also I just think that the aurguments against it warrent a switch in goals for the department, from intesive predator control to good sound habitat management and other less controversial ideas. Allow permits for a L&S program heck you can land and shoot with deer in south east fine, its just time for the department to stop making it such a big deal and get back to actually doing science, heck call predator controll an experiment which is what it is, lets get a statistically significant data set from one area and use good science and good observations and see what happens, lets fund it with liscence fees and see what happens first, ot from 5 years of data though, just like in climate change where 60 years of data is really not enough to determine a statistically significant trend 5 years of predator controll data is not enough.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  13. #13
    Sponsor Becky99588's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Glennallen, AK
    Posts
    120

    Default where have you been the last 60 years?

    We all have our own opinions, but do you honestly think that F&G has learned nothing from all the predator control efforts over the past 60 years? Do you think the objectives that the Board/F&G has for wolves right now in the control areas (which by the way, are above 0, different from your lower 48 example) were pulled out of thin air? Any possibility that these numbers were developed from past years of active management? Just how many experiments do you need to understand that removing some wolves will help moose and caribou survival? And predation control agents? The state currently has the most skilled wolf trappers and pilots in the state volunteering to take wolves, all they need is good snow conditions to get the job done. These programs are based on a system of balance - not too many wolves, not too many moose, and not too many hunters. These aren't the eradication programs of the past.

    About the habitat issue - nobody disagrees with you on having healthy habitat. You can't however, snap your fingers and have a wildfire come through and burn a large plot of ground - doesn't work that way. The most recent large burns were between Fairbanks and Tok north of the Tanana - they were naturally started, and burned over a million acres - biologists and hunters were grinning ear to ear during the burns, knowing what it would do to moose habitat. The most recent large controlled burn was actually done in Unit 13, it was lit twice and only burned 40,000 acres (a drop in the bucket for the unit), though the burn plan has been on the books for 25 years. Conditions for burning south of the AK range (in high elevation moose habitat to boot) aren't what they are north of it. Besides, when was the last time you visited the Tanana Flats, or Gustavis, or Kalgin? Those areas have hammered habitat - the moose might not be considered plump, yet they're still healthy - they just produce less calves annually.

    If you want to discuss the facts of Unit 13, try swinging in to the Glennallen F&G office - look at the data. Winters have been mild in the area since the mid-90s, yet the moose continued to decline due to a rising wolf population. 1999 had deep snow, 2000 did in some places, and 2004 was bad. Of course weather plays a role in moose populations, but even in deep snow years, moose don't usually just kick the bucket for no reason - they get eaten.

    You should know there are a lot of good people, with a lot of history in Alaska making recommendations from within F&G to make sure Alaska never turns into the lower 48. If you disagree with active predation management, then that's one thing, but to dog F&G without knowing all the facts, that's uncalled for.

  14. #14
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    looking through ADFG papers I found a grand total of two studies in peer reviewed journals regarding predation on moose. By contrast there are hundreds of studies in peer reviewed journals about how global warming is happening and how it is caused by man and a great number of people disagree that even global warming is happening. I'm just saying that questioning science is not a bad thing, I'm waiting for them to prove me wrong but to half blindly forge ahead in a poorly designed experiment is just wrong.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Thumbs up

    ak powder monkey, I don't think they are working to prove YOU wrong, predator control has been proven to work, ie; dead wolves don't eat meat..... some of us will not sit on our butts because some don't understand the issue/program. I veiw that type of action (non-action) as a typical liberal move, or in other words a "filibuster"! "Cut bait, Fish, or get out of the way"

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by politicalbio View Post

    About the habitat issue - nobody disagrees with you on having healthy habitat. You can't however, snap your fingers and have a wildfire come through and burn a large plot of ground - doesn't work that way. The most recent large burns were between Fairbanks and Tok north of the Tanana - they were naturally started, and burned over a million acres - biologists and hunters were grinning ear to ear during the burns, knowing what it would do to moose habitat.
    Maybe the best thing that could be done for a moose increase is to get rid of those Hot Shot Firefighters and let the natural fires burn themselves out. Only fight them to save lives and private property. Of course fighting fires is a "make work in the bush" subsidy. So that will never happen.

  17. #17
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DEDWUF View Post
    ak powder monkey, I don't think they are working to prove YOU wrong, predator control has been proven to work, ie; dead wolves don't eat meat..... some of us will not sit on our butts because some don't understand the issue/program. I veiw that type of action (non-action) as a typical liberal move, or in other words a "filibuster"! "Cut bait, Fish, or get out of the way"

    Its sad that liberals are the only ones who are concerned when the law is broken, bounties are illegal clear and simple, paying people to turn in killed animals is clearly a bounty.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bethel, Cantwell, Fort Yukon, Skagway, Chevak and Point Hope
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DEDWUF View Post
    some of us will not sit on our butts because some don't understand the issue/program. I veiw that type of action (non-action) as a typical liberal move, or in other words a "filibuster"! "Cut bait, Fish, or get out of the way"

    And exactly how many Wolves have you taken out of the system this year?

  19. #19

    Default Private people at work (AK POWDER MONKEY)

    The statement you made there by having private people do the wolf killing shows me that you have no clue to what you are talking about. The wolf control areas are very vast and large. I trap a small part of the area and there is no way I can catch enough wolves to do what the program wants. I do a good job of keeping a "status quo", but no more.

    This is not a "SPORTING" event. It is a not a hunt! It is a reduction program, plain and simple. I don't care what way they get the job done, just get it done.

    It is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to say that predation doesn't take its toll on ungulates. Plain and simple-RIDICULOUS! Of course there are other factors, but when wolves and bears are eating the moose and they aren't controlled, ungulate #'s will be low no matter what. No one is saying to totally ELIMINATE all wolves, just keep them down for a period of time so the moose and caribou have enough time to build a population. Then of course you can have an abundance of everything. I think the area around Fairbanks is a good example. Lots of moose, lots of wolves.

    I guess I have a problem with people who sit on their duff and really do NOTHING to help the animals in any way. IN what way/ways have you done anything to help ungulates or the animals you eat besides taking them out of the system?

    Yes I CATCH and sell wolves, and YES, I KILL BEARS and have them on my walls. I still kill bears as I know the damage they do on spring moose calves. Before you bad mouth the program, take a look in the mirror.

  20. #20
    Member Chisana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska
    Posts
    1,439

    Default

    Looks like the judge ruled against the state.

    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildl...-8653668c.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •