Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Intensive Management works! It hits the mark...

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    442

    Default Intensive Management works! It hits the mark...

    The Intensive Management (IM) Program that ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation has initiated is showing positive results. Many areas have more moose to harvest in GMU 13 and 16 than prior to the IM program.

    The Predator Control (PC) Program part of IM helped boost moose numbers back toward what the habitat sustained during the 1980's & 90s'. Moose are moving back to those areas decimated by wolves because the appropriate wolf control program was instituted. NOW lets work on some of the habitat...

    Large areas of habitat in GMU 16B became under utilized when the wolf population was "allowed" to increase during the Gov. Tony Knowles (do nothing - hands off) administration. The area is only now creeping out of the costly predator pit that Knowles bought in to with his "naturalist" biologists. Many ADF&G biologists were in favor of active management in those days but were afraid for their jobs if they bucked the Knowles Administration. True story...

    Now moose will return to their former ranges and in increased numbers for people, subsistence, family, sport hunting and wildlife watching - strictly predicated on PC. Next will be a call to improve wildlife habitats where allowed, to improve the carrying capacity of the habitat, within the land's ability, to provide a higher sustained yield of moose. It is not simple nor easy but it works. Don't fence with the nay sayers. Focus on what you know by doing your own research on the web. Start by reading the research ADF&G links provide. It is easy and often fashionable to be negative (them darn guys!). Think for yourself.

    A good example of improved wildlife habitat that benefits people who want more moose (and game birds, and fur bearers, and a greater diversity of song birds) may be seen in the Fairbanks - Delta Areas of the Tanana State Forest and in those areas where Native Village & Corporate lands are becoming more proactively managed for wood and wildlife. (Yes! Some are on board, its happening). Do you know why many areas in GMU 20 have lots of moose? Because they have proactive, science based, cooperative management there on the Tanana State Forest.

    I'm in favor of "Intensive Management" (IM) that also manages habitat for abundance. It works and I'd be happy to shoot cow moose as allowed. Habitat enhancement improves the land for all wildlife that rely on components provided by regenerating/new forests and it dosen't trash other important resource values. IM is mutually inclusive of all other resource values with the exception of probably wilderness or park designation. I think we have enough "parks & wilderness" thank you, IMHO.

    I think the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation is doing an excellent job. Many thanks to ADF&G for their ability and leadership. In addition to the Intensive Management Program they created a new Game Management Region and the new Small Game Program which is a dream come true for many of us with high hopes for it's success.

    I am hugely optimistic about the future and I can't wait to see what happens next!

  2. #2
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Traded one wolf for another.People effect game populations but they get to vote so everything else loses
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  3. #3
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Hey Woodsman, a question

    AK Woodsman,

    Have you read the new IM Protocol ADFG came out with that was presented to the Board by the Dept IM coordinator? If you haven't here's the link:
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...t_protocol.pdf

    Would like to hear your take on that.

    Otherwise, some of your post deserves an informed rebuttal. Not saying that IM doesn't work sometimes mind you, but I sure don't think it works all the time if you look at things long term.

    For example, you mentioned Unit 16. Not sure if you're aware of the extensive study F&G did in the 80s and early 90s in the Lower Susitna Valley, part of which is in Unit 16. What they found was that this area receives deep moose-killing snows more than half the time, at levels that are significant. In 2008, the Dept IM Coordinator gave a presentation to the Board that showed this, he was just showing the board that it was something to consider when doing IM programs, perhaps they weren't viable in those areas as they are in others. And look at this winter, I heard testimony the other day for emergency diversionary feeding of moose, and while that could help a bit it is just a drop in the bucket and plenty of moose are gonna die.

    Wolf reductions can help because part of why so many moose die is it's much easier for wolves to get them in deep snows. But even the F&G study said that most of that predation was compensatory, not additive. The moose were likely going to die anyway, they could not get to enough food. I think your argument that Knowles was the culprit for the conditions in Unit 16 re moose doesn't really hold much water (but I do agree he had his own biases just like the current admin has their own biases, and I agree with neither extreme and have said so for a long time, the pendulum needs to stop shifting). Weather is always going to be the most significant factor that influences moose in Unit 16. And fire suppression efforts and an inability to really have any controlled burns.

    Bottom line, saying IM works, it hits the mark, smacks of saying predator control always works. It doesn't. And that is well documented for a very long time now. Yes, habitat improvement is a part of IM Law, but for reasons outlined it was never really a working component of it. IM today is about one thing really, predator reductions.

    Only now are ADFG bios hammering home that habitat (lack of) needs to be an important component of how we make IM decisions. IM can also lead to many negatives, such as social issues, crowding, conflicts in the field etc. Look at the 20A issue.

    Just saying it's a lot deeper than you are making it out to be.
    Sincerely,


  4. #4
    Member AlpineEarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Usually somewhere I don't want to be.
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Woodsman View Post
    The Intensive Management (IM) Program that ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation has initiated is showing positive results. Many areas have more moose to harvest in GMU 13 and 16 than prior to the IM program.

    The Predator Control (PC) Program part of IM helped boost moose numbers back toward what the habitat sustained during the 1980's & 90s'. Moose are moving back to those areas decimated by wolves because the appropriate wolf control program was instituted. NOW lets work on some of the habitat...

    Large areas of habitat in GMU 16B became under utilized when the wolf population was "allowed" to increase during the Gov. Tony Knowles (do nothing - hands off) administration. The area is only now creeping out of the costly predator pit that Knowles bought in to with his "naturalist" biologists. Many ADF&G biologists were in favor of active management in those days but were afraid for their jobs if they bucked the Knowles Administration. True story...

    Now moose will return to their former ranges and in increased numbers for people, subsistence, family, sport hunting and wildlife watching - strictly predicated on PC. Next will be a call to improve wildlife habitats where allowed, to improve the carrying capacity of the habitat, within the land's ability, to provide a higher sustained yield of moose. It is not simple nor easy but it works. Don't fence with the nay sayers. Focus on what you know by doing your own research on the web. Start by reading the research ADF&G links provide. It is easy and often fashionable to be negative (them darn guys!). Think for yourself.

    A good example of improved wildlife habitat that benefits people who want more moose (and game birds, and fur bearers, and a greater diversity of song birds) may be seen in the Fairbanks - Delta Areas of the Tanana State Forest and in those areas where Native Village & Corporate lands are becoming more proactively managed for wood and wildlife. (Yes! Some are on board, its happening). Do you know why many areas in GMU 20 have lots of moose? Because they have proactive, science based, cooperative management there on the Tanana State Forest.

    I'm in favor of "Intensive Management" (IM) that also manages habitat for abundance. It works and I'd be happy to shoot cow moose as allowed. Habitat enhancement improves the land for all wildlife that rely on components provided by regenerating/new forests and it dosen't trash other important resource values. IM is mutually inclusive of all other resource values with the exception of probably wilderness or park designation. I think we have enough "parks & wilderness" thank you, IMHO.

    I think the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation is doing an excellent job. Many thanks to ADF&G for their ability and leadership. In addition to the Intensive Management Program they created a new Game Management Region and the new Small Game Program which is a dream come true for many of us with high hopes for it's success.

    I am hugely optimistic about the future and I can't wait to see what happens next!
    Nope, it does not "work". That stuff is for Texas and pay to hunt ranches. There is a plethora of evidence out to disprove your conclusion, but one need not reference any as your opinion is unlikely to change. That's quite the vote of confidence for the ADF&G leadership, still feeling the same way after this weeks news? And this statement; "IM is mutually inclusive of all other resource values with the exception of probably wilderness or park designation.",... well saying that this is an opinion based on ones wild imagination, a complete lack of logic or reason and some omniscient power to deduce what others value in wilderness or wildlife. That SFW cool aid is not good for you my friend. STEP AWAY FROM THE COOL-AID!!! It may taste good at first, then it leaves you confused, a bunch of IQ points lower on the scale and linked to crooks like Don Peay and admitted criminals like Corey Rossi!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    442

    Default

    [QUOTE=bushrat;1068295]AK Woodsman,

    Have you read the new IM Protocol ADFG came out with that was presented to the Board by the Dept IM coordinator? If you haven't here's the link:
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...t_protocol.pdf

    Yes, in person (twice at least) and I have studied it as a reference document. It is both a living document with excellent observations and a point in time look at what has transpired. Additionally it offers suggestions for future questions and research with valuable insight from collaborators. Some of the definitions attempt (mostly successfully) to expound on terms (habitat enhancement etc.). The paper is valuable insights and suggested direction from a scientist who is an expert on the topic, well respected, and with a diversity of habitat projects under his belt. The bibliography is way worth having.

    Would like to hear your take on that.

    No you wouldn't, you just want to argue and you have a membership to "stand in for."

    Otherwise, some of your post deserves an informed rebuttal. Not saying that IM doesn't work sometimes mind you, but I sure don't think it works all the time if you look at things long term.

    For example, you mentioned Unit 16. Not sure if you're aware of the extensive study F&G did in the 80s and early 90s in the Lower Susitna Valley, part of which is in Unit 16. Yes, I helped with part of it when I lived there in the 1980's. Most are retired now and science marches on...it was a pleasure to meet and do my part with them. What they found was that this area receives deep moose-killing snows more than half the time, at levels that are significant. In 2008, the Dept IM Coordinator gave a presentation to the Board that showed this, this is an "input scenario" you continue to glam on to as some of the only data that serves your purpose, bias and organization.... he was just showing the board that it was something to consider when doing IM programs, perhaps they weren't viable in those areas as they are in others. And look at this winter, I heard testimony the other day for emergency diversionary feeding of moose, and while that could help a bit it is just a drop in the bucket and plenty of moose are gonna die.

    Wolf reductions can help because part of why so many moose die is it's much easier for wolves to get them in deep snows. But even the F&G study said that most of that predation was compensatory, not additive. The moose were likely going to die anyway, they could not get to enough food. I think your argument that Knowles was the culprit for the conditions in Unit 16 re moose doesn't really hold much water (but I do agree he had his own biases just like the current admin has their own biases, and I agree with neither extreme and have said so for a long time, the pendulum needs to stop shifting). Good luck with that pendulum thing.... Weather is always going to be the most significant factor that influences moose in Unit 16.
    No, you are mistaken...habitat would be key and to a degree, affected by weather. The habitat in 16A&B are most affected by river cutting and deposition forming river bottom willows. That dynamic is limiting... and so is the the mountain-canyon-browse when deep snows cover it. The rest of the habitat is limiting due to an even aged old age decadence of low carrying capacity throughout the most of it... the fire cycle in 16 and 14 is way longer then in 13 or 20. Too much rain and too few starts. A few more fires are starting due to people and lately, lightning is becoming increasingly more common the last 10-years...
    And fire suppression efforts and an inability to really have any controlled burns.

    Thats hog wash, apparently you can't even seem to put yourself in the shoes of "the professional", and imagine what YOU would do with a zoo that GMU 16 has become with fragmented ownerships...

    ...tell me you don't want smoke jumpers protecting YOUR cabin when a wildfire threatens? The best defense against large fires in crowded cabin prone areas like 16B is immediate initial attack to keep fires small and put them out. Otherwise its "see you in court"! Read the papers Mark... Don't you remember Millers Reach in Big Lake?

    Fire is THE regenerative force in a natural upland boreal forest, but fire either natural or prescribed, is not always appropriate. Lets burn YOUR neck of the woods first... Well no! I wouldn't like that either. There is a large difference between a monday morning quarter back and a professional that has to actually deal with all the ramifications of management, be it fire or wildlife.


    Bottom line, saying IM works, it hits the mark ...ahhh that would be you Mark.... I was sure you would respond..., smacks of saying predator control always works. It doesn't. And that is well documented for a very long time now.
    Share that bibliography with us Mark, where would THAT be, hmmm?
    Yes, habitat improvement is a part of IM Law, but for reasons outlined it was never really a working component of it. IM today is about one thing really, predator reductions.

    I KNOW itsa bummer to a "flat-worlder" with an agenda, but science is not always static to be used as a hammer to keep your view of the world, get your own way, or foment the masses. (Chicken Little is on the loose.)
    Science is generally dynamic....or we all would be driving our boats off the edge somewhere...


    Only now are ADFG bios hammering home that habitat (lack of) needs to be an important component of how we make IM decisions
    ...Hog wash! many biologists have been vocal in favor of active habitat management for years, read their research, study the issue..wilderness oriented clubs like yours don't want it...no large timber sales etc. Do- nothings like Tony Knowles... Mark, your version continues to suck... I don't buy it... "just saying" .
    IM can also lead to many negatives, such as social issues, crowding, conflicts in the field etc. Look at the 20A issue.
    ...and pesky greeny groups like Alaska Back Country Hunters....

    Just saying it's a lot deeper than you are making it out to be. Ya think?? You guys are kinda hilarious. Really Really.

    Sincerely,



Tags for this Thread

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
  •