Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 67

Thread: Aerial Bear Control in Kuskokwim

  1. #1
    Member AKHunterNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    902
    "...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

  2. #2
    Member AKHunterNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Why are tax payers going to pay for someone to fly around in a helicopter to kill bears instead of first raising the legal bag limit and taking away the registration hunt and make it general harvest?
    "...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    I really don't like the idea of state paid agents for animal control of any species when others are willing to pay for such opportunity.

    Loosen up the regulations and let the general public at them with bear baiting, dogs, longer seasons as applicable. Get rid of the guiding requirements for non resident hunters and can't shoot "cubs" or "sows with cubs" regulations in these areas. How about allowing ariel shooting of bears (or same day fly and shoot) by registered hunters using float planes first? Turn it into a registration or draw hunt if necessary. There are lots of options available before state paid agents pursuing bears using helicopters need to be considered.

    And the comments, "“All bears within the 540 square mile area will be removed, but that total will include many more black bears than grizzlies,” and "Biologists will salvage the meat of as many of the bears they shoot as possible and distribute it in local communities." I guess selective wanton waste is a little cost for them to get their fun on.

  4. #4
    Member broncoformudv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKHunterNP View Post
    Why are tax payers going to pay for someone to fly around in a helicopter to kill bears instead of first raising the legal bag limit and taking away the registration hunt and make it general harvest?
    I was wondering the exact same thing! I do not understand the rational behind hirering shooters and a helicopter to shoot predators in Alaska when there are plenty of willing people if given half a chance. Whats the going rate on a helicopter per hour right now? How about those paid shooters? Let me guess they are even going to hire the shooters from the lower 48 so it will then be non residents shooting grizzly bears without a guide but thats ok since they are pros. LOL

  5. #5
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default

    I am hunting the upper brooks range for Griz this fall, so our group has been paying particular attention to this issue. Call the bio from the area and talk with her.

    Most of these bears would not be killed by hunters if they opened it up to them. They are targeting a specific area and as far as I can understand, a specific group of bear. They know the targets and they know that hunters won't be successful in taking them out.

    If they opened it up to us, 'other' bears would be taken - other than the target critters.

    While I first opposed what they are doing - after understanding the issue more thoroughly, I do agree with them now.

  6. #6
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default

    WAIT - I thought this was for GMU26 - not 19......oops.

  7. #7
    Member GD Yankee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    PANC
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Can any defenders of this plan explain why this isn't just a more expensive form of welfare?

    Our tax dollars used to kill bears so subsistence village/bush dwellers can "more easily" take a moose? If bears are the problem, every villager who wants a moose better be shooting their limit (if there is one) of bears. I don't buy it.

    What wealthy lobbyist, corporate CEO, or legislator has a hunting lodge in the GMU? That's probably the most likely force driving this action, not concern for villager's meat locker.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GD Yankee View Post
    Our tax dollars used to kill bears so subsistence village/bush dwellers can "more easily" take a moose? If bears are the problem, every villager who wants a moose better be shooting their limit (if there is one) of bears. I don't buy it.
    No need for them to hunt moose... as the communities will eat bears that are supplied by the state.

    Reference: "Biologists will salvage the meat of as many of the bears they shoot as possible and distribute it in local communities."

  9. #9
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    lol loosen seasons and let the public do it...you guys crack me up..espessally since you have all proven time and again, you wont do any more then give lip service..the public won't spend the money to do it... the locals are paying three times the amount for food and fuel, with less income avalibe..and a bunch of sport'ies and antis wont allow the state to open it up with the means for a few to do it...


    Don't snare them bears..them are proud animals..

    dint kill them wolf...

    dont hunt them grizz..

    yet every coyote can be slaughtered..the one animal that over comes all odds. lol.black bears are the coyotes

    then next year you'll all be crying about not being able to fly out and shooting moose or bou..

    didnt see very many folks testifyimg they would be willing to help out or support programs that will..-but you all want to hunt native lands. get YOUR's when you want it..based on "the resource belimgs to us all" but when it supports another group you flappers start flippng
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    IMO - a dead bear is a dead bear ... whether killed by ariel hunting, snaring, baiting, chased by dogs, baiting, or spot and stalk. I'm not a fan of the use of poisons. Snares are used for other animals ... so why not bears. But if they catch an illegal moose in their snares ... the hunters should cease the effort for the year and not be able to hunt moose. So I could see the same logic applied to allow the use of poisons.

    After looking into the predator control permit in greater detail; if I move my barrels another mile; looks like I can set up 4 bait barrels and shoot many bears.

    Thanks for the inspiration.

  11. #11
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wet eNuf View Post
    IMO - a dead bear is a dead bear ... whether killed by ariel hunting, snaring, baiting, chased by dogs, baiting, or spot and stalk. I'm not a fan of the use of poisons. Snares are used for other animals ... so why not bears. But if they catch an illegal moose in their snares ... the hunters should cease the effort for the year and not be able to hunt moose. So I could see the same logic applied to allow the use of poisons.

    After looking into the predator control permit in greater detail; if I move my barrels another mile; looks like I can set up 4 bait barrels and shoot many bears.

    Thanks for the inspiration.
    glad to hear it... and thats part of the ignored matter of fact on all this.. we can turn our eye and not pretend they have been neck snaring bears for YEARS AND YEARS... but a bucket snare cant catch a moose or caribou.. or a martin for that matter when set correctly it cant catch a cub either, when the trigger is set far enough in for the cub or youngester not to reach.. and er... those that live in town may not know.. a grzz cub the size of a medium blackie.. is no longer a cub. we can also ignore taht the Depts. around the country have been using foot and bucket set to catch and release bears for study for years and years and YEARS!.. nothing new here...just a few folks throwing on line tantrums to make them feel better ...

    but it's SOOOO much fun to fall into the hype.. and kick and yell... and yet when asked... most thes gang wont get off the couch to attend the meeting or to give 5 minutes of testomony or even SHOW UP and listen to the science... those of us that do.. get all the dirt for the coming years population study...plans, etc... and that SURE makes MY hunting easier.. research... sheesh its already done for me. and the few of the antis that show up... well shoot they only grab the sound bites they want... there is a fully faceted other side and a HALF to the rest of the story.

    or you can depend on the likes of the ADN... the Dispatch and its two reporters here on the forum to keep everyone informed...

    they dont have a clue whats gong on for real, nor do the rest of these clowns..
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    I have to agree with what you just said. When following the ADN ... reading ... interpreting what they report, it's easy to formulate an opinion... but when the facts are revealed ... the opinion may be quite different.

    Consider the verbage on helicopters ... and in my reply's to the thread, I don't like the use of the government to use such things to shoot bears. When reading the predator control documents relating to unit 16, hunters can use helicopters ... just can't shoot from them. So I'm unclear whether the government would be shooting from them or just be using them for transportation. Anyone know the details of their policy?

    During lunch was thinking about the fish portion of the fish and game... as pike have been introduced to lakes and water systems. F&G has used methods such as poisons to destroy the threat and give the native species a second chance. Similarly, the F&G's involvement in predator control does make some sense; however, bears and moose are both native species in these areas....at this point IMO, the use of government funds for herd control is still a poor use of public funds and resources.

  13. #13
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wet eNuf View Post
    I have to agree with what you just said. When following the ADN ... reading ... interpreting what they report, it's easy to formulate an opinion... but when the facts are revealed ... the opinion may be quite different.

    Consider the verbage on helicopters ... and in my reply's to the thread, I don't like the use of the government to use such things to shoot bears. When reading the predator control documents relating to unit 16, hunters can use helicopters ... just can't shoot from them. So I'm unclear whether the government would be shooting from them or just be using them for transportation. Anyone know the details of their policy?

    During lunch was thinking about the fish portion of the fish and game... as pike have been introduced to lakes and water systems. F&G has used methods such as poisons to destroy the threat and give the native species a second chance. Similarly, the F&G's involvement in predator control does make some sense; however, bears and moose are both native species in these areas....at this point IMO, the use of government funds for herd control is still a poor use of public funds and resources.
    I completely disagree...the use of funds are being used EXACTLY what we pay them to do... the Dept. is paid to manage our game highs and lows.. and given i get my medical out of the way.. i will start looking for a postion as BEAR skinner in a heart beat..
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  14. #14
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKHunterNP View Post
    Why are tax payers going to pay for someone to fly around in a helicopter to kill bears instead of first raising the legal bag limit and taking away the registration hunt and make it general harvest?
    Buy a flight out there and do some hunting then, and post pics when you return. Once you get the logistics all figured out and the how-to on going out that way, you might see it ain't that easy as compared to talking about it.

  15. #15
    Member AKHunterNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    Buy a flight out there and do some hunting then, and post pics when you return. Once you get the logistics all figured out and the how-to on going out that way, you might see it ain't that easy as compared to talking about it.
    Sure, let's go. I'll meet you out there. But don't shoot more than two. You have to save the rest for the hired sharpshooters.
    "...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    Anybody who thinks this plan is for subsistence hunters needs to think again. The AOC and SFW and their mercenaries on the Alaska Board of Game hate subsistence hunters. That's the reason the Feds took over managing game on their lands. These guys don't like local preference.

    So why, out of the goodness of their hearts, would they start a program just to help the poor subsistence hunters of that area? I guarantee you, there is a dirty underhanded reason for this program, and it ain't to help local subsistence hunters.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    ADF&G personel have darted hundreds, or more likely thousands of moose and bears, using helos, if they can 'dart' them and collar them, I don't think they will have any problem killing them in this 540 sq mile area, which will likely be spring calving areas. Unit 19A is well over 20,000 sq miles.
    Talking with a kusko friend last night he asked why some hunters think they could do better than F&G, when Unit 16 was loaded with bears and its closer to most hunter than the kusko area... I had no answer for him, just told him 'go figure'

  18. #18
    Member AKHunterNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    what? the idocy know no bounds.. the dept would more then allow other huntes in the unit and welcome it, quit biching and get informed..
    Vince, what the hell are you talking about, been drinking this morning?...LOL. I never said anything about the dept not allowing more hunters. I just think that before we pay for helicopters and sharpshooters, we could find less expensive ways to kill more bear. Raise the bag limit, allow baiting, allow trapping, no closed season, allow taking of sows and cubs, hell even a bounty like some southern states do with hogs. If those measures don't work and there is a real need to kill bears for predator control then fly around and shoot them, kill them in their dens, I don't care. I'm simply saying that there are other ways to try and reduce the bear population before jumping straight to paying for someone to kill them. I'm not *****ing about a thing, just making a statement and stating my opinion. Plus, I like to see how fired up people get on the forum, it's a hobby.
    "...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Forgot to add..


    Current 2011-12 AK Hunting regulations
    Sub-Unit 19A

    Black bear-- 5 bears-- no closed season- every regulatory year
    Brown/Grizzly--2 bears- every regulatory year- Aug 10 to June 30-no resident tag required
    __________________________________________________ _________________________

    Pretty liberal, 2 hunters could come back with 14 bears

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Thanks to those that posted up about the access issues into the area and the records of the number of hunters that were reported to hunt black bears.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    I completely disagree...the use of funds are being used EXACTLY what we pay them to do... the Dept. is paid to manage our game highs and lows.. and given i get my medical out of the way.. i will start looking for a position as BEAR skinner in a heart beat..
    Vince: I agree that there are arguments against what I’ve posted.
    Are they concerned that liberalizing the regulations for hunters in the area is going to result in black market sales of gall bladders?
    Are they concerned that opening up the slaughter of brown bears by non-guided non residents will open the door to not require guides for other species? Please educate us rather than providing a defense using “boner” rhetoric (reference post #17).

    I hope you can profit from such a plan. Please help us understand the information you are privy to!

    I disagree with your comment that “the Dept. is paid to manage our game highs and lows”. One of their strategies involves the use of lethal force for human-wildlife encounters, but that strategy is not part of their predator control program.

    With a search for fish and game’s mission statement, I found:
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ho...trapplanp4.pdf
    “Our Mission: to conserve and enhance Alaska’s wildlife and habitats and provide for a wide range of public uses and benefits.”

    What’s the harm in allowing resident hunters the same opportunity to slaughter the bears in the 540 sq miles. With a stroke of a pen and by emergency order –
    Allow hunters to shoot the bears from the helicopter.
    Require the same degree of salvage from hunters that they will require from their biologists.
    If no one participates – then who cares.

    Quote Originally Posted by DEDWUF View Post
    ADF&G personel have darted hundreds, or more likely thousands of moose and bears, using helos, if they can 'dart' them and collar them, I don't think they will have any problem killing them in this 540 sq mile area, which will likely be spring calving areas. Unit 19A is well over 20,000 sq miles.
    Talking with a kusko friend last night he asked why some hunters think they could do better than F&G, when Unit 16 was loaded with bears and its closer to most hunter than the kusko area... I had no answer for him, just told him 'go figure'
    The government's distrust of the public reflects back to a distrust of the government by the public.

    I don't think it's a matter of doing better than the government intends to do. The activity:
    1) uses public money,
    2) isn't a situation of a human-wildlife conflict,
    3) moose, black bears, and brown bears are native to that area. The bears are not an invasive species to the area.
    4) the tools used by biologists are liberalized when compared to the tools used by hunters.

    IMO - human involvement contributed to the moose/bear imbalance. If you're ok with using public money for such a program, how about estimating the cost of the program and offering hunters a bounty for each bear that is killed?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •