Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Take a predator, earn a tag

  1. #1

    Default Take a predator, earn a tag

    As we all know, the states with over-populations of deer or over-populated deer related diseases have taken steps to eradicate the problem with liberal doe harvests and/or requiring a doe/antlerless deer be taken before a buck tag is allowed, thus “earning” the privilege to take a buck.

    I propose that Alaska consider the following where predation by bears and wolves had effected the populations of moose, caribou, and sheep. A hunter earns a “Predator Reduction” tag for a hard to obtain tag for said moose, caribou, or sheep only after successfully taking a bear or wolf in the controlled area. A successful hunter would be allowed a tag for either the current or subsequent year following the taking of the problem predator.

    This could be a possible scenario for GMU 13 Nelchina Caribou. Hunter takes a wolf in GMU 13, in late October, presents it for sealing at F & G office then has the option for caribou that year or the next, but not both years.

  2. #2
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,890

    Default

    I like the general idea, but I don't think a hunter should get a hard to obtain tag just for taking a predator. There are many hunters that take predators and there aren't enough "good tags" available to satisfy all those that do take a predator. My idea would be to take away some tags from the current drawing pool and set them aside. Have a separate drawing suppliment for these tags and all hunters that took a predator are eligible to apply for those tags, make them eligible to apply for 2 of each species available. These additional application would not take away from the normal draw applications, but a hunt would not be able to put in 2 applications for the same hunt. For example: If DS185 was one of the available tags in the "predator" supplement, then a hunter would be able to select the normal 3 sheep tags in the regular supplement, and he would also be able to put in for the 2 in the predator supplement, but he would not be able to select DS185 in both, thus giving him 2 applications for 1 tag. I think this plan would give hunters more motivation to help thin out the predators, while keeping the same amount of overall drawing tags available. It would be up to managers to figure out which tags would be removed from the regular drawing supplement, and which units a predator was taken from would make a hunter eligible.
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    Do you propose they take a predator in just the unit they receive the "predator reduction tag" in, or any predator anywhere in the state? And if it's only in the unit they'll receive the tag for, who's going to verify where the predator was taken? If it's a hard to draw tag like you suggested, I can see a lot of scheming and cheating going on to get the coveted tag. And if it's a unit where say 10 or 20 or 50 or even 100 tags are given out, what's your solution when 200 - 500 guys show up with predators to get their hard to get tag?
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    If hunters are serious about predators they should go as a whole to take a predator before being allowed to hunt any other big game period.JMOFO
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  5. #5

    Default

    I've never understood the need to kill off all the predators for the sake of game populations. A program as stated in the the OP would reflect bad on hunters as a whole IMHO. Same thing goes with coyote contests, stupid decals that say "shoot a pack a day" etc.



  6. #6
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    Do non-resident sheep guides qualify as predators?
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magpie View Post
    I've never understood the need to kill off all the predators for the sake of game populations. A program as stated in the the OP would reflect bad on hunters as a whole IMHO. Same thing goes with coyote contests, stupid decals that say "shoot a pack a day" etc.


    Nobody said "let's kill off ALL the predators" and what's with the enormous font anyway?

  8. #8
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default Take a predator, earn a tag

    I don't care to see trophy tags put on the docket for predator control tags. I would support an earn a cow tag though under that plan.

  9. #9
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magpie View Post
    I've never understood the need to kill off all the predators for the sake of game populations. A program as stated in the the OP would reflect bad on hunters as a whole IMHO. Same thing goes with coyote contests, stupid decals that say "shoot a pack a day" etc.


    Fix your font already. They do have reading glasses out there if you need them.

  10. #10

    Default

    Hoose35 has already improved upon the idea.

    Set aside a portion of the tags for a separate drawing that the predator hunter would qualify for. The successful hunter could use the one predator for one drawing only. The predator must come from the particular Drawing area the hunter would apply for. As for the verification, we rely on the hunter’s integrity just as if he/she took a moose from a certain coveted drainage.

    OTHER: Wolf Harvest statistics from 1986-2008 show wolves taken by firearm range from 300 – 700 per year statewide. If you add trapping and same-day airborne control the numbers are 750 – 1800 per year.

    In 2011 the Dall Sheep had 497 tags available and 351 were obtained. For the coveted drawing areas, only units offering 3 or more tags would have a Predator Control tag. General would have 2 tags and Predator Control group 1 tag. I’d rather be in a group of 25-30 for the one tag then in the group of 100 for a single General tag.


    Keep bouncing around the idea and improve it...

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magpie View Post
    I've never understood the need to kill off all the predators for the sake of game populations. A program as stated in the the OP would reflect bad on hunters as a whole IMHO. Same thing goes with coyote contests, stupid decals that say "shoot a pack a day" etc.


    nice font ... Though I dont think predator need to be eradicated either, not that anyone said they should, but whats wrong with coyote calling contests? Big buck contests in other states, and fishing tournaments, etc are ok but take a bunch of coyotes out of an area in a contest format is bad? Real hunters concern with sustainability and conservation of resources, when there is a large amount of predators putting a hurting on the local game populations (like most places with a bunch of coyotes) then it is the prudent thing to do to focus on taking more predators to help decrease the amount of predation and calf/fawn mortality to increase the amount of game. Coyotes are prolific breeders and as soon as one is taken out of an area, another moves in, eradication is impossible, all responsible hunters taking predators are trying to do it balence the odds a little. Just my $.02, worth what you paid for it.

    While I dont think everyone should be forced to take a predator before hunting other species, it might help some of the harder hit areas to implement a program.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,956

    Default

    On the surface the proposal has some merit. Some of the potential problems have already been pointed out. There are not enough hard to get tags to support the proposal. Also, why not incude black bears? They take enough caribou and moose. Another question and I do not know the answer is how bad are sheep effected? Other problems is non residents will complain they don't have the oppurtunity to get in on it, especially taking brown/grizzlies without high costs. And then who do we take the draw permits from? I don't agree with taking permits away from from already seemingly impossible draw numbers. I'm not even sure cow moose numbers would support the proposal. Good on the surface but game population numbers here won't support a program like the ones used back east to control whitetail numbers.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NorthWest Alaska
    Posts
    3,634

    Default

    The fallacy of thinking that increasing game tags to cull out sick and old Deer , as stated in the original post, is that Hunters try their best NOT TO shoot theose animals, and in a state where we have to salvage and eat those animals, I mucho preferr the Wolves kill and eat the sick and old, while I, like most all hunters, hunt the big fat sucessfull prime animals.

    I would preferr a lower population that is healthy and stable, to one that is going to grow exponetialy and collapse. Killing all the predators and then the "Best" as humans do, will achive just that, an over grazing, sick population..... doomed to collapse.


    Then I hunt the Wolves and I need no more tags, the healthy animals I catch do fine as dinner.

    At least in the WACH herd we have almost no Brucillouciss, no cronic wasting, and although in decline, its due to weather with mid january rains icing the food supply and susequent low calf survival rates , as they cant go las long with out food as adults and die walking to uniced grazing. The wolves here are doing a fine job keeping them in check, when theres just not that much, human wize, hitting thier numbers.
    If you can't Kill it with a 30-06, you should Hide.

    "Dam it all", The Beaver told me.....

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,956

    Default

    Actually stranger, its just to lower numbers, there are not that many old and sick whitetails there. I was back visiting family at Thanksgiving and did some deer hunting. I took a doe (you could take 2 does or 1 doe and 1 buck) and Ohio Dept of Game stated she was an old "grandmother" that he aged at 3 1/2. My brother could take 5 total, 4 does and 1 buck during the three different weapons seasons. However, I agree with the rest of your thought.

  15. #15
    Member Bambistew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Magpie
    You need to update your browser!

    I trapped 15 wolves last year, I want my 15 caribou tags!


  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default

    In Maine when you apply for the moose lottery you get an extra chance to get a permit for each year you put in for the permit and did not receive one. Bettering your chances each year. There's no reason the state couldn't let the people taking predators better their odds by doing the same thing for one permit they put in for. Just a thought.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strangerinastrangeland View Post
    I would preferr a lower population that is healthy and stable, to one that is going to grow exponetialy and collapse. Killing all the predators and then the "Best" as humans do, will achive just that, an over grazing, sick population..... doomed to collapse.

    At least in the WACH herd we have almost no Brucillouciss, no cronic wasting, and although in decline, its due to weather with mid january rains icing the food supply and susequent low calf survival rates , as they cant go las long with out food as adults and die walking to uniced grazing. The wolves here are doing a fine job keeping them in check, when theres just not that much, human wize, hitting thier numbers.
    Along those lines of thinking, if wolves ha been present in the Rockies and Great Plains when the chronic wasting disease and blue tongue breakouts occurred the damage to the herds probably wouldn't have been as excessive and wide spread as it was. Wolves taking out sick animals would have slowed the spread.

    As we speak, blue tongue is proving to be a problem in some areas of Texas. From what I heard when I was there, part of the problem there is animal handling practices and crowded conditions on some of the game ranches and the transfer to wild populations.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  18. #18
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    In Texas the blue tongue goes from sheep and goats to cattle and the deer feed on the cattle leftovers.When I was selling registered cattle to Australia all had to be tested for blue tongue before boarding a ship.They also had to be bangs free.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    today-Idaho
    Posts
    394

    Default

    I like the idea of offering extra apps, apply for 4 moose hunts instead of 3. Or maybe next years license is free. Or maybe put all of the successful pred hunters into a supplemental draw for the tag of their choosing for next year. Yes, every year there will be one more sheep hunter, but only one winner per year. Course the state would still charge an app fee for administrating the draw. Or maybe issue some kind of party hunting permit? I do not know which could work best but there must be other options!

  20. #20

    Default Take a predator, earn a CHANCE at a drawing

    I would not dare shoot a bear (black or brown) or a wolf 15 years ago but my opinion changed after my 2003 Non Resident QUEST for moose. In my opinion, a plus 50” or 3-4 brow tines in a majority of the GMUs meant hunter/predator harvests were heavy. I don't believe it was to produce TROPHY quality animals. Where populations are at or near capacity the requirement may be ANY BULL or even a COW to assist Mother Nature’s lack of natural predators. All of my TROPHIES have tasted good and provided for my family these past years and nothing would make a hunting magazine cover unless is was a proponet for QDM.

    I do not wish to eliminate wolf, black or brown bear only maintain them at healthy populations.

    The original post did not exclude black bear from the proposal either. Moose calves fall victim to black bear also. Aren’t some of the brown bear at over-capacity numbers in some GMUs, hence the Harvest Ticket and one per year? And I would guess the larger the home range for a given predator the less prey available. Small home ranges mean more prey in a given area.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •