Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: When will the hunting community ever get over the 'dangerous idiot' stereotype?

  1. #1
    Member JuliW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,189

    Default When will the hunting community ever get over the 'dangerous idiot' stereotype?

    I know... probably never...

    It sure seems like the BOG bent over (or bowed down) to the anti hunter mentality by deciding against the Kincaid Park moose hunt. (even though they use a different excuse)
    A shame people allow their unfounded fears get the better of them.
    http://www.adn.com/article/20150316/...ska-board-game
    Taxidermy IS art!
    www.alaskawildliferugs.com
    Your mount is more than a trophy, it's a memory. Relive The Memory!

  2. #2
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Default

    The dangerous idiots are out there and it only takes a couple to smear an entire group. In a community filled with condo and Home owners associations will never accept a moose hunt in a ski area. Heck they won't even share the park with horses or bikes.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming-----WOW-----what a ride!
    Unknown author

  3. #3
    Member Ira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    72

    Default

    As the Author of Proposal #150, I will say that this process is not over, just delayed... Department of Law was correct in interpreting that a majority of the ACs did not support my proposal (I was never told to meet with the Palmer or Willow groups...), and so the board acted as they were required to do. I am disappointed in the dept of Law because ADFG already has the authority to release more antlerless moose permits in the Anchorage Managment Area, of which Kincaid is a part and they had hunts in the AMA reauthorized... In talking to the board, I believed that they supported my proposal and wanted to support me in working with the muni.

    I will be exploring that option while I work with the Muni and the new mayor (vote next month!!!) over the coming year. As I proposed this as a public safety issue more than a hunting opportunity, I hope no injuries happen to children. This has been a very mild winter and that can lead to higher moose survival and body condition, which is shown in literature to lead to higher Twinning rates. So there will likely be more moose in the area in the very near future. This will lead to potentially more negative human moose conflicts. ADFG testified yesterday that with the new trail developments, there have been up to 11 human injuries per year during calving season, and that is only the ones they know about. This park is getting more and more use each year. I don't think ANY human injuries are a good and acceptable number, and it is just a matter of time until a kid is one of those numbers...

    Public opinion will change at that point, but I am hoping to get this hunt into place before anything like that happens. There was a tremendous opposition 10 years ago to the hunt on upper campbell creek (DM666). It took serveral years to get passed and then more to get the approval of the park to allow the hunt. I was the or one of the first successful hunters that year, and the press was VERY interested in the hunt. It was conducted safely, and it no longer makes the news.

    I'll keep working on this.

    Ira

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Ira - I think that you need to seriously reconsider presenting this as a public safety issue. Most of us seem to be of the opinion that if moose need to be culled in Anchorage to protect public safety, we should have Fish and Game go cull the moose. I don't support your proposal specifically because I don't support the co-mingling of public safety concerns with "fair chase" ethics and allocation of a highly desirable resource to those with need for special accommodation.

    If this was presented simply as a way to allocate moose hunting opportunity to people who are disabled, I would probably support it in an instant, but I react very negatively to the "it's for the safety of the children" plea in this case. If it's for the safety of the children there are far more effective ways to limit the moose population in Kinkaid than what you are proposing.

    just my 2-cents

  5. #5
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    One need only look at roadside trashed shooting spots and shot up road signs.Gun owners shoot themselfs and hunters for the most part are gun owners.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HikerDan View Post
    Ira - I think that you need to seriously reconsider presenting this as a public safety issue. Most of us seem to be of the opinion that if moose need to be culled in Anchorage to protect public safety, we should have Fish and Game go cull the moose. I don't support your proposal specifically because I don't support the co-mingling of public safety concerns with "fair chase" ethics and allocation of a highly desirable resource to those with need for special accommodation.If this was presented simply as a way to allocate moose hunting opportunity to people who are disabled, I would probably support it in an instant, but I react very negatively to the "it's for the safety of the children" plea in this case. If it's for the safety of the children there are far more effective ways to limit the moose population in Kinkaid than what you are proposing.just my 2-cents
    The thing is, it IS geared as a public safety issue. That was the whole reason for the proposal. This is not much different than the FMA moose hunt. One of the stated intents of that hunt is to reduce the population of moose specifically to reduce vehicle/moose accidents. Do you disagree with that hunt and thing ADF&G should be responsible for handling the moose population instead of a hunt being used? There are times when public safety and resource management comingle, and I strongly believe this is one of them. A lot of people don't see the public safety issues out at Kincaid, however as one who uses the park frequently for athletic events, I see it on a far too frequent occasion. If I were just walking around casually, that would be one thing and I would agree with many that people need to be more careful, but when you look at other activities the park is designed for and specifically caters to, you see the other side of it.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    348

    Default

    This sounds like the perfect job for the AMF. They can round up these extra moose and transplant them where needed. They could probably get 10 moose out of Kincaid for $5 million or so!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    The thing is, it IS geared as a public safety issue. That was the whole reason for the proposal. This is not much different than the FMA moose hunt. One of the stated intents of that hunt is to reduce the population of moose specifically to reduce vehicle/moose accidents. Do you disagree with that hunt and thing ADF&G should be responsible for handling the moose population instead of a hunt being used? There are times when public safety and resource management comingle, and I strongly believe this is one of them. A lot of people don't see the public safety issues out at Kincaid, however as one who uses the park frequently for athletic events, I see it on a far too frequent occasion. If I were just walking around casually, that would be one thing and I would agree with many that people need to be more careful, but when you look at other activities the park is designed for and specifically caters to, you see the other side of it.
    If you are talking about the targeted moose hunts for nuisance moose, you are right that Fish and Game isn't doing the actual harvest. But they are closely managing which moose are killed and when without regard to season. Correct?

    A generalized moose hunt in a small, non-isolated area such as Kincaid isn't going to be nearly as effective as giving ADFG the tools they need to specifically choose moose that they want removed from the park. My point is that if this is about public safety we need to present it in a way that allows pro-active management of a highly localized population. I haven't heard that so far. Also, if this is about public safety we need to have a discussion about whether or not there are plenty of adequately disabled hunters in Anchorage to achieve the culling that is desired.

    I don't want to be insensitive, but this proposal looks to me like an attempt by Ira to have local moose allocated to a very select class of people that includes Ira, and he is using public safety for children as an emotional argument to achieve that allocation. I suspect that this is not actually Ira's motivation, but that's what it looks like and I think that to get any traction he is going to have to address that perception head on.

    I don't know.

  9. #9
    Member Ira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    72

    Default

    HikerDan,

    ADF&G did a scientifically valid survey a few years ago with anchorage residents about living with bears and moose in Anchorage. it showed and OVERWHELMINGLY that people were against a culling program if there was a huntable population. later in the survey, it showed that well over 70% of residents supported a moose hunt in city parks and almost 70% of park users supported a hunt in muni parks.

    10 years ago the city and the state created a joint plan called Living with Wildlife in Anchorage, that came to these same conclusions.

    Public safety IS a concern, and due to the survey and in talking to folks involved, I proposed a hunt versus a culling program. I'll let you go back through the other posts and the BOG papers and AC stuff if you want to find more info vs clogging this page up here...

    I do appreciate your opinion. Agreeing that there is a problem with moose/human interaction in the park is the first step in finding a solution to this issue, even if it's not my solution.

    Ira

    Quote Originally Posted by HikerDan View Post
    Ira - I think that you need to seriously reconsider presenting this as a public safety issue. Most of us seem to be of the opinion that if moose need to be culled in Anchorage to protect public safety, we should have Fish and Game go cull the moose. I don't support your proposal specifically because I don't support the co-mingling of public safety concerns with "fair chase" ethics and allocation of a highly desirable resource to those with need for special accommodation.

    If this was presented simply as a way to allocate moose hunting opportunity to people who are disabled, I would probably support it in an instant, but I react very negatively to the "it's for the safety of the children" plea in this case. If it's for the safety of the children there are far more effective ways to limit the moose population in Kinkaid than what you are proposing.

    just my 2-cents

  10. #10
    Member JuliW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,189

    Default

    Crazy as it may seem, people hunt pretty frequently in urban areas... and apparently do so without killing off the entire community. (of humans, that is)

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/l...sion/16179859/
    http://www.gahanna.gov/police/urbandeerhunting.aspx
    http://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/...ro-communities

    and I also have friends outside who hunt next to a busy park/trail system on their private property. They can literally see hikers from their stands and have had deer they shot (on their property) run to and fall on the hiking trail of the park. They are not the only ones, I am sure, hunting private property within 'spitting distance' of frequented parks.

    The claims of potential hunting accidents are unfounded and based on hyped up 'what if scenarios' - IMO ....At least to the extent that they are common (statistically, they are very very low) ...
    Taxidermy IS art!
    www.alaskawildliferugs.com
    Your mount is more than a trophy, it's a memory. Relive The Memory!

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    144

    Default

    I grew up in Arkansas and was even stationed there for 6 years before moving to AK. There they have urban hunts in such areas as Hot Springs Village (retirement community) and other areas that have deer problems. It's a bow hunt only and those that are chose for the hunt are required to take a mandatory hunting class and qualify to prove their ability with a bow. I would have no issues if something like that for Kincaid Park was put into play here. I know of no accidents in the areas the urban hunts are held in AR. Sure, there are some injured deer every year, but it has cut down on the car/deer collisions in the areas along with damage from the deer destroying property.

  12. #12
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMike View Post
    This sounds like the perfect job for the AMF. They can round up these extra moose and transplant them where needed. They could probably get 10 moose out of Kincaid for $5 million or so!
    They'd need a whole bunch of new specialized equipment tho!!

  13. #13
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Ira gave a great presentation to the Board and indeed because of this law/regulation we have where ACs have veto authority over antlerless hunts, the Board did not have authority to approve this without ACs from that region voting by majority to support it. A tie doesn't cut it ... has to be a majority.

    His proposal did bring out some opposition, their argument mainly being that growing human population and use of the park in conjunction with wild animals (moose in this case) was a human problem, not a moose problem. Therefore, don't kill the moose! I don't think such an argument is all that unreasonable really. Another part of it was "we don't want or need to be protected." "We enjoy seeing moose in Kincaid Park."

    Ira, it's obvious you've put a lot of time into this proposal. Totally respect that and your position. Moose are a lot more dangerous than bears imo, from my personal experience. Meaning, I think we're more likely to be harmed by a moose than a bear, overall. I don't have to tell you that! You can convince the ACs that tend to disagree with cow hunts, using the public safety argument. It's all about whether or not you can convince the city and the public opposition, even with the survey polls in your favor.

    Good luck and thanks for being involved, was very impressed with your testimonies,

  14. #14
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Therefore, don't kill the moose! I don't think such an argument is all that unreasonable really. Another part of it was "we don't want or need to be protected." "We enjoy seeing moose in Kincaid Park."
    If controlling moose numbers isn't the solution............maybe controlling the humans is!! How about drawing permits to use the park? Close the park completely during calving season ( a good 2 months?). Limit the amount of time each person can use the park. Look at how the feds respond to problem bears. Even the state will close areas if a dangerous bear is around.
    There are 2 potential benefits to hunting an animal population that is in conflict with humans. Less animals. Animals learn that human contact is not good and they make more effort to AVOID the humans. People that don't hunt and don't understand predation do not realize the psychological effect predation has on the prey species.
    Maybe hunting would be a more popular idea if park users were controlled, "for their own good"!
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

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
  •