Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Proposal 69: Prohibit hunting with domestic dogs as follows:

  1. #1

    Default Proposal 69: Prohibit hunting with domestic dogs as follows:

    Here we go again.....

    PROPOSAL 69 - 5 AAC 92.080. Unlawful methods of taking game; exceptions
    . Prohibit hunting with domestic dogs as follows:
    5 AAC 92.080. Unlawful methods of taking game; exceptions.
    The use or accompaniment of domestic dogs is prohibited while hunting. Dogs used as service animals as defined under Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act are exempt if the hunter is in possession of a current official certificate of veterinary inspection for the service dog.
    What is the issue you would like the board to address and why? There is concern that domestic dogs will transmit diseases to Alaska's wildlife populations. The Department of Fish and Game has stated that Alaska's wild game populations are immunologically naive and wildlife disease specialists expect there to be profound impacts of climate change on animal and parasite distributions. Diseases, primarily transmitted through dog ticks, are serious and potentially deadly to Alaska's wildlife populations according to an ADF&G memo dated April 12, 2014. (see http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static species/disease/pdfs/dog_tick_memorandum.pdf)
    ADF&G states that the diseases of concern include Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, tularemia, canine ehrlichiosis, canine babesiosis, Lyme Disease, and Q-fever. Only tularemia and Q-fever are already present in Alaskan wildlife but others could be easily introduced by just a single tick biting an infected pet carrying the infection and passing it on to their next meal. ADF&G along with the Office of the State Veterinarian have detected an increasing incidence of dog ticks that are exotic to Alaska (that is Alaska is not part of the reported geographic range). Other diseases potentially transmitted by canines as identified on ADF&G's website include cystic hydatid disease, alveolar hydatid disease, sarcocystosis, and muscle tapeworm cysts.(see http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...se.diseaselist.)
    ADF&G states that dog ticks are competent vectors of disease (carriers able to transmit disease) and that tick-borne diseases in other animals will follow.
    I propose to prohibit the use of and/or accompaniment of domestic dogs while hunting.
    If this proposal doesn't pass, there will be an increased risk of disease transmission to Alaska's wildlife populations. If disease transmission occurs, it will have substantial economic and aesthetic impact. If this regulation is adopted, it could prevent mass die offs that could eliminate any harvestable surplus of big game and/or small game animal populations. This regulation will help to ensure long term population persistence and allow us to harvest according to the sustained yield principle, as well as enjoy the aesthetic benefits of having healthy Alaskan wildlife.
    60
    As an alternate solution, a health certification program for dogs was considered, but in many cases the specific microorganisms, diseases, and parasites responsible for these disease outbreaks are either undetectable at certain times of the year, or can persist at low levels in dogs, or in some cases parasites can be transmitted through feces. Also, ticks may leave the dog, cling to vegetation, and then through a behavior called "questing" attach themselves to a new host.
    PROPOSED BY: Guy Fulton (EG-C15-036) ************************************************** ****************************

  2. #2

    Default Obviously, ridiculous, but we need to respond

    It goes without saying that this is not going to get very far. That said, there needs to be a very rapid response to this kind of stuff.

    The author of the proposal is not wrong in saying that dogs could be vectors for novel diseases in Alaska. So, too, could humans, cats, birds, insects, etc.

    In terms of the number of dogs being taken into the wilds, hunting dogs are a very small percentage. Mushers, skijorers, runner, mountain bikers - the list is endless. Does the author want to ban those as well? This is, of course, not to mention the ethical and traditional role of hunting dogs for upland and bird hunting, nor of mushing.

    I don't want to look at this personally, but the author obviously is na´ve himself regarding dog ownership in Alaska. This is one fight he stands no chance of winning.

  3. #3
    Member skybust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    alaska
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    This is such BS so the alternative is to let more cripples get away. But I agree we need to come together as hunter a respond to this BS
    Is it opening day of duck season yet
    Member of Alaska Waterfowl Association

  4. #4
    Member Birdstrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by miller View Post
    It goes without saying that this is not going to get very far. That said, there needs to be a very rapid response to this kind of stuff.

    The author of the proposal is not wrong in saying that dogs could be vectors for novel diseases in Alaska. So, too, could humans, cats, birds, insects, etc.

    In terms of the number of dogs being taken into the wilds, hunting dogs are a very small percentage. Mushers, skijorers, runner, mountain bikers - the list is endless. Does the author want to ban those as well? This is, of course, not to mention the ethical and traditional role of hunting dogs for upland and bird hunting, nor of mushing.

    I don't want to look at this personally, but the author obviously is na´ve himself regarding dog ownership in Alaska. This is one fight he stands no chance of winning.
    Well put! My dog is growling after hearing this.

  5. #5
    Member Sapere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    28

    Default

    The fact that the same or similarly worded proposal comes up as frequently as it does is a bit concerning. Miller hit the nail on the head though, well said.

    The Board of Game will meet March 16-17th, 2016 in Fairbanks and comments on the proposal are due by March 4th.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Miller is indeed spot-on. Quite a few of us hunting dog owners are already preparing to stomp this into the tundra, but everyone needs to begin at least working on a well researched and clearly written response to this proposal. When it's time to submit those written responses we will deluge the BOG. I've already made some contact with Alaska Mushers and other dog groups. Clearly this proposal is directed at hunting dogs, but the Constitution precludes singling out just one small group. If somehow this proposal gains any ground it will affect all dog owners in Alaska, and I would think that would also address dogs (and cats) kept in your backyard. Keep an eye on this folks.

  7. #7
    Sponsor Duckhunter01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Anchorage, Trapper Creek, Seward
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    There is always one...
    President of Alaska Waterfowl Assoc.
    http://akwaterfowl.com
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Alask...78020265619952
    AlaskaWaterfowlAssociation@gmail.com
    Gen.1:26
    And God said, let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  8. #8
    Member 3CBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Comments are due today on the Board of Game's website -- http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...ocess.comments

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
  •