Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Proposal to ban dogs

  1. #1
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Kachemak Bay Alaska

    Default Proposal to ban dogs

    Yes some gubber-head is proposing banning digs in the woods. The bad thing is that the game board has already passed a couple other very weird rules, so don;t say you were not warned.

    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 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
    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.
    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)
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member

  2. #2
    Member rimfirematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Eagle River


    So what do we do about the majority of dogs then that are afield? Like hikers and what not? Or is it hunting dogs only that these ticks attach to? What a moron. Now people are going to have to waste their time countering this with such an obvious and elementary counterpoint

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009


    Food for thought on the subject: The BOG can only address dogs as they relate to hunting. All other dogs using the forest, tundra and marshes are not within the scope of their authority. Of course, our Constituion doesn't allow such a small segment of the dog community to be singled out, so the entire mess has no legal ground upon which to stand. But we don't want to get to the point of having to engage in a legal battle. All dog owners should be worried about this sort of action. Additionally, there are no "dog ticks." There are dogs that can pick up ticks that are already in the forest having been left by wildlife of one type or another, but dogs don't have their own ticks. We can also be a carrier of ticks, so I guess we should propose something to the BOG to ban all hunters and fishermen from the wilderness? Stay tuned. Stay alert. Be prepared to submit a carefully written response when the times comes.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts