I understand this will be coming up for a vote again and would like to see how people will vote.
I understand this will be coming up for a vote again and would like to see how people will vote.
I am for it, but not for "Kill More WOLVES" as asked in the poll. I am for killing just as many wolves as necessary, and only on specific areas where needed. No more, no less than that. It's a shame that such issue has to come up for a vote. It should be done just like in the Yukon: after scientific evidence supports such action, and by the people we pay to do their job, not because of the public's show of emotions at the poll.
It is ridiculous to manage game populations through the ballot box. The average person isn't qualified to make decisions like this, so emotion ends up ruling the day.
Logically, if you support voting on the issue of wolf control, you are in favor of allowing public opinion to control game management. If that is the case, then to be consistent you must also favor voting on moose and caribou seasons, methods of harvest, etc. There really is no logical difference when you come right down to it. Either game management should be handled by professionals and in as scientific a manner as possible, or it should be based on emotion. How long do you think trapping would last if it came up for a vote? What about bear baiting? What if the vote was federal, and not just statewide? This is the start of a slippery slope. Does anyone really want to see where it ends?
Manage them by aerial hunting, definitely do not eliminate them. We need them in the circle of life if you will. Too bad the greenie-tree-huggin'-leaf-lickers don't realize that that's what's needed and that's what's trying to get done up here. They think we're out to "KILL 'EM ALL".... It's sad really ... I say keep hunting them by airplanes or other legal means until the BIOLOGISTS, (and not the politicians), say it's time to stop or back off... My .02
Poor choice of wording for the questions. For the most part I agree with what has already been said, but I won't be voting.
I could have worded it differently, but the question is still valid you either are for it or against it. I was only trying to see what the majority of people on this forum think.
I am not the one bringing it up for vote. It is coming up for vote for the third time because people from the lower 48 don't understand the problems we are having with the predators in Alaska. The people that wish to ban using this method for predator control are more organized and have more $$$ then we do. Once they win this, I will bet a paycheck that the next stop is bear baiting.
Rayfrom AK, I agree with you only as many as needed and in the right places, but Fish and Game wanted just under 700 wolves taken this past winter and less than 100 were taken. What does this mean? Bottom line is we will have less moose/caribou.
I wasn't asking to kill ALL wolves, I understand that they have a part in the big picture, but I believe we have too many and something needs to be done. A bigger problem is the bears. We have too many of them also and that is what is really doing harm to our moose population. The last attempt by fish and game was a joke also. They went to unlimited black bear in 16. Hunters arenít even taking the 3 we are allowed to take prior to unlimited. It was a total smoke screen to show that they are taking some sort of action, which they are not. Fish and game understands that something needs to be done but either donít have the smarts to do it or they are still more concerned in commercial fishing then taking care of managing game.
Please read the attachment. It is currently being printed and should be out at the of the month. SFW (Sports for Fish and Wildlife) is new to Alaska and you will be hearing their name a lot really soon.
Last edited by tv321; 07-29-2007 at 20:39.
I can't vote in this poll as there aren't enough choices and it seems pretty slanted. Either you are for shooting wolves out of planes, or you're a limp wristed lily-livered panty waist.
Personally, I think if the predators need to be TEMPORARILY controlled there are better ways to do it. I think shooting animals out of a plane sets a bad precedent. Especially if it's done by other than ADF&G employees. Heck, if you can shoot wolves out of a plane, why not bears or moose or sheep or goats or man!, think of the flock shooting you could get in a caribou herd. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And it gives us a black eye with the non hunting public for questionable gain.
What are "the better ways to do it" that you speak of? I don't seem to see the "kill em all from planes" choice that you do. Sure the poll could be worded better, but simply put: are you for or against wolf control when it's needed?
I am not from Ak so I don't know all the foibles and political stuff behind this but...I do know enough about game management (read as predator management) to know that any control program and/or control method that is not based entirely on scientific evidence is a WOFTAM and should not be undertaken.
If the bio's say that (for a figure) 300 wolves need to be removed, than that number should be removed by the most humane and practical method available, that does not impact on other species (as 1080 poisoning has done here and in New Zealand).
il vaut mieux Ítre bon que la chance
I'm another one that strongly opposes the public at large making fish and game management decisions; that should be left strictly for the biologists. Remember what happened when the tree hugging self-proclaimed "enviromentalists" protested the burning of 20 measly acres to get rid of the beetle kill? They could have eliminated the infestation by burning 20 acres!! Now look at it... Where are all the tree huggers now with their brilliant ideas of "conservation" and why aren't they accountable for their stupidity? There's a balance in nature and most of the time things take care of themselves and that includes man as predator.
I've always have voted to support wolf control. I'm glad to see the BOG has initiated more liberal seasons on grizzlies too-I still haven't seen a legal one where I hunt yet!
Sounds familiar to me..............Recently, a prominent Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADFG) official stated in the Anchorage Daily News,
that Alaska’s moose population was at about 140,000 animals,
and that (under ADFG’s management) the number has remained
“stable” for the past ten years. At face value, this might seem
like decent enough management, after all, every consumptive
user wants a “stable” source of game. Unfortunately, there is a
bit more to the story.
To put this matter into perspective, consider that Sweden
(a country at our same latitude, but only a quarter our size) has
maintained a population of 500,000 moose during that same time
period. Even more ironic is that in recent years, Sweden’s moose
harvest (about 150,000 animals annually) often exceeds Alaska’s
entire moose population! By contrast, Alaska’s moose harvest was
only about 6,500 last year. That’s right, 6,500! When considered
on a moose harvested per acre basis, last year Sweden outperformed
Alaska’s moose management by almost 100 fold!
To better understand this disparity, one must first realize that
consumptive use of wildlife is important only when consumptive
users decide that it is. Simply put, the Swedes love their moose
hunting, and thus manage accordingly. By contrast in the USA,
creating and maintaining low-density game populations is ideal
for modern wildlife managers for a variety of reasons. With a
reduced resource, managers have far less expensive field work to
do. Instead, they can focus their budgets and staff on managing
humans (education, outreach programs, focus groups, etc.), rather
than managing game.
The lack that is created by managing game at low densities
creates conflicts between competing consumptive user groups.
This contention is then easily exploited by those in authority.
As long as such conflicts continue to divide consumptive users,
they will continue to focus on competing with one another for the
last moose, and never realize that through proper management,
there can be plenty for all to enjoy. The created “crisis” of too
few wildlife and too many unhappy hunters, then sets the stage
for the astute modern wildlife manager to request more money
to “fix” the problem. These monies can then be focused on the
human dimensions of the problem (e.g., underpaid biologists, lack
of outreach to non-consumptive users, etc.). Yet another ancillary
“benefit” of such “crises” is that they provide the modern wildlife
manager with the rationale to pursue non-consumptive use funding
for things such as “watchable wildlife” programs. And so
the consumptive user’s plight continues to degenerate until the
reduced opportunity and associated frustration cause him to surrender
Ah, was wondering when SFW was gonna try to hit Alaska. Hal Herring had a good piece about SFW recently; it's long but worth the read:
Inre ballot-box biology (which I oppose), in essence we have a sort of ballot-box biology now in how our system of wildlife managment works. We've given more and more control to politicians (who are not biologists) who are swayed by lobbying, contributions, side deals etc. We have no system in place to manage in a steady and scientific fashion over the long term regardless of which party controls the governor's mansion.
The pdf file that tv321 posted...well it's the same thing we heard from Ralph Seekins in the past when he was senator, and I imagine we'll hear a lot more of it from SFW, all this talk about Sweden and how they manage moose, the bs about more game being harvested within 60 miles of Washington D.C. than in all of the state of Alaska. What SFW and their supporters want is to make Alaska a game farm; they'd like to turn every GMU into what we have in 20A on the Tanana Flats, and they are real quick to diss biologists and don't want Fish and Game to have the necessary funding they need and deserve to manage our game...they want to give more power to the legislature and politicians in how we manage, and less to professional biologists. The reason behind that is because what they want to do is not good valid science; it's about maximum sustained yield, which is not in our constitution and which is a poor management strategy for wildlife in Alaska. The SFW goal is irruption densities of ungulates, massive and continual killing of wolves and bears in perpetuity, major crowding of hunters to kill off those irruption densities of ungulates they want to see, etc. They talk about the "good old days" in Alaska, but they don't tell hunters and sportsmen that those "good old days" were caused by the federal predator reduction program before Alaska was a state in which our govt. spent a dozen years dropping untold thousands of cyanide-laced baits from the air that killed not only bears and wolves but ravens, eagles, wolverine, marten etc, and we had denning and aerial gunning too. The result of this attempted eradication of predators was irruption densities of ungulates that overbrowsed their range and died off from deep snows and starvation. The good old days weren't really all that good for the overall ecosystem of Alaska.
Predator management is necessary. Just as wildlife management is necessary. But the decisions about when and where to attempt predator control programs, and how much control we do, must be based on sound biological science and the opinions of seasoned area biologists, NOT on the demands of some hunters or groups, and NOT because of the influence of politicians and big money. Yes, some biologists are biased, but for the most part the biologists I know and talk with care first and foremost about the overall resource, and sustaining that resource for future generations. I want to see them have more authority in the decision-making process, not less. We are continually taking that authority away from the Department, and we are moving more and more toward a system of ballot-box management by proxy (i.e. you vote for a legislator or governor who decides he or she is a biologist and is able to make good decisions on something they know little about).
Very good points Bushrat. Overbrousing is one of the main reasons the Nelchina caribou herd is maintained at 35-40 thousand. If there is not enough food supply the numbers will crash alot faster than they can be rejuvinated.
How about another poll. Here's one vote for more power to the bios.
Kill more wolves!
Send the Environmental Animal Activist Waco Terrorist back to the L48!
1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
I was labeled as a "tree hugging hippie" because I opposed the road extension to Juneau. The guy who so branded me, has since left. He wanted the road so bad that he'd fight and call names, but, he didn't want to remain in Juneau.
Emotionalism is a great tool when logic is the dominant factor. The reality is that he might have gotten his road, but, he'd have still left.
I said all of that to say this; My grandfather killed over 3,000 wolves in Alaska ON THE CLOCK. That was his job. Yet, he told me in confidence that he would "be the last person on earth to want to see the last wolf die."
This "poll" sucked. No options available for science. No options available for regions. No options available for effected game species.
I didn't vote, and, I take exception to the idea that more dead wolves in Juneau translates into more caribou in Glennallen.
A few years ago we tried to stop the ballot box management of our wildlife. But it failed at the ballot box. Either the animal rights actavist are too strong, or the consumptive users are too complacent. I personally would like to see F&G being the sole determining force on preditor control, the way it is in most states. When was the last time you went hunting for wolves?
Bushrat: The poisoning ended, and the next step in the early 1900's was for F&G to hire people to kills predators. One of such folks was Frank Glaser (I hope I didn't misspelled his last name). Frank owned the Black Rapids Roadhouse, and then worked for F&G killing wolves. He also killed wolves around the AK Native reindeer herds, as well as some areas near Healy. There were a few other folks killing wolves in the interior of AK, but Frank was very successful. He participated in aerial hunts, too, but preferred to hunt on land since he considered air hunting very dangerous. A Native guy I knew years ago (he was my supervisor at work), participated numerous times in the aerial hunts for F&G. He passed away five or six years ago.