Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Ak Hunting News: ADFG Weighs In on Katmai Bear Hunts Question

  1. #1

    Arrow Ak Hunting News: ADFG Weighs In on Katmai Bear Hunts Question

    This news clip is from Alaska Hunting News. Discussion is welcome. This news feed is robot generated.

    The Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation has produced online information about the brown bear hunts in Katmai National Preserve as a result of substantial attention to this in the media in recent weeks.

    The ADFG information points out that bear populations in the area are carefully monitored and are healthy. The agency says a conservative harvest strategy in the area has resulted in high numbers of bears that area used by both viewers and hunters.

    The agency information page also discussed fair chase and whether these human habituated bears have been taken in an ethical manner.


    We welcome news tips that are useful to the community. Please send tips and links to complete stories by email to webmaster@outdoorsdirectory.com.

  2. #2
    Member SoggyMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bait Station, Alaska 99801
    Posts
    861

    Default

    And, the final paragraph?

    "Defining ethics and fair chase is challenging as perspectives vary among individuals, even within groups sharing common interests. Recently, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, a group of resource agency leaders, met to define fair chase and consider related resolutions. The effort ended in impasse because the opinions of individuals were too varied to allow consensus. The issue was deemed to be more divisive than constructive."

    So, even within the Department and in the AFWA there is division right?

    This is not a feather in the cap of the antis as much as it is a thorn in the side of someone who hunts for less than $12,000.00 for a hide.

    As for harvesting based on percentages only works with math. It does not work with nature.

    6% is reasonble when the numbers are normal, or, high right? What if the numbers are low?

    The lesson here is of death. Is it okay to kill 99% sow within the 6%?

    Is it okay to kill 99% sub trophy within the 6%?

    I want real numbers. Not the general "healthy population" before forming opinons about the percentages.
    "...just because we didn't agree with you doesn't mean we didn't have good discussion. It just means you missed it." -JMG-

  3. #3
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoggyMountain View Post
    And, the final paragraph?

    "Defining ethics and fair chase is challenging as perspectives vary among individuals, even within groups sharing common interests. Recently, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, a group of resource agency leaders, met to define fair chase and consider related resolutions. The effort ended in impasse because the opinions of individuals were too varied to allow consensus. The issue was deemed to be more divisive than constructive."

    So, even within the Department and in the AFWA there is division right?

    This is not a feather in the cap of the antis as much as it is a thorn in the side of someone who hunts for less than $12,000.00 for a hide.....
    Yes, there is division, but are you ignoring the last words of the statement?:

    ....The issue was deemed to be more divisive than constructive.
    So, perhaps the biology rather than the emotion should prevail?

    ....As for harvesting based on percentages only works with math. It does not work with nature.

    6% is reasonble when the numbers are normal, or, high right? What if the numbers are low?...
    Oh. I see.

    Even the biology can be picked at when the desire of "being right" (or appearing to be right) is the real issue.

    BTW, the number aren't "normal". As has been repeatedly pointed out, the area has some of the highest brown bear densities on Earth, and the harvest level is well below average.

    ....The lesson here is of death. Is it okay to kill 99% sow within the 6%?...
    Is it okay to kill 100% of the hunting on emotion rather than sound science?

    ....Is it okay to kill 99% sub trophy within the 6%?....
    Is is okay to kill the hunting culture on the basis of emotion?

    ....I want real numbers. Not the general "healthy population" before forming opinons about the percentages.
    For some strange reason, I don't think "real numbers" is what you really want.

  4. #4
    Member SoggyMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bait Station, Alaska 99801
    Posts
    861

    Default

    For some strange reason I wanted to point out that even among the biologists, there is a division on the issue...

    Hopefully they accept their differences without trying to brand eachother as "elitist" or "anti."

    But, some of you can't accept that there is any opinion beyond your own, and, in the end, to make your point, you heat up the branding iron. Which only creates more distance between two hunters.

    Anyone that wants to unify hunters, should attempt to do so on less controversial issues.
    "...just because we didn't agree with you doesn't mean we didn't have good discussion. It just means you missed it." -JMG-

  5. #5
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoggyMountain View Post
    For some strange reason I wanted to point out that even among the biologists, there is a division on the issue...
    And I agree that is the case.

    I also wanted to point out that the department recognizes that:

    ....The issue was deemed to be more divisive than constructive.
    What do you think of that statement?

    .....Hopefully they accept their differences without trying to brand eachother as "elitist" or "anti."...
    Don't bet on it. ADFG personnel are human, too.

    What they have done (Thank the Almighty God) is kept that stuff behind closed doors. It won't be able to be used/enjoyed by "the enemy".

    ...But, some of you can't accept that there is any opinion beyond your own, and, in the end, to make your point, you heat up the branding iron. Which only creates more distance between two hunters....
    Believe it or not, this isn't about "making points" nor is it "between two hunters". For some of us this is about saving the hunting culture from those who wish to shut it down.

    ....Anyone that wants to unify hunters, should attempt to do so on less controversial issues.
    No "talking religion or politics" type of concession?

    Everything falls under religion or politics. Avoiding controversial issues is surrender.

    No, thanks.

  6. #6
    Member SoggyMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bait Station, Alaska 99801
    Posts
    861

    Default

    I think MY point here is that YOU see the world as "us vs. them." Yet, some of us are neither you nor them.

    We have OUR opinions, based on OUR experiences which WE can compare to YOURS or THEIRS anytime.

    We are neither anti, nor are we pro regardless of circumstance. But, if it is necessary for you to believe that there is only two opinions on the issue, then, I'll side with the antis and the elitists so that you can sleep tonight.

    Makes me wonder how hot your barrel would have been when there were only 1,000 buffalo left out of the millions? God forbid any hunter should speak out against killing those animals!
    "...just because we didn't agree with you doesn't mean we didn't have good discussion. It just means you missed it." -JMG-

  7. #7
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoggyMountain View Post
    I think MY point here is that YOU see the world as "us vs. them." Yet, some of us are neither you nor them.

    We have OUR opinions, based on OUR experiences which WE can compare to YOURS or THEIRS anytime....
    It isn't "us vs. them", but you have an OUR and WE?

    Pray tell, just who is this OUR and WE, and why aren't they "us" or "them"?

    And where does the videotaped hunter fall in? Is he a WE, THEM, or does he even exist?

    Does his opinion count? After all, he's the guy in the video. If so, is it equal to YOURS? Since he's so "unethical" or "repugnant", perhaps he shouldn't have an opinion? Or perhaps he should simply fall in with YOUR opinion/ethics because YOU know what's best for HIM and everybody else who might want to hunt brown bear?

    ....We are neither anti, nor are we pro regardless of circumstance....
    So you are indifferent regarding brown bear hunting in Katmai National Preserve? After all this input, you're indifferent?

    That in itself is amazing.

    .....But, if it is necessary for you to believe that there is only two opinions on the issue, then, I'll side with the antis and the elitists so that you can sleep tonight....
    It's obvious that there are several opinions on the issue, you first claim indifference, now you side with the antis and the elitists.

    Thanks. That clears everything up.

    ....Makes me wonder how hot your barrel would have been when there were only 1,000 buffalo left out of the millions?....
    I eat a lot, but not that much.

    ....God forbid any hunter should speak out against killing those animals!
    Now bison shouldn't be killed?

    Darn. I was looking at a great bison hunting opportunity. Cheap. Easy.

    I won't bother to inform you of it. You obviously wouldn't be interested.

  8. #8
    Member SoggyMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bait Station, Alaska 99801
    Posts
    861

    Default

    Mark, it's obvious that you want to twist and turn the conversation until at long last guys like me will refuse to respond to you because it is always pointless.

    You do not read what is said, nor do you accept any opinion other than your own, and, because of that, everything has to be a fight rather than a discussion.

    So, as I have done so many times, because of you, I will say that I am done with this thread since I have already said what I had to say.... I'll leave you here to play Cross Examiner with the next person who has a similar opinion to mine.
    "...just because we didn't agree with you doesn't mean we didn't have good discussion. It just means you missed it." -JMG-

  9. #9
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoggyMountain View Post
    Mark, it's obvious that you want to twist and turn the conversation until at long last guys like me will refuse to respond to you because it is always pointless....
    Lots of questions, no answers, and you call it "twisting and turning". Yes, it certainly appears pointless, except, of course, for that clear and all-important statement:

    ....I think MY point here is that YOU see the world as "us vs. them....
    That's the "point": Your point.

    I think an attempt to answer this question of mine might have led somewhere:

    ....The issue was deemed to be more divisive than constructive.
    What do you think of that statement?
    But you didn't answer. You were focused on your "point".

    ....You do not read what is said, nor do you accept any opinion other than your own, and, because of that, everything has to be a fight rather than a discussion....
    I read everything that is written. I even quote those words so there can be no mistake regarding what I'm addressing.

    People who forget what they write, want to forget what they write, or twist and turn what they write tend to dislike being quoted.

    But there it is. Irrefutable.

    ....So, as I have done so many times, because of you, I will say that I am done with this thread since I have already said what I had to say....
    I'm often pointed out as being the one who is the root of the world's problems.

    Dripping with sin, I tell ya'...............

    ....I'll leave you here to play Cross Examiner with the next person who has a similar opinion to mine.
    Okay. Thanks.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    257

    Default

    This one hits close to home for me as I hunted the preserve just north of all the hoopla this year. I also spent about 3 hours talkin with a biologist in King Salmon after the hunt and we discussed this very issue and many others at great length. He explained to me managing bears is more art than science. That's not meant to imply they don't use science. It's just that there are lots of variables in managing these critters and the biologists attempt to manage the resource based on the information and funding they have available. Make no mistake, budget cuts and political pressure do influence wildlife management in Alaska but that's part of the overall management process. Something we are forced to live with.

    Whether we hunt them, photograph them, or simply watch them in Disney movies, the bears deserve the best management we can muster. It's unfortunate this has become a political issue which may ultimately result in the loss of hunting privileges in the Katmai preserve. IMHO, that will be a greater loss for the bears than it will be for the hunters.

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
  •