Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Anti-Hunting Ballot Measure 2

  1. #1

    Default Anti-Hunting Ballot Measure 2

    I would think that most people who view the Alaska Outdoors Directory are truly big game hunters. Also I would think that most people who hunt in Alaska would prefer that predator/prey management regulations be made by Alaska's Board of Game through what is by far the most open to the public wildlife management process in the world. (Unfortunately because the process is so open it does draw allot of attention from national and local Anti-hunting and trapping zealots)


    The Board of Game and the near 80 statewide Fish & Game Advisory Committees, with their 15 members elected from their local communities, plus all the hunting organizations and individuals who participate in the Boards process are having their interests mitigated each time the Anti's get another wildlife initiative on the ballot for statewide elections.
    Unless the state can get the current Ballot Measure 2 knocked off the primary ballot this next August 26th we will be voting whether to ban aircraft assisted predator control yet again.

    Aircraft assisted predator reduction is the most effective tool that wildlife managers have. It targets the predators who are causing declines in numbers of moose, caribou, Dall sheep, Mt. goats, and now muskox populations.

    When prey populations are below what is necessary to meet subsistence needs non-resident hunters are the first to get cut, it's already happening over much of Alaska. Therefore non-resident hunters should be the first to step up to the plate and help defeat these anti-hunting ballot measures. Since non-residents can't vote in state elections their only way to help is by countering the $100,000s of advertising dollars coming into Alaska to influence Alaska voters to vote for the ban.


    Alaskans and non-resident hunters alike can help defeat the current anti-hunting ballot measure by supporting the Alaskans for Professional Wildlife Management (APWM). Information on APWMs efforts and how you can lend your support to defeat the Ballot Measure 2 can be found at:

    www.protectmoose.com/join.php .



    Once you have signed yourself up, please pass this information to everyone you know. An overwhelming show of support will be very helpful in this campaign.

  2. #2

    Default By default you appear quite transparent

    And I am sure the Anti's you speak of read this stuff too.

    IF you want to build support; get your priorities straight.

    Residents are fed up with the commercial interest stealing the resources and handicapping management; causing more and more restrictions and limits on resident hunting opportunity.

    MANY NONresidents are fed up with the guide industry too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    I would think that most people who view the Alaska Outdoors Directory are truly big game hunters.
    I would think that most people who read/post on AOD recognize that you don't post anything that the commercial hunting interest is not in favor of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    Also I would think that most people who hunt in Alaska would prefer that predator/prey management regulations be made by Alaska's Board of Game through what is by far the most open to the public wildlife management process in the world.
    Lets not forget that most resident hunters don't trust the Board of Guides.

    Now; lets see. It was the Board of Guides [that is what MOST people recognize the BOG to 'stand' for] who bowed to the commercial interest and denied residents the two day Sheep season.

    IF I am not mistaken it is the BOGuides along with the Alaska Professional Hunters who are pressing the Department of Natural Resources to carve out huge exclusive guide areas with guaranteed tags. So, the guides will have guaranteed tags to sell to nonresidents while residents can only hope to draw. Most guides I talk to know nothing about this back room deal for a few exclusive use competitive bid areas and those that do don't believe APHA is looking out for all the guides; only a few.

    Ohh; it is the BOGuides who sit through meetings for years while loss of opportunity and restrictions are put on resident hunters; never adopting any proposals that limit the expansion of the commercial hunting interest. Never weighing in against the broadening of regulations at the Big Guides Commercial Services Board that have no other impact or intent but to take more and [to take it faster too] of what resource there is left.

    And yah; lets not even debate how the commercial interest negatively impacts management...because the commercial interest still favors killing bears, as long as nonresidents must be guided. Wring hands

    And I could go on with what the Board of Guides has contributed to our problems today but that is not the point your making is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    (Unfortunately because the process is so open it does draw allot of attention from national and local Anti-hunting and trapping zealots)
    You have not seen attention like the RESIDENTS could bring on AOC, APHA, SWF-A the administration and the department IF the Board of Guides does not recognize that the resource belongs to ALL Alaskans first. And SECONDLY;when it comes to ALLOCATION, RESIDENT HUNTERS, those without a commercial interest in taking the resource MUST always be on first. Only when their is a surplus; which there is PRECIOUS LITTLE OF TODAY, and only then can the BOG consider the commercial interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    The Board of Game and the near 80 statewide Fish & Game Advisory Committees, with their 15 members elected from their local communities, plus all the hunting organizations and individuals who participate in the Boards process are having their interests mitigated each time the Anti's get another wildlife initiative on the ballot for statewide elections.
    Yah; well, most of the A/C's are headed up by local guides. And a local A/C does not "think" globally. So while the process might be a good one, and open, it is the BOGuides who are most definitely dropping the ball. It is their job to think rationally about the Statewide impact the commercial hunting interest has on OUR resources but they have failed to do so. Even when many, many, individual A/C's have asked for limits.

    I'm telling you as plainly as possible. The anti's are taking things into their own hands because we have done NOTHING to limit the commercial impact on the resource AND that has a negative impact on management. They may be right to take the initiative.

    These initiatives get support generated from groups like AOC, APHA, SFW-A because they see these organizations like the rest of us do as having one goal; building a larger unsustainable industry at the expense of wildlife, proper management and the collective owners and non-commercial users of the publics resources.

    AOC, APHA, SFW-A are as much anti as the anti's themselves. Resident and nonresident hunters are caught in the middle and the commercial interest and THE BULL SYSTEM could give a rip about about resident hunters or nonresident hunters.

    We would not be having this problem today if it were not for the greed and disrespect the commercial interest shows to the OWNERS of the resource and the way in which they have corrupted organizations and influenced A/Cs, administrations and the legislature.

    From the A/C's to the legislature the system is controlled by the commercial interests that steal the public resource and never have been, and never will be, willing to stand down in the name of conservation OR pay for what they take. These initiatives would not get the traction they have with out people who think like you do Rod.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    Unless the state can get the current Ballot Measure 2 knocked off the primary ballot this next August 26th we will be voting whether to ban aircraft assisted predator control yet again.
    Thats the least of my worries. Unless the Department and the Administration get their act together and reign in the commercial interest; it wont matter how many bears and wolves are killed OR NOT killed.

    You really believe the anit's and resident and nonresident hunters don't know this stuff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    Aircraft assisted predator reduction is the most effective tool that wildlife managers have. It targets the predators who are causing declines in numbers of moose, caribou, Dall sheep, Mt. goats, and now muskox populations.
    What's wrong with controlling (LIMITING) the commercial interests and repealing the nonresident must be guided for bears regulations?

    Beside that:
    What do you OR PROTECT MOOSE CLUB care about sheep and goats anyway? AOC, APHA and SFW-A ALL SUPPORTED LEAVING THESE ANIMALS OUT OF THE WILDLIFE ASSETS BILL AND THE INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT BILL.

    Give me a break Dude.

    Have not seen you back on the 'more moose' thread.Whats the matter. Not getting the support your looking for? Ever wonder why? The tide is changing my friend. That's what happens when you support stealing, oppression and the degradation of a resource for profit at the expense of hunters BOTH RESIDENT and NONresident's. Nothing lasts forever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    When prey populations are below what is necessary to meet subsistence needs non-resident hunters are the first to get cut, it's already happening over much of Alaska.
    You think nonresident hunters don't know this stuff too?

    In the last 35 years the commercial industry did NOTHING BUT contribute to the problems we have today.

    The industry has all but eliminated legitimate charters operators. There are only a few who will take residents and nonresidents anywhere they want to go for fear of stepping on a guides territory.

    I doubt that your going to get a lot of support from Nonresdents who understand what has happening in Alaska. You already get the brainwashed and the filthy rich but you wont get any more 'real hunters' [be they residents of nonresidents] feeling sorry for the commercial industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    Therefore non-resident hunters should be the first to step up to the plate and help defeat these anti-hunting ballot measures. Since non-residents can't vote in state elections their only way to help is by countering the $100,000s of advertising dollars coming into Alaska to influence Alaska voters to vote for the ban.
    Well MAYBE you might get some help if you were advocating to do away with the must be guided to hunt bears. If you did away with the Special conditions on the Kodiak draws you might even find some residents getting on board, and if you promised to NEVER accept another single restricted or limited season or bag limit WITHOUT wholly removing the commercial pressure from that unit you might even get some more people.

    But; it would be quite a risk for you to advocate for THOSE kinds of changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    Alaskans and non-resident hunters alike can help defeat the current anti-hunting ballot measure by supporting the Alaskans for Professional Wildlife Management (APWM).
    This outfit does not support using all the tools. ONLY the ones that the commercial industry supports; IT'S JUST ANOTHER ANTI GROUP OF A DIFFERENT COLOR.

    Professional...give me a break DUDE!

    AND PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ANYONE CONSIDERING CHIPPING IN TO ANOTHER GROUP THAT IS ONLY A FRONT FOR THE COMMERCIAL HUNTING INTEREST.


  3. #3

    Default

    Why would you want to subvert the will of the people, Rod?

    If your position is truly the correct one then I'm sure you have nothing to worry about

  4. #4
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Rod - Since you're encouraging folks to sign up for the advocacy group, I assume you're associated with them. Perhaps you can answer a question I had about their site. On the "How Predator Control Works" link, it states these two things:

    "-If there is a significant decline in the number moose and caribou in a certain area, ADF&G will try to increase these populations by improving habitat, reducing hunting quotas, or relaxing restrictions on trapping or hunting of predators


    -Predator control programs are only implemented after the above options have been exhausted"


    In units 13 and 16, how exactly has the state worked to improve habitat? They haven't done controlled burns to my knowledge, so is there something else that I'm missing? The site states that predator control will only be implemented after the above options have been exhausted, but that doesn't seem to be the case. A minor point, I know, but you're asking folks to donate funds to an org that seems to have at least a somewhat false statement as one of their leading points.

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    By the way, I'll almost always vote against initiatives such as these because I don't think ballot box biology is a prudent management approach, but I am often disappointed by the fact that pro-hunting groups often muddy the issue as well.

  6. #6
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Rod - Since you're encouraging folks to sign up for the advocacy group, I assume you're associated with them. Perhaps you can answer a question I had about their site. On the "How Predator Control Works" link, it states these two things:

    "-If there is a significant decline in the number moose and caribou in a certain area, ADF&G will try to increase these populations by improving habitat, reducing hunting quotas, or relaxing restrictions on trapping or hunting of predators


    -Predator control programs are only implemented after the above options have been exhausted"

    In units 13 and 16, how exactly has the state worked to improve habitat? They haven't done controlled burns to my knowledge, so is there something else that I'm missing? The site states that predator control will only be implemented after the above options have been exhausted, but that doesn't seem to be the case. A minor point, I know, but you're asking folks to donate funds to an org that seems to have at least a somewhat false statement as one of their leading points.
    I don't mean to answer for Mr. Arno but I know they have been doing prescribed burns in 13 for several years in fact I had a sheep hunt ruined by one that got away from them.

    In unit 16 there has been a lot of clear cuts to create habitat and feed the Mat-Su port with birch chips.

    They probably aren't ADF&G but it is the State of AK.
    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

  7. #7

    Default

    Why would you want to subvert the will of the people, Rod?
    How is campaigning for or against a ballot measure going against the will of the people? By the way who was behind measure in the first place?
    Chuck

  8. #8
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jkb View Post
    I don't mean to answer for Mr. Arno but I know they have been doing prescribed burns in 13 for several years in fact I had a sheep hunt ruined by one that got away from them.

    In unit 16 there has been a lot of clear cuts to create habitat and feed the Mat-Su port with birch chips.

    They probably aren't ADF&G but it is the State of AK.
    Thanks for the info, jkb. It's only 6:30 and I've already learned something new today.

  9. #9
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    I agree with Mr. Arno. We have a reasonable wildlife management system in this state. Much more representative and accessible than any others. Bypassing that system with ballot iniatives only serves those who seek to profit from the iniative.
    Last edited by Brian M; 05-12-2008 at 17:14. Reason: referenced deleted material
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  10. #10
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Rod - Since you're encouraging folks to sign up for the advocacy group, I assume you're associated with them. Perhaps you can answer a question I had about their site. On the "How Predator Control Works" link, it states these two things:

    "-If there is a significant decline in the number moose and caribou in a certain area, ADF&G will try to increase these populations by improving habitat, reducing hunting quotas, or relaxing restrictions on trapping or hunting of predators


    -Predator control programs are only implemented after the above options have been exhausted"


    In units 13 and 16, how exactly has the state worked to improve habitat?. They haven't done controlled burns to my knowledge, so is there something else that I'm missing?...
    Obviously, you're missing the controlled burns; the Alphabet Hills Burn, for one.

  11. #11
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    By the way, I'll almost always vote against initiatives such as these because I don't think ballot box biology is a prudent management approach, but I am often disappointed by the fact that pro-hunting groups often muddy the issue as well.
    Sure beats the anti-hunting groups doing the same to the other extreme.

    I'll vote for the pro-hunting side each and every time simply because they're the pro-hunting side of the equation (seems rather elementary to me, but then, I must be the dumbest bunny in the woods, because I'm understanding less and less in today's world with each passing day.....................)

  12. #12
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Yep, I was missing the Alphabet Hills burn, Mark. Thanks for pointing that out. I would still say that we are far from having "exhausted" all habitat improvement options, though.

    I'll almost always vote in favor of the pro-hunting side as well, as I pointed out above. I just think that we need to be above reproach in our advocacy efforts.

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    ....I just think that we need to be above reproach in our advocacy efforts.
    Above reproach isn't good enough when dealing with extremists.

    Habitat improvements and predator management are just two tools in overall game management, but the kooks simply won't go along with the predator management side, and often don't go along with habitat improvements, either (planned logging, planned burns, etc).

    Playing games with such people is a prescription for a loss of management tools.

  14. #14
    Member Riptide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    88

    Default Missing the point alltogether

    Aerial predator control is a policy issue, not a biology issue. There are many ways to control predators without aerial gunning by the few who are wealthy enough to own a plane.

    Policy issues should be by vote of the people. And the people have voted - TWICE!

    In unit 16, which I personally have allot of experience in, the expanding road system for the natural gas industry and Tyonek's logging operations have allowed access to the moose population on an unprecedented scale. My impression of theTyonek natives is that they feel all moose are theirs and have harvested those moose for every potlach or birthday or simply because they saw it for many years now. There has been a complete lack of enforcement in the region, especially on Tyonek private property, which allows unregulated harvest of the moose population.

    Add to the soup the rather well to do Beluga population of retirees, anchorage weekend warriors with land/cabins etc who often, by the way, own quite an impressive array of off road vehicles from ATV's to military track vehicles of the most advanced type and the the simple fact is that from what I've seen the moose have been decimated by hunters, not the bears.

    Another disapointing aspect of the Board of Game's assertion that they always use science is that they never did an actual bear populatoin estimate in Unit 16. The ADF&G just used data from other areas of the state and assumed with habitat similarities and "estimated" the bear population would be the same in Unit 16. What a joke. One of the most drastic wildlife management techniques and we can't even get an actual bear estimate in Unit 16 itself before we open up hunting for cubs and sows. - along with selling the hides.

    I'm sure many of the anti's have realized all they need to do is legally go and shoot a few cubs and then sell them on a park strip street corner and BOOM - BY BY HUNTERS

  15. #15

    Default Forum Administrator or Leader of the Naysayers?

    APWM seemed to have a false statement?

    Brian M. get off your high horse and attend a few BOG meetings regarding predator/prey management in GMU 13 and 16. Moose habitat improvement programs and discussions by the BOG, ADF&G, DNR, the public, and federal land managers have been part of the process in GMU 13 and 16 for decades. Go check out the public record then send your check in to APWM.

  16. #16
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post
    Brian M. get off your high horse and attend a few BOG meetings regarding predator/prey management in GMU 13 and 16. Moose habitat improvement programs and discussions by the BOG, ADF&G, DNR, the public, and federal land managers have been part of the process in GMU 13 and 16 for decades. Go check out the public record then send your check in to APWM.
    My high horse? I asked you some questions. As the public voice of one of Alaska's leading outdoors groups, I figured you would be willing to answer them. I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply asked some honest questions, and in fact pointed out that I learned something when another member shared some info with me.

  17. #17
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    My high horse? I asked you some questions. As the public voice of one of Alaska's leading outdoors groups, I figured you would be willing to answer them. I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply asked some honest questions, and in fact pointed out that I learned something when another member shared some info with me.
    This is exactly why I keep asking what exactly we NEED in a true state advocacy group for Alaskan RESIDENT sportsmen! The opportunity to present an honest stance on an issue in front of 4,372 current active AODD members and the numerous guests to this forum (which average a 2-1 ratio on any given day) and the response from the Executive Director of the Alaska Outdoor Council is a personal attack!! Yeah showing your true collors in front of as many as 12,000 potential voters....Brilliant!

  18. #18
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
    ......Another disapointing aspect of the Board of Game's assertion that they always use science is that they never did an actual bear populatoin estimate in Unit 16. The ADF&G just used data from other areas of the state and assumed with habitat similarities and "estimated" the bear population would be the same in Unit 16. What a joke. One of the most drastic wildlife management techniques and we can't even get an actual bear estimate in Unit 16 itself before we open up hunting for cubs and sows. - along with selling the hides......
    That is very true, but counting black bears is notoriously difficult. Any of the black bear management reports detail that fact.

    This study was a significant effort, but it was on an island (controlled population, and a significantly smaller area than GMU 16), and it was a "pilot study". A first.

    From the summary of the study:

    ....Studies to evaluate the population size of black bears have not been conducted in Southeast Alaska, where black bear harvest has increased at about 10% annually over the past decade. Hunting pressure has increased to the point where local hunters and big game guides are concerned about declines in the number of bears on Kuiu Island. Since estimating the population size of bears in forested habitats is notoriously difficult, we have used this 1 year pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of novel population estimation techniques along with testing the assumptions of these methods......

  19. #19
    Member Riptide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    88

    Default Arno's True Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Arno View Post

    Brian M. get off your high horse and attend a few BOG meetings regarding predator/prey management in GMU 13 and 16.
    I have to admitt Rod, you disapoint me more everyday. When I first started attending BOG meeting about 7 years ago you actually impressed me with your ability to be effective. I did not agree with much you had to say, but I had quite a bit of respect for your ability to not run off into the weeds with your testimony, back then anyway, and too actually BE EFFECTIVE.

    Unfortunately you've become the radical puppet of the right wing good ol boy club over the years, especially this year. Too many losses in the last legislative session must have pushed you over the edge. I did watch and learn how you play the game and I'm enjoying delivering some of those same techniques back to you on a "democratic" platter. Your getting easy to pick apart nowdays. The AOC and the SFW are sloppy these days too.

    Local Alaska hunters have finally seen through the BS and you are on the run! SFW is subsidizing hunts on Tyonek private property and the last two forums I've read you've abused participants that have simply asked very informed questions regarding your statements. You've had to turn tail and hide both times. Unfortunately, you had to play the little bully and insult those other members of the forum on your way out the back door.

    I for one hope you stay in your shell and leave the informed open discussions to the "real" alaska hunters.

    As for the BOG and the process - do you remember in 2004 when the ADF&G testified to the BOG that they did not support the predator control programs that the BOG was trying to initiate. The ADF&G stated they did not have the scientific data to support the assumption that wolves were the problem for low moose numbers or if downsizing the wolf population would even be effective. Do you remember ARNO?

    The BOG overode the recomendation of the ADF&G and intitiated the predator programs anyway ~~ Maybe Rod Arno Science and the BOG's overwhelming knowledge is only 'convienient" science - not the real thing?

    Adios Ron ~~~

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
    ......Unfortunately you've become the radical puppet of the right wing good ol boy club over the years....
    Interesting.

    Can you name any other "members" of this "club"?

    I'm completely in the dark here, and I'm continually described by many as a "right winger".

    .....I did watch and learn how you play the game and I'm enjoying delivering some of those same techniques back to you on a "democratic" platter.....
    More interesting stuff.

    Can you give us some more detail regarding this "democratic" platter?

    .....SFW is subsidizing hunts on Tyonek private property....
    Says who?

    Got some evidence of that?

    The chief executive of the Tyonek Native Corp. doesn't seem to have a problem with SFW:

    .....Though the unit -- laden with swampy land that is expensive to access -- is not a popular sport-hunting destination, its moose are an important subsistence harvest for Bush Alaskans, said Tom Harris, chief executive of the Tyonek Native Corp.

    "We're down to some of the lowest moose populations on record," Harris said. "We have an out-of-control predation issue. It's easy to blame another human being, but it's difficult to blame a cuddly bear
    ."
    But I note that opposition was predictably there from our beloved Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers:

    ......Dave Lyon, co-chairman of Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a nonprofit that promotes ethical hunting practices, said his group is not opposed to predator control when it is necessary, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this unit, where the black bear numbers appear inflated.

    SFW going out and "killing everything with pointy teeth" will only result in bad publicity for hunters in general, he said.

    "They want to game farm, and pretty much they have one song they sing, and it's predator control," he said. "We don't believe that just so hunters can go kill more moose is a good reason to go kill a bunch of bears.".....
    Actually, this thread is a perfect snapshot of the problem; Alaskans cutting each other's throats.

    We've made an intricate science out of it. We're fractured so completely we can't do anything right anymore.

    We're killing each other, and that appears to be just fine for just about all involved..................as long as each individual thinks he's "winning".

    Disgusting...............

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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
  •