Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Why should I vote No on Prop 2

  1. #1

    Default Why should I vote No on Prop 2

    Guy's I'm undecided on which way to vote on this. The way I see it is; if they have to use airplanes to kill the predators it must be in a remote area. Since the state has not done anything to increase access to these areas, and generally tried to stop access by most means like ATVs or additional roads, it seams like it would be smart to just let nature take care of the problem and keep man out of it.

    For those who want to take the time to get back there it would be a true wilderness experience.

    Before I get labled as the "Greenie" be addvised, I'm not. I am a 20 military vet, NRA member, and occasional hunter (not avid). It's just here in Alaska the access has been so difficult, I really haven't had the time or desire to get out. So I really don't have an opinion on the prop 2 measure.

  2. #2
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    If we aren't part of nature, Rick, where did we come from? How is our participation in the woods and wild places different than any other animals participation?
    If you don't have a strong opinion, or an educated one, don't vote on that issue.
    Maybe some day you will access the back country. Do you want good numbers of game to hunt?
    Vote no.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  3. #3

    Default

    I'm glad the moderator moved this over here. I didn't realize the section was here. I was just trying to get informed before I go and vote. Since I don't have an opinion, maybe not voting is the best answer.

  4. #4

    Default

    If in doubt or unsure of the situation vote no. Putting another law in the books without all the information is not a good idea.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Rick: What is being posted on all the TV spots is already illegal. No one hunts bears from Airplanes. Only wolves are shot from airplanes and then only by special teams selected by F&G for predator control. As for fair chase, that went out the window when gun powder and rifles were invented. The main reason the environmental groups put this back on the ballot is because the legislator decided to undo the No Hunting Same Day Airborne for Bears, that was put in place by the courts after the 96 ballot initiative. By making this change it makes it possible for a bear baiter to hunt his bait station the same day he flew in. It does not give him any advantage, just the ability to hunt the day he flies in, instead of having to wait till after 3AM the following day. We have a big problem in some areas of the state with bear predation on Caribou and Moose calves in the spring. Calf survival in some areas is extremely low, due to this predation. All F&G and the Game Board wants to do is get more hunters in the field. Some areas already have no closed season on Grizzly Bears, and others you are allowed multiple Grizzlies, but still few are being taken.

    The environmentalist goal is to stop hunting period, this is just one more small bite for them to chisel away at our hunting heritage.

    Personally, I am voting along with our Governor. NO on #2.

    BTW the former Game Board member spouting off on the spots that is pro #2 was a non-hunter appointed by either Knowles or Murkowski, to give more evenness to the board, and represent non-hunters. Did not work very well. He was against everything sensible, and all preditor control.
    Gun Control means hitting your target.
    "Giving up your gun to someone else on demand is called surrender. It means that you have given up your ability to protect yourself to a power that is greater than you." - David Yeagley
    Calling Illegal Immigrants "Undocumented Aliens" is like calling Drug Dealers "Unlicensed Pharmacists"

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    One more step to stopping hunting. They will not stop untill you cant even fish. There are groups out there that want fishing stopped due to the pain involved when they are hooked. Where will it stop?

  7. #7
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default down in flames

    It went down in flames, and I'm glad of that. To anyone still on the fence, reading this out of boredom or to bone up for the next initiative like it that comes up, I offer the following observation. Prop 2 would have mandated that a biological emergency, proven in court, must exist, and that fish and game use helicopters and trained fish and game personnel (this assumes that non fish and game employees are not qualified to dispatch animals) to implement any predator control activity. Nick Jans was an outspoken advocate of prop 2.

    Early this summer twenty some (I think 28) wolves were killed on the Alaskan peninsula, half of them pups, as part of Alaska's predator control program. Nick Jans spoke out against this activity, calling for an investigation and writing a compass piece to ADN about it. Here's the problem, though.

    1. The caribou herd the wolves were denned up in the midst of was down to approximately 500 animals from a norm of 10,000. It is estimated each wolf kills 20-30 caribou a year. Do the math: 25 wolves will kill 625 caribou in a year if each one kills an average number. So in one year this herd could have been potentially wiped out. This is a clear cut "biological emergency."

    2. Department of Fish and Game employees, including high brass from the department, carried out the control actions. A helicopter was used.

    The above actions were exactly what prop 2 claimed would be the result of passing Prop 2. Thats supposedly what Mr. Jans and his crowd were supporting in all the media ads. Yet, when Fish and Game did EXACTLY what the Pro Prop 2 crowd was asking that they do, the Prop 2 crowd screamed murder and demanded an immediate investigation of their actions.

    So, what would prop 2 REALLY have accomplished? The yo-yo's who screamed so loudly when Fish and Game acted as spelled out in the proposal, supported the proposal so vocally. Obviously, the purpose of the proposal was not as stated in the proposal!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7

    Default Problems with Aerial Predator Control

    The biggest problem we have with predator control is the fact that the ADF&G does not have the funding to adequately back up the programs with scientific data. The most prestiguous organizations in America, such as the American Society of Mammologists, has strongly condemed the lack of science in justifying predator control. The ADF&G is having to assume far too much for broad support. Neither the BOG nor the pro predator control groups such as AOC are advocating for more funds for the ADF&G to do their job better. Thats a big problem.

    Another big problem with predator control is the fact that the BOG allows out of state hunters to compete for moose and caribou in most of the units where predator control programs are active. The state claims there are not enough moose or caribou for the resident or rural subsistence hunter yet allows competition for that limited resource by out of state hunters. Its a joke and clearly highlights the stranglehold the commercial hunting industry has over the BOG process. The BOG is not limiting out of state sport hunters in most of the units - just blaming the wolf for all the problems associated with an ever increasing out of state hunting preasure and an out of control commercial guide industry.

    In regards to the penninsula caribou herd, I lived in Cold Bay for several years and let me tell you something you may not know, that herd is pounded by the locals - Cold Bay, Nelson Lagoon, King Cove. All these guys have easy access to that herd and there is no enforcement at all out there. They shoot a **** load of those caribou, which is illegal. Lack of enforcement is a HUGE problem in Alaska.

    Finally, on that peninsual wolf kill, the BOG does not allow denning for wolfs, that is killing wolfs in the den. While I agree the most humane option was to shoot the pups, its still against the law in Alaska to shoot wolves in the den. Also, the only reason the ADF&G used their own choppers is they had no choice, there were no private planes or gunner teams available in such a remote location. It's great the the ADF&G proved that they have the ability to run such a program. In a state as flush with cash as Alaska is right now, its ludicrous that the legislature and the BOG don't demand that the ADF&G conduct all predator control programs. Again, its the transparancy that would follow if the ADF&G conducted the program that the AOC and others fear!

    If you want to save your wildlife resources we need to fund the ADF&G much better.

  9. #9

    Default Good stuff....

    Quote Originally Posted by residenthunter View Post
    The biggest problem we have with predator control is the fact that the ADF&G does not have the funding to adequately back up the programs with scientific data. The most prestiguous organizations in America, such as the American Society of Mammologists, has strongly condemed the lack of science in justifying predator control. The ADF&G is having to assume far too much for broad support. Neither the BOG nor the pro predator control groups such as AOC are advocating for more funds for the ADF&G to do their job better. Thats a big problem.

    Another big problem with predator control is the fact that the BOG allows out of state hunters to compete for moose and caribou in most of the units where predator control programs are active. The state claims there are not enough moose or caribou for the resident or rural subsistence hunter yet allows competition for that limited resource by out of state hunters. Its a joke and clearly highlights the stranglehold the commercial hunting industry has over the BOG process. The BOG is not limiting out of state sport hunters in most of the units - just blaming the wolf for all the problems associated with an ever increasing out of state hunting preasure and an out of control commercial guide industry.

    In regards to the penninsula caribou herd, I lived in Cold Bay for several years and let me tell you something you may not know, that herd is pounded by the locals - Cold Bay, Nelson Lagoon, King Cove. All these guys have easy access to that herd and there is no enforcement at all out there. They shoot a **** load of those caribou, which is illegal. Lack of enforcement is a HUGE problem in Alaska.

    Finally, on that peninsual wolf kill, the BOG does not allow denning for wolfs, that is killing wolfs in the den. While I agree the most humane option was to shoot the pups, its still against the law in Alaska to shoot wolves in the den. Also, the only reason the ADF&G used their own choppers is they had no choice, there were no private planes or gunner teams available in such a remote location. It's great the the ADF&G proved that they have the ability to run such a program. In a state as flush with cash as Alaska is right now, its ludicrous that the legislature and the BOG don't demand that the ADF&G conduct all predator control programs. Again, its the transparancy that would follow if the ADF&G conducted the program that the AOC and others fear!

    If you want to save your wildlife resources we need to fund the ADF&G much better.
    Hope you can hang around and stay with it.

    With respect to your post you said:
    "Another big problem with predator control is the fact that the BOG allows out of state hunters to compete for moose and caribou in most of the units where predator control programs are active."

    That is true it is another big problem.

    I would add that since the non-resident must be guided regulation was implemented in 1986 MOST nonresident hunters have been encouraged by this regulation to take only moose and caribou.

    Encouraging nonresident hunters to take moose and caribou and not bears is very likely the single biggest factor contributing to the current conditions.

    This has been going on Statewide now for 25 years and that single regulation is [imo] the genesis of our issues today. Also easily fixed and without cost to the State.

    Repealing the nonresident must be guided regulation would benefit management of our resources in a number of ways.

    And, the way I see it nonresidents should not be hunting anything in any game management units UNLESS there is an identifiable surplus. Clearly we have areas with a surplus of bears, some areas with a surplus of caribou, less areas with a surplus of moose and there might even be some areas with a surplus of sheep not being harvested by residents.

    Implementing on a STATEWIDE basis a nonresident draw for the SURPLUS ONLY would put the nonresident pressure where it should be.

    So repealing the nonresident must be guided regs and implementing a nonresident draw for surplus puts the protocols where they should be AND benefits the departments management mandates WITHOUT the interference from the (AOC, APHA, SFW, APWM, BOG) special interests of commercial hunting industry.

    I want to save our resources and I see these two things implemented as absolutly necessary to that end. Neither of these initiatives cost money. In fact, the State could increase tag fees for nonresidents and that net increase should (or maybe could) be committed to predator management.


  10. #10
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by residenthunter View Post

    If you want to save your wildlife resources we need to fund the ADF&G much better.

    You are absolutely correct... I bet that $300,000 Palin spent on "educating" people about wolf control could have paid for some science, or some time in a heli. Reason #1 I hate Sarah Palin...
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  11. #11

    Default nice to know

    that Sarah went ahead to "educate" people on the "REAL" facts and not the bs crap that the anti's was spewing out. Just another reason I "like" Sarah!

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
  •