Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Here we go again...

  1. #1
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,175

    Default Here we go again...

    Link: http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildl...ry/650523.html


    More diversity urged for Board of Game
    PAST MEMBERS: Palin asked that wildlife viewers be included.
    The Associated Press
    FAIRBANKS -- Former members of the state Board of Game want to see more diversity on the seven-person panel that regulates wildlife management in the state.

    A dozen former board members asked Gov. Sarah Palin in a letter to consider more representation of "nonconsumptive users," such as wildlife viewers, on the board.

    "Nonconsumptive users of wildlife in Alaska include tens of thousands of residents and nonresidents alike who contribute significant revenue to the state through their activities," states the letter sent Thursday. "Unfortunately, in recent years virtually all Game Board members were appointed to represent hunting and trapping interests.

    "We strongly urge you to recruit and appoint future board members who can effectively represent both consumptive and nonconsumptive users of this state's wildlife."

    Former board member Joel Bennett of Juneau wrote the letter and it was signed by 11 other former members.

    Among them was Julie Maier, a biology professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. As far as she is concerned, only one member on the current board -- Ben Grussendorf of Sitka -- serves to represent nonconsumptive users.

    "I don't necessarily think you have to have extremists on there, but I think it helps to have a broader representation," said Maier, a hunter. "Nonconsumptive users definitely do feel it's a waste of time to go to this board, and that's a shame."

    Current board member Dick Burley disagreed with the letter.

    "I feel this board has been very sensitive to all different groups and players," he said.

    Burley said the board will never make all user groups happy, whether they are hunters or wildlife viewers.

    "It's easy for people who have a decision made against what they want to say that the board doesn't represent their views," he said.

    Palin spokesman Bill McAllister said the governor had not yet seen the letter and therefore had no comment.

    The governor is responsible for appointing Game Board members, who then are confirmed by state legislators.

    The makeup of the board has been at issue for several years, with such organizations as the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and Defenders of Wildlife pushing for more balanced representation.

    Wade Willis, the Alaska representative for Defenders of Wildlife, said he would like to see a travel industry representative appointed to the board. Tourism is the second-leading industry in the state, and wildlife viewing is one of the primary reasons people visit Alaska, he said.

    "For the tourism industry, decisions made by the Board of Game are the number one image maker in this state," Willis said. "It's not that somebody from the tourism industry is going to say, 'No, we can't do predator control,' but they might say, 'We need to package it in a way to minimize the negative impact it has on the tourism industry.' "

    Willis and Maier said nonconsumptive users have largely been ignored by the board under the administrations of Palin and former Gov. Frank Murkowski.

    Before Murkowski, vacancies on the panel were advertised and nominations were solicited from various groups, according to the letter. The process is much more secretive now and nominations are not shared or scrutinized like they once were.

    "Our perception now is that these practices no longer prevail and the rule seems to be that only input from hunting and trapping interests is valued," the letter states.



    Sure is funny that Julie Maier says the nonconsumptive users don't have to be extremists; yet the article goes on to mention two extreme animal rights' groups (DOW, and AWA) are pushing for a balanced Board. Both groups have worked in the past with their primary objective being to assault hunting and trapping rights. Diversity is divisive; leave the BOG the way it is.

    IF, IF, IF they get representation, I want to see the wildlife viewers given seasons, just like hunting; limits on #'s of people allowed to view, and season's on viewing. Currently, they have neither (with few exceptions-like McNeil River).

    Tim
    Tim

  2. #2
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    ......IF, IF, IF they get representation, I want to see the wildlife viewers given seasons, just like hunting; limits on #'s of people allowed to view, and season's on viewing. Currently, they have neither (with few exceptions-like McNeil River)......
    Let's add minimum viewing/photography distances from game in order to eliminate Timothy Treadwell type of antics (I've already sent proposed legislation on this to all 60 members of the Legislature, and as you might imagine, they were terrified of it's implications), as well as baiting regs in order to deal with the Charlie Vandergaw situation.

    They can't have it one way. If they want power, they need to show responsibility.

  3. #3
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    Let's add minimum viewing/photography distances from game in order to eliminate Timothy Treadwell type of antics (I've already sent proposed legislation on this to all 60 members of the Legislature, and as you might imagine, they were terrified of it's implications), as well as baiting regs in order to deal with the Charlie Vandergaw situation.

    They can't have it one way. If they want power, they need to show responsibility.
    Excellent idea.

    Tim

  4. #4
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Mark PM inbound... give me a call ???
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  5. #5
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,465

    Default

    if they want to buy a license and help pay for some of the stuff the hunters and fisherman pay for....welcome on board. It ain't our animals....
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,086

    Default BOG

    Personally, I'd say the current board makeup supports both hunters and non consumptives. Most wildlife viewiung and photography takes place in the late spring and summer when there is no hunting going on and game populations are at their highest for the year. There are also all those cute cuddly babies to see. Then hunting season comes in the fall and Alaskans get to fill their freezers with the best meat nature has produced. By managing responsibly, there are enough animals left to produce a new crop for everyone the next year.

    If non consumptives want a seat to "feel" like they are being represented, I have no problem with that, as long as it's someone familiar with the dynamics of managing game. If they want to get one or more members who have an "anti-hunting" agenda, then I have a problem. Game populations should be managed strictly on a basis of carrying capacity. Anti's want no hunting which leads to unregulated growth, habitat damage, and a crash in population. Groups like the Alaska Outdoor Council want as many animals as possible produced for hunters which can lead to habitat damage and a crash. This can also lead to other problems which have been pointed out.. concentrating hunters, more ATV use, etc. Both are extremist positions and not in the best interest of the animals or hunters or non consumptives. We need to let the biologists determine the carrying capacity and manage for that and leave the politics out of it.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    If non consumptives want a seat to "feel" like they are being represented, I have no problem with that, as long as it's someone familiar with the dynamics of managing game. If they want to get one or more members who have an "anti-hunting" agenda, then I have a problem. Game populations should be managed strictly on a basis of carrying capacity. Anti's want no hunting which leads to unregulated growth, habitat damage, and a crash in population. Groups like the Alaska Outdoor Council want as many animals as possible produced for hunters which can lead to habitat damage and a crash. This can also lead to other problems which have been pointed out.. concentrating hunters, more ATV use, etc. Both are extremist positions and not in the best interest of the animals or hunters or non consumptives. We need to let the biologists determine the carrying capacity and manage for that and leave the politics out of it.

    The above is an excellent read. rep pts to ya.


  8. #8
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default extremes

    I like Wade Willis' quote, DOW schill, complaining about the image the state gets from the BOG's decisions. Its his organization that is intentionally giving the management of this state a black eye, and the articles written in the daily fish wrap that constantly question and criticize their decisions. His true concern about the image of this state to tourists, is purely financial. The worse he can paint our game managers, the more money his farcical organization will receive from donors.

  9. #9
    Member ADUKHNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    503

    Default

    And this is how the mass media sees it:

    http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewid...ml?game=189610

    Skip the ads and play away.

  10. #10

    Default Don't play by our oponent's rule book

    "non consumptives" is a BS feel good term they label themselves with. Let us call them what they are; Freeloaders, that enjoy the wildlife that we have all paid for and worked to maintain.
    they are anti hunting Bambists that don't have the foggiest idea of how animals live much less how they die in nature.
    ATB,
    Rob

  11. #11
    Member trapperrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seward, AK
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leahy View Post
    "non consumptives" is a BS feel good term they label themselves with. Let us call them what they are; Freeloaders, that enjoy the wildlife that we have all paid for and worked to maintain.
    they are anti hunting Bambists that don't have the foggiest idea of how animals live much less how they die in nature.
    ATB,
    Rob
    I totally agree. We hunters and fishermen pay an 11% tax for the Pittman-Robinson act for conservation; that translates into millions of dollars every year. What are the bambists contributing besides misinformation, disinformation and screwing up what they claim to love and protect? Remember when the state wanted to burn 20 measly acres to kill off the first Japanese beetle infestation in Alaska? The tree huggers jumped in with their "don't kill anything ever" mindlessness and we see the results of their wisdom. Our state needs to listen to the biologists first, everyone else second and bambists last. They have a track record for totally ruining ecosystems and wildlife. Down in Florida a few years ago they made a big fuss over deer hunting on a little island. The biologists' told them the deer needed to be thinned out due to overpopulation but the bambiists refused to budge so the DNR pulled the plug on the hunt. The next summer the entire deer herd died painfully of hemorrhagic disease. Zeal must be tempered with knowledge.

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
  •