Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Another decent ADN editorial on the game board

  1. #1
    Member Chisana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska
    Posts
    1,438

    Default Another decent ADN editorial on the game board

    I don't agree with every position this author holds, but he does make some good points that are worthy of discussion. I was glad to see another reasonable voice speak out on the Chugach wolverine trapping issue.

    http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/696293.html

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    I wonder how many wolf packs have roamed inbetween 4th ave, Rabbit crk rd, and Elemendorf? If Anchorage is a fine example of Game management,, then the Statewide game management soulution is simple. Just populate ALL of Alaska.
    Maybe kudos are in order for ADF&G, Anchorage AC, etc, for this soundly "managed" area!

  3. #3
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    Here's a quote from the article:
    "The melancholy trade of trapping has cleared the landscape of exotic predators. Nevertheless the Game Board would allow wolverine trapping from a wild population of fewer than two dozen surviving animals in Chugach State Park"
    So this "reasonable" person has adopted as fact, a 12 year old track survey(it wasn't a COUNT of actual animals) of wolverine in the heavily timbered, mountainous chugach area as FACT for eternity.
    Yep Chisana, that's definately a reasonable person. Heck, we just aughta put this intelligent fellow on the game board.

    The guys basic premise at the end of the article implies that hunting and wildlife viewing cannot co-exist, thus the BoG is "stacked". More reasonable talk, Chisana?
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  4. #4
    Member Chisana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska
    Posts
    1,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    Heck, we just aughta put this intelligent fellow on the game board.

    The guys basic premise at the end of the article implies that hunting and wildlife viewing cannot co-exist, thus the BoG is "stacked". More reasonable talk, Chisana?
    He probably could do as good a job on the BOG as some of the folks on there now. So could you and a myriad of other folks. There is nothing special about the folks on the BOG other than their views on certain issues.

    I did say that I did not agree with everything the guy said in the op ed piece.

  5. #5

    Default I got this

    far through the article:
    "I challenge the state to designate an area of Hatcher Pass wilderness for a true scientific study -- with a moratorium on hunting and trapping -- just to see if wildlife could conceivably make a comeback without the operational myth that killing animals is the only way to save them."
    Just another "closer"
    Aren't we doing this "experiment" in Denali Nat Park right now? I've never been really impressed with the numbers of prey animals I've seen in the park, usually see more when I go to Eureka.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  6. #6
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,354

    Default good example of idealism that hunters must face

    There are some seeds of truth in the article, but tend to get lost in the hyperbole. Anchorage is a great place to view moose and bears: but it also led the state in bear maulings last year, and is near the top in road kill moose. So if a great "management" system is one where humans stand back and do no actual management of the game population, then Anchorage certainly is a shining example. Apparently, in the author's mind, harvesting moose by vehicle, (wrecking the vehicle, injuring its occupants, and using public safety resources to respond to the accident) and giving the gut tainted meat to charity is a better use of our game resource than actually killing it humanely by rifle or bow and serving up well cared for meat to the hunter's family.

    The author avoids several points about hunting, but the most obvious is this: for animals to be hunted, they have to exist. For animals to be viewed, they must also exist. Viewers and hunters share the same goal- that there be many animals in existence, in the field, to view. When that happens, they can then photograph and or harvest some of those animals. So whether the ultimate goal is to harvest the animal or photograph it, the means to the goal are the same- conserve the animal population to achieve viewable and huntable numbers.

    Hunters in management serve both the non hunting and hunting segments of the population. Radical anti-hunters serve only the non-hunting segment. That is why radical anti hunters are not a good fit on the game board, which is charged with managing Alaska's game for the maximum benefit to the people of the state.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,084

    Default another opinion piece


  8. #8
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    I was gonna start a new thread on Mark's article, but since it is already linked here, no point.
    I have no clue about Rossi, but I think the position created for him is completely BS and fluff. Another poor example of Sarah Palins abilities. She really needs to go when her time is up.
    However, Pat Valkenburg I have known personally for a long time. He and his wife, Audrey Magoun, are 2 of the MOST experienced and commen sensible biologists I've ever known. Learned alot from these 2 on marten back when I was a "martentrapper". IMO Pat is nowhere near extreme. His ties to AOC should not disqualify him at all. I can think of no better candidate for his current position.
    I would LOVE to see snaring black bears legalized, as well as the sale of the skins. At least one other state allows bear snaring, Maine, and it seems to work there.

    Since Mark brought it up in his article, I think it fair to ask...............are you truly there on your own dime, Mark? Will you be testifying as "Mark Richards" or as co chair of BHA?
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,354

    Default

    I just finished Mark's article, and it really made two things clear to me. First, the Daily News will print anything that bashes Alaska's Game Management or hunting in general. Second, the Pre-Suppositions you carry before going into any management discussion will affect how you view the management actions. For example:

    Pre-sup #1: There is a problem in unit 16 with too many black bears, resulting in very low moose calf survival rates and therefore a huntable or viewable moose population.

    Pre-Sup #2: There is not a problem in unit 16 with too many black bears, and the supposed problem is hyperbole raised to allow the killing of more animals.

    There are other pre-sups that support either of the above: fish and game biologists do know their job and their science--->F&G bios do not, members of the BOG are concerned with doing the best management for the species they manage---->BOG members give a fig about wildlife populations and live only to serve their special interest groups... the list goes on, but I think I've made the point.

    I tend to pre-suppose #1- that predation is real, and it is a problem, and that current management steps are helping achieve F&G's stated goals. Pre-supping also that fish and game DOES have a clue about the predator situation, I present the following information that they have provided before the valley ACs: The current goals are roughly 3 times the current harvest of black bears. The vast majority of bear harvest is taking place along river corridors. There is very little access to vast areas of unit 16, and packing bait to a station a mile away from any cabin provides some difficult logistics. Therefore, the proposals to allow trapping of black bear and helicopter access to harvest make sense. What fish and game is saying is that they've declared war on black bears in this unit, basically pulled out all stops, and still can only harvest a third of what is necessary for the program to work. So lets take some more steps to possibly increase the take of black bears, and spread the take away from the available boat and fixed wing access points in the unit.

    This doesn't mean I support either proposal; instead, that there is a different interpretation of why they are out there than the one which Mark presented in his Compass piece. I do believe that the bear control programs are working, and I enjoy the increased opportunity for spring bear hunting, and I utilize every scrap of meat from harvested bear (we even process the lard and boil down the bones for soup base!). I've personally seen the results of successful predator control programs, and am supportive of carefully utilizing measures to increase the effectiveness of the programs currently in place. Experimental, controversial changes and methods and means can and should be tried out with sunset clauses, in limited areas, and by permitted and monitored individuals or groups (see aerial wolf control) to ensure that it really is in the best interest of sound game management and not just to benefit a particular individual or interest group.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DEDWUF View Post
    I wonder how many wolf packs have roamed inbetween 4th ave, Rabbit crk rd, and Elemendorf? If Anchorage is a fine example of Game management,, then the Statewide game management soulution is simple. Just populate ALL of Alaska.
    Maybe kudos are in order for ADF&G, Anchorage AC, etc, for this soundly "managed" area!
    That's not the issue and you know and I know it.

    The divide among Alaskans is broadening. It is evident the administration is turning over the Department to the commercial hunting industry. Whether all people can see it or not, the hard cold fact is that game management in our state has been turned over to individuals with an agenda; to 'grow' the commercial hunting industry.

    Logically, that industry growth can only come from hunting predators for profit.

    Some agree with that ideological management scheme, some don't; clearly the Palin administration has bought into it.


  11. #11
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,354

    Default McGrath

    Since there is no non resident moose hunting or guiding of non res moose hunters around McGrath, and that was the first area for wolf and bear control, how does that fit with the theory that predator control is solely for the profits of commercial interests? I for one won't sacrifice my hunting just because someone makes a claim that a proposal is made or passed because it may benefit a guide.

  12. #12
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post

    mark and i don't agree on a lot of things, but this is really one of them that we do. the things going on during this meeting, in the props and legal notes to them all point to a fix. i listened a long as i could , today on the live web feed. and by my count there was 6 testimony against and 4 four helos and snares.. the ones for, were all guides and FFH.


    this is a money pot waiting to happen. and all the wrong folks are lining up for it.
    "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

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Avalanche, After many years of no commercial hunting for Moose or Caribou in Unit 13, I'm not worried if or when commercialization returns to this Unit. In fact I would be for it provided the harvestable numbers are achieved to justify it. It would also mean more Nelchina caribou permits would be available for residents. Maybe then we could do away with the tier system.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DEDWUF View Post
    Avalanche, After many years of no commercial hunting for Moose or Caribou in Unit 13, I'm not worried if or when commercialization returns to this Unit. In fact I would be for it provided the harvestable numbers are achieved to justify it. It would also mean more Nelchina caribou permits would be available for residents. Maybe then we could do away with the tier system.
    Sure we would all be 'for it' provided it is appropriate but in the years since it went from a free for all to a restricted hunt do you really think 13 can support a resident hunt AND justify the pressures of a commercial hunting industry.


  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Avalanche, well its been working with sheep hunting, as long as there is a abundance for both user groups, I see no problem. There wasn't much of any problem when we did have a abundance of Moose & Caribou.
    Resident hunting and non resident hunting have co-existed for a long time in Alaska, of course there have been problems in the past between these user groups, but nothing extraordinary. I've seen just about the same amount of problems in-between different resident user groups, muzzle loaders, bow hunters, rural-urban, native-non native, pro atv-anti atvs, cow hunts-no cow hunts, etc, etc
    Last edited by DEDWUF; 03-02-2009 at 18:27. Reason: word removal

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DEDWUF View Post
    Avalanche, well its been working with sheep hunting, as long as there is a abundance for both user groups, I see no problem.
    Excuse me....we have shorter seasons, more draws and less opportunity this year than last year....less two years ago compared to three years ago...and on and on and on....for about 23 years.

    We have residents competing with residents for opportunity and Nonresidents are harvesting 45% of our sheep to boot.

    NO, it aint working unless you call it abundance as long as somebody can hunt something.

    Quote Originally Posted by DEDWUF View Post
    Resident hunting and non resident hunting have co-existed for a long time in Alaska, of course there have been problems in the past between these user groups, but nothing extraordinary. I've seen just about the same amount of problems in-between different resident user groups, muzzle loaders, bow hunters, rural-urban, native-non native, pro atv-anti atvs, cow hunts-no cow hunts, etc, etc
    I have no intent to come across like I am against nonresidents haveing some opportuntiy but we for sure are not going to go to welcome in Airzona or Nevada and take 45% of the elk and 30% of the mule deer.

    I think if we Alaskans are really interested in abundance managment and Alaskans first we would target a 10% "opportunity" draw system for nonresidents on all species.

    Maybe in the future we could move that 10% number up but if SFW-AOC-BOG-BGCSB-Governorgirls boys in the department are TRULY for abundance managment for RESIDENTS they should not be wasting anymore time implementing the 10% opportunity system.

    AND repealing the nonresident must be guided reg for bears at least in some areas and NO doubt we could justify almost unlimited opportunity for nonresidents to hunt bears.

    It really is not that hard to see the truth of WHO is really important to SFW-AOC-BOG-BGCSB-Governorgirls boys in the department.


  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    2 mi east of 'Halfmoon creek"
    Posts
    831

    Default

    I agree with the 10%.... but with a "sunshine clause".

    Back to the original article, by Rudy Wittshirk. The name sounded familiar, so out of curiosity I googled "Rudy Wittshirk, Alaska", it didn't take but a moment to remember.................... interesting, funny, not funny, ....I liked "Lord Alwine' on the 2nd page. Lmao

  18. #18
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    this line is probably the best ever published in ADN on hunting:

    "Legalize the wanton waste of one kind of game meat in order to grow more meat of another kind -- how does that make any sense at all?"
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

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
  •