Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Nick Jans Group In Kenai

  1. #1

    Default Nick Jans Group In Kenai

    I was contacted this morning by a person wanting to come to my workplace and have me sign a petition about ariel wolf and bear control. I remembered the discussion here a while back and did some research. This is Nick Jans group. They sure are deceitful in the way they present it. He is suppose to call me back this afternoon to see if he can come over.

  2. #2
    Member wolfkiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    north pole ak
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Invite him over.
    Politely explain your reason for not signing his petition.
    At least while he is at your house he wont be at someone elses.

  3. #3

    Default Agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by blackfoot View Post
    I was contacted this morning by a person wanting to come to my workplace and have me sign a petition about ariel wolf and bear control. I remembered the discussion here a while back and did some research. This is Nick Jans group. They sure are deceitful in the way they present it. He is suppose to call me back this afternoon to see if he can come over.

    It's a shame you can hardly get a straight scoop on anything now a days, always skewed by the agenda and the money or interest behind that agenda.

    It's a shame that this sort of mentality is the norm and really shapes our hunting policies.
    Marc Theiler

  4. #4
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,114

    Thumbs down Petitions..

    I was approached a couple of weeks ago at the Loussac Library in Anchorage. What a waste of time. I told the guy I was for wolf/bear control and I had hoped to see the program continued.

    Tim

  5. #5

    Default

    I used to really emjoy Nicks articles in Alaska magazine but ever since he married that greenie gal from back east he has gone off the deep end. Its to bad because he ahd the talent and related some great stories of life in the bush. akraven

  6. #6

    Default In defense of Nick

    Nick was and I think still is a pretty motivated hunter.
    He used a 243 to hunt everything from dall sheep to grizzly bears.
    I remember that he made it a point to chase after wolves with a snowmachine.
    I just can't see him advocating anti-hunting stuff.

  7. #7

    Smile Nick Jans on a plane

    I once met Nick Jans on a trip from Anchorage to Juneau. I opened "Grizzly Maze" and started to read it. I had borrowed the copy from a friend. This guy sitting next to me leans over and says "that is a real #$% book." I though, oh boy another lame book and asked if he had read it. He said, "I wrote it." We had a lengthy discussion on Timothy Treadwell and the events that transpired around his death. After speaking with Jans for a little over an hour I learned a few things about him. He is an interesting person to talk with and he has some pretty neat experiences. I like to talk to people and get their story so it was an easy discussion. He did some guiding while in the bush and is not very proud of the time he spent guiding. I didn't get the imipression that he was against hunting, he just saw a lot of things that made him sick. I can understand as we have discussed law enforcement officers on this forum that there are always the 10% people. As an avid hunter myself I feel we may have some higher percentages than 10%. It amazes me what people will do when hunting and not think twice about it. There are ethics in hunting and everyone has their own. Jans never spoke to me about his "followers" and I hadn't heard anything until here. I could understand his frustration with some hunters and some guides through his personal experiences. I am not being sympathetic to his cause just saying what I think from speaking with him face to face.

    As for me talking with him didn't make me think I was slaughtering animals it just made me put more value on the animals I do hunt.

  8. #8

    Default Deciet

    Even if I don't agree with a petition, I can respect somebody for trying to do what they believe in. The problem I have with this is the deceitful tactics used. The caller very much tried to make it sound like this was a pro predator control petition. We all know that if Fish and Game personnel are the only ones authorized to shoot, it will kill the program. Whether you are for or against the predator control program is not the issue, it is the deciet with which they are trying to push their agenda.

  9. #9

    Default

    Just for the record I'm for the wolf and bear control. And if memory serves me Tony knowles is not.
    goldbelt

  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default question for goldbelt

    Goldbelt,

    Would you be for any wolf and bear control programs if they went against the recommendations of the seasoned area biologist for that unit?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eagle River,AK
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Bushrat,are you asking as if the "area" doesn't need to be "under controll" or that there is a "better" way to "controll"?

  12. #12
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default

    Steve,

    I was just wondering if goldbelt was in favor of following the recommendations of the seasoned area biologist of a particular unit. Say, for instance, the area bio recommends 'moderate' reductions of wolves and/or bears in a certain area, yet the control program expands over tens of thousands of square miles and encompasses 'strong' reductions of both species. Still in favor of it? Should we rely on the recommendations of experienced area biologists moreso that we do the recommendations of Advisory Committees and hunters?

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eagle River,AK
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Good question.I would think that the controll program that we have in place focuses on the job at hand.Say,in unit13 which is very large,the state says that an "x" number of wolves need to be taken to help the WHOLE unit's caribou and moose numbers rebound.And iwould like to trap some of those wolves around Glennallen but the numbr of wolves in this area is low but in Cantwell(still unit 13)the wolf numbers are very high.I wouldn't have a problem with the state proceeding in thinning out the wolves in Cantwell even know that will probably even lesson my chances of being able to trap them in Glennallen.Hope that made sense,lol.

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default

    Steve,

    Thanks for saying it's a good question. Only problem is, you didn't answer it <grin>.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eagle River,AK
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Bushrat,doesn't the state take information from both the advisory commitie's AND the biologists to come up with quota numbers,season's,and borders in the units for the controll program?

  16. #16

    Default Bushrat

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Steve,

    I was just wondering if goldbelt was in favor of following the recommendations of the seasoned area biologist of a particular unit. Say, for instance, the area bio recommends 'moderate' reductions of wolves and/or bears in a certain area, yet the control program expands over tens of thousands of square miles and encompasses 'strong' reductions of both species. Still in favor of it? Should we rely on the recommendations of experienced area biologists moreso that we do the recommendations of Advisory Committees and hunters?
    Do you agree, that bio's also have personal agendas? Is it prudent to accept one persons opinion, when you have a lot more data at your disposal? A thorough review of all aspects is needed by every decision maker and then the real tough deal is to sort out the emotion from fact and public will. Do you remember a guy (read ex-bio) Gordon H, the self proclaimed wolf expert. He is still out there professing to know all and has quite a following of uninformed anti's. There are a couple of others in his ranks, but forum rules will not allow me to post there names, and in fact, they are still on the ADF&G payroll. Do I trust their judgement, not at all.

  17. #17
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default answering a question with a question?

    Steve,

    Yes, our Board of Game hears input from area biologists, the local Advisory Committee (and often ACs from very far away as well), pro-hunting and anti-hunting orgs, and individual hunters and non-hunters. The Board then makes a decision on how to proceed.

    In that scheme of things, whose opinion should carry the most weight? Can we justify predator control programs that specifically go against the recommendations of seasoned area biologists who are trained in the art and science of practical wildlife management?

    Oh, forgot to add that our Board of Game also hears input from the governor, whomever that may be, and in some cases...uh, how shall I say it, is "motivated" to vote a certain way.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Riverfront Alaska
    Posts
    210

    Default

    I would answer no to Bushrat. because I have seen where some biologists have agendas as well. Here in the east coast we are starting to see biologists working for Fish and Game Departments with non hunting or even anti-hunting philosophies.
    There should be no one person who desides such matters. And definitely no one politically motivated.
    If you take the woods out of the woodsman you have nothing left but a man in the woods.

  19. #19
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default interesting responses

    Thanks for the replies. I don't think that there is any subsitute for the acquired knowledge of an experienced ADFG area biologist. I notice most every pred-control program is supposed to be grounded in science, like the density estimates biologists do for various species, the pred-prey modeling software written by ADFG staff, all that crunching of biological data to come up with a framework to manage wildlife based on our constitution and statutes. I agree that other input is important too, like from our ACs and the public at large. Interesting that many here continue to believe that biologists don't practice science as much as they may practice politics. If that's true, then how are our current programs "science based" at all? If we go against the recommendations of an area biologist, aren't we overriding science in favor of what hunters or the public demands? It could go both ways, remember...depending on who is in the governor's mansion and how the board of game is...er...stacked.



  20. #20
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,153

    Default no, we shouldn't

    We should not listen to any "biologist" from any "area" who opposes predator control because s/he is a "hippy" who opposes killing game in general and also "scary" guns. So, no, a local "biologist" should not have veto over the rest of the system. My .02

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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
  •