Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Bear Snaring Results

  1. #1
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Exclamation Bear Snaring Results

    The results of the 16B bear snaring program have been publicized. You can read about it here.

    According to the article, 81 bears were killed under the program. 8 brown bears were also captured, with 5 being released and 3 killed.

  2. #2

    Thumbs up

    Well that is certainly a durn good start for the new program. I am sure it will only get better, as more and more get involved and see the fruits of their labor. This is the best thing that has happened in Alaska since the construction of the oil fields. We are only now learning as a state, that we can properly manage our resources, if the nonsensical voices are silenced.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  3. #3
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    I'm attaching the actual release ADFG sent out.

    Have sent a reply asking for more information; we have been requesting information for a while now. Was glad to see the Dept at least release the numbers late on friday afternoon the day before Labor Day weekend <grin>.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Just out of curiousity, why do they not want to remove the brown bears also? They eat moose too right?

  5. #5
    Member GENX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Well that is certainly a durn good start for the new program. I am sure it will only get better, as more and more get involved and see the fruits of their labor. This is the best thing that has happened in Alaska since the construction of the oil fields. We are only now learning as a state, that we can properly manage our resources, if the nonsensical voices are silenced.

    Akresident sounds like you are all for exploiting game. Comparing the new found predator management program to oil.

    Can our state learn to support other new programs and practical solutions such as letting non residents hunt bears unguided and requiring guides to actually guide and limiting guides to no more than 2 assistants and limiting non residents to 10% of resident effort when the voices of commercial industry are silenced?

    Or should we just settle for more predator control and call that the most sensical solution to proper management of OUR resources?

  6. #6
    Member GENX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles-C View Post
    Just out of curiousity, why do they not want to remove the brown bears also? They eat moose too right?

    Maybe because the guides sell them to non residents?

  7. #7

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by GENX View Post
    Akresident sounds like you are all for exploiting game. Comparing the new found predator management program to oil.

    Can our state learn to support other new programs and practical solutions such as letting non residents hunt bears unguided and requiring guides to actually guide and limiting guides to no more than 2 assistants and limiting non residents to 10% of resident effort when the voices of commercial industry are silenced?

    Or should we just settle for more predator control and call that the most sensical solution to proper management of OUR resources?
    Exploiting game? Nope, but willing to manage them in a serious manner.

    BTW: Good luck with your notions and thoughts on how it should be done. I think you know the answers to your own questions, but shopping for other answers. Suggest you put it all on paper and tell the BOG how it should be done.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  8. #8
    Member GENX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Exploiting game? Nope, but willing to manage them in a serious manner.

    BTW: Good luck with your notions and thoughts on how it should be done. I think you know the answers to your own questions, but shopping for other answers. Suggest you put it all on paper and tell the BOG how it should be done.
    How do you think "it" should be done?

  9. #9
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Update

    Got some info from ADFG yesterday, thought I'd pass it along.

    The "expert contractor" hired by the Dept to oversee and monitor the bear snaring is a guy from Colorado, not an Alaska resident. He has forty years experience in Colorado, including foot-snaring black bears.

    All brown bears that were released were tranquilized by at least three different ADFG employees.

    No snaring was conducted on Tyonek lands.

    They are unaware of any problems with carcasses.

    They are tentatively labeling the program a success, but will wait until fall calf:cow ratio counts are done to determine how many calves were "saved" by this program.

  10. #10

    Default I would think

    that this years efforts started to late to make "grading" the programs merits by this years survival rate alone a fair determination. To be a fair assessment you would have to look a couple of years into the continued program. But of course, if this years survival rate doesn't show a 100% or better improvement, some will be demonstrating in downtown Anchorage.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  11. #11
    Member BIGAKSTUFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GENX View Post
    Akresident sounds like you are all for exploiting game. Comparing the new found predator management program to oil.

    Can our state learn to support other new programs and practical solutions such as letting non residents hunt bears unguided and requiring guides to actually guide and limiting guides to no more than 2 assistants and limiting non residents to 10% of resident effort when the voices of commercial industry are silenced?

    Or should we just settle for more predator control and call that the most sensical solution to proper management of OUR resources?
    I don't think that depending on out of state residents to cull our preditor problem is a good or timley solution either. We need to solve this now, and this snaring program has obviously provided the results we need now. And when an out of state resident dreams of hunting Alaska, I don't think hunting black bears is at the top of the list, they can do that in the lower 48 for a lot less money. In my unit, we are allowed 3 black bears a year, but i have neither the time or resources to commit to hunting 3 a year. So the population grows larger and larger, while the moose population grows smaller and smaller, and now i have been seeing black bears in areas that they have never been before. So i support this program whole-heartedly.
    The Second Amendment.......Know it, love it, support it.

  12. #12
    Member garnede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    soon to be back in Alaska
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    http://www.soundswild.alaska.gov/man...ion_mar_09.pdf

    It seems that the goals presented in the 2009 BOG meeting were being met or exceeded, except the percentage of females taken in 16B. Last regulatory year 501 bears were taken, up from 235 in the 05-06 regulatory year. I did not hunt in unit 16 this year partly due to the bear snaring program. I saw it as more hunting pressure and without publicizing the locations I did not know if the bears were being hit hard in locations I could access. If other people thought like me, this program may have reduced hunting pressure in 16B instead of increasing it. So 81 additional bears, hopefully additional, is a small addition, assuming that sport and predator control remained at the same level an additional 16% were taken. If others stayed home this program may have reduced the number of bears taken while greatly expanding the means and methods as well as SFWs influence on ADF&G.
    It ain't about the # of pounds of meat we bring back, nor about how much we spent to go do it. Its about seeing what no one else sees.

    http://wouldieatitagainfoodblog.blogspot.com/

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garnede View Post
    http://www.soundswild.alaska.gov/man...ion_mar_09.pdf

    It seems that the goals presented in the 2009 BOG meeting were being met or exceeded, except the percentage of females taken in 16B. Last regulatory year 501 bears were taken, up from 235 in the 05-06 regulatory year. I did not hunt in unit 16 this year partly due to the bear snaring program. I saw it as more hunting pressure and without publicizing the locations I did not know if the bears were being hit hard in locations I could access. If other people thought like me, this program may have reduced hunting pressure in 16B instead of increasing it. So 81 additional bears, hopefully additional, is a small addition, assuming that sport and predator control remained at the same level an additional 16% were taken. If others stayed home this program may have reduced the number of bears taken while greatly expanding the means and methods as well as SFWs influence on ADF&G.
    Judging from the numbers of boats, camps and guides I saw working there this year, I think your concerns are nothing to worry about. But newbies are the last to get bears, so it takes a whole lot of them to get even a few out of the thick cover and flatlands. Most don't know how to hunt that region and it is why the bears have taken over.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  14. #14
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,439

    Default

    81 bears gone...200 calves saved....100 calves shot next year cause they are spikes, 50 of the remaining die in the winter from whatever (not actual figures, analodgy to establish a point). it'll be a super slow climb if this is actually to bring back moose or just provide more targets for hunters...
    need to shut down spike fork moose hunting, then you'll start to see better numbers a little quicker...saving moose to shoot moose isn't going to do it...
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  15. #15

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    81 bears gone...200 calves saved....100 calves shot next year cause they are spikes, 50 of the remaining die in the winter from whatever (not actual figures, analodgy to establish a point). it'll be a super slow climb if this is actually to bring back moose or just provide more targets for hunters...
    need to shut down spike fork moose hunting, then you'll start to see better numbers a little quicker...saving moose to shoot moose isn't going to do it...
    The rationale for killing the spike/forked moose is so that the other less inferior moose will survive the rigors of winter. They are not simply young bulls. They are in fact inferior bulls that will never amount to a hill of beans. And we don't want them to spread these bad genes any more. They gotta be taken out of the gene pool. Allowing a spike/fork to compete for browse makes no sense whatsoever. Better them ending up in someones belly, if they want them, than rotting in the dirt after the bears scavenge them in spring. Let's hope the program doesn't get waylayed because of politics.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  16. #16
    Member GENX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    The rationale for killing the spike/forked moose is so that the other less inferior moose will survive the rigors of winter. They are not simply young bulls. They are in fact inferior bulls that will never amount to a hill of beans. And we don't want them to spread these bad genes any more. They gotta be taken out of the gene pool. Allowing a spike/fork to compete for browse makes no sense whatsoever. Better them ending up in someones belly, if they want them, than rotting in the dirt after the bears scavenge them in spring. Let's hope the program doesn't get waylayed because of politics.
    Yah...kill all them spike/forks or else we could end up with a game farm like scandanavia and moose that look like these.
    http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/s...alaska-more-d/

    After all we are not just wanting to make a game farm out of Alaska to satisfy non residents we are focused on trophy game farming to really satisfy their hunger.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    81 bears gone...200 calves saved....100 calves shot next year cause they are spikes, 50 of the remaining die in the winter from whatever (not actual figures, analodgy to establish a point). it'll be a super slow climb if this is actually to bring back moose or just provide more targets for hunters...
    need to shut down spike fork moose hunting, then you'll start to see better numbers a little quicker...saving moose to shoot moose isn't going to do it...
    Consider 16B a few years ago. The hunt success rate was low so ADFG closed the traditional moose season. Subsequently at the same time they significantly increased the Tier II subsistence moose harvest which DOES NOT require 50" + or three brow tines. It essentially assures the termination of any bull for every permit. And now, to further the illusion of the recent successful (and unethical) black bear reduction, ADFG saw fit to open 16B again to an open season while still maintaining the previous Tier II harvest levels. I guess two years of bear slaughtering re-established the moose numbers big-time!

    But I occasionally spot game from a plane, so what do I know about ethics?

    Is anybody else scratching their heads over this one????

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    The rationale for killing the spike/forked moose is so that the other less inferior moose will survive the rigors of winter. They are not simply young bulls. They are in fact inferior bulls that will never amount to a hill of beans. And we don't want them to spread these bad genes any more. They gotta be taken out of the gene pool. Allowing a spike/fork to compete for browse makes no sense whatsoever. Better them ending up in someones belly, if they want them, than rotting in the dirt after the bears scavenge them in spring. Let's hope the program doesn't get waylayed because of politics.
    What is the criteria for an inferior moose? Do you have any insights that a spike fork bull is biologically inferior to a larger yearling bull?

    Actually (my opinion) I can see a biological reason for spike/fork young bulls. By putting less energy into growing a big rack as a young bull, more could be put into helping the bull survive the winter and making it into maturity in better shape.

    There are definitely more reasons that some genes survive and prosper other than just producing aesthetically (to humans) pleasing antlers. Who knows, the spike fork gene could be a recessive gene passed on by the mother like male pattern baldness. killing all the spike forks might not have much of an impact on how many are produced unless you take out all the mothers that pass the gene along too.

  19. #19
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,439

    Default

    so we are assuming all bulls that are spike fork won't ever make the 50" trophy size criteria...intersting, so now we are managing for trophy moose rather than sustained yield...
    work with me here...
    if we allowed the forks/genetics waste to go for the first year, wouldn't it make more sense to bring back the 36" rule, you'd have more moose for all the "meat" hungry hunters, after all itsn't that why we are killin' off bears in almost every manor possible, to save more moose. Or is the underlying current here really "trophy" moose?....
    so only do the 36" or bigger rule....you'd probably have a moose population that recovers quicker, more harvestable surplus would equal happier hunters and less need for bear control programs that ride the fence of morality...
    ya i've spotted moose from a plane before too....i hope i can be forgiven.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  20. #20

    Default

    I, too, have long wondered about the genetically deficient claims and how much of that is assumption/correct. Interesting thread......
    always thought trophy game was the primary purpose and it seems as much was said at the beginning of the spike fork regulatory trend. Does it really relate to the overall health of the species?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •