This ought to stir up some emotions

[tailwind]

I'd rather the state spend the money on promoting wildlife than some of the other stupid sh*t they do.
I really love ruffed grouse hunting, their numbers have blown up in recent years. Wasn't that the same sort of thing?

[Dr.No]

I read Dr. No's articles and these statements scare me:

"Through conservation efforts and management in Canada, the population of 300 has grown to over 4,000 disease-free animals, with a total of about 10,000 animals in the wild."
"USFWS is completing a status review and may downlist or delist wood bison based on the substantial improvement in their status since they were listed as endangered about 40 years ago."

So they get delisted, unlisted, ratcheted down to threatened-whatever. If they're delisted, can't the whack-jobs sue and get them re-listed with a brand new endangered status for ANOTHER 40 years? Sorry, but ESA and EPA make my blood boil. I'd like to see both abolished, personally. These animals don't seem like they're worth the energy to fight the court battles ($$$$$) and feds to re-intro them. Euthanized them or give them back to Canada. Steak 'em up and I'd try them too.

Tim

Tim

I believe the short answer is that animals on state land would not be eligible for (re)listing and animals on federal land would face this scenario you propose, depending on what land they were on. But the argument you make doesn't seem rational. To summarize: because animals might be come delisted at some point in the future (i.e. numbers have grown), you're worried that at that point, environmentalists may sue to keep the animals on the ESL. Thus, the solution is to either (1) immediately euthanize all animals scheduled for release or (2) send them back to Canada.

I understand the govt makes your blood boil; but let's think about it like this. Let's say the govt is trying to give you an egg. Using your logic, what we should be doing is taking the egg, smashing it on the ground and saying "F-you! I know I like eggs, but you might try and take it from me some day!"

I seriously can't figure out the downside to Woodland Bison re-introduction. You may or may not have a chance to hunt them in Alaska in the future. You currently will never have that chance in Alaska. Isn't the tangible possibility of something better than a definitive nothing?

[tccak71]

Not when the definitive nothing will lead to loss of hunting privileges in an area due the ESA listing of a species. You put too much faith in ESA and environmentalists. The cutthroat non-profit enviro groups WILL sue, guaranteed; unlike your hypothetical egg example, replace MIGHT with guaranteed. Its a matter of WHEN not if they'll sue. At a time when our governor is fighting the feds on a host of issues, we don't need to fight them on a problem we'll be creating ourselves by releasing these bison. Jmho.

Tim

[Dr.No]

Dude, I give up. As a hunter you have no downside to this. Even if you aren't able to hunt the bison, other hunting opportunities would remain unchanged. Yet you would rather not even have the chance. Kinda like not wanting to make more money because you'd have to pay more in taxes...doesn't make sense.

[akfishfool]

This was all covered at the ac meeting last night. The bison hold up is being caused by the feds and the esa. without a 10j rule covering us the feds will never allow us to hunt them. We need the exception in order to guarantee hunting rights in the future. We cannot trust the feds to leave it alone everyone should know that by now.

The feds do not what to grant the exception because of the fear of what is being done with wolves in yellowstone being done here. They don't want more law suits from the anti groups. the anti groups will sue nomatter what we do so stop living in fear of them. we are having trouble right now do to the 10j issue and getting final authorization for a site to release them. According to F&G we were offered an exemption but only if it contained no language about future hunting.

The innoko ( sorry about spelling) is the only place we have a chance to release them right now do to oil/gas resource issues. Minto flats was a better choice and is state land with great access, but Doyon fought it, same with yukon flats. the herd is growing and will soon be out of room down in portage.

The bison cannot be released anywhere near the plains bison, because they are a distinct species and disease free and need to stay that way.

We need to release some of the bison now, or we will start to loose some. F&G plans to continue fighting to release more herds after the initial release, and that could mean places like minto and yukon in the future. But right now they are out of space. After this years calves (over thirty) we will have to separate the bulls and cows to prevent anymore calves due to space constraints.

Better to fight for a place to do any release now so we can continue to let them breed and grow, then let them stagnate. It may not be ideal, but "it is " better than nothing, and nothing "is" our alternative right now. I would rather fight for this for my kids to have a chance than nothing at all.

As far as whether or not there is some native subsistence take, if the alternative is nobody gets anything, than is it really an issue for us to be dragged down by? Address it yes, but we already have enough what if situations lets not create more.