We're supposed to compete with the other predators



No announcement yet.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • We're supposed to compete with the other predators

    Hey, isn't Wayne Heimer some really respected biologist? Like..........you guys revere him?
    Well he sure thinks predator control is a good thing!!

    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  • #2
    A campaign of lies

    The more that folks like Heimer and Sharon McLeod-Everette lie in these op-eds and letters to the editor about what our state constitution says, the more they lose all credibility.

    Wayne knows darn well it doesn't say "maximum sustained yield" in our constitution. So why do he and others keep saying it does? I guess they figure if they say it long and loud enough it will become true, and thus fit in nicely with all the new vocabularly like "abundance management" and "guaranteed abundance management endeavor" and all that other stuff that isn't based on sound wildlife management principles. You know, game farm stuff.

    So it goes,
    Mark Richards


    • #3
      ha ha

      I love a guy who's argument undermines his argument. And he's talking about dim bulbs?

      Heimer's premise..... "it surprises many folks that non-human predation, not regulated human hunting, is the dominant manageable component of environmental resistance to game population recovery."

      First off, Hunting wasn't very well regulated. It allowed the bull/ cow ratio to get way out of whack. That's why we have the Spike/Fork 50" rule today.

      Heimer..... "When we quit competing with other predators (wolves, bears, eagles, and coyotes) while increasing numbers of humans continued to harvest our common prey with better technology, it wasn’t too long until populations began to decline under the combined weight of both human and non-human predation."

      It's convenient of him to lump the human impact in with the non human impact. On one hand he admits to the problem of a growing hunter population and the technology such as better access by off-road vehicles, rangefinders, longer shooting set-ups etc, but then lumps the animals into the reason for the decline. I don't think their success rate went up. What, did the wolves and bears start hunting with scopes and chasing prey on quads? So if historically humans took 5 animals for every 5 animals the predators took, and humans increased their numbers and efficiency until they took 15 animals for every 5 the predators took, I guess you could say that the combined weight of both caused a decline in prey numbers. But which group really caused the decline?

      And he didn't mention the non hunting impact of humans on game populations such as auto and train collisions, harassment by pets during critical winter periods, and loss of habitat.

      Heimer... "A few bad winters wiped out juvenile prey animals and older adults, habitats were degraded by wildfire control and game became “suddenly” scarce."

      Now he changes his tune and claims it was a few bad winters that knocked the population down. But up above he said it was the combined human and non human predation? Ohh wait, it's just the old and the young that got affected by the winters more or less, good thing we have the healthy adults to breed the population back to health. Whoops, no we don't because that is the population that humans target when they hunt. Predators on the other hand while taking the strong and healthy if necessary also mostly target the weak and young and old. But Heimer graciously gives both groups equal blame. What a democratic guy.

      And the fire suppression thing, what's with that? Dang, that's another human intervention in the natural process. Again, I don't remember news stories about wolves and bears running around in the woods with fire extinguishers putting out fires. But every summer I read about the Hotshots coming to Alaska to fight fires.

      Heimer... "That changed with our election of Gov. Palin. She has a modern approach, which takes the Alaska Constitution and laws seriously where they say wildlife should be managed for maximum sustained yield of human food."

      There is so much wrong with that statement. First, this is not a modern approach. It is an ancient approach and it has been proven a failure. Alaska tried the wipe out predator approach in the past. It led to historically large herds. Then it led to disaster as habitat was destroyed.

      And the statement that the Alaska Constitution says wildlife should be managed for maximum sustained yield of human food??? That is a blatant lie. It says wildlife should be managed on a sustained yield principle. (Article 8 Section 4) Nowhere does it mention MAXIMUM and nowhere does it mention yield of human food.

      Heimer... "So, who is the real dimwit? I nominate Feral. She’s ignorant of human and Alaska history with respect to predators,"

      I nominate Heimer, He is ignorant of the Alaska Constitution and is not above fabricating so called "facts" and stretching the truth to try to make a point.

      Heimer.... "However, I reject Feral’s violation of the fundamental moral (and ethical) value of truth-telling. In our society, fact (truth) is defined objectively,"

      Gee Heimer, that's why I nominated you. I guess we can call it a draw, because I don't see much difference between you and feral except which side of the fight you're on.
      An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
      - Jef Mallett


      • #4

        Unless someone has trained predatory animals to ride 4-wheelers and shoot magnum caliber rifles; I don't see much improvment in their hunting metohology since before white man entered the Alaska region.
        BUT, the last 20 years has been very productive in the technology areas for humans. We now have GPS, Sat Phones, lazer range-finers, monster 4 wheelers, Argos,snowmachines, scores of high priced optics, lazer range-finding scopes, modern clothing materials. These and many other improvements that have increased the average hunters chances of getting where he needs to go and his ability to harvest multiple animals yearly MAY have helped sway the balance of human-predator harvest to the human side of the score board. Couple that with the influx of people to Alaska ( this includes non-resident hunters) and the game population has taken a hit. Then to make things even worse the fires of 2004 burned vast grazeing areas in the state. These grazeing areas will take many years to become productive again.
        My take on this is if you want to increase herd size and feel that predators are the problem; Reduce the main predators (HUMANS).
        This solution is much easier to obtain, just limit the types of access and the problem will solve itself; Much faster than removeing wolves.


        • #5
          Gosh, sure seems like the "science" supporters aren't supporting science now!! Here I thought Heimer was a "scientist"?
          Brav.............so by your line of thinking we could just close all hunting seasons and everything would be hunky dory for the critters? Moose on every doorstep and a sheep in the yard?
          Heimers point, I believe, is controlling human and non human predation will result in more prey. That seems like a logical idea to wrap our brains around. Whether we do it for "maximum" or not, it will likely have some effect.
          I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
          I have less friends now!!


          • #6
            Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
            Gosh, sure seems like the "science" supporters aren't supporting science now!! Here I thought Heimer was a "scientist"?
            That was not a scientific report, marten. It was an opinion piece written by a scientist. Big difference.


            • #7
              I have to agree with the reference to "Feral" as dimwitted. 100%
              Of course "Feral" is her 'adopted' name. Grrrrr

              At the 1993 "wolf summit" in Fairbanks, as an 'invited participant', I had the pleasure be chosen to "work group #4", Feral, also was chosen to the same 'work group'.
              It was an experience I'll never forget. How such a truely mis-informed person with "The friends of animals" got the media'$ attention was beyond comprehension. Of cour$e the ea$t coa$t full page ad$, $urely promoted her "authenticity" and "knowledge" of wolve$, and Ala$ka game management.

              To make my long opinion short, a 10 year old Alaskan child could have spent several days with her, educating her on myths vs facts, regarding wolves, not wolf$$$$$.

              In quick order to confirm that Alaska had thousands of wolves, Feral insisted the Dept of F&G, to furnish "The friends of Animals" with video's of each existing wolf/packs. Just give us the proof..............

              Talk about low voltage....


              • #8
                Dang, while were at it let's throw the 20d cow hunt in there.


                • #9
                  If I'm not mis-taken, Alaska law doe's define "maximum sustained yield".

                  And did you see P Ferals online response below in news-miners 'community dicussion??

                  One could easily think that SHE has spent decades in Alaska..or just putting $$$ in gordon's pocket.?
                  Last edited by DEDWUF; 03-23-2009, 21:36. Reason: add word


                  • #10
                    A scientific report? Soooooo.........if Wayne Heimer and Gordon Haber analyzed the same data, they would both write the same "scientific report"? Hahahaha. Sorry Brian, I ain't buying it. You guys are just like anyone else. You accept the science that supports your views and reject what doesn't.

                    Originally posted by Brian M View Post
                    That was not a scientific report, marten. It was an opinion piece written by a scientist. Big difference.
                    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
                    I have less friends now!!


                    • #11
                      The state constitution:

                      § 3. Common Use
                      Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.
                      § 4. Sustained Yield
                      Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.
                      § 5. Facilities and Improvements
                      The legislature may provide for facilities, improvements, and services to assure greater utilization, development, reclamation, and settlement of lands, and to assure fuller utilization and development of the fisheries, wildlife, and waters.
                      I like to throw in the inconvenient (for some) part about Facilities and Improvements since it states that the govt is mandated to ASSURE FULLER utilization and development of fisheries, wildlife, and waters.


                      1   /fʊl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fool] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, adverb, verb, noun –adjective 1. completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost capacity: a full cup. 2. complete; entire; maximum: a full supply of food for a three-day hike. 3. of the maximum size, amount, extent, volume, etc.: a full load of five tons; to receive full pay.


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by martentrapper View Post
                        You guys are just like anyone else. You accept the science that supports your views and reject what doesn't.
                        "You guys" being who, marten? I'm in no organization.


                        • #13

                          Interestingly enough, we all view things differently and interpret our world from our views. Two people looking out the same window will see entirely different images and things. Sometimes you can get someone to notice something you see, but it won't hold their attention for very long, as they will revert back to looking at what their brain wants them to see. No amount of science will convince the naysayers that predator control is a very good thing. They simply refuse to see that imbalances occur in our world. They are convinced the natural world is always in balance with it's resources. For this reason, decision makers are always chosen for their ability to see and recognize the imbalances that occur. Whether it be in business, govt, family or a hunting party, this holds true.
                          "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
                          ~~Abraham Lincoln~~


                          • #14

                            come and go , and science progresses.
                            DaVinci and Galileo were scientists, and some of their ideas have stood the test of time, some not.
                            some of heimers conclusions about game management will stand, some will fall.
                            as we learn more, we know more, and often we find that what we thought we knew was in error.
                            the argument that "this was good enough for my daddy and his daddy and his daddy before him" does not preclude the possibility that one is descended from a line of ignoramuses.
                            Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"


                            • #15
                              Lujon, not sure how much background you have with the constitutional convention and our state constitution. It's an amazing document. For a better understanding of things like "development" and "conservation," as it applies to this topic, you and others might check out this link below that has the convention minutes, speeches, and more info:

                              Bob Bartlett, in particular, gave a great opening speech that spoke to resource development, exploitation, and the need to protect our resources from policies of the past that wreaked havoc on the land and on fisheries. We owe Mr. Bartlett a great deal of thanks for his part in formulating our resources policy.

                              You can search the convention minutes from the site above. I have always been fascinated by those minutes. If you do a search on "wildlife" you will come up with the thinking of how the founders felt about wildlife as a resource. On day 37 there was a great presentation on wildlife policy given by a Dr. Gabrielson, and at the time he was asked which lower-48 states he felt had done the best job with wildlife mgmt, and why. He mentioned about five states, and one he mentioned was Missouri.

                              On day 62 the Delegates discussed wildlife policy...and whether or not to insert in the constitution that a fish or wildlife "commission" would be set up by them, or by the legislature, and how such a thing would be handled. This is very interesting because it brings to light very much the "political" nature of commissions depending on how they were formed. Here's an excerpt of discussion from day 62:
                              [Mr. White]...Now, Mr. Sundborg mentioned the revision of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. You will all recall before we came here we had addressed to us a letter enclosing those sections of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, and if you want to go all the way toward supporting the views of these groups you should insert all these sections in our constitution because it is a complete plan of which the commission idea is only a small part. And I think if we are to consider their views fully, I think I will read these sections of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Section 40 says: "The control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the bird, fish, game, forestry and all wildlife resources of the state, including hatcheries, sanctuaries, refuges, reservations and all other property owned, acquired or used for such purposes and the acquisition and establishment thereof, and the administration or all laws pertaining thereto, shall be vested in a conservation commission consisting of four members appointed by the governor not more than two of whom shall be of the same political party...

                              They eventually decided to give the authority to the legislature to designate a fish and wildlife commission and how it would be set up. Unfortunately, what Missouri had already learned about trying to remove partisan politics from wildlife commissions wasn't adopted, and we still have no clause (as other states do) that mandates members of our Game Board be made up of members of different parties.

                              Anywho...contrary to what some here have said, or think, there is nowhere in Alaska statute or law or in the constitution where it says wildife will be managed on a "maximum sustained yield" basis. Yes, we have terms like "maximum benefit" (to ALL Alaskans equally!). And the legislature has passed wildlife laws like the Intensive Mgmt law of 1993 that redefined "the highest and best use" of a certain wildlife population, but keep in mind that MSY mgmt policy for game is not thought to be a prudent policy or scheme by any wildlife agency. That's why you won't find it anywhere relating to game mgmt. We did change our commercial fisheries to MSY mgmt, which is a whole nuther topic, but we never did do that with game.

                              Mark Richards


                              Footer Ad Module 300 x 300


                              Footer Adsense