J in AK
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 609
- Reaction score
- 63
http://www.adn.com/2011/03/11/1751227/board-votes-to-add-brown-bears.html
I am popping my popcorn, have at it boys....
I am popping my popcorn, have at it boys....
Brown Bear Snaring
- Thread starter J in AK
- Start date
martentrapper
New member
Yea, glad to see it. Increasing opportunities to take bears is good. Hope they get to sell the hides too.
AlpineEarl
New member
Pathetic. What a stupid decision. This BOG has made poor judgment, ineptitude and ignorance the key stone of their tenor.
bushrat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,706
- Reaction score
- 718
We've hit a new low at ADFG, absolutely unbelievable that they would support this.
Akres
New member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 8,276
- Reaction score
- 465
Much to be learned by this. Hopefully lessons learned can and will be put to good use throughout the state. There will always be naysayer's with any new initiative, don't know why...but some folks refuse to acknowlege reality and prefer to dwell in fantasy. Thumbs UP to the BOG on this one!
33outdoorsman
Active member
They allow bear snaring now in unit 16, but not even a general season for brownies on the KP... hmm. I don't really like this because currently there is 2 brown bears a year in unit 16. If the moose hunters can't get out there and get those two bears by standard hunting methods then they don't really deserve the moose.
Hayduke
Active member
I'm sure they came to realize that there is no way to keep browns out of the snares and just compounded an already questionable decision.
spoiled one
Well-known member
Why not just allow same day airborne permits for the browns like they did for the black bears and allow baiting for the brown bears? I suspect that this was brought up and was voted down by BOG.
The lesson learned from this board is........... Don't do your job of managing, find a scapegoat, then nuke 'em. They had a lot of options to use before even considering that they didn't try. Raise bag limits and hunting time. Allow non guided non residents to hunt bears in this unit.
One way or another, hunters will pay for this rash decision.
Amigo Will
New member
It would be better if hunters had to fill a predator tag before useing meat tag. I'm also thinking if Anchorage still had 50,000 folks liveing there all would be well
pike_palace
New member
About time. 16 has been a brown bear haven for the last decade.
Then you'd think people would be clamoring to hunt them there. Especially if regs were relaxed. Make it easier for people including non res and I'm sure they will come.
pike_palace
New member
You would "think" wouldn't you. But then again, why go there? Sure, lots of bears, but not lots of big ones, who wants to spend the $$$ to hunt 9' brown bears? Why not go where you have a shot for a 10' bear?
Hard area to hunt too. Very thick forest and not as appealing as say the AK Pen or Kodiak. Not much access either. Has all the makings of good brown bear habitat. Salmon to eat, thick forest, not many people, practically zero hunting pressure... the browns have had it easy. Too easy. These snaring regs will quickly eliminate some of them and actually give the entire unit, not just a pocket here and a pocket there, a chance to solidfy the moose population.
AlpineEarl
New member
Nah. They don't actually want more residnet hunter participation. And hunters only TALK about participating more. A very small and narrow constituency wants to snare some bears and sell some hides or eliminate the competition for the non-res hunters paying a bucket full of money to GET, not hunt moose.
The predator control program is akin to gov't subsidies. How many people groan and moan about coyotes, or wolves or bear while banging away on their keyboard all the while their rifle rusts behind the seat of the truck until they see that moose 50 yards from the highway. Then the great hunter shoots from one step off the road. It's much easier to have the state waste money paying the previously mentioned narrow constituency to fly around and shoot wolves at taxpayer expense, spending the funds that could go into a controlled burn or other habitat improvement program. Or, fill a bucket with doughnuts, set a snare and go watch TV instead of having to walk around looking for bear or sit in the cold woods and wait for one to come to the bait.
The whole gig lacks logic, reason and any scientifc base........just like the BOG that passed it.
pike_palace
New member
Perhaps the most generalized, ignorant post I've ever wasted time reading.
AlpineEarl
New member
You just proved my point. In your post you basically said the area has great habitat, little hunting pressure and lots of bear. Then you said it's too hard to get to, to expensive for only a 9' bear, too "hard" to hunt and not as "appealing" as the Pen or Kodiak and if someone else snares them the moose will be easier to get.
Thanks for arguing my side! Of course it was a generalization about some hunters. A generalization that is proven year after year though. On the other hand he BOG comment was very focused. Have you been paying attention to their decisions and the folks who lobby them lately?
pike_palace
New member
You just proved my point. In your post you basically said the area has great habitat, little hunting pressure and lots of bear. Then you said it's too hard to get to, to expensive for only a 9' bear, too "hard" to hunt and not as "appealing" as the Pen or Kodiak and if someone else snares them the moose will be easier to get.
Of course it was a generalization about some hunters. A generalization that is proven year after year though. On the other hand he BOG comment was very focused. Have you been paying attention to their decisions and the folks who lobby them lately?
And yet suddenly you assume that since it's hard area to hunt for bear, that its just a cakewalk for moose. I mean, you did go to all the effort to generalize all those in favor of this as mere road hunters who do nothing but drive up and down the highway in 16. Er, wait, there isn't much highway in 16
Silly me, err you. There isn't much road system at all into 16 except bits and pieces. Guess there doesn't need to be any moose since there isn't much area to road hunt.I'd like to hear your reasoning for the snaring lacking "logic, reason and any scientifc base". Perhaps you have a better method of rebounding the moose population so we lazy, govt. subsidy bums can bag a moose. Perhaps you have some knowledge or experience of 16 that I/we do not. Won't hold my breath though.
bushrat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,706
- Reaction score
- 718
As far as any science behind the addition of brown bear snaring to the control program, for years now the Dept. has stated that black bears were the primary predator of moose calves in Unit 16. And since all these black bear control methods and means and liberalizations have started, the black bear harvests have skyrocketed, and the Dept has said that with the ongoing wolf and black bear control program the moose population is increasing.
And now, suddenly, snaring of brown bears also is needed? Based on what data and research, what real need? It's ostensibly based on the Dept saying that in one specific area where there has been snaring and baiting of black bears that they found out that brown bears are now taking 47% of all the moose calves taken. One doesn't have to be a biologist to understand that if we take out a whole bunch of black bears over a few years (that the Dept said were the main calf predator) that the percentage of brown bear predation on calves would rise.
So this call to now add brown bears to the snaring program...I don't think I've ever seen something presented that was so indefensible on its face. But it carried.
Where is it all gonna lead? What will the negatives be? Amazing how short a time it has taken for ADFG to completely reverse decades-long positions.
And now, suddenly, snaring of brown bears also is needed? Based on what data and research, what real need? It's ostensibly based on the Dept saying that in one specific area where there has been snaring and baiting of black bears that they found out that brown bears are now taking 47% of all the moose calves taken. One doesn't have to be a biologist to understand that if we take out a whole bunch of black bears over a few years (that the Dept said were the main calf predator) that the percentage of brown bear predation on calves would rise.
So this call to now add brown bears to the snaring program...I don't think I've ever seen something presented that was so indefensible on its face. But it carried.
Where is it all gonna lead? What will the negatives be? Amazing how short a time it has taken for ADFG to completely reverse decades-long positions.
