Does Predator Reduction Have an Impact on Moose Harvest?

[Daveinthebush]

I did not take it that way either. I was sheep hunting off the Haul Road one year. Woke up on top of the mountain and looked out. Beautiful caribou standing there on top of the mountain. If it wasn't going to be two trips down and back, I passed. I remember pics of other members taking wolves on sheep hunts too. I often fish in Secret Cove just past Hidden Bay.

 

[mark knapp]

I didn't take it as he did something improper, only that he perhaps didn't want to deal with the armchair quarterbacks around here. Which I can understand. Many folks don't post pics and/or stories like they used to. I know I don't.

From my point of view, all of our opponents, anti-hunters, preservationists and wolf savers can take what he said and use it as proof that we have something to hide or are doing something illegal or something that is wrong.

If we are doing the right thing and legally, come right out and say it. Defend it for the reasons it is the proper thing to do.

If we don't have the time or patients to talk about it, or defend it, why bring it up at all.

It could be read in too many ways. And then he posts a hot button image meant to just insight an uproar.

I see know point in saying "I did something (something bad and bloody) but I'm not going to talk about it"

 

[The German]

Wow,,,,,, my comment "Blood on the Mountain" and the inferred nefarious acts that may have been committed,
Dam, sounds like a title for a "Movie" or a "Book",,,,,, or maybe it applies to those 2-partimgan that I had for supper, or,,,, maybe tipping-over a large Male Yote, whilst waiting for my plane ride out,,,,,, just sayin, and jumping to conclusions shows your "Stripes"......
TG

 

[4merguide]

You know Mark that the antis are going to do what they do no matter what. All the facts in the world don't seem to make a difference. I know what you're saying, only that after being on this forum and seeing how it's changed, I just didn't take it that he did something wrong.

 

[mark knapp]

Wow,,,,,, my comment "Blood on the Mountain" and the inferred nefarious acts that may have been committed,
Dam, sounds like a title for a "Movie" or a "Book",,,,,, or maybe it applies to those 2-partimgan that I had for supper, or,,,, maybe tipping-over a large Male Yote, whilst waiting for my plane ride out,,,,,, just sayin, and jumping to conclusions shows your "Stripes"......
TG

Why do you think it's cool to say "but that doesn't mean I didn't leave some "Blood" on the Mountain, and it wasn't my Blood,,,,,, I'll leave it at that....."

If you did anything legal, just say it, and maybe show a picture. But why talk about "inferred nefarious acts"

But if you did something nefarious, in my book, that would be illegal, and certainly not cool.

You don't have to worry much about my true stripes. I use my real name, I show my face in pictures, I write about what I believe in and have nothing to hide. What you see is what you get. I'm all over the internet, with the same name.

 

[mark knapp]

You know Mark that the antis are going to do what they do no matter what. All the facts in the world don't seem to make a difference. I know what you're saying, only that after being on this forum and seeing how it's changed, I just didn't take it that he did something wrong.

I respect what you say, but I'm still fighting it. Anything on here, that can be taken the wrong way will be. I see no point in adding to the fodder.

Consumptive users are fighting a battle with preservationists and comments like his make it harder for us to defend our positions. He does it for sport, he revels in it and he thinks it's cool.

It's my belief that forums like this are for helping us do what we do. We need good representatives, irresponsible comments do us no good.

I will help fight for the germans right to hunt sheep legally if he wants to but he's not helping. If we don't fight to keep our rights and privileges, we will lose them.

 

[4merguide]

I respect what you say, but I'm still fighting it. Anything on here, that can be taken the wrong way will be. I see no point in adding to the fodder.

Consumptive users are fighting a battle with preservationists and comments like his make it harder for us to defend our positions. He does it for sport, he revels in it and he thinks it's cool.

It's my belief that forums like this are for helping us do what we do. We need good representatives, irresponsible comments do us no good.

I will help fight for the germans right to hunt sheep legally if he wants to but he's not helping. If we don't fight to keep our rights and privileges, we will lose them.

It's all good brother, and I hope this doesn't come between you and The German. I agree with what you've said here and can see how some would/could take what he said in a negative light, only that I personally didn't.

 

[mark knapp]

It's all good brother, and I hope this doesn't come between you and The German. I agree with what you've said here and can see how some would/could take what he said in a negative light, only that I personally didn't.

I have no hard feelings with anyone here, and I don't know the German. I have lots of friends and if he is never one of them, I will be OK.

I think our hunting community will be better if nothing we write can be used as an example of why we can't be trusted alone on the mountain. Antis, F&G and troopers watch sites like this. It's naive to think they don't.

Comments like the Germans tend to make us look bad as a whole, in my opinion.

I wish you the best. I'm tying a bunch of flies for the grayling boxes and writing. It's all physical therapy for me.
Take care.

 

[4merguide]

I wish you the best. I'm tying a bunch of flies for the grayling boxes and writing. It's all physical therapy for me.
Take care.

Sounds great. I just retired so I'm relaxing before I take on long overdue home projects.

 

[kasilofchrisn]

Count me in the crowd that didn't think the Germans comments insinuated anything illegal, immoral, unethical, or anything else.
I just assumed he harvested some other type of game animal (large or small)and didn't have the time at the moment to post a full story.
Or maybe it was a couple of grouse that really didn't need a story.
I also think continuing to drone on and on about such a comment and making it seem so negative it's one of the reasons this forum suffers.
If someone continued to insinuate I did something wrong because of a comment such as the German made it would definitely make me want to consider whether or not I remained in the group.
I've also had many a time on an internet forum where I didn't have time to write up a full story about something. Sometimes it led me to not comment at the moment or sometimes it was a short comment.
As an example if I'm headed to the slope for work I know I'm not going to have time for a while to write a full story that may take half an hour or more. So while I may be reading the forum at the airport and put in a little comment I'm just not going to write up a full story at the moment.
And if someone wants to insinuate that I did something illegal because I didn't want to take the time to write a full story or maybe didn't have a picture of the event, that would get very old very fast.
And people like us fighting amongst ourselves does just as much harm with the anti hunters as posting anything else!
So Mark while it is your right to continue to jabber on about this subject ad hominem it is probably in your best interest and interest of hunters and this forum in general to just concede that you were mistaken in your thinking that he had done something illegal and move on!
It was a simple misinterpretation of what he wrote. End of story!

 

[mark knapp]

Count me in the crowd that didn't think the Germans comments insinuated anything illegal, immoral, unethical, or anything else.
I just assumed he harvested some other type of game animal (large or small)and didn't have the time at the moment to post a full story.
Or maybe it was a couple of grouse that really didn't need a story.
I also think continuing to drone on and on about such a comment and making it seem so negative it's one of the reasons this forum suffers.
If someone continued to insinuate I did something wrong because of a comment such as the German made it would definitely make me want to consider whether or not I remained in the group.
I've also had many a time on an internet forum where I didn't have time to write up a full story about something. Sometimes it led me to not comment at the moment or sometimes it was a short comment.
As an example if I'm headed to the slope for work I know I'm not going to have time for a while to write a full story that may take half an hour or more. So while I may be reading the forum at the airport and put in a little comment I'm just not going to write up a full story at the moment.
And if someone wants to insinuate that I did something illegal because I didn't want to take the time to write a full story or maybe didn't have a picture of the event, that would get very old very fast.
And people like us fighting amongst ourselves does just as much harm with the anti hunters as posting anything else!
So Mark while it is your right to continue to jabber on about this subject ad hominem it is probably in your best interest and interest of hunters and this forum in general to just concede that you were mistaken in your thinking that he had done something illegal and move on!
It was a simple misinterpretation of what he wrote. End of story!

Except, one, I did not insinuate anything. I asked questions and he answered. It could be as easy as saying he didn't have time to write.

Two, he continues to use hot button words, and post pictures ment to get a rise, that indicate it was not the way you read it.

I'm not sure you have read the whole thing here is one of his comments.
"my comment "Blood on the Mountain" and the inferred nefarious acts that may have been committed," That tells me everything.

He seems to be a bit of a troll, he writes what he writes to sit back and watch things explode. Welcome to the explosion.

We are all just talking here, he can say what he wants, I can say what I want to about it and you can do the same. As long as we are all respectful.

Again, I think the hunting community would be better served if we didn't post inflammatory stuff. He did, and he continues too.

I am not mistaken, I have said exactly what I wanted and I believe it. You can believe what you want too.

 

[mark knapp]

Sounds great. I just retired so I'm relaxing before I take on long overdue home projects.

Enjoy your retirement and I wish you the best on your home projects.

 

[kenaibow fan]

Uuuugggghhhhh I hate to do this because it’s really not productive but in this case, I find that people are too quick to get their feathers in a ruffle. Especially when it comes to things other people say. I didn’t think what Gman said warranted any kind of response, but for that matter neither did mark. The problem is we are all that board and have nothing better to do then get our stimulation from a facebookish form for “masculine” men……….honestly I am surprised either one of them or for that matter any of us care enough to keep this going way off topic. Most of us on here don’t know each other personally so why care enough to waste the time to respond???????
Nice pic Gman since this thread is about reducing predators!!!!!$

 

[Doug in Alaska]

Uuuugggghhhhh I hate to do this because it’s really not productive but in this case, I find that people are too quick to get their feathers in a ruffle. Especially when it comes to things other people say. I didn’t think what Gman said warranted any kind of response, but for that matter neither did mark. The problem is we are all that board and have nothing better to do then get our stimulation from a facebookish form for “masculine” men……….honestly I am surprised either one of them or for that matter any of us care enough to keep this going way off topic. Most of us on here don’t know each other personally so why care enough to waste the time to respond???????
Nice pic Gman since this thread is about reducing predators!!!!!$

I agree 100%.

 

[Daveinthebush]

In 2000 I lived in Nulato down on the Yukon. A fellow teacher wanted to trap some so I'd venture out with him on the snowgo when I could. In the time we trapped we covered a 10-mile area, on the North shore, East of town. In the little time that we did this we found 8-10 dead moose. One was completely eaten; another was half eaten. The others were just killed. The wolves would get on the nose and then attack the rear of the moose just to kill it. One was a huge cow, bedded out in the willows a ways from the shore right on the trail to the next village. The wolves never came back to eat from the carcass. I can't imagine the total number of moose that were killed along that river system.

 

[mark knapp]

Uuuugggghhhhh I hate to do this because it’s really not productive but in this case, I find that people are too quick to get their feathers in a ruffle. Especially when it comes to things other people say. I didn’t think what Gman said warranted any kind of response, but for that matter neither did mark. The problem is we are all that board and have nothing better to do then get our stimulation from a facebookish form for “masculine” men……….honestly I am surprised either one of them or for that matter any of us care enough to keep this going way off topic. Most of us on here don’t know each other personally so why care enough to waste the time to respond???????
Nice pic Gman since this thread is about reducing predators!!!!!$

Isn't this what this place is for? Thanks for chiming in.

I personally, don't really care what he did. I do have some concern about how we talk about what we do. It's like we are shooting ourselves in the foot. What we say here, will be used against us here and at advisory meetings, BOG meetings and Depts. of the National Refuges. etc.

All the best.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

The article seemed intent to link predator control measures with an actual increase in moose harvest, which is like comparing the rise in human population to increased MVAs in Fairbanks. One doesn't cause the other but only increases the odds of increase accidents because more people are driving the streets. Same with predator control. Take away the crashers and more animals will survive come summer/fall. That doesn't mean more of them must be harvested to prove more exist.

Their study didn't show the total numbers of actual moose survival in predator control areas (impossible to know with certainty), but simply wanted to compare the predator control measures to a quantifiable increase in moose harvests. I think history proves that Alaska harvest success stays close to 45-50% regardless because that's just how it shakes out for most groups in any given GMU. I challenge that Bio to go in to an area without predator control for a moose hunt and then report that experience to support data.

I think this particular science was presented to lean a point toward personal opinion which was not well defended by a comprehensive scientific method. You can make science interpret what you want if you control the interpretation and delivery of said data.

Anyone who believes predator control is unnecessary or ineffective clearly needs to spend more time in the backcountry to learn the truth for themselves. A wolf has 4-6 pups ever spring (most make it to adulthood) and a moose has 1-2 (many do not make it through year 1). That math is all the science one needs to know that article is unreliable, IMO

 

[4merguide]

In 2000 I lived in Nulato down on the Yukon. A fellow teacher wanted to trap some so I'd venture out with him on the snowgo when I could. In the time we trapped we covered a 10-mile area, on the North shore, East of town. In the little time that we did this we found 8-10 dead moose. One was completely eaten; another was half eaten. The others were just killed. The wolves would get on the nose and then attack the rear of the moose just to kill it. One was a huge cow, bedded out in the willows a ways from the shore right on the trail to the next village. The wolves never came back to eat from the carcass. I can't imagine the total number of moose that were killed along that river system.

Along those same lines.... A fellow guide friend of mine only guided for sheep and brown bear. One brown bear hunt in April they headed over in the super cub. When they reached the area, they started looking for tracks in the snow. Soon they found some, along with dead moose. A brownie had come out of its den and not long after, like a cat that just has to kill mice, started killing moose wherever he found them. Moose didn't have a chance cause the snow was still deep enough that they would post-hole in the snow while the brownie would stay on top. From the air, my friend counted 9 moose that brownie killed. He'd eat a little and go kill another one. On snowshoes they ended up getting after that bear. They really wanted to kill it, and my friend even hunted past the scheduled hunt days. But when at last they were closing the gap, the hunter, being an overweight smoker and drinker, just couldn't make it anymore. They never did kill that bear.

 

[iofthetaiga]

The article seemed intent to link predator control measures with an actual increase in moose harvest, which is like comparing the rise in human population to increased MVAs in Fairbanks. One doesn't cause the other but only increases the odds of increase accidents because more people are driving the streets. Same with predator control. Take away the crashers and more animals will survive come summer/fall. That doesn't mean more of them must be harvested to prove more exist.

Their study didn't show the total numbers of actual moose survival in predator control areas (impossible to know with certainty), but simply wanted to compare the predator control measures to a quantifiable increase in moose harvests. I think history proves that Alaska harvest success stays close to 45-50% regardless because that's just how it shakes out for most groups in any given GMU. I challenge that Bio to go in to an area without predator control for a moose hunt and then report that experience to support data.

I think this particular science was presented to lean a point toward personal opinion which was not well defended by a comprehensive scientific method. You can make science interpret what you want if you control the interpretation and delivery of said data.

Anyone who believes predator control is unnecessary or ineffective clearly needs to spend more time in the backcountry to learn the truth for themselves. A wolf has 4-6 pups ever spring (most make it to adulthood) and a moose has 1-2 (many do not make it through year 1). That math is all the science one needs to know that article is unreliable, IMO

So, the study was conducted by 3 authors, with 2 editors, and seems to be quite comprehensive and competent. It seemed to me to be a pretty clean evaluation of data and didn't seem to be trying to lean toward any conclusion one way or the other, but only set out to validate or invalidate the hypotheses that ADFG's predator control policy/management practices in unit 13 have resulted in increased harvest of moose...and based on the available 50 years of data concluded that such hypothesis could not be validated. They go on to suggest that future management practices be conducted in such a manner that resulting data is cleaner and less obfuscating, so that more difinitive conclusions might be made. I've not seen any peer community scientists finding flaws with their means/methods or conclusions. (?)

 

[cdubbin]

Anyone who believes predator control is unnecessary or ineffective clearly needs to spend more time in the backcountry to learn the truth for themselves. A wolf has 4-6 pups ever spring (most make it to adulthood) and a moose has 1-2 (many do not make it through year 1). That math is all the science one needs to know that article is unreliable, IMO

According to ADFG population abundance estimates, there were 275 wolves and about 18,000 moose present in Unit 13 last year...