Feds are @ it again...

mike h

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
701
Reaction score
29
Location
Palmer, AK
Before you get to excited about the per capita federal dollars coming to Alaska, look at how total federal dollars are divided up between the states. Last time I checked Alaska got about $11 billion while California got over $200 billion.

Statistics!
 

limon32

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
88
Location
AK
Before you get to excited about the per capita federal dollars coming to Alaska, look at how total federal dollars are divided up between the states. Last time I checked Alaska got about $11 billion while California got over $200 billion.

The wonders of mixing math and English! You can make any result you want!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

iofthetaiga

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
9,202
Reaction score
780
Location
Tanana Valley AK
Before you get to excited about the per capita federal dollars coming to Alaska, look at how total federal dollars are divided up between the states. Last time I checked Alaska got about $11 billion while California got over $200 billion.
Yup.
That means Alaska gets roughly three (3) times more money, per capita, than California does.
It Just doesn't seem fair, does it?
 

sayak

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
6,117
Reaction score
643
Location
Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
Somehow I don't think it's getting distributed per capita.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably so. Betting most goes to the bush which has no tax base and largely votes.... ah well... anyway... back to the Kenai and its bears... No, not Delta Junction bears, nor Wrangell bears, bears on the Kenai, and the lack of meaningful dialog and cooperation between state and federal agencies, and how it may impact hunting in general down here (which already sucks).
 

iofthetaiga

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
9,202
Reaction score
780
Location
Tanana Valley AK
anyway... back to the Kenai and its bears... and the lack of meaningful dialog and cooperation between state and federal agencies...
Do you suppose the state at some point intends to produce any substantive if not comprehensive population data, which is scientifically defendable, to support it's assertion that it's proposed harvest level is sustainable and doesn't risk knocking the population down below the point of genetic viability?
 

kasilofchrisn

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
5,721
Reaction score
376
Location
Central Kenai Peninsula
Do you suppose the state at some point intends to produce any substantive if not comprehensive population data, which is scientifically defendable, to support it's assertion that it's proposed harvest level is sustainable and doesn't risk knocking the population down below the point of genetic viability?
The population study was done 3 years ago or so.
If I remember correctly it doubled or tripled previous counts and used a more accurate counting method.
One nice benefit of this bear season we have now is that problem bears (outside city limits) cab now be removed before they become dlp shootings.
For years we had bear seasons closed or permits cancelled because of too many dlp shootings. Now those bears can be legally harvested.
So much of the refuge is so hard to access it really receives little hunting pressure.
Parts of the rest are closed to hunting.( Skilak loop )
I wish the state and feds would get on the same page on a lot of things.
 

iofthetaiga

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
9,202
Reaction score
780
Location
Tanana Valley AK
So much of the refuge is so hard to access it really receives little hunting pressure.
If so, logic would follow that restricting the season for an area which receives little hunting pressure would have little effect on overall harvest, no? Most of the bears are being harvested from state/private/USFS lands?

So the remaining argument would seem to be less along the lines of there being too many bears, and the FWS action hampering efforts to decrease the population; and more along the lines of "we don't like the FWS and just want to complain about them" (?).
 

Amigo Will

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
484
Location
Wrangell
I would guess if the state said no baiting of brown bears within twenty miles of fed land it would change the feds plan to shut hunting down there. My problem is being an adult and seeing both sides seldom is seen in government working together but opposed at all times.
 

kasilofchrisn

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
5,721
Reaction score
376
Location
Central Kenai Peninsula
If so, logic would follow that restricting the season for an area which receives little hunting pressure would have little effect on overall harvest, no? Most of the bears are being harvested from state/private/USFS lands?

So the remaining argument would seem to be less along the lines of there being too many bears, and the FWS action hampering efforts to decrease the population; and more along the lines of "we don't like the FWS and just want to complain about them" (?).
Not exactly.
What I'm getting at is that the easier access areas of the refuge are where more bears get harvested.
Road or boat accessible areas in particular.
But travel beyond the first mile or so inland from the big lakes sees much less pressure.
Especially areas like Tustumenas south shore. I've tried several areas and dead falls amidst 4' tall dead grass make travel there beyond the first few hundred yards all but impossible for humans.
But bears and other wildlife can get through it.
So we harvest bears easier to access and as they are removed other bears from further out in the refuge ,where they thrive quite well uninhibited by humans, sometimes move in to take their place.
The fringes of the refuge are often where bear removal is needed most. Those bears are often the trouble makers who cause the most human bear interaction problems.
This refuge is huge. So while much of it remains hard to access the outer edges are hunted quite heavily. The interior sections are the less accessed parts and they hold plenty of bears too.
Humans will likely have little effect on these bears.
Most people lack the horses needed to pack out large game from these areas.
Most people also lack the time and/or physical abilities to hunt them much on foot and still pack their game out.
 

Vance in AK

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
60
Location
Kenai
A friend from fish & game said they got word from the Refuge folks that the Refuge would be closing Swan Lake road for culvert repairs for two 3 day periods in Sept during moose season. So that's 6 out of 20 days that area will not be accessible to hunters. I for one would never:)lol:) accuse them of having an anti-hunting agenda but what strange timing.:confused::think:
 

limon32

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
88
Location
AK
They did that last year or two years ago too, I can't recall if it was during moose season or the beginning of trapping season, but definitely interesting timing...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

martentrapper

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
4,486
Reaction score
323
Location
Fairbanks, Ak.
that it's proposed harvest level is sustainable and doesn't risk knocking the population down below the point of genetic viability?
I thought you didn't like "illogical" statements, Taiga? Probably only when they are stated by othyers, eh?
Point of genetic viability...............another talking point used to disrupt the flow of factual information. The Kenai Pen. and the Kenai Refuge are OPEN systems. That means matter, or for our discussion bears, move in and out of the system unrestricted. If human harvest were to really remove enough bears to impact reproduction and thus the supposed "viability" of the historic genetic variations in the bear pop., bears that migrate in would replace whatever supposed threat to the all important "genetic viability" our harvest represents. Surely a man of your great logic and understand that!
What is the current average harvest over the last 10 or so years? How do we know increasing the average will not be sustainable? Should we live in fear of killing one bear too many because we don't have concrete numbers to give us a supposed scientific harvest figure?
What is "wrong" with decreasing the bear pop. Taiga?
 

iofthetaiga

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
9,202
Reaction score
780
Location
Tanana Valley AK
How do we know increasing the average will not be sustainable?
An excellent question. FWS seems to think it's not. You apparently disagree with their data. What data do you have to show that the currently proposed level of harvest will be sustainable? Have you anything to offer other than the theory that if you kill too many, more will magically migrate in from somewhere else?
 

Amigo Will

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
484
Location
Wrangell
In California it was one bear to many. At least here they can be restarted from another gene pool. I have a gut feeling that many would not mind if there were zero bear and wolf on Kpen. The only way to control wildlife is by controlling the human factor in it all. Do you know that Chernobyl is teaming with wildlife numbers greater than ever known before.
 

martentrapper

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
4,486
Reaction score
323
Location
Fairbanks, Ak.
An excellent question. FWS seems to think it's not. You apparently disagree with their data. What data do you have to show that the currently proposed level of harvest will be sustainable? Have you anything to offer other than the theory that if you kill too many, more will magically migrate in from somewhere else?

What data do you, or the F&W have to show it would NOT be sustainable? Kill too many? What is too many? How many are there? Doesn't seem to be any real SCIENTIFIC data of how many bears are on the Kenai. What are the boundaries of the "Kenai Peninsula?
Migration is not a "theory". We can play the data game for an eternity. The ability to accurately count the bear pop. on whatever it is we consider the "Peninsula" if about impossible. We are left with changing seasons, bag limits, methods, and means and averaging the harvest numbers over time. I would be doubtful hunters could come anywhere near endangering the "genetic viability? of the bear pop. Do you or the feds have a number that would be a minimum to retain viability?
 

Vance in AK

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
60
Location
Kenai
Migration is not a "theory". We can play the data game for an eternity. The ability to accurately count the bear pop. on whatever it is we consider the "Peninsula" if about impossible. We are left with changing seasons, bag limits, methods, and means and averaging the harvest numbers over time. I would be doubtful hunters could come anywhere near endangering the "genetic viability? of the bear pop. Do you or the feds have a number that would be a minimum to retain viability?

If I remember right the feds decided our bears here were a special genetic sub species & that since the KP was hard to get to there could be no significant migration:shot:.
They have obviously never been here during tourist season!

Seriously, my father-in-law guided here going back into the 50s. I know several old timers that spent the majority of their days in the late 40s-60s working around the area out of doors. They all say the same thing. The bb population here now is many times what it was then. The moose population..... Not so much:(

And Will, I LOVE seeing wolf & bear. Can't imagine how boring the place would be without them. BUT, I can honestly say that I have seen many more brown bear than legal bull moose on the KP in the last 5 yrs. That stinks.
 

sayak

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
6,117
Reaction score
643
Location
Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
Migration is not a "theory". We can play the data game for an eternity. The ability to accurately count the bear pop. on whatever it is we consider the "Peninsula" if about impossible. We are left with changing seasons, bag limits, methods, and means and averaging the harvest numbers over time. I would be doubtful hunters could come anywhere near endangering the "genetic viability? of the bear pop. Do you or the feds have a number that would be a minimum to retain viability?
Do you remember the story some years back about a relocated, tagged bear that swam Turnigan Arm to get back home? They move!
 
Top