Unimpressive Representation of Hunting By RHAK

[BrettAKSCI]

I decided to catch up on news just a few minutes ago when what popped up on my YAHOO (not ADN or anything local mind you) news feed, an AP article circulating to the entire world talking about the decline of the central arctic caribou herd. I clicked on it and started reading. In it was this quote from Mark Richards of RHAK.

"Obviously hunting contributes to decline. Whether it's a significant factor, we don't know," said Mark Richards, executive director of the Resident Hunters of Alaska group. "But you can't deny that hunting has an effect. Otherwise, they wouldn't restrict hunting."

I would hope that in this day and age all sportsmen and women should know that well regulated hunting should in no way "contributes to decline" in animal populations unless that is the stated purpose or intent of managers and their management objectives. Habitat, weather, poaching, food all contribute. Well regulated hunting not so much. I would ask that if RHAK is contacted by the AP again for feedback on stories that circulate to such a large audience that they defer to a more experience and versed national group representing sportsmen for public comment to ensure that hunters and hunting are both represented in the best light possible. I was not impressed.

Brett

Article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/alaska-biologists-research-mystery-declining-caribou-herd-155341917.html

 

[iofthetaiga]

I decided to catch up on news just a few minutes ago when what popped up on my YAHOO (not ADN or anything local mind you) news feed, an AP article circulating to the entire world talking about the decline of the central arctic caribou herd. I clicked on it and started reading. In it was this quote from Mark Richards of RHAK.

"Obviously hunting contributes to decline. Whether it's a significant factor, we don't know," said Mark Richards, executive director of the Resident Hunters of Alaska group. "But you can't deny that hunting has an effect. Otherwise, they wouldn't restrict hunting."

I would hope that in this day and age all sportsmen and women should know that well regulated hunting should in no way "contributes to decline" in animal populations unless that is the stated purpose or intent of managers and their management objectives. Habitat, weather, poaching, food all contribute. Well regulated hunting not so much. I would ask that if RHAK is contacted by the AP again for feedback on stories that circulate to such a large audience that they defer to a more experience and versed national group representing sportsmen for public comment to ensure that hunters and hunting are both represented in the best light possible. I was not impressed.

Brett

Article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/alaska-biologists-research-mystery-declining-caribou-herd-155341917.html

Logic dictates that any action, natural or human, which removes animals from a declining population contributes to said decline. Personally, I don't get bent out of shape when someone's statements don't sufficiently spin reality to satisfy my own agenda.

 

[BrettAKSCI]

Logic dictates that any action, natural or human, which removes animals from a declining population contributes to said decline. Personally, I don't get bent out of shape when someone's statements don't sufficiently spin reality to satisfy my own agenda.

My "agenda" is representing hunting in the most favorable light possible to a wide audience whenever possible. I feel that a hunting group suggesting that scientifically managed hunting contributes to declines in animal populations in such a widely circulating article is the exact kind of BS that PETA and the HSUS latches onto with open arms. I've been working against anti hunters for a while now and this is exactly the kind of stuff they want. I am just frustrated that hunting didn't get a better foot forward in this article. A chance was lost. Again if RHAK gets asked about allocation in Alaska or resident hunting they should have at it. If they get asked to represent the entire hunting community in front of the world let experts do it.

Brett

 

[iofthetaiga]

Again if RHAK gets asked about allocation in Alaska or resident hunting they should have at it. If they get asked to represent the entire hunting community in front of the world let experts do it.

Brett

Are you a RHAK member?

 

[323]

Are you a RHAK member?

Are you a member??

 

[BrettAKSCI]

Are you a RHAK member?

I am not. SCI, NRA, WSF, and GSCO. I've also been a TU, RGS, DU, and RMEF member at times. I prefer to support organizations who do advocacy for hunting/guns in total (not subsets) or conservation work.

Brett

 

[stid2677]

Mr Brett,, You are mostly correct when talking strictly trophy hunting, but with the caribou cows are not only hunted but sought out as the preferred food source for many. This is a subject that has a subsistence side and killing cows for sure has an effect.

Why so harsh Brother?

Steve

 

[BrettAKSCI]

Mr Brett,, You are mostly correct when talking strictly trophy hunting, but with the caribou cows are not only hunted but sought out as the preferred food source for many. This is a subject that has a subsistence side and killing cows for sure has an effect.

Why so harsh Brother?

Steve

Steve,

Tell me that quote from Mark says what you just said? I've spent a lot of years, hours, and energy not to mention money supporting the favorable portrayal of hunters and hunting. That quote did not help us at all. Yet again defer to experts.

Brett

 

[BrettAKSCI]

Why so harsh Brother?

Mark should know better. He was speaking for me as well as every other hunter and he did a poor job. This wasn't just ADN. It went out to the world.

Brett

 

[Brian M]

Of course hunting plays a role. If a herd is declining and said herd is subject to harvest, then that harvest is part of the equation. Not all game populations are perfectly managed. Our biologists and managers with ADF&G do an incredible job, but they're not fortune tellers and sometimes herds experience a decline without an immediate change to seasons/harvest limits. When such a scenario occurs (which seems to be the case in the Central Arctic Herd), then hunting is a part of that.

On a side note, did you ask Mark if that was the entirety of what he said? Is it possible that context would give greater clarity to his overall point and that part of the conversation was omitted from the article?

Furthermore, who are these experts that should be deferred to? What list of achievements/certifications/experiences deems somebody qualified as an "expert" to speak to the press about wildlife management?

 

[BrettAKSCI]

Of course hunting plays a role. If a herd is declining and said herd is subject to harvest, then that harvest is part of the equation. Not all game populations are perfectly managed. Our biologists and managers with ADF&G do an incredible job, but they're not fortune tellers and sometimes herds experience a decline without an immediate change to seasons/harvest limits. When such a scenario occurs (which seems to be the case in the Central Arctic Herd), then hunting is a part of that.

On a side note, did you ask Mark if that was the entirety of what he said? Is it possible that context would give greater clarity to his overall point and that part of the conversation was omitted from the article?

Furthermore, who are these experts that should be deferred to? What list of achievements/certifications/experiences deems somebody qualified as an "expert" to speak to the press about wildlife management?

Brain,

I get the intricacies of wildlife management that you and Steve have pointed out. The problem is that Mark was just not speaking to you, Steve, and I. When you're on a national stage you have to speak like it. Keep it concise and on target. Going into the vagaries and complexities of wildlife management to a novice AP writer leaves yourself with lots of sound bytes that can be taken any way they want. You have to account for that. Again keep it on target or better yet let an expert do it.

I did not ask Mark about this.

Who's an expert? National SCI, National Shooting Sports Foundation, NRA, Boone & Crocket, you name it. A new local hunting group that primarily advocates for resident hunter preference? Not so much.

Brett

 

[iofthetaiga]

Everyone views the world through a slightly different lens; different perspectives. I think that Mark's comment was a logical statement of fact and provided necessary counterpoint to the biologist's statement that neither hunting, nor predation played a role in the population decline. I don't see his statement as negative toward hunting at all, just a simple statement of logic. On the other hand, Many people find trophy hunting quite distasteful, and when the subject of hunting comes up in mixed company I end up having to defend and distinguish my activities from those of the likes of Safari Club International. Personally, I would not propose that SCI speaks for me or my interests. Like it or not, reality is not black and white. Everyone has a different perspective. That goes for people who hunt, and people who hold opinions of people who hunt. There is no moral high ground here.

 

[FullFreezer]

I decided to catch up on news just a few minutes ago when what popped up on my YAHOO (not ADN or anything local mind you) news feed, an AP article circulating to the entire world talking about the decline of the central arctic caribou herd. I clicked on it and started reading. In it was this quote from Mark Richards of RHAK.

"Obviously hunting contributes to decline. Whether it's a significant factor, we don't know," said Mark Richards, executive director of the Resident Hunters of Alaska group. "But you can't deny that hunting has an effect. Otherwise, they wouldn't restrict hunting."

I would hope that in this day and age all sportsmen and women should know that well regulated hunting should in no way "contributes to decline" in animal populations unless that is the stated purpose or intent of managers and their management objectives. Habitat, weather, poaching, food all contribute. Well regulated hunting not so much. I would ask that if RHAK is contacted by the AP again for feedback on stories that circulate to such a large audience that they defer to a more experience and versed national group representing sportsmen for public comment to ensure that hunters and hunting are both represented in the best light possible. I was not impressed.

Brett

Article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/alaska-biologists-research-mystery-declining-caribou-herd-155341917.html

And this is exactly why I joined and support R.H.A.K.

 

[Brian M]

Who's an expert? National SCI, National Shooting Sports Foundation, NRA, Boone & Crocket, you name it. A new local hunting group that primarily advocates for resident hunter preference? Not so much.

Brett

The NRA is considered an expert organization on the intricacies of wildlife management? Huh. I thought their primary mission was the defense of the 2nd Amendment.

As for the rest, I'd agree that leaders in those groups are likely qualified to speak to wildlife management issues. I'm fairly comfortable with Mark making such statements as well, and I don't see anything in his statement that raises my hackles.

 

[polardds]

This is the start of the other hunting groups in the State attacking the new kid on the block. (Brett/ SCI going after Mark/RHAK) All the groups are for hunters. Each group has their spin. Why can't we all get along? We are basically on the same side.

 

[BrettAKSCI]

The NRA is considered an expert organization on the intricacies of wildlife management? Huh. I thought their primary mission was the defense of the 2nd Amendment.

As for the rest, I'd agree that leaders in those groups are likely qualified to speak to wildlife management issues. I'm fairly comfortable with Mark making such statements as well, and I don't see anything in his statement that raises my hackles.

The NRA covers shooting sports which includes hunting.

Brett

 

[BrettAKSCI]

This is the start of the other hunting groups in the State attacking the new kid on the block. (Brett/ SCI going after Mark/RHAK) All the groups are for hunters. Each group has their spin. Why can't we all get along? We are basically on the same side.

Nope. I did forward this so they would be aware, but I haven't been on the board in 2 years. I just was really upset at the portrayal of hunters. In hind sight I would like to apologize to Mark for not speaking to him first before coming on here. I haven't changed my mind about what I think, but I do think I should have done that first. I was just really pissed and should have let myself have a cool off period first.

Brett

 

[Brian M]

I would hope that in this day and age all sportsmen and women should know that well regulated hunting should in no way "contributes to decline" in animal populations unless that is the stated purpose or intent of managers and their management objectives. Habitat, weather, poaching, food all contribute. Well regulated hunting not so much.

Brett, I think it's just asinine to argue that well-regulated hunting never contributes to population declines. Was it the primary driver in this case? Probably not. Did it contribute? Probably. I guess we could get into what "well regulated" means, of course. Again, sometimes our managers have to react to population declines after the fact, and sometimes those declines are caused in part by overharvest. Look at black bears in Unit 6D. I think it would be quite the stretch to suggest that the population out there hasn't been affected by hunting. Does such an acknowledgement reflect poorly on hunting? Not in my opinion, no. I'd argue that we do ourselves a greater disservice by ignoring the impact that hunting can have on populations and thus abdicating our role as active, informed conservationists. I firmly believe that hunting is an important part of active wildlife management and that the North American model for wildlife management works. That said, I'm not so naive as to think that overharvest is never, ever an issue, nor would I want those who purport to speak for me to come across as though they exist in an echo chamber where the only news is good news. Engaging in critical dialogue isn't fodder for anti-hunting groups, it is part of the responsibility of hunters as conservationists.

 

[BrettAKSCI]

Everyone views the world through a slightly different lens; different perspectives. I think that Mark's comment was a logical statement of fact and provided necessary counterpoint to the biologist's statement that neither hunting, nor predation played a role in the population decline. I don't see his statement as negative toward hunting at all, just a simple statement of logic. On the other hand, Many people find trophy hunting quite distasteful, and when the subject of hunting comes up in mixed company I end up having to defend and distinguish my activities from those of the likes of Safari Club International. Personally, I would not propose that SCI speaks for me or my interests. Like it or not, reality is not black and white. Everyone has a different perspective. That goes for people who hunt, and people who hold opinions of people who hunt. There is no moral high ground here.

SCI does it's best to present all forms of hunting in a favorable light. I would say the same for most of the other organizations I previously mentioned. That's why I would say they were much better suited to give a statement even if you don't 100% like SCI. Like it or not they are the NRA of hunting and conservation.

Brett

 

[Brian M]

The NRA covers shooting sports which includes hunting.

Brett

The NRA is not focused on wildlife management. They recognize that hunting is of interest to a large proportion of their membership, so they offer publications on such. That said, you won't see the NRA testifying before the Board of Game on wildlife management issues - it's not what they do. I certainly wouldn't consider them an "expert" on such issues.

This is a side issue, though, so I'll let that one rest.