|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
AKres et al---here's some info to ponder
Posted by bushrat on Feb 01 2006
AKres,
I'm not familiar with the study you mention and can find no record of it in my files or on the net. If you can direct me to the study I would be very grateful.
Since you mentioned Unit 13, here's a quote from the last real density estimate in Unit 13 that I know of, using CMR (Capture-Mark-Resight) technique in 1997-1998.
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/98brb_heavyhunt.pdf
"The Board of Game has set an objective of a 50% reduction of brown bear numbers in GMU 13A to improve survival of moose calves. An estimate of bear density is necessary to monitor effects of liberalized bear regulations and to provide a baseline for the reduction in bear numbers."
After all was said and done, the Capture-Mark-Resight work that was done came up with a density estimate of bears at ~27.5 bears/1000km2
About 28 brown bears for every 1,000 square kilometers. 1000km2 is about 390mi2.
So there's around 28 brown bears for every 390 square miles, according to the latest study (in 1997-1998), which they tend to extrapolate out unit-wide.
Let's move on five years to a quote from the 2002 management report, titled, "Impacts of heavy hunting pressure on the density and demographics of brown bear populations in South Central Alaska":
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/brb-heavy02.pdf
"A CMR conducted in 1997-1998 showed the density of brown bears in the Nelchina study area (13A) to be similar to that of southeastern 13E. A CMR has not been performed since 1998, as it will take time for the harvest intensity effects to be seen at a population level."
What's this? No followup study as promised? Now we move on to the 2003 report:
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/brb-heavy03f.pdf
Scroll down to the bottom of the report where it summarizes the work completed to date and you see this:
"No work was done on this job in this time period. This work was accomplished in 1997-1998."
The above 2003 report is the last report available online. I have no clue whether or not a CMR followup study has been done yet. I don't fault ADFG for this; they don't have the funding to do the bear density estimates. But let's move on to the BOG Findings from 2003 authorizing pred-control in GMU 13:
http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/regs/03143bog.pdf
"In actions similar to liberalizing wolf seasons, the Board has gone as far as possible to reduce the number of brown bears given current hunting regulations, including establishing a year-round season for most of Unit 13. A series of record brown bear harvests averaging 141 bears per season over the past six years resulted. Although recent high harvest rates exceed estimates of sustainable levels, THE BOARD HAS NO EVIDENCE THE BEAR POPULATION IS BEING--OR EVEN WILL BE--REDUCED." [my caps for emphasis]
They have no "evidence" because there had been no followup study as the above reports stated. Interestingly, if you crunch the numbers (28 bears for every 390 square miles) it looks like this: 141 bears x 6 years equals a total bear harvest of 846. According to the density estimate done in 1997-98, these 846 bears should encompass some 11,700 square miles of territory. We are left to wonder: Were the CMR estimates that far off the mark? Only applicable to the Nelchina study area and not the whole unit? Or are we well on the way to severely diminshing the bear numbers over a huge area? What about the decades it took for bear biologists to even come up with these maximum sustainable bear harvest figures...were they all wrong as well? And if so, just how wrong? Shouldn't we err on the side of caution here? I mean, why the heck would any good game manager (or BOG) ever contemplate exceeding "estimated sustainable levels" of any big game species in the first place?? How is that good management and conservation? It's crazy. In the end, our current BOG doesn't really don't seem to care about this, cuz if it takes the brown bears in Unit 13 twenty or thirty years to recover to pre-control numbers, so much the better. Cuz in the end, we'll manage them as predators and not big game animals. That's what we're now doing.
Grrrrr. It frustrates me no end. Sometimes it seems we are essentially over-reacting here, going too far. "Well Knowles wouldn't let us use pred-control, so now we're gonna stick it to the predators, and stick it to 'em good! Na na na na na!" If we aren't careful, we'll have a perfect damn hunting experience in Unit 13 and other units that will be mostly devoid of bears and wolves but crowded with moose and caribou and every friggin hunter from Anchorage and Fairbanks an the lower 48 etc. We'll end up putting a bounty on antlerless moose and giving permits to hunters on atvs to drive wherever the hell they please, and permits to guys with monster trucks to get into the really bad places <grin>, and of course land-and-shoot moose hunts as well to curtail that pesky overpopulation of ungulates out in the nether regions. It'll be all blaze-orange vests, wild west, shoot-em-up and knock-em-down boys and be thankful Intensive Management allowed you the privilege to hunt in these overcrowded, noise-polluted conditions with a 35% success rate for ALL TIME. That IS where the plan takes us. Until that deep-snow severe winter, or two of those in a row...and then all that biomass so carefully created and engineered by human hands will die off in massive numbers and we'll have a land mostly devoid of ungulates and wolves and bears.
Yeah, that sounds like a good plan.
Uh-huh,
Mark
Previous: Bushrat??? Akres Feb 01 2006
Next: Reply Akres Feb 01 2006
 Message Thread:
|
