|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
disinformation...again
Posted by bushrat on Feb 01 2006
Mark,
From you post: "Unit 20E has been under intensive bear management strategy for over 10 years now, and liberalized regulations didn't result in either increased hunting pressure or harvest."
With all due respect, your above statement is simply untrue. I commend you for taking the time to write to the BOG with comments, but I think a lot of people may do so without taking the added time to talk with biologists and read the management reports. Here's some of the facts on 20E, taken from this management report:
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/brb03mt-n-w.pdf
During the early 1980s an attempt was made to reduce the grizzly population in 20E by liberalizing the hunting regs in order to increase moose calf survival. They lengthened the season and increased the bag limit from one bear/4years to one bear/year. Between 1984 and 1992 they even revoked the $25 resident tag fee. Here are some direct quotes:
"Annual grizzly bear harvests increased form a mean of 3 during regulatory years(RY) 1966 through RY81 to a mean of 19 during RY 82 through RY 88. During the mid-1980s, Boertje et al (1987) estimated the grizzly bear population in a portion of Unit 20E at 31-41 bears/1000mi2 (12-16bears/1000km2) indicating A POPULATION DECLINE. Changes in harvest rate, sex ratio, and average age of the harvested bears indicated that a population reduction followed increased harvest." [my caps for emphasis]
"Taken independently, specific harvest statistics indicate that the Unit 20E bear population initially declined as a result of increased harvest. Kill rate data and relationship of percent males in the harvest to age class (Fraser et al, 1982) indicated that the bear population in the high harvest area was heavily harvested following the change in regulations. Average male skull size during the period of increased harvest (RY82-RY88) was significantly smaller compared to the 5 regulatory years before the increase, and the trend showed an increased presence of younger males. These trends indicate that as large males were harvested, increased immigration of young males probably occurred.... These data indicate that harvest can result in a decline of an interior Alaska grizzly bear population, primarily by reducing the number of resident adult males."
In the conclusions of this 2002 report:
"Harvest data indicated the population declined only slightly since 1981 despite very liberal hunting regulations. Due to the inaccessibility of most of the unit, harvest had little impact on the total population size. However, in the central portion of Unit 20E [Which is where the bear baiting control is now authorized], harvest INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY in RY82 and remained high until RY89. Harvest was also high between RY93 and RY96.... Bear numbers within this area declined by an estimated 2% annually. Since 1994, harvest has become more dispersed across the unit. Population trend is currently stable."
You mentioned that this is a "careful, measured experiment" and that it will be "carefully monitored."
Actually, it doesn't meet any of the guidelines of a real scientific "experiment" that would have a control group(area) to prove any real efficacy. If harvest of moose increases in the future, this could be from any number of factors, like wildfire and habitat changes, mild winters, 80% of the wolf population being targeted, hunters expanding into new refugia via atv etc. As I've said all along, if we're really going to "experiment" with bear control as we never have before in Alaska, we should probably make sure we have all our ducks in a row and do it right. If funding isn't available for the needed monitoring, then we should reconsider what we're doing and err on the side of caution and concern for the bear recovery. Or, Seekins et al who hold the purse strings should put Alaska's budget money where their mouths are and fund ADFG to adequately monitor the control programs they so often support.
Best, Mark
Previous: It Will Be Interesting Mark Feb 01 2006
Next: Not Disinformation; BALANCE Mark Feb 02 2006
 Message Thread:
|
