|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Not Disinformation; BALANCE
Posted by Mark on Feb 02 2006
"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."
I hope ALL will read the management reports.
I hope ballot-box voters will do so.
However, talking to biologists (which I do) and reading management reports (which I do to excess) will NEVER be done by ballot-box voters. It isn't even done by most hunters.
"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."
Increasing harvest from a mere 3 bears to 19 over an 8 year period in a subunit that was awash in both wolves and bears wasn’t enough. This is yet another step. There are other units that need this.
I’ve proposed other solutions, primarily the elimination of the guide requirement for non-residents in sub-units of intensive management. You know where that went, and why. That met with a lot more resistence here on the Alaska Hunting Forum than your response, and you know from who.
So, I’m desperate - like the Department.
How do you reduce brown bear numbers in any specific unit – subunit without pissing SOMEBODY off?
"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.""
Yes, that’s exactly what I mentioned. And, as you have illustrated above, it’s been carefully monitored since the subunit became an intensively managed unit some 25 YEARS AGO.
The harvest isn’t enough, despite the gradual loosening of regulations. This is just another level of regulatory loosening.
If we don’t allow the Department the leeway to MANAGE wildlife, and instead allow EVERY ENTITY ON EARTH to meddle, we will LOSE WHAT STATEHOOD WAS ALL ABOUT: Control of our natural resources.
"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."
I can’t believe what I’m reading!
This has been a 25 year, ongoing biological, scientific, and political struggle! Regulatory loosening has been ongoing for the whole time! The density of bears has remained stable!
What more do you need?
"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."
You can’t even wait for results! You’re already analyzing the goal!
We haven’t lowered the density of bears yet, and you’re already interpreting the increase of moose (which hasn’t happened yet!)
"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."
Okay; what’s your recommendation? How do we do it; biologically, politically, and regulatorally?
"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."
That’s EXACTLY what we have been doing since statehood.
Isn’t it time for change?
It’s been nearly 50 years.
"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."
THAT can’t be done until the per-capita state spending formula comes into balance;
In other words, we can’t continue to spend $50K per rural resident when compared to $5K per urban resident and a state like Utah spends $500 per resident.
We need BALANCE.
That’s what predator control is all about.
Previous: disinformation...again bushrat Feb 01 2006
Next: you aren't making much sense bushrat Feb 02 2006
 Message Thread:
|
