[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
thanks for the input
Posted by bushrat on Apr 29 2006
Appreciate the input and perspective. "Feeling" will never get wholly taken out of this, I know, but if we look at it purely from a biological management point of view it's certainly not wrong to "manage" bears and wolves; we should manage all the wildlife on the sustained yield principle in our state constitution. It's all about the numbers. Do we need to manage wolves to the extent of killing off 80% of them over tens of thousands of square miles, and many of the bear populations as well? What are the repercussions? What do the biologists have to say about it? I can quote management reports that say we should NOT do this--so where does that leave us? Should some (or the majority of) hunters, the "beneficial users," get full say in what we do, be able to override ADFG trained professionals even if it's poor science and management? When bios tell me "maximum abundance" or "maximum carrying capacity" or "maximum sustained yield" of moose and caribou should not be the management plan statewide on all state lands, I listen to the "why" of it. They are calling for adaptive management, as are we. They are saying we need to look at each area as being unique, that we can't manage the entire state on one principle.
What we don't need is decisions that "drastically" favor one side or the other. You are right. It's why we have to give control and authority back to the department. Take it out of the hands of politicians. That's my take. What's happening now is that certain legislators and certain hunting orgs are continually trying to take authority away from Fish and Game and put it in the hands of "the people." This all sounds good, but it assumes that wildlife biology and management is not a complex science and art and that politicians and lay people should be able to make the decisions simply based on what they want. What we want, and what is biologically and scientifically prudent, are often two different things.
Previous: letter BRWNBR Apr 28 2006
Next: i agree BRWNBR Apr 29 2006