Aerial Predator Control: Which Side Are You On?
- added January 15, 2008
- 2 responses
-
-
-
- alaskaoutdoorcouncil
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Alaska (99)
- Wolves (16)
- Wolf (11)
- Aerial Wolf Control (6)
- Predator Control (6)
- Alaska Outdoor Council (4)
- AOC (2)
Which Side Are You On?
By Rod Arno
Thanks to the ongoing efforts of the Defenders of Wildlife and their friends Alaskan voters next summer will have to again choose whether using aerial shooting to manage predator and prey numbers is an acceptable practice. ?Ballot Box Biology? is on the table again. Recent statewide polls suggest that most Alaskan voters have already chosen which side of the debate they favor. Less than five percent of those polled had no opinion regarding aerial predator management.
So what are people making their decision on when they choose to vote on an initiative to ban the practice of aerial shooting to reduce predation? Either they are Alaskans who actually understand the effectiveness of aerial predator reduction, or they believe what critics of aerial predator control are telling them about the practice.
In an attempt to sway voter opinion anti-game management advocacy groups continually cry "aerial predator reduction is unethical, unsportsman like, and not fair chase hunting" in all their media blitzes. Pro-game management organizations maintain that aerial predator reduction in many cases is by far the most effective tool for increasing the survival rates of depressed populations of moose, caribou, and Dall sheep in Alaska. It doesn't have anything to do with sport hunting, "fair chase" or hunters? ethics. Those are not valid criteria by which to judge management of predator/prey systems.
Most environmental organizations question the practice of managing wildlife for human consumptive use. Instead they say "let nature balance itself". They contend that it is just fine if all wildlife populations remain at low levels indefinitely. Pro-consumptive use advocates say "wildlife is a renewable resource" that should be managed for human use on a sustained yield basis.
So how do Alaskan voters choose which side of the "wildlife management" debate to be on? Advocates on both sides know perfectly well that banning the most effective method for reducing predation renders ?big game management? just so many words.
Alaska has been the proving ground for what noted conservation speaker Shane Mahoney calls the ?North American Model for Wildlife Conservation? ? which has worked for over 100 years. This approach to conserving wildlife and their habitats is dependent on providing continued hunting opportunities. These opportunities have been provided under state laws which provide for game management including effective predator/prey management. History has shown that this conservation model works; neither side in this debate can deny that fact.
To support ?ballot box biology? undermines what Mahoney explained has worked so well for North American conservation. Predator/prey management allows those Alaskans who choose to hunt to continue their practice of being active participants in wildlife conservation -- without diminishing the health of the wildlife resources. It is unfortunate that anti-hunting and anti-management advocacy groups continue to waste everyone?s time and money battling over "which side are we on" in the voter initiative process when we should all share the same goal of wildlife conservation.
Please vote to defeat the latest proposed ban, Ballot Measure 8, on aerial predator management during next year?s Primary election. Instead of promoting further divisive initiatives let?s work together to sustain robust wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend.
By Rod Arno
Thanks to the ongoing efforts of the Defenders of Wildlife and their friends Alaskan voters next summer will have to again choose whether using aerial shooting to manage predator and prey numbers is an acceptable practice. ?Ballot Box Biology? is on the table again. Recent statewide polls suggest that most Alaskan voters have already chosen which side of the debate they favor. Less than five percent of those polled had no opinion regarding aerial predator management.
So what are people making their decision on when they choose to vote on an initiative to ban the practice of aerial shooting to reduce predation? Either they are Alaskans who actually understand the effectiveness of aerial predator reduction, or they believe what critics of aerial predator control are telling them about the practice.
In an attempt to sway voter opinion anti-game management advocacy groups continually cry "aerial predator reduction is unethical, unsportsman like, and not fair chase hunting" in all their media blitzes. Pro-game management organizations maintain that aerial predator reduction in many cases is by far the most effective tool for increasing the survival rates of depressed populations of moose, caribou, and Dall sheep in Alaska. It doesn't have anything to do with sport hunting, "fair chase" or hunters? ethics. Those are not valid criteria by which to judge management of predator/prey systems.
Most environmental organizations question the practice of managing wildlife for human consumptive use. Instead they say "let nature balance itself". They contend that it is just fine if all wildlife populations remain at low levels indefinitely. Pro-consumptive use advocates say "wildlife is a renewable resource" that should be managed for human use on a sustained yield basis.
So how do Alaskan voters choose which side of the "wildlife management" debate to be on? Advocates on both sides know perfectly well that banning the most effective method for reducing predation renders ?big game management? just so many words.
Alaska has been the proving ground for what noted conservation speaker Shane Mahoney calls the ?North American Model for Wildlife Conservation? ? which has worked for over 100 years. This approach to conserving wildlife and their habitats is dependent on providing continued hunting opportunities. These opportunities have been provided under state laws which provide for game management including effective predator/prey management. History has shown that this conservation model works; neither side in this debate can deny that fact.
To support ?ballot box biology? undermines what Mahoney explained has worked so well for North American conservation. Predator/prey management allows those Alaskans who choose to hunt to continue their practice of being active participants in wildlife conservation -- without diminishing the health of the wildlife resources. It is unfortunate that anti-hunting and anti-management advocacy groups continue to waste everyone?s time and money battling over "which side are we on" in the voter initiative process when we should all share the same goal of wildlife conservation.
Please vote to defeat the latest proposed ban, Ballot Measure 8, on aerial predator management during next year?s Primary election. Instead of promoting further divisive initiatives let?s work together to sustain robust wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend.
-
-
-
-
- alaskaoutdoorcouncil
- 5 months ago
-
One question not asked or discussed is this - Why did the Federal Government have to take the management of fish and game away from the State and establish federal regulations for hunting and fishing on federal lands? UNDER FEDERAL LAW, PEOPLE LIVING IN RURAL ALASKA (all people, not just native people), ARE TO HAVE PRIORITY IN HARVESTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES. Alaskas game management system considers every hunter a subsistence hunter and does not allow a rural priority. Urban hunters and lobbyists have fought to prevent changes in Alaskas system to allow a rural priority for decades. So I wonder if those in this blog that say they need to kill wolves in order to meet their subsistence needs really live in rural areas, or if they are urban hunters who are trying to protect actions intended to make it easier for them have a successful hunt that they can tell their neighbor about. Many feel improving success ratios for urban hunters does not justify predator control. Yes, I understand that most hunters use the meat they harvest, as I always have. But being dependent on it in rural Alaska is not the same as being what Alaska calls a subsistence hunter with a Wal Mart nearby. Fearing the spread of aerial wolf hunting to the lower 48 states, people are asking for facts about the aerial wolf hunting program in Alaska. Some hope those facts will counter the proposed Protect America's Wildlife (PAW) Act. Few realize the PAW Act does not stop all aerial hunting, but requires it to be based on sound science, not just the wishes of the hunting lobby, a small vocal minority. (Less than 15% of all Alaskans hold a hunting license. ( http://www.adn.com/outdoors/hunting/story/9219177p-9135.... html ) McGrath, Alaska, was ground zero for the startup of aerial wolf control and has had the most scientific studies of any area of the state. I was appointed to the McGrath Adaptive Management team assigned to find out why hunters were not finding enough Bull Moose to harvest. Studies of subsistence needs for just the McGrath area indicated the need to harvest 100-150 moose, which Fish and Game said required a population of 3,000-3,500 moose. Predation studies showed that bears were the main predators, and a study was done removing bears in the spring so more calves survived. That increased calf survival lasted until the next winter, which was more severe than normal, and most of surviving calves died because of weather, not predation. Intense population studies were done at McGrath, rather than the general population trend survey that had been done for years. The good studies showed that there were between 2,800 and 3,200 moose in the area we desired to have 3,000-3,500, and it showed the core of the problem, the bull cow ratio, which should have been nearly 25 - 40 bulls per 100 cows was down to as low as 6 per 100. That ratio indicates over hunting. Over hunting was also indicated by the bulls having smaller antlers. (Look under Harvests - http://wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.moose and http://www.akwildlife.com/Page5.htm ) All this scientific information was set aside when Governor Murkowski came into office and appointed a new, very radical Board of Game. This Board is so radical, that I fear they will soon approve DENNING - the practice of killing wolf pups and bears and cubs while in their dens - just to increase urban hunter success ratios, without any real regard to helping those living in rural areas that have a higher dependence on natural resources. If they want to show real concern for rural Alaskans, those crying wolf should be crying for better control of urban and trophy hunters and initiating permit systems that help guarantee bull cow ratios do not drop as low as they have near McGrath. I believe under a permit system there will be as much hunting opportunity as there is today, and very likely much higher success ratios.
-
Well, let's see. Hmmm... which side should I be on? It's so hard to decide!
Let's see now. There's the one side -- redneck idiots chasing beautiful and intelligent wolves from the air to exhaustion, then shooting them point blank. They say it's to increase moose and caribou populations because the wolves seem to be better hunters. :)
OK, now on the other side, native wildlife, wolves and maybe bears soon, are being harrassed and chased to exhaustion by crazy foaming at the mouth idiots who are getting a thrill from killing them. They think they are doing hunters who hunt elk, etc. a favor. "Hey, let's go kill all the predators so we can have more prey."
What idiots!
Gosh, it's SO hard to decide!
Here is a perfect instance of why wolves are superior to many humans just taking up space on this earth. Maybe these trophy hunters should consider hunting themselves from aircraft to improve the gene pool of those living in Alaska.
-
-
-
-
- Barbprotectswildlife
- 5 months ago
-
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
