|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
The initiative---why we should think on it
Posted by bushrat on Dec 18 2005
I think Jans et al were truly concerned at the level of predator control being done and the lack of good science (because of lack of funding) behind both the determinative need for said "control" and studies during and beyond the pred-control to determine its real efficacy.
In case I haven't made it clear in the past <grin>, I oppose most current predator-control programs based solely on Intensive Management Law that uses inflated population density objectives for moose. I've spoken to this issue, and against it, for some time now here (ad-nauseum I'm sure!) and received mostly flak over my views from other hunters.
However, there is now a growing body of concerned hunters and trappers and biologists who are a bit more than concerned at the reasoning behind (and the scope and methods being used) predator control in some gmus in Alaska. And I am one of them. There are many reasons behind my own thoughts, most of it derived from studying wildlife management reports and interviewing biologists and talking with hunters and trappers and non-hunters.
While I am actively seeking ways to change things here in Alaska regarding predator management (NOTE: we manage ungulates and we need to manage wolves as well. I much prefer "wolf management" to "wolf control"), I have to stop short of ballot-box biology. I've never believed in it, though on constitutional grounds I have to agree that the right of the people to amend and change laws by initiative should be guaranteed. Tough dilemma. Majority rule and all that. (Majority-rule is what we really have to concern ourselves with in the future.)
What I'm saying is that while I agree with the reasoning behind why Jans and others are so disillusioned and upset with the current Board of Game and governor and their stance on wolf (and bear) management, I'd rather try to change things some other way.
I have reams of data and research here on all of this. And I have what I think are very good arguments why we should not use aerial gunning by the public to reduce wolf (and bear, by baiting and same day land and shoot) populations. I'm in a somewhat weird place on this as well, as I know and respect a few of the pilots who are participating in the aerial "control" efforts. I call a few of the pilots and gunners my friends. So it's caused me to look at this from a somewhat different angle beyond just black and white. Beyond "right" and "wrong" and respect and disrespect.
Hunters have a severe image problem among the general public that imo is steadily growing worse. I know many say, "I don't give a damn what non-hunters think!" "I don't care what liberals in Anchorage think!" Keep thinking like that and you'll find out how short-sighted that kind of "thinking" is. Beyond the image problem aerial gunning of wolves does to hunters and hunting, there is another (deeper) problem the way I see it. It's pervasive within the whole hunting community. If internet hunting forums are any indication, then we hunters are in deep doo-doo regarding the future of hunting. I've seen pictures on other sites and read things on other sites that turn my stomach. Matter of fact, it's enough to turn ME into an anti-hunter. The image of hunting is suffering because hunting itself is suffering from some new kind of mentality devoid at times of ethics and responsibility and RESPECT for the wild animals (including predators) and wild places we all love so much. It's frightening.
I would probably not sign the initiative against aerial gunning, but I do agree with the reasoning behind the perceived "need" for it. I think that deep down, all of us should at the very least consider the reasoning behind (and the results of) this intiative, the number of signatures, and ESPECIALLY the number of signatures by hunters and trappers (though we probably won't get that data). AK voters have consistently voted against aerial gunning of wolves by the public. We can't deny that the word "gunning" has been replaced with "hunting" in the minds of the voting public. As someone else pointed out, this isn't hunting...but it is being shown as such and reported as such and the public is gullible indeed.
Beyond the image this portrays to the public...there are biological and environmental realities that aren't being talked about. Extremism by the Knowles administration has brought about an extremism by the Murkowski administration. The middle-ground long-term approach to solid game management of all species is being lost, and many biologists speak to this. Above all, I'd like to work on seeing politics taken out of game management as much as possible. I'd like to see a bi-partisan election of Board of Game members, a revision of Intensive Management Law, and a more long-term approach to game management based on science and the educated opinions of those trained in the field of wildlife biology. I will put my trust in their capable hands...I've met them, spoken with them, and trust most of them. They have kids too, and they are hunters and anglers, and they look toward the future.
Best to all, Mark
Previous: Same Old, Same Old Mark Dec 20 2005
Next: Thoughts on predator control twodux Dec 21 2005
 Message Thread:
|
