Alaska Outdoor Supersite: Alaska outdoor information
Home
Site Map
Directory -- Businesses serving the Alaska outdoors industry
Areas -- Information about Alaska outdoor areas
Forum
Fishing -- Information about fishin in Alaska
Hunting -- Information about Alaska hunting
Magazine -- Articles and photos about the Alaska outdoors
Products
Who is OAC?
   
* New on
  OutdoorsDirectory.com
* News & tips by email:
  Alaska Outdoors mailing list
* Email notification of new
  Alaska books and video

 

Terrain Navigator
CD ROM topographic map coverage for ALL of Alaska

 Terrain Navigator 2001

Click for more information


Complete Catalogs

Alaska Hunting Books
Alaska Fishing Books
Alaska Travel Books

Plan Your
Alaska Trip
with The Milepost

The Milepost

Click here for more information or to
order your copy


Hunting forum

The Alaska
Hunting Forum

[ Return to Contents | Post a Reply | Post a new message ]


some repsonses to your good questions
Posted by bushrat on Dec 27 2005
Steve,

You asked some good questions. I'd like to take a stab at a couple.

"What is the ethical dilema if it is a meat run? The caribou lived, was killed, and then eaten. Is that any less ethical that a cow living on a farm, being slaughtered, and then being eaten?"

No, it doesn't seem to be any less ethical than a cow being slaughtered on a farm, and indeed is very similar (I think), hence the "problem." If "hunting" is to become equivalent to "slaughtering" a farm animal, then it will no longer be hunting. Is a "guaranteed" hunt inside a high fence "hunting"? Is "buying" a bison from a rancher in the lower 48, and being allowed on the property to kill it, "hunting"? At what point do we stop calling something "hunting" and name it something else, like "shopping"? Andy Hall, for Alaska magazine, wrote an article on this once. I think he called it "Shopping the Mulchatna." The pilot finds the caribou herd, lands close by, and the "hunters" disembark and must (by law) be at least 300 feet from the aircraft before shooting. Many take caribou within a half-hour after exiting the aircraft. They are back in the air and on the way home to Anchorage (with the meat) all within a couple hours after seeing caribou from the air. There is nothing unethical about it to my mind as long as we don't label it "hunting." When we label it "hunting," then it doesn't meet most any hunter's fair-chase standards.

Our Board of Game has the authority to adopt changes in our own Alaska Statutes concering legal methods for the taking of fish and game. Our BOG amended/changed the administrative code (05AAC 92.085) to allow same-day-airborne hunting of caribou in certain units. The reasoning behind it had to do with population and harvest objectives and herd growth, management concerns, and some quasi-realistic fears that hunters flying to a remote area in winter may get stranded if they were forced to obey the former law on same-day-airborne (it was...uh...ILLEGAL) hunting...weather moves in, etc. Much easier to pick a good day to fly, land and shoot, and fly home; much safer as well.

The methods and means of taking big game are changing. BOG proposals come down the pike, and depending on who we have on the board, things can drastically change. Just look at some of the proposals before the board right now: same-day-airborne hunting of black bears, the taking of brown bears over bait, and the redefining of what constitutes a "motor vehicle" in certain units. What's to stop "our" board from someday redefining the very definition of hunting? Isn't that what they in effect do when they allow "same-day-airborne hunting of caribou"?

You asked: "Why should we not be able to use two way radios for hunting? How about snares? Night vision equipment? Helicopters? I think you will find, if you objectively examine these issues, is that it's really not about ethics but about game management. Less robust means of take means less take means harvest objectives are met."

According to this premise, then anything is okay "so long as the animal does not suffer and is not harrassed." Okay for whom? For the hunting community on the whole? For just certain hunters who wish to increase their success rate and make the hunt easier? Do we need to define again what "hunting" is? If, as you say, the kill is an "ancillary" ("of secondary importance" for those who don't know the definition) event, then why the need to use helicopters and snares and night-vision goggles in the first place? For me, it's all about the kill (the meat), and that is far from being of secondary importance. I imagine those who participate in the same-day-airborne "hunts" feel the same. They are indeed in it for the meat in the freezer. I don't begrudge them or look down on them...I just have a hard time calling it "hunting."
Best and thanks for your thoughts,
Mark

Previous: Fair Chase at Carr's? Ak Steve Dec 26 2005
Next: right on the Mark twodux Dec 27 2005

Message Thread:


Post a Reply

Posting to this forum is now disabled. Please visit our new forums


Alaska outdoors ~ home | Areas | Magazine | Directory | Alaska outdoors forums | Alaska boating
Alaska hunting | Alaska fishing | Alaska Outdoors Store | Site Map | About Us

© 1996 Outdoors America Communications
PO Box 609-W, Delta Junction, AK 99737
Tel. (907) 895-4919

forums@outdoorsdirectory.com