|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Rebuttal to "wildlife abundance" catchphrase
Posted by bushrat on Mar 08 2006
David,
It's interesting you'd use the verbiage "I vote for wildlife abundance." This kind of catchphrase is often something you'd see in politics when a politician wants to please everyone whilst portraying some level of ambiguity on the issue of predator control. Using it in the subject and closing line is very politically astute <grin>.
Similarly, "I love babies" may be a response used when a politician is questioned about abortion. Whether the respondent is for or against abortion, this answer is one no one can disagree with. This type of answer is designed to appeal to the largest possible audience. The voter goes home not really knowing anything other than "That guy loves babies...and I'm going along with what he espouses."
It is my opinion that what all of us hunters should be voting for is moderation. Moderate wildlife densities across the board. Not wildlife "abundance" and not wildlife "scarcity" but something more in the middle. Smooth out the natural peaks and valleys rather than strive to peak them. (Isn't that the entire goal of sound wildlife management?)
Time will tell, of course, but looking over all the IM objectives, I am struck by the current call for "maximum sustained yield" that many biologists consider a foolhardy long-term approach. Has anyone ever questioned why the framers of our state constitution mandated "sustained yield" of Alaska's fish and wildlife populations but neglected to insert the qualifier "maximum"? Some think that they simply didn't even think of it, but in looking over the people involved I don't think so.
"Maximum sustained yield," and "sustained yield," are entirely different philosophies of wildlife management with entirely different strategies and objectives. I think the framers of our constitution were aware of this.
I don't vote for maximum sustained yield or "wildlife abundance." I won't use such language to appeal to hunters. And because I don't, many hunters will not come over to the "dark side" of my way of thinking <grin>. Moderation in all things has been a good common-sense ideal handed down through the ages. When I hear or read that some want to take moderation out of wildlife management, it scares me. When I see the call for wildlife abundance, I am not quite sure what it means but I recognize it is designed to say many things to many people. "How can wildlife abundance be a bad thing?" "Doesn't everyone want to see abundant wolves and bears and moose and sheep and caribou?" "Hey, he didn't say 'maximum wildlife abundance,' so what's the problem?"
We've been manipulating wildlife for a while now in Alaska. And now with Intensive Management law we are by mandate required to kill more predators than we ever have before, post statehood. We now have a law (and a political party currently in power) that will attempt to assure abundance of ungulates because that is ostensibly what most hunters in Alaska have said they want. Or, because of some damn good lobbying, political clout, big money, and greed. It's hard to say. Either way, things aren't what they were 30 years ago. We may indeed see a permanent decrease in wolf and bear populations in many units, simply because the new law mandates it.
I vote for moderation. I vote for common sense. And I love babies!
Mark
Previous: Master card martentrapper Mar 10 2006
Next: Way to go................ martentrapper Mar 08 2006
 Message Thread:
|
