Letter to the Editor
Wildlife massacre
Published Friday, March 28, 2008
March 15, 2008
To the editor:
It would seem as she presides over bringing yet another life into the world, Gov. Palin is also presiding over one of the bloodiest administrations in regard to our wildlife. With a Board of Game that is stacked with Alaska Outdoors Council members, and therefore sure to support any wide-scale killing of predators, Palin’s BOG has now approved Ralph Seekins’ efforts to begin a slaughter of black bears in Unit 16B. This is a project so reprehensible that already an Alaska hunter group, the Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, has come out against it, as have a number of Alaska conservation organizations.
Though there seems to be some question about how inflated the black bear numbers are which are being used to justify this action, Ralph Seekins, a single-term state senator voted out of office in part for his extreme views on wildlife management, has formed an Alaska chapter of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. It would be better called the “Seekins’ Slaughter Squad” given its sole purpose to date.
At a time when there are efforts worldwide to curb the sale of black bear parts on an international black market, we see approval being given Seekins’ group to sell hides and claws. As these “sportsmen” hide ready to blast away at the bears attracted to their bait stations they can target not only the boars but sows and even cubs. Imagine their sense of triumph as one, two, three cubs fall dead to these sportsmen’s rifles.
Taking along several of his hunting buddies, Seekins now moves from failed ex-senator to cub-killer as in the finest tradition of Henry Ford he turns hunting and wildlife management into assembly-line slaughter.
If there is a sure way to give ethical, responsible hunters a black eye, it’s this sort of action, approved by the Palin administration’s BOG. Wildlife is a resource owned equally by all Alaskans. So it is particularly sad that all Alaskans will have to bear the shame of this management by massacre that is about to be perpetrated by a handful of extremists.
Comments
I thought black bears were a game animal, yet these hunters are not going to salvage any meat. Doesn't the wanton waste law apply? It should--bear meat is a high quality protein. Also, if there are so many bears out there, why are the local people who are so dependent on game meat to survive not hunting bears and utilizing the meat?
Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers? Who in the hell are they...a few extremists who have a differing opinion. Gov. Palin made a great move here...just because you don't buy Ford cars, don't get too stupid on this. And I'm not sure what "shame" I'm going to be feeling. If you're going to be critical of something, at least have some basis for your criticism. Politically motivated ranting doesn't fit.
Today's paper is filled with articles that smack of California. I printed a comment a couple of weeks ago about US Fish and Wildlife doing a study in the Yukon Flats in the 90s and found that BLACK BEARS were responsible for most moose calf kills there. Overwhelmingly they were the biggest reason that there were hardly any moose in the flats. This program seems WAY OVERDUE to me!! Good luck Ralph and thank you Gov. Palin. Please stand your ground with these extremist that are against you!!
From one extremist to another--right back at ya!
I love it when folks resort to name calling. It really advances the discussion.
Akhusky...normally with bears, black or otherwise, you have the choice of salvaging the meat or the hides. Some folks like to eat'em, some don't. I've never had any other than a bit in a stew so I can't remark on the taste but F&G gives that choice. Still, I understand where you are coming from as it is going to be a waste of a great deal of useable meat.
As to the reaction of local residents, I know of only one so far and they question the real reasons behind this hunt. They pointed out there has been fire suppression for the area for over 50 years, now, and so the amount of moose forage has been considerably reduced. Subsequently, that has resulted in lowered moose numbers. I would point out when you have a situation like that no matter how many predators you do or don't kill, your ungulate numbers will remain low until the habitat can support more.
YJ...we're talking 16b, not the Yukon Flats. This GMU is across the inlet from Anchorage. It looks like you are holding your state map upside down and sideways.
I saw a comment recently from a 14-year resident of the area who hunts, guides, and traps wondering why this is being done and who is getting rich off it. Additionally, it was noted by this same person the bears had originally probably moved into the area for the salmon as someone born there in the 1940's had never seen a bear there in all the time she was growing up. However, pike have invaded a lot of the area and so the salmon numbers have dropped drastically as, the person suggests, will also the bear pop as a result. (Apparently, the residents seeing this pike invasion happen over the years have tried repeatedly to get F&G to do something about it to no avail. The pike were introduced but no one seems to want to own up to that error.)
We have a good population of black bears across the river in GMU 20a, btw, as well as grizzlies which also are known to prey on calves. We also have so many cow and calf moose there has been an antlerless hunt there for at least the past year to cut the numbers down to fit the forage. The black bears don't appear to be quite the major predators you suggest in that instance which goes to demonstrate the variability of the situation throughout the state. What is observed in one part cannot always be easily transferred to another without the danger of an erroneous simplification.
As to the name-calling already occurring here (and the usual predictable, "Aw, get outta the state" which always follows on the heels of such vituperation) it happens when someone lacks a factual basis from which to debate a point. Such comments are meant to deride any emotional argument yet they are, ironically, just as emotional.
The point to be considered here is just how necessary or useful is this hunt? As one resident of the area has mentioned, the hunters flooding the area will be landing on lakes, obviously, which will create little areas of no bears for a while. But these will be islands, not a wide-area effect. Black holes of "bearlessness", if you will. What can also happen in response is remaining bears, not having to compete so much for food, will be able to breed more successfully. A sow feeding cubs is going to take more calves than a lone adult bear. So there may be a dip in predation for a little bit and then it will climb up again. I'm sure folks such as Seekins and YJ will then clamor for yet another hunt, the same little cycle will revolve once again, and soon we find instead of a fairly normally operating habitat we have one that goes in ups and downs as the attempts to artificially balance predator/prey numbers continues to oscillate. Wholesale slaughters, which is unmistakably what this is, rarely resolve a wildlife management issue, history has shown. In the end they only make it worse for then you wind up with two species needing constant attention instead of one.
Probably more productive, from what I gather, would be to let a few good burns occur which will provide the increase in forage that the moose need. We have seen repeatedly throughout the state that when the natural cycle of forest fires is disrupted, the vegetation changes in such a way that the moose numbers decline. Fire has been a natural rejuvenator in Alaska for millennia (and elsewhere, too). Fiddle with suppressing it too much and problems arise.
dobieman,
Thanks for the information on the wanton waste rule with bears--I did not have the state hunting regulations in front of me. I'm with you on the necessity to create better moose browse by conducting a prescribed burn or two. I'm not necessarily opposed to keeping predator-pray numbers in balance, but I get miffed when the blame is always placed on the predators while ignoring other factors (low quality habitat in this case). Along these same lines, I recall a number of years ago when a wolf control board (or something to that affect) was created to come up with recommendations to control wolf populations in areas where caribou and moose populations were low. The science indicated that bears, and not wolves, were the problem in the Fortymile country. However, this commission recommended reducing the number of wolves anyway, while never addressing the issue of bear predation (not in the commission's mandate). A real nice use of the science...
People might consider boycotting the Seekins dealership. There are lots of other dealerships in town where you'll even get a better deal. Try Gene's or Lithia.
The natural sceme of a normal running ecosystem is usually upset by man. Mans first reaction to this problem is to kill something. This usually makes the situation worse and will require a longer recovery period. Nature will make the proper correction if given time. We must stop meddling with this process. The management process usually put in place by the Dept. or the BOG always involves killig, which upsets the natural process and is a mistake. A lot of this is the result of political pressure or the opinion of well meaning citizens all of whom think they have the right answer. They are usually wrong. Natural results take time and the best thing to do is wait and to control the killing. A natural ecosystem has worked for hundreds of years, all without harm to anything.
man is part of the natural process. human activity is a part of nature.
dobieman, I do realize where 16b is and understand it is not the flats. I was just giving that example of how black bears were decimating the moose population that was left. The habitat in the Yukon Flats is some of the best in the world!! There is not a shortage of habitat. Also in the mid 90s there was a year that the berries did not come out hardly at all. Bears started just wandering into Ft Yukon. In a three week span, 19 were killed in the town. ALL of them were starving!! This area is filled with black bear. There are a few grizz sprinkled in, but primarily black bears.
Polarmark....man is part of the natural process??? Migosh....have you taken a good look at the world around you lately? Have you been to China where the air pollution in some areas is so bad people go around wearing face masks throughout the day? That strikes you as "part of the natural process?" What's "natural" about that?
Do you realize pesticides have been found on the vegetation in Denali Park recently? Not just someone who sprayed a patch of weeds but extensively, occurring because of windblown pollutants. That's "natural"? Drinking water tested in Fairbanks shows traces of numerous pharmaceuticals, hormones, toxic pollutants (fortunately, all in apparently harmless levels but still exotic to the natural water supplies) as it does in many major cities throughout the nation. That's "natural"?
Humans everywhere have done their best to divorce themselves from the natural habitat, change it around, exploit it, and when it can no longer support them, move on to another suitable place to begin again in a rapacious process of destruction that by the data and conclusions of a majority of researchers is resulting in a planet getting unnaturally warmer and drier. The Feb. issue of Nat. Geo. has a great picture (page 94) showing the amount of water that has been lost in the Lake Powell reservoir as indicated by the massive "bathtub ring" of dried cliff face surrounding the water.
Humans were once a natural part of the world, yes, but we have done our darndest to make that just a faint memory from the ATV's that chug up and down the dirt roads of Alaskan villages to the super highways of the Lower '48; from the acreage changed from natural habitat in Alaska into subdivisions each year; and sadly, from the alcohol and drugs smuggled in increasing amounts into the Bush to the peddlers and users in each and every city of any size in the entire state.
Natural? Right...about as natural as Cheese Whiz....
Damn the industrial revolution!
But what are were we to do? Really?
Reader1...aye, there's the rub. Cars, computers, electricity, running water, toilets...all very seductive. I know I sure prefer a toilet seat to sticking my butt out for mosquitoes to munch on as I take care of matters. At the same time, I can think of many, many times on Gulkana Glacier, atop Macomb Plateau, walking the ridges of Isabel Pass when had that moment gone on forever I could have been a very happy man. That is the dichotomy of life in Alaska, anymore, I feel. No matter how remotely you live you are touched by urban life in one regard or another, whether you want to be or not. As time progresses that touch can become more of a fist, too.
I have personally spent a good bit of time in the 16B area. I used to do some occasional 'groundskeeping' for a lady up on Alexander creek. I can certainly attest the there is really no shortage of black bears in this area.
Heres the issue as I see it: ADF&G (or rather BOG) wants to manage the area for a high yield (to human), sustainable moose population. We have to see the forest for more than just the trees. Obviously they have to manage the ecosystem more or less as a whole, or for their part the game (wildlife portion - that which they are tasked with). If we want to increase the moose population a logical step is to reduce mortality within the population, in this case predation by bears. Of course this is not the be all end all of moose management, but the idea is to help the moose so we can help ourselves.
I do like the idea of prescribed burns but with all of the private and native property in the area I don't think the Division of Forestry would touch that with a 50 foot pole. Anyone remember the Big Lake fire several years ago? That was not too far away. There is no way the State would put itself in that much of a liability situation.
So they are left to try to answer the call of people crying for more moose. There are a lot of bears in the area, and if hunters can remove enough of them it should in theory reduce moose mortality.
Whether you find it right or wrong, we don't manage the wildlife for the wildlife, we manage it for ourselves.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.