Chalk one up for the good guys....

freebird134

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
505
Have you actually read the rule? I hadn't until now, and it seems like a pretty good rule.

Federal Register
::
Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska



(3) This rule prohibits the following practices for the taking of wildlife on Alaska National Wildlife refuges (except for subsistence uses by federally qualified subsistence users in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations):
Taking black or brown bear cubs or sows with cubs (exception allowed for resident hunters to take black bear cubs or sows with cubs under customary and traditional use activities at a den site October 15-April 30 in specific game management units in accordance with State law);
Taking brown bears over bait;
Taking of bears using traps or snares;
Taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season (May 1-August 9); and
Taking bears from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred. The take of wolves or wolverines from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred is already prohibited under current refuge regulations.
 
OP
Beendare

Beendare

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
5,971
Location
In Traffic
I'll take my chances with any of them over DC and whackjob liberals that attempt to dictate everything that happens outside of their world.

^agreed

I get what you are saying FB...the wording of the 2016 bill didn't sound bad...'Managing for biodiversity, blah, blah" but what does that mean? Its all about who is doing the interpretation.

In the case of the Feds....we have a track record of situations where they 'Stepped in to Manage' ...and didn't MANAGE a gosh darn thing unless you consider letting predators run roughshod over game populations. They use diversity as an excuse to take hunters out of the equation.

Game depts on the other hand consider all animal populations and include hunting in the equation. Plus they are local... in the know and well versed on the ecosystem.. Not much of that can be said for politicians in Washington.
 

tipsntails7

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,431
Location
Humboldt county
^agreed

I get what you are saying FB...the wording of the 2016 bill didn't sound bad...'Managing for biodiversity, blah, blah" but what does that mean? Its all about who is doing the interpretation.

In the case of the Feds....we have a track record of situations where they 'Stepped in to Manage' ...and didn't MANAGE a gosh darn thing unless you consider letting predators run roughshod over game populations. They use diversity as an excuse to take hunters out of the equation.

Game depts on the other hand consider all animal populations and include hunting in the equation. Plus they are local... in the know and well versed on the ecosystem.. Not much of that can be said for politicians in Washington.

I agree that game should be managed by the state that it resides in, but honestly fish and game agencies are doing a shitty job in most states.
At some point the needle shifted from managing animals for the benefit of those animals, and that eco system to managing game for hunter success or opportunity.
I think a lot of F&G's and hunters for that matter have gotten off track and are only focused on getting as many animals available for harvest as possible.

Feds are not the answer, but I don't like the direction game management has been heading in a few states I hunt.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

2ski

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
1,274
Location
Bozeman
I'll take my chances with any of them over DC and whackjob liberals that attempt to dictate everything that happens outside of their world.

Don't forget the wackjob teapartiers. Those guys are just as nuts as the your wackjob libs. Some real wack-a-nutties. To not see the extremes on both sides as equally dangerous is short-sighted.
 

5MilesBack

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
11,532
Location
Colorado Springs
Don't forget the wackjob teapartiers. Those guys are just as nuts as the your wackjob libs. Some real wack-a-nutties. To not see the extremes on both sides as equally dangerous is short-sighted.

Give me an example, then we'll compare the nutiness with logic.

The teapartiers have just attempted to bring a little bit of conservatism back into the mix.
 

Wapiti66

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
99
Don't forget the wackjob teapartiers. Those guys are just as nuts as the your wackjob libs. Some real wack-a-nutties. To not see the extremes on both sides as equally dangerous is short-sighted.

This is about federal government over-reach and how they are stepping on the state's toes making state decisions on the federal level. This is not their job and they suck at it when they try. The TEA party is the only thing trying to slow this rapid government growth/regulations and keep it under control. I cannot understand why anybody wants more federal government involvement in their life, they fail miserably so often it's embarrassing. Turn off CNN and turn on your own mind!
 
OP
Beendare

Beendare

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
5,971
Location
In Traffic
I agree that game should be managed by the state that it resides in, but honestly fish and game agencies are doing a shitty job in most states.
At some point the needle shifted from managing animals for the benefit of those animals, and that eco system to managing game for hunter success or opportunity.
I think a lot of F&G's and hunters for that matter have gotten off track and are only focused on getting as many animals available for harvest as possible.

Feds are not the answer, but I don't like the direction game management has been heading in a few states I hunt.

i've followed your posts for years...I like and respect them. Here I disagree. You are painting a pretty poor picture of F&G depts.

Humans and hunting has become an integral part of the "ecosystem"...and thats where I think the antis (and maybe even yourself in this case) have it all wrong. They don't consider us as a part of the equation- which of course we are. Human development has displaced animal habitat. No matter which way you slice it- humans are now a big factor.

And why not manage game species for humans...we ARE the top of the food chain? Shouldn't we derive the most benefit?

Game animals dying of old age, hit by a car or killed by an over abundance of predators is a waste of a resource in my opinion.
 

tipsntails7

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,431
Location
Humboldt county
i've followed your posts for years...I like and respect them. Here I disagree. You are painting a pretty poor picture of F&G depts.

Humans and hunting has become an integral part of the "ecosystem"...and thats where I think the antis (and maybe even yourself in this case) have it all wrong. They don't consider us as a part of the equation- which of course we are. Human development has displaced animal habitat. No matter which way you slice it- humans are now a big factor.

And why not manage game species for humans...we ARE the top of the food chain? Shouldn't we derive the most benefit?

Game animals dying of old age, hit by a car or killed by an over abundance of predators is a waste of a resource in my opinion.

I agree 100% that because we have become such an integral part of the Ecosystem its our duty to manage it to the best of our ability, it would be foolish to say we are not a main cog in that.
Maybe a better clarification is animals should not be manage to solely benefit us, at the cost of herd health.

Its a catch 22, because most F&G are funded through tag sales so its only natural that could play into developing management plans. Look at Oregon's elk management. For years its been touted as managed for opportunity, should we really be managing an animal for the most opportunity to shoot them? Is that really benefiting the animals or the hunters?
Look at California and Pigs. The price of Pig tags has skyrocketed in the last 5 years. You used to get a book of tags for 5 bucks, now its 23 for one, that is not management, that is profiteering. The north coast gets to go another year without the take of salmon, why? because decisions made a decade ago that are still affecting populations today.

I agree that animals getting hit by cars is a waste, and i agree that predators should be managed, but its also a waste to manage areas over their carrying capacity, it destroys grazing lands, there is a greater chance of disease to be spread, and it increases the chances of winter kill and a major collapse of that herd.

Not all F&G's are bad and my first comment sounded much more condemning. Oregon is trying to bolster Mule Deer populations by removing cougars from eastern areas. we will see how that works out. Wyoming is moving quickly on their wolf management plan, and when you compare animal numbers to the early 1900's its clear that conservation and management does work, Turkey, waterfowl, elk all have made a huge rebound. I have great respect for boots on the ground guys, but you and I both know there are decisions that are made that fly directly in the face of science and facts.

I believe in having as balanced an Ecosystem as possible, that is why i believe predators have a place as well. These are wild animals, and when I was a kid I dreamed about being in wild places and as our society continues to morph into this sterile technological society devoid of really any relationship with our past I feel its our duty as hunters to preserve these places and these traditions. Maybe its a whimsical and nonsensical ideal, but that is what i want these places managed for, not hunter opportunity or success rates.
 

5MilesBack

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
11,532
Location
Colorado Springs
Game animals dying of old age, hit by a car or killed by an over abundance of predators is a waste of a resource in my opinion.

That's part of the problem, a lot of people don't view animals as a resource......at least the way you and I do. Just look at all the whackjobs that idolize animals and put a higher importance on their lives than human life.
 

freebird134

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
505
Game animals dying of old age, hit by a car or killed by an over abundance of predators is a waste of a resource in my opinion.

Animals rarely die of old age if there is an appropriate predator population. This is why wolf predation in Yellowstone has been largely compensatory. A certain number of animals must die every year to keep a steady population, and since over half a population is usually female and producing 2 young annually, a LOT of animal have to die every year. Do the math for yourself, it's amazing (and, in the case of YNP, as an example, more than the estimates of how many elk are killed by wolves annually). Predators rarely generate additive mortality on the long term (i.e., multiple years). Elk and hunters face much bigger problems than predators, like habitat loss and fragmentation, disease from overpopulation and baiting (including winter feeding), and climate change.
 

tipsntails7

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,431
Location
Humboldt county
That's part of the problem, a lot of people don't view animals as a resource......at least the way you and I do. Just look at all the whackjobs that idolize animals and put a higher importance on their lives than human life.

Probably because they are not a resource(now) in a general sense. If it costs more to acquire a resource then what the resource is worth then It has no value. If it cost more money to obtain gold then it's value at market there would be no gold mining, most people don't enjoy gold mining, and wouldn't pay to do it, so it has no other secondary values either, such as enjoyment or fulfillment.

For most people it costs a great deal more to obtain wild game meat then the meat itself is actually worth, and that is where secondary factors come in. People do it as a tradition, for fun, to get away and in to nature, for bragging rights, the reasons run the gambit. But that meat is worth far less then the money and time that has been put in to obtain it.


The idolizations of animals is weird, you got me there. But there are tons of animals I think are pretty damn cool. Nature and animals make more sense to me then our society now.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OP
Beendare

Beendare

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
5,971
Location
In Traffic
I agree 100% that because we have become such an integral part of the Ecosystem its our duty to manage it to the best of our ability, it would be foolish to say we are not a main cog in that.
Maybe a better clarification is animals should not be manage to solely benefit us, at the cost of herd health.

Its a catch 22, because most F&G are funded through tag sales so its only natural that could play into developing management plans. Look at Oregon's elk management. For years its been touted as managed for opportunity, should we really be managing an animal for the most opportunity to shoot them? Is that really benefiting the animals or the hunters?
Look at California and Pigs. The price of Pig tags has skyrocketed in the last 5 years. You used to get a book of tags for 5 bucks, now its 23 for one, that is not management, that is profiteering. The north coast gets to go another year without the take of salmon, why? because decisions made a decade ago that are still affecting populations today.

I agree that animals getting hit by cars is a waste, and i agree that predators should be managed, but its also a waste to manage areas over their carrying capacity, it destroys grazing lands, there is a greater chance of disease to be spread, and it increases the chances of winter kill and a major collapse of that herd.

Not all F&G's are bad and my first comment sounded much more condemning. Oregon is trying to bolster Mule Deer populations by removing cougars from eastern areas. we will see how that works out. Wyoming is moving quickly on their wolf management plan, and when you compare animal numbers to the early 1900's its clear that conservation and management does work, Turkey, waterfowl, elk all have made a huge rebound. I have great respect for boots on the ground guys, but you and I both know there are decisions that are made that fly directly in the face of science and facts.

I believe in having as balanced an Ecosystem as possible, that is why i believe predators have a place as well. These are wild animals, and when I was a kid I dreamed about being in wild places and as our society continues to morph into this sterile technological society devoid of really any relationship with our past I feel its our duty as hunters to preserve these places and these traditions. Maybe its a whimsical and nonsensical ideal, but that is what i want these places managed for, not hunter opportunity or success rates.

^ well said!
 

5MilesBack

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
11,532
Location
Colorado Springs
Probably because they are not a resource(now) in a general sense. If it costs more to acquire a resource then what the resource is worth then It has no value.

Just the opportunity to pursue said resource is worth the price of admission. But when you add in the value of the meat it greatly exceeds what was spent IMO. Just this year's bull I calculated out to about $1800 worth of organic meat. So eating them and the opportunity to pursue them is a great resource. While what Beendare described, I agree is a great waste of a resource.
 

Daniel_M

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
1,430
Location
Wasilla, Alaska
All this does is put the power back in state level.

Here's a post straight from Alaska F&G..

THE TRUTH ABOUT ALASKA'S REFUGE RULE REPEAL

We've been hearing from many folks concerned about the recent repeal of the Alaska refuge rule. The repeal nullifies regulations that allowed the federal government to override state wildlife management authority on Alaska’s 16 wildlife refuges. Contrary to what some activists claim, it does not allow hunters to gas wolf pups in their dens, to shoot bears and wolves from airplanes, or allow bears to be taken in steel-jawed traps.

FACTS:

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA PERMIT AERIAL GUNNING OF BEARS?
A. Aerial hunting of bears is prohibited under general hunting regulations. Bears may be taken from the air in state-approved intensive management programs in limited areas by state staff only. The state is not conducting intensive management for bears on any federal lands, nor was it prior to the FWS rule.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA ALLOW AERIAL HUNTING OF WOLVES?
A. Aerial hunting of wolves is prohibited under general hunting regulations. Only agents of the state in approved intensive management programs in limited areas may hunt wolves from the air. There are no state intensive management programs on National Park Service or FWS lands.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA PERMIT THE GASSING OF WOLF PUPS?
A. This is prohibited under general hunting regulations.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA ALLOW THE DENNING OF BEARS AND/OR CUBS?
A. The harvest of black bears at dens is allowed in a limited area under state and federal regulations where it is considered a customary and traditional practice for obtaining food.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA ALLOW DENNING OF WOLVES OR WOLF PUPS?
A. No. This can occur only in approved intensive management programs and only by state staff. It was done in one program in 2008 and 2009.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA PERMIT THE TAKING OF BEARS OVER BAIT?
A. Yes. The harvest of bears over bait is a form of regulated take in many areas of Alaska and the Lower 48 states. The Federal Subsistence Board also allows federally qualified subsistence users to harvest bears over bait on federal land.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA ALLOW BEARS TO BE TAKEN IN STEEL-JAWED TRAPS?
A. No.

Q. WILL THE STATE BOARD OF GAME AUTHORIZE PREDATOR CONTROL IN REFUGES?
A. No, only the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can authorize predator control programs in refuges.

*For more Q&A on this subject, visit Questions and Answers related to H.J. Res 69 and State of Alaska Fish and Wildlife Management, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
 

2ski

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
1,274
Location
Bozeman
This is about federal government over-reach and how they are stepping on the state's toes making state decisions on the federal level. This is not their job and they suck at it when they try. The TEA party is the only thing trying to slow this rapid government growth/regulations and keep it under control. I cannot understand why anybody wants more federal government involvement in their life, they fail miserably so often it's embarrassing. Turn off CNN and turn on your own mind!
Turn off fox news and open yours.

Sorry but I consider the tea party mind set closed minded. So when someone tells me to open my mind so I can see a closed minded point of view....that's hilarious.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

2ski

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
1,274
Location
Bozeman
Give me an example, then we'll compare the nutiness with logic.

The teapartiers have just attempted to bring a little bit of conservatism back into the mix.
The political spectrum is not a line. It wraps back around to where the extremes on both sides are actually closer than they like to admit. You can see where extreme right and extreme left are actually not so far apart. It's a fact.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Top