NG Article - Alaska Bear/Wolf Hunting

[seeth07]

I really had to struggle to fully get through this article and afterwards, that damn Rachel convinced me. It's bad to shoot bears and wolves. We should all stop, its for sure bad.

Why the U.S. government is allowing bears and wolves to be hunted in their dens

The rollback of a rule banning controversial hunting methods in Alaska's national preserves has some worried the National Park Service is ceding control to states with less conservation-oriented goals.

api.nationalgeographic.com

 

[seeth07]

Man this chicks Twitter feed is depressing...

"A new investigation exposes the links between South Africa's captive-bred lion industry and poaching of wild lions, mass animal cruelty, high-level corruption and trafficking of lion & tiger bones to Asia. South African authorities continue to turn a blind eye. "

"Jaguar is the new tiger: Poaching of jaguars in South & Central America increased 200-fold over just 5 years, with trafficking links to China. "

"Yet more bad news: Time is quickly running out to save hundreds of species - and ourselves. "

"We tend to assume that the reptiles whose skins are used in luxury shoes, handbags and belts weren't poached from the wild or skinned alive. But that's not always the case. "

I wonder why on August 4th she didn't tweet about that huge thing that was mega important to the future of wildlife in our own nation along with our ability to be able to enjoy it in public lands....

 

[Wildabeest]

Man this chicks Twitter feed is depressing...

You lost me at “chicks”...

 

[seeth07]

You lost me at “chicks”...

"Chicks" = good looking gal

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I read it, not sure there is a ton I disagree with.

I will say, she may be making a bigger deal out of it. Just because Alaska can allow the practices does not mean that it will, nor that hunters will participate.

Regardless, one has to wander how this makes hunters look. Would you participate in these type of activities? Would you feel good after doing so? Is this providing a positive image to the public? I think the answer to all those is "no." I think you start going down a slippery slope when you primary management strategy is reducing predators to increase game. Its a strategy that doesn't work long term

 

[seeth07]

I read it, not sure there is a ton I disagree with.

I will say, she may be making a bigger deal out of it. Just because Alaska can allow the practices does not mean that it will, nor that hunters will participate.

Regardless, one has to wander how this makes hunters look. Would you participate in these type of activities? Would you feel good after doing so? Is this providing a positive image to the public? I think the answer to all those is "no." I think you start going down a slippery slope when you primary management strategy is reducing predators to increase game. Its a strategy that doesn't work long term

Go research what this is really about and why its allowed. Its nothing mentioned in that article.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

IMHO any federal rules on hunting are an overstep. The only roll of the fed should be designating if you can or cannot hunt, ie Parks versus preserves.

This was a boned headed move that created nothing but bad press.

 

[longbow51]

The only problem with articles like this is that they don't provide a balanced argument. I don't know anything about the reason for such moves (and agree, horrible PR) but most folks who read this will not explore the issue.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

IMHO any federal rules on hunting are an overstep. The only roll of the fed should be designating if you can or cannot hunt, ie Parks versus preserves.

This was a boned headed move that created nothing but bad press.

I have no issue with federal agencies having rules more restrictive than state regulations for lands such as refugees and parks.

 

[seeth07]

The entire intent as I understand it is to allow native Alaskans the ability to traditionally harvest animals on past native lands that were lost under the creation of the national parks in Alaska. The biggest example that I heard used is the caribou migration and how native Alaskans would use river crossings to easily harvest caribou in the water.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have no issue with federal agencies having rules more restrictive than state regulations for lands such as refugees and parks.

Agreed. I view it like private land, I can tell someone “hey you want to hunt my ranch, you can only shoot deer and ducks, no elk”. I can’t say, “screw the state of CO kill 30 bighorns if you want.”

This is actively undermining the NA model.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The entire intent as I understand it is to allow native Alaskans the ability to traditionally harvest animals on past native lands that were lost under the creation of the national parks in Alaska. The biggest example that I heard used is the caribou migration and how native Alaskans would use river crossings to easily harvest caribou in the water.

Which should be something subsistence hunters work with the state on not the fed.

 

[seeth07]

Which should be something subsistence hunters work with the state on not the fed.

That makes no sense....how can they work with the state when the feds say they can't do it in the national park?

 

[BWALKER77]

I dont have a problem with management of predators to support ungulate numbers. However, the optics of this look really bad.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That makes no sense....how can they work with the state when the feds say they can't do it in the national park?

Think about it this way, does the Fox River Refuge in WI have more or less strict regulations than the state.

Does the Fox River Refuge say you can kill unlimited ducks, while the state says their is a bag limit that applies state wide?

 

[seeth07]

Think about it this way, does the Fox River Refuge in WI have more or less strict regulations than the state.

Does the Fox River Refuge say you can kill unlimited ducks, while the state says their is a bag limit that applies state wide?

I don't think you actually understand what happened because your giving a scenario of what was happening and they changed it.

There is nothing wrong with federal lands be designated as a "refuge" or a "park" that doesn't allow hunting or fishing with the philosophy of preserving an area that maintains its own ecology.

The problem that was happening in Alaska is that a native Alaskan could shoot a caribou crossing a river for substance harvest. However, if they were in the park, they could kill caribou but not in the river because the federal government said that this method of harvest wasn't acceptable - not the state. The state is the one that says its acceptable outside of the park...on federal land by the way, just not a designated "park".

 

[seeth07]

By the way, the article focuses on the predators and most of the articles have been. However, that is just this tiny little part of this and in all actuality, the harvest of predators by native Alaskans is not a huge harvest - and most aren't done in ways described by this article. Yes, its legal for them to go in a den and kill any bear they find. However, they understand conservation and the limited use of a "cub" compared to a big boar bear and aren't necessarily all doing this. Its blown drastically way out of portion.

 

[BuzzH]

By the way, the article focuses on the predators and most of the articles have been. However, that is just this tiny little part of this and in all actuality, the harvest of predators by native Alaskans is not a huge harvest - and most aren't done in ways described by this article. Yes, its legal for them to go in a den and kill any bear they find. However, they understand conservation and the limited use of a "cub" compared to a big boar bear and aren't necessarily all doing this. Its blown drastically way out of portion.

Who are the "they" you are referring to, and what's your experience with "they"?

 

[seeth07]

Who are the "they" you are referring to, and what's your experience with "they"?

You have me there in that I don't have any personal real life experience or witness to anything with native Alaskan tribes. My knowledge only comes through research on this topic and reading conversations and debates about this topic on the Alaskan outdoor forum website.

 

[BuzzH]

You have me there in that I don't have any personal real life experience or witness to anything with native Alaskan tribes. My knowledge only comes through research on this topic and reading conversations and debates about this topic on the Alaskan outdoor forum website.

I don't have a ton of experience there either, however, I did spend some time in Shishmaref hunting muskox a number of years ago.

One of the cool things about doing hunts like that is getting to spend time with the native culture there, eye-opening to say the least and a good way to get a first hand look at things like you're discussing.

With such short days, you have lots of time to talk with the native people that live there and of course, being hunters, doesn't take long to start talking hunting. The guy we hunted with, Clifford, had a son, John, just a little younger than me and we talked about hunting a lot. He took out some photo albums and started showing me pictures of their hunting, much different than anything to do with how we hunt. There was one series of pictures of a walrus hunt they did, they essentially float up to them while they're lounging on a piece of ice and let them have it. In the pictures, there was a group of 5 walrus on a piece of ice, I asked which one they would pick out to shoot. John asked me what do you mean which one would we pick out? I said, well, which one would shoot, biggest, closest, what? He just bluntly said, "shoot them all". Pretty much went that way with most of their hunting, near as I could tell. The caribou there were about the spookiest animal I've ever seen in my life and that's because I believe every chance to kill one is taken.

Point is, I don't believe in a true subsistence situation, like that in Shishmaref, there is much worry about "conservation"...in fact I would argue the definition they would use, is not even close to what I would use for that word.

I think what it boils down to is that there are so few people up there actually subsistence hunting, that its convenient to use words like conservation when describing (falsely I believe) to what they're doing because it doesn't impact the resource enough. Secondly, in situations like that, I don't really care how, when or where they go about killing what they feel they need to live. Finally, I don't believe the natives there give 2 chits what the State, Feds, or anyone else tells them regarding how, what, where, or when they hunt for subsistence. Also fair is that the resources are abundant enough, that even what we would view as far from conservation minded hunting, just doesn't make enough difference to really have an impact on wildlife (there are a few exceptions, but I don't want to get in the weeds).

Long way of saying, this whole discussion and "problem" between the fed/state jurisdiction on what is allowed and not allowed, regarding the native's subsistence hunting seems like a big fat non-starter to me. The way these cultures have hunted for a long time probably never have followed the regulations of the State or the Feds and likely never will. Surely they have never aligned with what we perceive as ethical, conservation minded sport hunting. But, make no mistake, what we do share is the spirit of hunting and that we're both hunters...just from a much different frame of reference.