About a month ago there was an article in the Alaska Dispatch News about black bear hunting in Prince William Sound. In the article they interviewed a bear biologist with ADF&G who proposed new restrictions on black bear hunting in PWS. These restrictions (registration hunt only) were adopted and go into effect this fall. In the article the biologist was quoted to the effect that viewing black bears from kayaks was the best and highest use of the bears. To me this represents a clear bias against hunting and makes me think this person should not be regulating this hunt.

We could debate forever whether additional restrictions are warranted in this case, but what I am interested in is this groups' reaction to the biologist's anti hunting viewpoint. Do you see this as a problem in your view or to be expected from biologists in game departments now.

I see it as a problem, officially they are not allowed to show bias, however I see this changing. Write or call who you need to and voice an intelligent protest to the bias you are seeing. If you do nothing it will get worse.

I'm afraid I'm seeing it here in Colorado too. Years ago the animal rights people got the spring bear hunt and hound hunts put on the ballot, I talked to the Division of Wildlife about it and they informed me they could not publicly take a stand on it even if it meant they were voting in "bad" management practices.

Just a couple years ago the Colorado Division of Wildlife became co-mingled with the State Parks Department, they took a pro hunter financially self sustaining Division and merged it with a Department who runs in a deficit and hates hunters.
I feel we will see no benefit from this as hunters. Last year they botched the drawing process and this year they are going to be lucky to have the results out by the projected dates. That is all new since they co mingled the 2, we are now officially to call it the Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

There are a couple of issues here. First, I know that AK F&G has had trouble filling biologist positions. Which is a change from when I moved up here as I had a degree in Wildlife and tried to get hired but there was a glut of aspiring biologists. Within a mile of our cabin in Goldstream I knew three others with wildlife degrees, all hoping to get on with F&G.

So there is a chance that the biologist AK Dispatches quoted made some comment about bear viewing.

But, Alaska Dispatch News definately has a bias against hunting. Some reporters have made a career of trying to make AK F&G look bad.
Notice that under their sporting and outdoor headings Hunting is not even mentioned, but fishing, skiing and hiking are.

Over the years a lot of agencies have hired plenty of anti's.

It used to be outdoors people filled these slots hunters fishers trappers and loggers.

No these programs are being over run with envrio wackos from the big cities hoping to save the world and mother earth.

I'm not convinced the newspaper accurately reported the comments. If it did, I'd rather hear biologists publicly explain the role hunting plays in the sustained yield principle required in the Alaska Constitution.

Hunting can prevent over population and result in a healthier bear population with a better ratio of boars to sows.

Kayakers may bring money to Alaska but they play no direct role in helping provide and maintain healthy bear populations.

Hunters are the original conservationists...

The tree huggers and earth muffins got into the states' agencies starting in the 1960s !
Here in NY State ALL snakes are protected! Some of the rattlesnake and copperhead stuations and regulations are crazy but that's because the tree huggers are crazy.
But that trickles down to the average person.We spoke to one this week.He asked about the "dangerous " black bears but then he wanted to feed them so he could watch them ! I suppose our "leave them alone " advice fell on deaf ears.

what's the license fee for anti bio's

quote:

Originally posted by 333_OKH:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
There are a couple of issues here. First, I know that AK F&G has had trouble filling biologist positions. Which is a change from when I moved up here as I had a degree in Wildlife and tried to get hired but there was a glut of aspiring biologists. Within a mile of our cabin in Goldstream I knew three others with wildlife degrees, all hoping to get on with F&G.

So there is a chance that the biologist AK Dispatches quoted made some comment about bear viewing.

But, Alaska Dispatch News definately has a bias against hunting. Some reporters have made a career of trying to make AK F&G look bad.
Notice that under their sporting and outdoor headings Hunting is not even mentioned, but fishing, skiing and hiking are.

Plenty of people with traditional Wildlife Management degrees out there and NOT Wildlife Biology degrees. Yes there is a difference, but AK doesnt like hiring from out of state either, or they shoot for Masters or PHDs which are older with less practical experience.

I tried for a few years to go to AK. I was in the timber industry then in the Fed Gov. No go. People with much less experience than I were getting the job.

On the current hiring path used by the State you are screwed.

At one time you might have been correct but a recent head of F&G, who was forced out due to his own illegal guiding operation, changed the format for hiring and now you can be a biologist for F&G without even having a 4 year degree !
And the state even has trouble finding biologist from outside the state.
If you want a job, apply.

quote:

Originally posted by PKW:
About a month ago there was an article in the Alaska Dispatch News about black bear hunting in Prince William Sound. In the article they interviewed a bear biologist with ADF&G who proposed new restrictions on black bear hunting in PWS. These restrictions (registration hunt only) were adopted and go into effect this fall. In the article the biologist was quoted to the effect that viewing black bears from kayaks was the best and highest use of the bears. To me this represents a clear bias against hunting and makes me think this person should not be regulating this hunt.

We could debate forever whether additional restrictions are warranted in this case, but what I am interested in is this groups' reaction to the biologist's anti hunting viewpoint. Do you see this as a problem in your view or to be expected from biologists in game departments now.

I re-read the article published April 15th in the Alaska Dispatch News. The reporter interviewed only one biologist--the Cordova area manager. Nowhere in the article did the biologist say bear viewing in the Sound was the "best and highest use." The closest anyone came to saying that was the quote from a guy who takes clients out to view bears. He said: I think viewing is a better use of the resource than hunting, but that's a personal thing.

Regarding the larger issue, have you guys ever heard of McNeil River Falls--a bear viewing area on the Alaska Peninsula? It's a world-class opportunity to see wild brown bears fishing and interacting. It's run by Alaska Fish and Game. It's hugely popular--you can wait many years to get a permit. When it was proposed, would you have opposed it because the ADF&G biologists thought it was a better use of the bears there and therefore they must be anti-hunting?

What about the other state and federal bear viewing areas in Alaska, or Creamer's Field in Fairbanks, a migratory bird viewing area owned and managed by ADF&G? Or the Sheep Mountain viewing area or Skilak Loop on the Kenai Peninsula?

Wildlife management has always been about more than just managing wildlife for hunting.

There are some anti-hunters at ADF&G but not many. There are a lot of really good people there, and we are lucky to have them. You can compare our bio's to any other state, and you'll quickly see we have A teams pretty much all the way around. You can bitch and complain all you want, its you're right as a "real" Alaskan.

You're talking non-sense vicvanb Just ask any "real" Alaskan and he'll tell you the only good animal is a dead one. Whats funny about the PWS bear issue, is we bait/snare/air gun bears in the rest of the state, but for some reason, the bears in PWS are sacred. Oh thats right, they're not killing moose (supposedly).

ADF&G can recommend changes be made to the regs but do not have the final say of them, or write them. The regulations are set (for the most part) by the Board of Game, who are very pro-hunting and very pro-utilization. They have to manage to the maximum sustainable yeild. If the population is in decline... its not at the maximum yield. So a reduction in harvest is warranted.

ADF&G has about as much control over how game is managed as I do. If I can come up with defensible data to back up my proposal, I have just as good of a chance to get a regulation passed as they do.

The bear population in the sound is down. It could be from over hunting, the bad winter we had a few years back, some other reason, or all combined. Limiting the season is a way to reduce harvest and increase population. Maybe if all the "real" Alaskans would stop shooting sows, we'd have a chance to maintain the opportunities.

quote:

Originally posted by vicvanb:

quote:

Originally posted by PKW:
About a month ago there was an article in the Alaska Dispatch News about black bear hunting in Prince William Sound. In the article they interviewed a bear biologist with ADF&G who proposed new restrictions on black bear hunting in PWS. These restrictions (registration hunt only) were adopted and go into effect this fall. In the article the biologist was quoted to the effect that viewing black bears from kayaks was the best and highest use of the bears. To me this represents a clear bias against hunting and makes me think this person should not be regulating this hunt.

We could debate forever whether additional restrictions are warranted in this case, but what I am interested in is this groups' reaction to the biologist's anti hunting viewpoint. Do you see this as a problem in your view or to be expected from biologists in game departments now.

I re-read the article published April 15th in the Alaska Dispatch News. The reporter interviewed only one biologist--the Cordova area manager. Nowhere in the article did the biologist say bear viewing in the Sound was the "best and highest use." The closest anyone came to saying that was the quote from a guy who takes clients out to view bears. He said: I think viewing is a better use of the resource than hunting, but that's a personal thing.

Regarding the larger issue, have you guys ever heard of McNeil River Falls--a bear viewing area on the Alaska Peninsula? It's a world-class opportunity to see wild brown bears fishing and interacting. It's run by Alaska Fish and Game. It's hugely popular--you can wait many years to get a permit. When it was proposed, would you have opposed it because the ADF&G biologists thought it was a better use of the bears there and therefore they must be anti-hunting?

What about the other state and federal bear viewing areas in Alaska, or Creamer's Field in Fairbanks, a migratory bird viewing area owned and managed by ADF&G? Or the Sheep Mountain viewing area or Skilak Loop on the Kenai Peninsula?

Wildlife management has always been about more than just managing wildlife for hunting.

When I read the article I thought the quote re bear viewing from kayaks was from the biologist. If I was mistaken perhaps it is a good thing that our biologists are not spouting such nonsense. I spoke with two knowledgeable people about bear populations in the sound and both agreed that bear numbers were way down. The first ascribed this to hunting pressure the second to poor winters that interfered with hibernation. When I went hunting in 2013 we saw 18 bears in 2 1/2 days. Last weekend we saw 11 (not counting cubs). 5 of the 11 were sows with cubs so maybe that bodes well for the future.

I would be interested to see what the wolf population is in The Sound. Lots of wolves means few of anything else. In Southeast when the wolves take root on a island every species other than brown bear take a sever hit. . On Kuiu it used to be the norm to se 40 black.bear on the way to and from work everyday. Now there aren't too many. Course it got "Discovered " by black.bear hunters