|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Nov 30, 2015 19:53:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Coolkat on Dec 1, 2015 6:37:02 GMT -8
Interesting. Because I'm not a hunter I had never heard of "predator control" methods before. No killing of bears while hibernating? This seems like a no brainer to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lamebeaver on Dec 1, 2015 8:55:12 GMT -8
One could argue that "game management" may have its place in National Forests and on BLM land, which involves compromise between recreational users, sportsmen, and industries such as logging, agriculture, etc. but I agree that National Parks should be treated differently.
I do see a certain duplicity in their definition of "sportsmanlike". Why is it OK to hunt rabbits, pheasants and raccoon with dogs, but not bear? And is smearing grease on a doughnut any worse than threading a worm (which is also a living animal) on a hook and throwing it into a stream?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2015 9:59:31 GMT -8
I do see a certain duplicity in their definition of "sportsmanlike". Why is it OK to hunt rabbits, pheasants and raccoon with dogs, but not bear? And is smearing grease on a doughnut any worse than threading a worm (which is also a living animal) on a hook and throwing it into a stream? In your questions above, I believe "their" would more appropriately apply to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), rather than to agencies of the federal Government. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2015 10:41:13 GMT -8
When the small population of Alaska wanted to move from territorial status to the privileges of statehood, Alaskans had planted themselves among vast areas of federal land. For such a small group of people to lay claim to such a large land mass would have been virtually unprecedented. So like other territories, such as in the American West, the people of Alaska renounced claim to any control over that federal land. As with other states, Alaska included in its state constitution a clause declaring: [/span]. (See Alaska State Constitution, Article 12 §12)[/ul] So the question today is: What makes the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) think it has any right to dictate wildlife policy on lands it has never in history owned or had control of? Those are lands which the state's own constitution declares are to "remain subject to the absolute disposition of the United States." As with other state game agencies, Alaska touts the benefits of the North American Model of Wildlife Management (NAMWM). The Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska (OHFA), a creation of Alaska Fish & Game, lists that Model as one of four primary purposes to which the agency and its foundation are devoted. Yet ironically, nowhere does the touted Model give to states the right to determine wildlife policy on even state land — let alone federal land. Some of the practices disallowed by these rules are shameful in themselves. They trample the entire notion of fair chase in hunting. So it is way past time those practices were made illegal — as these rules now do. But it is also shameful that Alaska state agencies are opposing rules that are long overdue. As with their counterparts in other states, those agencies seem willing to renege upon their sworn obligations to their own state constitution and to the Model of wildlife conservation espoused not only by Alaskans but by so many other state game agencies. |
|
