Bear control bill sails through Senate
PERMITS: Measure would allow nonresidents greater opportunities to hunt bruins.
The Associated Press
(Published: April 30, 2004)

FAIRBANKS -- The state Senate has passed a bill that would allow bear control permits to be issued in areas where the Game Board has determined that bears are causing declines in game animals.

Senate Bill 297, introduced by Sen. Ralph Seekins, R-Fairbanks, would have the state issue permits to hunt bears in areas where the Board of Game has established an intensive management program and identified bear predation as a cause of declining numbers or productivity of game, such as moose and caribou.

Under the bill, permit holders would be allowed to take a nonresident hunting for brown bears, as long as the permit holder is 21 and has hunted big game for at least two years.

Current state law allows a nonresident to hunt brown bears only if the hunter is accompanied by a registered guide or a close relative or spouse who is an Alaska resident. Nonresidents are not required to have a guide to hunt black bears.

Seekins' bill also would allow permit holders to kill a bear without a tag fee. They would instead pay a $250 sealing fee.

Another section of Seekins' bill -- which applies to all bear hunting, not just in bear-control areas -- lets the Department of Fish and Game accept any legally taken bear hides or skulls as donations and sell them, with the proceeds split evenly with the donor. People also could donate skulls or hides to charities, which could then be sold.

Seekins argued that making it easier to kill bears is a better alternative than bear relocation programs like the one undertaken last year near McGrath.

There was no floor debate on the bill on the Senate. It passed 13-6, mostly along party lines.

Paul Joslin, the director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, said Seekins' bill is part of an "all-out war on bears."

"Because bears eat moose and caribou does not make them vermin. They have successfully coexisted with these species for tens of thousands of years and have done so in a manner that has enabled there to be over a million moose and caribou alive today in Alaska," Joslin said in a statement.

It also said that there have been no biological emergencies that scientists have identified anywhere in Alaska to warrant the use of bear control.

The Senate also passed a bill to reinstitute the Big Game Commercial Services Board, a state panel that the Legislature allowed to dissolve in 1995. The board was in charge of regulating the activities of the state's roughly 550 registered and master guides and 230 transporters.

State auditors recommended re-creating the board after they found last year that oversight of guiding had lessened since the board was dissolved.

According to the auditors, ethical standards have been slackened, operating standards have become less detailed, there is less of an emphasis on hunter safety, and the state has less ability to discipline guides.

The bill requires that new guide licensees have recent big-game hunting experience; makes lying to clients or breaching contracts ethics violations; mandates that all agreements to provide big game guiding or transporting services be backed by a written contract; bars license renewals for people convicted of various infractions; and doubles the maximum disciplinary fine.

Joslin huh? Sounds like he needs to cover himself in blueberry jam and go for a hike in the woods. He will find out just how friendly his fuzzy friends realy are.

I couldn't resist.:D

Seriously though, I'm glad to hear that they have realized that re-locating just compounds the problem with the bear, and is very expensive. I have a bioligist friend who worked in the bear program in Maine who told me that the reason (in his opinion) that Maine has had so few attacks on humans as compared to other states with comparable bear populations, is that they have a very proactive approach with aggressive or nusance bears, and they have allowed widespread hunting over bait. Therefore, the bear appear very timid most of the time and avoid human contact.

Joe

Joslin is of the same fiber as Ms. Feral of FOA.

We do have baiting for black bears, but it is illegal for grizzly/brown bears. Relocating might work, and has had some limited success in the past, but there really isn't anyplace in the state that is running a deficiency in the big bruins. Pretty healthy populations of brown/grizzly bears in all parts of the state.

Joslin is of the same fiber as Ms. Feral of FOA.
The bear could use a little "fiber" in their diet.:D
Were they friends of Treadwell?

Bad news in yesterday's Anchorage Daily News (14 May). After the bill sailed through all Senate committees, big game guides lobbied hard, and stopped the bill in a House committee. The session ended, and the bill died.

Yet another case of the hunting community shooting itself in the foot.

Bad news in yesterday's Anchorage Daily News (14 May). After the bill sailed through all Senate committees, big game guides lobbied hard, and stopped the bill in a House committee. The session ended, and the bill died.

Yet another case of the hunting community shooting itself in the foot.

For the benefit of those of us not yet in Alaska, please clarify which bill you are refering to. I'm a little confused.

For the benefit of those of us not yet in Alaska, please clarify which bill you are refering to. I'm a little confused.


That's the bill Alyeska338 was referring to at the head of this thread; SB 297, introduced by Senator Ralph Seekins. It would have provided:

* Non-residents to hunt brown bear without having to hire a guide in selected GMUs which were targeted for intensive predator control,

* Donation of bear hides, skulls, and other parts to ADFG, who would then auction the assets and repay the hunters 50% of the captial gain

The political force that delayed the bill in House committee until the session ended wasn't Paul Joslin and his kooky wildlife zealots. It was the guides.

That's the bill Alyeska338 was referring to at the head of this thread; SB 297, introduced by Senator Ralph Seekins. It would have provided:

* Non-residents to hunt brown bear without having to hire a guide in selected GMUs which were targeted for intensive predator control,

* Donation of bear hides, skulls, and other parts to ADFG, who would then auction the assets and repay the hunters 50% of the captial gain

The political force that delayed the bill in House committee until the session ended wasn't Paul Joslin and his kooky wildlife zealots. It was the guides.
I have a lot of respect for most guides, but the only concern this bunch seems to have is money. Most non-resident hunters would not hunt brown bear without a guide anyway. All I have to say to that group of guides is 'way to go you self-serving morons'. You have successfully played into the hands of the "antis'". If they keep it up, eventually no one will be hunting.

ALL of us need to stick together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll add an Amen to that.

There's an outfitter in New Mexico that presently has a law suit against the Arizona G&F over non-residents being restricted to 10% of all available permits in the annual big game drawings. Says he provides guide service interstate and that this is unlawful because it interferes with his interstate business. Now, I don't know of any state that has limited permits issued on a draw basis that doesn't restrict how many non-residents may be drawn. If it is over-the-counter, or first come, first served it is unlimited for non-res.

Just something to further muddle up the hunting picture for all of us.

ALL of us need to stick together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, partner, but don't hold your breath on that one, especially when it comes to the hunting community in Alaska. With the subsistence issue, the guiding industry, and everybody else trying to safeguard their little honey-hole from increasing hunting pressure (both resident and non-resident), the National Park Service, and the environmental zealots, it's every man for himself up here.

Aircraft owners support non-motorized vehicle (anti-ATV) measures to reduce hunting pressure in "their" spots. Subsistence "qualifiers" are forever pressuring the Board of Game, the Federal Subsistence Board, and the Legislature to keep EVERYBODY out of "their" public lands. It goes on and on.

Too bad, but that's the reality. It's basic greed and selfishness, and I doubt it'll ever go away.

Sorry, partner, but don't hold your breath on that one, especially when it comes to the hunting community in Alaska. With the subsistence issue, the guiding industry, and everybody else trying to safeguard their little honey-hole from increasing hunting pressure (both resident and non-resident), the National Park Service, and the environmental zealots, it's every man for himself up here.

Aircraft owners support non-motorized vehicle (anti-ATV) measures to reduce hunting pressure in "their" spots. Subsistence "qualifiers" are forever pressuring the Board of Game, the Federal Subsistence Board, and the Legislature to keep EVERYBODY out of "their" public lands. It goes on and on.

Too bad, but that's the reality. It's basic greed and selfishness, and I doubt it'll ever go away.

All I want to do is put meat in the freezer, I never thought that was much of a threat. Do you think I might be able to do that in the Fairbanks area, or will I need to pay someone for the "privilege" to hunt like we do in Texas (I'm being just a little facetious)? We will be moving there in August.

People had better wake up and see the writing on the wall; Alaska is ripe for becoming like another Massachusets. The tree-huggers have Maine (where I used to live) in their crosshairs to make it one big National Park with the RESTORE idiots from Boston,the guides are getting too territorial for their own good, and eliminating bear-baiting is on the ballot this year. Alaska appears to have too many similarities, and the antis would believe that if they could topple hunting in Maine and Alaska the rest of the country would fall easily. The antis are well funded, organized, and connected.
IT'S TIME FOR EVERYONE TO PUT THIER DIFFERENCES ASIDE AND FIGHT OUR COMMON ENEMY! If we don't, it wont even matter anymore.

I guess I should tell everyone what I think we should do instead of just complaining.
First,we need to stop the infighting, then we need to sue the National Park Service for not allowing us to protect ourselves (carrying firearms) or to hunt. We should target every top administrator that is hostile to us from every legal angle to include filing formal complaints against them, requesting congressional investigations when applicable, and surveillance of all their activities public and private (there are a lot of law enforcement types amongst our ranks) and take action against them immediately to the fullest extent of the law once a violation is observed. After all, no one is perfect and most of these "people" didn't get where they are by being saints. Target hostile organizations such as the Humane Society, Sierra Club, and PETA in the same fashion. PETA is listed as a terrorist organization by the CIA, why are they allowed to exist? The USA PATRIOT Act gives us a lot of leverage if used. Start public demonstrations at movie theaters that feature actors that are affiliated with PETA.When a hunter is harrased, we need to prosecute the offender to the fullest, and if no such law exists in that jurisdiction, lobby for one.

We need to form a broad based network to accomplish this (they already have), and that means we need to put aside our differences long enough to send them running with their tails between their legs. Join the NRA even if you don't agree with their internal politics, I did and if every sportsman did, our numbers would be intimidating.

Last; become politicaly active, perhaps run for a local office (and don't use hunting and gun rights as a platform - the antis don't tell anyone their agenda until they are in).

These are just some of my ideas, I am sure there are others out there who feel the same as I do. If there are any who are interested, maybe we should start another thread on this topic and call it 'What We Should Do'.

Good ideas and good furor, Joe. Unfortunately, they won't work.

Alaska isn't like Texas. Texas was a nation before statehood. The feds had to buy all the land they own there from Texans. Washington is cheap. Why do they need land in Texas? To guard the borders?

Ha.

Not so here. They own this place. They bought it whole from the Russians, and haven't given much of it up. That's good in a way. At least you don't have to pay them to access it.

But that isn't much comfort. They simply OUTLAW access methods. Flying has logistical limits. There are only so many places to land. The same goes with boating anchorages. And the Natives have claimed the best waterfront lands. The "good old days" in Alaska have been gone for at least 20 years.

If you are going to move up here, I hope you don't need a job. If so, you're stuck like the rest of us. It's still better here than elsewhere. Like I've said a thousand times, I'd rather live in poverty in Alaska than as a rich man anywhere else in the world.

Stay away from the Alaskan cities if you can. And consider Southeast Alaska. They're going through a "constriction" there. The environmentalists have killed the timber industry there, and the area is still underpopulated. If you have a good boat in Southeast, you have access to huge areas.

Southcentral and many parts of the Interior are now getting overrun with ATVs and riverboats. Canoes and hipwaders can still get you away from the crowds, but when you're talking about moose, that's a ****ava load in a canoe (over beaver dams) or on your back in waders.

And the hunting politics suck. You haven't seen anything yet. It truly is "every man for himself" up here politically.

Well, hunting politics and hunting populations aren't as good as they could be, but there are still something like 330,000 square MILES of public lands open to hunting here. That is larger than the entire state of Texas. Some of those lands may require a drawing permit or registration hunt.

Some of the Native Corporation lands are open to hunting. You have to contact them, as each have their own policies, but some do allow hunting. Some for free, some for a small fee.

Hunting here can be expensive, a lot of the really prime areas require a good boat or airplane to access. There are some outstanding opportunities.

The problem I see is this, how many hunters do you know that actually went out and hunted wolves this winter in the units where moose are hurting? How many are hunting bears (either brown, grizzly or black) this spring in the areas where moose predation is a huge problem? How many wolves do hunters take in these areas where predation is a problem during their hunts for moose, caribou, or sheep?

The animal protection groups and tourism groups will continue to lobby hard to increase buffer zones restricting hunting and trapping around areas where the tourists come, because the tourists want to see bears and wolves. We, as hunters, need to step up and do our part of hunting more bears and wolves in the units where they are significantly impacting the moose, caribou, and sheep populations. We also need to continue to provide input at planning meetings making sure our voices are heard at the F&G Board levels, and at our lawmakers levels, both in Juneau and Washington D.C.

...The problem I see is this, how many hunters do you know that actually went out and hunted wolves this winter in the units where moose are hurting? How many are hunting bears (either brown, grizzly or black) this spring in the areas where moose predation is a huge problem? How many wolves do hunters take in these areas where predation is a problem during their hunts for moose, caribou, or sheep?...

I know several trappers who take wolves annually. They're worth $400 to $450 apiece. It's worth their while. I've maintained a trapper's license for several years, and I've taken a few wolves. You won't get rich at it, but it helps pay the expenses of the endeavor.

Now a question for you: how many bears do you take per year? If you take "your limit", what do you do with them? You can't sell any part of them. After putting a couple on the walls, you're pretty much done (unless you have a 10,000 sq.ft. home). You either give them away or stack them up in the garage.

That's why I thing SB 297 was so important. You can take bears every year, donate the hides, skulls, and claws to ADFG, and get a check back after the auction. It essentially put bears on the furbearers list.

It's long overdue, but with the guides killing these measures, and the anti's killing bear baiting, I'm afraid we're screwed, blued, and tatooed.

Remember, two of the three sponsers of the anti-bear baiting initiative advertise themselves as "Master Guides".

With friends like that within the hunting community, who needs environmental wacko enemies?

I agree for the most part with what you are saying. However, if those people all hunting moose in the game units where they are really taking a pounding would take their limit each year on bears and hunt wolves, it probably wouldn't be a problem. I know if all the resident hunters in the state would go after them, we wouldn't have this problem.

But we don't.

When I bear hunt (and that isn't even every year) it's a place in the Sound. I am part of the problem. But I can't put blame squarely on chest of the guides (I'm not one).

I don't have any problem with state asking for outside help to bring moose populations up. What I do have a problem with is hunters in the state whining and complaining about this problem, then not doing anything about it, except trying to get a bill passed so someone else can come up and do that job for them.

I'll say it again, I'm part of the PROBLEM. I didn't shoot any wolves this year. I didn't predator hunt in areas where they are devastating moose herds. I didn't bear hunt this spring in those areas either. Will I go this fall? Maybe. See, I'm a part of the problem. But then again, I haven't gotten too upset when the guides killed this bill either.

I know several trappers who take wolves annually. They're worth $400 to $450 apiece. It's worth their while. I've maintained a trapper's license for several years, and I've taken a few wolves. You won't get rich at it, but it helps pay the expenses of the endeavor.

Now a question for you: how many bears do you take per year? If you take "your limit", what do you do with them? You can't sell any part of them. After putting a couple on the walls, you're pretty much done (unless you have a 10,000 sq.ft. home). You either give them away or stack them up in the garage.

That's why I thing SB 297 was so important. You can take bears every year, donate the hides, skulls, and claws to ADFG, and get a check back after the auction. It essentially put bears on the furbearers list.

It's long overdue, but with the guides killing these measures, and the anti's killing bear baiting, I'm afraid we're screwed, blued, and tatooed.

Remember, two of the three sponsers of the anti-bear baiting initiative advertise themselves as "Master Guides".

With friends like that within the hunting community, who needs environmental wacko enemies?

Who are they? I say tell all our friends that may be seeking the services of a guide when they come to Alaska about those two and have them spread the word. They are no friend to any respectable hunter, they only care about catering to the so-called "elite" and have completely sold us out.:mad:

When is the next legislative session? It's not too late for another try.;)

$400 apiece sounds like it could supplement my hunting budget pretty well. I'm getting my trapping license.:D

I agree for the most part with what you are saying. However, if those people all hunting moose in the game units where they are really taking a pounding would take their limit each year on bears and hunt wolves, it probably wouldn't be a problem. I know if all the resident hunters in the state would go after them, we wouldn't have this problem.

But we don't.

When I bear hunt (and that isn't even every year) it's a place in the Sound. I am part of the problem. But I can't put blame squarely on chest of the guides (I'm not one).

I don't have any problem with state asking for outside help to bring moose populations up. What I do have a problem with is hunters in the state whining and complaining about this problem, then not doing anything about it, except trying to get a bill passed so someone else can come up and do that job for them.

I'll say it again, I'm part of the PROBLEM. I didn't shoot any wolves this year. I didn't predator hunt in areas where they are devastating moose herds. I didn't bear hunt this spring in those areas either. Will I go this fall? Maybe. See, I'm a part of the problem. But then again, I haven't gotten too upset when the guides killed this bill either.

I believe in being proactive and I commend you for your honesty, half the battle (within ourselves) is admitting the truth. Since half the battle is won, have some fun thinning out some wolves and shooting a few more bear.:D You will no longer be able to consider yourself "part of the PROBLEM". The way I see it, this is not just an Alaskan problem: It's an American problem, and self-serving sellouts and Enviroweenies are the main source.
Joe

It does, in part, come down to guides not wanting the guide requirement lifted. If that does happen, it won't be long before that guide requirement is lifted statewide for bears, sheep and goats. That is their livelihood, and I understand their stance.

The problem I see, however, is hunters across the state wanting this bill to pass, but very few that actually hunt the predators in that area. If you won't help yourself, don't expect the guides to give up their main source of income to support it.

I could cop out and say that I don't hunt moose in that area, so I should not have to hunt the predators there. But that isn't right. As an Alaskan and a hunter, I should go out and help reduce the number of predators in those areas. Before I ask the guides to give up their primary source of income, I feel that is only fair.

Who are they?

A group calling itself the Citizens United Against Bear Baiting is behind the ballot initiative to ban black bear baiting in Alaska. Former Alaska Lt. Gov. Lowell Thomas Jr., a longtime "naturalist", is one of three people who sponsored the petition drive. The other sponsors were John Erickson, a big-game hunter and master guide, and George Pollard, a retired big-game hunter and master guide.

It does, in part, come down to guides not wanting the guide requirement lifted. If that does happen, it won't be long before that guide requirement is lifted statewide for bears, sheep and goats. That is their livelihood, and I understand their stance.

There's no "in part" about it. And I disagree with your position that the guide requirements statewide are in peril. The legislation clearly stated that this was only for GMUs which are undergoing intensive predator management.

Actually, Senator Seekins should have submitted two bills; one to allow non-resident hunting of brown bears in selected GMUs, and another to allow the sale of bear parts as specified in SB 297. That would have served two purposes:

1) The selfish guides would have busied themselves with the bill dealing with the guiding requirements, thus possibly allowing the sales bill to pass, and

2) We would have a clearer vision of who would have opposed the sales bill.

It's difficult to count the enemies of sustained yield anymore. There are just too many of them. Separating bills, thus throwing the "shotgun" effect at them, might confuse them enough for SOMETHING to pass.

And I disagree with your position that the guide requirements statewide are in peril. The legislation clearly stated that this was only for GMUs which are undergoing intensive predator management.

I do understand that the intention was only for the units that are suffering. But if a guide wasn't required in those units, I feel positive that there would be lawsuits from outside hunting organizations and hunters for hunting other units without a guide. It is a very real concern for those guides. Right or wrong, I do understand.

Like I said, I'm not a guide, but I have listened to their side of the story. I do believe that we should reduce the numbers of predators in those areas, but feel that hunters that use those GMU's (even moreso, the guides that operate in those areas) and residents of Alaska be the primary responsible party to reducing numbers. Maybe even air charters into and out of those areas could be run at cost.

I don't think there are any innocent parties here.

This has turned out to be a very informative dialaugue for the unversed in Alaskan hunting politics. As far as I can tell, both Alyeska338 and Hunster make some very good points, and based on the preponderance of the given information I have to agree that we all should do our part in predator hunting.
We also need to re-introduce the failed bill as TWO separate pieces of legislation to avoid another debacle, and go on the offensive on the bear-baiting issue and publicly discredit those in favor of eliminating baiting altogether. AK already is much more restrictive than some other states that allow it, and if there were more baiting there would be greater success in controlling the black bear.
Maybe an answer to the Brown/Grizzly issue is to allow some baiting in selected GMU's and not get rid of the guide requirement. It would allow the guides to provide a greater likelyhood of a successful hunt to their clients (who don't like to spend >$10,000 to walk away empty-handed). The guides do have a right to make a living, and the possibility of setting a negative precedent is very real in our litigious society. I believe we should give the guides the benefit of a doubt on that one, but "To whom much is given much is required": I say we should introduce a bill that would give them something they want and at the same time set a higher standard for integrity and professionalism in the guiding community - it would only serve to enhance their credibility in the long run.
In conclusion, I hold an optimistic view that if ideas are presented correctly we can achieve many of our goals and even form a stronger coalition in the hunting community.
We need each others' help, there is no time for infighting.

Joe