From the Anchorage daily news...


http://www.adn.com/front/story/934085.html

State: Wolf, bear hunts increasing moose, caribou
Since program began, more than 1,000 wolves and hundreds of black bears have been killed


By Mary Pemberton | The Associated Press
ANCHORAGE - An Alaska wildlife management program in which wolves are shot from low-flying airplanes and black bears are baited and snared is helping to increase the numbers of moose and caribou, state wildlife officials say.

The program has long been the target of wildlife conservation groups who view it as state-sponsored slaughter. Last fall, one of those groups launched an ad criticizing then-Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, for expanding the program.

State officials contend the program is aimed at helping rural Alaskans, who rely on hunting to survive and had complained there wasn't enough game to hunt and eat.

The program began under Palin's predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski. Private citizens are permitted to shoot wolves from the air or conduct land-and-shoot hunting of wolves in six rural areas of the state.

Since the program began in 2003, over 1,000 wolves and hundreds of black bears have been killed in an effort to drive down the number of predators.

"I think there are some real success stories here," Bruce Bartley, a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said.

The agency recently released its 2008-09 predation management summary that indicates that moose and caribou numbers in six predator control areas have increased. The agency points to two areas in particular as examples of where the program is showing strong results: the Nelchina Basin area and the southern Alaska Peninsula.

The program is getting substantive results in the McGrath area, where it began in December 2003. Last winter and spring, 28 wolves were killed in the McGrath area. Nineteen were taken under the program and nine were hunted and trapped.

The agency said the moose population there has grown from 2,774 in 2004 to an estimated 5,500 moose now. The goal is to reach 6,000 to 8,000 moose.

"Moose numbers have come up substantially," Bartley said.
In the Nelchina Basin area - one of the more contentious predator control areas because it is accessible to urban hunters from the Anchorage area - 119 wolves were killed. Fifty-five of those were taken under the control program and the other 64 were hunted or trapped.

That, the state said, helped the moose population increase 27 percent. The harvest, meanwhile, went up 18 percent.

The situation is so improved in the Nelchina Basin that for the first time in more than a decade nonresident hunters will be allowed to hunt bull moose.

Bartley said the 50-permit, nonresident hunt should not interfere with the supply of moose for Alaskans because it is being allowed in more remote areas only. Nonresident hunters have been "frozen out" of hunting in that area of the state for years, Bartley said, and there is a benefit to the state to have them in it.

"Everybody loves to beat up on the ugly, old nonresident but the fact is they pay a lot of the game management bills in Alaska," he said.

Critics say the nonresident hunt being allowed in the Nelchina Basin reveals the true intent of predator control in Alaska. They have said the predator control program is nothing more than a front for big game guides who pay big fees to the state and need trophies for their out-of-state clients.

"Predator control programs are simply perpetual killing events designed to give nonresident trophy hunters access to Alaska as a game farm," said John Toppenberg, director of the 1,200-member Alaska Wildlife Alliance, a conservation group.

The program is meant to meet the needs of commercial guides and nonresident trophy hunters - not the subsistence needs of rural Alaskans, he said.

Wade Willis, a former Fish and Game biologist and outspoken critic of the program, agrees. It looks like predator control is never going to end, he said.

"It is a perpetual predator control program, artificial manipulation of the game to create nothing short of a game farm," said Willis, who was formerly associated with Defenders of Wildlife in Alaska.

It is up to the Alaska Board of Game to end predator control, but Bartley said the board likely won't stop intensive management in the control areas anytime soon.

"I think the board wants to see that they do function normally for a number of years in a row," he said.

Who'da thunk?......at least Alaska isn't predominately guided by Eco-treehuggin' liberal terrorist mf'rs.

You mean if you control the number of predators, you increase the number of their prey items?

Shocking.

The real question is what makes us think we're responsible for balancing the numbers of predators and prey?

I get the whole predator balance thing, a good friend of mine stills runs his hounds for the state to get those repeat urban offenders. I just can't recall the last time I heard about a black bear taking out a moose.

We need to regulate the human population more than anything else, but I can't seem to get any volunteers for that.
We as the controlling species are not willing to see population crashes as long as we are consumers of the resource.
Crashes of first prey, then the predators that feed on them are indeed the natural order of things.
We manipulate everything on the planet artificially, creating an artificial balance.

I'm a lil more biased due to the fact that I hunt.




Never seen a moose calf?

This is for you poleplease....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JVkaMqD5mI

Bears, yes the lil guys too are on the rampage in the spring devouring calves and fawns.
It's what they do.....except of course on "Animal Planet" where they only eat honey and ceasar salad.

Here is my thought on the subject. A thousand or more years ago before the human population was so out of check with the natural order of things, a healthy predator population was our eco-systems way of keeping the prey population in check. Today, however, humans are many and if we chose to take prey by hunting we must also manage the natural predator population as well. Sal has a pretty good handle on the concept.

Talk to some guides and outfitters in Idaho. Reintroduction of the wolf has resulted in an all but decimated the elk population over there, especially in the wide open areas. The packs are so large they are running down healthy bulls and cows, not just the young and sick ones. Way to go...Idaho.

Arguing that big game populations need to be maintained at a unnatural level, and that man should be the decider on numbers is doomed to failure.
Basically your taking a nonscientific approach to game management.
This will be easy pickins for the anti's in court.
FYI elk were reintroduced into Oregon in the early 1900's, they had been completely wiped out, not by predators, but rather by the hand of man.
Want higher big game populations? Then lobby to end private grazing on public land.

I am in total agreement with you on that Sal.......

I loved that agent in The Matrix, tellin Morphious that humans spread like viruses, consuming everything in their path, until nothing is left......

Really?? Not the biggest fan of public land grazing, but why then have have populations continued to rise with cows and sheep on public land, but really only started to fall significantly since the cougar hunting with dog ban in OR? I understand you don't like public land grazing, but the facts go directly in against your logic.

I think if you look at the facts presented by the cattlemen association, then cattle on public land is the second coming.
However there is conflicting data, those with no monetary stake in this issue have a far bleaker outlook.
Besides it's nothing more than farmer welfare, you wing nuts don't like welfare right?

Simple fact.........

Maintain predator populations and man will have more to take from.... We are the top of the food chain and have to choice to do so.

Since cougar hunting has been banned with hounds I've watched numerous deer populations diminish. Sadening really.

Keith

Actually barney, I am going off published big game population surveys from across the west. Elk are doing okay, Mule Deer are taking it in the shorts.

Many scientists feel that cattle grazing on public land have caused other species to become ESA listed.
And as for mule deer populations, how can grazing cattle on over wintering habitat by cattle help deer populations?
The federal government leases public land to select ranchers at @ 1/4 the going rate.
Leasing millions of acres of public land at 1/4 the going rate to raise a fraction of the nations total beef production seems really stupid to me.
The amount of damage these animals cause just isn't worth it to anyone but the ranchers.

But it is worth it to the ranchers, and they make influencial political contributions and promote the image of the rugged individualist Marlboro Man on his horse, herding cattle, on public rangeland. What they don't show is the land abuse or photos of their winter vacation in Hawaii, made possible by publicly subsidized grazing leases. Beef from public grazing lands provides less than 3%, likely no more than 2% of the US beef supply. We could end cattle grazing on public lands today, and consumers would barely notice it.

WRO,

Wildlife and other environmental barometers are making a bit of a comeback on some public lands since the public land management agencies have been criticized and sued for not protecting public resources. Leases are still below market cheap, but BLM, BR, and USFS are requiring ranchers to keep livestock out of some riparian zones and to reduce grazing animal densities. Progress is slow but still an improvement.

Sg

I'd like to see the data that would indicate cougar predation is a cause of mule deer populations declines.

Or you could look it up yourself, that way if we are wrong you can get really smug and righteous.
Good luck.

There are documented studies that show mountain lions hurting bighorn sheep populations, that is fact.
They are only a one of many factors hurting Mule Deer.
I also believe them to be a large factor on dwindling deer herds here in California where lions are protected.
I've seen five lions in recent years, which used to be a very rare occurance indeed.
Another phenomenon is the numbers of deer grouping near rural subdivisions presumably to present less of a target to the more secretive and shy lions.
I believe the blossomed elk population throught the west is a also a major factor for mule deer decline.
Elk recovery programs were virtually too successful.
Elk are at record numbers in many areas now.
The muleys cannot compete with the elk for feed.
Most of the time the elk are grazers and do not compete with the deer that are browsers, but in the most critical period, that being the dead of winter when snow is deep, that is when the elk hurt the deer.
The elk reach higher, and dig deeper for the sparse feed at that time of the year.
Today, record book bulls are being recorded like never before, primarily from Utah and Arizona, which are not highly populated with wolves (yet).
The heyday of muledeer were the sixties and seventies.
Numbers were at an all time highs and record book bucks were falling like Jennifer Flowers' panties.
Elk were tough to find with big bulls being very rare indeed.
During that time lions were shot for bounties and coyotes were poisoned and trapped relentlessly.
Muleys thrived.
Perhaps unnaturally.
It is a complex web of habitat, predators, (both human & animal) and other hooved competitors.
In the grand scheme of things I think we need predators, but we cannot "manage" one part of the ecosystem, we need to look at the entire thing.
The biggest obstacle being habitat loss and creatures that were listed on the ESL that truly needed protection at one time, primarily wolves & Grizzly bears that according to recent population numbers are in a very stable if not flourishing state.
The public dictates policy and we live in times that do not favor big game hunter's desires.

"Many scientists feel that cattle grazing on public land have caused other species to become ESA listed"

Okay, which ones?


And how can you possibly think that cougar predation is not an issue with mule deer populations? Here is a link for you. There are plenty more that can be found with a little research.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html

I think that there can be a happy medium found if responsible ranching practices are used. I know that where we hunt antalope they rotate the sections where the cattle are grazed and landscape seems to rebound rather well in the off years.

That was a very interesting study, to bad there's no real data to look at, but I have found some studies showing isolated populations where cougar predation was considered a factor, however mule deer populate the entire west, and they are all declining, even where cougars are not a factor.

There is still alot of clear cutting around Tillamook. The difference today is that once the area has been logged, they treat the area with chemicals to keep anything other than tree's from growing.

They used to burn the logged area, wich created excellent forage for deer and elk not long after the fire. But the grass and underbrush slowed the growth of the replanted tree's.

There have been a couple of meetings in Tillamook discussing why so many elk have moved down in to the valley. The bilogists at the one meeting I attended simply said that there was not enough feed for them anywhere other than the valley.

The area you saw the helicopter and elk was probably around the air base. They have trapped and relocated elk from that area a couple of times.

Having any luck?
Here's some help with the facts.

160 million acers of public land are leased to ranchers at below fair market value.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html


http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm
What percentage of US beef production relies, at least in part on these western public rangelends? Well, this question is very difficult to answer, in part because many western livestock owners use not only public but also private grazing lands, and because cattle spend various proportions of their feeding lives on the public lands. Suffice it to say, however, that the percentage is probably quite small (significantly less than 10%; probably between 2% and 4%).

Having any luck?
Here's some help with the facts.
[/quote]

I believe he as well as me was refering to the ESA listed arguments.. Also please note that state lands, USFS lands, and some wilderness areas a leased to cattle grazing as well. I'd like to see some facts about the 2-3% of the us beef as well. Also how much of that 160million acres is landlocked within private?

I believe he as well as me was refering to the ESA listed arguments.. Also please note that state lands, USFS lands, and some wilderness areas a leased to cattle grazing as well. I'd like to see some facts about the 2-3% of the us beef as well. Also how much of that 160million acres is landlocked within private? [/quote]

http://www.challismessenger.com/index.php?accnum=story-3-20090521
This is just a snippet of a whole slew of law suits that are pending to be filed in federal court.
And the main focus will be the negative environmental impact cattle have on other species, many are threatened or ESA listed.

Hankster,

Re: sources, a book called "Feeding at the Public Trough" is where I first read the story about cheap grazing leases, public subsidies to ranchers, if you'll allow, and that only 3% of US beef comes from the publicly grazed lands. (Most comes from modern feed lots.) The book is dated, 1970 I think, and I've since read in sources which I don't recall that it's down around 2% now. If you really want the source, one of us needs to do the research. I don't care about convincing you enough to bother doing it again.

Regarding your question about the OR elk and helecoptter, I don't know, but it's plausible. Blacktail deer forage optimally in edge habitat, clear cuts adjacent to standing timber. Elk forage optimally on grasslands. It's entirely possible that the elk herd increased as clearcuts expanded in area. Then as the reprod (replanted young trees) grew higher and shaded out grass and forbs in the former clear cuts, elk forage probably decreased and could no longer support the larger elk herd.

As to why not cull the herd to conform to the amount of available habitat, you're getting at the very heart of wildlife management politics. Hunters want large elk herds because they like to hunt. They don't like to hear ODFW reports that the herd is too large for its habitata. And hunters buy licenses and tags that help support ODFW. And hunters complain to their state legislators, who are often dumber than a stump in the middle of a clearcut when it comes to natural resource management and most issues that they deal with on behalf of their electorate, but I digress. So ODFW is caught between a rock and a hard place. Leave things as they are and nature will take its course, and the herd size will decline. Or allow what hunters regard as too high a harvest rate, also causing the herd to decline. Oh, and chasing the elk off farmland might be because OR has a law like WA that requires ODFW to pay farmers and landowners for damage caused by elk. Hence chasing with helecopters, like that makes any kind of sensible wildlife management.

So the short answer to your question is: politics. Thought you might like that.

Sg