“Predator-Control Programs”

Link

Considering how little danger bears actually pose to people, and how few people there actually are in Alaska… I really don’t support any plan that allows hunters to take down large amounts of the small populations of bears that live there.

Under recent scrutiny for their wolf hunting and seal bashing practices, Alaska is now on the chopping block of condemnation for its eradication of the black bear.

In what some are calling the “predator-control toolbox,” recent board and state government decisions over certain species of wildlife in Alaska are causing a landslide of negativity not only for the outsiders, but from the local perspective as well. 

A report in the Alaska Dispatch, a small and recently established online news source developed due to thestate’s unheard voices, explained a recent decision made by a group whose purported role is to protect all wildlife: 

The Board of Game and Department of Fish and Game aim – or at least hope – to kill up to 60 percent of the 2,500 to 3,000 black bears (in a particular region)

Alaska, whose square mileage is touted as being the largest state in the United States at 663,268 sq mi 
(1,717,854 km²) and yet the least densely populated, with under 700,000 human inhabitants, it is safe to say that the abundance of wildlife and natural beauty present is far from a shocker. However, The Department of Fish and Game, in the name of protection, support the removal of many of those species because they pose a “threat” to other animals deemed more important. 

For instance, they host bear trapping clinics to teach individuals 16-years-old and older the art of that which is illegal and most states with bears. In 2004, the initiative to ban bear baiting lost out by a relatively narrow margin of 46% for the ban and 54% against it. Many hunters in Alaska, according to the Department of Fish and Game, do not support bear baiting. Black bears are a trophy hunt and are also used for their meat. 

Mistakes in both baiting and killing could serve to negatively impact other more protected species such as the accidental killing of another wildlife animal or even the protected brown bear due to similarities: 

brown bears can range from near black or dark chocolate along the coast to the “blonde” phase often seen in interior grizzlies. Black bears can vary in color from jet black to white, but black, brown (or cinnamon), and blue (or glacier) are the three most common color phases. Black is the color encountered most frequently across the state, but brown or cinnamon bears are sometimes seen in Southcentral Alaska and on the Southeastern mainland. Cinnamon-phase black bears are also common in the Interior, so be sure to look at the other characteristics of any brown-colored bear at your station

What about the “collateral damage” trapped in snares intended for the blacks only? 

In defense of the program, black bears are the biggest nuisance to humans due to their curious natures, however, they are by far the least dangerous of all three types of bears indigenous to the area and prefer to take flight rather than fight. Black bears attack when cornered, injured or protecting their cubs. In the wild, browns have been known to wipe out their black brothers in certain reported cases due to the timid nature of the black. Black bears also do not regularly engage in violent behaviour with wolves, and are typically the loser when it comes to fights over a kill. 

In the article, it was further explained the Board’s decision to now open up killing the Grizzly Bear, once considered an “untouchable,” in a certain area: 

Board decided in Monday’s meeting to allow the snaring and killing of both black bears and grizzlies in the McGrath control area. Apparently not even grizzlies maintain the “untouchable” status they once enjoyed in Alaska’s predator-control programs.

They also allowed a legal number of what is considered “collateral damage” of ten brown bears, that is mistakenly snaring or the lethal harvest of the so-called protected browns. And if that weren’t enough, the Board voted 4-2 to allow children aged 10 to 15 to join the experienced hunters in the black bear slaughter. 

Public outcry was tempered by the assurance that snaring of bears, whether black or Grizzly and of course the gassing of wolf pups also approved as part of the thinning out of the population process, was a humane practice, corroborated by “experts.” Snaring, however, is a relatively unregulated practice with little or no boundaries for operation. For the “general trapper,” the rules of killing a wolf as set forth in the 2008-2009 regulations specifically prohibit the use of helicopters in the transport (pdf version of regulations in the you may not section). 

In Alaska, the Alaska Science Center completed an analysis of the encounters with all bears in the state over the past one-hundred years. In the report, it is estimated that the total black bear population in the massive state at the time of the report was around 110,000. And yet, 86 percent of bear attacks were from the treasured brown, not black. If you go to the official fish and game site, they would have it appear that blacks are dangerous and unpredictable killers as they lump their threat level into a general “bear” categoryon a wildlife description page specified for the black bear, although the black responsible for 12 percent of bear attack fatalities, with the much lesser population of brown absorbing an 86 percent kill rate. On the description of the brown, there are no references at all to the high rate of aggression or danger posed by the much smaller population. As for the blacks, the low incidence of attack is not to say they are your fuzzy pet friend, just they aren’t posing a serious danger to the general population, human or endangered species. 

The ADF&G is run by the Alaska state government. 

So is the recent eradication process to eliminate a potential danger or an attempt to get rid of the black bear because it is an annoying animal, posing a “potential” problem for a non-endangered species of a moose population that is allowed by law to be harvested at an annual rate of 7,000 for its 175,000 total numbers. How about stopping the harvesting instead? Moreover, the alleged threat of wolves to specific populations, the caribou, in the state and the recent controversy over the mass killing and even the recently approved gassing of puppies has left the largest state in the nation looking a little blood thirsty happy these days. Caribou are not on the endangered list, with over a million of them pouncing around on the open land of Alaska, outnumbering the human population of the state and the balance between the wolf and the caribou as a natural predator/prey relationship is an important part of nature. Wolf attacks, whether by a gray or red, on humans are very rare, especially unprovoked, where they left to the wild or in cases where wolves did not have rabies. Fatal attacks are even more rare with wolves, especially when compared to a one year analysis of fatal dog attacks in the United States alone (note Alaska’s number). 

Gassing of animals is considered inhumane in 12 states, where a ban on the practice is already in place. Six other states have recently set forth attempts to have the practice banned because of its potential outcome: 

“During the process, which can take 30 minutes, panicked animals may gasp for breath, try to claw out of the chamber, and even attack each other.”

The support of hunting is one thing. The support of ethnic cleansing is another.