Shootin' Dogs From Planes?

if the gubment is going to be doing the killing, they should send worthless bureaucrats out into the woods wearing meat shirts and allow them to carry only knives. if they kill a wolf, so be it. but if the wolf kills them...hooray!

everyone wins.

Shooting from an airplane is lame. Get on the ground and take them out like a real man.
 
Werbung:
if the gubment is going to be doing the killing, they should send worthless bureaucrats out into the woods wearing meat shirts and allow them to carry only knives. if they kill a wolf, so be it. but if the wolf kills them...hooray!

everyone wins.

Shooting from an airplane is lame. Get on the ground and take them out like a real man.
Its not government bureaucrats, its guys who are trappers, or otherwise have a use for the fur, and have to provide thier own equipment etc. More or less private citizens with a permit to do su.
Also
It is more sporting than you think. Firstly, the wolves wise up very quickly to any sound of an approaching aircraft. It is very dangerous for the humans actually. We are talking low level flight and near stall speeds, then you are shooting at a smallish moving target, from a fast moving object at a higher elevation. Its as fair hunting as one will probably find in America.
 
I'm not sure either, but predator control in one form or another is a good idea.

Here in California, the hunting of mountain lions was outlawed some twenty five or so years ago amid much controversy. Since that time, we've seen a drastic decline in deer populations, and a few instances of cougar attacks on humans, which was almost unheard of before the ban. Attempts to reintroduce mountain goats to the Sierra Nevada have largely been thwarted due to predation by mountain lions. Ranchers, predictably, take a dim view of mountain lions amid their cattle.

On an emotional level, the idea of a creature such as the mountain lion running free is positive, and the idea of killing one for sport is a negative to most people. On a practical level, we now have more mountain lions than we need to keep a balance of nature.

There wouldn't be an increase in mountain lion attacks if humans weren't encroaching on their habitat. Same thing goes for bear attacks up where I live.

I have no objection to a real balance of nature, but I do have an objection to humans opening up new areas to development and then blaming the animals for attacking what, in essence, is the trespasser.
 
There wouldn't be an increase in mountain lion attacks if humans weren't encroaching on their habitat. Same thing goes for bear attacks up where I live.

I have no objection to a real balance of nature, but I do have an objection to humans opening up new areas to development and then blaming the animals for attacking what, in essence, is the trespasser.

Those in Alaska, from the most rural place to the urban center of Anchorage have wildlife issues. The areas in question are not growing communities making way for further development. This is a roadless area and is probably shrinking in terms of human existence. These efforts are really to maintain a viable subsistence level there.
 
Those in Alaska, from the most rural place to the urban center of Anchorage have wildlife issues. The areas in question are not growing communities making way for further development. This is a roadless area and is probably shrinking in terms of human existence. These efforts are really to maintain a viable subsistence level there.

I understand things are different up in Alaska, I was really addressing the so called mountain lion problem in Ca. and out west in general.

Say Bunz, this is somewhat off topic, but I caught the tail end (last 1/2 hour or so), the following Sunday, of the Tougher in Alaska episode you brought up last month.

In it, the boat they were highlighting, while fishing for salmon in Bristol Bay, was putting 1200 ft. or more of net in the water. I don't remember exactly how many pounds of salmon they ended up with for the season, except that it was a hefty amount.

My question is this, isn't there a significant danger of over fishing? And with nets that size, the populations of other sea life are being harmed as well. I understand the Alaska red king crab has been driven to near extinction due to fishing methods of this sort. I realize many people rely upon salmon fishing for their livelihood, but wouldn't it be in everybody's best interest to keep close tabs on things?
 
I understand things are different up in Alaska, I was really addressing the so called mountain lion problem in Ca. and out west in general.
Fair enough and I am aware of those issues. It is often inevitable in the often expanding suburban areas encroaching on what even 10 years ago would have been prime habitat for any number of species, including those which are sometimes more aggressive to humans or inadvertantly dangerous to humans, i.e bears, cougars, deer, etc. Also, it speaks something about limiting the number of armed people, and less, or more restrictive hunting/trapping guidelines. So there are often many causes to negative human/wildlife interations.
This is from literally this afternoon in Anchorage. A black bear was darted a removed from downtown Anchorage. Literally in downtown. Imagine a black bear loose in Central Park, or the DC mall, or Golden Gate Park. Mayhem, but in Anchorage, and most of Alaska it is routine.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/428877.html
But just for fun, here are some photos from the Anchorage Daily News.
541-snowers_1.1212785837.standalone.prod_affiliate.7.jpeg

Look at the tourists run!
561-snowers_1.1212787190.standalone.prod_affiliate.7.jpeg

Say Bunz, this is somewhat off topic, but I caught the tail end (last 1/2 hour or so), the following Sunday, of the Tougher in Alaska episode you brought up last month.
Excellent, glad you saw it. Shows like Deadliest Catch often dramatize events or appear to have a more dramatic story line created for TV. But I was glad this series doesnt do that and just gives the overall scope of what happens.
What did you think of the show overall?
In it, the boat they were highlighting, while fishing for salmon in Bristol Bay, was putting 1200 ft. or more of net in the water. I don't remember exactly how many pounds of salmon they ended up with for the season, except that it was a hefty amount.
Ah, the one boat, fishing in the Naknek-Kvichak district. Where they were always talking about the AK State Troopers. That was a unique boat actually. He had a modern double ender, and owned a dual permit. Meaning, that vessel could set the net out of either end of the boat. From the bow or stern. It is probably the most efficient type in the fishery. Very expensive to operate though. But he also is the holder of two permits. Well him, or more likely is his crew member owning one and fishing the same vessel. One permit is allowed 150fathoms(900 feet) a dual permit is allowed 200fathoms(1200ft)
This has only recent been allowed, in an effort to have less nets in the water and boats in the fleet. But in that show, the double ender caught 200,000 pounds. Which at $.68 a pound, isnt to bad. Skipper probably brought home $60k in 6 weeks.
I operate a stern picker with average quality equipment and a single engine versus his 3 engined vessel.
My question is this, isn't there a significant danger of over fishing? And with nets that size, the populations of other sea life are being harmed as well. I understand the Alaska red king crab has been driven to near extinction due to fishing methods of this sort. I realize many people rely upon salmon fishing for their livelihood, but wouldn't it be in everybody's best interest to keep close tabs on things?
I understand your concerns and they are not unfounded. The Bristol Bay Salmon Fisheries are certified organic and sustainable and is known world wide for being among the very best managed fishery in the world. The penalties for violations are very stiff and among the fishers, followed quite closely. In the last 10 years or so, there has been a major shift in the awareness of the fishers towards being more responsible stewards of the resource. But the way the fishery operates is monitored for escapement upriver to spawning rivers before the commercial fisheries can happen.
I would be happy to expand on this, because I have spent a few years past working at a sonar and counting tower for Fish and Game biologists.
There is a major threat on the horizon though. This is actually a local issue that I am very vocal about, but I generally keep it out of discussion here. But at the very headwaters of two of the major watersheds in the region supporting millions of salmon, there is a proposed mine. What will turn into the largest open pit mine in North America. Pebble Mine, google it.
The fishermen are up in arms about it. It is a very divisive issue in Alaska. Popeye, I think it would be awesome if you read the info about it and made a thread. My view is so tainted, I would like to see what a third party with a liberal viewpoint would have to say about it.
 
People go in the woods, animals come into the city...seems fair to me. Personaly I think a few wild animals roaming the cities would be a good thing.

We already have wild animals roaming most of our cities. They walk on two legs, carry guns, and are the most dangerous wild animals on Earth.
 
Yeah the folks from PETA write a few dozen post cards to the Governor every year. They also have an ongoing tourism boycott on Alaska. In the meantime, tourism is growing every year and those PETA idiots spend money to fly up here and protest themselves.

Mentioned earlier was relocation or sterilization, there are probably other methods of controlling number also.

See this raises an interesting question, because it is not livestock grazing. But wild animals predation. No to much livestock in Alaska.

In this whole thread this post is the only mention of the Gov. Event he origional link posted did not mention her as the problem, it did not mention her at all. It does say "State wildlife officials believe they have saved more than 1,400 moose or nearly 3,000 caribou --"

and now all the sudden its the mean Gov's fault?


*This post is directed to Popeye*
 
I understand things are different up in Alaska, I was really addressing the so called mountain lion problem in Ca. and out west in general.

Say Bunz, this is somewhat off topic, but I caught the tail end (last 1/2 hour or so), the following Sunday, of the Tougher in Alaska episode you brought up last month.

In it, the boat they were highlighting, while fishing for salmon in Bristol Bay, was putting 1200 ft. or more of net in the water. I don't remember exactly how many pounds of salmon they ended up with for the season, except that it was a hefty amount.

My question is this, isn't there a significant danger of over fishing? And with nets that size, the populations of other sea life are being harmed as well. I understand the Alaska red king crab has been driven to near extinction due to fishing methods of this sort. I realize many people rely upon salmon fishing for their livelihood, but wouldn't it be in everybody's best interest to keep close tabs on things?


In this post you say you understand things are differnt in Alaska, but now that Palin is your worst nightmare you seem to have changed your mind?
 
I am curious as to anyones thoughts on the practice of hunting wolves from airplanes? This is an ongoing practice in Alaska in certain places to minimize predator species(wolves) in an effort to increase prey species(moose&caribou) for human consumption. The past winter netted 124 wolves shot from airplanes.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/410461.html

Fish-in-barrels comes to mind, strafing villages, the Hegins, Pennsylvania pigeon-shoot, canned hunts with captive animals, taking candy from babies, it's a barbaric slaughter. Farley Mowat's book NEVER CRY WOLF is a good place to start learning about wolves and their value in the eco-system.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top