Alaska editorial: Don't manage wildlife by urban whim
This editorial appeared in Saturday's Voice of the (Anchorage) Times:
Again, Bambi's disciples are hard at it in Alaska, this time to ban at the ballot box the most tightly regulated and controlled form of hunting in the state.
An outfit calling itself Citizens Against Bear Baiting, and headed by Paul Joslin, former executive director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, has decided that the hunting of black bears over bait is a bad thing, and it has gathered enough signatures, mostly from urban Alaska, to force the question onto the November ballot.
The proposed law, which could strip the Alaska Department of Fish and Game of a valuable management tool, is three sentences long and has more holes than a John Kerry war story. In short, it says a person "may not bait or intentionally feed a bear for the purpose of hunting, photography or viewing."
First, ask yourself: Is bear-baiting denting the black bear population? Hardly. Anywhere from 16 percent to 22 percent of the black bears taken by hunters since 1997 were taken over bait. That amounts to fewer than 500 bears a year from a robust and growing population statewide that is far, far from endangered. In some areas, in fact, they are pests.
Hunters must get a permit for a bait station - and only two at a time - post a notice, hunt only in tightly controlled areas away from conflicts with other users and clean up after themselves. And the hunt is only open in most areas a few weeks in the spring.
But that means little to ballot box wildlife experts. They claim hunting black bears over bait is unfair. That is ridiculous. Hunting is all about a hunter seeking advantage over prey. And most times it is about how the prey feeds, when the prey feeds and where the prey feeds.
How is hiding near bait different from hiding close to a winter-killed moose, or setting up a blind at an earlier bear kill or a berry patch or fishing hole? Or using decoys or calls? In some heavily timbered areas, and the wide open parts of Interior Alaska, baiting is the only way a hunter likely will get close to a black bear.
Most important, in our view, is that the generally worded proposed law could have tremendous, unintended consequences. Will a judge rule that Fish and Game cannot set up diversionary feed stations for black bears to ease predation on caribou or moose? Does it mean that researchers cannot attract black bears with food? Will a court say the law bars Fish and Game from baiting traps to remove nuisance bears?
We are left with the impression that this scheme is just another in a line of such proposals from those who believe Alaska's wildlife should be managed by urban whim at the ballot box - and that is never a good idea.