Alaska Begins Bait Hunting For Grizzly, Brown Bears

ANCHORAGE - "For the first time since Alaska became a state, hunters will be allowed to use bait to lure and kill grizzly bears under a program intended to boost moose populations in parts of interior Alaska. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game began issuing permits last week for a predator-control program aimed at clearing out the majority of grizzlies in a 3,000-square-mile area of brushy terrain and tundra near the Canadian border.

The program, launched on April 1, allows permitted hunters to use bear-attracting food to lure the animals to spots where they can be shot. The practice, though used in the distant past, was not permitted during the 46 years of Alaskan statehood. Alaska hunters have long been allowed to use bait to lure black bears, but that practice was never extended to the larger and less plentiful grizzlies and coast-dwelling brown bears.


Critics say it is unethical and dangerous because it acquaints bears with human and pet food, such as the stale pastries and bacon grease used at bait stations. Alaska voters last fall rejected a ballot initiative that would have outlawed the practice. The Alaska Board of Game, a panel appointed by Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, has determined that the grizzly bear-killing program is needed to increase residents’ opportunities to successfully hunt moose, said Fish and Game spokeswoman Cathie Harms. “The moose population is depressed. It’s at densities not quite but close to half of what the board had held as an objective,” Harms said. Critics say the program could devastate the grizzlies, animals with slow reproductive rates, with no real benefit to the moose.

EDIT
An estimated 135 grizzly bears live in the targeted area, and the program seeks to have up to 81 of those killed, state officials said. The target area is included in a program that has allowed aircraft-assisted hunters to kill 266 wolves since November, according to Fish and Game figures."

EDIT/END

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7417721/

I wasn't aware that bears were a natural predator of the moose.

Perhaps I'm just confused. Maybe it's that bears eat the food that moose rely on for survival . . . then again, moose aren't really big on having salmon for dinner.

Ah well, I guess I just don't understand these things :)

the presence of a whole bunch of large bears that might kill you and eat you add zest to the hunt?

Behold the mighty hunter.

180

Scientifically sound wildlife management is a good thing, regardless of how much you may emotionally disagree with it.
If the program has been authorized by competent biologists with the health of the ecosystem in mind, who are we to question the action?
Emotionally based wildlife management is just plain stupid.
Just my opinion.

One thing that I found strange is the mention of human food. Salt licks are used to attract animals, not human food.

is pretty unlikely to have much scientific about it. No doubt it is packed with front men for the extractive industries, including big games outfitters. There can also be little doubt that responsible professionals have been sat on, transferred, fired or otherwise silenced. Such as is happening in Florida and on the Federal level.

I suggest that this policy is solely for the benefit of the big game outfitters. This is the same BS as with the wolves. I would like someone to explain to me how this population inbalance occurred. Might it have been the hunting of too many moose in the first place?
Just like the cod fishermen blaming seals for their irresponsible take.

I agree with you, but the Governor says the bear kill off is to allow an increase in the moose population so the hunters will have an opportunity to bag a moose.

I just think hunting would be more fun if there was an element of grave danger from bears involved.

As a commercial fisherman I found the danger offered up by Mother Nature to be almost as much fun as a good catch.

180

Here's a knife Davy Crockett, go get that bear...

I'm not opposed to hunting. I am opposed to hunters who have big guns and little.........









........ brains.

to increase the moose population so we can kill more moose? Is it just me or does that make absolutely no sense to anyone else. After we kill the bears and then kill the moose who are we going to blame for the decline in moose population next time.

I don't pretend to be knowledgeable of Alaskan F&W policies but perhaps rather than killing more bears, we should kill fewer moose.

welcome to DU!

We live in an era where we have an artificial wilderness.
Left undisturbed, natures cycles peak then crash.
When the bear population expands beyond carrying capacity, they take a very heavy toll on the moose calves, bringing the population down.
The bear population that relies heavily on this food source, suddenly has nothing to eat in the spring (salmon don't arrive until fall)and bears in the interior of Alaska don't rely on that food source anyway. With an expanded population, there isn't enough feed and the bear population will crash from starvation.
When the bear population crashes, the moose and caribou population will recover.
This theory holds true for all predator / prey relationships.
Since man figures into the equation, Our goal seems to be that of steward.
We are trying to maintain an artificial "Balance" where wildlife numbers are static, and kept at maximum carrying capacity in relationship to the habitat so that we can get our share and wildlife numbers can remain stable and in high numbers.

that's the rub. Should it not be a level that preserves the balance of the populations? Rather than trying to create a balance based upon the desires of big game outfitters? Seems that that way leads to a potential cascade of unintended consequences. In any case why should we diminish public resources for the profits of a luxury trade?

Is there documentation of a boom/bust cycle with moose & bear?

You've got a wonderful place up there. It's the last chance to live with Nature in North America. It grieves me many are rushing to trash it the way we've screwed up the Lower 48.

Modern wildlife management practices are based on restrictive quotas and bag limits.
An estimate is taken as to the probable holding capacity of the habitat, it's numbers and it's reproduction rate.
Sows with cubs are illegal to shoot.
Upon the take of any bear, the hunter by law must present it to a game warden, where it is aged and inspected.
It is then registered, when the desired quota is reached, the season is shut down.
There is more to it than just a bunch of rednecks turned loose in the woods on a shooting spree.
In modern times there has never been a species brought to extinction by REGULATED sport hunting.

the quality of the science becomes questionable.

You seem to assume that I am anti-hunt and ignorant to boot. Well, I've got some venison ribs marinating in the fridge as I type. I have little problem with a well regulated hunt. I find trophy hunting to be bogus though in rare instances, such as the Big Horns of Baja, it can be a useful management tool. However, these bear and wolf culls seem to have no other purpose than to enhance the incomes of outfitters of moose hunts. This is reprehensible. We should only take what moose can be taken without disturbing the balance of other species. If that's not good for business then find another business.

We are but one species among many.

(edited to add: this is my reply to bearclaws...)

No reputable ecologist would claim a solid relationship between bear and moose populations as you do, especially without citations. (And, yes, this DOES mean I believe many wildlife scientists endorsing this legislation are disreputable. Deciding the answer you want beforehand, and then finding the "facts" to support this answer is NOT science.)

Many "natural cycles" humans observe are exacerbated by human interference, and to that extent I agree with your description of an "artificial wilderness."

The sad truth is that wilderness in many places exists at the pleasure of humans. I also believe this may be a temporary situation. If we don't do it ourselves, sooner or later nature will come up with an effective means of controlling human populations.

Pesonally, I don't understand why you would want to shoot a bear you've attracted with pizza, doughnuts, or some kind of commercially prepared bait. To me, this would be like shooting one of my neighbor's cows at feeding time. I'm sure my neighbor wouldn't mind if I paid him for the cow beforehand, since they all eventually end up as beef, but he'd probably think I was kind of strange...

I am also reminded of the situation that occurs in many popular diving spots. People will "adopt" some large fish by feeding it, and the fish will become a sort of celebrity with people luring it out to take pictures of it, and then someone will come along and spear the fish, and everyone will feel bad.

This same sort of thing will certainly happen with bears.

Do you mean ecologist, preservationist, or biologist?
I have spent a considerable amount with a pilot that does research for the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game out of Glennallen Alaska.
I can assure you that the correlation between moose and grizzlies is an absolute.
After emerging from their dens in spring they may eat grass to get the digestion started, but after that they are on the hunt, not only for calves but adults too.
Although I have never hunted over bait, It does allow for a positive identification as to weather the animal has cubs with it or not.
Also if the ultimate goal is to reduce te population, does it matter?