Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Obama administration has nothing to do with any of this. The prohibition of pursuing predators from aircraft or culling through denning existed for decades before most of the people reading this could read. I don't recall exactly when such prohibitions were first on the books, but it was probably as far back as statehood. Its not a new thing. The ethics of fair chase go back a long long way.
I assume you are discussing the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which Tsongas got passed long after I started teaching students to read, but 21 years after statehood. My neighbor, a military guy who was an Alaskan that planned to return after retirement, couldn't stop ranting about it.
The Obama administration added much more stringent rules and regulations, along with diminishing state control, in August - those got rescinded earlier when Trump did a deletion of a bunch of those late regulations created by cabinet department secretaries on their way out.
The ethics of a fair chase do go back a long way and I have faith the Alaskan state government is just as inclined to uphold those standards as the federal government.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Given the thousands of animals that have been abandoned in the wake of these hurricanes and the millions of animals that are killed because of poor ownership behavior, I say that Congress is just representing its population consistently.
"Given the thousands of animals that have been abandoned in the wake of these hurricanes and the millions of animals that are killed because of poor ownership behavior,"
I thought this was about WILD animals like bears and wolves, etc.
Some people don't give a damn about wild animals and believe they are here so humans can slaughter them anyway they choose. Responses in this thread just go to prove it. It is a damn shame.
What I see is those that care so much about wild animals, support abortion of HUMANS.
No. Most hunters absolutely give a damn. I don't know any hunters who don't give a damn about wildlife. In fact most hunters know a whole lot more about wildlife than people who don't hunt.
People watch a movie or a documentary and think, oh look how cute those wolves are, or those bears are. I'll be honest. I usually cheer for the bear when someone tries to feed it from their hand and the bear mauls them.
I get mad when the animal is put down for just doing what a bear does.
I am 100% for protecting endangered species. I am 100% for protecting wildlife with realistic laws and not just feel good laws.
Bingo!
Hunters, of which I am one, do MORE for the conservation of wild animals then ANY basement living "animal rights" person.
Pot and Kettle....Speaking of something you know nothing about....
Neither bears nor wolves are becoming overpopulated or moving into "human inhabited areas". The issue IS a VERY big deal to Alaskans. There isn't some massive surge of human deaths due to bears and wolves, never has been. Its an attempt by the state to shift the proportional balance between predator and big game species. Humans want to shoot more of the game, not let the predators have it. That's all.
You LACK common reading COMPREHENSION.
"The issue IS a VERY big deal to Alaskans."
Which as I said ALASKA SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THIS AND NOT SOME BUREAUCRAT IN D.C.
Of course the federal government has a say in this. Federal agencies manage about 60% of the land in Alaska. Why? Because that land is designated as national forest, national park, national wildlife refuge, national monument, and national recreation area. Ever heard of the big iconic parks such as Denali, Wrangell St Elias, Gates of the Arctic, the big forests including the Tongass? They are all federally managed for YOUR benefit. Why wouldn't a federal agency which has the responsibility to manage the land responsibly be given the authority to manage it? USDA Forest Service, the National Park Service, BLM, US Fish and Wildlife Service, care for the places for YOU, not just for state residents.
The state of Alaska has management jurisdiction over state land as is proper. The problem here is that the state wants authority to permit predator culling on federally managed land as well as state land. Why did this even get to the level of the WH? Because the state of Alaska has always fought with federal agencies over management of federal land, has always resented the public laws that gave management control over these places to national level agencies, and pushed it there.
Do you really think that predators and game animals stay happily inside the boundaries of some local state or federal management unit? Are you serious? They don't. Should one agency trump the authority of another within its own boundaries? Do you really believe these federal lands aren't managed by knowledgeable local agency staffs? Many of the management issues there are unique in the US and require unique understanding and experience. At the ground/field level the managers making resource decisions work directly with state agencies, not against them. Do you really think that locally placed biologists and decision makers are less informed about their own districts than some elected representative in Congress? Where it gets contentious is in the upper directorial levels of state and federal agencies and elected representatives. You can bet your last dollar that those people don't particularly care about bears or wolves. They care about influence, about victories, about scratching each other's backs, about winning terms of office.
"Federal agencies manage about 60% of the land in Alaska."
There in lies the problem.
When a territory is granted statehood and its border are set, ALL the land within those borders SHOULD be OWNED by the state NOT the fed gov't.
"The problem here is"
you call it a problem.
I call it fed govt overreach into a states borders and jurisdiction.
See, we all have our own ideas of what's a "big deal" and what's not.
To me, what the old man is whining about (that congressman Young from Alaska,) that he is not allowed to sign the laws permitting to kill the wild animals with impunity - that's not a big deal. But when such laws are actually signed - yes, that's a big deal.
We all have our own priorities - see how it works?
Quote:
I'd bet you support abortion of HUMANS.
Please stay on topic. If you want to know my opinion on abortions, I have no problem to express it. Go ahead, open your own thread on it.
Quote:
Controlling wildlife is a GOOD thing when a species becomes overpopulated and move into human inhabited areas.
Do some research INSTEAD of going off half cocked and hyperventilating about an issue you oblivious KNOW NOTHING about.
Surrrre... Let me cue you in, what United States Fish and Wildlife Service is all about -
"The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or FWS) is an agency of the federal government within the U.S. Department of the Interior dedicated to the management of fish, wildlife, and natural habitats. The mission of the agency is "working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The leader of the FWS is the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Daniel M. Ashe, of Maryland, who was confirmed on June 30, 2011, succeeding Sam Hamilton.[5]"
And while we are at that, let's check on credentials of Daniel M. Ashe - shall we?
"Ashe graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in Marine Affairs, and also earned a Bachelor of Science degree in biological science from Florida State University."
Whaddayaknow, he'd be the one who KNOWS SOMETHING about the "overpopulation of species"????
While I am not for some of the practices (although spotting and then shooting a bear after landing isn't controversial to me), I believe that the regulatory state has gotten out of control and is inconsistent with the Constitution as things currently operate. Accordingly, I'm for reversing as many department-enacted regulations as possible. On a similar note, I hold a more limited view of congressional power than some, and would even question Congress' right to enact legislation similar to the rule that the House just voted to rescind.
HSUS has very little to do with this except jumping on the outrage bandwagon. PART of the regulation repeal would make it legal to pursue moving animals from aircraft and shoot them directly from the aircraft. It has to do with the idea of "fair chase". It was also to prevent cruelty...a hunter could not torture or panic an animal by pursuing it from aircraft...the animal can't escape or outrun a plane or helicopter.
I thought that HUNTER was supposed to hunt the animals and actually put his/her life on line in the process, if they like a thrill so much. After all, bears ( and grizzly bear in particular) don't part with their lives all that easy.
But this is what killing the hibernating bear looks like;
So leave it to short-fingered vulgarians ( don't remember now who coined this phrase,) to define what "hunting" is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
