Voices from the Flats – Economic Impact of Predator Control
By Stephen F. Stringham, PhD
Director, Bear Viewing Association
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PREDATOR CONTROL
According to estimates by the Bear Viewing Association: At its peak, a few years ago, before intensive predator extermination got into full swing, bear viewing brought at least $50 million per year into Alaska — about half from payments to guides and tour companies, the rest for other transportation, secondary recreational activities, lodging, sporting goods, food, etc. That’s an awful lot of jobs, business profits, and tax income to jeopardize unnecessarily.
Yet, the Board of Game has done little to protect predators near even the most productive viewing sites such as Wolverine Creek and the region between Katmai National Park and McNeil River Game Sanctuary. On the contrary, some “hunters” actually target viewing sites and predators so trusting of people that they sleep or nurse babies near viewers.
Worse, the BOG seems determined to wipe out most bears and wolves across the state, irrespective of the ecological, economic, and social impacts of this policy.
Elimination of the buffer zone along Denali is but one more example of what many people see as BOG’s contempt for ecotourists and for the wide range of businesses supported by ecotourism.
BOG statements that buffer elimination was designed to curb opposition by opponents of predator control is like saying that people who protest against someone poking a stick into one of their eyes deserve to have their other eye poked too.
If BOG wants opposition to die down, it might start by listening to opponents, understanding how BOG policies are impacting them, and trying to find ways of meeting those public needs/benefits which do not derive from killing predators.
Among the many changes things needed in Alaska’s predator management program is zoning. Second is allocation of resources based on various criteria, including number of people benefiting from a resource.
Zones might be allocated on a round-robin basis: Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Suppose that viewers select one zone. Hunters/trappers choose the next. Then viewers again, and so on.
In how much of the state should each use be given priority? Should this be based on the relative numbers of people who hunt or trap vs. view (obviously, many Alaskans and many tourists do both)?
Suppose that there were equal numbers of people hunting/trapping and viewing. Should we allocate half the state to each? Probably not, since the same bears or wolves can be viewed again and again by thousands or tens of thousands of people, whereas an animal can be killed only once. Off hand, I don’t know what ratio would be best. But I suspect that nearly all viewing needs could be met in just a few percent of the state, if viewers were given first choice of areas to be zoned with viewing as the primary use.
As we Alaskans are fond of saying, America isn’t a simple democracy where majority rules; it is a republic-democracy where even a majority cannot override the rights of any minority. We claim that this republic spirit is nowhere stronger than in Alaska. Yet, in practice, far too much Alaskan politics takes the sledgehammer approach by packing committees with a majority of advocates for one extreme position, then crushing anyone with different needs or ideas. This fosters the kind of divisiveness which is tearing this state and this nation apart. If dividing an enemy is the key to conquering it, how can dividing ourselves against ourselves benefit anyone but our enemies, domestic or foreign?
Amen!
Ecosystems require top predators. This is a fact. Ignore it at your peril. (Barbara Kingsolver addressed this beautifully in Prodigal Summer, a great read for all fans of nature.)
Health and peace.
p.s. Lease-A-Murkowski’s amendment was DEFEATED, 53-47. Hooray!
Hurray for the defeat of Lisa’s amendment! Normally, I would be upset that the margin was by only six votes, but today, well, today, I am simply relieved she didn’t that get that horrid piece of legislation through.
Predator Control is too nice of a term for what it really is. You are not controling predators you are kiling them. They should call it exactly what it is, Predator killing, why sugar coat it.
Does anyone remember the movie Soylent Green?
When the old man goes to the “final transition” clinic; they play movie
screen sized images of the fantastic sites we’ve seen in our lifetime.
Fields of flowers facing the bright yellow sun, awesome ocean surf
against glistening sands, crystal clear streams, white clouds floating
across a blue sky, animals in their natural habitat, elk herds, baby fawns,
salmon leaping in the water, bears, flocks of geese & ducks…..
Does anyone else feel we ARE heading towards seeing these
images only in a theater? If I visit Glacier Park in 10 yrs, will there
be any glaciers left or will there just be a museum to see what
used to be? When they get the spewing stopped –
will the Gulf recover? Will it recover in my lifetime or will
it continue to look like a bleeding gaping wound?
Depressing isn’t it?
Oh yes watched it a few times and reember well the scenes you describe,also remember what soylent green turned out to be yeck
“It’s people”
“Soylent Green is People”
Of course, who could forget it? I was concerned about just this scenario five years ago when the boyfriend & I attended a wedding on Flathead Lake in Montana (largest body of freshwater west of the Mississippi). I thought perhaps that if we didn’t see the glaciers now, they might not be around for later. So, after the 4-day wedding event, we picked up a rental car at Kalispell Airport, and hit the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park. Next, we made our way through the Gardiner Gate (Montana) into Yellowstone (mostly Wyoming). I’d hiked Yellowstone, but never driven through it (I don’t know how to drive yet). Next, we crossed Wyoming (Ten Sleep Canyon, Devil’s Tower), and took in Deadwood, SD, then more national & state parks (Wind Cave, Jewel Cave, Custer St. Pk., Mt. Rushmore, Crazy Horse Memorial), then headed to Rosebud Reservation to visit with my friends and introduce the boyfriend. We gathered incredible organic produce from my friend’s garden, then finished our national park tour with lunch al fresco in the Badlands. We returned the rental car at Rapid City Airport with 2200 miles on it — worth every mile. I planted trees to offset the carbon, since it involved 3 planes & that long drive.
“If dividing an enemy is the key to conquering it, how can dividing ourselves against ourselves benefit anyone but our enemies, domestic or foreign?”
But that is much too sensible and easy for any politician to understand as they are so heavily into lying, conniving, and manipulating.
Here’s the link to see how your Senators voted on Lease-A’s amendment:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00184
If they voted nay, thank them. If they voted yea, scold them!
Health and peace.
Begich voted “Nay”. Yay!
The shooting of the bear in Denali National Park on May 29, 2010, by hikers did not do much to cheer up park visitors or park rangers either. The new “can carry” guns into National Parks law needs to be reexamined.
With the immense size of Alaska it is simply inconceivable that prime viewing places like the areas surrounding Denali and McNeil cannot be designated off-limits to hunting. Surely there are enough bears in other parts of Alaska to satisfy the most bloodthirsty hunters.
Yeah, I know…it’s easier to shoot a bear that trusts humans because of previous controlled exposure. Just disgusting.
Isn’t there ANY way to change the makeup of the BOG to create more of a balance between hunters and conservationists?
I had read a while back an article that said that bears were a necessary part of the ecosystem that was needed to support salmon – eating the salmon and leaving the carcesses ( and the bear byproduct – does a bear sh@t in the woods?) amongst the trees provided nutrirents for the trees that grew along the streams, the trees in the riparian zone kept the streams healthy, which of course the salmon needed to spawn in. All predators have a useful role in maintaining our ecosystems…they can be harvested ( I don’t consider it hunting when you knock one down from 300 yards away) just like the prey animals, but the impact on a area needs to be balanced with what the local ecosystem can adapt to. Game Management boards are suppose to consider all such factors when setting game rules and limits – ( yes , I know bear crap isn’t a big impact item on salmon enviroment
just pointing out that it and the salmon left in the trees have a benefit , rather than having the dying salmon just getting washed out if the bears weren’t there.) Education, education, education….hunting and fishing aren’t bad things, it’s doing them in moderation so they are sustainable for future generations to enjoy, … and balanced so others who don’t hunt and fish can observe and enjoy the animals too.
I was just at McNeill for a week, and trust me, bears sh@t anywhere they want to! It is an amazing place and I can’t imagine why it would be necessary to allow hunters to shoot these bears that are habituated to people. It is quite a different experience to be in their natural environment, where the “rights” of the bears are respected above those of humans. The Alaska Fish and Game employees out there are superb and project a great respect for the land and all of it’s inhabitants. Really makes you think about our place in the great scheme of things.
Let’s be honest – the only predator that needs heavy culling is us…………..the most out-of-control and over-populated predator on the face of this earth.