From the "You can't make this up" Files

I recognize that keeping good public relations and education is important for carnivore conservation. After all, ranchers don't like their cattle being eaten, joggers don't like being mauled by bears, and that lady who was mobbed by eagles was kinda unhappy at the time.

But honestly, can we admit that sometimes, the public is kind of stupid? This woman is suing the province of Alberta:

A woman just west of Grande Prairie, Alta., says the province's wildlife officers could have prevented her two miniature donkeys from being killed by a grizzly bear in May.
Christie Olesen discovered the bodies of donkeys Tabasco and Jewel on her property on May 13.
[...]

"[The bear] basically ripped them open, ate their organs out and just left their bodies there," Olesen said Tuesday.
Olesen said officers from Alberta Fish and Wildlife knew the bear was in the area and should have warned her.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/06/16/edmonton-grizzly-donkey-attack.html#ixzz0rszCpggC

Her argument - that the Province should have let her know that there was a collared bear in the area - makes sense right up until you put some thought to it. 

First you're left with the problem that no one is monitoring collar data 24x7 if it's a GPS collar, and if it's a radio collar? Well, you know where the bear is even less often. 

And it'd be difficult to warn everyone about all the collared bears, everywhere.

And there's the fact that this woman wasn't even taking common sense precautions to protect her valuable livestock, despite the fact that she lives in BEAR HABITAT. You know, like putting the valuable animals in the barn for the night as a matter of course. So they don't get eaten by any of the uncollared bears. Or wolves. Or coyotes. Or, depending on their size, the aforementioned eagles. Or wolverines. Or feral dogs. Or cougars. Or... well, you get the picture.

Aside from that, her argument is great. 

Donkey Lady:

Hat tip to http://overlawyered.com/

The Bad Squire

You know, I've had this song on my playlist for a few years now. It's called "The Bad Squire," and it's based on a poem by a clergyman named Charles Kingsley in the 1800s. Chumbawamba - you know, the band that wrote Tubthumping? - did an album called "English Rebel Songs (1381-1984)" where they sing a lot of these old songs with just the acoustic guitar. Anyhow, I actually gave it a deep listen, while I was writing changes to my research manuscript I've been working on for a year now. I knew the song was about how a land owner punished the poor for poaching game, when the the poor were trying to protect their crops so to ward off starvation. But I actually heard some lyrics for the first time, that really brought me to the here and now:

You have sold out the labouring man, Squire
Both body and soul for to shame
To pay for your seat in the House, Squire
And to pay for the feed of your game
You made him a poacher yourself, Squire
When you'd give not the work nor the meat
And your barley-fed hares robbed the garden
At our starving poor little one's feet

(Emphasis my own). That choked me up, when I made the connection between the lyrics with what people still go through today, in the vill. It's no longer a class selling people to wallow in poverty, but urban interests. But is the end result any different?

Here's the song in total:

Difference between Anchorage and Fairbanks #293

In South Central AK if you legally and lawfully harvest a brown bear in the view of others, and it's news in the Anchorage Daily News.

In Fairbanks, if you do the same, it's an average day on Chena Hot Springs Road.

All joking aside, the bit about shooting from the road is devilishy hard to prove. Unless there's video of the men shooting from the road, or a trooper witnesses the event himself, it's just the word of a very upset wildlife viewer against two hunters. If there were multiple parties who saw it, a DA might have a case. Though, again, it's hard to weigh the testimony of a group who is (understandably) upset that the bear they were watching was shot right in front of them, as they have incentive to lie.

Another problem comes from differing expectations as to fair-chase. Fair-Chase is the idea that a human shouldn't have an undue advantage over the animals they're trying to catch. Expectations vary wildly from rejection that any fair-chase is possible (typically from people who oppose hunting on moral grounds), to people who put a high burden on the hunter (e.g., rifled hunts are unethical, but bow hunts aren't), to a whole mish-mash of what hunters consider acceptable equipment (ATV okay? High powered scopes? Electronic predator calls?). There are a whole group who reject the idea of fair chase entirely, arguing that it is a hold over from European trophy hunting; that if you're hunting for food, no advantage is less acceptable than the alternative (i.e., not getting the food).

With the increasingly urbanized nature of America, the more strict interpretations of fair-chase will probably win out in the long run. The morays are definitely shifting towards stricter ideas of what acceptable human-game interactions are. That's not to say that moral interpretation is the more correct one, but more to say that in the future, it will probably be viewed as the most correct thanks to the changing moral zeitgeist.

The future of Polar Bears is Styrofoam

There's a stock number of questions I get all the time. Usually the first question I get is something about whether I shoot wolves or not. But just as often, after a long discussion about predator control, I'll get asked about Polar Bears, and whether I support their listing.

My answer is, of course, that given my knowledge of Polar Bear biology (admittedly incomplete), it seems prudent to protect Polar Bears. People will then ask me if I support subsistence harvest for Polar Bears. Which, given my knowledge of Polar Bear ecology, I do. `Ah ha!` someone will cry. `You're biased to subsistence! You wouldn't let a bunch of white guys go out and shoot a Polar Bear, but you're happy to let natives do it even when you want to protect a species!`

This is when I get out the clue-by-four and begin beating them with it until they get a clue.

So how can a species need protection, but still be available to harvest? Well, unlike many things in biology, this is actually mostly straight forward.

Let's say you have a Polar Bear.

Yes, yes you are a Polar Bear. Incidentally, if you want my art skills using paint, check out this tutorial.

Okay, let's take that Polar Bear, and put it with all her buddies.

What a wacky bunch! They should have their own prime-time sitcom.

Now, in this system, we have something that is a limiting factor, and something that will become an increasingly large limiting factor - habitat. Particularly, ice habitat. We're going to have a lot less of it. Some Polar Bears are going to have it...

But what about those who won't? Or those who get sub-optimal habitat?

Well...

I joke. It's not curtains time for them, but those bears will be much worse off. The boars probably won't get to breed, and the sow will have very low cub survival, because the sows will be in poor condition. There may be some small contribution contribution to the next generation's numbers, but the contribution will be dominated by chance (stochasticity).

It's my contention, and the contention of US gov't., that harvesting a small number of Polar Bears is entirely acceptable (albeit unsustainable). If you shoot a Polar Bear, either a) it wasn't going to make a large contribution to the demographics (especially if male) or b) it frees up the limiting factor (habitat) for another animal who will now be able to make a larger contribution to the next generation. And if you keep your hunts low, the mortality will rarely make a blip on the population magnitude radar. The story is simplified slightly, yeah. And I glossed over a few things. But on the whole, it holds water.

"Wait! You said it was unsustainable. What's with that" Well, sure. Eventually, given the trends in habitat, there will be very little habitat left to Polar Bears. Short of building Styrofoam icebergs for them, there's nothing we can do about that. Thus, it's not a sustainable situation. However, it's got less to do with hunting pressure and more to do with people running coal fired power plants. Here's some cold hard facts to throw a damper on your day: There probably won't be many Polar Bears in the future, Yup'ik Language is dying, someone will have to take a cut in their lifestyle because every country can't all have it and Africans will eventually want to start eating food too, and eventually India will kick our ass economically. Oh, and there's no Santa.

So, that all said, the ban on importing Polar Bear rugs from hunts is pissing into an active volcano. Sure, it feels good, but it doesn't get anything done to Polar Bear conservation. Worse, it has the unintended consequences of cutting off the livelihood of people. And it will consume resources enforcing the ban which would be better spent doing conservation in other ways. Like, say, putting up a few few wind turbines. But if we were really serious about solving these problems, things would be different, wouldn't they?

Predator Control by Press Release

If I was doing science by press release* to try and convince people everything was great about Predator Control, I don't think I would have taken the tack used in the AP story that the News Miner and the ADN picked up. This story is rife with problems.

First, while it's true that the current program really got started by Murkowski, there has been active predator control of one sort or another since pre-statehood. Poison, bounties and aerial shooting was employed by government agent until statehood. Aerial shooting continued with the public until 1972, when the federal Airborne Hunting Act was passed. This coincided with several harsh winters in the state, resulting in heavy predator depression of game populations.

In 1975, the first wolf control was authorized in game management unit 20A, which is south of the Tanana river from Fairbanks. This was conducted by only ADF&G staff. The policies were shaped over time through the 80s, and in 1992, the Board of Game (BOG) added control to three areas. Due to massive backlash from tourists, Hickel reconsider and BOG revoked their plan. In 1993, BOG authorizes additional predator control for 20A. Predator controlled continued until Knowles became Governor, and suspended all programs.

Because of the long history, I don't think it's fair to say Murkowski is responsible for predator control. It would be like saying I started the tradition of having breakfast this morning. Sure, it's technically true, because there was a gap of about 24 hours where I had no breakfast tradition, but it ignores all the breakfast I've had other days.

My next big complaint about the story has to do with mis-leading verbiage. The story implies that of all areas of predator control, a few have been successful. It then cites McGrath, and the Southern Alaska Peninsula. If we're allowed to talk about predator control as a holistic idea, a better example would be the aforementioned GMU 20A. The area currently hosts some of the largest populations of moose in the state, and very healthy populations of wolves (though not the healthiest, due to the 2003 invasion of a depeliating parasite).

If we're only talking about current areas, then I have some complaints. First, it's too early to be talking about successes. You only know whether you were successful after you remove predator control. One of two things will happen. Either population levels will remain stable, or the population of game species will decline again. If the number of game animals declines again, you know you've mis-characterized the ecological situation, and you're attempting to apply predator control where it doesn't work; if they remain stable, you know that you've been successful**. I will admit, if you don't see an increase in game numbers, it is fairly indicative that your current predator control regime is not applicable.

If we're limited to current predator control areas, then the Southern Alaskan Peninsula Caribou Herd is not great example of anything, right now. The situation is complex, and it's my studied opinion that we're not entirely in possession of all the facts in that system.  While Calf Mortality is clearly a major issue with the SAPCH (<2 per 100 is a very low number indeed), I'm yet to be fully confident that there are not other, conflating factors involved in the long term population trends.

The AP left out something re: the non-resident hunter situation that I think ADF&G would have pushed strong for inclusion. That is, that non-resident hunters are a substantial economic factor, especially in small villages. In order to access the non-resident permitted areas, a guide is typically required. Further, non-resident hunting parties can spend several thousands of dollars per person, and each tag typically results in multiple hunters in a party. While the Nelchina is a complex situation, one that I swore I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot stick, game there is not so precariously positioned that those permits need to be cancelled.

One thing I wish people understood is that Predator Control is like science in general: It's really, really complex. There are no simple answers to pretty much anything; everything is wrapped up in assumptions that need met, confidence intervals, and highly situational knowledge. There should be an * beside pretty much every simple line inside these sorts of articles saying "Well, X is true 85% of the time, and the other 15% of the time, Y and Z are true." We're letting ourselves get trapped by these simple story explanations which don't even begin to cover the truth.


*Science by press release is a pejorative comment to describe non-peer reviewed science that's pushed out there by Public Offices of Agencies and Universities. the chief complaint is that science by press release is rarely accurate, and never goes through the rigour of peer review.


** This is seriously simplified, moreso than everything else here. But the nut of the matter is sound - you don't know, until it's over.

Saturday Quicky: Where's my not-touching-things pole?

Here's two fast ones:
Akutaq makes the list of 1001 things you should taste before you die. Mmmm.

State modifies rules to the Nelchina hunt. I won't touch this story with a 10 foot story touching pole.

Chugach closed to Wolverine Trapping

Citing concerns over regional wolverine numbers, the Board of Game voted to close Chugach State Park to wolverine trapping (via DNM). I've the sneaking suspicion, buoyed by some of the comments I've been reading around, that the decision to close has more to do with the by-catch issues than concerns over wolverine demography. The issue of the number of wolverines trapped equaling the number of dogs isn't terribly surprising to me for two reasons -

• First, this area was just opened up to trapping for wolverine, which means there's a brief `idiot period` where people are trying to feel out where the animals are and aren't.
• Second, wolverines are never at high density to begin with, so there'll never be a large number you can show people to see there's a lot of successful trapping. That's why wolverine prices are perpetually high.

That whole area is rapidly turning into a combination shooting gallery/clusterfuck. Well, I say `turning into,` but it already is. I'm not sure there's a graceful way to deal with the competing pressures, and the rapid change in land use and lifestyle.

Bethel Trap problems.

Back to wildlife blogging, The Tundra Drums has an article on a recent spate of trap sabotage in the Bethel area. These incidents are often people with an axe to grid with one person, however, more than one trapper is affected. For example, legal trappers often have difficulty in the South Central when the ADN reposts stories about pet by-catch like this recent one. However, it appears this is a continuing issue, and not a knee-jerk reaction to a story (which tends to be limited). Finally, it could be someone on a high horse who's got it in their head to monkeywrench. While it's not typical for people out in the bush to suddenly go on an `animal-rights` crusade, it's not unheard of.

What is "Game?"

I have some time before House M.D. starts, and I'm using it to pre-write a blog post. A pre-written post? Slacker!

Last Friday, as part of our department's regular seminar series, we had in a wonderful speaker, who's name has unfortunately slipped my mind. We talked after the seminar, as I wanted to discuss some follow up points, and the obligatory question of what I researched came up. Among my peers, I mostly explain that my lab studies game species, especially the genetics, but other issues like land use, and demographic history. She says its a shame that I don't study carnivores (she does), and this leaves me momentarily stumped. Well, actually, my lab does - we have a running wolf project through one of our grad students. But aren't they game?

In retrospect, the confusion was obvious. No, carnivores aren't typically thought of as game species. Alaska's one of the few places left where non-ungulates mammals are considered an important cultural, nutritional and economic resource. Lower 48 Brown Bears are in-part threatened (where they've not be outright expatriated) and the Black Bear harvest isn't typically significant. Fur-bearers are the obvious exception to this, but even then, the selection of fur-bearers outside is often reduced over those available north of WY.

I can't help but speculate this is a contributing factor in the many perceptions of wildlife resources. While for some, these species might form an important dietary and cultural resource, people not engaging in those activities may either not perceive the possibility of these activities, or fail to appreciate the importance of them. It also raises to mind how people in urban situations frequently fail to appreciate the sources of subsistence foodstuffs - people tend to assume there's much more red meat than there often is, as they place more importance on large ugulates over fish, waterfowl, regular fowl, marine mammals and plants. Going back to the wolves, it likely never emerged on the speaker's radar that wolves could be considered game, because it just never happens in California.

It's something to consider. And it'll definitely give me pause to be more clear when I discuss `game` issues. It'll do me no good to talk at cross definitions.

Wood Cutting from Round-About Rambles

Random bits of news

Here's a few stories that caught my eye this morning - I had a little extra time while waiting for my truck to melt to the point where it'd start. Kids, don't forget to plug in at night! (Actually, I only thought it'd get down to -20°C. Not -30°. Oooops.)

• Demand for apartments and cabins is down, according to this story by The Fairbanks Minor News. There are more postings than I remember, but also, they're still as over-priced as ever. Most of these places are cardboard boxes with fridges. And they charge 500 a month. Go figure.
• ADN linked to a story in Backpacker about conflict between trappers and wolf advocates near Denali National Park. Backpacker is usually a good magazine - I bought my father a subscription, once upon a time - but I think they're a bit heavy handed here. One thing I did notice is that there seems to be a lot of treating wolf packs as stable social units, instead of dynamic entities.
• The FBNSB is considering a trade in program for old boilers and wood stoves, writes the Minor News. I like this idea, as it tackles two problems, heating costs and air quality, by tackling inefficiency. I think about how much heat is wasted by the old oil drip-heater in my last home, it just makes me shudder a bit. The commenters on the story promptly jump the shark by accusing the bourgh of being out to steal their money, guns, and wood stoves. Fairbanks brightest and best, as always.
  

Urban Bycatch in Anchorage

I promised myself I wouldn't blog over the holiday weekend, so I'll schedule this for Monday. Hopefully, I'll be out north of town then, in 40 mile country.

What got my attention so? An ADN story, of course. You probably don't want to read it, if you're squeamish. But with that warning, here's the link. For those who don't want to go, an Anchorage dog was caught inside a conibear within Anchorage City limits. It's always regrettable when a family pet gets caught in a trap. But this is a classic case of resource conflict.

The tendency in these situations is to pin the blame on the trapper. This is especially the case in areas where people have differing views of animals - animals as a nusience, vs. animals as a resource, etc. In this case, the tendency is towards personification of family pets. I had a lot more to say about this, but I've deleted it, and I'll skip to the bit where I complain about the author.

Frankly, the ADN article isn't helping people keep things even handed. The bias is pretty heavy handed.

It's also a crime for any person, with criminal negligence, to maim, mutilate, torture, kill or do any number of horrible things to animals.

The last clause seems rather inflamitory. Actually, quite a bit of the story seems inflamitory towards the trapper. The only people they talk to are people who go on about how wonderful the dog is - to the owners, the dog was like a child. Would they ever admit they did anything wrong? Possibly, but that's highly unlikely. Generally, people cast the blame on everyone but themselves. If they accept a role in the accident, they accept only a minor one at best. It's just basic human nature.

The story seemed agressively skewed, until I recognized the author's name. I've commened about her articles before. It's pretty clear how she views any sort of trapping, even deep in the wilderness, away from people. Why they let her write about anything animal related is beyond me, because impartiality goes right out the window.