BOG Testimony any ram feb 2008
Posted April 4th, 2008
TESTIMONY BY KAREN GORDON, Secretary of the Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation
My name is Karen Gordon, and I live off of Airport Road in Fairbanks. I’m Secretary of the Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation. I shall present the Foundation’s testimony today on behalf of our 200 paid-up members and the thousands of sheep hunters we represent.
The Foundation opposes the “any-ram” bag limit being reconsidered at this meeting because it is not based on management-relevant biology, but rather on the subjective impressions of some ADF&G biologists who readily admit they are not sheep biologists. The Foundation has investigated what respected sheep biologists think and has found none who support “any-ram” in Alaska because of genetic concerns.
Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor emeritus at The University of Calgary, the “father” of modern wild sheep biology, and author of the classic text, “MOUNTAIN SHEEP, A STUDY IN BEHAVIOR AND EVOLUTION,” has written a succinct letter which will be entered into the record. I can read it if you like. Being a recognized expert on evolution, Dr. Geist understands wild sheep genetics. His letter should eliminate any fears that full-curl hunting in Alaska will compromise Dall sheep genetics.
In an international publication, “THE SPORTSMEN’S VOICE” (included with this testimony),” ADF&G inappropriately cited a scientific paper coauthored by Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet as support for its genetic concerns. Those concerns influenced this board to adopt the “any ram” bag limit. One month after your “any-ram” decision was made, Dr. Festa-Bianchet co-presented a paper with Wild Sheep Foundation President/CEO, Ray Lee, refuting the “genetic alarmism” mistakenly conveyed by the paper ADF&G “hung its hat on.”
Ray Lee, the major force clarifying the hysteria of the misleading paper (and an early architect of “any-ram” harvests while a sheep biologist for Arizona Fish and Game) will testify to the misplaced alarmism flowing from that paper late during public testimony at this meeting. We hope the Board elects to hear what he has to say.
Perhaps more importantly, Alaska Advisory Committees continue to oppose the “any-ram” bag limit. Finally, Wayne Heimer, the most experienced and widely recognized Dall sheep biologist in the world, has presented reams of written material for your consideration.
Wayne couldn’t be here today. We know Wayne well and respect his contributions to Dall sheep management in Alaska. However, Wayne can be a little hard to understand in some technical writing. Hence, I’ll try to summarize the issue in six short statements.
- 1. The reason we’ve hunted Dall sheep under the full-curl regulation is biological (the 1989 Board “FINDING” when full-curl went statewide acknowledges this).
- 2. Ram harvests in carefully studied populations increased as predicted with the full-curl regulation…approaching a 40% increase (a published finding).
- 3. ADF&G came up with the “any-ram” bag limit because some of its responsible biologists had the subjective impression heavy full-curl ram harvests were degrading the genetics of Dall ram populations in the Chugach.
- 4. This impression was subjective at first but gained some credibility due to inappropriate use of the over-sensationalized paper which mistakenly alarmed “non-sheep biologists” about the genetic hazards of allegedly over-harvesting dominant rams.
- 5. The sensational “genetic damage claim” was properly put in its theoretical place by one of its original coauthors, M. Festa-Bianchet and R. Lee.
- 6. Hence, ADF&G’s fear of “genetic damage” should have gone away. It didn’t, and now it is up to you to make the decision on “any-ram” based on its biological merits.
ADF&G now wants to keep the “any-ram” bag limit as some sort of undefined genetic management “experiment.” This “experiment” does not appear to meet basic scientific standards, and can’t possibly produce meaningful scientific results for at least 10 years. Before any disruptive theoretical “experiment” begins, it should be reviewed by credible wild sheep (preferably Dall sheep) biologists and be well understood by the sheep hunting public. It hasn’t been, it isn’t, and we shouldn’t move forward with it.
For these reasons, the Wild Sheep Foundation urges you to carefully consider these facts and reverse the “any-ram” decision back to full-curl at this meeting.
The Foundation also recommends consideration of a 2-year sunset on the permit system (to honor the permits already “out there” and allow public involvement in sheep management planning between the public and the Department).
Thank you for reconsidering this important biological issue.
TESTIMONY BY RAY LEE President/CEO, and author with M. Festa-Bianchet of “Guns, Sheep, and Genes: When and Why Trophy Hunting May be a Selective Pressure,”
We do not have the text of Ray’s testimony to share with you. The gist of his testimony for the record was that, based on his extensive survey experience with bighorns, the ADF&G surveys were probably not sufficiently accurate to make the management decisions they have made. Also, Ray emphasized that if an agency wants to provide permitted “any ram” hunting seasons, management effort [surveys, mortality studies etc.] will have to be greatly increased . That is, it will take lots more money to make certain the “any ram” harvests are done within biological limits to prevent harm to the population. The “safety net” with “any ram” is not as great as with “full curl.” Ray discussed some situations (in the lower USA) where “any ram” makes sense and why but specifically recommended against “any ram” in Alaska.
Except for FNAWS testimony, “genetic conservation” (the original reason for the change to “any-ram”) was not prominently mentioned at the Board of Game meeting.
In spite of these efforts, the Board of Game voted to retain the “any ram” season. A report from Fairbanks Advisory Committee Chair, Mike Tinker (also a FNAWS member) indicates that the lead Board member on this issue, justified his continued leadership supporting the “any ram” bag limit by saying he’d carefully considered Ray Lee’s testimony and it had convinced him that “any ram” was the right way to go.
When I inquired of Ray Lee how his testimony could have produced this result, Mr. Lee replied:
How Mr. Spraker could have interpreted my remarks to, in any way, be supporting of "any ram" [for the reasons proposed] is beyond me. While I was supportive of permitting (as you and I had discussed), I was opposed to "any ram" and said so.
This has been a difficult year for all involved in this issue. Feelings have been hurt, and it seems clear some are still raw. We really don’t want to keep “harping” on this issue, but accountability to biology is a hallmark of FNAWS philosophy, and accountability requires exposure. We’ll be posting this information on our website soon.
|
