Alaska: Heli hunting on Brownbears

[Foxi]

It's hard to believe, but in Alaska the F+G Department shot 170 brown bears from a helicopter to bring about a spray reduction.
Happened in the last 18 months in Unit 17 (northwest of the Peninsula).
For some time now, 2 brownies per year have even been permitted there.
These hunts should then become cheaper, shouldn't they (note for the good guys: not from a helicopter, of course)?
Biologists estimate that 30 moose/calves are killed each year.
Nobody knows why they are not hunted more intensively.
It reads like a Munchausen story.
No information in the hunting magazines and no howls from the NGOs.
But it seems to be true ;go to the relevant Alaska hunting forums.
An April fools joke in wintertime?
I still don't believe it, maybe an AH member from Alaska can contribute?
Foxi

 

[WAB]

The government has no ability to make the hunt cheaper. This is driven by the outfitters. This is true wilderness and operating costs are very high.

As to the truth about helicopter gunning, I don’t know but must confess that I am skeptical.

 

[Mekaniks]

WAB is correct. The cost of the hunt is driven by the outfitters and remote Alaska is an expensive place to do business no matter how you cut it.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

It's hard to believe, but in Alaska the F+G Department shot 170 brown bears from a helicopter to bring about a spray reduction.
Happened in the last 18 months in Unit 17 (northwest of the Peninsula).
For some time now, 2 brownies per year have even been permitted there.
These hunts should then become cheaper, shouldn't they (note for the good guys: not from a helicopter, of course)?
Biologists estimate that 30 moose/calves are killed each year.
Nobody knows why they are not hunted more intensively.
It reads like a Munchausen story.
No information in the hunting magazines and no howls from the NGOs.
But it seems to be true ;go to the relevant Alaska hunting forums.
An April fools joke in wintertime?
I still don't believe it, maybe an AH member from Alaska can contribute?
Foxi

I live smack-dab in the middle of GMU 17. I don't recall the exact number - it was conducted by the state, not my agency. That number sounds a bit high. But yeah, truth.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Don't shoot the messenger @Foxi...

 

[Foxi]

Thank you Tundra Tiger
Dont kill the messenger (Sophokles)

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I guess I'm in luck: my uniform is brown, not blue.

 

[CBH Australia]

Understandably the outfitter sets the price but if there are only 2 tags issued and an unconfirmed number culled could the tag price be lowered and would the outfitters be able to be a little less picky on size and location to reduce the hunt cost.

 

[375Fox]

Understandably the outfitter sets the price but if there are only 2 tags issued and an unconfirmed number culled could the tag price be lowered and would the outfitters be able to be a little less picky on size and location to reduce the hunt cost.

The tag price is $25 for a resident and $1000 for a non-resident. It’s not a significant part of the hunt cost.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

The tag price is $25 for a resident and $1000 for a non-resident. It’s not a significant part of the hunt cost.

Or used to be: for those of us in Unit 17, we don't need tags. Our hunting license allows us to hunt hares and ptarmigan and... bears. 2 per year. No tag required. That went away several years ago.

But your point is valid.

 

[steve white]

What jin the world is "spray reduction" and why would it require a limited resource to be wasted like that.

 

[WAB]

Understandably the outfitter sets the price but if there are only 2 tags issued and an unconfirmed number culled could the tag price be lowered and would the outfitters be able to be a little less picky on size and location to reduce the hunt cost.

This is not like Africa. The cost of the tag is inconsequential to the cost of the hunt. Big bear, small bear, it doesn’t matter, it’s an expensive place to operate and the costs have to be high to keep the outfitter afloat.

 

[thi9elsp]

Not surprised. Not enough hunters. What is silly is USFW planning to kill 500,000 bar owls to save spotted owls. Can we say natural selection?!

 

[fourfive8]

The thread title is misleading. Not hunting at all but appears a common practice of population control by agency so charged… where regular sport hunting can’t reach an objective.

Sounds similar to wolf control in areas that have had nearly unlimited wolf tags available when associated with big game licenses. Practically free wolf tags but very few hunter kills. Potential wolf “sluicers” with sugar plums dancing in their heads quickly find out the reality/difficulty.

 

[TOBY458]

I realize it’s expensive to operate in AK, but the prices they charge for a Brown Bear would seem to be the limiting factor in the amount of hunters. You can hunt a bull elephant for less money than most of these outfits are charging for brown bear these days. When I hunted them in 2006/2007, it was expensive. But now it’s three times what I paid at that time.

 

[Red Leg]

I realize it’s expensive to operate in AK, but the prices they charge for a Brown Bear would seem to be the limiting factor in the amount of hunters. You can hunt a bull elephant for less money than most of these outfits are charging for brown bear these days. When I hunted them in 2006/2007, it was expensive. But now it’s three times what I paid at that time.

A sad truth is that one can hunt the same species in Europe and kill just as big a bear for a half the cost of an Alaskan brown bear.

These are free range animals, though admittedly the wilderness factor is not the same. In Europe the hunter will likely have to cope with a lovely claret and chateaubriand at the end of the day rather than a can of Denny Moore lovingly prepared by an ever more fragrant guide. But sometimes the savings are worth the sacrifice.

 

[1dirthawker]

i work for an outfitter on the peninsula, it is a pretty remote part of the world. i can't speak to other outfitters, but our hunts are not cheap. however, there is quite a lot of overhead on our hunts. we hunt off a 65' boat, 4 hunters (maybe an observer) 4 guides and crew. the cost of the boat is substantial, and we hunt exclusively on native land which is leased. again not cheap. then of course food, fuel and guides all add to the cost of the hunt in a very remote area where fuel is $10+ a gallon.

to @Red Leg point above, it might be less expensive to hunt europe. although, i did look at a hunt in romania, the trophy fee is associated with the size of the bear and i believe they did not let a huge bear out of the country.

regardless, it is expensive to hunt on the alaskan peninsula, even for a resident. i still have to pay to fly out there, hire a aircraft or boat to drop me off, etc.

i was not aware of the culling operation, but there are lots of bears out there. @Scott CWO has lots of experience out there and maybe he will chime in here and add to the conversation.

 

[TOBY458]

A sad truth is that one can hunt the same species in Europe and kill just as big a bear for a half the cost of an Alaskan brown bear.

These are free range animals, though admittedly the wilderness factor is not the same. In Europe the hunter will likely have to cope with a lovely claret and chateaubriand at the end of the day rather than a can of Denny Moore lovingly prepared by an ever more fragrant guide. But sometimes the savings are worth the sacrifice.

Well worth looking into. Although it would be hard to compete with a half warm package of Mountain House freeze dried chili….

 

[flatwater bill]

So the hunt operators have to recover all of their expenses on only two tags....two hunters? But having more would not help? Having 8 or 10 tags would not help defray costs? Don't understand. As an example, I watched a friend bid $360,000 for a mule deer tag. ONE very special tag. If there had been 10 tags, the price would have dropped. Not true in Alaska? Surprising..........FWB

 

[TOBY458]

i work for an outfitter on the peninsula, it is a pretty remote part of the world. i can't speak to other outfitters, but our hunts are not cheap. however, there is quite a lot of overhead on our hunts. we hunt off a 65' boat, 4 hunters (maybe an observer) 4 guides and crew. the cost of the boat is substantial, and we hunt exclusively on native land which is leased. again not cheap. then of course food, fuel and guides all add to the cost of the hunt in a very remote area where fuel is $10+ a gallon.

to @Red Leg point above, it might be less expensive to hunt europe. although, i did look at a hunt in romania, the trophy fee is associated with the size of the bear and i believe they did not let a huge bear out of the country.

regardless, it is expensive to hunt on the alaskan peninsula, even for a resident. i still have to pay to fly out there, hire a aircraft or boat to drop me off, etc.

i was not aware of the culling operation, but there are lots of bears out there. @Scott CWO has lots of experience out there and maybe he will chime in here and add to the conversation.

I understand the boat hunts being more expensive. But some of these outfits are charging boat hunt prices, while hunting from tents and pack frames. I have absolutely nothing against the wilderness, tent hunts, but I fail to see why they are so expensive. But then again, I don’t know all the costs involved to the outfitters. So I may be way out of line with my statement.