Guns/Bears/Conspiricy theories

[snowtigger]

Let another Alaskan weigh in on Cosmoline's side.
I carry a .44 mag for bear defense, and would never feel undergunned. The local newspaper , The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, runs at least one story each year about stopping a bear with a handgun. I'm sure a search of their archives will disclose at least a hundred such cases.
Fish and game here is policed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. as Cosmo describes. with the exception of the NPS lands (as he also noted) . Anyone else giving you advice should be judged by their own personal agenda.
As far as DLP shootings go, each case is judged on it's own merit. If you shoot, it had better be fairly evident that the bear was inside the "comfort zone" of the average rational person. You are required to attempt to recover the head and hide just like you would for the taxidermist. Exceptions are made for the person who has actually been attacked. I, personally know two men who have survived such attacks. I assure you neither was in any condition to take care of themselves, much less worry about preservation of the hides.
One of these fellows actually shot the bear in the mouth with his .357 mag as it was chewing on him. He was attacked from behind. The only defense he had was his handgun( he carries a .44Mag now).
The other was attacked in his sleeping bag. He had no gun. The bear was running with him in her mouth, when she dropped him and kept running.
The only thing you can say for sure about bears is, you can never say anything for sure about what they are going to do next.
I've never had a close encounter, but rest assured I will take my chances with the law, if he time ever comes. I would rather be judged by twelve, than be carried by six, although after an attack by a Grizz, one might be enough.

 

[stevelyn]

Fish and game here is policed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Well sort of, but not directly.

The ADF&G more accurately gathers field data, manages and sets management/regulatory policy. Some of their employees do have enforcement powers, but they don't have an enforcement section like a lot of state F&G agencies.

Fish and wildlife enforcement is actually done by the Alaska State Troopers (AST)....more specifically the Alaska Bureau of Wildlife Enforcement (ABWE) in it's present incarnation which is part of DPS.

Until a couple of years ago, it was called the AST Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection (FWP). We commonly referred to them as brown shirts because of the brown uniforms they used to wear. They underwent a reorganization and now everybody is a blue shirt with certain troopers being assigned to ABWE duties.

The DLP report can be obtained from either AST or ADF&G. It can be turned into either agency. However, if the form is incomplete or doesn't clearly state the circumstances of a DLP shoot, ADF&G will forward it to AST for further investigation. If the DLP is reported directly to AST they'll likely send one of the troops out to do an on-scene investigation if practical.

 

[M.E.Eldridge]

I heard once that it was illegal to kill a sow with cubs no matter what the circumstances. Seems like BS to me, but who knows.

Kind of off topic, but is it actually illegal to hunt(for a non-resident) in Alaska without a guide. Or is it just frowned upon?

 

[Cosmoline]

It's not illegal to kill a sow and/or cubs in a DLP shooting. Indeed about the worst case scenario bear attack is a sow backed by a brace of huge two-year-olds. Obviously you're not justified shooting very young cubs, but you shouldn't try to catch them either. The current CW seems to be to leave them alone. They can do surprisingly well without their mother. The only real threat to them once they're past the first few months out of the den is large boars.

Non-resident hunters must use a guide if hunting brown bear and IIRC a few other species. Maybe mountain goat? I don't remember. But in general they don't have to have a guide.

Thanks for the clarification regarding ADF&G. I thought they were simply folded into DPS as a semi-autonomous agency with enforcement officers becoming troopers. I'm still not sure why the changes were made to begin with. I've never had problems with them but I've heard of them hovering near hunting parties watching for violations. I also know a fellow who owns a local gunstore who just got through an extended fight over a fine one of the trooper/F&G officers gave him for a pop can at a campsite. The word I'm getting is the change of authority has not led to any improvements. Just like their brothers on the highways, they're on the prowl for pointless pretense violations to justify their existence.

But in any event the Wildlife Alliance has no place in any enforcement activity. I'm still trying to figure out what this fellow is talking about, but he's apparently run off now.

 

[stevelyn]

Cos,

The reorganization was a lame management decision to give the illusion of more blue shirt troopers on the road than what there actually were.......goes back to my Almighty Greenback Dollar theory.

I've never heard of the Wildlife Alliance, but with a name like that they can't be anything but trouble.