Letter To Editor
Jan. 29, 1952
Pear Editor:
I understand there has been
some political work around
town recently about the bear
situation in this area. I would
hke to make a few comments
on that subject and the Wild
life Service. For the interest
of those people who voted at
last year’s meeting to take the
protection off brown bear in
this area, I would like to pre
sent some of the results of
that action.
As you know both houses of
the Territorial legislature
passed a Memorial to Congress
recommending an open season
in this area because of the
depredation of cattle. Accord
ing to the papers, Clarence
Rhode states that the Memor
ial was only a “Prayer” to
Federal and Game officials.
Apparently Rhode had more
influence with the all-powerful
rulers back in Washington
than the “Prayers” of the
people of Alaska.
However, when Bob Burk,
holder, Asst. District Agent
Mammal Control at Palmer,
arrived here on May 2nd, we
were told by Paul Chapados
that he wasn’t suDposed to
kill the bear but to count the
cattle the bear killed. After
several head of Tom Felton’s
cattle had been killed by bear,
Burkholder ordered seme larg
er shells for his “set-guns” to
place around the carcasses and
was then told he would not be
permitted to use them here.
Evidently these bear were do
ing such a good job killing
cattle, the Wildlife Service did
net want to lose any of them;
so when Burkholder killed
four bears they took him into
Kodiak and put him to killing
rats.
We tried for several months
to obtain a copy of Burkhold
er's report. There must be
some things in this report
that the powers-that-be do not
like. Last spring, I asked
Maurice W. Kelly, Mammal
Control Supervisor, if this
was to be another fixed-up af
fair like the “Hosia Sarber
report, ” and he assured me it
was not.
After putting all the pres
sure that we could on Rhode,
we received the following let
ter from him, under date of
Nov. 29, 1951, it being com
ments on Burkholder’s report
and rather misleading in them
selves alone: “The Kodiak
bear-cattle problem has re
ceived national attention dur
ing the past year, primarily
because of the proposal by the
Kodiak Cattlemen’s Associa
tion to remove all protection
for the bear. The bear-cattle
problem is one part of a study
of the bear being conducted
by the Fish and Wildlife Ser
vice. Other parts include the
bear-salmon study and the
problems relating to the man
agement of the Kodiak Na
tional Bear Refuge. The Fish
and Wildlife Service is charg
ed with the responsibility of
the Refuge as well as the
management of salmon, bear
and other wildlife,
i Bob L. Burkholder, Fish and
Wildlife Service agent, was
assigned to Kodiak Island dur
ing the period May 1, 1951 to
July 1, 1951 to start the bear
cattle study. He was assi-ted
in the preliminary work by
Paul Ghapados. and Stephen
Dunk, Kodiak Refuge person
nel . This study is continuing
under the leadership of Rus
seil Hoffman, Assistant Ref
uge Manager. Though the
time spent by Burkholder is
too short in which to arrive at
any definite conclusions and
the study is still in the prelim
inary stage, due to the wide
interest in this problem, the
following information is being
released.”
Lsjuarence j. Knoae
“The field work was confin
ed largely to the Chiniak
Peninsula, which is an area
outside the refuge boundaries
and one being utilized largely
for the grazing of livestock.
A start was made to study the
ranching potential and bear
cattle relationship for the
purpose of evaluating range
conditions, weather effects,
and other factors that might
conceivably affect predation
during the critical spring
season. The nead for control
measures to protect the live
stock operators from losses
due to stock-killing bear were
to be determined. Burkhold
er’s report described the de
velopement of the Kodiak
livestock operation on the
Chiniak Peninsula from its
small beginning in 1932 to the
present time, which finds two
ranchers each running more
than 100 head -of cattle. He
pictures the cattlemen as a
hard-working group, putting
in long hours in the saddle
in looking after their cattle.
Over-utilization of parts of the
range — particularly in the
critical winter range — was
noted and this was attributed
to the necessity of confining
or holding stock to those more
open areas for fear of losses
from bear should the cattle
move into the higher and
more brushy parts of their
range. He points out that the
cattle observed were in good
condition at this time of the
year and that the ranchers
carried on supplemental feed
ing from around March 1 to
the middle of May.
“Besides losses attributed
to bears, the ranchers report
loss of animals from falling
over cliffs, winter kill, slip
ping on ice, drowning, natural |
causes, poisonous plants,
drinking motor oil and de
formed calves it was necessary
to kill. During the first half
of 1851 the Chiniak ranchers
reported losing 17 head of
cattle from causes other than
bear, and Burkholder person
ally examined 10 of these.
Ten additional head were at
tributed to bear predation.
An additional two head of
cattle were attacked by bear
but survived. During the per
iod of the report, Burkholder
found it necessary to take five]
bear. The stomach of but one*
0
of these contained the re
mains of cattle — the others
showing vegetation. Two
other bear were killed in th<
ar(a daring the period, one by
Naval Base personnel and tin
j other by oms of the ranchers.
■ “Bear predation when a>
| plied to the total number of
! cattle grazed on Chin'ak
! Peninsula was small, being
| but 2%. However, 9 of the 10
! head of cattle lost were owned
I by one rancher and this loss1
| occured during a twro-month
period, and amounted to
' slightly over half of his loss
from all other causes.’’
I Rhode gives the Wildlife
Service duties and responsib
ilities. It is obviously their
| duty to enforce the lav/, but
| certainly it is not their duty
to make the laws. Is it Mr.
! Rhode’s duty to try to misin
form the public as he did in
the Territorial Legislature
last winter when he testified
to the small damage the bear
were doing here even after
we had sent him testimony of
the large losses we had had,
many of which were verified
by his own agent here?
Rhode states, “A start was
made to study the ranching
potential”. The Government
already has reports from other
Bureaus by men specially;
trained to make such studies,
whereas Rhode and the Wild
life Service are not. The Fish
and Wildlife Service seems to
concern themselves with the
operation of private industry.
The question of judgment and
propriety of ranchers who
, have invested their own
, money and efforts toward
j stocking and developing the
! area that the Bureau of Land
Management has declared
[suitable for ranching pur
poses, and has seen fit to en
ter into long term lease agree
ments with the ranchers that
now occupy the land seems
hardly a function of the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Rhode seems to think that I
we should have no losses
other than by bear although I
losses from common causes
occur whereever stock is
raised. In addition to direct
losses from bear, most of the;
losses from falling over cliffs |
are caused by the necessity
for confining the cattle in
these areas in an effort to
keep them away from the
bear. Rhode’s report does not
mention the 8 to 10 ranches
also running stock in addition
to the two on Chiniak Pen
insula. Comment on the
vegetation found in the
stomachs of the bears, seems
to follow the same line of
reasoning as that which cau-,
sed most of the sheep in Mc
Kinley Park to be killed off
by wolves.
Maybe we should get our
cows copies of a Wildlife
article from a handbook is
sued to troops in Alaska. The
gist of the article was, “when
suddenly meeting a bear face
to-face, the best procedure
was to talk to the animal in a
conservational tone of voice.”
Figures tell the story-Tom
Felton has had over 100 head
of cattle killed by bear. This
may be a small percent to
Rhode.
Frank Dufresne, on edi
torial staff of Field & Stream,
wrote the publicity article for!
Rhode in the June issue, la-1
menting the fact that Rhode
could not “cow” Mr. Shuman
into suppressing1' the results
of a survey on the number of
fish killed by bear.
According to the papers, !
Rhode claims we are trying to
‘Sacrifice Alaska’s most fa
mous big game animals.” In:
1942 there were brown bear
sanctuaries in Alaska with a
total area of 13,416 square
miles where no hunting is
permitted. According to Du- j
fresne that area was adequ-:
ate. This means over mil
lion acres. All of Kodiak Is
land is about 1| million acres
and there are none of these ,
sanctuaries on it. Further, i
according to Dufresne the
brown bear ranges over more
than 128 million acres in A
laska. What does Rhode want?
He certainly is a glutton for
land to begrudge the few
acres in Alaska that are \\ ell
suited for ranching and farm
ing.
(s) Joe Zentner
Third Division
Leads The Rest
Residents of Alaska’s third
division drink more liquor,
smoke more cigarettes and
make more money than those
of any other of the territory’s
four divisions.
Figures for taxes collected
on liquor, smokes and income
for the year Jan. 1 to Dec. 31,
1951, have just been released
by the territorial Dept, of
Taxation.
Liquor excise tax of the
division was $896,999.81;
tobacco tax. $301,208.34; and
income tax, $2,668,987.49.
The third division also led in
automobile, motor fuel oil,
raw fish, and school taxes.
Total taxes collected by the
territory amounted to $13,
435,731.41, with $6,650,443.80
coming from the third divi
sion.
Buy in Kodiak
Magazines Hies
Bear Issue
The recent Kodiak Island
bear vs livestock feud is aired
in the November-December
issue of the Audubon Maga
zine, in an article by Dr. Ira
Uabrielson, former director of
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author of the article
sides very definitely with the
bear guides and says that “if
it comes to a choice between
killing off the bears and try
ing to develop the ortimitt
ically estimated herd of 3,
800 cattle, it is my belief that
this country ought to set aside
the entire island to preserve
the Kodiak bears.”
Gabrielson adds that “the
loss of the small potential
meat production will never
seriously interfere with the
well being of Americans.”
Dr. Gabrielson reviews the
arguments of the livestock
growers and the Guides As
sociation regarding the re
moval of all protection on the
bears and reports that “this
Kodiak bear-livestock contro
versy has always flared from
time to time; bears are al
ways blamed time to time;
bears are always blamed for
the death of any livestock,
regardless of the facts.”
He points out that the resi
dents of Kodiak Island are
“there of their own volition..
..know that the bears are pro
tected by special withdrawal
which prevents homesteading
within the area of the bear
refuge. Anyone venturing in
to the livestock business
should be aware of this fact.”
Out of the controversy, Dr.
Gabrielson draws a comment
regarding statehood. “The
■fact that the Alaskan Legis
lature could be induced to
pass a resolution to remove
all protection from Kodiak
bears at the demand of the
owner of a few dozen cattle
makes one seriously question
whether or not Alaska is as
nearly ready for self-govern
ment as the propaganda com
ing out of that territory
might lead us to believe.”
Read the Classifieds
For Sale
FRESH or CANNED
Kodiak King Crab
Call
ISLAND SEAFOODS
4674 ^llP 4674