Letter to the Editor
Extremist control
Published Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!March 14, 2008
To the editor:
Friends of Animals denounces the Alaska Board of Game’s recent approval of aerial wolf control.
Alaskans have allowed their bureaucracy to be taken over by extremists — people who want to annihilate wolves and other natural predators.
The game board plans to have state agents shooting wolves from helicopters before the caribou birth season in mid-May. The target area includes a handful of villages in the southern peninsula. This remote area in the Aleutian arc is also home to some 600 caribou, which may be hunted by wolves or bears, and whose newborns are sometimes eaten by eagles.
The justification for targeting the area’s few dozen wolves? To give human hunters inside and outside the community a steady number of caribou to shoot, despite the obvious reality that hunting itself depletes the caribou population.
The board wishes to deem caribou the equivalents of vegetables. Referring to a two-year absence of caribou births, Cathie Harms, spokesperson for ADF&G, complained to the Anchorage Daily News, “We’ve already lost two cow crops.”
Gordon Haber, an Alaska-based scientist is critical of aerial gunning of wolves to increase caribou numbers. The area’s residents have access to grains, vegetables and other food. And tourists who show up to stalk Alaska’s animals can stay in a lodge on the peninsula and read a menu like that found in hotels anywhere. Wolves are eking out a living here and ought to be allowed to do that.
Ecological science shows it’s unnatural to expect large groups of caribou to stay in one spot. Caribou move when grasses and other foods are scarce, and poor range conditions have long been observed in technical reports prepared for the BOG. One such report in March 1990 said the caribou declined due to shooting by hunters as well as low births linked to poor range conditions and predation. Wolves are only one of several predators. The state’s mean-spirited and deeply unpopular wolf-shooting forays must stop. Friends of Animals calls upon Alaskans to raise their collective voice now against the game board’s latest chest-beating display of authority over animal life.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I find it terribly disrespectful when outsiders come to Alaska and attempt to control how we live up here. Go home to Connecticut, please. Right or wrong, aerial wolf shooting is an Alaskan issue, and it should be the voices of Alaskans that determine whether or not the program stays or goes.
I have the solution. We will tranquilize a few dozen wolves and airlift them straight to you kitchen, Priscilla. Once there, you can love them and hug them and kiss them forever and ever and ever.
Extremists? I'm sure this isn't simply the result of a few overzealous Board of Game agents wanting to shoot stuff from helicopters.
I agree with GOPKING that it should be the voices of Alaskans that determine whether or not the program stays or goes. Problem is, twice it has been voted on. Both times Alaskans banned it. Both times it was brought back into being by a Board of Game and a Legislature (as well as compliant governors such as Murkowski and now, Palin) all of whom have chosen to ignore the majority of Alaskans' votes. So what do you do when this happens?
It should in my opinion be the voices of the people living in the proposed areas. The majority of the states population lives in bigger cities and does not rely on caribou for sustenance. Therefore our opinion is probably about at worthless as Ms. Ferals. I think she should keep her nose out of it... but maybe we should too?
Actually, this shouldn't be a decision voted on by any group of people. Decisions about messing with wildlife populations should be left to wildlife ecologists at ADF&G. They should listen to what end result Alaskans want, then decide what management strategies are appropriate to strike the right balance.
If you were being operated on, would you want to let the whole borough vote on where to make the first cut? Or would you want an expert to do it? Operating on an ecosystem works the same way.
The problem with FREEZEE's comment is the state constitution holds that wildlife is a resource and, as such, is owned equally by all Alaskans. Plus, I can guarantee you, as they have already done to the extent of making most of the BOG decisions anti-rural, the Alaska Outdoors Council would fight vigorously any attempts to prioritize wildlife as you suggest. I don't necessarily disagree with you that priority should be given to subsistence folks but then our Legislature or courts, I'm not sure which, has definied "subsistence hunter" as anyone who holds a hunting license. In other words, a millionaire such as Ralph Seekins is just as much a subsistence hunter as the guy living out in the middle of nowhere in the eyes of the law.
As to SETEC's comments, in an ideal world it would be left to the professionals. But who sets the harvest limits, seasons, etc? The Board of Game. And who does the BOG listen to? Right now, primarily the Alaska Outdoors Council. Consider the fact the BOG is not only made up almost 100% of AOC members but it has no real rural residents on it. The last one left this year when his term expired and Palin tried to replace him with a former AOC president and her former high school basketball coach (who seems a decent fellow but when asked didn't have the slightest idea what the aerial gunning program was). It was only under considerable public outcry that the AOC person withdrew her name and has since been replaced by someone a little more in tune with rural residents...though still not a true subsistence hunter in the sense most Alaskans would define. So, then, even with the professionals advising the BOG, they are still free to do what they want and they do. Last winter they set moose harvest numbers for one GMU so high that the F&G biologist in charge of that area told them they were totally unrealistic. They did not change them. Dr. Gordon Haber and Dr. Vic Van Ballenberghe, both Alaskan wildlife biologists of considerable experience, have spoken out against aerial gunning yet the BOG continues it.
As to letting the biologists make recommendations and then listen to what end result Alaskans want, that seems reasonable. But you need only look at the present controversy over the antlerless moose hunt in 20A to see how much of a mess that can become.
Unfortunately, an ecosystem is more than just wildlife numbers, prey or predator. It's acreage, forage quantity and quality, it's weather, it's disease, it's competition for resources. It is a terribly complex system with a great number of factors beyond anyone's control (look how deep snows can devastate moose populations in just one winter). Any game biologist worth their salt will admit though they use precise formulae the data they plug in are often estimates based on sampling that may or may not reflect the real situation. And even when the formulae and data are good, so much can happen in a short time to destroy any previous conclusions. I just finished reading Hauer's "Being Caribou" in which he, a professional biologist, and his wife followed the Porcupine Caribou Herd from its wintering grounds to its calving grounds one spring and summer. He noted how sometimes the cows, already exhausted from being pregnant and on this long march with marginal forage would have to move constantly to avoid mosquito swarms. It's very hard to account for mosquitoes in these game fitness equations..when they will occur, what effects they will have, etc.
So while you make a reasonable suggestion, SETEC, in reality it isn't quite that simple, perhaps.
Priscilla Feral writing a letter to the newsminer and the community of fairbanks? that's kind of like george bush going to berkeley california to drum up support for the troop surge in iraq. lol
i hope she's organizing more tourism boycotts, we're getting way overloaded with tourists in the summer.
Welcome to politics 101. If two groups have differing opinions and one provides stats, the obvious answer is to hire your own expert for an opinion that matches your views and use it as an arguement. Do you know why there are no issues for wolf control back east? Me neither, I would assume either there were not a lot of wolfs in the area to start or, hey, someone already hunted them out because they competed for the same food as humans. Its not just about giving hunters more to shoot at, its about safety! Priscilla have you lived in McGrath? Do you know or talk to anyone who has? I personally cant stand outside interests who do not have all the facts placing there opinion over those who live through it and face these issues. Isnt there a tree where you live that needs a hug?
I think we should start a campaign to flood her email/snail mail with letters from Alaskans protesting her interference with our BOG. I do not know what part of subsistance folks do not understand. This is life and death to people living in the few communities out there, and it would be the equivilant to taking the only supermarket from around someones house and closing it and not letting them shop anywhere else. This is serious business, in addition to being mandated in our Constitution. They are just MANAGING our game as mandated. And Polarmark, good analogy!!
Priscilla Feral calls people extremists. Sounds to me like a situation of the pot calling the kettle black.
Man is as much a part of the ecosystem as a wolf or moose and we have a roll to play as well. Look at the overall wildlife populations in North America and compare them to Europe and tell me we dont do a good job at WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT. (Learned a lesson after the bison thing) The truth is that people like Priscilla Feral are extremists who would rather a million humans starve than one wolf be shot.
Ridiculous. She has no idea what she is talking about. Let's all harvest grain for 4 months a year and live on that!
I'm not responding to anyone specific, but I do have some food for thought. Does Alaska really do that great of job protecting her resources (flora, fauna, wildness)? Or is it just that Alaska lags behind the rest of the country; historically speaking. I fear that young AK is in a lag period and that if we just give it another 50 or 100 years it will be another land of crime and industrial sprawl etc. I don't live here for the high paying jobs, I live here because Alaska is wild and that means freedom. Something to think about! Do we vote for $$$ projects, or is this place worth a little more to us than a dollar sign. There is a balance somewhere, but lets be careful when we think of the big picture (long term ecology, and management) and what we are really here for.
P.S.
Did we actually learn a lesson from the bison thing? Are 500,000 North Slope caribou different from the plains bison. Last I noticed the Central Arctic Herd was displaced by hundreds of miles of oil rigs and pipelines, not to mention human displacement from respiratory problems in Nuiqsut. There is still room for caribou displacement to the south (which is why the herd still exists and is growing), but for how long. Ak is being developed from the top down, left and right, and wolves are the least of our worries right now, though they are important and are responsible for keeping the caribou that you eat healthy. Perhapse we should kill all of the wolves so the next caribou you hunt will be infected with brucellosis, which you can then pass on to your dogs and children! I'm all about hunting, but not when the animals are sick and weak.
Hope I didn't offend anyone or open up a can of worms.
Any body that think wolves only kill the sick needs to spend some time in the bush and not so much time watching Disney movies.
Ms Feral,
I invite you to stay out of our politics of wolf management. There are plenty of us in Alaska that question the current policy of predator control both on scientific, fiscal, and moral grounds. Having an animal rights extremist from New York step into the controversy only inflames pro-aerial predator hunting crowd.
Do you have any idea what "a few dozen wolves" can do to a herd of caribou? Typical left wing mantra-support the predators and despots of the world and turn your back on the innocent.
This is the same mentality of the bunny huggers that live outside and whine about opening up ANWR, tell you what Pricilla, move out to the Bush for a short time, summer or winter your call and see how friendly
you will be to animals....yum yum.....
Alaskan's have voted twice in regards to aerial predator control. 56,000 Alaskan's want to vote a third time on this issue. Alaskan's want to vote on public policy issues.
THe legislature refuses to listen to Alaskan's!!! We vote, we hunt and we care about our wildlife resources. We DON'T want aerial predator control by private citezens. We DON'T want science removed from the mandates for the BOG. WE DON'T want to remove the citizen intiative process from defining wildlife management policy (72% of voting ALASKAN'S said so in 2000)!!!
Alaskan's demand to be included in the management of our wildlife resources. IF the legislature can't understand that after two votes we'll vote again!!!!!!
Actually I think that this "Priscilla Feral, President, Friends of Animals" may be a joker. A "feral" organism is one that has escaped from domestication and returned, partly or wholly, to its wild state. With her supposed last name and her views being so over-the-top (or dare I say extremist) she is actually supporting the predator control folks by portraying those who dislike predator control as nuts. She also fails to say where she is from.
As Dobieman pointed out, the Alaskan state constitution holds that wildlife is a resource and, as such, is owned equally by all Alaskans. If voters want a more direct say on predator control then they need to get the state Constitution amended.
Personally I do not favor predator control as competing with predators makes hunting more predatory and sporting than “meat-farming” for me. However I am far from being a subsistence hunter.
Mel, I looked her up, shes real. The best line ever "Wolves are eking out a living here and ought to be allowed to do that"
Maybe us replying to this nonsense validates these crazies ideas?
I agree that Alaska should be allowed to manage its own fish and game, but I also agree that the Board of Game needs some checks and balances. BOG members are not necessarily trained biologists, and over the years, they have demonstrated they have their agendas and constituents, as opposed to doing what is best for the fish and game populations.
I think we should get a helicopter to take Priscilla out to a remote village - one of the many that does not have a grocery store and where it's too cold to grow vegetables - and drop her off for a month or so. She would certainly learn a few things. And she can spend her space time watching the caribou graze on grass!
of course she is real. ms feral is the head of PETA... and i'm NOT talking about "People for Eating Tasty Animals" like a favorite t shirt in this area reads.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Priscilla Feral is the President of Friends of Animals, not PETA.
I think Priscilla Feral's letter was great. She may not save any wolves but her letter brought to light what a bunch of idiots most of you are.
Gee Tom, You have a way of stating your opinion without saying where it comes from that is remaniscent of long ago, before education systems and logic. What part of people stating there opinions make them idiots? The fact that you disagree? If so, could you put your horse blinders back on and return to the east coast before your inability to understand the true issues discussed is discovered? That would be great, thanks.