Predator control program throttles up despite protest
Published Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!The state’s controversial aerial wolf-control program is back at full throttle after the Alaska Board of Game held an emergency meeting on Friday to address legal shortfalls cited by an Anchorage judge two weeks ago.
The game board made the necessary changes to parts of two predator control plans that were added to the original control areas in 2006, which prompted a lawsuit by several groups opposed to the killing of wolves.
The state shut the aerial program down in both areas for a week after a Superior Court judge ruled on March 14 that the game board had erred by expanding two of the areas in which pilot-gunner teams with state permits can hunt wolves from airplanes. The game board simply rescinded the old plans for the areas and adopted new ones.
“They basically fixed what the judge said needed to be fixed,” Cathie Harms, spokeswoman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Fairbanks, said. “By Friday afternoon, the programs were back active again.”
The two areas were the Fortymile region between the Taylor and Steese Highways north and east of Fairbanks and unit 16A, across the Cook Inlet from Anchorage. They are two of five areas in which the game board has approved aerial predator control.
Pilot-gunner teams have reported taking 81 wolves in the five control areas thus far this winter. The program will be suspended when conditions deteriorate to the point that pilots can no longer land planes to collect the wolves.
Priscilla Feral, executive director for the Connecticut-based animal-rights group Friends of Animals, which is one of three groups that filed a lawsuit against the game board to halt the state’s aerial wolf-control program, called the action a sham.
“The (game board) and their apologists in the bureaucracy have a reputation as a nursery for nitwit schemes,” she wrote in an e-mail regarding Friday’s emergency meeting. “When the courts have ruled that the state's aerial wolf-shooting schemes are breaking the law, within days, the Board of Game concocts new rules.
“Clearly, they make stuff up, their process is a sham and they just want to shoot wolves everywhere in Alaska. This is an abuse of power.”
Contact staff Writer Tim Mowry at 459-7587.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
You might want to read Nick Jans' article in the 3/24 ADN, a piece in their Compass section. He gives quite a list of villages that do NOT want aerial gunning, think it is a bad idea. He also speaks from his own experience of living in the Bush for several years to speak out against it. More and more it is becoming apparent this is something being done for the urban hunter as is often the case with the Board of Game decisions. Bear in mind with but one exception the board members are also members of the Alaska Outdoors Council, a group which a) strongly supports aerial gunning and, b) strongly opposes any rural subsistence priorities in hunting. Along those lines the large majority of the BOG is non-rural. A pattern begins to emerge as you ponder these facts, eh?
Add to that experts such as Dr. Vic Van Ballenberghe, with over 20 years' experience in moose studies with F&G as well as moose/predator biology, has spoken out consistently against the aerial gunning as have many other Alaskans, both biologists and non-biologists.
Finally, tie it up in a neat bundle with the fact that both times it has come up for a vote, Alaskans have banned aerial gunning. Presently, it is on the August ballot but there are now bills (HB256 & 248, SB176) which effectively will remove the ability of Alaskans to vote on such issues as wildlife management. These bills are the result of the AOC watching its efforts banned again and again so it will not only take away the opportunity to address the issue through the BOG but now it will remove the last ability of Alaskans to address the issue on public votes. Think a moment...without the ability to present an initiative (and it takes a large percentage of the voting total to even get a measure on the ballot, 56,000 Alaskan signatures in this instance), with a BOG that is dominated by the AOC how does the average Alaskan speak out against these practices? You don't.
In fact, to quote from Nick's article:
In 2000, 63 percent of Alaskans rejected a referendum that would have made unconstitutional all wildlife ballot initiatives. Now, 56,000 Alaska voters are once again demanding that their voices be heard on the issue of aerial predator control, in a ballot measure that has already been certified.
These were and are Alaskans speaking out, not Outsiders. And contrary to Alaska Outdoor Council rhetoric, thousands of rural Alaskans voted against it -- people who truly do depend on subsistence. Shishmaref, Klawock, Sleetmute, Kivalina, Pedro Bay, Shageluk, Buckland, Anaktuvuk Pass, White Mountain, Koyuk, Chignik Lagoon, New Stuyahok, Kotzebue, and more -- many Native Bush communities voted against aerial predator control in 2000. To say that these people don't understand the nature of subsistence or wolves is an insult to Native traditions and cultures.
Likewise, thousands of active non-Native hunters, including myself, feel insulted when we're told by the Board of Game or the Alaska Outdoor Council that we just don't understand the issue. Many of us have far more experience and knowledge regarding wolves than those who claim we know so little.
dobieman, I would absolutely dispute your list of villages that you submit are against predator control!!! I do not believe for one second that any of these villages feel that way!! I think you MIGHT, add MIGHT find one or two people, but I doubt even that that feel the way you state, but a majority?? I am not sure you could even come up with any figures that would approach convincing me of the facts that you state. I have spent part of every year living in Fort Yukon and Galena for the last 20+ years, and I just do NOT believe your assertions!!
YJ...you might want to go back and read again what I wrote. The list of villages came not from me but from Nick Jans who has also lived in the Bush over 20 years. The list came from his article which I have cited so anyone can read it. Now, Nick is a published Alaskan author of considerable reputation, he was travelled Alaska extensively, lived here quite a while, and has quite a bit of credibility to lose if he issues a statement as fact that is not. So you might want to take it up with him.
Frankly, I think you will find he is apt to be correct as he researches his facts in depth. Indeed, if you doubt what he says you can always check the voting record and see how these various villages voted on the issue in 2000. Once you do so, please cite the link(s) here so we can all see it or them. Such research on your part would hold quite a bit more water than simply saying, "Is not!". After all, you already made the error of attributing the comment to me when I clearly state its origin.
In fact, just to demonstrate a few more of his "street creds" in this matter, here's what a quick search on the Net reveals:
Nick Jans is a contributing editor for Alaska magazine and a member of USA Today’s Board of Editorial Contributors. He has written for Rolling Stone, Backpacker, and the Christian Science Monitor. His books include Tracks of the Unseen: Meditations on Alaska Wildlife, Landscape, and Photography; A Place Beyond: Finding Home in Arctic Alaska; and The Last Light Breaking: Living Among Alaska’s Inupiat Eskimos.
Now, I seriously doubt you get to be a contributing editor for "Alaska" magazine by tossing out inaccurate statements. Bear in mind Nick is not just someone who visits the local library and experts then writes something. He has lived in Bush Alaska quite a few years, has hunted in Bush Alaska quite a few years; he speaks and writes from his own experiences. I would appreciate a list of the books you have published on your experiences and stemming from your personal knowledge of Alaska.
(You can add to the list above, "Grizzly Maze", an excellent book on the Timothy Treadwell death. I just finished reading it and found it a well-balanced piece with a great deal of research behind it, not only including interviews with the personae dramatis but a trip out to the site of the attack.)
Dobieman says it all for me.....Just on the opposit side he even made my point on ballot box biology. Also remeber just because you worked for fish and game dosent me you dont have an agenda opposit of the facts. And facts are few and far between on wolf data and predation Alaska is just too big.
I live in a village that use the 40 mile herd and we want the wolves removed, I myself can not kill enough of them, if I had a gunner for my plane I could kill a lot more. So far I have only taken 14, wish it was a 114.
I agree that aerial predator control programs that do not use science to prove the specific predator that may be causing problems is bad policy. Allowing the Board of Game to use only their opinion to develop and initiate predator control programs will harm the hunting community as well as potentially harming other user groups as well. I love to hunt but believe a healthy ecosystem rely's heavily on the checks and balances affored by predators. The BOG needs checks and balances to effectively manage our wildlife resources. Otherwise they'll destroy our hunting heritage in the eyes of the non hunter.
"In 2000, 63 percent of Alaskans rejected a referendum that would have made unconstitutional all wildlife ballot initiatives. Now, 56,000 Alaska voters are once again demanding that their voices be heard on the issue of aerial predator control, in a ballot measure that has already been certified.
These were and are Alaskans speaking out, not Outsiders. And contrary to Alaska Outdoor Council rhetoric, thousands of rural Alaskans voted against it - ..."
Just because Alaskans voted against a ban on wildlife initiatives does NOT mean they voted against aerial wolf control!
Talk about twisting the facts!!!
Let me correct something alaskaflower has misstated. The bans voted in by Alaskan voters in 1996 and 2000, which are the ones referred to herein, were bans on aerial wolf hunting. In other words, both times the AOC tried to get it voted in, it was voted out by a majority of Alaskans. They voted against aerial wolf control, to use your words.
The one time a ban against wildlife initiatives came up it was NOT supported by a majority of voters. This is possibly the second attempt only this time instead of putting such a possible ban before the voters and risking yet another denial of such a ban, Palin is trying to move it solely through the Legislature and thereby avoid any real voter input.
So...to repeat and make sure this is understood: twice a majority of Alaskans voted to ban aerial wolf control (1996 and 2000, both being the only times it was presented to the public). The one time voters were given a chance to ban initiatives a majority of Alaskans supported initiatives and did not vote that ban into place which is why we see the political maneuvering going on today in the Legislature by Palin and the AOC. If they can get that in place then you, as an Alaskan, will have only no recourse to address actions taken by the Board of Game you may oppose. They are not answerable to the Legislature or the Gov. once they are confirmed as Board members. Their decisions can only be challenged in court or by initiative and both methods are under attack at the moment. It gives the AOC a lockdown, via their dominance of the BOG, on wildlife decisions. The disagreeing Alaskan, be they hunter, non-hunter, Native, urban, what-have-you is effectively locked out from then taking action against their decisions. Mind you, this is being done despite the fact the state constitution says Alaska's resources (and wildlife is considered a resource...at the moment) are owned equally by all Alaskans. Also bear in mind, the AOC through the BOG has been highly opposed to any rural subsistence priority and this is why you never see any despite the logic and need for such preferences.
Isn't aerial wolf control just a government handout to sport hunters who are not good enough or too lazy to compete with wolves? Why are we wasting tax dollars to destroy one valuable species because one user group is incompetent to compete against them for another valuable species? Why not just go to the lower 48 and shoot farmed animals in a stockyard? Dick Cheney and Ted Nugent do that all the time and they don't need the government to subsidize their hobby.
Only good Wolf is a dead wolf.
Interesting to note that M1000's comment use to be phrased slightly differently and was applied to Native Americans..... I guess some ways of thinking(?) never die, unfortunately.
Simple Solution: Let local autonomy rule and just leave the whole issue of aerial wolf hunting up to each individual village then? If a village wants more wolves running through their streets and killing their sled dogs, then so be it. Buf if another certain village wants fewer wolves, let them use airplanes, helicopters, traps, poisons, and/or whatever else they want to get the job done. Could be a cheaper solution too if the villages are allowed to sell all the pelts they take to fund gas and ammunition for their own airplanes and hunters.
Why because you spout one sided comments. Because you have anointed one author has omnipotent, and you have one moose biologists supposed statements that aerial predator control is harmful to the species??
I am supposed to bow to you and your view point??? Get Real
Well, M1000...if one won't do will 172 be satisfactory to you? Sept. 26, 2007, 172 wildlife professionals in Alaska and across the nation signed onto a letter sent to Palin stating that the aerial gunning program was unjustified, biologically unsound, and should be stopped. Not one or two or five, M....172. And actually, Nick Jans is not the only Alaskan who combines wilderness experience with professional knowledge. You might want to try Joel Bennett who served on a previous BOG, is a longtime Alaskan hunter, who is strongly opposed to aerial hunting. Or Lowell Thomas Jr. You might recognize his name....maybe. He has a long, long history with Alaska and opposes aerial hunting. Then there's Leo Keeler, former BOG member, big game hunter, lived quite a few years and hunted quite a few years in Alaska. He opposes it quite steadfastly. The more you look around the more Alaskans you see with a great deal of outdoors experience, hunters, people who have been here 30 or 40 or more years....and they are deadset against aerial hunting. I have by no means exhausted the list.
No, you don't have to bow to anyone's viewpoint. But I would hope you, like Alaskans have twice in the past when this has come to a vote, will look at the science against aerial gunning, the lack of science for it, and consider that the AOC is the driving force behind most of it, the same AOC that does not want any rural priority for subsistence hunting. The same AOC that says a millionaire living in the middle of Anchorage or Fairbanks or Juneau is just as much a subsistence hunter as the guy living out on the Yukon or Koyukuk or anywhere in the Bush. It's your choice if you want to align yourself with their viewpoint.
M1000 you cant beat these idiots so dont sink to there level
Well these 172 "professionals" you are talking about, include students, members of the Sierra Club, ecologists, other environmental groups, and a total of 7 are from AK, with only 1 being an actual member of the ADF&G (retired) and the other 96% being outsiders. So yes there are some biologists on the list, all from the most obvious of states and locations.
The problem is I can't take much credence in what comes from professors or from the likes of the Sierra Club, they have no credibility, they have their agenda and exploit the truth.
Typical junk science, from socio-ecos.
Now our National Parks are closed to hunting and are managed so as to allow nature to take it's course. And since nature is taking it's course the bears and wolves are having a hay-day on the ungulate herds in the park.
Even park officials admit that the predation has become a serious problem. And you are more likely to see 10 bears to every 1 moose.
Basically it comes down to two sides, with both claiming to have the answers. If we blindly follow one over the other we are sure to have catastrophic results and in-balance for all animals in Alaska.
http://www.alaskawolfkill.com/Palin_Lett...
Signed letter from the "experts"
But sadly most of these "experts" do not live in a state that has had a wolf population for 100 years
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.