Letter to the Editor
Predator control
Published Thursday, April 3, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!March 27, 2008
To the editor:
I just wanted to express my extreme dismay with the actions of the Board of Game, the governor and the Legislature with respect to the policy of predator control.
First, I find it offensive that the Board of Game is composed of members who represent one point of view, rather than the diversity of points of view found in Alaska. No board can continue to work in an honest way or with integrity when it does not strive to hear, appreciate and evaluate diverse points of view. In this case, the voice of the people who disapprove of predator control as it is currently set up is systematically ignored.
Second, I find the current policies regarding predator control immensely offensive, and the arguments are disingenuous. There is little to no scientific basis for this program. It is well-established that animal populations of both prey and predator have cycles of population growth in years with plentiful food sources and population decline in lean years, and they don’t need human management to survive unless they are otherwise threatened. It is also fairly obvious that with increasing numbers of Alaskans who hunt, whether for sustenance or for sport, there are likely to be noted declines in animal populations, including moose.
At some point, it is necessary to balance subsistence hunting with the increasing human population. To attribute poor moose populations to natural predators, and then to kill those predators for no other reason than to artificially boost prey populations for human consumption or sport is dishonest reasoning.
From a religious point of view, I find the predator control program unethical. To take a life for no other purpose than to artificially increase our ability to hunt prey is surely not justified, since most of us are not suffering from extreme duress. I believe in subsistence hunting, but I don’t believe this program is managed honestly for that purpose, and I begin to wonder who takes part in this aerial predator control program.
Hunters? Most hunters I know do not view this as hunting; it certainly is not fair hunting.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I myself love moose and caribou and really dont care how you feel about the harvest of wolves, just hope that thay keep on killing wolves. I am in a bush type area and really cant enjoy eating wolves but do enjoy moose roast.
Unfortunately for you, panda, Alaska's wolves and bears, like our moose and caribou, belong to all Alaskans, not just a few. It is a situation that, in part, protects our wildlife against people who can't see beyond a gun barrel that there is an intrinsic value to wildlife.
I know of many, many hunters who agree with this letter, who find aerial hunting reprehensible. So efforts such as yours to make this a hunter vs non-hunter issue fail.
Last year, over 120 wildlife professionals, including many in Alaska as well as across the country, sent a letter to Palin opposing aerial hunting on the basis it has no science to support it. So far, Palin has failed to produce any, instead choosing to toe the Alaska Outdoors Council line of supporting it regardless.
What is ironic is in your support of the same thing you play right into the AOC's hands for along with supporting aerial hunting they strongly oppose (and successfully, too) any sort of hunting preference for people living in the Bush. In fact, it is due to their efforts that millionaires such as Ralph Seekins, AOC member and aerial hunting proponent, are considered just as much a subsistence hunter as you.
So take careful aim because when you speak out in favor of aerial hunting you are shooting yourself in the foot.
It is ironic that some people in Alaska are allowed to live in such a bubble. In the low 48 they would employ goverment hunters who would go in and shoot everything they saw which resembled their quarry. This is what they did with the goats in Washington to control them. They are mandated to leave the animal or at least in some areas which might offend a viewer move the carcass off and dump it. They can not use it or salvage it in anyway. Goats have a tendency to run to a high point of a mountian and then they don't run any farther. Shooting was intense and the white bodies many.
At least with the arial hunting the wolf is retrieved and the hide used. My wish is if you are going to complain about something know that if there are other things they could do, we allow the goverment to do it, the slaughter would be great and we would not be arguing about it now. You would not have any wolves. Now the kill ratio is not that much and we have wolves to shoot and you have something to complain about. At least the state manages, the wolves live, you complain and the world goes around.
PBrown....there is no regulation requiring the wolf shot from the air be retrieved. Indeed, in many areas landing to do so would be rather hard. Wolves can be shot and left to rot.
But even if there were such a requirement it hardly justifies what is being done. To date, there has been no solid science demonstrated to support the aerial hunting. In fact, last September more than 120 wildlife professionals both in and outside Alaska sent a letter to Palin opposing aerial hunting on that very basis of the lack of biological justification. Too, you will notice most of the areas targeted for aerial hunting are areas that include parts of the road system. This indicates the effort is being done not for the Bush residents, as is often claimed, but for the urban hunter. This removes yet another leg of the argument for aerial hunting.
Then, there is the simple fact that a majority of Alaskans do not want it. It has been put before Alaskan voters twice; it has been banned by Alaskan voters twice. By the state constitution we Alaskans own our resources (wildlife is considered a resource) in common and so we have the right to determine its use and management. (Of course, if Palin's HB 348 passes along with whatever Senate version of it, then we will lose that right but I guess that's part of her "responsive" government.) Many hunters disagree with aerial hunting. A majority of Alaskans disagree with aerial hunting. Numerous biologists, even former BOG members, disagree with aerial hunting. When there is that much opposition to something, it warrants a very close and intense look and so far aerial hunting is not doing very well under that public microscope of scrutiny.
As some have stated, Alaskans do not want aerial management of wolves. I feel that our fish and game should not be managed by ballot box politics. Our State Constitution says, yes, all Alaskans own the fish and wildlife, and it will be managed for maximum sustained yield. That is clear. It is to be managed to put more on the tables of Alaskans. Period.
Dobieman
You must be one of these bubble boys, first of all if you talk to the state police which enforces game regulations you are required to pick up the animal. Second where are you getting your information from? The only road system aerial hunting comes close to is the Denail Hiway which is closed during the winter time. So your indications that most are for urban hunters are is a bit off like your logic. Further more according to the Constitution all Alaskan's do own the resources but it also states that the resources are to be managed for a substained yield; not viewing. As far as the majority of Alaskan's disagreeing with aerial hunting that means the Interior and the Bush communities can not over ride Anchorage vote. This is not aerial hunting it is predator control and all hunter that I know are against aerial hunting not aerial predator control.
What the hell does religion and predator control have to do with each other?
PBrown...the AST enforces the regulations but the regulations are created for the most part by the BOG. The AST cannot enforce what is not required. In the case of aerial gunning, retrieval of the killed animals is not required. Period.
As to the road systems, you might want to put your spectacles on. If you go to the F&G site at: http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm... you will find aerial hunting is permitted in all of GMU 12 which includes part of the Richardson from Cathedral Rapids all the way to the border, all of GMU 13 which includes the Denali Highway (which is open to traffic and hunting during the hunting season), the Richardson from Paxson to Copper Center, the Parks Highway from above Cantwell to below Denali N.P. It also includes GMU 20e which includes most of the Taylor Highway. Your bubble is popped, PB.
The concept of sustained yield includes viewing in the form of tourism. That is as much a part of the idea as hunting, non-hunting, etc. Too, it includes the fact that of Alaska's population only 14% hold hunting licenses. That means over 85% may utilize wildlife simply for viewing or may, as many of the lodges and tourism guiding services will aver, use them as ongoing revenue sources. After all, the moose that is only viewed lives another day to be viewed again whereas the one that is shot is generally not going to live another day to be shot again. That is sustained yield. It is does not apply solely to hunting.
As to your hunters which oppose aerial hunting but not aerial predator control, that is at best a specious distinction. The methods, results, and lack of justification are so strongly alike for both it is like looking in a mirror and saying that is not your reflection simply because you don't want it to be.
BTW, it is not only Anchorage voters that do not like aerial hunting. A petition of over 100 hunters from the Fairbanks area circulated in the 2000 ballot measure. If you read Nick Jan's recent piece on HB 348 (ADN, 3/24, Compass) you will see the following:
"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."
It would appear you have been getting most of your "facts" from those little comics they wrap bubble gum in, speaking of bubbles. Visit the F&G website, the ADN website for the facts I have noted here and you can see for yourself.
Tony08....can you clarify your question for me, please? It's not clear to me what you are asking.
At the end of his letter dobieman he said from a religous point of view i find the predator control program unethical. Like i asked what does religion have to do with it
To all of you who feel the need to be arm chair biologist keep to watching the Disney channel in your fantasy world. I have worked as both a Wildlife Biologist and as an Animal Damage Control Officer. If you are in doubt about population out of control have a close look at Elk to Brown Bear/Wolf ratios in the grater Yellowstone eco-system over the last 20 years. As bears and Wolfs are protected and the Elk population is not and as a result the Elk population has crashed in some regions of this eco-system. US Fish and Wildlife everyday of the week are involved in some sort of ADC issue and the take of predators such as Wolfs, Cougars, Coyotes, Beavers, Alligators, and even Groundhogs somewhere in the US. I spend time at the local coffee shops lessening to all of you complain about this or that as it is related to ADF&G polices. All I have to say in closing is that there are two types of Biologist. First type those who practice what they preach they hunt, fish and do I dare even say it trap. All in an effort of substaing the wildlife populations for the greater good of all understanding wildlife is a renewable recourse. Then there is the second group who grew up in the city and truly think Bambi was twiterpatted and are so far to the left that that they make Obama seem conservative. They tend to stay away or are run out of this stated. So the claim that 120 wildlife professional were against predator control would be an easy task to do but who are they? Vegans??? So I do not intend to do any name dropping here. But those Biologists who live outdoors here in Alaska do have their finger on the pulse of what needs to be done for the grater good of all. Now one last mention I think you will find that the bible states that the lord put fish, fur and feather here on earth for our “Mans uses”. Lets make him proud.
I find it really strange that the Fish and Game finds in necessary to "control" the population of wolves all in the name of protecting the moose population, but at the same time are giving out antlerless moose permits. Seems a little bass-ackwards to me.
In all the above comments the only ones that make sense are those written by dobieman. Most of the others are nothing but garbage.
Dasjager....first, there are no brown bears in Yellowstone; those are grizzlies. Alaska is the only state with what are commonly called "brown bears". Second, last I checked beavers and groundhogs are not predators. I hope when you had the positions you cited you did not take them under the assumption they are.
Then, you mention the armchair vs field biologists. Wanted some names. Okay...Dr. Vic Van Ballenberghe here in Alaska with overe 20 years field experience with moose and wolves. Strong opponent of aerial hunting of wolves and bears. Dr. Gordon Haber, again with more than 20 years of experience in the field (probably well over 30 by now) and strong opponent of aerial gunning. Then we have folks such as Joel Bennett, former BOG member, longtime Alaskan, wildlife photographer, hunter; again, a strong opponent of aerial gunning. Nick Jans, trained as a biologist (I do not know to what level), 20 years living in the Bush of Alaska, extensive experience in hunting and has worked as a guide; again, strong opponent of aerial gunning. These are all people with a large amount of actual experience not only in the field but in most cases as hunters, too,
I cannot say with certainty but it strikes me there are few wildlife biologists in Alaska (or perhaps elsewhere) that at some point do not accrue a considerable experience in the field. The days of just gleaning a doctorate from a pile of books are long gone. You have to conduct your studies, collect your data, compile and interpret it, subject it to peer review... There is a considerable gauntlet one goes through to become an accredited wildlife biologist and along the way if all you have done is stayed in the library it's pretty quickly made obvious and does not help one's case. NOW....in clarifying issues in one's field of expertise, a fair amount of "armchair" research may be done. I can see that happening for after all, these biologists do not work in a vacuum. They need to know what others are finding out, see how that fits their data, etc. But for them to rely solely on such data and no field work I would guess is pretty rare.
Tony08....can you find that quotation about religion and predator control? I seriously doubt that is something I would say since, like you, I see no connection between the two. If I said something that can be misconstrued in that manner I would like to correct the impression so would appreciate the citation.
Thanks!
Dobieman
As I did check with BOG in Juneau and talked to some really nice folks down there and Yes the hunters ARE mandated to pick up their kills. I did ask about the ratio of hunters urban vs rural and he said it depended on what area but it was about 50/50 along the road system if you noticed the five areas units 16B, 19 and 19D have no major road systems per say and of the other two units the road systems run through the unit. He did say 16 was mostly urban hunters because of the closeness. With 19 and 19D rural and 16B an urban I can hardly agree that other two units make your statement true as aerial predator control is all for the urban hunter. As for your quoting a well known author, nice touch but I too can toss around authors and poets too. Did you note that a lot of those villages you listed wanted to change the laws to allow killing black bears while den'd.
Seems like your glass is a bit colored maybe a rose shade.
i think we should leave it alone .... it has been like this for all of time .... buck up and stop bitching...we should really let it be
dobieman --
Tony08 was referring to the second to last paragraph of the original article...
"From a religious point of view, I find the predator control program unethical..."
For my part, this paragraph should've been thrown out - it is utter rubbish.
After all, it has always been the view of traditional Christian religions that they were given the earth to rape as they saw fit, including the "god-less and savage" indigenous people of any lands conquered. [Christians are so unlike Christ...]
dobieman, is this the list of "experts" you were refering to??
http://www.alaskawolfkill.com/Palin_Lett...
Most of these are outsiders. I counted 7 that were from AK, and only 1 from ADF&G.
That's all they could recruit was 172 signatures and most of them are from the very locales and universities that one would expect.
dobieman read what newsreader just said. I did not say you said the statement
Newsreader...thanks for the clarification. As I did not write that article I would have been amazed had I tried to make a connection between religion and aerial hunting.
M1000....Yes, that is the list and if you will please read *carefully* you will find I was very precise in saying it includes experts both in Alaska and outside. Now, I would like to know on what basis you feel because someone is an "outsider" they are, despite professional training and perhaps considerable experience, not qualified to comment on the situation? What are your credentials that you exceed them in understand wildlife management principles? After all, we are not the only state nor even the only country with wolves. Too, I'm glad you corrected me and pointed out it is 172 professionals and not the 120+ I was citing. It's always good if you are being corrected to be so in your favor.
That last line of yours is very telling. Because they are from areas you feel prejudiced against for whatever reason they are therefore to be totally discounted? By virtue of living in Alaska you are therefore far more expert than anyone outside Alaska in wildlife management?
Tony08... I asked about the clarification because, not having made a connection between religion and aerial hunting, I don't feel qualified to comment on any such observations. I don't see any connection but that's not to say there may not be any; they just aren't for me to make. I'm dealing with this strictly from a biological and ethical perspective.
Thanks for the restatement of your question!
PB....I quote the following from your earlier comment in this discussion:
" Second where are you getting your information from? The only road system aerial hunting comes close to is the Denail Hiway which is closed during the winter time."
16b is, as you noted, heavily used by urban hunters from across the inlet in Anchorage. GMU 13 is heavily used by urban hunters from Fairbanks and Anchorage for not only is most of its northern boundary the Denali Highway (which it quite accessible during a significant portion of the hunting season) but a good portion of its western bounday is also accessible from the Parks. Then we have 20e which has the Taylor Highway running right up through it. It receives a good deal of attention from Fairbanks, clear evidence for which is easily found in the stats for the caribou hunts held there which often close within a few days of opening due to heavy, heavy hunting pressure from the urban areas. In fact, the only two GMU's undergoing aerial hunting not easily accessed are out in the SW portion of the state. Even there, though, we find McGrath as a hub of fly-in hunting from both guided hunts and urban hunters. So, yes...aerial gunning is done mainly for the urban hunter.
As to my quotation of Nick Jan's article that is more than simply the quotation of an author. He has lived in the Bush for 20 years,