Letter to the Editor
Save our heritage
Published Wednesday, April 16, 2008
April 13, 2008
To the editor:
There are 7,000 to 8,000 moose harvested in Alaska each year.
That’s more than 3.5 million pounds of moose meat worth more than $14 million. Anti-hunters have been trying to stop hunting and trapping for many years. They don’t care about our lives, our traditions or our economy.
If they can stop us from managing our wildlife, they can stop us from hunting. They have tried to stop management by legal action, political action, regulatory action through the Board of Game and by Alaska’s initiative voting process. They have been successful too often.
Recently, they have lost two rounds in their fight to stop us from hunting. The Board of Game rejected their proposals to stop predator management/control. Then they lost in court when the judge ruled their case to stop predator management was only a technical glitch. The Board of Game immediately fixed the glitch. Next, they are going to try get Alaskans to pass an initiative to stop predator control at the Aug. 5 primary election.
Hunters, fishermen, berry pickers, wood cutters and others are out in the field preparing for winter at that time of year. Get an absentee ballot and vote ‘no’ before you go.
Many Alaskans don’t realize what is at stake. Our traditions, heritage, culture and livelihoods are threatened. The impact on our economy during the last 26 years is tremendous. We have lost billions of dollars by not managing our wildlife. Only in the last 5 years have we begun to return rational management.
Don’t let the anti-hunters, animal rights extremists, fake environmentalists and fake conservationists drag us back down again. Beware of their false and misleading propaganda. If they were really concerned about the welfare of predators they would support abundant and healthy moose and caribou prey populations. Without healthy prey populations you can’t have abundant and healthy predators. We just want a fair share for those that need and use game.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
You're assuming that wildlife is a resource to be developed.
Some of us don't think that.
It's interesting how Burris is trying to paint this as hunter vs anti-hunter. Opposing his viewpoint we have Dr. Vic Van Bellnberghe, former BOG member, wildlife biologist in Alaskan for over 25 years, hunter, trapper; Joel Bennett, former BOG member, hunter; Nick Jans, Alaskan resident for over 20 years, hunter; Leo Keeler, former BOG member, hunter, and so forth. In 2000, over 100 hunters from Fairbanks alone signed a petition against the same aerial gunning Burris is trying to defend. And, of course, in both 1996 and 2000, a majority of Alaskans (who by Burris' perspective are all anti-hunter) voted to ban aerial hunting. In short, Burris is quite willing to mislead in an effort to put his point over.
In an ADN Compass piece, 3/24/08, Nick Jans (who has lived on the Slope for 20 years and traveled widely throughout the state talking to Bush residents) wrote:
"In a 1996 ballot initiative, 36 of Alaska's 40 districts rejected aerial predator control. In 2000, 29 of 40 districts did the same. Yet both times, the Legislature overturned that mandate.
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."
In short, Burris has it all wrong, a sign of the lengths to which he is willing to go in trying to defend the indefensible.
There's an additional irony to Burris' adjunctive attempt to portray this as an assault on Bush life. Burris, who is a longtime member of the Alaska Outdoor Council, knows full well the AOC has always opposed any sort of game priority for rural residents. At both the level of the Board of Game as well as the Legislature, they have fought any real subsistence priority. Indeed, if you read the hunting regs and state law you find as far as they govern the situation Burris is considered a subsistence hunter despite being an urban hunter just as much as someone living out in the middle of the Bush.
He tries to paint anyone opposing aerial hunting as also opposing healthy ungulate populations in his final paragraph which is so laughably and demonstrably erroneous I'm surprised he thinks anyone will buy into it.
Too, he glosses neatly over the fact that in order to get an initiative on the ballot the effort has to garner a percentage of the previous election's voter count as signatures on the initiative. In the case of the present initiative, that means already 56,000 Alaskans have signed petitions to have it put before the voters. As mentioned, in 1996 and 2000 Alaskan voters banned aerial hunting. So what Burris is essentially saying is a majority of Alaskans in 1996 and 2000 were anti-hunter, fake this and that; that the 56,000 signers of the present initiative petitions are also the same. Those are rather amazing numbers and claims.
The initiative process is a direct process whereby you, the Alaskan voter, can tell your Legislature and government exactly what your wishes are and can thereby make them abide by them. Burris and the AOC oppose this ability and are working hard to remove your right to do so. This is one of the "victories" to which he lays claim....stopping Alaskans from having their say on how their resources are managed.
Well said Bob Burris!! People do not seem to realize that for there to be healthy predator populations there must be healthy ungulate populations. This somehow escapes their thinking. Our State Constitution mandates management for sustained yield, which is a yield to where I can go fill my freezer with fish and game to live off of. Great foresight on our delegates back then, and they NEVER even thought of THIS type of situation. Alaska was different back in those days, it has sure changed alot lately.
"You're assuming that wildlife is a resource to be developed.
Some of us don't think that."
I could be wrong but I seem to recall that's exactly how the Alaska Constitution describes wildlife.
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.
dobieman, could you please give me a link as to where you got this information. I do not believe it. I have talked to many natives from around interior Alaska, and they do not believe it either. No one from a village will vote for more wolves and bears and less moose/caribou.
McGehee: Does that mean it's correct? Blind acceptance of an situation does not make it correct.
I ask this: Does the possession of opposable thumbs /really/ mean that we are "in charge" of the management of another sentient being? Of course, you could argue that wildlife isn't sentient, but that would also mean that they don't possess a survival instinct, which would mean you could walk up to them. Last I checked, moose don't very much care for being shot. (don't get me wrong, though, my freezer is also full.)
I realize this arguement isn't going to mean much to most of you, as, for the most part, you're only concerned with what *you* can have, not with sustainability.
But that's OK, we can do whatever we want to here in Alaska. It's really OK. There's plenty of wolves in the lower 48, along with bison on the plains.
Oh.
Wait.....
all i heard sdoownek is that you would shred the alaska constitution to fit your own idiot ideas.
polarmark, I didn't hear that. Did the voices tell you?
YJ...I'll save you rereading my comment wherein I include the link for the villages against aerial hunting. You can go to the Compass section of the Anchorage Daily News for 3/24/08 and you will find the entire piece written by Nick Jans who is both someone who has lived in a village for over 20 years and is a hunter.
As to Burris having this amazing awareness of the necessity for healthy ungulate populations, as you opine, it should be noted Burris is an urban hunter, has been for many, many years, and a member of the AOC (again, for many years). The AOC has always strongly opposed any rural subsistence preference so folks in Ft. Yukon, for instance, instead of having a hunting priority for the moose and such around their area, have to compete with the Burris'es of Fairbanks and elsewhere who are rich enough to afford to fly or boat up to these areas to hunt. You won't find a single genuine conservationist who does not believe in a healthy ungulate populations along with healthy predator populations. Indeed, I have quoted a number of times the observation made by some anonymous Alaskan Native elder that "it is the wolf that makes the caribou stronger". Would you use up your one harvest ticket to shoot a moose obviously diseased? No, of course not. Who'd want to eat a moose with some disease? Wolves will. And by doing so they will prevent that disease from spreading to other moose. Can a caribou develop flight mechanisms to elude a bullet? Nope. Can't outrun a bullet but they can outrun a wolf and in doing so continue to disperse their healthier genetics.
As for the Burris/AOC types...that caribou or moose with the huge rack is THE PRIZE! Never mind they are shooting what may be one of the best genetic strains in that population. All they can see is how good those antlers will look on their wall at home.
Don't be fooled by Burris' crocodile tears about our cultural heritage. Instead, ask him and the AOC (of which Palin is a member, btw) why there are no rural subsistence preferences.
"You're assuming that wildlife is a resource to be developed.
Some of us don't think that." - sdoownek.
Actually wildlife is the same as humanity in this regard. Have you ever heard of human resource departments and human capital? Why do you think childcare and education gets public funding? It is correctly done to decrease crime and increase productivity in the pursuit of happiness. (Although government mandated and run education can be used to oppress populations instead, as in North Korea)
Thus wildlife is correctly a managed resource and the question is whether the happiness produced by hunting and consumption is greater than the happiness produced by other forms of enjoyment of wildlife.
Everything's a resource, but I don't think there's much market for my armpit hair.
When I need food, I hunt with a rifle. When I want to hunt for the fun of it, I use a camera. (I've spent many a summer day stalking that big bull moose that used to live on Elmendorf AFB, hoping to get a good picture.)
We, the people of Alaska, tax people who hunt for food. We do not tax people who hunt with a camera or to simply view wildlife. I think that should change. It would be much more equal if non-consumptive users were taxed just like consumptive users. It would also serve to expand wildlife conservation beyond its traditional focus on game (i.e., food) animals.
I like the simplicity of putting it as 'Happiness'. What does give us the most happiness?
The items that you cite have been implemented and designed for the betterment and prolonging of human life. They have no reasonable or expected drawback to the continuation of life of a sentient being.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you're somehow superior to another living being--something that I don't agree with. Who are we, as humans, to assume that we shall have the right to "manage", through killing, the population of another species?
Your example and assumption that wildlife is there for either the enjoyment of consumption, *OR* other forms of enjoyment specifically precludes the reality that we, as humans, are not "in charge" of everything that lives.
Not only are you missing the specific intrinsic value that wildlife carries, you're also disregarding their role in a greater environment of an ecosystem, both anthropogenic and anthropodenic.
GO BUD! IF ya'll don't know this man you should. I have seen a lot change and people going against Alaskan way hunting and even shooting. IF they get this through who knows what is next. Like he said they have tried twice to stop us from hunting which is a crazy idea. If you think we should you aren't thinking about the families that hunt for the winter and the Alaskan Natives that use the animal for all means of way of life? Do you not know how Alaskan has been forever or you from the lower 48 and need to go hunting with us to see how it helps us and families survive through the winter? Don't tell me we can go to the store and by cow, turkey, ham, chicken and pig. Do you know how healthy it is to eat moose instead of cow? Do you know the feeling of eating bear or hunting like a true alaskan hunter or even just stalking a moose for a while? I bet you wouldn't change a thing if you were stuck out in the woods for months on end. Then you would have to hunt your own meat. Then you would have respect to the Alaskan Natives and the Alaskan Hunters. Vote No!
http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm...
Thats the fish and game website....
I am not way religious, but I do believe in God and the Bible. You state in your comment sdoownek:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you're somehow superior to another living being--something that I don't agree with. Who are we, as humans, to assume that we shall have the right to "manage", through killing, the population of another species?
Well, I happen to believe that man is put here on this earth to have dominion over the fish of the ocean, the foul of the air and all the creatures that move along the ground. I know you probably do not believe this, but to each their own. This is taken from the first chapter of Genisis:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
@yukonjohn:
Ah. Yup, there's the problem.
I don't believe in your mythical flying spagetti monster that lives in the sky.
As with most things, people tend to rely upon, or use religion to justify, explain, or give meaning to things they can't explain with logic, science, or mathematics.
So, quote your myth book to me if you'd like. As you suggested, it doesn't mean much to me.
Russell:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Dawkins:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
sdoownek - philosophy can be just as blinding as religion (Communism is a good example of a ridicules secular religion/philosophy). You seem to be more religious than YukonJohn in your moral beliefs on hunting.
The betterment and prolonging of human life decreases the amount of habitat for non-human mammals so education does have a negative impact on wildlife.
I have no problem with knowing that humans should manage wildlife for our betterment, just as nothing else in nature has a problem with consuming and/or managing other life forms when doing so benefits them. Humans are part of nature and the evolutionary process.
I, like the scientists of today and the pagans of old, understand nature and have no problems with my role within it and thus no guilt. Just as in an efficient economic system, rational self-interest benefits the system more in the long run than it costs. Technology and management (social technology) can not only be used to increase efficiency of the use of the same resources, but also to increase the amount of resources that can be harnessed for biomass maximization. Just because this is not the intention does not mean that it is the result.
Griff....I suspect the difference between shooting with a gun and with a camera (and why there is a license requirement for the former and not the latter) is that after you shoot with a camera the animal is still there for the next person to shoot with a camera. If, however, you shoot it with a gun, it's gone. You have it and the next person along may have just empty space in front of them. Such a removal process requires management and part of that is paid for by the license fees (though by no means all of it).
If the only shooting was via camera there would be no need for management. It would take care of itself has it has for eons.
Mind you, this is not an argument against hunting. Just an explanation of why there is no cost associated with photographing wildlife, scenery, etc.
I think about everyone posting here would agree, that regardless of what law may someday get passed, we will still fill our freezers with meat and feed our families.
Soownek
Hypocrite, you run down the very Constitution that allows management of the States resources while filling your freezer with the wealth of Alaska.
And Dobieman let us not get started again, seems the last time you couldn't deal with real facts and continually came up with bogus rhetoric. You can quote all you want but reality is the Fish and Game is the State of Alaska's arm of management and they are doing the job mandated to them if you have a problem there are channels to change the process by. I was able to effect change in that manner two years ago.
Neither of you two have come up with anything remotely effective except whining. Understand Predator Control is here to stay in Alaska, by trapping, calling, or aerial hunting. It is what we do here, can't stomach it there is always the lower 48 or better yet Boston.
Pbrown...it's interesting how you accuse folks of rhetoric then ignore linked facts and published data in favor of your own brand of diatribe. No little hypocrisy there, eh? And by the very constitution you duck behind it means your viewpoint is invalid. It took Palin and the Legislature purposefully ignoring these obvious messages from the electorate to put it back in place against the majority will but that sort of unethical behavior is fine with you as it serves your purpose.
As to aerial gunning, I get a kick out of the folks that say anyone opposing it should move to the Lower '48 as though they represent some majority when in fact both times it was put before Alaskan voters it was banned. Let me put that in another way....a majority of Alaskan voters feel your viewpoint, PB, is wrong. Period. Not a group from the Lower '48. Not anti-hunters as Burris would try to fool us into believing. Alaskans...hunters, non-hunters, subsistence folks, etc. In 1996 out of 40 legislative districts 36 voted AGAINST aerial gunning. That's a large majority of your fellow Alaskans, PB, telling you and your sort that is not the way we manage our wildlife. In 2000, out of 40 districts 29 voted against it, again putting forth the same message. I know you like to try and make this a non-Alaskan vs Alaskan issue but these are simple facts you can find in the election archives. And the fact you don't agree with a majority of Alaskans puts you in the..well...minority, now, doesn't it?
It's that simple, PB. Twice it was voted on by Alaskans and only Alaskans, twice Alaskans said "NO!" to aerial gunning. You can't get past that, you can't hide the fact, you can't whine it away. Former BOG members have voted against aerial gunning. F&G people have voted against aerial gunning. Bush residents, city residents... ALASKANS AND ONLY ALASKANS have banned aerial gunning and nothing you say or do can change that simple fact.
I know many hunters and to a person they feel aerial gunning is wrong. It comes up for another vote in August and in August for the third time it will be banned. But I have no doubt you will try to ignore what your fellow Alaskans have said and try to make something of it that it's not. I guess that's what you have to do when the facts of the matter are overwhelmingly against you.
Heck, PB...with your proven penchant for ignoring facts in favor of your own special myopia I wouldn't be surprised if you feel that, indeed!, Don Young is the man for all Alaskans! *Laugh* (After all, like you he's a big proponent of aerial gunning no matter what most Alaskans feel.)
Dobieman
Yes again, you spout the WildLife Alliance, Friends of Animals, and Defendersof Wildlife dribble. And yes the hunters did vote against aerial hunting but remember as I have stated before predator control is NOT aerial hunting which has always been against the law. And not just anyone can climb into a plane and go shoot wolves.
So your ablitity to twist facts into fiction works well for leading the Disney raised kids down the primrose path. Real Alaskans know better.
dobieman - fishing and hunting licenses, with their fees, were implemented as a means for funding conservation efforts. It was assumed that hunters and fishermen had a vested interest in game conservation and management and would therefore be willing to fund those efforts.
Now that nonconsumptive users have gotten involved in game conservation and management, it's time they stepped up to the plate and helped fund the efforts.
PB...."predator control", "intensive management"....I realize you need to sugar-coat the phraseology but it all boils down to aerial hunting. It's done in the air; they are hunting them down. Can't be much clearer than that no matter how politically correct you try to make it sound. Anyone with an airplane can apply for license and there isn't a whole lot in the regs to prevent someone applying from getting one. From that point on, it's aerial hunting, plain and simple. I realize you need to cache it in terms that makes it sound like it's based in science but when you have 172 wildlife professionals including several from Alaska writing a letter to state there is nothing scientific about it, it makes the truth a bit obvious.
As ever, you can attribute the votes to whatever you want. It doesn't change that fact that twice a majority of Alaskans voted it down and already 56,000 have signed petitions to have it placed on the August ballot for a third ban. Now, in your delusion you might think it is all just something cooked up by some groups but when you see the vote against aerial hunting knock it out of the sky..literally...you have to wonder. Either PB is just tossing the rhetorical cow-pie around or the majority of Alaskan voters belong to the three groups you noted.
Griff...I understand what you are saying...and, actually, through various conservation groups many non-consumptive folks contribute millions of dollars each year. But the point to be made is that without the extraction of wildlife from its population as happens with hunting and trapping, there is no need for management.
For instance, in Denali NP the funds are not for management of the wildlife as there is little of that done. The funds are for construction, road maintenance, park personnel to safeguard and inspect, guide and answer questions, etc. But as there is no hunting or trapping allowed there is no need to manage the wildlife, hence, no need to expend funds on a management process that doesn't exist. This is not to say there is not wildlife research done. Population studies, ethology, etc, all those go on but not as a means of management; rather as straight research. When you consider the millions and millions of dollars that go into supporting the park system, the vast majority of which comes from non-consumptive users then not only are they paying their way they are paying the way of visitors from other countries who do not pay taxes that fund such systems. Some parks do charge admittance fees, camping fees, etc. Others let you visit as you will. All share a commonality of no hunting and thus no management needed.
However, taken at its more basic form....non-consumptive users in Alaska DO pay quite a bit for the management of our wildlife already. Consider that according to F&G figures only about 14% of Alaskans have hunting and/or trapping licenses. That works out to about 90,000 residents. That's not enough to fund the operations of F&G, its equipment maintenance and purchases, its personnel, its programs, etc. The rest of the money used to keep F&G going comes from general funds which belong to all Alaskans. So that remaining 86% is supplying the lion's share towards paying for what the remaining 14% benefit from during the hunting/trapping seasons.
Citation:
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/07_OMB/bu...
Go to last page where you find listed (in thousands of dollars) the 2007 governor's budget for F&G being $171,448,4.
If you do some math for the 90,000 resident Alaskans with hunting/trapping licenses to entirely bear that cost of wildlife management it would come out to about $1,905 each. I haven't heard of that cost being passed on to that degree so the extra money comes from somewhere and that somewhere, as the budget shows, is the general fund which is the money "owned" by all Alaskans, most of whom neither hunt or trap yet they pay the main share of the cost incurred by those who do.