Zoos not contacted before Alaska biologists killed wolf pups
Published Thursday, August 21, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU -- Two of Alaska’s leading animal facilities say state wildlife officials did not try to place orphaned wolf pups with them before killing the pups.
The revelation is causing a stir ahead of Tuesday’s primary election, during which Alaska voters will decide whether to curtail the state’s predator control program.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists were given the OK from the state’s Board of Game to kill wolves if necessary on the southern Alaska Peninsula to protect a caribou herd considered to be in trouble.
Biologists shot 14 wolves from a helicopter in June. On the ground, they discovered and killed 14 pups orphaned by the shooting.
The state’s orphaned wildlife policy is first to leave an animal alone if it can survive on its own. If not, the department is supposed to look for a home. If no home is available, biologists are directed to kill the animals quickly instead of leaving them to die slowly.
Officials at the Alaska Zoo in Anchorage and the Haines Animal Center, the likely candidates to care for such animals, said they were never contacted.
The Alaska Zoo would have taken in and sought permanent homes for orphaned wolf pups, one official said.
“The first thing I’d do would be talk to the curator, figure out how many (pups) for how long, figure out a place where they could be appropriately placed,” Alaska Zoo Director Pat Lampi told the Juneau Empire. “We would certainly be willing to make some phone calls.”
Both Lampi and Steve Kroeschel of the Haines Animal Center, an educational facility, said the state did not call to ask about wolf pup placements.
Fish and Game Commissioner Denby Lloyd wrote an opinion piece in the Empire last week, saying the pups were euthanized “because we had no offers from zoos or other facilities to take in such pups.”
Joel Bennett, former Board of Game member and co-author of Ballot Measure 2 with Nick Jans, called that “clearly evasive.”
“They really didn’t make any effort ahead of time to try and place the pups,” he said.
Lloyd was out of town Thursday and not available for comment, his office said. A message left for other department officials was not immediately returned.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Government slaughters animals and it's called "wildlife management"
Natives slaughter animals and it's called "criminal"
Regardless of the method, murder is murder and waste is waste.
As this issue develops we are seeing more and more instances of "Oops, we're sorry; we didn't think...". First, we have F&G deciding to go denning, which is illegal. And denning it was for that is defined as removing young from their dens with the intention of killing them. Since F&G has been caught doing so it hasn't been able to explain why it waited so late in the season to go after the wolves (for it would have been far easier to track them in the snow), among other aspects. Now, we see where they went against F&G's own policy concerning orphaned wildlife. It appears from the articles in the Juneau Empire that there were ample opportunities to place the pups but no effort was made to contact any placement entity about them. And to add to that, suddenly public documents are being withheld by F&G on the basis there "might" be a lawsuit and they don't want to jump the gun. Since when is it in their authority to hold back public information that by law we all have access to?
This reeks of inept damage control, poor planning, and outright deceit but then that seems to be the hallmark of the aerial hunting crowd anymore and it seems F&G has now been infected with the same virus.
LostAlaskan, there is a difference between slauthering a herd of caribou and leaving them to rot on the ground vs shooting wolves that threaten to wipe out a herd of caribou. Not saying the killing of the pups was right but there is a difference between the two.
Big deal. Let's see - they discovered the pups on-site, so what then? Fly back out to an area with reception and make some phone calls to place them, then fly back in to capture or kill them? Sounds wasteful to me. Regardless of the outcome, the pups were still removed from the environment.
Give it up. It take what, about four months to grow pups of that age? They are easily replaceable. I rarely hear people whining like this over trees that take 60-100 years to grow, only to be destroyed for frivolous reasons.
I dont know who the Haines animal center is, but I do know that zoo's are animal lovers. Thier motto is lets captue them and put them in little feces filled concrete cages and let people tease them!!!
Palin you got another department to clean up. Wonder which state department will be next. Maybe someday these public employees will begin telling the truth and stop covering up their mistakes. Seems like the politicians are not the only ones with an ethics problem.
Wes...fact remains it is the stated policy of F&G to try to place orphaned wildlife. They didn't even make an effort to do so. This gunning was planned back in December so they had ample time to figure out all the ramifications and knew full well there would be pups around at that point. Additionally, denning...which is precisely what this is...is prohibited by state law. They knew which wolf pack was involved, obviously, and they could have gone out when there was still snow cover to make tracking easier, when there would have been no pups, and this whole mess could have been avoided. Instead, by saying they killed 28 wolves (and failing at first to note half of them were pups) it makes their statistics look good in the eyes of the Board of Game.
This whole episode just reeks....
Wes,
Completely agree. The problem is, that we now have people who value wolf lives higher than they value human lives and interests.
Dobieman,
Decisions are made, people sometimes have to work without a script. Honestly, why is it so different to kill the pups than the wolves? Because they're cuter?
Pragmatist and Wes, It is the law. ADFG broke the law. Period. You may not like the law and so you need to get it changed, but you can't break a law just because you don't like it or it's inconvenient. Wanton waste is also against the law and people who commit it should be punished to the maximum extent possible. ADFG should have conducted their wolf control in March (before the pups were born) instead of waiting until they were born. Now, they deserve to be punished for breaking the law. Period.
Pragmatist.....first, can you show me any documentation of normal wolves attacking anyone in Alaska in the past century? I'm not talking about wolves with rabies. Even a mouse with rabies will attack a person. I'm talking about stalking and attacking as done with prey. You won't find any. So your implication that "human lives" are being seconded to the interests of wolves is simply ludicrous. It reeks of "Red Riding Hood".
As to the decisions made, this was not some play-by-ear project. F&G began planning it back in December of 2007. They KNEW there would be pups. They KNEW if they killed the pups it would be denning and they know that is illegal. Why do you think the first press releases by F&G didn't mention the pups? This was no surprise to them. It was a calculated, planned effort to kill not only the adults but the pups with the hopes that no one would really catch on.
And as to why is it so different to kill the pups? Well, let's look at an analogy. If an adult human is shot there is a certain sense of tragedy, loss, sorrow, etc. But if a human baby dies it is a far greater tragedy. Now, by your reasoning it's a human either way so what's the big deal? But you know the truth of what I say.
Besides, F&G's policy, as it has been amply shown in both the article and comments attached, is that orphaned young will be placed in a zoo or placement facility when at all possible. As we have seen from zoo staff comments, that would have been quite feasible.....had F&G not ignored its own policy.
Dobieman,
First, you left off the "and interests" part off. Second, the reference to lives is in our society in general. People are more focused on saving the lives of specific animals than the sick, starving, dying, etc., of our own species.
Finally, why wolves? Why are they so much more important than other animals? Why aren't you outraged at the massive death rates of caribou by these wolf predators, or the genocide being perpetrated against mosquitos in backyards everywhere. Or the dogs being euthanized every day in the pound?
Wonder if employees will be put on administrative leave until investigation is done?
There are well over three hundred thousand caribou (just in the herd that got attacked by Point Hope), I don't think there are enough wolves to eradicate that ONE herd much less threaten the entire population of Alaskan caribou.
Sportsman take more animals than wolves do and only a small percentage of hunters actually NEED to hunt game for subsistence.
Don't worry there will always be plenty of game (and racks for your walls) for those people who only value wildlife as such, just because wolves kill to LIVE doesn't mean they need to be slaughtered.
LostAlaskan,
I'm not sure where you get the idea that hunters take more game than wolves. According to all the recent studies, wolves take 80% of the moose/caribou that die annually.
Let me correct the last statement... 80% of moose/caribou in the Interior...
Maybe Alaska should send all of those wolf puppies in the future that would died to Cal. or Washington D.C. in fact let's trap all our wolves and send them to the lower 48 so they'll be "safe"
Let me ask a question then-
Would those same hunters take the same animals that the wolves do? I thought it was "traditional" to get the healthiest, strongest and biggest racked, antlered, horned or otherwise endowed "big game animal".
Wolves prey on the easiest animals to kill, i.e.- the sick, the weak and/or the young. Healthy strong animals are able to fend off wolves MOST of the time.
Sport hunters take animals that wolves do not therefore disrupting the balance between predator and prey, cmon, it's ALASKA- "sportsman's paradise" and the "last frontier", you can't tell me that there aren't that many hunters in this state, not including the non-resident hunters (spending five figures a pop approx. to hunt "big game" here) and by golly, if they can't get their trophy because of some darned wolves than they (and their bank-roll) will never come back again.
No matter tho....*sigh- : ) "Nature Laughs Last."
Pragmatist, I think the ongoing issue regarding wolves is fueled by the people who are hell-bent to hunt them from an airplane. It is not natural, it is not game management, and you never hear of anyone sending the issue to vote 3 times(count em, 3) for bears or any other predator. I am simply astonished that it is going to take 3 votes to convince them that a majority of Alaskans are against aerial wolf hunting.
The law is the law. It has been illegal to take and kill wolf pups from the den, "denning," for FORTY YEARS. Inconvenience, or any other reason is nothing but an excuse, their actions were illegal. Period.
Sentient beings are not easily replaced. And illegal is illegal. What these "biologists" did is criminal and they can't get away with this. It is a outrageous. This is not a fair fight. This entire ordeal is un-Alaskan.
LostAlaskan99712
I totally agree with every post you wrote on here. Wolves only kill for their survival just like humans do. And the fact that those people shot at the pups from an airplane just made me tell myself that I'm going to make sure I vote against it.
I'm suprised that the court system gets involved when people in rural areas get charged for a crime when killing animals. They dont do it for the sport, they do it because the animal was a threat to the village, i.e. a bear roaming to close to peoples' homes and children might get hurt or killed. I cant believe that guy in Fort Yukon was charged with "poaching" a bear last winter. That bear might have killed someone.
Those of you against the measure keep the facts straight because those for it sure aren't. Ballot measure 2 would not have saved any of the 28 wolves killed since it was done by ADF&G biologists on an island where the herd is down to about 500 animals and only 5 calves survive anually. The hundreds of thousands of caribou in the western arctic herd couldn't make the swim to the island to repopulate it. That leaves the state with the responsibility to try to ensure a breeding population remained in tact.
When faced with saving 500 caribou by killing 28 wolves, they made the right call. The biologists who shot the 28 wolves killed the pups once they discovered that there was no adults left to care for them. Anyone who knows anything about wolves knows that the entire pack works to feed the pups, not just the mother. So without a pack the pups would have starved even with a mother if left to fend for themselves and that is the initial justification made by the biologists for killing the pups. Maybe this act will convince organizations to actively seek wolf pups from similar fates in the future, doubtful though since removing the pups could pose legal issues.
If as some have stated the biologists had acted during the snow fall, then maybe the wolves would not be on state land and, if they were, there would still be no pups to adopt out. I have seen no evidence that the biologists removed the pups from a den. For all any of us know, they were already out of their den and following the pack. So every argument against killing the pups is mute. The biologists did what they thought was the right thing to do given the situation and the requirement to reduce the wolf population on the island to save a dying herd of caribou.
I've personal seen a pack of wolves circle a moose cow with calf and move in for the kill .Wolves kill at random.I think there a few dog owners in North Pole that can tell you that.Fish and Game is allowed by Alaska law to manage wolves.I see no difference in managing wolves than having a pest control man come to my home and kill roaches,after all I don't have him there to kill butterflies.Vote no on ballot #2
ONAPA, while the argument against killing the pups may be moot, it will never be mute. Once people find an opportunity to bask in their personal self-righteousness the rest of us will never hear the end of it.
Here you go dobieman
Two wolf attacks on humans occurred in 2000.
Icy Bay, Alaska - Six-year-old John Stenglein and a nine-year-old friend were playing outside his family's trailer at a logging camp when a wild wolf came out of the woods towards the boys. The boys ran and the wolf attacked young Stenglein from the back, biting him on the back and buttocks. Adults, hearing the boy's screams, came and chased the wolf away. The wolf returned a few moments later and was shot. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) officials, the wolf was a healthy wild wolf that apparently attacked without provocation. The boy was flown to Yakutat and recieved stitches there for his wounds. Later, however, the bites became infected and the boy had to be hospitalized. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.)
Vargas Island, British Colombia - University student, Scott Langevin, 23, was on a kayak trip with friends. They camped out on a beach and, about 1 AM, Langevin awoke with something pulling on his sleeping bag. He looked out and came face to face with a wild wolf. Langevin yelled at the wolf and it attacked, biting him on the hand. Langevin attempted to force the wolf toward a nearby campfire, but as he turned, the wolf jumped on his back and started biting him on the back of his head. Friends, hearing his yells, came to his aid and scared the wolf away. Fifty (50) stitches were required to close the wound on Langevin's head. British Colombia Ministry of Enviroment officials speculate the reason for the attack was due to the wolves occasionally being fed by humans although there was no evidence that Langevin or any of his party fed these animals. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.)
This is but a brief summary of a few verifiable accounts of attacks on humans by healthy wild wolves in North American History.
Biologists tell us that the wolves of Asia and North America are one and the same species. Wolf attacks are common in many parts of Asia.
The government of India reported more than 100 deaths attributable to wolves in one year during the eighties. (Associated Press, 1985) This author recalls a news report in 1990 in which Iran reported deaths from attacks by wolves.
If you want to read the whole article..
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_h...
Swanny, Mute works too, but I thank you for correcting my grammar, I didn't proof read my words twice that time. Either way, the current measure would not have affected the outcome for the pups. Possession of live game animals is also a violation of the law.
Kill all the wolves and leave more Moose and Caribou for me! Dobie you smell like the mutt dog you named yourself after. Unless that is Doobie man which would explain your stand.
Pat
Pat, dammit, you beat me to it!
I was gonna make reference to the Doobieman, (which a few weeks ago we discovered he was NOT). Too bad , it sounds like he's one who could use it.
Re post #1:
Killing critters is not murder.
Plenty of village (and other) people used to cull their dog lots.
Bet plenty still do, secretly.
Thank goodness.
Next time they kill Rats in New Jersey they sould have to see if any Zoos want some rats!
How can you smell something through the computer???
Some of you spend way to much time here.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.