Search Our Site

Search form


Are They Out of Their Minds in Alaska?

March 08, 2006 | Wolves / Alaska Boycott

You've probably heard about it: They hunt wolves from the air in Alaska. Friends of Animals sued on behalf of the wolves, and in the interest of bringing sanity to Alaska. And the Superior Court said the state's aerial wolf-shooting scheme was breaking the law. But within days, the Board of Game concocted new rules. Hunters are back up in the air -- and out of their minds.

That's why, beginning in the 13 March edition of USA Today, the world will see advertisements reading "If you shoot wolves to save moose, and then you shoot the moose, you're either out of your mind or in Alaska."

Advertisements will also run in other high-profile publications, including The Nation (3 April), The Progressive (May), and Harper's (May).

wolf ad by Friends of Animals
Boycott Alaska ad, appearing in USA Today on Monday, March 13, 2006

"Aerial wolf-shooting has long been a thrill-seeking opportunity," said Priscilla Feral, Friends of Animals president. "But Board of Game members insist that there's a reason for what they enable."

And here it is: Wolves must be gunned down to stop them from killing moose. That way, later on, other hunters can kill the moose. And this is why they're aiming for 400 more wolves this spring.

You can help. Stay in your right mind, and pledge to avoid travel to Alaska.

A gallery of wolf supporters have converged at So far, a hundred people have posted their photos, and more are coming each day to declare: "We'd rather be here than in Alaska." Pictures are arriving from individuals and groups near iconic landmarks and destinations, lines at local banks and post offices, and packed subway cars.

"I'd Rather Be Here than in Alaska" pictures can be submitted electronically at the Boycott Alaska web site.


I am a born and bred Alaskan. I would like to say only: If you are not a resident of Alaska,keep your damn nose out of our fish and game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live in the upper part of Michigan the one they call GOD'S country in the UP of Michigan. Well we are going to have the same problem here as in Alaska. But they are thinking on letting hunters kill them. Because the deer hunters say the wolves are killing all the deer. And that is alot of bull.. Is our Goverment that hard up for cash . They want to kill the wild horse. For profit Now it's the wolves. Next it's going to be the grizzly's. What's next??? Will it ever STOP I say let them hunt them they way the did BEFORE GUNS And BOWS And lets see who provales.

Get off your damn high horse.I live in Alaska and do believe in the protection of animals,however in the small village I live in we depend on moose for our subsistence. Most of us grow our own vegetables and live off of the land who are you to tell us how to live???When you become an Alaskan then speak, until then shut the hell up!!!!!!!

[Blog editors' note: Unfortunately, the following writer misunderstands the campaign. There is absolutely nothing hateful in an advertising campaign geared to pep up public concern again in the "lower 48" and motivate action from within the state. And the Board of Game, well, if they've taken leave of their senses, then someone has to point it out. Don't shoot the messengers. Some of us Friends of Animals live in Alaska too, you know. We respect Alaska residents, but let's keep the focus on the wolves.] I think starting a hate campaign is bad for all sides. sure the wolves need protection, but the people of alaska depend on subsistence hunting and fishing to feed their families and communities. wolves population in areas have increased to the point were the wolves are starving to death because they have killed out their food source. I think Alaska department of fish and game has tried to keep up with the demands of managing the vast area of alaska . Maybe giving some advice and sitting down and talking about a solution than spending the dollars on hate campaigns and bashing the people of alaska would make more sence. I love Alaska but most of all the people here is what make this place a Great place to live.


I am a resident of Fairbanks, Alaska, and I do not see any reason why people that do not live here should try to save our wildlife. I understand your concern for these animals, but you have obviously not taken into consideration the fact that there are hundreds of villages of Alaska Natives that rely on subsistence hunting to survive. These people depend on wolf control to keep the moose and caribou populations up, so that they can have enough food to eat throughout the year. Is this organization putting the lives of animals above human life? Also, I do not see any need for tourists to boycot travels to our wonderful state. Wolf control keeps the wolf popultions in check, they are not out to destroy every pack in the state. There are still plenty of wolves for the tourists to enjoy. Furthermore, the tourism industry is a very large part of our economy. Alaska would probably fall into an economic slump if enough people decided not to travel here. The people involved in this organization are obviously out of their minds. They encourage economic decline and protest the survival of hundreds of rural villages. So here's a new slogan for you: I'd rather be out of my mind than in yours. [Blog editors' note: That's fine; there is little danger of your occupying our minds. By the way, in the years that aerial wolf control was disallowed, did the people of Alaska appear to be suffering as though from the Potato Famine? Did many of Alaska's residents immigrate to the Lower 48 and open pubs?]

dude you should be banned from breeding, you retard, to think of you reproducing at all is bad for the environment... that stuff you say about the potato famine is so wrong, what are you tring to say about alaskans? I should find you and kick your ass. you have such a ass backward view on the world I feel sorry for the dead part of your brain that actually lets you think before you do something...

Drawing a comparison between Michigan?s Isle Royale and Alaska is not logical. Isle Royale is 850 square miles. The area in Alaska that is experiencing predator control is many, many times larger than that. Aerial control is the most effective method of covering such a large area. A subsistance lifestyle takes priority over sports hunting and the areas affected are predominantly used for subsistance living. Jim T Kenai, AK [Blog editors' note: The Board of Game is meeting now with schemes to expand the wolf control area, but currently, the aerial shooting is allowed in a 50,000 square mile area -- equal to the size of Alabama. There's also unlimited use of snowmachine-hunting allowed in unofficial areas. Anyway, there's no scientific or ethical justification for this abuse, and no real need to shoot wolves so that people are fed. Apologists for wolf control actually want to kill predators. They're interested in numbers, nothing more.]

katie wrote: Just so you all know, we get more visitors up here to hunt those moose than we?ll lose to this ad campaign. if there are so few moose, why are out of staters allowed to hunt in that area? perhaps it's the out of staters hunting that is causing low numbers. therefore, wouldn't you encourage boycott of alaska by out of staters to increase the moose numbers? boycott is a GOOD thing then. G.C. E.R.,Ak.

I currently live in the "lower 48" but own property in Alaska and consider Alaska as my second home. I plan to move my family there in the next year or so. I say the Alaska department of wildlife resources knows what they are doing and support their actions. If you were familiar with the Alaska way of life you would know that many Alaskans, especially in the remote areas (much of Alaska) depend on Moose and other animals in order to eat and do not kill animals for "sport". If the wolf population is left unchecked these animals used for food will have a difficult time surviving. [ Blog editors' note: You've listened to the state's wolf control proponents for too long. A wildlife scientist in Alaska whose research FoA sponsors disagrees in his testimony to the Board of Game this week, and in his March 2006 Abstract: "The Case Against Wolf and Bear Control In Alaska." Dr. Gordon Haber's opening sentence: The existing data do not support allegations of moose and moose-hunting problems in five large areas of Alaska where wolf-bear control is underway." Haber defines the biological, scientifc and ethical costs of the control program which are ignored by the state when the state is selling its predator control program.]


Add new comment