Search Our Site

Search form


Alaska Wolves Public Service Announcement

November 01, 2004 | Wolves

Friends of Animals would like to announce the release of a new public service announcement, now available. The name of the video is Alaska Wolves.

Alaska Wolves brings to viewers a dramatized scene of aerial wolf hunting. The practice was ended in Alaska in the 1970s, and the state’s residents have actually voted twice to end same-day use of aircraft for public wolf hunting and trapping. Yet pilots in search of prey have come back to haunt North American wolves under the Governor Frank Murkowski’s undemocratic leadership.



It is now clear that the Alaskans who want an end to the hunts need outside support. Alaska seems remote to many, but we believe that people will be motivated to intervene on behalf of the wolves once the world sees what is happening.

If you are a member of the media and are interested in airing this public service announcement copies can be made available upon request. Please email us at

Friends of Animals would like to thank the following individuals who contributed to the creation of this public service announcement: Chooi-Leng Tan, Todd Kuehnl, Arnold Gallardo, Scott Moran, Nathan Searles, Barbara LaRue, Leo Keeler, Dorothy Keeler, and Josh Schaerti.


Priscilla. I am very well aware of the fact that animals are not mine to destroy. And if the animals were mine alone, that is the last thing that would ever happen to them. This is were you (the anti hunters) Misjudge the hunter. You think that all we want to do is kill every animal. Well you have to ask yourself. If the hunters killed everything- what else could we kill when the animals were gone. We are not blood thirsty barbarians looking for our next bloodlust. Sorry to ruin that for you guys. The way I look at it is hunters love animals far more than anti hunters do. I base this soley on this. You do not want any animals killed.PERIOD. "I can respect that" However you would rather watch a large population of moose and caribou be wiped out by over populated wolves. And then watch the wolves die from starvation and disease becuase they have nothing to eat. You know, they are oppurtunistict killers and will eat one another. But one wolf wont go around to feed a whole pack for no more than a day. You would rather watch huge populations of animals die slow pianful deaths than let the state do its job. Simply remove a percentage of wolves in a certian area.And in doing this improving the quality of life for all animals. Including the wolves. So from my stand point I as a hunter am a enviromentalist becuase I care more about what happens to animals -Long Term- than any of you do. Sometimes I wonder if the people in charge of animal rights groups are just toying with all of your emotions to send them more money. But will it go to the wolf or will it go to the house or car payment. You want to help wildlife and spend money. Go buy a hunting license. And not for hunting. The money you spend goes directly to helping out the wildlife. In closing I am aware pricilla and the rest of the anti hunters that you and I will never agree on many things. One thing is for sure we both care about the the wildlife and hopefully have thier best intrests in mind. Cant we let the profesionals take care of this problem and try to pull together as hunters and anti hunters and try to support them in their decisions.

Jeff - The wildlife of Alaska got along just fine before humans got involved in their management. Species' populations will automatically adjust to an available prey/food source, and not in the epidemic famine-starvation you describe. If you truly love and admire wildlife then you would not have the heart to pull the trigger. Leave them alone and enjoy them alive and in their natural habitat, unexploited by humans. Scott Moran Friends of Animals

Jeff favors Alaska's bureaucrats because they reflect only the interests of hunters and trappers -- 14% of Alaskans who pay for licenses to kill animals for commercial benefit and pleasure. Those license fees are channeled to the state's Fish and Game Department -- hence their devotion to their hunter/trapper clients, and propaganda efforts that influence Jeff's thinking. If strangling wolves in neck snares and pumping them full of bullets equates to "loving" them -- then Jeff misunderstands love. Moreover, human and nonhuman animals fare better when they're respected, not dominated, and advanced the right to be left alone. Priscilla Feral Friends of Animals

this is the most ignorant thing I think I have ever heard! What is going on in this world...., This is upseting the natural balance of nature. This event cannot be tolerated. I think this govenor should be dropped off by one of his helicopters, in the middle of the wilderness, and see how well he fares, no gun, maybe tie a bloody carcass of fresh moose meat to him.......then he could have a reason to be scared of wolves!! They were in this wild refuge long before humans. Nature takes care of itself no matter how harsh.....humans are the ones who upset the balance ultimately destroying it and eventually themselves.

When are we going to learn that we are not the managers that we think we are. Stocking lakes with off species fish. Eradicating wolves in the lower 48. Taking other species to the brink and then lamenting the fact and then trying to bring them back. Nature will handle the balance if given the chance. If the food is lacking the wolves won't flourish and will hold themselves back until there is enough. If the wolves are flourishing and the litters are large and the packs are tells us that there is food enough for that to occur. Perhaps we ought to look at slautering some of the prey if we need to see more "red snow." The sports and guides will still get what they want. They will probably be the only ones spending any money up there until this is stopped. We were going to take a cruise to Alaska on one of the boats in the next two years. I assure you this will not happen if this carnage takes place.

Thank you, John. The sports and guides, in our view, should not kill any animals to get what they want. We do not advocate sacrificing one group of animals to support or to save another. Lee Hall
Friends of Animals

I can not belive that man is that shallow to think it is alright to hunt these defenseless Wolves !! It is sick and there is no justifiable reason
Grow up men
pick on somthing your own size!!!

I'll state my opinions on this topic as clearly as possible. I hope I am not met with personal attacks such as Ms. Feral's statement that "Jeff is most in need of a dictionary and evolution." I live in Alaska. I am not a hunter, but I do fish because I like fresh salmon. I don't hunt because I don't need to. I get frustrated with campaigns to 'save the wolves' because it seems very much that the only reason they need 'saving' is that they're majestic/noble/etc. If these animals were ugly, would there be the same support? If they weren't photogenic, would people still give money to save them? There are hundreds of animals on the threatened and endangered species list. Why is there no campaign to save the Mexican long-nosed bat? Or the kangaroo rat? Or the Alabama beach mouse? Is it because they're not majestic enough? If that's a requirement, then where's the campaign for the southwestern gray wolf? Or the red wolf? These animals are all either threatened or endangered, unlike the Alaskan gray wolf, yet there are no boycotts to California's tourism industry and no postcard campaigns to the governor of Texas? Lastly, to address those that suggest the people affected by this practice simply move to where they don't have to hunt: a lot of these people have lived in that area much longer than you might think. They have been living the subsistence life they lead for many generations. To go out and hunt and gather their food is how they get by. To suggest they move and catch up with modern society is like them asking you to give up modern society and live in the mountains for the rest of your life, living off of berries you find (and not being able to check your e-mail!), digging pits to relieve yourself in, and building shelters to keep yourself dry. Certainly this would be better for the environment, but it sure isn't nice for you to think about, right? Anyway, I'm not against what Friends of Animals does - everyone in this country has a right to express and do what they want. More power to you. However, I do think that some of the arguments presented here for protecting the Alaskan wolves could benefit from some 'devil's advocate' discussion and clearer explanation of the 'whys' behind all this. Thanks.

Hello, Jason. We find that any Alaska resident, regardless of wealth or status, might wish to be called a substinence hunter. As Priscilla Feral has said, substinence hunting, as defined in Alaska, includes dentists in Anchorage. And the people in villages such as Barrow have built a Mexican restaurant and hotels; they have satellite dishes, daily postal services, groceries — all the modern amenities. Moreover, the argument about substinence has negative consequences beyond its use to harm wolves. Artificially boosting moose populations eventually leads to crashes and serious damage to the habitat and other animals in it. It's myopic to try to run nature around in this way. As one letter-writer put the point to the Anchorage Daily News: "The governor and his appointed Game Board want to turn Alaska into a moose ranch." Really, the government must not be hearing enough calls to 'save the wolves' in Alaska, regardless of who might have said they're majestic or photogenic. They need help now; they are under systematic attack by Alaska's government officials. Regarding the threatened and endangered species lists, you are now raising another issue. You bet we work for many other animals. We work in collaboration with groups who promote biodiversity to do so; we acknowledge that all living beings are part of an interconnected community, and from us, all of them get respect. (Say, are you calling bats unphotogenic?) We are calling attention to the wolves, because focusing public attention on them is the best way we know to get Alaska to change its policies of systematic persecution against them. It isn't a matter of rating animals by how "majestic" they are -- although you are entitled to your adjectives. Glad to hear you are not against what we do. We can always benefit from creative thinking. You ought to consider subscribing to our magazine. Lee Hall
Friends of Animals

I would like to say much more, but unfortunately there are a barrier, english is not my native language, so is very difficult to me express my indignation. A question: who was there first? The wolves I think... Killing wolves, who wins? the hunters I think...They will be very happy to slaughter mooses...maybe only for their head trophy, and more and more dirty money for the licenses will spent. How can a person considered a "human" do that? They are a coward... sitting inside a plane comfortably, big guns,shooting innocent wolves. Hey! cowards..., why don't you TRY to kill a wolf by your "clean hands", face to face with the "terrible monster" don't you have two arms and two legs and teeth like them? Killers...-did you forget that you will be rotten and stink,like any dead wolf? (I hope soon, or maybe should be better you live long enough to see that WOLVES WILL WIN) Destroy the wolves and nature is destroy yourself... Sick videos, sick "people" All of us must continue to Howl: SAVE THE WOLVES... Jose Luiz, from Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


Add new comment