Alaska Wolves Public Service Announcement
Friends of Animals would like to announce the release of a new public service announcement, now available via Internet. 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.
We have set up a special donation page, and we ask for your help to further our efforts to save Alaska Wolves.
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 info@friendsofanimals.org.
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.
64 Comments
On November 2, 2004, kirsten wrote:
I dont know what to say but it is exceedingly sick how ill mannered the world is acting. I dont know how people can just take lives away like that and in that fashion its SICK. you have to be a very unsecure and ill minded person to do it. I sent an e-mail… lets help the wolves!!!!
On November 2, 2004, Brooke wrote:
I was born and raised in alaska for 22 years, I now live in reno nevada. My mother sends me these emails about the wolves and it makes me want to cry…..these people have no hearts. I dont agree with this at all and believe that this should be put to a stop, this is there food, they have more right to it than we do…..
On November 3, 2004, mike wrote:
I am from Reno NV and I find this to be very disturbing. This is Poaching, there is no other word for it. We need to help the wolves and send these sick individuals to jail. Lets do it people, together we can and will make a difference.
On November 4, 2004, Johnathan wrote:
The people that hunt wolves are savage idiots. They have no right to kill wolves who are hunting to live, not living to hunt.
On November 4, 2004, Donovan wrote:
i think this is wrong and and stupid how would the poachers like us to kill them just because they are eating some food we have to LOOK for
in the grocery store i think killing any animal
just beacuse the think its fun is the most distcusting thing that U.S.A. actually ALLOWS
On November 6, 2004, Diandra wrote:
I cannot believe that in what we call a civilized society that such heinous acts of cruelty still exist in the year 2004. What has man learned of his past, nothing! Man continues to bully and kill the innocent. If they want the thrill of the chase and the kill, then I say “let them, with what God gave man, two arms two legs and nothing else.” Then lets see how thrilling the kill is when armed with no weapons or place to hide.”
On November 6, 2004, Shanna Bailey wrote:
There are alot of us right here in Alaska that are angry about the wolf aerial hunting. The problem is that we don’t know who to get ahold of to try to stop this. There is also a new project taking place where they are going to kill off up to 80 grizzlies to (so they say) rejuvinate the moose population for the hunters. I would imagine alot of people are against this and would like to know how to get ahold of the people in charge, we need some info. Thanks
On November 6, 2004, Jeff wrote:
Well folks I live in Alaska. Did you hear that I live here. I don’t tell you how to live don’t tell us how to live. The wolves decimate the moose population. Wolf populations are higher than the populations of animals they prey on. These wolves are killed and used, they arent slaughtered and left to rot. It isn’t poaching either. poaching is unlawful. I dare anyone in the lower 48 to make claim their state has harsher hunting penalties than Alaska. Like I said earlier worry about where you live we will worry about where we live. Thank you
On November 7, 2004, Scott wrote:
Well, folks I too live in Alaska. And I am sick and tired of being ignored by a majority republican aka corrupt government that doesnt give a second thought to democracy. Also, did you know that for every $1 Alaska put into the country Alaska gets $1.90 back? That means that each American is more economically vested in this state than even Alaskans. So, Jeff…stop being anti-American. This land belongs to all Americans, not just a few thickheaded morons.
On November 8, 2004, Steele wrote:
Jeff, its not about other people telling you how to run your state. It is about how you don’t have the right to slaughter wolves in the first place. It is not your place to police nature and interfere with other beings right to life. The wolves and ungulates where there long before our kind where. Whether or not you use what you kill makes no difference to the wolves, they are dead. It is not about our interest, it is about the animals intrest.
On November 10, 2004, Carla wrote:
I came to this site because someone had sent me this FoA to make a donation. And send a complaint to the Governor of Alaska.
I am a friend to animals. I must be on some kind of a list. Yes, I have been planning a trip to Alaska, but now I’m not sure when. I marvel in the beauty of Alaska. BUT, killing Wolves or any other animal so something else becomes easier for hunters sounds sick to me!
On November 11, 2004, Lisa wrote:
I am a University of Alaska Student and am writing an analytical report on wolf management in Alaska. I have plenty of information on the department of Fish and Game but I would like some information from animal rights activists on their take on the issue. I see a lot of “you murderers!” and “you people are sick for killing wolves that are killing off all the moose that PEOPLE live off of” but I was curious if there was more of a WHY is it bad to kill the wolves if it means better food supplies for people in rural villages? Thanks!
On November 12, 2004, Bob Orabona wrote:
Dear Lisa,
If you are truly writing an analytical report, you might first ask the Department of Fish and Game if they have any scientific research showing that killing the wolves will increase the number of moose or caribou in the killing area, or increase the food supply for the villagers. But given that the villagers have many modern conveniences and are not dependent on hunting, the answer from Fish & Game would be largely irrelevant. And it would be far more economical to spend the money being wasted on wolf-control on programs that would directly address any food shortages (are there any?) in the villages.
We do know that the villagers have a choice as to where they live and what they eat, but the wolves do not. And we know that wolves and humans have for centuries been able to successfully co-exist without the aerial-gunning of the wolves. There then seems no point to the wolf-control — especially the type which is opposed by the majority of Alaskans.
On November 19, 2004, Lilly wrote:
I am truly astonished by the way people are. It is SO idiotic to kill these wolves, and for what reason? so there are enough animals for US to kill for fun. people are always getting in a rave when somebody is shot, well, i am in a rave about these wolves getting shot. people dont understand, they are heartless and foolish, they just dont care. I, and hopefully many of you will join me to SAVE THE WOLVES!!
On November 20, 2004, Lisa wrote:
Yes, I was amazed at how much contradiction I have found in the Department of Fish and Game, and also found it interesting that the Board of Game up here is completely in charge of wildlife management. I am not finding anything that says they can prove how they get their numbers of wolves OR moose. I find it hard to believe, that people can actually SEE wolf or moose tracks in the snow while flying from an airplane. I can understand now what all the fuss is about. You are right, there doesn’t really seem to be a point to the wolf management. One source I read said that wolves were largely adaptable but are now only found in large numbers in Alaska and northern Canada.
I find myself getting irritated that the ADF&G and the Board of Game sit there and say the public influences their decisions, when ultimately its the six predator control advocates that Murkowski chose who decide everything despite a public outcry. True, I still see extremity from both sides of the issue, in that hunters are frantic over low moose numbers (I think they said 580 in 5200 square miles in Unit 19Deast) and roughly 500 wolves. I see this to be a somewhat scary issue for all involved. Not enough moose, too many wolves to feed here, and also the rural area of McGrath has people to support as well. Indeed these people do choose where they live, as anyone does, and if you live in Alaska its gorgeous here, and perhaps they really like it there in McGrath. They have no roads there and must come and go by plane, and food at their local market is said to be very expensive, to the tune of $5 a pound for hamburger. (YIKES!!)This area does seem to have areal problem. They say between wolves and bears 2/3 of all moose calves are taken as prey. The moose population is stable they say but very low. The wolves are in trouble, the moose are in trouble, and the people are in trouble. The smart thing to do would be to relocate more moose IN to the area maybe?
Thanks Bob for your input!!Anyone else have something to add please let me know, I have two weeks to fine tune this report so I am all ears! Thanks!
On November 24, 2004, maria wrote:
I have been interested in wolves since i was a child and i understand both points of view but what i still dont understand is why we continue to destroy one of the most majestic creatures on our planet. What i hate the most is the same cries aboyt cattle and about the game in the area. How long can you go on with the same stories each time. Let’s come up with hard based facts and then come up with a real solution that will benefit everyone!!! I also am a soldier in our army and i have seen what war is and what man does to there fellow ma, i can only imagine what they do to animals. I majored in bio-chemistry and now have my B.S. and even with all the knowledge i have obtained from college i cannot see why we are destroying our world. There are other solutions to the problems in alaska and telling other to worry about there own state is dumb. ok i will use the word cause it describes the issue. This is everyone’s world and every person needs to worry about every issue on our planet before we destroy the wild life and all those who live on this planet. We are all tied together in a very delicate chain. We need each other to continue to live on our world. If we continue to destroy this planet we will be destroying ourselves and our future generations!!!
On November 24, 2004, Sharon wrote:
I also live in Alaska, and like many others, feel helpless with the deaf ear our supposed “leaders” are turning! We need all of the help we can get to stop this disgusting massacre that’s going on!! Many thanks to Priscilla and her crew, for the many hours and dedication to this worthy cause.
Sharon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlaskaWildlife
On November 29, 2004, kodiak wrote:
killing wolfs like THAT is just disgusting it sickens me to even think about shooting a poor innocent creature like that and sled dogs oh my god they have to pull at least 500lbs for miles on end so just think when you watch a sled dog movie or a sled race what are those dogs going through dude save the alaska wolves
On November 30, 2004, Priscilla wrote:
I am college girl from China, and I am an animal-lover.This announcement shocked me a lot!How the hunters could do that!There’s no big difference between people and animals.We are the same-we need to be loved,so do the animals!We need the environment to survive,and so do the animals!We have no right to deprive what the animals have owned.The wolves in Alaska need the public attentions.The ability alone can’t make it.So,I hopefully the world could pay close attention to this matter!
On December 2, 2004, Joan Sun wrote:
My heart is crying for the senseless loss of my relatives’ lives. I do not understand how someone can be so heartless. The wolf did nothing wrong to deserve the treatment that is being given them. The Governor of Alaska needs to have his head examined.
On December 7, 2004, Tina wrote:
I agree with Scott about the things Jeff said. I also think it is not right to take wolves’ lives just for the sport of killing animals when it isn’t needed. They’re trying to make a problem — for their entertainment.
On December 8, 2004, Gail Roberts wrote:
I am outraged by the proposal to kill 500 wolves in Alaska - but what can one expect from a country that has already killed more than a hundred thousand people in Iraq? I feel as if I’m living in a medeival country where religion and violence rule - So many Gods, So many creeds, when kindness is all this sad world needs.
On December 10, 2004, Brooke wrote:
I am also outraged by the proposal to kill more wolves by arial hunting, and by the deaths that have already been incurred in that population through that means. Killing for thrills and pleasure is a disgusting practice. It starts with animals, and the lack of sensitivity to life extends to people. When I saw the video, I wished that there was a way for the wolves to fight back. To see any creature flea for its life with so little chance of survival is terribly sad.
On another note, predator populations will correlate with prey populations to preserve a natural balance, and if wolves are killed off and ruminant populations do grow (which I doubt), another predator group (and likely not humans)will compensate.
Nature knows what she is about and humans would do well not to interfere.
On December 16, 2004, Laura wrote:
I was born in Puerto Rico and i still live there. I’m 16 yrs old and my only comment is that we dont give life to take it away from anyone stealing someones elses life even if its just from an animal (such as wolves) is a really sick thing to do. People that are practicing this kind of hunt should be more concious about what are they doing.
On December 21, 2004, Jennifer wrote:
You know, I’ve lived here in Alaska for 13 years now. I happened to come across this page while doing an assignment on what should be done on wolf management for my ecology class. I think it’s clear that I’m going to say that the wolfs should be preserved. Especially after watching that sad video. They’re not even using the wolves as any kind of food for their families! They’re just killing them off for the fun of it? It’s BULL
On December 21, 2004, Janie PUP Thomas wrote:
The killing just has me sad with tears, why have that law that there arent enough moose , so theyre killing the wolves . There has to be a balance in the wilderness, and man should not be the extension of that balance. It would just happen naturally. The hunters are sport hunters and they are just taking advantage of the killing of wolves.Wolves are peaceful animals that would keep the wilderness in balance. There is plenty of moose for them and for those that survive on hunting for food, and clothes. There shouldnt be any other hunting of wolves, or moose except those that require them for food , clothes and other materials that they make out of the animals.
On December 24, 2004, Jeff wrote:
I am agree with the other jeff. Stay out of our states business. And to Donovan, its not the same as going to the grocery store to get grocery’s. It is disgusting that you would hold a wild animals life higher than anouther human beings. And we are not poachers. Look up the definition before making cliams like that.
Also wolves are not being killed because we think they are competition. They are being managed becuase the wolf to moose and caribou ratio is uneven. Management has to be done done for the wolves to have healthy pups next year so that wolf numbers can be strong. At the same time giving moose and caribou a chance to stablize in the areas targeted. It is idiotic that some people think alaskans want the wolves to be wiped out. That would cause a catastrophy for all of the the animals in which the wolves prey on. They would over populate and starve and get diseases. And that is what alaska fish and game is trying to stop from happening to the wolves. As for the lower 48’s lack of wolves. That is due to poor managment. The exact opposite of what is going on up hear. The thing to do back in the day was to wipe out the wolves in the lower 48. Poor decision making on our part (humans). I know that mankind has learned their lesson from that and that is not what is happening up here.
On December 27, 2004, Priscilla Feral wrote:
Jeff’s arguments above carry no weight. Jeff is most in need of a dictionary and evolution.
I’ll repeat one small cogent point: the free-living wolves, bears, moose and other nonhuman animals in Alaska are not his to destroy.
Priscilla Feral
Friends of Animals
On December 27, 2004, Peggy Quinn-Eck wrote:
Has anyone read “Thinking Like A Mountain” A Sand County Almanac By: A Leopold?
Please do and consider…
Peggy Quinn-Eck
On December 27, 2004, Megan Rahn wrote:
It makes my body fill up with sorrow watching that short, but long horrifying clip of man trying to kill the wild. I believe the animals (non-human) were here FIRST! If anything, they should be ruling our world, they should be hunting us, NOT us “humans” hunting them. The wild deserves BETTER. We are taking over their home, with numerous and numerous buildings for our benefits.It’s not fair. What about the innocent animals? Pretty soon, they will have no where to live and nothing to hunt. Its a distraut feeling. I want to be able to help out with the animals, including the wolves!! Let them live!! its their land too! Wolves have feelings and family too!
On December 28, 2004, jeff wrote:
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 Termthan 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.
On December 28, 2004, Scott Moran wrote:
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
On December 28, 2004, Priscilla Feral wrote:
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
On December 29, 2004, cHRISTOPHER CONLISK wrote:
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.
On January 27, 2005, john wrote:
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 strong….it 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.
On January 28, 2005, Lee Hall wrote:
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
On January 28, 2005, Jenny Fugazzotto wrote:
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!!!
On February 3, 2005, Jason wrote:
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.
On February 3, 2005, Lee Hall wrote:
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
On February 4, 2005, Jose Luiz wrote:
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
On February 5, 2005, Ellie wrote:
Hi Lisa,
As you welcome additional thoughts for your report, I’d like to share my view.
Despite claims that Alaskan villagers must hunt moose to survive, they are indeed making a choice to eat moose, or hamburgers, or plant-based foods. Thus, their “subsistence” problem is one of their own creation.
Besides that, moose, wolves, and other free-living animals can adjust their populations naturally when they are not hunted.
So we need to reconsider how the choices we make can cause harm to ourselves and other animals, as well as our environment.
Ellie
On February 9, 2005, Kaitlin wrote:
This is for the two Jeffs and anyone else who wants to ‘manage’ the ratios of wolves. Lets put something into perspective here, we don’t go around managing the amounts of PEOPLE. When was the last time that you said, “there are too many PEOPLE living in Alaska…we need to do something about that!”The last time I checked, People weren’t created to kill other things.
On February 9, 2005, Jessica wrote:
This is something I find needs immediate action! People weren’t put on this earth to control the population, they were meant to expand it! If they want to hunt something go put two people in a moose costume! Why would they want to do this to such beautiful creatures? I pray that this will end soon, to their benefit and ours. Please give your support for those reading this page.
On February 10, 2005, kate wrote:
I travel to Alaska each year from Ireland to work the Iditarod and here I meet up with other volunteers from all over the world. Alaska must be one of the most beautiful places I’ve been to, but what disappoints and saddens me every time I go is that almost everyone I meet either wears fur (from whatever origin), is an active and avid purchaser of it, or hunts - it seems that nobody stops to consider anything aside from their own gratification and ‘right’ to decimate these resources as they see fit. For a place where, to my mind, the most incredible assets lie in nature including animals in their own habitats, I find this senseless plunder by its own citizens and people from outside unbelievable.
On February 10, 2005, Art Greenwalt wrote:
First, to the postings by the anti-wolf Jeff I would say after 36 years of living here and having hunted successfully in my younger years I found if I didn’t get a moose or caribou it wasn’t because there weren’t any; I just wasn’t skilled enough as a hunter. The kill rate (ever notice how hunters “harvest” while wolves “kill”) of moose and caribou is far below their population numbers; they can often sustain more of a take. But the subsistence hunter success is poorer in part due to competition from the city hunters with ATV’s, expensive riverboats, and planes. Too, even the genuine subsistence hunter isn’t always doing their best. The folks at McGrath were complainig how they were going to starve for lack of moose at the same time a splinter herd of about 22,000 caribou were just 50 miles (which is easily traveled on a snowmachine) from the town. However, some just didn’t prefer caribou, it seemed.
When hunting season hits Alaska you see pick-ups almost in convoys along the highways hauling 1, 2, even 4 ATV’s. The Tanana River campground outside of Fairbanks becomes a boat launching site that would almost rival the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. When I hunted, I’d spend 5 hours climbing up Macomb Plateau, however many hours hunting, and almost another 5 coming down the plateau. Now, you see hunters writing to complain about having to fly 100 miles in their private plane and then walk almost 2 hours (migosh!) to their bear-baiting station where they sit on their butts (which must occlude their thinking) waiting to ambush a bear while they teach the ones they don’t shoot that human food is most desirable. In short, the modern hunter complains about not having moose but doesn’t accept the responsibility of working for what they want. It’s easier to kill off any competitors which, short term, works but long term can make for disastrous overpopulation, devegetation, increased animal/vehicle collisions and so forth.
Second, the Alaska travel boycott. I wish it was working but it ain’t. You’ve got Murkowski, enough of a dunderhead to not pay attention to that but to focus his mind on the support he would lose from the NRA/trappers/AOC bunch up here, and Ralph Seekins (and other legislators) who frankly don’t care that twice Alaskans have voted down the very aerial hunting he has made possible. Again, he knows he can count on the anti-wolf influence, which sadly is quite strong in Alaskan politics right now. Might I suggest a different or alternate boycott? Seekins, the prime mover of anti-wolf legislation this session, is the state’s biggest Ford dealer. Ford, as a company, is spending millions of dollars to present itself as environmentally friendly. What happens when potential customers go into Ford dealerships across the country, browse, then ask about how Ford can be environmentally concerned and at the same time one of their top dealerships is run by this Seekins fellow who is trying to wipe out the wolves and bears in Alaska? I think Ford would be a lot more sensitive to a boycott and the national attention it would garner than ol’ Uncle Frank up here in Alaska. Run a couple well-placed ads in large newspapers asking this question and see how long Ralph can stand the heat. If that national pressure then comes back to bite ol’ Ralph where he sits and thinks, even he might start to back off.
Oh..and third, to Jeff the anti-wolfer…nowhere in the state of Alaska does the wolf population exceed its prey population. Even with their wildly inflated figures F&G puts the wolf pop. at a max of 11,200 (highly questionable; it’s likely less by a couple thousand at least) while moose total over 125,000, caribou are over 1,000,000. Even Dall sheep are in the 25,000 range.
You want to give moose and caribou populations a chance to really grow naturally? Cut down on the allowed use of motorized vehicles in hunting. You can drive the paved roads all you want but once you are off the pavement you are on foot. You’d see a lot of the weekend warriors fold up their tents and steal away to softer pursuits; you’d preserve core areas where moose, sheep, caribou are relatively safe from hunting; you’d make it more of a fair chase situation where, God forbid!, the hunter actually has to earn what he or she takes instead of just running it down on a 4-wheeler. BTW, having owned a couple of those I have to admit they are addictive but even with the best of intentions and the softest throttle hand they can chew the heck out of the tundra in seconds flat. There are 4-wheeler ruts in the moss up at Eagle Summt (on the Steese) that are still quite visible after 10 years and the trail into Colorado Creek off Chena Hot Springs Road has areas so badly rutted even a 4-wheeler gets stuck. As the trails get worse the treads get more aggressive and the ground suffers.
Anyway…just some thoughts from someone who has lived here a goodly while, has lived both sides of the question, and who has a real deep worry about what is happening to Alaska.
Thanks and let the rocks fly! Grin
…Art Greenwalt, in Fairbanks
On February 10, 2005, Art Greenwalt wrote:
PS: Heck, as to my boycott-Ford-and-Seekins idea, you can also go to the Ford Motor Company website and post a question to them along these lines. If you have the time and inclination making both a posting and a visit to ask these things of Ford would be doubly effective. I guarantee if enough potential customers are just asking these questions, Ford will sit up and take notice and maybe…just maybe…Ralph will have to make a decision he might not want to make. All it will take is one legislator like him being bitten hard enough and the rest will start to think twice about their own vulnerability in this regard. Our Alaskan politicians may not have the experience or sophistication as the more accomplished ones in the Lower ‘48 but I’ll bet they can match them for basic venality any day of the year and that can be worked to help conserve Alaskan wildlife.
…Art
On February 10, 2005, Art Greenwalt wrote:
The “I don’t think I’ll buy a Ford today” campaign has begun. Very modestly, I’ll admit, but from little acorns… I just finished sending an email to Ford (see https://www.ford.com/en/support/emailUs.htm to post your own) in which I explained what I was doing and why. Prominent mention of Ralph Seekins, our newly-elected state senator here in Alaska as the progenitor of the spate of aerial hunting travesties took up most of the letter in describing the why and wherefor.
In addition to whatever efforts you are making in conjunction with FOA and other groups, might I ask you also consider adding this to your “weaponry?” Just a short note letting them know Ford is spending mucho bucks on their environmental image, Seekins’ efforts against wolves are certainly directly contrary to that image, and that a grassroots boycott of Ford could result should suffice. Just to give it a little sting, you might want to include the line “I don’t think I’ll buy a Ford today.” They don’t know if you were going to or not…but they will definitely know after reading what you have posted.
Pass the word around. You can do this via email, by a visit to your local dealership, or by both, whichever suits your inclinations. Enough such comments to the company and its dealers and Mr. Seekins might come to regret his actions.
If you have any question about the idea or the Alaskan wolf situation I would be glad to answer them via email to dobieman@acsalaska.net. FOA has some excellent info available and I recommend their data and input especially when it is coming from Dr. Gordon Haber who has many decades of field research into wolves here in Alaska. I doubt there are many Ak. Fish and Game folks with his time and experience to their credit and probably even fewer trappers.
Attend the howl-ins, help with the tourism boycott (it would work if enough get involved), and let Ford know you won’t be buying a Ford today because of Ralph Seekins.
Thanks!
…Art, in Fairbanks
On February 15, 2005, Carol Gustman wrote:
I won’t be buying a Ford today. But I will be writting to Ford and I will be sending a letter out to all our SPCA contacts and ask them to write to Ford.
Thank you for this info Art. We will do all we can.
On February 17, 2005, Ellie Maldonado wrote:
The Alaskan Iditarod, which is noted above, is an annual dog race which forces sled dogs to run 1,100 miles over the roughest terrain on earth. The event, which begins in Anchorage and ends in Nome, is sponsored by mega-corporations, so the media has chosen to promote it as fun. But nothing could be further from the truth.
The Iditarod really begins in hundreds of Alaskan kennels where many more dogs are bred and trained than will ever run the race. Overbreeding is done deliberately, as this allows breeders and mushers to select the strongest and fastest among them. They cull or kill the rest.
Dogs selected for training commonly live outside, even in the coldest Alaskan temperatures. They are often confined by teethers only 4 feet in length, which forces them to eliminate in the same area where they sleep. This is completely opposite canine natural behavior, and no doubt this causes them distress. In an attempt to free themselves, dogs frequently develop sores on their necks areas. They may also sustain neck injuries on the exercise wheel, a pre-training practice.
During the Iditarod, dogs are raced over the course of 8 to 15 days, and are given little opportunity to rest. In 2004, 1000 dogs were lined-up for the event but only 50% made it to the finish-line. Until recently, there have been no records of how many dogs died during the race. But it’s estimated that since 1997 at least 120 dogs have died during the Iditarod—from causes which include heart failure; pneumonia; strangulation on the towlines; and internal hemorhage. This figure speaks only for deaths reported. The actual number may be much higher.
In addition, an Oklahoma State study of 59 surviving dogs found that 81% had developed lower-airway disease. Although the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine chose to call these findings a result of ‘strenuous exercise in cold temperatures’, it’s obvious that subjecting dogs to the trauma of the Iditarod is far more than strenuous.
There is no record of how many dogs have died after the race from varying conditions sustained while running.
The Iditarod is a one of many heinous examples of what we have done to domesticated wolves. It is no less cruel, and no more moral than slaughtering their wild ancestors from airplanes.
On February 19, 2005, Nick wrote:
I live in alaska and i am a hunter. I haven’t killed a moose or a wolf though.I don’t hunt for the sport,
just for food and fur for garments to keep warm.
I love wolves. I have a tattoo of a wolf howling to the moon on my arm. I have also worn a wolf coat and
a wolf head hat that was in my family for generations. I am half aleut and half white so i know about the animal issue on both sides.
I think it is crazy …to make Fishing for salmon illeagle because they have a brain.Salmon is a MAJOR part of my diet in the summer time. I don’t think killing animals for the entertainment is good.I hate bear hunting, especially when they use dogs to chase one up a tree and the hunter is having fun killing it.(kodiak Island)
I don’t think i can ever be turned into a vegi head because i love to eat moose and ruff grouse
and wild rabbits. :)
I also give a lot of the food to the elder natives
so they can make it in the traditional way that was handed down for centuries. Just thought i would put my thoughts in.
On February 22, 2005, Lee Hall wrote:
[Forwarded message follows. A sport to chase wolves to exhaustion; a sport to chase their domesticated descendants to exhaustion; it does seem eerily connected…]
From: Thomas Classen
To: Sun, INTERNET:letters@sunherald.com
Date: 17 FEB 2005 4:19 PM
RE: Iditarod
If you think the Iditarod is user friendly you know nothing about dogs and/or mushing. Sure they make a big show about dog care during the race but what about before and after. It’s virtually nonexistent. If a dog gets sick a bullet in the head solves the problem. There are some dogs that have made two or three Iditarod runs but most never repeat. A lot of them die after the race but no one ever hears about them. Many pups are born each spring but not many make the team. What to do with all the dogs? Again a bullet in the head solves the problem. Not much in keeping/feeding a dog that in of no use to you. The life of a race dog is about seven years. One way or another the musher will get rid of the dog. A dog handler who worked for one of the leading mushers told me this guy digs a big hole each year and would throw all his dead dogs into it and come spring would cover it up.
Yes dog mushing is great fun but dogs have a limited running life. I trained a team once to run on the river in back of my home. At the age of five I could see that is was getting to be painful for them so I had to stop. I kept the dogs and a couple of them lived to be 16 years old. They were pets and well cared for. If you have heard of Mary Shields she is that type of musher and is still caring for her old dogs but she is the exception. Try to take care of 50 dogs for a year and you will become acutely aware of the work involved. Until you walk the path you know nothing about the problem.
The cruelty involved is something no kid should be exposed to. If you tell them otherwise you are lying.
Thomas J. Classen,
Fairbanks, Alaska
On February 22, 2005, Julie wrote:
Good commentary. The unqualified “sled dog” comments put my back up a little, because many dogs love to pull and would happily be sled dogs, but competitive breeding and racing of sled dogs is probably not such a pretty picture.
It seems that many of us want a path of “non-interference” with nature, and it’s tempting to tout this, but is not possible. By our very nature (and just like any animal) we change our environment. Unfortunately,our intelligence has allowed us to become only too good at doing this, and without a simultaneous increase in wisdom. This does not mean that I feel we should kill these wolves, merely that if there is a “wolf problem” we should examine it more closely. It is very likely not a wolf problem at all, but (as Art suggested above) a human problem.
Also, the statement that people living in Alaska could choose alternative diets that don’t cause conflict with wolves is not very supportable. The people who have lived in Alaska for thousands of years have always eaten a meat-centered diet, as the tundra does not support very many edible plants (correct me if I’m wrong). Of course, this is not wolves’ fault either. It seems likely that the number of people in Alaska was traditionally much lower than the current population, although I don’t personally know that.
Just a few thoughts.
On February 23, 2005, Ellie Maldonado wrote:
Julie, my dogs certainly seem to enjoy pulling me.
But they can stop when they want to.
And I’m not convinced that dogs like to haul sleds over distance. Even with (what’s known as) recreational mushing, the sled dog must keep up with the team. Some may tire sooner than others. Some may simply prefer not to pull a sled.
Since it’s common for recreational sled dogs to be confined, we might misinterpret their release from idleness as enthusiasm for sleding. But can we really say that our recreation is theirs?
I believe that dogs should not be bred as objects of human interest. To say anyhing less would mean
I agree to keeping them perpetually dependent on an animal species—humans—who will always use them selfishly, and often against their best intersts.
About the statement that Alaskans can switch to an alternative diet, I think many—perhaps most—Alaskans may do so.
When people can obtain nutritious plant-based foods, whether they grow or buy them, they are free to choose a vegetarian or vegan diet. And if they want to eat meat, this does not require them to hunt moose, or caribou, which has been an issue in the “wolf-control” program.
The Alaskans who are claiming “subsistence” do not appear to be limited. If they can drive cars and fly airplanes, they can certainly pick-up supplies of their choosing.
On February 24, 2005, Diana wrote:
Stop messing with MOTHER NATURE!
She corrects herself when the need arises. It is a FACT that wolves will adjust their own numbers when prey is low.
Humans have created this problem right from the beginning when they decided hunting for SPORT was profitable.
Leave it alone and let it correct itself.
To Nick, the hunter of food. Why is it that you find the need to hunt for food and clothing, but you have access to the internet and a computer????
Get real.
I am so sick of these so called “hunters” claiming they have a “right” to kill these aninmals. Please tell me “Who gave you that right?” This is the year 2005, you CANNOT tell me you need to hunt to feed and clothe your family. Again GET REAL.
Diana
a.k.a TheWalker
On February 25, 2005, Nick wrote:
hey Diana, I don’t hunt fo rthe sport. I would rather get me an animal that hasen’t been over fed
and pumped full of chemicals to make it tase better.
It’s more healthier too. When i am hunting it’s not the kill I enjoy it’s the experience i get when I am in the wilderness. The smell of high bush cranberries, the beautiful scenery. Most of the time i don’t really care if i get an animal or not. If you are so sick why don’t you go se a doctor about your attitude. I came to this website to try and tell you people about how hunting traditionally was and not just sport. I hate sprt hunters. There arrogent and Stupid! They don’t care about nothing but getting the biggest animal and to stuff it and let everyone know about it.My family is from a village that has only one store in it and they still have to wear animal fur becasue that’s there life style and they will never change that. If you think it’s easy to just fly a plane from a village to the city think again. It’s extremely expensive. Most of the people don’t have money because they live off the land.Fuel prices in alaska are higher than the rest of the states. I just wish people wouldn’t exaggerate things until they see it through someone elses life style.
On February 26, 2005, Ellie Maldonado wrote:
Nick, I’ve read that because of the Alaskan climate, the Aleuts have relied on a diet of fish.
I think it’s inteteresting that some American Indian groups based their diet on plant foods in the warmer regions. They did not rely on hunting until the Spanish colonists came. And they were the first people to cultivate more than half of the variety of vegetables we eat today.
On February 26, 2005, Debra Grossman wrote:
The tragic news that continues to come out of Alaska deeply saddens me. This morning, I read that an Alpha Female radio collared wolf was shot down just outside the buffer zone near Toklat. This particular wolf along with her group have been frequently studied, photographed and enjoyed by thousands of tourists. The State of Alaska deems this action legal, having no regard for the pups she leaves behind or how this killing will gravely impact her mate and activities of the surviving pack. This a very serious loss to wolves and people who enjoy them. The hunters and wolf haters of Alaska and their friend, Governor Murkowski have returned to the era where wolves were persued relentlessly and exterminated. In the 1800s, as many as two million wolves were slaughtered. We must stop Alaska quickly before the US Government joins in on the kill. Under this government, the population of wild predators such as grizzly bears and wolves will eventually decline precipitously to near extinction. Predators such as wolves are necessary to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Without them, many animals would go unchecked and die painfully from starvation. Over population of deer has caused many fatal car accidents, all because the wolves have been fired from their natural job. I thank Friends of Animals and everyone who is helping to end the destruction of this magnificent and beautiful animal.
A friend of the wolves,
Debra Grossman
On March 4, 2005, karen yazzie wrote:
As Native Americans, my husband and I both have a very special place in our hearts and religion for our Brother and Sister wolves. I believe it is our responsibility as Caretakers of Mother Earth to care for ALL of Her creatures…and to allow Nature to be Nature. We have no business killing these precious friends.
On March 4, 2005, Carla wrote:
As a child, my father taught me things that I know in my heart are right. He was a hunter, he was a butcher. But he would tell me there are right ways of doing these things; never take more than you need, never cause unnecessary pain and suffering and always honor those which lost their life so that another might live. This is merely simple respect. Is it so unreasonable to think of humans as hunters? After all, we are animals too.
I agree with those (such as Nick) who believe in hunting as a means of sustaining themselves. In actuality it is not reality to expect many peoples of Alaska to turn to a vegan diet. The short Alaskan summers do not allow a sufficient growing season to permit crop growth such as that in the lower 48 states. For those who suggest a trip to the grocery store, there are reality checks to be placed here also. I have never been to Alaska but I have been told that two-thirds of the state can only be reached by air, thus making a quick trip to the corner market most difficult. There is also the problem of depending upon grocery stores supporting the practices of factory farming.
… For many, hunting is a need for survivial. Is killing wolves a solution to a sustainance issue? More likely it is a tourism issue and these tourists come to kill for sport -not survival. The type of hunting that is promoting the aerial gunning of wolves is not a matter of sustainance but of sport. Killing should never be a sport.
I was raised in Minnesota and as a young girl on a bright, moonlit and snowy New Year’s Eve I had the great fortune of briefly meeting a wolf in the wild. The powerful ferocity of this amazing beast made the term “majestic” pale in comparison, although it probably is most appropriate. I would add “mystical” in my own personal description. It is in this place, on this night that my kinship with the wolf was forever realized and burned deeply into my spirit.
There are those who will scoff and think me insane but I assure you, I am not. I am a 46-year-old anglo teacher,part-time student and single mother of a 14-year-old boy who feels I have lived before, not as a human, but as a wolf. I have ran with them, hunted with them and loved with them. I know this through the pain and grief I feel whenever I learn of another unnecessary killing of my wolf brothers and sisters. It is so deep that it is as if I have lost my own child. For those who would say that these feelings are made by my own choice, I beg to differ. The torture I feel deep in my soul is a pain I would not wish on anyone (including Gov. Murkowski who, some may say, so richly deserves it).
Not so long ago, I was amused at a media coverage about the overpopulation of deer in the midwest and how they were “causing” a great deal of car accidents on highways. Is this so surprising considering that the lower 48 states all but exterminated their natural predator so very long ago? Here I dare to imply some old words of wisdom regarding how history ignored is most likely to be repeated.
Through all of the heartache of the wolf slaughter being held in Alaska, I have but two items of comforting knowledge. These comforts are all that is between me and complete, utter madness. The first, and not by any means the least, is that there is a Creator of this world that put ALL creatures here, (I choose to call Him “God” and leave other’s stance on this up to their own personal belief) and He loves His creations - ALL of them. Have humans become so arrogant that they do not see a possibility of this Creator turning His anger on us for the disrespect shown to the world and our fellow creatures? I believe that we were intended as guardians of this world, not owners or self-made gods.
The final comfort I have is regarding the wolf himself. They have survived the most extreme persecution throughout the world and time. They will most likely continue to do so. We could learn a lot through them if we would just take the time to watch and listen - not only with our eyes and ears but with our hearts and spirits. Yet, I have one last remaining painful question; How much suffering must humans render before this posibility becomes a reality?
To the many true and wonderful people of Alaska, I wish you the best. I know that a great many of you are appalled by this action as are so many of us elsewhere. I hope to meet you someday and come to the land where the wolf runs freely. I just cannot find it in me make this journey while the practice of aerial wolf hunting is continuing. It is they who I will seek when I come.
In honor of my wolf family and my human family, both living and passed. Be well. I love you all.
On March 8, 2005, Mike wrote:
We are the top of the food chain. I eat what I kill. I will continue to hunt and take my chilren to hunt untill I can no longer walk. If you don’t like what we do in alaska move.
On March 8, 2005, Nick wrote:
www.ktuu.com
Skinned-out animals found near Knik River
Monday, March 7, 2005 - by Lynn Melling
Palmer, Alaska - A Mat-Su man discovered more than two dozen skinned carcasses in a pile along the Knik River this weekend, about a quarter-mile from the Old Glenn Highway. It was apparently a trapper#8217;s cache and, according to Alaska State Troopers, it#8217;s not uncommon to find such piles at this time of year.
For someone not familiar with trapping, it was hard to determine what kind of animals these were. For Ed Krueger, who describes himself as #8220;hardly#8221; an animal rights activist, the discovery was difficult to stomach.
#8220;My friend and I were out walking our dogs and happened to come across it,#8221; Krueger said. #8220;Even my dog wouldn#8217;t touch these.#8221;
It was a sickening surprise. #8220;I counted at least 35. They’re all intermingled underneath here, and it#8217;s hard to really, I’m not going to pull them apart, but I counted at least 35.#8221;
The animals were skinned for their furs. #8220;It’s disgusting. It’s unbelievable,#8221;Krueger said.
John Frey, a deputy officer with Mat-Su Animal Care and Regulation, said a trapper apparently picked this spot to dump the animal remains, also called a trapper#8217;s cache.
#8220;You got everything from coyotes, these big guys in here are wolves,#8221; Frey said. #8220;Right now, I guess, I was told the heads are going for about $100 a skull.#8221;
They all appeared to be fur-bearing animals that can be legally hunted. #8220;It looks like this guy did quite well on his trap line,#8221; said Douglas Massie of the Alaska State Troopers.
For Krueger, it was a disturbing discovery. But troopers say it is not uncommon or even illegal for trappers to dump the carcasses of animals in a public place.
#8220;Obviously, you can’t dump it in a public park or designated state park,#8221; Massie said, but he admits the trapper could have picked a better place, rather than this heavily used recreational area.
Krueger said he#8217;d like to see these animals buried. #8220;At least show some sort of respect for life.#8221;
While state hunting and trapping laws weren#8217;t violated here on the banks of the Knik River, one man believes that, legal or not, there should have been a better way to deal with these animals after the hunt.
At the Board of Game meeting Monday, several trappers themselves said this kind of disposal casts a bad shadow on all trappers. They said they wish whoever disposed of these animals would have used a little more discretion.
Troopers said they plan to just leave the carcasses for birds and other animals to eat, and the pile should be nothing but bones in a few weeks.
On March 8, 2005, Daniel Hammer wrote:
Mike,
You may eat those you kill, but wolves are not killed to be eaten. In addition, it is inappropriate to apply an ecological term like #8220;food chain#8221;#8212;take note, contemporary scientists prefer the term #8220;food web#8221;#8212;to humanity. Hunting is ecologically harmful; free-living nonhumans did not co-evolve with the weapons and machinery used by hunters. It is human interference that is disrupting the ecological harmony on the Alaska tundra.
The view that humans are at the top of some competitive hierarchy is not only ecologically disruptive, but also socially unjustifiable. As Priscilla Feral has pointed out, #8220;Humanity’s grandiose view of our role in the universe would shift if we saw ourselves as a food source.#8221; Because humans have the means to dominate and exploit other animals doesn#8217;t excuse the inherent violence. Killing wolves to make moose hunting more convenient is an unethical waste of life and resources. We can all live a life that eschews violence and domination by adopting a vegan lifestyle.
Only 14 percent of Alaskans are hunters. The majority of Alaskans have twice voted to ban the same day use of aircraft for hunting and trapping wolves. Anyone who doesn#8217;t like what is being done to wolves in Alaska has every right to protest against it.
Daniel Hammer,
Friends of Animals
On March 9, 2005, William Hobart wrote:
To the Post,
Reading over the articles and message board has been like poking myself in the eye. I can definatly tell how this board is ran, good job. People need to be heard and you sensor it for your gain. I am a 22 yr alaska resident born raised and subsisted from the land for over 20 years, living as nature intended. I live on Alaska garden veggitation from the summer months and I eat moose caribou ptarmigan rabbits and salmon to name a few. The wolfs do eat moose calfs and I’ve seen first hand kills. Plural kills. I love wolfs, and I am an owner of one. These animals are not in any type of animalcide. The way Alaskas’ wild habbitate has been and is, works great. God gave man dominion over the animals. So please stay out of my life and Alaska.
Thank you,
William Hobart,
and Family
On March 9, 2005, Carla wrote:
As long as Alaska is part of this world that we all share, NO one owns it. So to those who do live there and claim that those of us who do not have no say in what happens, I feel I must remind them that as long as they remain located in the same planet as the rest of us (and last time I checked, Alaska was still part of this planet) we ALL not only have a right to voice our opinions but a responsibility to do so. I have this right (and responsibility) and will not give it up merely because some may wish I would do so as my views obviously differ and upset. This is especially true for people like myself who believe that God granted us stewardship not “dominion” over the non-human animals.
One more time for the record: HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. If God really granted us “dominion” over the animals, would he have created us as such? It is He who has the one final dominion.