Aerial wolf control effort begins

On December 15, 2005, M wrote:

It seems everything is done to please the hunter! Not to control ANYTHING. I guess hunters would have nothing to kill unless the opportunity to kill innocent animals is given to them. Its all down right killing of innocent animals to suit the hunter and thats all. Killing of animals/wildlife does not control anything. What is America etc becoming ,The killing Capital of wildlife .Now they are shooting wolves from the air? C’mon now. This should be stopped immediately, its cruelty at its highest degree. STOP satisfying the hunters and let the wolves live, they are not bothering anyone and YOU know it as does the whole world. WE ARE WATCHING.

On December 17, 2005, Gregg wrote:

M- You’re an idiot! It appears to me that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You sound just like another big city easterner that knows how to save the West. You’ve done so well in the East-crime, racisism, pollution, poverty, political corruption, etc. Now that you have all the answers you want to share them with us? Thanks but NO THANKS! Too bad there’s not a hunting season on you dumbasses.

Blog editors’ note: Minutes later, this poster wrote a second time. We’ll include both messages here, for the sake of economy.

It appears that your organization does not allow comments contrary to your agenda. Why let any facts get in the way of a good lynching?

Blog editors’ note: Apparently this visitor does not know what a lynching is. It would be a good idea to avoid misusing such a word. Fortunately, most of our guests are more prudent.

On December 17, 2005, Jade wrote:

SAVE THE WOLVES!
Nature got along fine without the help from mankind.

On December 17, 2005, Axel F. Sonne wrote:

I just want to say that controlling the number of wolves is a good thing. It is not like the mentality of a century ago, where total eradication was the preferred method. I realize that some people have nothing better to do than complain about something, or anything. I am glad that we have adopted a better method of controlling the numbers. We need the predator as much as we need the other animals. I also believe that any official ruling of a given territory is done for the best interest of all concerned. Purhaps the ones that want to change those rulings ought to run for govenor, or mayor, of that territory. Then they could change things to fit their believes.

On December 17, 2005, M wrote:

Seems like a disgruntled hunter making those remarks. Oh well! Such is life.. I hear now they are training children 8 years and up to be hunters, how pathetic is that??

On December 17, 2005, cb wrote:

alaska is not the lower 48 and people depend on the moose to stay at healthy populations to survive in some areas. If you would like to boycott Alaska because some wolves will be hunted, please do.

On December 17, 2005, Safira wrote:

I think it is ridiculous. Native Americans truly did need to live off of the herds, and there were wolves all over…in much greater numbers than now. They didn’t see a need to kill the wolves off in ridiculous numbers to have enough food. If Alaskans are so concerned about their supply of meat, why don’t they breed moose and caribou domestically, and let the rest of the ecosystem work the way it is supposed to. Predators have just as much right to live as moose do. Hunting for sport makes Alaska money. That’s really what it comes down to. If the wolves eat the game then no one spends money to go there and hunt. It’s ridiculous. And just in case any people such as Gregg who can’t keep their conversation polite and civilized happen to come in here…I AM a westerner, thank you. What’s the matter Gregg…get bit by a wolf once? Not one of your comments was relevent, by the way. All you managed to do was attempt to insult M. Very civilized.

On December 17, 2005, M wrote:

Sorry Greg, You are a disgruntled hunter, did I hit a nerve?? You seem like a very angry person. Its people like you that love to kill animals/wildlife you made that quite obvious, sorry you feel that way.

On December 17, 2005, Mac wrote:

This is just a horrible thing to do. Do they look into the fact that if they were to kill the alpha male or the alpha female, or any others of that pack, then they can kill off the entire pack? To them it may be the idea of killing a certain amount of wolves during winter, but really that number is probably increased by a lot more. The pack members are the ones who suffer the most. A loss of one wolf can mean death to all of them, they all work together to hunt down an animal and that formation is lost when one of them is killed. The hunters think that they are only responsible for the deaths of the wolves they kill, which is partially true, but they are also in charge of the many wolf packs that die due to the hunters actions.

On December 17, 2005, Safira wrote:

My question is…do the Alaskan PEOPLE really feel they need the wolves destroyed? Or is the Alaskan government simply doing it to keep hunters coming in. Wolves do not damage a herd enough to starve the population of Alaska. If they did, the entire Native American population (in all of the United States) would have died out long before Europeans ever landed here. And in this wonderful day of communication and technology those people are not going to starve to death if the herds are thinned. They can bring food in from other states, just like nearly every other state in the nation does. So tell me, if they kill all of the predators and the herds aren’t thinned enough? They get old, they eat all of their available food supply, they get sickm and the ecosytem become unbalanced. Not an ideal situation for the Alaskan population either…The same thing happened in Yellowstone, and if you do any research on it, you will find that since the wolves were reintroduced the herds themselves are actually far better off because they are not overpopulating and overgrazing anymore. The ecosystem there has begun to balance out. Nature invented predators for a reason. Killing hundreds of wolves is ridiculous. It just as well be counted as a form of genocide. Completely unnecessary.

On December 17, 2005, Judy C wrote:

I think that this entire situation is a shame. I love most animals, but do eat meat & am pro-choice. I have a tank full of fish, 3 cats, 1 dog & a conure. I paid to have my rat euthanized last year. My BIGGEST dream is too win the lottery & buy the largest chunk of land i can find to make a wolf haven, sanctuary, whatever you would call a place where they would have all the land, and no one would be permitted out there. (I have actually promised god i would do this IF i ever win the lottery ;0)

My opinion may not mean much to some, but here it is anyway. IF they were running out of food & had to kill wolves for humans to eat & survive - that would be the only morally right reason to approve shooting from the air. Alaska is not that destitute, I’m sure. If the moose and caribou become endangered, (which they could be - im not sure)put them on the endangered list, since i dont think they are - and it seems the only reason they are doing it is to please the hunters - they should take other actions to try to please everybody, but not at the sake of the wolves. There is a hunting place here where they release some kind of birds every year - FOR the hunters. They are breeding them in captivity, and then doing this for the pleasure the hunters get from hunting them - and of course the state gets the cash for the permits. Why cant this be done there in alaska? I know its a wrong, but if they are killing the moose & caribou ANYWAY, why not just breed them & release them for hunting pyrposes?

There must be somewhere that can take these displaced wolves, and that should keep Alaska happy if in fact they do just want them gone b/c of animal control. I saw a show on animal planet where they caught some fish & removed all of its egg sacs.. Why can’t someone go in there & preform mass surgery on the wolves? Think i will go the animal planet website & write to them.

Maybe if we ALL do, they will make a show which is fine as long as it promotes help & awareness..

On December 17, 2005, Mac wrote:

I agree completly with you Safira, I am young and don’t completly have a grasp on all of the information that is going on now but I know enough. This is unnecesssary it’s like saying Nevada depends on deer for a living or like any other state has to depend on something. Alaska can have food brought to them, every other state in the U.S does that so really I see no difference. It SHOULD be concidered a form of genocide, it’s just as bad. :(

On December 17, 2005, Safira wrote:

I think that people need to read the book “Never Cry Wolf.” I do not remember who wrote it, but he spent a lot of time living in a tent near a pack of wolves because he was supposed to be determining the threat to livestock. (He found no threat, by the way). Anyway, he writes about these wolves. You would be amazed at some of the human qualities they portrayed. Even to the point were wolves from another pack would come and actually visit a particular wolf. They would come to the den, play and interact for twenty minutes or so, and then leave, heading back to their own pack. Amazing. And they just want to kill them all.

On December 17, 2005, PO wrote:

Watched something on hunting last night via reputable news channel. It was interesting that they did say they need to get younger people( CHILDREN) involved to increase hunters. What i found interesting was, they said conservation groups etc depend on hunters to make them money from their permits. No hunters means no permits means no money for these groups . Its all a bunch of dirty politics at the expense of the animals. All of this killing does not have to be done. ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY!!! As for as I am concerned all the excuses in the world from Canada (clubbing of baby seals etc) to Alaska(wolves) to New Jersey(bears etc)) to CT (devils Den deer etc) and wherever else, is all about money, nothing to do with conservation. This Program sure pointed that out extremely well!! So anyone who allows that animals should be killed anywhere is playing the political $$$$ game at the innocent animals expense. These groups are “feeding” the hunters.

On December 17, 2005, Jim wrote:

Gee Mac,
First, if you had a clue what you were talking about, you’d know that if the alpha male dies - for whatever reason, another one moves up to take his place. The Inuit people have lived in harmony with the wolves, polar bears and all the other creatures/predators of the Alaskan wilderness for hundreds of years. They still rely on the moose, caribou, seals etc. to sustain life in their cultures still today.

Like it or not, man is (1) an omnivore - eating both meat AND potatoes,(2) a predator - we have provided ourselves with that meat since the beginning of time. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Society has become sheltered in the sense that we pick up our pork chops and hamburger at the grocery store on the way home from work, not uctually stopping to think about where it came from or the methods used to get it there.

If you dig deep enough to get the TRUE FACTS on conservation, not the sugar coated BS that the bleeding hearts want you to see, you’ll find that hunters, their organizations and their generated revenue have restored americas wildlife to the healthy populations they are now, as compared to a mere 50 years ago. Yes, healthy populations - deer, turkeys, moose, elk, caribou, BEARS, mountain lions, they are all doing VERY well, despite what garbage is being said about them and their “demise.”

Before engaging your mouths and pens, engage your brains, do your homework and come back with the FACTS on conservation, and an intelligent conversation can be possible. Until then “M”

” I think I hit a nerve.”

Jim

Blog editors’ note: The facts on conservation include the reality that more than half of the contiguous United States is now taken over by animal agribusiness, meaning that the biodiversity is ruined. The facts include the reality that our government kills predators in official, tax-funded schemes and then claims nature is out of balance and we have to kill more animals. On to the omnivore’s diet, and the facts from dieticians, who now widely accept that vegetarianism meets all known nutrient needs and offers potential health benefits, including a lower risk of heart disease, obesity, kidney failure, hardening of the arteries, strokes, elevated cholesterol levels or blood pressure; hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some forms of cancer. Additionally, studies indicate that a vegetarian mother’s breast milk has comparatively low levels of pesticide. Feel free to return and request more facts at any time. We don’t shy away from the facts.

On December 17, 2005, Alan Levy wrote:

I believe in this modern day society of ours, people do not need to kill animals for survival. Back in the last century, it was accepted, bcause people didn’t know any better.
Today there are numberous ways people can be educated in healthy diets.

Animals have every right to survive. It is us who have intruded into their lives.

Save the Wolf and all other creatures.

Thank You.

On December 17, 2005, Jim Twoeagles wrote:

[Blog editors’ note: And now comes an argument that individual wolves, at least the males, are replaceable—sort of like printer cartridges. We hope that a copy of this indeed went to the Sierra Club. Perhaps that group will see the importance of countering such empty views in Alaska.]

No wonder you zealots are losing the battle. If ignorance is bliss, this is the most blissful organization ever. You folks have little clue what goes on out in the real world. You feast on the inaccurate information supplied to you by your “organizations” and the one sided garbage supplied by the media, and you’re ready to CHANGE THE WORLD.
NEWSFLASH - Kids have been taught to hunt since the beginning of time. MAN IS A PREDATOR. Outdoorsman revenue has saved species, after species of animals that were once endangered for many various reasons, including overhunting. It was us outdoorsmen who established and funded the endangered species acts. Don’t buy it? Look it up, don’t just take the words of fools as the gospel.

If the alpha male is killed by a human or a wolf from another pack(it happens quite often, it’s called, get this, natures means of natural selection) then another wolf moves up to become the alpha. The whole pack doesn’t die, Mac.

Alan, it was acceptable in the last century as well as the hundreds before that, because if you didn’t, you died. Pretty simple concept, huh?

Do the homework before writing the essay, it’ll make it sound as though you DO know what you’re talking about.

Jimmy Twoeagles

Cc: Sierra Club

To the editors- I know the truth hurts sometimes, but sometimes it needs to be thrown in there just to shake things up.

On December 17, 2005, Jim Twoeagles wrote:

No NO, This is NOT to say that alpha wolves are a “replaceable commodity”, and comparing them to a printer cartridge are YOUR own words, not mine. THIS sort of mentality is what seperates you and I. I was rebutting the remarks made by the person commenting that if and when an alpha male is culled, if you will, by man or nature, the rest of the pack would parish. Not even close to true. You should EDUCATE your readers, and arm them with the FACTS. Only then can they be of value to your cause.
The Sierra has a blast with comments like that.

Animal agribusiness? Please. The only negative effects man has had on biodiversity is the urban sprawl and encroachment on the land and ecosystem.Wildlife diversity and populations have grown exponentially since the turn of the twentieth century. Now the ideas you put forth about our fine government and the effects THEY have had on the predators(primarily the issue of wolves)is undisputable, and sad, at best. See, we can share a common ground.

As for the vegetarians out there, all the power to you. If that is the lifestyle that fits you best, I wish you nothing but health, prosperity, and happiness. I didn’t claw my way to the to top of the food chain to become a vegetarian. It’s not for me. And I agree that a large percentage of todays health problems could be directly related to commercial meat and meat products. The additives, feeds, medicines, etc., used in todays markets(all the way down to potato chips, canned vegetables, dairy products) have created health issues, indeed.

It has been proven time and again that wild game meats are void of 95% of these risks you mention here and have several other health benefits.People of native american heritage, my people, have lived by the laws of nature for centuries. Longevity is not a birthright, rather, it is determined by lifestyle. Most of the people in our society live to be VERY old, largely attributed to their diet. Of which a good part of it IS vegetable, and the rest of it being wild game.

If we’re going to get into the facts, let’s not sugar coat them and only state the facts we want our loyal followers to hear.

By the way, do you eat eggs?

Jimmy Twoeagles

Jimmy, you are indeed calling the alpha wolves replaceable, and as others here have already posted, what happens to a leading wolf can affect the entire group. Even if the group does not die, the entire group is put in danger. This can indeed result in their deaths, particularly as they circle and retrace their tracks, looking in vain for the one they’ve lost.

You might like to pick up a copy of the book Welfare Ranching; in fact, its chapters are available through an internet search for free. Urban sprawl is minor compared to the encroachment of agribusiness, Jimmy. Not that we’re suggesting more sprawl, of course. We try to be frugal about our use of fuels, packaging, and so forth, choosing products that are as easy on the ecology as possible, and supporting fair trade and organic cultivation. You might have seen some of our other articles on this site about these issues; we do take the point seriously.You say that you didn’t claw your way to the to top of the food chain to become a vegetarian. You seem to have some anxiety about the risk other animals pose to you. Perhaps you fear they will eat you if you don’t eat them first? This was a common fear well over ten thousand years ago. Before humans began systematically dominating other animals, did you know our ancestors were the prey of lions and leopards?

Did you know that the Seventh-Day Adventists, many of whom are vegetarians, significantly outlive the general population? Interesting, don’t you think? This blog editor does not eat eggs, no. No need to do that, and harass all the birds, and a vegetarian diet means no extra cholesterol — only the cholesterol that our bodies naturally produce. Thanks again for writing in.

On December 18, 2005, Katie Webber wrote:

People fear what they don’t not understand, that’s why they continue to hunt wolves. And it’s not fair to them, WHEN THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING!

On December 18, 2005, joe wrote:

out north in the u.p.there was wolf -farm and they were studied and taken gook care of them inn fenced in area,i believe a private individual,or commity,bought the wolfs but the owner said if his wolfs he will with them,and now they live imay be wrong so i think they all are in canada,location may be wrong it was years ago they left,they are for studing purposes only so i say let the wolfs be
in their own enviroment,and they live with people,

On December 18, 2005, Safira wrote:

It seems that some people are forgetting what this forum is about. It is not about hunting. It’s about needlessly killing hundreds of wolves. If your argument is that hunting is restoring populations to healthy levels, then you cannot plausibly argue that wolves are destroying the herds. They are the natural hunters that keep the herd sizes in check. And if the herds are that large, clearly there is no danger of them becoming too scarce for people to hunt for food. So why do you need to kill the wolves? If the herds are large enough that hunters need to come in and thin the herds, then what danger to the wolves pose? What this is about is not the hunting for food…it is the unneccessary annhilation of hundreds of wolves. The wolves are not going to damage the herds enough to make the people in danger of not having food. What they are endangering is the government’s revenue on hunters who come in and pay to hunt for sport. THAT is why they are being killed. And I would much appreciate it if people would stop making generalizations. I love wolves and have studied them and their effects on the ecosystem. I am also a political scientist and know how economics, government, and all that stuff works. I am not a fanatic, and have had no association with animal rights groups before today. Just because people have an opinion other than your own does not mean they are uneducated and don’t know what they are talking about. You all want to defend hunting, but not one of you has commented on the killing of wolves. Why? You have no argument. You have no plausible reason as to why those wolves should be killed. Because there is none. They are not hurting anyone, even the hunters, by being out there.

On December 18, 2005, betawolf wrote:

TO THE HUNTER:All this killing of wolves has got to stop! If you kill theme your killing yourself!! Look into thr eyes of a wolf and you will see the world and everything and eveyone on it. Hunters are idiots, if they were real men they would know how to survive off the kill insead of taking there anger and over-sized eagos out on animals.Let me ask these so-called hunters a question.. If i came after you with a gun and skined you and then ate you don’t you think you’d be pissed at me!!!OR how about EVEN BETTER, If i hunted down your wife and kids FOR THE FUN OF IT, I’d be lock up but you psycos run around free! The next time you see an animal in a gun site think of your own family on the other end!!! And to all those who LOVE the animals as much as me please lets get everyone we know aware of the wolves and the life threating curcumstance!!!!!!!!

On December 18, 2005, PO wrote:

Sure parents may teach their kids to hunt. But when a hunting alliance goes to kids classrooms to teach hunting to children seems pretty desperate to me. I’m sure all of these animals that get killed by hunters are left to die and not eaten. Its all to give the hunters something to hunt and thats the bottom line. Shame on you all who do it!

On December 18, 2005, Robert Blanscet wrote:

It seems to me that the Government is just going to show the People that it will do just what it wants to do and every body that does not like it can jump in the lake and as for as the hunters if the Gov. did not let them do what they want they won’t come back . It is all in a nut shell they are bowing to the Hunter.
The Wolves are a very Beautiful Creation that God made and it should not be killed just for the fun of it.If the people need food let them pay for it just like I do .

One day if all the wolves are killed ,your grand children are your great grand children are going to see some pictures of a Wolf and they are going to ask ” what are they and where and can we go see them ” then you are going to have to do your best to lie to them without them finding out that you had a hand in killing them off.

We the people that loves the Wolves are going to have to think about the day when they are no more and be saddened about the loss that we will all feel when they are gone.We can remember that our Government that is supposed to be for the people are just out to fill their own Pockets and they are the ones that allowed it to happen and May God forgive them .

Robert

On December 18, 2005, B wrote:

… I also want to know why animal rights groups are so against hunting, I would think that most people would want an animal killed fairly quickly without suffering for weeks or months starving to death because there are more animals in an area than what that area can support food wise. I guess some people want to see 100 deer, for example, starve to death over a period of 2 months insted of seeing 20 shot and, dying within minutes in most cases if not immediately, so that the population can be brought to a more manageable level that the land can support. . I consider myself a conservationist more than a hunter, I only take game I intend to use for food and I use as much of the animal as possible. Contrary to the beliefs of some , most hunters aren’t out there just to kill something, but to provide food for their family. In the case of the wolf hunts in Alaska the hunters will be helping secure an adequate moose and caribou population for the natives who depend on these animals for not only food but also clothing during the winter months. I would rather see a few wolves killed than see a family starve because the wolves ate the moose or caribou that might have fed the family for a month or more. Let’s get real people how about we worry more about our fellow man and less about the wild animals, Although the animals do need to be respected, like the native Americans and native Alaskans do. When most people in these groups harvest an animal they give thanks to the animal’s spirit for providing them with the nourishment the animal’s flesh will provide.

On December 18, 2005, chris ford wrote:

As someone who lived in Fairbanks for ten years, I believe I can way in this subject.First of all let me say that I think wolves are incredible animals.But if you live in the interior of Alaska you don’t have a supermarket to go to and the hunting of moose and caribou are essential to these peoples way of life.Native Alaskans,for thousands of years have culled wolf pups in there dens to control populations.Wolves,though incredible,are animals that kill prey to live.I have spoken to folks who have seen caribou who were stuck in snow drifts and were easy prey for the pack.They did not kill to satisfy thier immediate hunger.They did what they do and that was to kill twelve caribou because they could.I wish there was a easy solution to this problem.I wish all the posters on this board could go and experience a year in Alaska.I think you may have different outlook on this subject

Blog editors’ note: Fundamentally, wolves kill other animals because they are carnivores, with digestive systems designed for fitting into the ecology of cold climates. You seem to be saying that human beings should not make moral decisions that a wolf is unable to make, or perhaps that killing is somehow a natural thing to do; thus, we ought to get up into the air and chase them to exhaustion and then shoot them. Is that what you are arguing? We have a number of people posting on this board who have lived in the interior of Alaska for significantly longer than a year. Not all agree with that view. Oil has come out of Alaska and food has gone into Alaska for quite some time. Even in the remotest areas, obviously there are aircraft — that’s why we’re having this discussion.

On December 19, 2005, Sarah wrote:

I’ve recently taken a biodiversity class at my college and been on a trip to Yellowstone National Park. All my life I’ve studied the reintroduction program and recently I’ve learned about man’s threat to global biodiversity. I agree with many of the above posts: wolves were here, in the United States, before any of us or our hunting rifles. The native peoples coexisted peacefully with wolves without hunting them down brutally because of so-called “competition” for food. There’s plenty of protein out there, guys! You don’t have to rely only on wild game. We need to strive to keep biodiversity intact, and that means preserving all species and encouranging the growth of animals like the wolf.

On December 19, 2005, Leia Cairns wrote:

I would like to know who made humans “God”. Instead of living in peace and taking care of the gift we have been given, much of mankind - and I would be remiss to say all, because there are plenty who do care - has slowly but surely destroying the natural world for its own purposes. Nature has been taking care of its own for millions of years before we came along. The killing of wolves proves nothing more than that, once more, man is putting himself first. If people are so concerned about the welfare of those in the Alaskan wilderness, let’s find other ways to take care of them. We have other ways of finding food. Wolves do not.

On December 19, 2005, Matthew Ash wrote:

A boycott is a wonderful idea. I would be interested to learn how much of Alaskas income is tourist generated and how much is generated from hunting fees. I’ve already talked 3 couples out of Alaskan vacations for this reason. Once again humans have managed to reverse a system that nature has perfected. Wolves are opportunists, taking any animal thay can (to survive), which includes the sick, injured and elderly and not always the healthy and strongest of the species. Thus ensuring that the more suitable animals survive to breed. Only our species selects the animals that SHOULD survive in order to perpetuate a species. Either to add an already sufficient food industry or to place on a wall. Pathetically arrogant. How can this be allowed to continue,……the almighty dollar.

On December 21, 2005, Gabby wrote:

I completely agree with Safira. It sounds like she knows what she’s talking about. If anything, if Alaska TRUELY needed to decrease the wolf population, try something where they wouldn’t die or get hurt. There are ALWAYS alternatives. And if you can’t find an animal to kill so you can eat it… go to a grocery store. But don’t blame your problems on animals who truely need to kill to survive. Because unlike humans, they can’t get money and go to the nearest store. Leave them be. God put them here for a reason, and mankind killing them, isn’t that reason.

On December 21, 2005, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

something seems a bit weird here. everytime it comes up that there are no stores in the bush someone writes in that we could fly the food in. i have read elsewhere on this website that FoA is against opening ANWR for oil production. if we can not use the oil to fly the planes how are we to fly food in?

shipping food in to the bush is very expensive. i had lots of money and could afford to do so, but someone boycotted tourism and i lost my job. now i have to hunt to survive. thats fine though as i would rather harvest my own food than put up with the tourists.

[Blog editors’ note: The point is that your position states you can’t get food in, yet you’ve got aircraft buzzing around. Which is it? Have you got modern conveniences or not? The advocates don’t necessarily press you to do either one. Most of your state’s ex-Outsiders moved into Alaska due to the oil wealth. That idea is about to have its peak, so to speak. Actually, as our conference presenter Loren Lockman of Tanglewood Wellness Center observes, we’re all designed to live as near to the equator as possible, and that’s where our food economy is fairest and most efficient. It’s probably at its least efficient near the polar regions. Thanks for writing in.]

On December 21, 2005, Jack Tims wrote:

Some comments from Alaska…

Safaria, either label your comments as unsupported rehtoric or stick to the facts. Just making stuff up doesn’t really advance the debate here. There are as many wolves in Alaska as there have ever been. It is thought that the numbers are probably greater than the prehistoric numbers because of the lack of competition from other predators. Why aren’t there more predators? The best guess is that the native americans killed them off as part of the North American Megafauna Extinction. So before we hold up natives as stewards of the land, you might want to consider all the cheetahs, lions, short-faced bears, saber-toothed cats, and dire wolves that they helped extinguish (along with horses, several elephant species, ground sloths, camels, steepe bison, llamas, giant beaver and armadillo). These were likely pushed into extinction by paleoindians. In early historical times, the natives wiped out wood bison from the interior and (with help from whalers) musk oxen.

You can domesticate caribou - they are called reindeer. However, it is difficult to do where there are wild caribou stocks because they tend to run off and interbreed with their wild cousins. Moose can not be domesticated. They are not a herd animal. The Russians have tried without success for a long time.

Sport hunting for moose is not really a big industry up here. Sport hunting produced $216,972,000 in 2001, the last year that figures are available. By contrast, wildlife watching produced over $498 million in economic activity. Also, the caribou and moose populations that are directly affected by the arial wolf control program aren’t heavily sport hunted. They are more subject to subsistence hunting pressure by Alaskans. So the economics of “sport hunting” really aren’t driving this program.

The huge majority of these hunters are Alaskans, not outsiders. The image of the Alaska safari is intiguing but mostly these are Alaskans heading out to fill their freezers.

None of the predator control is “hunting” or is being done by hunters. When hunters hunt wolves they either trap them or shoot them (on the ground). They have very low success rates.

The wolves aren’t being “killed off in ridiculous numbers” or in numbers that will affect statewide wolf populations. The purpose is to affect very localized populations and yes, it does have an effect on the calf survival rate in those local areas.

Unfortunately, transportation technology has not made it economically feasable to transport meat into the bush. Store meat is very expensive. Hamburger is $10 a pound or more in most villages. Remember that unemployment is in the 30-50% range in all but the smallest villages. Most villagers are just getting running water and many do not have it.

Yes those people will starve; the reality is that the communities will die and the last vestige of a culture that has existed for thousands of years will die with it. It is hard to tell even other westerners just how out in the middle of nowhere rural Alaska is. There are no roads, few air strips, few grocery stores, almost zero infrastructure. Darting and capturing and relocating these animals is possible but much much more expensive. I don’t see FOA offering the tens of millions of dollars to subsidize such a program. If you want to impose an expensive program I assume you are willing to put your money behind your rhetoric. Yes Judy, and Gabby - that is the economic and factual reality of rural life here.

It used to be that natives moved during the year to follow the fish and animals. They can’t do that anymore. Nomads don’t work in the modern world. Run the numbers and you begin to see the true value of a moose or several caribou to rural residents.

So why is the government doing this? Because there is a constitutional mandate. Article 8 sec. 4 of the Alaska Constitution mandates a sustained yield game management policy for the maximum benefit of the people. Alaska has consistently determined that this means maximum sustained yield of food species.

Sorry this was so long but it seemed like we were getting a little caught up in the rhetoric and were losing track of the facts. At its heart, this is a political debate. You don’t believe in killing wolves for any reason and Alaska does under some limited circumstances. We have our reasons (not all of which I agree with) and you have yours. It’s really that simple.

Thank you for your forum,

J

[Blog editors’ note: If only villagers were hunting caribou and mooose, wolf predation wouldn’t have come up as an issue. People are choosing to kill other animals, and yes, some of them do think this is a sport and a thrill. We’ve shown photos and text on this blog from magazines going back years, demonstrating quite clearly that aerial chasing has a history of being considered a hobby of thrillseekers with the means to do it.]

On December 22, 2005, Gordon wrote:

if the white man never came to this country , we never have this problem, we the indians would be able to hunt wolves for their fur when need, be able to hunt moose when hungry, so quit having kids because they grow up and have more kids and they need space and they start moving to Alaska, please leave us alone

On December 22, 2005, Jack Tims wrote:

Editor,

Yes, I’ve seen those same videos and would liken them to people shooting bison from trains in the west. They are at least 30 and more likely 40 years old (the most common one seen with the piper supercub is from 1957 - pre-statehood) Why people did that is a little difficult to understand. By the time you figure in the cost of the plane, avgas and everything else, it seems like a very expensive form of “recreation.” I’ve also read the articles from old hunting magazines and was somewhat startled by the hostile attitude toward wolves and coyotes. Those articles are mostly 50 to 80 years old and reflect the attitudes of at least two generations ago. I can tell you that I have not heard that kind of talk from any Alaksans including trappers and people who live 24/7 in remote areas. Most of them will shoot wolves if they come around their area but mostly because they pose a risk to their dogs and the fur is a source of cash, not out of hatred or thrills.

There are still sick people who get off on the actual kill. I’ve met them and am generally underwhelmed by their ethic and repulsed by their attitude. Their hunting style borders on wanton waste and they are responsible for the huge majority of game violations. Anyone who has found a caribou with only the backstraps removed knows how angry it makes you. An easy way to not run into them in the woods is get more than a few miles off of any road or well established trail. However, do not paint all hunters with such a broad brush. To most hunters in Alaska, hunting and fishing is an enjoyable way to spend time in the country and put a year’s worth of meat in the freezer. I won’t try to sell a vegan on the activity but I will ask you to not group the huge majority of us with the slob thrill hunters.

It is difficult to explain to non-Alaskans just how big this state is. We are talking about aerial wolf control still - right? The five areas that are currently open for aerial wolf control are a small area around the village of McGrath, the Fortymile basin, a portion of the Nelchina basin, the central Kuskokwim, and the west side of Cook Inlet. Although a large area by Lower 48 (esp east coast) standards, this is a very small portion of Alaska containing hundreds of wolves (out of total populations in the 10-15K range).

With the exception of a portion of the Fortymile country that is near Tok, these areas are very remote and off the road system. All of these areas are places where the vast majority of the meat consumed is game meat. Again, it is the simple economics of the Alaska Bush. Again with the exception of the Taylor highway north of Tok, these are not the kind of areas where “thrill hunters” hunt. My experience is these hunters rarely stray very far from well established roads or trails (or bars) and do not engage in physically difficult walk-in, fly-in or float-in hunts. Although one can certainly argue with the science, I do not think that it is fair to characterize the program as promoting or benefiting “thrill hunters.”

J

On December 22, 2005, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

blog editor, my point is not that we cannot get food in, it is that FoA seems to contradict itself by suggesting we use vehicles that run on fossil fuels but condemn us for trying to get those fuels out of the ground. of course we have aircraft, i have all but stated as much. i also stated that the cost of suppling food with them is prohibitive at best. i simply cannot afford to buy store bought hamburger at $10 per pound. i will not disagree that a vegetarian diet may be healthier as i do not know the facts either way, but if you think meat is expensive up here then try buying produce. we do not have the luxury of growing our own.
as to Loren Lockman, are you suggesting we humans all move towards the equator?

On December 22, 2005, mike in alaska wrote:

blog editor,

you are right, the worlds produce is best grown near the tropics which is kind of near the equator and not in the polar regions, but Jimmy in the bush was stating that it costs money and OIL to fly food of any kind to those remote areas of the world, where people live and have families. Are you suggesting that over 6 billion people live around the equator? Not all humans are designed to live near the equator anyway, people evolved to live further from the equator, they adapted to living in harsher climates, why do you think some people have white skin, it was an adaptation to living in harsher areas of Europe.

As to your comment, “Most of your state?s ex-Outsiders moved into Alaska due to the oil wealth. That idea is about to have its peak, so to speak.” do you mean that people will stop coming to Alaska for its oil wealth. You’re dead wrong; more people will come up to AK for oil, gas, and other natural resources. AK’s mineral, mining, oil, and gas industry is one of the strongest in the nation and is continuing to grow.

Congress changes and so will the decision to not drill into ANWR. When oil prices are topping $80 per barrel and we haven’t come up with some other viable energy source, people will think differently.

Now I’m not saying that it would be better to use our world’s natural resources, but it is necessary. We couldn’t have this lovely conversation if we didn’t. I actually think that we should be developing more viable energy sources, but people don’t like nuclear, coal or oil and unless we have magic wands we can’t create energy from nothing. Its physics, for us to have energy then something must be consumed or changed into to it (like oil). So until we invent the revolutionary energy supply I would like not to pay $3 (or more) a gallon for my gas or pay thousands for heating and electricity. Like I said before its not the best option, its the only option at the moment. If we stopped pumping oil and gas and we stopped mining minerals just for FoA then we would be in the stone age (all crowded around the equator) and you could complain about something else you don’t like (like the fact that I love a double cheeseburger from McDonalds or that I hunt to survive oh wait you already do).

On December 22, 2005, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

reading this before i seem to have missed a comment made by Ellie Maldonado. you state that “…It’s disingenuous of those who benefit from aircraft, computers, and other modern amenities, to claim they are dependent moose and caribou.” it is not that these amenities do not exist, it is that they are too expensive.
lets see if i understand. you want to boycott our state because we are killing wolves. boycotting our state affects the smaller ‘mom and pop’ businesses far more then it does the government. the businesses you do hurt close and people lose jobs. without jobs they can no longer afford the high cost of shipping in food. without resources to buy food, they turn to hunting to provide for their families. they have trouble hunting because predators have reduced the game populations. since the game count is low and the wolf count is up, trapping increases as sales of the pelts can be used to buy food.

i guess the way i see it is ‘come to alaska …or the wolf gets it!!!’

On December 22, 2005, mike in alaska wrote:

I have some purely philosophical/theological questions for all of you that say that by killing an animal I`m killing a part of myself. If God or Mother Nature put us and the animals here on earth together to live in peace then why did he/she give us the choice to eat meat or other food and not the wolves? Why did he/she bestow this choice upon us and not them? Maybe we have this choice because it was a mistake, maybe we only think we have a choice, who really knows. For the God people out there, if you believe that god is guiding you in everything you do and that you are here for a purpose then why isn’t he guiding me and the rest of the hunters? Did he just forget we were out there and he doesn’t affect us like he does you?

If you say that God or Mother Nature has been taking care of things for millions of years, since before humans were hunting then why do species die out from causes other than humans. If he/she is taking care of things how do you know by us hunting the animals we are not doing his/her will. Maybe its time for the wolf to die out, like it was time for the dinosaurs when they disappeared. Now don’t misunderstand me, I don’t want wolves to die out, I think that they are majestic creatures, but so are dung beetles in their own way.

If you say we have the choice to leave our homes, then so do the wolves. If we can leave and adapt then so can wolves, especially if God/Mother Nature is taking care of things. If they can’t then maybe their time on this planet is up. Again, don’t take that to mean that I want them to be gone, because I don’t.

I also want to know why everyone thinks its ok to eat plants, are they not just as alive as us? How in the hell do you know that plants aren’t just as sentient as us or wolves. They have been around longest. Why don’t you complain about people using bug spray or fumigating their home, which kills tons more bugs than wolves are being killed in Alaska? Why don’t you complain about the millions of acres of farmland that is used to grow and then kill all those plants that everyone eats?

Now for all of you that say we should stop killing animals and just eat vegetables and such and that we are biologically able to only eat that type of food. How do you know that the Alaskan Natives can, they have been living their way for thousands of years, if you just took all their meat away how do you know it wouldn’t wipe most of them out. If a wolf has no choice to eat meat biologically, then what if some humans are the same way. I’ve personally tried to be a vegetarian and my biology wouldn’t have it. For the 9 months I tried I was always sick and without energy and my body was weaker for it. My body couldn’t handle it, it needs the meat, its protein and fat and all the other good stuff in it.

Sorry this was so long; I just had a few questions and might have gotten off track, thanks for letting me post them. Like Jack Tims wrote this is purely a debate, you don’t believe in killing wolves and in some instances Alaska and some Alaskans do. Neither side is right nor wrong at the moment (even though each thinks they are), only history will tell. Until then let the debate go on.

On December 23, 2005, mike in alaska wrote:

Lee,

The information you provided was very enlightening. I might not agree with all of it, but it was very informative and I thank you for it.

Much thanks.

On December 23, 2005, Jack Tims wrote:

Ok one last entry and then I’ll be quiet for a while. I realized that I have never explained my actual position on the core issue of this blog - game management through predator control.

Caribou populations are far too complex to discuss in a blog format. The only thing we understand is that the are naturally cyclical and they do respond to both overhunting (i.e. Nelchina herd) and intensive management and prdator control(i.e. Forty Mile herd). So let’s look at moose.

My personal feeling is that much of the moose population is habitat-controlled. The key is browse and you only get high quality moose browse in disturbed areas. The way you disturb large areas of the Alaska bush is through wildfires. Now here’s the problem - remember how i was discussing the lack of cash in bush communities? One source of cash is summer fire fighting work. Because this is a source of money (and admittedly, people’s houses are at risk too), there is tremendous pressure to aggressively fight any fire that comes anywhere near a village. The fires are put out, everyone high fives and a big mature, sterile forest is allowed to stay static.

Forests do not support the moose populations that willow thickets do. The predators are a constant - they then hit the remaining, lower density moose population harder than ever. Eventually, they will eat an area out, the pup count will drop or the wolves will starve and die. Moose will come back and, if we really let a good fire rip through the area, will come back in big numbers. This is what has happened in the Tanana flats near Fairbanks. This area, thanks to some wildfires, now supports some of the largest moose densities in the world. Hunters take hundreds and hundreds of moose out of this area that is only a few miles from the second largest city in Alaska.

However, we are not willing to wait 25 years for this cycle to take place. We are also not willing to jumpstart it with a good fire. So, we take the third best alternative and engage in predator control. Yes it works but it seems to me to be an unnecessarily artifical approach to the problem. I would support some wildfires near villages, either waiting for lightning to cause them or setting them ourselves. We then would have denser moose populations closer to villages where people could have a very good chance.

I realize that FOA would prefer an Alaska where we all are vegans and there is no hunting but that isn’t going to happen. As I’ve said above, the economics don’t work and subsistance is just too much a part of people’s lifestyles up here. I truly believe that your organization can have a voice in Alaska but only if you sit at the table. Preaching from the outside, or suing the state is not sitting at the table. Find an issue of common ground with the Alaska outdoor community (for instance reintroduction of wood bison that were wiped out by Indian hunters in the early 19th century) and work together. While you may not share common ground on all issues, you will be surprised to learn that the Alaska Outdoor community is a diverse bunch and not the slob thrill hunters you may think we are.

J

[Blog editors’ note: A key issue for FoA and its supporters, some of whom do live in Alaska, is that predator control is - yes - an artificial undertaking and that it also denies the dead wolves the lives that they were born into the world to experience. There are people in and out of Alaska who tell us that it’s meaningful to them that the wolves are granted their autonomy and their lives - even if these people never see a wolf themselves.]

On December 23, 2005, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

Jack Tims,

well put.
Thanks.

On December 27, 2005, becky wrote:

it seems to me that there is an even more pronounced animal population problem that many seem to forget about - the human. massive amounts of unemployment, starvation, overuse of the earth’s natural resources, pollution and an impending water crisis. if killing is the best solution for other animals, then i should foresee no protests when the government opens your backyard to population controlling hunters. to quote - isn’t that more humane than to slowly starve to death? we should treat all animals with the same respect we demand for ourselves.

On December 28, 2005, Betty Lou Foster wrote:

What part of “The Natural Order of Things” don’t they understand.

On December 28, 2005, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

Ellie
i agree with you that rural Alaskans are not the only ones hunting. i also agree that those living in the south of the state are able to grow gardens. this is not an alternative in the north. for the sake of those who do not realize the size of the state, comparing the north part of the state to the south part of the state is like comparing texas to montana.



not that it really matters but the alaska railroad serves few rural areas. only a small portion of the railroad is runs in areas not accessible by road and there are no communities in these areas. they offer freight service only to anchorage and fairbanks. there is limited service for the 50 mile stretch north of talkeetna and fuel/coal to and from healy for the coal mine. in a state over twice the size of texas there is only 500 miles of railroad.

i will concede that to many people, perhaps most, hunting is not a necessity. but to some here it is a matter of survival. as i have stated air cargo is available in most of the state but it is unreliable at best and cost prohibitive.

i agree with what Jack Tims has said, written much better than i could have. i also think that since alaskas have voted not to allow the wolf hunts they should not take place.

i disagree with FoA’s boycott as those most affected by it are the everyday people, the same ones who voted against the wolf hunts. thankfully the boycott has had little if any effect on tourism here. with oil prices as high as they are you are not going to hurt the government.

i also appreciate that FoA allows those of us different views to express them here. while there are a lot of emotion based comments, some of mine included, some are well thought out and fact based.

Thanks
Jimmy Allen

On December 28, 2005, Jack Tims wrote:

Ellie,

Although your facts are incorrect, I think your interim conclusion about moving to the city is correct. However, for the reasons that follow, although you did not intend it, your relocation proposal is not a palatable option and borders on ethnic cleansing.

The Alaska RR is not really how we get our groceries. Almost 100% is trucked in to major transporation hubs in Anchorage and Fairbanks and then redistributed by air. This second redistribution is what accounts for the tremendous differential in prices once you are off the road system. The Alaska RR transports coal, some large military hardware and other large tonnage items as well as tourists in the summers.

You correctly note that subsistence gardening is a possibility south of the Brooks Range. The vegetables that do well here are northern hybrids, particularly ones that do not mind cold soil. Although we do have long daylight, it is at a low angle so the ground does not warm like it does in the midwest. There are ways around this like raised insulated beds, greenhouses, etc. However, this is complicated in rural areas by the limitations on electrical power and running water. The amount of acreage that you can cultivate without these basic resources is limited. Also, I think there is a cultural issue in that Natives do not have a cultural tradition of subsistence farming.

Now - where are you correct? 80% of the state population lives near Fairbanks of Anchorage. Another 10% lives around one of the larger cities (I’m omitting Barrow and Bethel from this count as they are larger but still native and very much considered “bush”).

These larger cities aren’t bush communities by any means. These residents (I’m among them) do have access to grocery stores, gas stations, etc. It would follow that a huge percentage of the moose and caribou hunters also come from these areas. They do not have to hunt to survive. As I noted above, we do it as a form of recreation that I do not expect you to understand. I am at a similar loss to understand the interest in watching people play poker on TV.

However, the 10% of the population that lives in the bush truly needs game meat to make economic sense out of living there. We are talking abouta little less than 60,000 people that live in communites of a few dozen to a few thousand. A large amount of their food is gathered and hunted. These communities still have a large number of native language speakers - not just elders, but young people too. The culture, although adapted to interact with our world and economic system, is still largely intact, much more so than in Conneticut.

Digression 1 - Keep in mind that man is and has for tens of thousands of years been a very natural part of the Alaska environment. By man, I do mean hunters, not hunted. Alaska has the longest period of human occupation of any part of North America. Many of the animals that remain here contemporaneously with paleoindians. Like man, Cervids in Alaska are distributed circumpolarly. The Alaskan species that survived the extinction of the megafauna co-evolved with man in response to hunting pressure and availability.

Digression 2 - Conneticut has a history of native occupation going back 10,000 years. You currently have five reservations occupied by 19 Indian families. You killed or co-opted almost 100% of your natives. Forgive me if i don’t believe that you have sufficient facts or moral high ground to tell Alaskans how to deal with our rural economic issues.

However, maintaining these towns and villages is very costly. It takes billions just to provide basic health and sanitation services. The cost of housing, food, fuel, and everything else is dramatically higher.

The cold economics would probably argue in favor of closing these towns down and moving everyone to the city. This would dramatically reduce hunting pressure on all animals living in rural areas. We have seen the dramatically negative effect that had on lower 48 and Canadian native populations. This forced migration would effectively ethnically cleanse Alaskan natives. There would still be a few who put on shows for the tourists, but the culture, as an intact community, would quickly be swallowed.

That is the reason that we have predator control in rural areas - to maximize the available food to allow these communities to survive. To keep people living near their cousins and aunties and grandparents. To allow the foods that they need to survive to be harvested near the communities they live. Why? Because there is something special about a place where everyone doesn’t want to live in a city and get a job to pay a mortgage and commute to work and get an i-pod and die of cancer. Because we feel that the Lower 48 model (including Conneticut - when was the last time you saw a family of Pequods living anything approaching a traditional lifestyle) of genocide, forced relocation, and concentration camps is not the way to deal with the Alaska natives. Because the rural parts of the state remind many of us why we came here and stay here. Much like the value of wilderness, even if one never visits such places, it is comforting knowing in the back of our minds that they exist; that we didn’t let (or worse, force) them to die away.

J

On December 29, 2005, Brittnei Mullenix wrote:

This is such a terrible thing! I think that it’s okay to try and keep the wolf population down because they could get over populated, but I think they should handle it in a different way. I mean, it is like they’re going on a killing spree, and that’s very wrong. So I think we should do everything we can to stop this terrible act.

On December 30, 2005, Frank wrote:

Let me start by saying I agree with Betty Lou Foster!!

I enjoy hunting for food and even sport as long as there is as little waste as possible, but this is NOT what I would consider a hunt. Where is the sport in exhausting an animal and then shooting it with a high powered firearm? This sounds more like mass genocide of a particular species than a hunt.

I would like to ask what they plan on doing with those 400 wolves the state would like killed? It’s not like there is a huge demand for puppy fur or K9 meat in the USA!?
How many wolves are there left in the world…?

Can anyone tell me if there is going to be any sort of discrimination in this aerial hunt, such as a hunter can only take a male animal over a certain age, and how stringent is the punishment of those who do not discriminate appropriately?

On January 1, 2006, neil wrote:

It’s a new year. Let’s stop the killing and start saving and helping the wolves and all animals.

On January 1, 2006, Dianna Demers wrote:

What can we do to make this stop? I am seriously considering going up there with a bullet proof vest and standing in front of the wolves when the helicopters come. I feel so helpless. I can’t sleep knowing that this is happening to these innocent creatures. What else can the average person do to help make this stop? I don’t understand this senseless cruelty and would like to take some sort of action to help.

On January 1, 2006, Gordon wrote:

Ellie, just a comment on your Alaska Railroad going by Native villiages, it goes by 3 villiages, out of at least 200 hundred or more in Alaska, So Jimmy is right in saying that Alaska Railroad only service very few, not even enough to notice , the railroad will not stop in these towns , they go straight through , if you are too close to the tracks you will get run over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, there is no money in deliveing food for the railroad

[Blog editors’ note: Alaska receives substantial federal money. It appears as though some of it could be more wisely distributed.]

On January 5, 2006, Ornella wrote:

Stop please! It’s a shame what you are doing !!
I am not afraid of the wolf but the man …..

On January 6, 2006, Jack Tims wrote:

Ellie,

I’m not certain whether you are trying to make my point or yours. The school program you are talking about was shut down because the school did not have $300/month to spend on electricity. There is no tax base in these communities. There is little or no government. There is tremendous unemployment and the entire community is as tight as the school. Keep in mind that there is no electrical grid in most of these communities. They have independent electrical systems that run off of diesel generators. The diesel is barged or flown in at enormous expense.

The latest figures I found for freight composition on the ARR was petroleum - 46%, Gravel, 11%, Coal 9%, interline freight (shipping containers) 29.5%, and other - 4%. http://www.alaskarailroad.com/pdf/ISER%20report%203-16-05.pdf

Regarding the mileposts on the ARR. It’s pretty easy to place them if you are from here. Eklutna is a native community, however it is served by road (Glenn hwy), not the railroad. Nenana is not really a village, it’s a small town. It is also served by the highway (Parks). Both are an easy drive to a major metropolitan area. More importantly, none of these areas are subject to aerial wolf control.

While there may be some future options, I’m talking about the situation on the ground today. That situation requires subsistence hunting and fishing and gathering to fill the freezer. It also provides a cultural link for people to a way of life that has beeen practiced by their ancestors without interruption for tens of thousands of years.

I’m not certain what, if anything, Alaska is spending on wolf control. No state employees or aircraft are used. I could find no mention of it in the Fish and Game operating budgets. Although they do mention predator control as a goal. Does anyone have a figure, with citation, for the program?

It is also impossible to see how much is spent on the bush as a region as there is not a department of the bush to look at . Bush funding is spread throughout the state budget. However, the state does pay for 100% of the bush schools except for the few schools that are located in organized boroughs. There are also considerable federal funds that get funneled into the bush.

Frank - this isn’t hunting, it is killing. No one in Alaska feels this is sport. It is intended to lower wolf populations in targeted areas with the goal of increasing ungulate populations. There are about 150K-200K wolves left in the world. By those numbers Alaska nas 5-10% of the world’s population. Because the goal is population control, only adults are targeted. There are severe penalties (fines, imprisonment, forfeiture of plane) for aerial hunting without a permit or outside of a permitted wolf control area.

Editor, we would love to get federal railroad funds to subsidize spur lines. However, these funds would make the controversial bridges look like pocket change.

Regardless, the solution is not a few million in state food or fuel welfare. The people don’t want it. While it is interesting to muse about it over our high speed internet connections, those who are living in the villages affected by the predator control just want to live their lives. I’ve said it before but I’ll repeat myself - solutions imposed from the outside rarely work.

We can describe it for you but you need to come up here and look at it. If you do come, come with an open mind. Come during the fall and see what happens to the caribou and the moose. Watch the last of the salmon get pulled from the river and put in the smokehouse. Head up north and watch an entire Inupiaq community land a bowhead whale. See some wolves living wild and free without wildlife managers hovering over them. While I understand that some of these activities are not your thing, you really need to experience them to understand some of the things we are saying. We truly are a different place up here and any real solutions will require real local knowledge.

J

On 16 January 2006, Rick Steiner of Alaska replies to the above comment with the following response:

If the point is just that living in rural Alaska is not all that easy, I might agree. I have lived more years in rural Alaska than anywhere else in my entire life. However, leaping from that premise to the fallacious conclusion that we need to kill wolves in order to live there is patently absurd.

Many (most) people live in rural Alaska without hunting. This is part of the frontier myth that many still purport here — that life would not be possible in bush Alaska without
shooting everything that moves, and that only people in bush Alaska can possibly understand all of this. It is entirely possible to live in bush Alaska and be a vegetarian, or to live lower on the food chain.

Many people do.

As for costs, of course they are high for things and services that have to be imported, but many folks choose to live there, knowing full-well the costs involved. There are valuable perspectives in rural AK, but there is
also great inertia to considering anything new and progressive.

Killing wolves is not about lowering costs of bush living, nor is it about rationale management of wildlife. Iit is simply about struggling to preserve the self-identity of a dysfunctional and defunct way of living. With all
the modern conveniences of any city dweller in New York, say, some in rural Alaska still cling to a romantic frontier world-view that rationalizes virtually anything they want to do (level forests, pollute salmon streams with mine tailings, shoot and trap, etc..) as a “cultural tradition.” Well,certainly such things are a tradition here, but so was slavery in the south, commercial whaling, and women and minorities not having the right to vote a hundred years ago. We simply grew out of such insanity. Time to do the

same regarding the “culture of killing” in Alaska. If we can’t live here in a sustainable, respectful way, then we should perhaps consider other places or models for living that are.

RS

On January 6, 2006, Tom Classen wrote:

I have lived in Alaska for 46 years and remember how things were before all the good things (?) happened in the villages. They did not worry about the cost of electricity as they did not have any. Sufficient light was obtained by other means.

The native people depended more on subsistence then, as this was before the days of government subsidized freight enabling them to have food supplies shipped to the village at postal rates.

I never saw anyone in any village that refused a government welfare check. They also accept any freebie offered. I doubt if there is any welfare outlet that is ignored.

They were more self-sufficient then than they are now. Many of their survival methods have been lost and the young are not interested in the “old” ways.

Oil has changed everything for them and they have also developed a syndrome of “have and have-nots”.

The Dept. wolf control program is done by volunteers by permits provided by the agency. The only incentive is the sport involved. Some people think it is a great event to find a family of wolves, and for no good reason kill as many of them as possible. Is it effective? Depends on how one looks at it. It does result, at least temporarily, in more moose. Then the Dept. worries that the number exceeds the carrying capacity of the land. So they have a long season allowing all moose of both sexes to be killed. Off hand I think this is wrong. I think they should strive for a natural ecosystem and stop trying to farm a wild animal.

Tom Classen
Fairbanks, Alaska

[Blog editors’ note: We received this as well:]

Its been almost 40 years ago that I saw my first special on TV concerning the plight of the wolves. My most vivid memory of that show was of the wolves running across the snow, not a place to hide and being shot down by men in planes!! My Dad was also an animal lover and when we spoke of what I’d seen he said “are they still doing that? I can remember them doing that when I was young!! The men who govern, who say “This will be our LAST CONTROL program in the area” only to reneg in a matter of a few years; to those who set aside vast areas for wildlife and have others come behind them and reneg on that too; to the men who shoot these animals and especially those who snare and trap them I ask WHY? Do you not read the research that says wolves make the other animals in the areas (eg moose, deer,elk herds) thrive and florish by culling the weakest and the sickest or are you so greedy that just tossing out more licenses at the expense of the torture and death of these animals means nothing?????Another factor is the love and loyalty that these animals display in their packs, they mate FOR LIFE (which is something we humans seen unable to manage), they raise their young in a loving, protective pack!! Where is our humanity to other living things? Why when humans enter the pictures must the animals be only tortured and killed without purpose?????

S. Rively.

On January 9, 2006, Rae wrote:

This is by far the most disturbing thing I have ever read. I remember as a child seeing this same thing on TV and it was only supposed to be temporary. It seems to me that like all things in this world, the senseless killing of the wolves is not for maintaining a stable balance of the population, but for profit. That is all it is, plain and simple.

On January 10, 2006, ss wrote:

I don’t understand this still! You especially Jim Twoeagles. You all talk about killing wolves is okay, and that it’s natural. It’s not. I am part cherokee, and let me tell you what you don’t just take away from nature, what god put there, and that is what you all are saying is okay. Especially the hunter, and the government. Like you said get the facts straight, and the government has not done that, nor are the hunters and the people that believe that they can kill to satisfy their needs. Their is so many ways to get food, and not have to do things and take away from nature to do it. Open your eyes, and your hearts, and look at what your doing.