Finally, the wolves won. Then Alaska's Board of Game changed the rules.

On February 1, 2006, dave wrote:

boy these knuckleheads are on a real roll, kill the wolfs,kill the bears,kill the moose. what are they going to do when the population expands up there.issue permits to kill them too. maybe you should push them into a jury hearing where they will loose. and sue the state and the board and even the individuals on the board.give them ulcers and make them sweat bullets when they now have there personal assets on the line for going through life being idiots.see how qiuck they change there tune when there infront of a jury of alaskans whose majority voted twice to end this hunt.now they don’t have their pinhead polititions to bail them out.

On February 1, 2006, Molly C. wrote:

Dear Priscilla,
I thank you for helping these wolves. The survival of the wolf population is very important to me. I have made a wolf petition to help protest against areal wolf killing at my school. I have collected signatures from teachers, janitors, teachers, students, and even more people. I intend to send my petition to theAnchorage Superior Court to try to emphasize Judge Sharon Gleason’s point against aerial wolf killing. Please, everyone, keep hoping that the wolves make it through this.

Molly C.
[ Blog editors’ note: Many thanks and do send letters to the Anchorage Daily News. Address: letters@adn.com]

On February 1, 2006, Francis Murray wrote:

Hi - I live in Alaska. I am against the wolf killings.
It is wrong to Kill the wolf so as to artificially keep moose herds up so that people can kill the moose. This is wrong. I do know that public out cry against this does help. I hope that each and every one of you calls our state and writes letters to our newspapers telling how wrong it is for the Board of Game to manage our wild life in this way. Many other factors contribute to low populations of moose: hard winters, hunters, etc.. If moose populations are low the first thing is to stop the hunters from hunting. Let the wolf do its job of keeping the herds strong by killing the weak. Natural selection has its place for a reason. I also know that our Gov. wants to improve the image of Alaska. There was an article about this in the Juneau Empire yesterday I think. So

I think now is a great time to raise holy hell about what Alaska does to its wild life. Write to our papers, write to your papers about this. Write to all the hunting / touring guides and tell them that you are going else where with your$.

Please.

On February 1, 2006, Monique Prendergast wrote:

This slaughter of Alaska’s wild creatures is so wrong. When will humans stop messing things up???? Never I am afraid.

On February 1, 2006, Terry from Alaska wrote:

Priscilla wrote:
“Friends of Animals is adamantly opposed to the aerial wolf and bear shootings, and to a tightknit group of bureaucrats who gerrymander to justify predator control.”

Not only is FoA against these things, they’re against all forms of hunting, even if hunting is the only means of putting meat on the table. Oh, that’s right FoA is against all forms of consuming meat and wants the world to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. FoA will stop at nothing to advance their agenda. Why don’t you tell people what your really against and stop playing on the bleeding hearts of nieve people to further your idiotic agenda?

[Blog editors’ note: Copies of Dining With Friends: The Art of North American Vegan Cuisine are available at a discount to Alaskans for $19.95. We’ll pay the shipping.]

On February 1, 2006, Augie Lombardozzi (Pennsylvania, USA) wrote:

The heartless non sporting murder of wolves to increase moose populations for the hunting industry is wrong. Issue less moose licenses and charge more for those you do. This will increase moose populations without dropping revenue. Let those who wish to hunt carry the cost not the wolf!!!! Augie

On February 1, 2006, Francis Murray wrote:

Posted a comment a little while ago and have been thinking. Now would be a real good time to “Boycott Alaska” through the internet. I’ve seen it where folk from all over the world take pictures of them selves holding a sign opposing something. Could start one opposing the wolf slaughter in Alaska. Now, before the tourist season takes off. I don’t know anything about how to do it, but was hoping someone would take the ball. The article I mentioned above in my last posting is located at Juneauempire.com dated January 19, 2006. I’ve copied and pasted some of it below. Our governor mentioned in his State Of The State Address he wants to improve the image of Alaska. The timing would be perfect.

Copied and pasted from the Juneau empire:

Gov. Frank Murkowski, in his State of the State address last week, made a point to legislators that most Alaskans have made to each other over the years: “The nation’s view of Alaska is sorely distorted.”

Learn from the masters. At least, that’s what the governor suggested, and we think it’s an idea worth study. Gov. Murkowski urged the Legislature to solicit proposals for a national education campaign “to accurately portray Alaska.”

On February 2, 2006, Susan GraWolfe wrote:

I am saddened at the total lack of humanity of some of these “people” (Norton, Murkowski, Board members). I was given the name GraWolfe because of my love and devotion to the wolf and protection of them. I haven’t been to Alaska in years and won’t until they stop killing not only the wolves, but the bears and even the moose. Like one of your other comments say: Natural selection has its place for a reason.

Maybe some Natural selection is needed in the Alaskan administration!

On February 2, 2006, Steven wrote:

I Read this article and i tore my heart… I Love wolves thre looks and personality and nature in them… it sickens me that all those wolves were gunned down like that… i hope your thing works Molly. Best luck to you.

Sorry about my spelling im horrable ^_

On February 2, 2006, Bill Leitch wrote:

I notice something about the reader comments you post to this blog. The vast majority are supportive of FOA (not surprising; this is, after all, the FOA web site), but when you post comments that oppose your views, you choose to reveal only those that are foolish, poorly written, and easy to counter - as if to show your members what dunderheads the “other guys” are. A good example exists in the comments posted under your Jan. 17 news.

Yet when Alaskans like myself send comments that are factually accurate and well-informed, and impossible for you to refute, you refuse to publish them, and dismiss them as “demented” and “mainpulative”.

You do everyone - including yourself - a disservice by censoring opposing views.

[Blog editors’ note: We don’t fashion the letters that wolf-hunters send, so if these writers appear to be unhinged, that’s their reflection. If Alaska’s wolf-haters were able to opine on the topic of the blog posting, rather than off-topic, more postings would appear — minus, of course, the bravado about how much they enjoy making animals dead. ]

On February 2, 2006, Jack Tims wrote:

It is interesting that Blog postings of some Alaskans are “deleted for the sake of efficiency and civility” yet veiled and not so veiled physical threats against Alaskan political figures are not. Perhaps we have a different definition of “civility” in Alaska. My thought is that the real problem is that the good people back East would rather muse about fantasies like aerial bear hunting (which does not exist) instead of hearing and discussing what is actually happening in Alaska.

I’m sorry you see our discussions as lecturing about the courts. Perhaps someone with several decades of experience working in the Alaska Courts knows something about them that you could learn from. It is possible that someone who has spent his lifetime in the Alaska outdoors knows something that you didn’t learn in your Walmart book. It is even possible that someone who has been very involved in Alaska politics might actually have a better idea of what will and won’t politically fly up here.

…It is the same thing with the Alaska Boycott. While a legitimate form of political speech, it has not worked in the past. Yet you still have very well intentioned folks suggesting that you fire up another boycott effort. All the while, money is being spent, time is passing and more wolves are dying.

So why create the staw man? No one is trying to limit your rights to free speech. However, how many wolves has all this speech actually saved? If i was truly Machiavellian I would suggest that you keep on trying your tried and failed methods because they will very likely fail again. However I’m still operating under the premise that you are really trying to save wolves and not just fund raise but the disconnect between your methods and the good they actually produce for the wolves suggests otherwise.

As I’ve said many times, I wouldn’t shed a tear if aerial wolf control went away tommorow. However your methods and somethimes violent rehtoric seem to be almost designed to unify Alaskans against you.

J

[Commentary and opinions regarding FoA’s lawyer and litigation, and other named parties, has been deleted, as marked by the ellipse in the above comment. Any communications regarding FoA litigation should be directed to Atty. Reeves. Readers should be aware that Friends of Animals is working in the interest of non-violent goals and endorses peaceful methods to achieve those goals.]

On February 2, 2006, Sean P. White wrote:

Again I write, we have a different lifestyle in Alaska. Its a state based on personal freedom and native culture. What you people propose destroys whole ways of life. As the bumper sticker says (eat moose wear wolf).

[Blog editors’ note: As we repeat: there’s no single voice in Alaska. Aerial wolf control permits are issued to well-heeled hunter-pilot teams who are privileged enough to own private aircraft. Your views don’t define an entire culture.]

On February 3, 2006, Della Irvin wrote:

My heart is sad over what we are doing to our environment and our wildlife. The reason there is so very few caribou is not that the wolves are getting them more than they should it is what we have done to them. Sadly enough this is why global warming is not just a threat anymore but a definate issue for all of us because we say we need to stop all of this but we don’t.

On February 4, 2006, David Leetham wrote:

Somehow I don’t see how stopping the wolf hunting by aircraft would destroy “whole ways of life.” Somehow I doubt the native way of life in Alaska involves shooting wolves from the air. We’re talking about hunters paying for the “privilege” of murdering for the thrill of it. True, FOA would like to see the end of hunting as a way of life, as would I, but that isn’t what this protest is about. It is about stopping a barbaric practice that serves no valid purpose whatsoever. (Sorry - artificially inflating moose populations so the hunters will have more moose to kill is NOT a valid purpose). Alaska’s ecosystem can balance itself out just fine without our interference - the meddling must stop.

On February 5, 2006, Sean P. White wrote:

I like reading all of these posts but I wonder if you actually belive the inacurate factoids you spout. The number one problem I see is lack of information. As a “well-heeled” hunter your shots fall short. Bringing some kind of class war aginst the wealthy man with the airplane it just…well, dosent fly. Airplanes are like cars here anyone who wants to go anywhere in Alaska has one. I wont say they are cheap but in aircraft you can spend as much or as little as you like depending on the performance you want. The hunter teams you mention go through a training and slection process by fish and game these are not glory hounds out for the kill. The men I know are trappers and bush poeple who have been flying and hunting for their whole lives. They respect the game they hunt and the training helps for cleaner kills with less suffering. Alaska’s predator/prey will balance but the cycle you speak of is very long. The information has gotten weird with climactic change thrown in the mix. Even the experts have no idea when the moose populations will rebound. These would be the moose that the wolves and bears decimated not hunters as you might have been lead to think. Hunters make a laughably small impact on the moose populations in the predator control areas. This also brings that up the predator control areas, they are tiny specks in a state with a scale most people cant understand. Just like I cant understand why people choose to live packed together like sardines. I wish it was as cut and dried as the talking heads say but its not. Just try to be tolerant of lifestyles and cultures you may not understand. Thats why I started posting Im trying to understand. Understand how imposing your views can somehow be right or just.

[Blog editors’ note: You’re assuming far too much. Where do you live in Alaksa? ]

On February 9, 2006, Jack Tims wrote:

You need to remember where that word “game” in this context came from. In the England where the definition you cite came from all animals “ferae naturale” belonged to the crown. They were legally hunted exclusively for sport. By law there could be no subsistance hunting in common law England because commoners taking game was considered stealing from the crown.

That situation is only partially analagous to modern Alaska. The government still retains the power to regulate and control the game populations but not for the benefit of the crown, for the benefit of the people - all the people. This includes the hunters, the photographers, the birders, the fishermen - everyone.

You may enjoy creating the fantasy of hunters walking around the woods spouting nonsense like Ted Nugent but I can assure you that those are a very small minority. There’s a similar fantasy that the outdoor community spouts about animal rights groups being a bunch of nut cases.

Most are ethical nice people who enjoy the outdoors, enjoy the challange of hunting, and enjoy the meat.

[Blog editors’ note: This begs the question by assuming “enjoying the meat” is ethical, even as it suggests that the flesh of other animals is indeed consumed in Alaska for pleasure.]

On February 11, 2006, Larry wrote:

Blog editor - my, aren’t you disingenuous.

I, (as does every animal) eat because I must. Do you only eat things that taste bad? What animal chooses to eat things that don’t satisfy (please). Enjoying what one eats is entirely ethical - and mostly practical. Few of us eat things (with the exception of medicine) that we do not enjoy the taste of. Sating my hunger is indeed pleasurable, as is the varied tastes of the animals that I consume, the salad ingredients and veggies (much of which I grow myself), the potato/rice/pasta, the wine or water, etc. Many “domestic” meat eaters do not like the taste of any wild “game”. That’s their problem. I don’t like the taste of some species I’ve tried myself. And I don’t particularly care for the high fat/greasy content of most “domestic” meats. I do enjoy growing/harvesting/processing my own food - animal or vegetable.

I do indeed enjoy the consumption of animal flesh, well prepared, as well as the satisfaction of the harvest, careful retrieval of the meat (often miles with a back-pack) and home processing- all done by myself. Be it noted I do not hunt and kill animals that I I find less than tasty (pleasurable!)

So mark me down for consuming animals for pleasure, if you wish.

By what right do you impose your dubious “ethics” on me?

I have no doubt this will not be posted,.

On February 11, 2006, Larry wrote:

I do agree- we are not obligate carnivores - but I chose to be so. My primary motivation is food on the table. That I enjoy the hunting for it is a fact, of which I am not apologetic for, but it IS secondary.

As to my garden- well- I really ought to invest in an 8’ high fence, as the moose get more of it than I do. :)


They raise hell with my strawberries too.

[Blog editors’ note: Imagine what the moose say about hell-raising. One should give moose, bears, wolves and more a lot of credit for eking out a livng in Alaska — given the landscape, climate, natural predators, and behavior of some homo sapiens.]

On February 13, 2006, Lori wrote:

there is no good reason to kill animals! hopefully one day there will be no more cruelty towards animals.

On February 13, 2006, Damon G wrote:

Oh my…I can’t believe this. What an outrage! Funny bone politics at its best. I’ve been a friend of wolves since reading Jim Brandenburg’s amazing article and photographs on wolves years ago in National Geographic. I obvisously have not been paying attention for some time, thinking the re introduction of wolves in Mont, Idaho and Wash was taking us in the right step. Does anyone have some actual names of peole who run the Game Board in Alaska? Anyone have the minutes from their “emergency meeting”, more specifically taped minutes? And does anyone have any insight into the flawed data they are using? While legal avenues will be the the most effective and Friends of Animals has my support; down right, good old accountability is sometimes a nice avenue to take as well.

Damon

On February 14, 2006, Larry wrote:

Obviously, “choosing to be an obligate carnivore” is an oxymoron. Just as obviously, the “chose” applied only to “carnivore”, not to the modifier “obligate”. My sentence structure could never-the-less have been a bit more clear.

“Friends of Animals takes the moral position that it is not acceptable to kill sentient beings to maintain a particular diet, lifestyle or culture.”

That philosophy has been around awhile, although the proponents are mostly extinct. Currently, you are outnumbered about 8 billion to a few thousand. Which doesn’t mean you are wrong, although I think you are. Humans and proto-humans (omnivores, all - well, mostly) have failed to accept that philosophy for some 3 million years, now.

Only in the last few decades has it gained a modicum of publicity, although very little acceptance. for example, do you intend to try to placate Islamic extremists with tofu and platitudes, adopt the lifestyle (which accepts meat eating), or fight back against terrorism, which means killing enough of them to make them ineffectual and desist. Those are your choices.

Nor do wolves and other predators subscribe to it, for which only total idiots (and there are some) hold them to blame. So why then should omnivores - particularly humans (remember that 3 million year history?) - be held to a different standard? Should I castigate moose for being herbivores and snacking on my strawberries every chance they get?

Should we abrogate our responsibility ( in my opinion) as the only species capable of moderating nature’s random events toward our own and other species well being (as best we understand it) in our own interests, even in selfish interest (the best kind- or at least the most lucrative - which pays the bills for “management”)?

So called “sportsman” have contributed billions of dollars over the last century for the preservation and enhancement of “game” habitats (which many “non-game” species benefit from), the re-introduction of once native species, enforcement, and scientific study and understanding of relationships.

Many of the so called “environmental” groups have contributed little, except to the coffers of their executive staffs.

Educated and reasonably well off “sport hunters”, willing to put money where their mouth is (as opposed to poverty-level subsistence hunters) are the best friends a species can have- tho it may be a little hard on individuals of the species at times.

On February 14, 2006, Gwyneth Joy Gilmon wrote:

Well now, I am always surprised when I read or hear about people who don’t live here, but are so concerned about our animals! Don’t you have animals where you live? We have an over abundance of wolves, who kill our elk, and moose, and all other animals, and they do need to be thinned out. I’m not saying from an airplane, but we need our food animals. Many people who live here, and further up north have nothing else to eat. These people were here long before the white man showed up, and this is thier land. Unless you’ve been here, and seen first hand what is really going on (you can’t believe every thing you read) then you probably don’t really know. I can’t believe the things tourists tell me they have heard. Sometimes I just Laugh… As for the wolves, you can howl your head off, and frankly we’d rather you’d be anywhere, but Alaska!!! You don’t live here, so mind your own business. P.S. I was born here, so I belong here!

On February 14, 2006, steve wrote:

Have you ever tried to grow vegatables in the tundra? Doesn’t work real well. That same “pristine” vast wasteland that contains so much precious oil that we should be drilling doesn’t yield much in terms of food, other than tasty caribou. Please stay out of Alaska. We really don’t want you here.

On February 14, 2006, Joanne wrote:

It would be as reprehensible to chase and “cull” quarterhorses from the air as it is to chase canines(alaska’s wild dogs i.e. “wolves”). The person who sponsored the enabling legislation (from another state originally), such as it is, is republican and raises quarterhorses. He cried in the alaskan legislative hall in front of the cameras (for the three people actually watching) the other day over the loss of one of his horses. How hypocritical. Those who love these wild canines as much as he loves his horses are sickened by the alaskan gross legislation allowing this daily gross, uncivilized behavior of men. Women aren’t doing this. It’s uncivil, unnecessary, uncultured, and actually stupidly cruel. Of course, I’m against the chasing, harassing of Alaska’s beautiful wild canines. The wild canines (indistinguishable from any other domestic canine “scientifically” i.e. “dogs”) could also be fed from the air. They could also be domesticated just as horses are but the cruelty of republican men would have (slightly) less joyful expression of their otherwise dull dreams of shooting up alaska. Alaska is a stupid red state anyway. I know. I live here. I am an ethnic alaskan as well for what that authenticates about my “views”. Of course, stupid stereotypes rule in Alaska since actual education is forbidden except for republican red-faced children. Feel free to boycott stupidity. That would be very wise. Visit Canada where education is valued, stupidity is NOT highly valued as a societal norm in Canada while stupidity is carefully cultivated and enforced in alaska I believe. In Canada civility is available, and wild canines are a respected life form.

On February 14, 2006, Kayleigh Hoyt wrote:

I was reading my newspaper today, sitting in the local library of Ketchikan, Alaska, and I read that friends of animals was going to begin their howl-ins again to boycott Alaskan tourism. I fully understand that friends of animals has ethical views that find aerial hunting of wolves wrong, which I would have to agree that there must be a better way to build the moos population, but why attack the people of Alaska, who for the majority voted against aerial wolf hunting? The town that I live in has a population of 14,000 people on a good day in the summer, which is tourist season, and our economy is falling every day since president clinton shut down our pulp mill and sent 500 families fleeing. The fishing industry has also dropped significantly because of farmed fish and environmental groups, so we have turned to tourism to make money here and keep on living. Why try and take that away from us? We have given up logging and saved the trees, we have cut back on fishing, and saved some lives of the fish, now that we are trying to concentrate on bringing people into our city to support us instead of taking resources out you are trying to take that away too. Perhaps eventually there will be no reason to live here anymore and there wont be anyone to kill anything, but I really enjoy living in the middle of a natural paradise and would like to be able to support myself here where a gallon of milk is five dollars and the rent on my dinky apartment is 800. Please try and attack the government for their decisions not the people who try and make an honest living here in alaska.

[Blog editors’ note: Thank you for acknowledging that there’s nothing ethical about a state-sponsored air force to shoot wolves. When we put economic pressure on the Murkowski administration to cancel the state’s disgraceful wolf control program, we hear from tourism operators who complain about the boycott, but otherwise sit on their laurels, doing nothing to object to the aerial shooting program. Hunters also say, “Mind your own business. We do things differently here in Alaska.” The tourism boycott is an example of how we do things in the Lower 48. Do make your complaint known to Gov. Murkowski at governor@gov.state.ak.us ]

On February 14, 2006, linda wrote:

SOMEONE NEEDS TO STAND UP FOR OUR WILDLIFE, THE WOLVES CANNOT STAND FOR THEMSELVES THEY CAN’T FIGHT BACK FROM PEOPLE GUNNING THEM DOWN FROM PLANES!!! AERIAL SHOOTING IS ABSOLUTELY MIND-BOGGLING TO ME, ARE WE LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY? THIS SOUNDS SO BARBARIC TO ME! OH WAIT, WE NEED TO DO THIS FOR THE HUNTERS, THAT’S RIGHT! AS IF THEY CANNOT GET FOOD ON THEIR OWN. BUT IT IS A SPORT TO THEM! EVERYTHING IS MADE INTO A SPORT THESE DAYS, THATS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR WORLD. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF WAYS THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY THE ESSENCE OF OUR NATURAL WILDLIFE. SOON WE WON’T HAVE ANY WOLVES IN THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT…

On February 14, 2006, Kayleigh wrote:

If boycotting tourism is the way the lower 48 works, I am glad I don’t live there. I might not approve of some government decisions made in other states but I would never attack an economy that has nothing to do with the problems at hand.

[ Blog editors’ note: The problem is the type of governance that shames not only Alaska , but our country as a whole. Rather than complain that tourists may make tracks elsewhere, do something about the people you’ve elected. Get politically involved. Oppose the violence.]

On February 14, 2006, Joe Alaska wrote:

I live in Alaska, and I hope you never visit this part of the world. If a wolf pack starts to feed on the local dogs, we kill them. Anyone who thinks a cruise in Alaska is an Alaskan experience is like a moron going to China town and boasting as if they lived in China. Please stay away from Alaska; we are barbaric killers of those wondrous creatures known as Timber Wolves.

I promise not to visit your inner city ghettos and try to save your thugs. Next time you hypocrites go shopping at Trader Joes to pick up some organic twigs and berries, remember there was an ecosystem under the asphalt you park your fuel burning dog less sleds. You do not know what is best for me, and I do not want to be like you. Watch a few more documentaries about saving the places you could not tolerate a winter of but would love to visit some summer

[ Blog editors’ note: Guess what: It’s not about you, Joe.]]

On February 14, 2006, jimmy allen wrote:

bravo Kayleigh, you have it absolutely correct. the boycott hurts no one but the average joe who owns or works at the small tourist based business. in reality, the boycott has had little effect on tourism. tourism is growing in most parts of the state, so much so that i have left my oil field job for one in the tourism industry.
the idea that the boycott is putting pressure on murkowski just isnt true. how could you possible believe you are going to economically hurt a government whose revenue is oil based, when oil prices are this high. you have to know by now that, unlike uncle wally, murkowski is not going to budge. murkowski and those like him are going to be here for awhile. alaska is pro hunting, always has been and always will be. we will continue to vote in politicians who are too.

i have seen people change their opinions because of the boycott. the boycott is angering people who would normally be against the wolf control. who do you think is going to have a bigger effect on the subject, a few tourist deciding not to come to alaska or a bunch of voters upset with outsiders trying to effect our economy? most of us dont see the boycott as a means to save wolves but as persecution of the people of alaska. sorry, but its absolutely true. your probably not going to get people on your side by making them angry.

jimmy allen

[Blog editors’ note to Jimmy Allen and others: It’s a person from Juneau, writing to this blog, who is calling most clearly for a boycott. We’ll make an announcement very soon. This isn’t to anger people in Alaska; it’s to motivate change. You should know (we hope you do know) that the people you say are outsiders do not dislike Alaskans. They simply appreciate the freedom that animals have there. One of the reasons some chose not to live there is to leave a largely untouched land in peace.]

On February 14, 2006, Ron Conner wrote:

You people are nuts. I’m sure most if not all of you don’t live there. Let them manage their own affairs. You folks need to stay with your close friends from left, liberal, gay, bunny-hugging Hollywood types. Try something useful, like praying for world peace, give some of your money to help end world hunger, send a letter or package to a lonely soldier, or buy medicine for elderly who can’t afford it. I hope you all leave everything “untouched and in peace” and shut up and enjoy the ghettos and the tall buildings. PLEASE stay where you are!!! Maybe you could all move to a big island with lots of wolves for you to make friends with, where no one kills anything, everyone eats grass and berries, and who knows, without all of life’s luxuries, you may be the hunted!!!

[Blog editors’ note: Spirited little rant. Let’s repeat in unison: Boycott Alaska]

On February 14, 2006, Joanne wrote:

On the other hand, I think it would be pleasant to have a state of citizens who vote other than the mean, unhappy, old republican line - like it used to be here in Alaska before “they” all got here. It was much more humane, enjoyable, and civil, then; before the pillagers recently arrived. Alaska can be more civil again. I’d like to invite all those like-minded individuals to not commit to a cause or a lawsuit but to commit to changing the regime in Juneau. Come on up to Alaska. Move in. Make yourselves to home. Come in droves. Vote appropriately. You are all welcome as residents and can help to restore sanity and loveliness to a lovely land. Pillagers have already arrived with their low appreciation of natural things and their exaggerated need to prove something to themselves. If you are humane you are most needed and welcome to become a resident. You are needed as residents of Alaska. Boycott tourism if you wish. Help restore sanity. Move here. Thanks.

On February 15, 2006, jimmy allen wrote:

of course i realize that FoA does not dislike alaskans as a whole. i am only stating how many perceive the boycott and your movement in general. as far as ‘outsiders’ i meant no disrespect, perhaps i could have come up with another way to describe those who do not live here and know little about our state. i realize some FoA members do live here and others of you are quite knowledgable about alaska, but many who write into this site really do not have a clue. most of my posting have been meant to try to explain things up here and to clear up misconceptions.
since i have began writing to this site i have seen us called heartless, idiots, losers, barbarians, knuckleheads, cowards and so on. i have been told that perhaps we should be the hunted. i have seen threats not only of sanctions but of violence. although i know FoA does not believe these things about all alaskans and does not promote violence, you must see how that looks to us. and while most alaskans do not care whether you boycott or not, those who it will effect take it personally. many here are of the opinion that the boycott will not save wolves but will cost people their livelyhoods. i tend to agree.

[ Blog editors’ note: Jimmy:Tempers are often hot on any blog that allows arguments. In contrast, we’re routinely blocked from hunting-oriented blogs. FoA posts most messages from those who bellyache about animal advocacy views. The most, vulgar, vile messages are not posted. Some idiotic messages appear, but we’re not the authors. When hunters boast about shooting wolves, they sound ridiculous, and we post some of those rants. Many here are disgusted with the violence in our culture, and they sound off accordingly. If people in the tourism industry experience the downside of terrible public policy, then it’s time to wake up and be a part of the change that’s needed. Go to the Board of Game meetings to testify, write letters to your papers, meet with your politicians — be part of the inevitable change; just do something.]

On February 15, 2006, jimmy allen wrote:

joanne:
i too live here. i too am an ‘ethnic alaskan’. Of course, stupid stereotypes rule SOME PEOPLE in Alaska. obviously… one need only read your postings to see that.

i am a newcomer to alaska by some standards, i have only been here 24 years, but the alaska i came to was far less civil then it is now. pipeline days and the years to follow were pretty wild.

On February 15, 2006, Joanne wrote:

Jimmie; the alaska I recall precedes your memories by several decades. Wild canines aka “wolves” in alaska are a life form that by republican (the stars are aligned didn’t the repbubs actually say in Juneau- do you recall Jimmie etc; therefore debate is futile and a waste of republican time etc) legislation are no longer allowed to live in Alaska in spite of the fact that God put the wild canines here. They were here before the repubs and hunters and fisherman. The arial shooting and killing is particularly harmful to civilization. Shooting from the air is a military-type tactic. This is NOT a militarized zone I don’t believe… I think of Alaska as a primarily residential zone where things and human beings “live”. Those participating in this killing are experiencing a “thrill” we, in civil society, don’t want them to experience and enjoy on our perimeters!!! When the wild canines are irradicated what will feed & excite the killers then? They will ignorantly and certainly become insatiable which is spiritually bad for the killers and disinterrested others. Shooting canines from the air is obviously stupid alaskan public policy and I believe promotes evilness. The arrogance of repubs is evidenced by their immediate desire to striate opportunities to live and prosper in their red alaska based on a genetic selection the repubs propose in their sequestered, segregated little chambers away from public scrutiny while dully engaging in low-level group-think in Juneau unchallenged by debate. It’s amazingly ugly. I’m an (inadvertant) elder. Don’t you listen to elders? Oh well. Live and learn. Wild canines were snared by my grandfather and my mother is still haunted by these experiences. I love wild canines. I think they are intelligent. They celebrate full moons etc. Did you know this Jimmie? Wolves have holidays for crying out loud. The wild canines do kill somewhat inefficiently as best as they can to eat which is why the repubs don’t like them. Why not feed them. Canines like that and then they become friends. The canine have an innate, God-given desire to be our “friends” I believe. I’m ethnic. I live here too. How come my views don’t count in Juneau, Jimmie? How come repubs won’t pay for educational facilities outside of a few towns and cities where their kids live huh Jimmie; so everyone can learn and be actively engaged economically? Repubs don’t want wild canine friends. This is laughable to them. The repub thought processes are stunted I believe and the repubs are “leading” the way??? The repubs are the “elders” you listen to Jimmie? ‘Course “they” teach by t.v. Do you watch t.v.? What a mistake. How many sides to coin Jimmie? One? The repub side? That’s what I thought. How efficient. One side to everything. Well, that’s settled in the typical repub alaskan way. How inviting and engaging…hah, not so much…Canada is better. They don’t declare wolves “out of existence” and shot from the air. Which is more civil. Should we have more or less civility? You choose.

On February 16, 2006, Larry wrote:

Bob Orabona - I don’t know about you, but I’m having fun in this discourse! I like contacting differing points of view than my own.

But why do you attack me personally? I’ll buy you a beer or other beverage of your choice anytime. One of my close neighbors is a honcho in Alaska Wildlife Alliance. About the only thing we ever agree on at get-togethers is what we’ll drink at the moment. So why the mean spirit? May we limit this to debate of issues, rather than personal attacks?

I was one (as a young man- college age- without practical experience)- who twice voted to end aerial “hunting” of wolves. Then I lived for a number of years in rural villages, and for a fair while in near “subsistence” conditions, alone in the wilderness (acquiring a wife was the end of THAT). “College boy” gained a whole new meaning!

I still oppose generalized aerial “hunting” of wolves, as it was done in the 60’s and 70’s. I do not oppose arial “culling” under controlled conditions of predators where needed. No doubt growing up as a “farm boy” in North Dakota where we raised animals for sale and slaughter affects my perspective. When there are too many animals present for the available resource base, it is wise to reduce their numbers. And it WILL be done! “Nature” tends to do it to extremes. Human management is sometimes better (not that mistakes aren’t made sometimes- we can but try to the best of our ability).

The fact is, the majority of Alaska (Federally controlled) is off-limits to any “control” methods. Of the rest (State and accommodating Native-held lands), only a small proportion is deemed necessary for predator reduction, i.e. “intensive management” efforts, where arial reduction of wolf numbers and intensified bear harvest are necessary.

If I had to guess, without more extensive research, I’d say only about 6 or 7 % of the entire land mass of the state which wolves inhabit are subject to the arial culling (notice I did not call it “hunting”) program.

As for the poster wondering if anyone knows any of the Board of Game members, yes I do- two of them, one casually , the other (with whom I frequently disagree) for many years. Their names are a matter of public record, available to anyone with the intelligence to work a keyboard.

On February 16, 2006, Joanne wrote:

The problem is the “process”. What “process”? The judges say “no”; the repubs (“game board” appointed by repubs)say: “We’re gonna do it anyway”. The judiciary says “hmm, we need a raise, immediately”. The repubs say “OK”. And, Alaska gets boycotted. And there are fewer humane people because former “college guys” turn from being “idealistic” and separate themselves into lockstep with the aligned stars in error and there you have it…carnage central in lieu of the grand and beautiful state God prepared. Well, have a nice day…somewhere else. The humane people of alaska are frowning. The pillagers, I believe, are here. Humane folks are welcome to move here and vote and become “experts” and say “I LIVE HERE!” Seriously.

On February 24, 2006, katarina wrote:

thank God these poor beautiful creatures are saved! I would like to see these hunters run from an aerial shot!

On March 1, 2006, Christa wrote:

On February 1, 2006, Terry from Alaska wrote, “Not only is FoA against these things, they’re against all forms of hunting, even if hunting is the only means of putting meat on the table. Oh, that’s right FoA is against all forms of consuming meat and wants the world to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. FoA will stop at nothing to advance their agenda. Why don’t you tell people what your really against and stop playing on the bleeding hearts of nieve people to further your idiotic agenda?”

Regardless of what FoA thinks is wrong, the mass-slaughter of wolves is still wrong. They’re saved? Everything is alright?

On March 14, 2006, Angela Lindner wrote:

Finnaly a group of people who agree with me! I knew more people than me cared about wolves! Now down to buisness, the reputation of wolves is unfair, terrible, and barbaric. When people didn’t know much about wolves they were afraid of them but we know more about them and they still have that bad reputation. More and more books and movies have the wolf as the bad guy so people still fear them. Even though I am still young, I think (and know) that wolves should have freedom from their terrible reputation. I think I speak for us all when I say Wolf Freedom and SAVE WOLVES!!!

On March 18, 2006, Clay Pollard wrote:

That’s great. Save the wolves.

One question. What’s going to happen when the human population get’s out of hand, like it is right now? Will we have people hunts. It’s all the same, we have to live with everyone humans and animals alike. Afterall they were here before us.

SAVE THE WOLVES =)

On March 19, 2006, Mary Angela Branch wrote:

I am from Texas and am so against what your Governor and the Alaska Board of Game is doing to wolves. Now I understand the new proposals before them right now, mean to step up the brutal, unwarranted aerial killing, bagging and harvesting of wolves and bears for sport and for fur. And, they are including snow machines to this aerial assault, so hunters can get even closer into dense habitat. I am appalled. The so called emergency issue of declining moose populations is bunk. All this amounts to is the hunting and trapping lobby having their way in the name of big dollars to the State of Alaska. More hunters and trappers means more money. What a bloodsport. The Board should be ashamed. Their website talks about preserving the ecosystem, flora, fauna and wolf habitat. Yet now they want to increase the killings. Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts? I am right now faxing letters every hour to the hotel in Fairbanks where the Board is meeting in hopes there will be some hope for the wolves and bears.

On March 25, 2006, Beverly Adam wrote:

I’m shocked that hunting wolves is permitted. I read “Never Cry Wolf,” in high school and I remember that the main point the author made was that wolves mostly eat rodents and when they hunt in a pack and kill a large animal- such as a moose- it was usually one of the herd which was old or diseased.

The wolves were actually keeping the herds healthy this way.

If you eliminate the wolves you’ll destroy the herds by the spreading of diesase. So how foolish are these hunters? Do they want entire herds to fall apart? Or is man’s greed to always step in and mess everything up? I don’t get it…what imbeciles.

My family was going to visit Alaska and Canada this year, but I’ll be boycotting both. Keep up the good work!

On April 13, 2006, Spencer Jones wrote:

I am outraged that aerial gunning has been make legal in Alaska and it is tourture to the wolves. The wolves just want to survive

On June 3, 2006, Angela Lindner wrote:

WHAT DO WE WANT? “WOLF FREEDOM!” WHEN DO WE WANT IT? “NOW!” Save those little cuties. And !!!!!SAVE WOLVES!!!!!
I think that’s what a group of wolf lovers should do. And on an episode of Ed, Edd, en’ Eddy (I told you I was still young) the dumb one got a wolf pelt from his pen-pall and it sickened me! And one of the dudes had a wolf head for a mask… (Barfing and crieing at the same time) Is it fair for such a beautiful and innocent creature to have a bad reputation for living it’s life? I mean humans hunt alot more then wolves and we don’t eat it all. We also use animal skins to show off about it. Also we’re more violent then wolves. I mean we have wars! We kill for the fun of it. I think humans should have their reputation! I just wanna march over to the Gov. of Alaska and beat ‘em up!!! Then cry to make ‘em feel guilty (‘cause I’m a kid!). Then have a tempure tantrum. And if I must… START A WAR! Just kidding…only about the war… But that’s how I feel. I’ve got all my class and teacher on the good side of wolves. And I’ll never quit! Maybe (if you already aren’t) do the same. !!!!SAVE WOLVES!!!!

On June 4, 2006, Alessia Rinaldi wrote:

That’s NOT a game, it’a a SHAME !!!!
I was planning a trip to Alaska, but … I changed my mind.

( I AM VERY SORRY, VERY SORRY FOR THE GOOD PEOPLE LIVING THERE BUT GO AGAINST YOUR GOV.) Alessia from Italy

On December 30, 2006, Angela Lindner wrote:

People think that wolves are safe…BUT THEY’RE STILL IN DANGER I’ll be back with more info.