Friends of Animals: BOYCOTT IS BACK

On February 15, 2006, Margaret Payne wrote:

I applaud you for your work. That animal, the eyes, the heart, the spirit, who in their right minds would want to destroy them. Is there an estimate of how many are left in Alaska?
Humans are the ones that need to be controlled.

[Blog editors’ note: There are several thousand or more wolves who eke out a living in Alaska. Alaska’s wildlife agency commonly refers to 7,000 - 10,000 wolves, but they are not counted, deaths are not subtracted, and the population guess comes from trapping extrapolations. ]

On February 15, 2006, Ramona Coyote wrote:

On Sunday the Anchorage Daily News posted your planned Boycott, with mention, that in their opinion it did not affect the tourism trade last time….So, maybe if we Boycott all goods coming FROM Alaska…including seafood, hides, bear skulls, soap etc…this might get their attention! Each of these is BIG industry, and maybe they would then get involved.

[Blog editors’ note: Heavens, yes. Ramona Coyote, you’d better not be touching those skulls and hides. That boycott should be eternal. By the way, one of the moves the Board of Game made in response to the Court’s decision of 17 January (that the aerial shooting plans were illegal) was to open up the selling of bear hides!]

On February 15, 2006, Peggie Hartig wrote:

I participated in “howl-ins” 2 years ago and was overjoyed with this temporary “victory”! It’s absolutely heartbreaking that it was so shortlived! My husband and I starting thinking we could plan a cruise to Alaska. BUMMER. Until the aerial hunting stops permanently, my family won’t step foot in Alaska! I hope that by the time Murkowski’s term(s)is/are completed, his Game buddies haven’t destroyed the wolf population! At this point, I’d rather be ANYWHERE than Alaska! (I just wish the wolves had the same choice!!)

On February 15, 2006, Mj wrote:

I will never set step in Alaska even if my life depended on it. Nor will I ever go to or support Canada. Slaughtering of the seals is just as cruel as the wolf slaughter that Alaska is allowing. What heartless ,gutless people who do this. This is animal cruelty in the extreme. That’s all these people are doing is killing for the thrill. They are not helping ANYTHING by doing this except to feed their own EGOS. What ….less men. Thats all they are!! What makes me laugh the most is the excuses they use to kill and why they have to do it. ITS ALL LIES and WE ALL KNOW IT!!!

On February 15, 2006, ellie wrote:

I think that is just not right to do!

love, ellie
age,11

On February 15, 2006, AN wrote:

Why do Alaskan’s continue to vote these idiots back into office? The people of ALaska have voted TWICE (through people’s initiative) to STOP SLAUGHTERING WOLVES and disrupting nature’s delicate balance. Yet the people on the GAME BOARD OF ALASKA with their incredible ARROGANCE continue to DEFY the PEOPLE and actually encourage the destruction of their WILDLIFE. Wildlife is the main reason tourists go!! WAKE UP ALASKANs!!! VOTE THESE (unmentionables) OUT!!! THEY DON’T REPRESENT YOUR BEST INTERESTS!!!!

On February 15, 2006, Chris Watt wrote:

Alaska is not on my vacation list.

On February 15, 2006, Sandra Moyer wrote:

I will not be visiting Alaska or taking an Alaskan cruise until this horrible wolf massacre stops.

On February 16, 2006, Flower wrote:

How dare the Alaskans try and control their own state by protecting a natural resource that provides food for their residents. They are a bunch of doodoo heads.

Bainbridge Is. , WA

[Blog editors’ note: Some years ago, the federal government acted to end Alaska’s aerial hunting, in the wake of a national public outcry. Alaska’s aerial gunning permits put Alaska back into a situation similar to the one that caused that outcry. The New York Times recently characterized Alaska’s airborne killing plan as “deploying an air force” to kill wolves. But we’d like to remind the readers that not all Alaskans are engaged in, or supportive of, this particular doodoo-headedness. Most, in fact, are not.]

On February 16, 2006, Larry wrote:

What’s this “seal killing” business??? Other than a few Eskimos killing seals for food (it is illegal for ” white-eyes” to harvest marine mammals), there is no such thing. Methinks you confuse us with the harp seal harvest over in eastern Canada, several thousand Arctic miles away…

Alaskan wolves are in no danger of eradication. 53% ( of so) of Alaska is Federally controlled, on which NO predator culling may take place. Of the rest, only a few areas are subject to “intensive management” where prey populations are so reduced as to justify predator control measures.

A tempest in a teapot indeed…. Boycott away- there’s too damned many tourists in Alaska in the summer anyway, IMHO.

On February 16, 2006, MJ wrote:

clubbing to death baby seals in Canada Larry. I’m SURE you are aware, the whole world is!!!

On February 16, 2006, Ngaire A. Rosan wrote:

You know, many times as I get older, I am ashamed to be human. All we seem to do is kill, slaughter, torture and erradicate all that is beautiful in this world. The wolves live in packs (like families), they love, they feel, they have such beautiful free spirits. How can anyone continue to do such horrible acts to one of God’s most beautiful creatures. God help us all if we don’t wake up soon. As for me, I will stay far away from Alaska, it would break my heart if I were to come upon a dead wolf shot by humans. And to be so cowardly as to run them to exhaustion and then shoot from the air——they should be damned to hell.

On February 16, 2006, Norma Goodrich wrote:

It is cruel kill the wolf they have right to live.
We have plans to visit Alaska this Summer,but we canceled.

Norma

On February 16, 2006, Diane Melanson wrote:

It just breaks my heart when ever I think or hear about [anyone, even the] (Vice president)anyone hurting or killing any other living thing

We all belong to this Earth!

On February 16, 2006, Charmaine Roman wrote:

I was thoroughly disgusted to learn that these beautiful animals (wolves) are once again going to being hunted down! When is this madness going to stop. These creatures are a vital part of nature in controlling itself and others. As far as I am concerned Alaska needs to be left alone. It’s one of the last places that these animals can live in harmony.

On February 16, 2006, Mike wrote:

FoA- We all need to be “friends of animals”—ALL animals! That includes moose and caribou. This program is not about wolf control per se, but to increase moose and caribou populations. Wolves primarily predate young animals in the first year of life. Fewer wolves will help them “age up”.

This is UNGULATE ENHANCEMENT!! :-)

[Blog editors’ note: Respecting nature’s own ways is a matter of respecting the entire, interconnected natural community. The enhancement you propose is actually a matter of human interest, as humans perceive wolves as competition. Nice try, though…]

On February 16, 2006, Mike wrote:

Human interest is the driving force of ecotours and photo safaris as well. Do you propose these be eliminated to preserve the natural community?

[Blog editors’ note: It’s humans on the cruise ships and bus tours, all hoping to see free-living animals, in nature. No one travels to Alaska to see captive polar bears in the Anchorage Zoo. When state policy hammers the animals that wildlife-watchers respect and hope to view,it’s wake-up time for those with their hands out.]

On February 16, 2006, Mike wrote:

They want to see moose and caribou too! Especially the cute babies the wolves prefer to kill. How many visitors are willing to see that?

For many Alaskans, moose and caribou are a food resource and wolves are a clothing resource—RENEWABLE resources at that!

[Blog editors’ note: Some homo sapiens should have stayed in school.]

On February 16, 2006, Mike wrote:

No, Bob. Hypocracy is claiming to be a friend of an animal and then applying valuations as to which ones are worthy of the friendship. In other words you are artificially elevating the status of wolf relative to other animals.

On February 16, 2006, Gordon wrote:

well Norma Goodrich , I bet you still have a resv. at one of the hotel near Denali Park, are you just saying that to be friends with FoA, that what most of these people do, they say they are boycotting but still come to Alaska anyway, Alaska still has the tallest mountain in North America, still lots of wolves runing around, but we won’t tell FoA that you came to Alaska let them think that you are boycotting us are little seceret!!!!!! shhhhhhhhhhh

On February 17, 2006, Peggie wrote:

Mike, I could handle seeing a wolf eat a moose. It’s called NATURE

On February 17, 2006, Robin Mccoy wrote:

For so many years it was my dream to travel and perhaps even move to Alaska as it is one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever known of.The wildlife alone has been a draw to me as I love animals and nature so much.Now there is no doubt in my mind that I’ll never visit Alaska let alone move there simply due to the cruelty of (hu mans) where the wildlife is concerned.Animals kill to survive and feed their young,humans kill for some warped pleasure.Given that thought,which of the species is really the (animal). In my world,its not the ones with fur and claws….

On February 17, 2006, Marta H. wrote:

Is there an estimate of how many are left in Alaska?

There are three known wolf packs in my immediate area…in Alaska—and I’m talking a ten mile radius. They are left alone; we are hardly taking to the skies and gunning them down to the extent that they are barely…here…or to any extent whatosever in my neighborhood.

I am not FOR aerial wolf hunting but I AM against people from the lower 48 who know less than nothing about this state attempting to dictate policy here while armed with misinformation. There are much more productive ways to get your point across than this. and boycott all you want—the BIG bear skull industry hear may certainly suffer when y’all don’t buy ‘em anymore.

[Blog editors’ note: The wolves don’t belong to the state of Alaska, and it’s the Murkowski administration and the Board of Game dictating public policy. The rest of us will continue to intervene, along with the majority of Alaskans who have repeatedly opposed state-sponsored predator control schemes, and are fed up with the shenanigans of bureaucrats and others wedded to wolf and bear persecution. Several of us here have seen more of Alaksa than the small, angry mob who never seem to tire of offering platitudes to defend a national disgrace. ]

On February 17, 2006, Marta H. wrote:

So how is this tourism boycott supposed to help your cause? You say, on one hand, that most Alaskans oppose aerial wolf hunting, and you may be right. But provided your boycott ever got enough momentum to adversely affect the average citizen of the state, you’d run a great risk of alienating what could be your most important ally.

And the great majority of the people who are employed in the tourism industry here aren’t even registered to vote in this state.

[ Bllog editors’ note: Gov. Hickel called for wolf control in 1992, FoA countered with a vigorous tourism boycott, which prompted Hickel to call the whole thing off. Hickel was more sensitive to public opinion., obviously.
A tourism boycott puts the economic screws to an administration that has all ready admitted that the state suffers from a bad image.

If citizens of Alaska aren’t registered to vote, it’s time to become politically astute.]

On February 17, 2006, Marta H. wrote:

***If citizens of Alaska aren?t registered to vote, it?s time to become politically astute.***

I didn’t say citizens of Alaska. I said, “people employed in the tourism industry in this state”. The majority of the people employed in the tourism industry in Alaska are residents of other states and other countries, and from what I’ve seen of them, they are a fairly politically astute bunch, particularly the rightists who are recruited out of the Southern US. It’s probably a good thing for us that they can’t vote here. And the majority of tourism dollars never see the local economies. While I agree that Murkowski does more than his share to promote an unbecoming image of this place, I think that working with the actual residents here would produce more positive results than your current tactics, because it makes no difference to me and to most of us if we lose a few tourists. And I think that if you look into the situation in 1992 a little more deeply, you’ll find that there were factors involved other that FOA’s proposed tourism boycott.

[ Blog editors’ note: Governor Hickel cancelled wolf control because of the public uproar that followed the tourism boycott. Those are the facts. Many residents of Alaska are challenging the wolf control program through a variety of interventions. You should, too.]

On February 17, 2006, Marta H. wrote:

And again, while trying to make clear that I personally don’t condone the wolf hunts, I have to wonder about a couple of things. It’s my understanding that the moose and caribou populations involved here are those that the indigenous people depend on for their food supply—I don’t think we’re talking about areas heavy in sport hunting. People who live in these areas don’t exactly have access to Albertson’s and don’t have many options. What are your feelings on wolf relocations?

Blog editors’ note: Hope you’ll read the articles about wolves on our Web page, and reports from Gordon Haber whose wolf research in Alaska we support. It will answer some of your concerns. There’s no need to relocate wolves. They should be left alone.

On February 17, 2006, Marta H. wrote:

I’ve seen his work before; he does have some interesting things to say…

Now—as far as tourism. You’re not dealing with tourism as it was in the 90’s—it has vastly changed.

Those of you opting out of cruises to AK will find a variety of reasons to do so even when aerial wolf hunting ends, as it probably will when the Murkowski clan in no longer with us. But for now, take a look at the parent companies of the cruise liners.

Blog editors’ note: Marta provided a quote, presumably from Dr. Gordon Haber, but since it wasn’t sourced, we haven’t included it for the moment.

On February 17, 2006, Larry wrote:

One - Predation control efforts are being conducted in areas of Alaska few, if any, tourists ever visit, for purposes of restoring prey base that has been depleted. Usually this is due to several harsh winters in a row, or ongoing plant succession without the benefit of big fires, plus the normal “wild” predation, which does not decrease lock-step with the prey base. Predators tend to expand their prey base among more available species (beaver, hares, etc), thus maintaining their own numbers in the face of declining large ungulate numbers. When these resources run out, we end up in a “predator pit” of large ungulates, where “maintained” predator numbers eat all or sometimes more of the “replacement rate” of the prey base. Predator numbers decline due to starvation only when they have totally decimated ALL prey populations, large and small, beyond their own maintenance efficiency of capture needs. Thus is the “balance of nature” restored. Eventually. In some instances it may take a century or more.

Anyone who thinks such programs are primarily for the “sport” hunter, is wrong. The people living in the area need the meat. If there is a high enough prey base, then “sport” hunting is feasible. If “sport” hunting is feasible, then the prey base is sufficient to support even more wild predators than under depressed prey-base levels.

Two - the FIRST measure taken in depressed prey bases is to reduce human hunting as far as practical - often to eliminate it before ANY other measures are taken - people can read regulations, which bears and wolves cannot - it’s an easy first fix.

Or course, the opposite end of the spectrum can also become apparent when predation (wild and/or human) isn’t keeping up with a burgeoning prey species. In such case, habitat is over-exploited and destroyed for many years and many animals end up with a very slow, agonizing, ugly, starvation death lasting weeks or months, vs the relatively quick death from wild predator or bullet.

Blog editors’ note: Nice try, but it reads like uninformed babble. The slow-agonizing ugliness Larry recites applies to the rhetoric and motives of predator control flacks.

On February 18, 2006, Autumn wrote:

That is so cruel how could anyone harm such a magnificent animal? What do people have against wolves? We are the ones who moved in on their territory not the other way around. I wish I could do something about it. Someday I will. But by then it might be too late I mean I’m only 13. People need to start doing something about it before it’s too late. Wolves are animals to just like us. U don’t see them attacking us on their own free will. It’s a proven fact that dogs kill more people yearly than wolves but they are’nt almost extinct. This just gets me so mad. If I ever see someone kill a wolf for no reason, I promise that I will just lose it.

On February 18, 2006, Jan wrote:

I get mail and email from Alaska tour sites all time. EVERY time I respond that I will never travel to Alaska while they practice this barbaric “sport.” I can never understand why people hunt, but to hunt from helicopters from which a wolf does not even have a chance to get away is just plain inhuman.

On February 19, 2006, dave wrote:

After reading the responses of the people for the hunt, instead of criticising them, maybe we should be helping them. Like, run a charity for them so they can get some food and clothes. Lets face it, if we ever saw somebody walking down the street wearing a wolf coat and chewing on a moose leg, we would lock them up and throw away the key. Put them on thorzine and let them live in happy land. It’s hard to believe there are people up there still living like cavemen. Don’t they have welfare or foodstamps so they can at least get some coats and food? There is no reason for any American having to live like this, I read only 14% of Alaskans support this hunt, they must make up the lower class base of alaska. And with some food, clothes and education they can learn to live like the rest of society and blend in. It’s no fun being an outcast when it can be diverted.

P.S. I work for an international co. that was planning our 2006 top employee trip to Alaska. I am friends with the V.P. of Human Res. and put the axe to the trip, which was at a cost of a couple million, the trip for these 700 employees is now europe. So don’t tell me boycotts don’t work. More people know about this hunt than you may think. And it will effect your state’s economy. It’s not how much you bring in, it’s how much you could have made off the tourists.

On February 19, 2006, Marta H. wrote:

Wait a minute. I have tried more than once to add a comment clarifying the source of a quote I tried to add above and it still not included, yet totally fallacies such as the post above Eric’s is posted here?

“it’s hard to believe there are people up there still living like cavemen”

They’re called First Nations People and they have every right to their way of life. And if you are so uneducated about the region that you’re pretending to be so knowlegable about, I suggest you do some research before attempting to denigrate them. And all the food stamps in the world won’t feed people when there are no stores within any sort of reasonable distance — do you know the first thing about how vast this state is at all?

“…and with some food, clothes and education they can learn to live like the rest of society and blend in. It’s no fun being an outcast when it can be diverted.”

What, relocate the Native communities? Maybe go round them up and force them to live like everyone else?

As I’ve stated before, I am for your cause but I am thoroughly disgusted with some of the ignorance I have seen on this site. Your best resource to attaining your goal are the citizens of this state. Allowing this sort of absolute drivel to be posted here does NOTHING but alienate the people who’s support you need the most.

Blog editors’ note: There is also a heap of abuse from the wolf-hunting crowd who posts here, and sometimes people make remarks about which they’re not serious. Most of all, good ideas, not rage, should keep percolating. Alaskans can best work on abandoning the convoluted, mixed-up ideas used to justify predator control. Change public policy by getting politically involved.

On February 20, 2006, dave wrote:

in responce to martha h.,i read on this sight some one said they have a bumper sticker that says “WEAR WOLF EAT MOOSE“.thats where the caveman quote came from, and i did not say relocate. do you see any other states creating an air force to control there wildlife.this is the image your state is projecting to the rest of us. even your governor thinks the state image needs help. remember the bridge to nowhere,what ever happened to that. and as far as the boycott not affecting you, your right, the money lost from the boycott can always be made up for with higher property and income taxes. then it does affect you. if these nations first people can fly planes, then they can fly to the store. instead of building airforces for the wolf and the bridge to no ware, try telling your state reps to bring in more industry,build the commercial and industrial base,create more jobs.and i am not talking about big oil,who seem to come and go as they please, and take what they want.believe me no one down here wants your fur or bear sculls,besides what possible use would someone need with a bear scull. and yet, you still disagree with the caveman quote. turn on your tv, and tell me how many people you see wearing bear sculls and fur.

On February 21, 2006, Marta H. wrote:

Dave…

• turn on your tv, and tell me how many people you see wearing bear sculls and fur.

We don’t all formulate our opinions by what is fed to us by the great tv.

I have yet to see a fellow resident of this state wearing a bear skull.

Within one square mile of LA in winter or New York City, there are more people wearing fur than the entire fur wearing population of this state.

• try telling your state reps to bring in more industry,build the commercial and industrial base,create more jobs.

Yes, and that would do expotentially more damage to the wildlife populations than the most aggressive aerial wolf hunts could ever do.

Tourism itself negatively impacts the wildlife populations here. And if I pay more in taxes, I’m paying for my quality of life. But I think you’d be quite surprised if you understood just how many tourism dollars generated by

• if these nations first people can fly planes, then they can fly to the store.

It’s First Nations people (maybe you only know them as Indians) ….and they aren’t the ones participating in the aerial hunts. Like indigenous peoples the world over, they understand all to well the concepts and the importance of wildlife preservation.

They eat meat, as your ancestors did before those of you in the lower 48 wiped out almost every last wild creature. And I find it highly ironic that you are advocating “industry and development” here with obviously no knowledge at all of what that would do to the very fragile ecosystem … a single footprint in the tundra lasts for all time…if it weren’t so sad I’d find it almost funny that you’re trying to promote things such as industry and commerce that do way more to wipe out the wolf (and others) population than anything else ever could.

And by the way, as far as people flying as much as 6 hours to the nearest Wal*Marts and Albertsons…when you figure out a way to fly through 100 mile winds, whiteouts, and other various extreme weather conditons, let me know.

• i am not talking about big oil, who seem to come and go as they please

Dave… we agree on the fact that the aerial wolf hunts are inhumane and unneccessary but your misconceptions about this state do more to hurt your cause than to help.

No, Dave, big oil is here and may have come but they have never gone.

Blog editors’ note: The wolf control areas equal 132,000 square kilometers — roughly the size of Alabama. There’s no scientific or ethical justification for wolf control. As wolf biologist Gordon Haber has said, moose populations are not low in the wolf control areas, yet that claim is made by the State so that aerial wolf control appears justified, which, of course, it’s not. Many residents in the Fortymile area (Unit 20E that’s subject to wolf control) have vigorously opposed wolf control, and value wolves and bears as part of their Native culture. In short, there’s no need to shoot wolves so that people are fed. That’s complete rubbish.

On February 21, 2006, dave wrote:

martha h.- THANKS, all i wanted to hear was you agree with me that the wolf hunt is inhumane and unneccesary. and really thats all that matters. i dont live up there,i probally will never visit or work there. my ideas may or may not help your state, but at least i am looking at a alternative. your right we have killed off most of our wild life, i saw 1 dead wolf on the turnpike once. your luckey to be able to see these animals in the wild. at least before they get there heads blown off. maybe thats why you have a tourist industry. since you live there and all avenues have been tried to prevent this kill. what will work to stop the kill that knowbody else has tried.i veiw the wolf just as i do my dogs,there the coolest animal to walk the earth. i even have two friends that have them as pets. of course this is not like seeing them in the wild.like i said i only saw one wolf an he was dead. we do have black bear and lots of deer,there all over my land,which is posted no hunting.even though my friends are forever bugging me to let them hunt on my properties,my rules stand at no. yes i hang around with people that hunt,just because our philosiphys are not the same ,doesn’t mean we can’t buy each other a beer when we get together and we always help each other out.well i hope you have the answer, since every other option has been tried. take care,dave.

On February 22, 2006, Tony wrote:

Do you people really think you make a bit of since? get a job and quit worring about my back yard, and stare at the sun a little bit longer.I choose too eat animals rather then pet them … God bless The right to harvest the land.

[Blog editors’ note: Tony, is it a matter of eating them or petting them that we’re bringing up here? Did you see any comments saying we should make pets out of moose and caribou? This blog is most valuable when people engage in thoughtful discussion about the issues presented.]

On February 22, 2006, Michele Draper wrote:

Well,I agree with the comments that the wolves as with the other wildlife in Alaska should be left alone. Such a cowardly action to hunt them from the air. We on the planet are a delicate balance and we just keep upsetting it with trying to control Nature! Why don’t we have people control to keep them from spreading their ignorance and ruining the planet for everyone else. Boycott, do anything to keep money from going into the state’s bureaucrats hands who keep implementing these ridicules programs. Let nature control itself.

On February 23, 2006, Marta H. wrote:

Dave, it’s Marta, not Martha :)

I had already stated that the wolf hunts were inhumane and unneccesary in previous postings.

My objections were to the fallacies and probable very honest misconceptions that I saw here because I felt that they hurt your cause to a greater extent than they promoted it.

I don’t think a tourism boycott is gonna have an impact—as I said before, you’re dealing with a whole different kind of tourism and a whole different kind of administration than in 1992. You’d be better off boycotting our oil—that would get Murki’s attention as he is just another oil whore like Bush.

Think about seeing if the Alaska Tourism Council itself can help out—maybe they’d be willing to print and distribute postcards to the governor’s office objecting to the practice. Look into getting a grassroots type of thing going where school children write to Murki. Take advantage of the support that you have in Alaska rather than just concentrating on your negative stereotypes.

On February 23, 2006, Jack Tims wrote:

Dave,

I hate to start a post like this but look at what you wrote? I don’t think you meant it the way it reads but it is truly offensive. As much as some would love to impose your Alaska apartheid on the native and rural population - we will take a pass. Rural Alaskan’s don’t want welfare or assimilation. Both have been tried and have had devastating effects on the community and culture.

….
Regarding bear skulls, it is illegal to sell them except for one limited sale. The state sells skulls of defense of life and property and seized (game violation) bears. The sale is actually well-attended.

Your comments regarding the tax base in Alaska show a misunderstanding of how things work here. There is little property tax value in the state outside of major urban areas. Since much of the state is unorganized territory, there is not political entity to assess or collect property tax. Income tax would only further harm the rural population since they have so little cash income to begin with.

Your economic assesment of rural native Alaskans is based on a cash economy model. By that standard they are hopelessly poor. However, by a subsistence economic model, some areas are actually quite rich. Others just barely make it. Although i personally question whether this is the best way to go about it, the predator control program is an attempt to increase the meat supply in the affected areas.

I have a doctoral degree and live in a large city in Alaska. I wear a wolf ruff on one of my parkas … and i certainly eat moose … I don’t think anyone would consider me insane although i am certain there are many here who consider me misguided.

And yes editor, the wolves, at least those on State land, do belong to Alaska. A fundamental right of all states is to control their natural resources, including their game. You may disagree with the moral underpinnings of this law - but it is the law.

j
About fundamental rights, Jack, wolves belong to themselves, not you, not the state of Alaska. They’re sentient animals, not resources — despite the state’s primitive views , or the stranglehold that a minority of hunters have on Alaska’s wildlife policies crafted by an abusive Board of Game. You can defend wolf control for all the lame, erroneous reasons you offer, but don’t assume that wolf control opponents don’t see through these manipulative arguments. The jig is up.

On February 23, 2006, dave wrote:

marta, sorry about the misspell of your name. you have some good ideas and they should be implemented. jack i did not post my ideas to be offensive. but in my defense i also have 2 college degrees and have played on wall street for the last 28 years, any economic plan laid out correctly will work to make the life of the less fortunate better. but ths is not about finance. it’s about the unnecessary slaughter of a defenseless animal. and no posting on a web sight is going to change my mind that this type of behavior is acceptable.it’s wrong, you know it’s wrong,i know it’s wrong and it needs to be stopped,that’s the bottom line.

On February 24, 2006, Melissa Gonzalez wrote:

I want to thank you from the core of my heart and soul for your dedication, strategic planning and leadership in your quest to protect wolves from this horrifying treatment in Alaska. If it weren’t for Friends of Animals, the wolves of Alaska would really be alone. You are the one organization that truly works within the system to help wolves. It’s difficult for me to articulate my deepest thanks and praise I have for all your hard work and fees incurred to help wolves. Simply put, you are the wolves’ true shepherds and when they howl, I’m sure a part of them howls for you.

On February 27, 2006, mike dubo wrote:

i hope your boycott keeps all FOA out of alaska. the misinformation your group puts out by
ton about alaskan wolves and the people that mange them is incredible . instead of alaska

try the middle east . you keep stressing the point that the goernor in 1992-93 buckled under to your bocott threats. he did and has regretted it ever since! also you keep telling everybody

that alaskans twice voted to ban arial wolf management. that may be true , but what you did’nttell every one that much of the prpaganda put out by the foa was plainly false and misleading.

finally i would like to ask you why the animal rights industry is not all up in arms about the fact that other states such as arizona and south dakota are conducting their own airial programs to control predators. could it be that alaska is the ” cash cow” for animal

rights industry groups like the FOA ?

[Blog editors’ note: What are you smoking?

On March 1, 2006, Nancy wrote:

Pienso que el ego de los humanos por eso hacemos todo el daño que podemos a la naturaleza, no se si éstas personas no entienden que los animales también tienen derechos y que a hacerles daño ellos estamos haciénole daño las futuras generaciones que no van a poder disfrutar de lo bello que tenemos y van a tener que vivir situaciones terribles, ojalá estos correos hagan recapacitar a estos pobre ignorantes

On March 2, 2006, Freida wrote:

How can anyone condone the wholesale slaughter of animals of ANY kind is beyond me. Is this really the legacy we want to leave our children? Its ok to NOT protect the wildlife of our planet…?

On March 2, 2006, Judi wrote:

As long as Alaskans insist on the aerial shooting of these
beautiful animal beings I will never travel there on

vacation and will discourage everyone I know from going.

Hopefully tourism has fallen off by now.

On March 3, 2006, Sam wrote:

If there is anything I can do to help let me know. My friends know if they make fun of ,hurt,or kill a wolf they will answer directly to me. I take Wolves lives very serious. And what these people are doing is very wrong. I may only be in third grade but I know more about wolves than most people. I have visited the Lakota Wolf Preserve in NJ and sponsor a Black wolf named Shilo. I have dedicated my life to wolves,and it hurts me to know that some people don’t think before they take another’s life. I can feel their pain as they fall, beaten. Why are people so cruel. What have wolves ever done to us? Forget the myths. Think. Just think. We’ve taken their homes,food…and now senslessly, their lives. Some nights I wake up with nightmares that wolves have become extinct and that mankind was the cause. These dreams are so scary because if wolves keep getting killed these dreams might become a reality.

On March 5, 2006, Alyson wrote:

I think is great that you guys are working to save animals…. I am going to try to support you guys that are helping animals.

On March 15, 2006, Sean Crotty wrote:

Dear Friends,

My family has been long involved in the environmental movement with my sister Erin, holding the position of Commissioner of Environmental Conservation in NYS for many years. I was a pilot in the Air Force for 15 years and have just purchased what used to be a “hunting lodge” in the wilderness outside the Denali Park. We are presently, working to convert the 22 cabin property to 100% renewable energy while providing the next generation of conservationists and environmentalists with the opportunity to learn more about what is at stake here in Alaska - and specifically with the present wolf ‘management’ system in place. By boycotting the entire state’s tourism - you are including in your sites some of the very people that are on the front lines of trying to show that these animals are far more precious to us alive - than they ever could be ‘managed’ in a trap.

Our fight here in Alaska is one of education and pursuasion of the next generation to break the lines from the past - to think in a more deliberate and clear manner about even the act of trying to ‘manage’ a ‘wild’ system in the first place. I am all for boycotting those who’s business in the winter is associated with the taking of wolves - while in the summer they cozy up to the tourists who know little about what they do during the winter months. Publish the truth and the truth will set you free. When it became public that a local tour operator in the summer was part of the trapping of the Toklat pack in the winter - even baiting the pack outside the boundary of the park to trap - a major cruise line suspended the partnership they had with his company. Acting in this manner the cruise line was presuring change right at the source - “There will be no business as usual - make a choice - Us or the wolves.”

Instead of boycotting all of the tourism industry here in Alaska - even though that might be a much easier tactic - I suggest that you solicite partnerships with those companies that support your stance and fiscally punish those that do not. It might not be as easy as casting a blanket over all of us up here in the Great North - but it certainly might, in the long run, present your organization with the victory in this battle you are so galantly fighting.

I also would like to offer a discount for an entire week at the lodge during our last week of operation from the 4th to the 11th of September for a week of intensive study and debate about the plight of the wolves here in Alaska. I will try and work through a very good friend of mine who takes his own life in his hands flying the plane Gordon Haber studies and takes his pictures from to see if Gordon himself would be interested in being the keynote speaker. I will contact the local environmental writers in the area - as well as, put an offer into the environmental reporter for NPR in Seattle to come and join us free of charge - The point in all this - is to mobilize and respond to the threat at hand with a concerted effort to push forward an agenda that will not destroy those within the tourism industry in Alaska that support your cause.

Sincerely,

Sean Crotty
Owner / Operator

Denali Wilderness Lodge

[Blog editors’ note: We certainly appreciate your help in organizing and motivating Alaskan voters. FoA’s supporters have been working to change stubborn attitudes for years. Although wolf control proponents comprise a minority voice, they have won Gov. Murkowski’s ear. The upshot is a type of governance that shames our country as a whole.]

On March 25, 2006, Linda Meister wrote:

STOP THE INSANITY!

On August 12, 2006, Carrie wrote:

I had planned to visit Alaska this fall. I was really looking forward to it as the trip of a lifetime. My dream vacation, which I have worked months to save for, has now been cancelled. BECAUSE OF THE MURDEROUS SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT WOLVES I WILL NOT VISIT ALASKA and I will do EVERYTHING in my power to encourage my friends to do likewise.

On January 29, 2007, debbie carnevale wrote:

i have been a lover of the wolf for ages. i have studied as much as possible. how anyone would want to shoot such an animal is beyond me. each and every living being has a purpose, when one dies out the system is messed up. think about it.what will happen when the animals are gone? explain that to your kids.

On September 20, 2007, Ann T. Brady wrote:

I am an animal lover and the wolf has been my favorite forever. I have always wanted to travel to Alaska and see the scenery and animals in all their natural majesty. I am saving my $5,000 that has taken me years to save up and going elsewhere. Somewhere where they don’t allow this senseless killing of innocent animals, just being themselves. The people that actualy fly these planes and do the shooting should be ashamed of themselves. It does not make you macho if you think it does. You are not even giving the animal a fighting chance. I pray that those who condone this and participate in it someday have to pay. What goes around, comes around.

On October 5, 2007, Margaret Geisler wrote:

I just can’t believe that the govenor continues to support wolf shooting. She obviously has no heart — just a hunger for money in the coffers. I am so against the killing of wolves, they have a definite purpose in the chain of life. We humans are always screwing up the cycle of life. Get with it people…….open your eyes and ears……we are on a fast road to distroy our beautiful circle of animal friends. All over the world we are crowding out natures beautful furry and feathered friends. STOP STOP STOP. Margaret Geisler