Judge finds game board failed to follow rules on wolf control

On January 17, 2006, Ethan wrote:

Worry about your own problems. Stay out of Alaska’s business. We take care of our own problems our way. Have you ever lived here? Do you know what it truly means to be alaskan. It is nothing like the lower 48’s. We do things a lot differently here.

[Blog editors’note: Tom Wright asked us to post this reply, on behalf of Tom and Sondra:]

My wife and I have been privileged to see wolves in Alaska several years ago while on an extended vacation throughout the state. We had planned to return a couple of years ago (and help boost the Alaska economy) but decided to boycott Alaska until this barbaric practice stopped. I’m an ex-hunter. Now I use only a camera for shooting. Please tell Ethan it doesn’t matter if you “live in Alaska” - WRONG IS WRONG!! Wolves are very social animals and killing them breaks up their family.

On January 17, 2006, Janet wrote:

Congrats to this Judge, who has vision without political overtones… Alaska should be careful not to get into the trap that some of our North Western states have followed.. A wonderful book to read for all of “Friends of Animals”, and those who are sceptical is “THE LOOP”, by Nicholas Evans, who also wrote “The Horse Whisperer”. Perhaps this book will shed some insight to those who have forgotten the spiritual value of these wonderful animals!!!

On January 17, 2006, Dino wrote:

This has everything to do with the preservation of an endangered species, the preservation of an almost extinct animal. It is not the business of Alaska only, it is the business of all who care about and are will to be the voice for those who cannot speak for themselves… for those who are being killed out of ignorance and greed!

Why not capture these wolves and relocate them to another area. Why does it seem that the answer to everything now a days means to exterminate that which a select few deem a threat or intolerable?

What we need to start doing is respecting the wilderness and everything in it. Earth is not for human use only…..perhaps we should control our own population before killing off those which we THINK are taking over the land. A land meant for all living creatures not just human alone!

[Blog editors’ note: True… and the best part is that the wolves can stay where they are, thus not have to suffer the hazards and losses of relocations.]

On January 17, 2006, Kevin wrote:

I think that we should reintroduce wolves to New York and California (along with grizzly bears). Those are areas where there numbers have truly been decimated. Alaska has done a better job of managing it’s animals than California or New York.

On January 18, 2006, Dianne Chandler wrote:

Yeah for the wolves of Alaska! They do belong there, not hunters. Now on to Idaho and may the wolves prevail there.

On January 18, 2006, Diana from Ester, Alaska wrote:

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you for keeping up the fight against the barbaric practice of aerial predator control,
and for doing what we Alaskans can’t seem to get our legislators to stop!!!

On January 18, 2006, Matthew wrote:

… Sure would be great if those lower 48ers worry about their own politics, save your own state from (your own fate)..and let us control ourselves…And by the way, drill in ANWR?… HELL YES

[Blog editors’ note: We’re in full agrement that you should start controling yourselves; leave the wolves and others alone. Moreoever, let’s cancel the federal hand-outs, too.]

On January 18, 2006, Dan M in Alaska wrote:

My hats off to Judge Gleason, to do whats right!

On January 18, 2006, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

Ellie, and FoA
congratulations. although we have disagreed in the past, and probably will in the future, you and your organization have fought for what you believe in and should be commended.

jimmy allen

On January 18, 2006, Sean O'Gara wrote:

Congratulations to FoA and thanks to Judge Gleason. The aerial wolf kill has always been among the most abhorrent of predator control techniques. I have for years been amazed - and appalled - that anyone could support this.

To Alaskans who do not support this decision: you make the mistake of assuming all Alaskans favor predator eradication. Wolf populations are “thinned” in order to provide more caribou and other targets for hunters. Therefore it is done in the name of a small percentage of the state’s population.

On January 18, 2006, Regina marino wrote:

I feel so bad that all those wolves have to die, All for progress. If any thing they have more rights to live as they were here before we were as many other animals, they roamed free all over. then man came and took their land away. Its time to take a stand and realize that as we kill these creatures off soon there will be no more, and once they are gone soon man will be too.

On January 18, 2006, PO wrote:

Why should we stay out of Alaskas business? You do things your way? Guess you sure do “ILLEGALLY”. Just like the rest of the country and world. They kill illegally or make up lies and unfounded reasons why Wildlife needs to be hunted and killed. There is TOO MUCH animal/wildlife killing going on just to satisfy hunters who just want to kill for the sport. I see hunters breaking rules all the time? What makes hunting hunting, when most of the time the hunters leave food to attract the animal then kill them while they are eating.How cruel is that.They are not real hunters . What is a hunter? KILLERS OF ANIMALS”. To use arial killing on wolves is not hunting but again the thrill to kill. There is No Need to kill the wolves.

On January 18, 2006, Wendy Tridigo wrote:

Yahooooooooooooo! Way to go. Keep up the good work.

On January 18, 2006, Robert Emmert wrote:

I am glad to hear that this idiotic blood sport has been suspended. I hope this does not create a lack of vigilance to stop such actions. Where there are people who love to kill, just to kill, new ways and pressures to allow killing will always resurface. “Blood Sport” by definition IS NOT A SPORT, a sport is pitting TWO EQUALLY MATCHED INDIVIDUALS, OR TEAMS IN A CONTEST. What these “Hunters” fail to recognize is that wolves ultimately strengthen the herds by taking out the sick and the lame, leaving the stongest members of the herds to procreate. “Hunters” on the other hand, try to take the best trophy animals, leaving only the lesser animals to carry on the blood line. If these hunters were really SPORTSMEN, lets see them give anilmals an equal chance at winning. Outrun an elk or deer and take it down. Face a Grizzly armed with a knife. There is no sport,or honor in shooting an animal from a plane, or sitting up in a tree and ambushing your prey. Wolves only hunt to survive, they don’t hunt for trophies, or hunt as a vain attempt to feel like they are tough, because they can kill something. HUNTERS ARE NOT SPORTS,OR MEN. In the circle of life, wolves have a place, and it is not in the best interest of anyone to break natures natural cycle.

On January 18, 2006, Vida M. Georgacopulos wrote:

One word - HOORAY!!!!

Judge Gleason should be awarded….to stop the killing of these majestic, beatiful creatures is magnificent.

Very happy news!!!

Vida M. Georgacopulos

On January 18, 2006, amy murphy wrote:

Hooray for FOA!!!! You continue your long and splendid history of defense of the defenseless. I remember reading about this aerial hunt back in the 60”s… when one wolf (thanks be to the Almighty!) actually managed to leap up and take down a helicopter which was harassing him close to the ground. The press painted this as further “proof” of how “dangerous” and “deadly” are wolves. Unbelievable. So here we are again, all these years later, still listening to the tired, pathetic arguments against wolves. Will we ever learn?

On January 18, 2006, Justine wrote:

Finally. A Judge who watches National Geographic, Animal Planet and other informational sources about the CRUCIAL LINK of Wolves in the Food Chain and our very existence on this planet.

Apparently most members of Congress and our very own President haven’t. I guess they’re too busy tightening the screws on their gun racks.

Congratulations to the Wolves!


This made my day! Thank you Friends of Animals!

On January 18, 2006, Raven Castanza - New York wrote:

Ethan wrote:
“Worry about your own problems. Stay out of Alaska’s business. We take care of our own problems our way. Have you ever lived here? Do you know what it truly means to be alaskan. It is nothing like the lower 48’s. We do things a lot differently here.”

Dear Ethan, What you do THERE effects us HERE and guess what? EVERYWHERE. Just because man compartmentalized the world doesn’t necessarily mean that the PLANET agrees. The ankle connects to the shin bone, the shin bone connects to the knee bone…

On January 18, 2006, Nancy wrote:

How interesting to note some so-called “natives” of Alaska would tell we lower-forty-eighters to mind our own business, as though institutionalized bloodlust leading to the systematic destruction of decades-old lineage among the living treasures of America’s precious little frontier country is not our problem. Of course, it is precisely this form of ignorance - of the importance of interspecies and ecological balance, among other things - that intensifies the ongoing need for activism. When we advocate animal causes, WE ARE MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS.

PS - Ethan, if you don’t like the way we United States govern, you can always jump the border so you don’t have to obey our laws.

On January 18, 2006, Jeff wrote:

Alaska’s image is so bad, over such things as aerial hunting of Wolves, that the governor is beginning a mult-million dollar campaign to better the image. Last year they also allowed bear-baiting to kill Grizzly Bears to boost the Moose population. Alaska’s political leaders are in bed with bush and the oil industry. Last week the interior department opened up oil drilling in an area that was off-limits to even James Watt under Reagan!! Alaska’s motto is “Kill it or drill it”.

We should not interfere with killing predators so there are more game animals for us to kill. May those Wolves lost through this barbaric practice rest in peace.

Thank you Friends of Animals.

On January 18, 2006, Colleen Laraux wrote:

If you are so concerned about wolves you come and live among them. They are merciless killers. They just eat the vital organs and leave the rest for scavengers. We are then not able to harvest their kills because we don’t know how long it has been out! It is like a slap in the face to me to hear about the wanton killing of my subsistence foods. I have not had fresh moose meat for over 2 years. Thanks alot for all of your hard work on something you don’t really understand.

On January 18, 2006, Leo wrote:

I am glad the Courts finally claimed that wolf control in Alaska was not supported by the facts or a valid public process. There will likely be some comments posted from Alaska saying FOA and others do not know what they are talking about when it comes to Alaska’s wolves. However, as an Alaskan who served on Governor Knowles McGrath Adaptive Management Team to study the wolf/moose problem at McGrath, I can say most Alaskan’s don’t know much about the wolf problem.

Few Alaskan’s know that at McGrath it was calculated that a moose herd of about 3,000 animals should meet the needs of rural residents. Our studies showed there were about 2,400 moose, but the problem was the bull cow ratio was as low as 6 bulls per 100 cows when it should have been 35 per 100. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game even stated that over hunting was a major problem in the area. So it is politics is the real problem in wildlife management in Alaska.

Governor Knowles required predator control to be scientifically justified, economically feasible and supported by the public. New Governor Murkowski only asked that hunters support control, and he nominated a Board of Game of extremist hunters that rapidly approved wolf control, even when Fish and Game said it was not supported. All they required is that local residents say they are having problems. It does not matter if the problem is their neighbor or someone from Anchorage finding the moose first.

Maybe now they will have to get enough REAL science and non-hunter support before they attempt to restart wolf control. To see the studies, go to www.alaskawolfkill.com

On January 18, 2006, Jeff wrote:

I am involved with the Mexican Gray Wolf reintroduction program in Arizona and New Mexico. I know a little about Wolves. Notice the word “reintroduction” … they were here before the ranchers and government killed all but a handful of them. Wolves are vital in the biological diversity of the environment. Man comes in and messes it all up.

On January 18, 2006, Deb Rusnak wrote:

Thank you! Very Pleased. Congratulations! Very good news.
FINALLY!

On January 18, 2006, Bernard V. Pacheco wrote:

You Idiots should stay in your own backyard. If you would come stay with me in Texas I will show you Damage done by both man And Animal that you know nothing about. Put your efforts in HELPING YOUR FELLOW MAN.

BERNARD V. PACHECO
(Muleskinner)

On January 18, 2006, dave wrote:

first i would like to say, go wolves,you rule again,and to all those e mails telling the lower 48s to mind there own business. we would if you didn’t do such stupid acts.you need poeole like us to teach you how the civilized person lives. but don’t worry if it happens again, we will be back in larger numbers and with more law lawyers to teach you the law of the united states.

On January 18, 2006, Dorie wrote:

Its about time… :) There is finally a Judge in Alaska, for Alaska Wolves…. :) I hope this sends a message to everyone across the United States, that the wolf has a right to live. Longe live the Wolves… :)

On January 18, 2006, Gretchen Diemer wrote:

Thank you very much for the efforts that lead to the cessation of aerial wolf hunting in Alaska. As an Alaskan resident, I have found it most interesting, and somewhat embarrassing, that a multitude of our citizens presume we are entitled to act at will, within the physical boundaries of our state, while enriching the state, and ourselves, with federal monies. Regardless of the rhetoric, the majority of Alaskans are shopping at major chain stores. We love the mythology of the “Last Frontier.” Few of us live it. I, for one, am most grateful that there are folks on the “outside,” looking in.

On January 18, 2006, Cindy wrote:

It’s too bad that all this energy is being used on animals.
How many of you animal lovers have done anything to support a human in need today? Of course that would mean actually doing something instead of just reading what this organization publishes as fact.

[Blog editors’ note: We regret that you disagree with the decision, but the Superior Court of Alaska clearly thinks that focusing on this issue, and the facts surrounding it, is a worthwhile use of time.]

On January 18, 2006, Randy Haugen wrote:

Thanks a million Friends of Animals. Justice prevails over the brutal practice of shooting wolves from Airplanes…Where is the sport in that anyway? The Minority and the Goverment nitwits who promote this in Alaska should be ashamed of themselves.

On January 19, 2006, Jada Alexander wrote:

My comment on this issue is very simple, I do not beleive in hunting wolves, but it is nature for the wolves to hunt their food, who in the world do we think we are to say they have hunted enough, the other animals are suffering, that is the way it was meant to be, but here we are saying they have to be hunted to save other animals, now we are playing god, but the men who are doing the hunting are not real men, a real man hunts on the ground, they look their prey in the eye and then the real hunt begins, going in the air is chicken s—t. So here we are, trying are best to stop these people, I pray everynight that we win, but now we have a bunch of suits who by the way really could not care less and they probley have never done a real hunt in their life, saying that this is a bump in the road, the hunt will start up again, I hope in another life these men in suits and the ones hunting they wolves come back as a wolf and their butts are hunted.If you hunt that is ok but be a real man and do it on the ground not in the air where you are hiding, go look the wolf in the eye and then lets see how far you get.
Thank You

[Blog editors’ note: We also oppose the hunting of wolves — in all its forms. Regardless of our gender, each of us can live a sincere life without taking the life of another conscious being. The best qualities of our humanity are hindered when we define ourselves through the act of stalking and destroying others — be it from the sky or the ground.]

On January 19, 2006, Pat wrote:

Keep your bunny huggin crap in your own state. Do you see us going where you are and trying to change everything? Why dont you come live up here for a couple years and try to convert people to your beliefs?- thats because you would go runnin home with your tail between your legs.

On January 19, 2006, Eric Karanjawala wrote:

Stop hunting. It is cruel and unnecessary.
Thank you.

Eric.

On January 19, 2006, Mary S. Rendon, nurse wrote:

Way to go, Friends of Animals

On January 19, 2006, jimmy,in the bush wrote:

jeff
you wrote that the interior dept opened up an area for drilling that had been closed. could you tell me where that area is? i try to keep up on such things but must have missed that one.

alaskan political leaders are in bed with oil and hunting. they are doing what is best for the majority of alaskans. it’s what politicians do. oil is good for the majority of alaskans. hunting is good for the majority of alaskans. in the past it has been stated that only a small percentage of alaskans buy hunting licenses,therefore only a small percentage are hunters. this is true but misleading. many who do not hunt are pro-hunting and benefit from those who do. i only purchase one hunting license but feed 8 people. i doubt any of them are anti-hunting. this is true in most households. many residents in the villages, particularly in the arctic, have never purchased a license but the whole village is fed by the game harvested. alaska is pro-hunting. it is also true that the majority of alaskans are against aerial wolf hunts, it has been proved at the polls.

i am not trying to downplay whats happened here or rain on anyones parade, just trying to clear up some misconceptions.

and to Lee Hall, thank you and you are very welcome.



jimmy allen

On January 19, 2006, Matthew Whitman wrote:

On behalf of the Alaskan Wolves, Thank you good people!!!

On January 19, 2006, Julie Smith in Houston, TX wrote:

Yippi!
I’ll keep praying for more changes like this to happen, animals were here first.

On January 20, 2006, Louis Novellino wrote:

Yes, indeed this is good news. I think of Mohammed Ali who refused to fight in the Vietnam war and Hugh Thompson, the Army pilot who rescued Vietnamese at Mylai—both denounced as traitors, cowards, etc., at the time. Ali was recently presented the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, and Thompson, who recently died, is widely respected as a hero. Everyone who likes dogs should respect the wolf, the progenitor of the dog family. The killing of wolves is an atrocity. It is sadism. The aerial killing of wolves should be a federal crime. The aerial wolf-slayers have promised to get back to the aerial killing of wolves just as soon as they’ve straightened out a few of the technical legal defects in their own procedures. We should not have to wait 35 years to stop these aerial killers, or the bought-and-sold politicians that devise these bloody policies.

On January 20, 2006, amanda Taylor wrote:

why is it that the alaskans are willing to tell us to butt out of “their” business, but SO willing to take massive subsidies and crazy funding from the federal government? FOR EVERY DOLLAR OF TAXES PAID BY ALASKA, THE STATE RECEIVES $1.89 BACK.

THEY ARE RANKED #2 IN THE COUNTRY IN MONEY RECEIVED FOR MONEY COLLECTED. My state, New York, gets 80 cents for every dollar we pay in taxes. Something is really [messed] up here- please stop complaining - your business IS our business, not only because we are all stuck her on this one planet, with one set of rapidly disappearing resources, but because WE PAY FOR YOUR BUSINESS, literally.

And to the woman who hasn’t had moose meat in 2 years, don’t blame the wolves. They have as much right to those moose as you do, maybe more. You can go down to the grocery store and get some nice petroleum-produced beef or chicken.

If your state and your federal government hadn’t allowed the wholesale destruction of animals and environment there wouldn’t be a problem. The REAL problem is too many people, overdevelopment, and gross exploitation of resources. And drilling in the ANWR is just going to make things worse.

On January 21, 2006, Larry wrote:

I find it darkly amusing that so many of the posters display an abysmal level of emotional hysteria, ignorance, and absence of logic.

Dino, for example, refers to wolves as “nearly extinct”. In Alaska, they are not “nearly extinct”, nor “endangered” nor even “threatened”. They can best be described as “thriving” — even “over-abundant” in many areas — including the Anchorage Bowl, and Fairbanks, Municipality, the two largest cities, where they make a regular habit of dining on pets, chained and otherwise. This ain’t Kansas, anymore, Toto! We LIVE with Nature here, not just Disney it.

The pet eating is not due to a lack of “natural’ prey, but because wolves are opportunists. Can’t blame them — we all are… But my own dogs — especially the Dachshund — get right paranoid when wolves come through my yard… Pee on the porch, they do- or even in the house if they can get away with it… The dogs - not the wolves. Gotta draw a line somewhere…

There is no “Balance of Nature”. It is always in flux, and often swings to extremes. Is it not better to exercise a modicum of control to dampen these extremes through “Wildlife Management” — meaning in the majority, “People Management” as best we can? (true, we aren’t perfect at it, but as the only sentient species involved, do we dare do nothing???) Besides, we’re the only ones that can read the regulations — so hunters are always the first to be restricted, controlled, managed, even banned from participation in a natural function…

Many posters here appear to feel we are somehow “outside of Nature”- looking in. We should only be observers, not participants. Well, we ARE part of Nature, like it or not. We (some of us anyway) are predators (the rest of you are leaches). In fact, we predators pay the lion’s share of footing the bill for conservation — why not? — it is purely in selfish self interest! We want animals to hunt for ourselves and for generations to come. And if there is a harvestable margin for humans, the prey species is healthy, which means the wild predators have a prey base as well. We aren’t greedy — we share — but we aren’t willing to give it ALL to the wild predators, except in marginal situations. That, unfortunately, seems to be the base line for the “lupus uber alles” crowd- they want everywhere to be “marginal” — with no room for human predation.

In Alaska, 90% of the ungulate mortality ( the majority is newly born babies) is by bears and wolves, 7% ( adult animals) by hunters, and 3% by disease, accident, and “unknown”. Kinda cold to realize we have this reduced to hard statistics for the wild-eyed posy freaks, ain’t it?

My favorite quote is fronm Wally Hickle — at the time, Governor of Alaska — “We can’t just let Nature run Wild!”

Funny as it is, it is also true. We are a part of Nature- the only sentient part- and as such we have a responsibility to manage what we can. We are too far gone, and too numerous, not to. This includes managing wild predator numbers, as well as prey species.

Some posters appear to believe their own rote slogans about ‘sport’ huntng, but they are obviously totally ignorant of the reality. The truth is, a ‘sport’ hunter ’ is generally the best friend any species (including his predatory competitors) can have. The vast majority of us believe in fair chase and clean kills, abiding by regulations, appreciate the value of wild predators (within limits) and so on. A ‘subsistence’ hunter on the other hand, kills to eat — anyway he can and as much as he can, and since his geographic location generally allows it without oversight to the written law-he gets away with it — tho most of them do make an effort to dabide by the law. Yet these same non-conservationists are the very ones granted dispensation by liberals, greenies, and eco-freaks.

Some facts:

Wolves are the most prolific of any large predator in the world. Reduced by 80% they will rebuild their population in 3 to 5 years (and no one wants to totally eliminate them)

To get a prey population out of a “predator pit” ( where predation is keeping prey populations well below carrying capacity, with little or declining growth)a 3 to 5 year wolf reduction program is necessary, (perhaps with an accompanying program for bears, which prey heavily on newborns) to advance the replacement/adult population ahead of the predation rate.

Wolves are opportunists. Faced with a sub-optimal large game population, they readily suppliment their diet with fish, beaver, hares, squirrels, and anything else they can catch. When they finally eat themselves into a starvation crash, they leave a virtual desert behind, which takes years to rebuild- unfortunately, they can maintain the low-level subsistence lifestyle for decades before starving themselves. Makes it rough on humans who live and/or depend or wish to hunt large game in the same area.

[Blog editors’ note: Coming to this blog to opine about “liberals, greenies, and eco-freaks” is a highly deletable thing to do. Nevertheless, this is posted for purposes of displaying a good example of a condescensing lecture from one who claims to know everything one needs to know about nature by virtue of having subdued it at every opportunity. Where does one begin here? When folks move into Alaska with a Dachshund and other domestic dogs, it’s obvious who is the awkard intruder (for whom some degree of humility would be most appropriate), and who has good standing as a member of the natural world. To see a writer gloss over the habit of chaining dogs in such a situation is disturbing, and one should be aware that one who brings or breeds any domestic animals in Alaska does so with a risk to such animals. One need not be an Alaska resident, or memorize “facts” to understand this, for it’s the same principle that suggests one ought to be aware of the risk when bringing their pets into bear country in New Jersey. The idea that nature has to be controlled, yet we don’t have to control ourselves because we’re just too far gone is what’s darkly amusing.]

On January 21, 2006, jimmy, in the bush wrote:

amanda
are you suggesting ‘The REAL problem is too many people, overdevelopment, and gross exploitation of resources.’ pertains to Alaska? if so, you need to do a little homework about alaska.

and please go to the article titled ‘drilling stripped from defense spending bill’ posted december 21, 2005 to this site and explain to me how drilling in ANWR is just going to make it worse.

jimmy allen

On January 23, 2006, Alaskan wrote:

This Alaskan is for Wolf victory. I’m an Alaskan who is sick and tired of the animal abuse that prevails throughout this state. I’m hoping that aerial shooting of wolves (and other animals) will be permanently blocked.

On January 23, 2006, Marianne Galitsky wrote:

I believe that ALL animals should be able to live a life of freedom, and not have to look over their shoulders for predators, mainly humans that abuse them, or kill them for a trophy. The animals were here before us, and as soon as humans show up, they take the animals homes and destroy them, and when the animal comes to people for food or shelter, people complain that they should be in the wild. Well, if people would stop destroying their habitat, then maybe the animal wouldn’t need to try and defend itself. ALL animals are God’s creatures, and when you kill one, you’ve destroyed what God has created. We can live with animals, but once a human abuses an animal, or uses them for entertainment like the poor bears in India, or the poor elephents that struggle to move such heavy loads, then something has to be done about it. The laws here in our country are too lenient, and a slap on the wrist is not enough, when an innocent animal has been abused, neglected, and left to die. If the courts made the law very strict, and the punishment even more strict, then you would see animal abuse stop. Every animal has a purpose in life, whether it be from the smallest insect to the largert species, and we should all be able to live together. I love animals, and I hate people that wear fur, as they don’t know how horrific the slaughter of an animal is, and if they did, perhaps they wouldn’t wear the real thing, since there are so many faux furs today, that look just as good as the real fur.
I could write a book about the many horrible thngs that an animal has to go through, but I would just be too depressed thinking about it, so I’ll close just saying that, if everyone cared enough, and volunteered to help animals, then many of our birds, and animals wouldn’t be extinct, as so many of our wildlife has been destroyed, and we’ll never see many of the animals that use to be here. So everyone should do their part in keeping this planet alive with our feathered friends, or our furry friends. Thank you for letting me express my most inner feelings about animals. Marianne

On January 23, 2006, PO wrote:

I agree with you Marianne more than 100 percent. I saw two hunters across the way from me on private property dragging a baby deer that they killed. What is worse, I”m sure they use the peoples property to go into the nature Preserve where the deer call home. What kind of people can kill an innocent baby deer. Animal haters. Hunters are animal haters and they love to kill. We need better laws to protect all animals. Its the people and the hunters who keep chasing the deer etc out of their habitat and its the people who keep cutting down trees to build. I use to live in the “country” but it has gotten so built up there is no more land around me its sickening. Don’t blame the animals for running into cars or for anything else. Its the humans that are causing it. Stop the hunting, Stop the building. Let the animals live free and stop taking away their homes and their land. ITS THEIR WORLD TO! All this useless killing has to stop!

On January 24, 2006, Maru Vigo wrote:

Finally!! A court with intelligence and a bigger heart!
Let’s keep the pressure on those cowards, though!

On January 24, 2006, Terr from Alaska wrote:

To Blog Editor,
Your response to Larry is an obvious indicatioin of how your organization can take at statement and twist it to your own liking. Larry didn’t say “nature has to be controlled, yet we don’t have to control ourselves because we?re just too far gone”. What he said is that as humans and part of nature we have to manage ourselves because we are to far gone and too numerous not to and that this also includes managing the prey and predator populations. Seems like simple English to me. This would also suggest we as humans are on a higher level of intellectual ability than our animal friends but by the postings of some of your supports that fact could be arguable.

On January 26, 2006, Lynne Bruzzese wrote:

To those of you Alaskans who keep demanding that we non-Alaskans mind our own business: What happens to Alaska’s wolves is the business of all Americans. About 80 percent of the land in Alaska is federal. That means OURS, not just yours. We have a vested interest in ensuring the proper management (I hate that term) of wildlife on our federal lands. If the government of Alaska fails to take proper care of the wildlife that inhabits Alaska, the federal government should step in (e.g., by enforcing the Airborne Hunting Act). If the feds fail to do so, then we concerned American citizens must take action.

Additionally, Alaska just happens to be home to the last remaining substantial population of gray wolves in the United States. As such, the wolf population of Alaska comprises a national, if not international, treasure. If the programs of state or regional wildlife stewards threaten the existence of these treasures, then those of us who are concerned about preserving such animal populations and the still-complete wild ecosystems in which they exist, should and will take action. In this case, consider that, when combined, Alaska’s regular seasonal “take” of wolves by trappers and other on-the-ground hunters, and the wolves slaughtered in aircraft-assisted eradication campaign, would result, scientists estimate, in a 33 percent reduction in Alaska’s wolf population. Steps obviously must be taken to prevent such a tragic loss from occurring.

Thank you Friends of Animals, and your hard-working attorney in Anchorage, for working so hard to help preserve our wolves.

P.S. To the person who complained that wolves take only a smallish portion of a kill and leave the rest “for scavengers,” that’s part of what keeps an ecosystem healthy. Wolf kills help support and keep viable populations of bears, eagles, foxes, coyotes, etc. Furthermore, wolves generally return to kills to feed on them again and again. Check out the research coming out of Yellowstone and other areas, such as Denali. And please learn from the past mistakes of the Lower 48 — do not try to eliminate any of the top predator species from any ecosystem in Alaska.

On January 26, 2006, Herb Fawcett wrote:

Geez, why do people still want to kill wolves? I thought that old varmint mythology was shot down years ago. My uncle said the caribou around his island home in Lake Susitna were as prevalent as rats. How many caribou does a resident need to have enough to eat? The ecology guys are in a sweat about the pipeline and any new exploration for oil. Now sand oil is going to be an issue, and they disrupt the normal state of things by shooting wolves FROM THE AIR. That is illegal for any other game that I know of. Ah, corruption runs close to stupidity/ignorance.
Stay tuned for other nonsense!

Herb

On January 30, 2006, Jean Sutherland wrote:

THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.