Slaughtering Wolves is Out of 'Control' in Alaska
Effective protests are grounded in a refusal to accept what is normal. We accept a diminished world as normal… Why is this rage [against the loss of wildness] a silent rage, an impotent protest that doesn’t extend beyond the confines of our private world? Why don’t people speak out, why don’t they do something?… What is unsettling is that we are all so apathetic.”
— Jack Turner, “The Abstract Wild”
I’m in the midst of re-reading Jack Turner’s “The Abstract Wild,” and once again I feel my body grow electric with passion. His love for wild creatures and places is my love. His angst is my angst. His desire to make a difference is mine. But what to do?
One reason Turner’s words resonate so powerfully is my disgust with Alaska’s ongoing — and steadily expanding — predator-control program. I almost wrote “wolf control,” but our state’s organized predator-extermination effort now includes bears. I wonder how many Alaskans know this. Or care.
A few weeks ago, I met with a couple of other Alaskans disgusted by our state’s “intensive wildlife-management policy,” which basically requires the killing of wolves and bears so that humans have more moose and caribou to hunt. Vic Van Ballenberghe, a widely respected wildlife scientist and former Board of Game member, lamented that any new effort to rally Alaskans in support of wolves and bears would be tremendously difficult.
People have grown numb, Vic said. They’re burned out. Twice in recent years, Alaskan voters have loudly and clearly voiced their objection to large-scale, aerial wolf-kill programs. Yet here we are once more, with an even more egregious predator-control program, the worst in decades.
The latest effort to expand Alaska’s predator kill-off is happening as I write these words, as the Board of Game — which these days would more properly be called the Board of Game Farming — meets in Fairbanks. I stayed away because attending would invite only heartache and anger, as board members play out their dishonest charade. The board is determined to shrink wolf and bear populations, and that’s that.
The sad thing, as Vic points out, is that these wolf haters — I’m convinced that’s what they are — can do whatever they want. They represent the views of Gov. Murkowski, who appointed them, and the Alaska Legislature’s most powerful figures. No one in any sort of political leadership role has opposed them, which is depressing in itself. So it appears the only ones who can make a difference are we “commoners,” we citizens.
For that reason I applaud anyone who has attended this month’s Board of Game meeting and spoken for wolves and bears, or anyone who writes letters or makes calls denouncing current “management” strategies. Still, more is needed. There’s the prospect of yet another citizen’s initiative, which is hopeful. And we need to vote Murkowski and regressive legislators out of office.
I’m saddened that the loudest voice against Alaska’s predator-control program has been raised by Priscilla Feral and her Connecticut group, Friends of Animals. Surely many Alaskans are just as outraged as she. Why are we largely silent? Why do we hide?
I think that one major reason predator-control opponents have been apathetic and indifferent of late is this: the despicable nature of the killing has been largely out of sight, and therefore out of mind. Citizen revolts are most likely when we can see or read first-hand accounts of atrocities; for instance, the media’s coverage of physician-hunter Jack Frost and his “mechanical predation” of wolves in the 1980s, or biologist Gordon Haber’s snared-wolf video in the nineties. The visceral impact was powerful and motivating.
How do we stir up anger and action today? It might help to start with language. “Control” is such a clean, antiseptic word. But when state policies call for eliminating 85 of 120 wolves — to give one regional objective — that’s not control. That’s a massacre, a slaughter. Board of Game members sometimes talk about the savagery of wolves. But who, really, are the savages here?
Bill Sherwonit is a nature writer who lives in Anchorage.
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
54 Comments
On March 21, 2006, Nancy tyl wrote:
I live in Illinois and I know we don’t have wolves roaming my state but many people in Illinois honor and respect these animals. Are we still living in the dark ages of torture and murder? What is wrong with you people? We need the wolves to complete the circle of life. Have we as humans become heartless, cold and cruel murders? Yes, some people truly are that way. And you know what it is all about…MONEY. The all mighty dollar speaks instead of common sense. Look at what is happening in Idaho. They bring back the wolves only to have the Fish and Game Dept. trying to approve killing off 75% of them. Haven’t we learned from our past mistakes? Without wildlife including wolves we would not have WILDERNESS. There would be alot of people standing in the un-employment line. No animals…no jobs. When will people get SMART?
On March 21, 2006, Ed Canoose wrote:
Nancy;
Where did you ever get the idea that the wolves were necessary for wilderness, carnivores depredations on game animals continues until there is nothing left to feed them and they too expire, What few caribou, moose survive, manage to replenish their species until the preditors population takes them down again. The population dynamics of the Alaska Lynx is the same except the cycle is generally much faster. As it depends on the snowshoe for it’s food.
The Department does not kill the Grizzly or Brown bear just because they are carnivors. Bear also attack people, some fatally every year.
However if you feel safe wondering around salmon stream or in the bush Wildeness, be my guest.
I’ve seen my share of wolves killed and have seen them kill a full grown bull moose and eat them alive.
The people you support, do not want any animals killed, They do not want any trees logged, dams built, oilwells drilled, hunting outlawed and guns banned.
However they live in wood homes, own one or more vehicles, heat there homes with electricity, oil or gas. I would bet you have toilet paper in the bath room, yes.
On March 22, 2006, Carol Sumpter wrote:
It’s true. We humans are still in the dark ages; hunting wolves and coyote, for sport and to aid hunters. Nature cannot maintain it’s balance for long in this craziness. Stop and think what the world will be like if this continues. Help the planet now and aid nature instead of destroying it.
On March 23, 2006, Cate Mayer wrote:
It never fails, with a state that has natures bounty and wildlife, you choose to capitalize not on the photo tourists, but the hunters. And to call that hunting is a travesty. Good luck with your tourism, I won’t be coming and I will let everyone I know in on the “shoot wolves so you can shoot moose” concept. You won’t have any wildlife to promote with that mindset.
Cate Mayer
On March 23, 2006, Christine Gardner wrote:
I for one think that killing animals is a crime, and a crime should have it’s penalties. Why on god’s green earth would you want to kill these animals for fun? for pleasure? It’s 2006 get a video game that does it and play that. How would you like it “Ed Canoose” if me and my fellow men came out and started hunting you for fun? And yes Mr. Ed got the toilet paper right here what does that have to do with killing animals for pleasure? Need some toliet paper to wipe the blood off, yes!
On March 23, 2006, Larry wrote:
Carol - actually, we ARE aiding nature by exercising a small amount of control, rather than letting totally random acts of nature determine our animal populations.
Cate: Let’s see - if we have a boycott, that means less tourists clogging our summer highways (few of which see many moose, caribou, and especially wolves, which are very reclusive). This is good thing to some of us. Please, stay away, we have enough fools of our own, we don’t need to import any, even temporarily. If we have a boycott, that also means we are managing predators, which means we have MORE animals, not less.
Boycott, more animals, fewer idiotic tourists. What’s not to like?
By the way, I’ve known Bill Sherwonit for a many years. He’s a total twit. But a nice guy all the same.
<[Blog editors’ note: No need to call others fools, idiots, or twits. It raises the board’s value to all if we can keep the communications substantive and not childish. Thank you.]
On March 28, 2006, BJ wrote:
I reside in interior alaska and i have for all of my life and i agree with Ed Canooses satement about how the wolves situation is similiar to the Lynx life cycle with the snowshoe hare. I have seen first hand all the moose carcasses from wolves and grizzly. I am not resentful or hateful towards these beautiful creatures but they have gotten much out of hand. The program is working though, there are many more calves surviving and more moose around. The wolves are still here also we are not tryin to drive them to extinction or anything like that merely to try and somewhat “control” them a bit. As an Alaskan Native i am very subsistence and depend on Moose and Caribou meat for sustenance and if they were to become so endangered that we could no longer hunt them that would be more things that our culture would start to lose. How to hunt, tan hides, and being out there with the family and all. Thanks for anyone supporting the wolf control in alaska.
[Blog editors’ note: Please understand that everyone here who became a vegetarian did so in spite of our culture. This meant learning to convert family recipes handed down through generations. It meant coming up with new ideas to take the place of stuffing and carving turkey. It meant not being at those kinds of festivities with family, or persuading our families to change and embrace new customs. It meant no longer going out on boats with friends or relatives to catch fish. It meant changing our views about our place amidst many other cultures of an interwoven community of life. We are not so far apart. We all grew up in a society that said we should dominate and vanquish, buy and sell, breed and eat the other animals. It’s a matter of thinking about customs going back a very long way. We are all indigenous to the earth.]
On March 28, 2006, Priscilla Feral wrote:
Heads-up to BJ, Larry and other wolf-haters: We know better and disagree that moose numbers are low in wolf control areas. Coupled with wolf trapping, hunting, and unlimited slaughter of wolves with snowmachines, the aerial wolf massacre is considered human savagery: primitive, mindless and horribly destructive.
The excuses used by so-called subsistence shooters and other pundits are rubbish. There’s no need to shoot wolves or other predators to feed Alaskans, so kindly stop the incessant belching.
As for high fuel costs, welcome to the nation. Your checks from Alaska’s Permanent Fund are viewed as free money that should cover your costs of electricity, gasoline and heating oil. Why should federal money go to Alaska when Alaska isn’t willing to spend its projected $1.4 billion annual surplus or the $34 billion in the permanent fund?
It’s also expensive to hunt wolves from aircraft, but that hasn’t stopped 157 wingnuts — dentists, attorneys and other well-heeled Alaskans — who we consider out of their minds.
Priscilla Feral
Friends of Animals
On March 28, 2006, Hugh Yaeger wrote:
Wolves are one of the victims of mythology, i.e. Little Red Riding Hood, etc.
More publicity is needed to clear their image - i.e. wolf cuddling baby lost in forest until baby was rescued.
Strong, close family relationship.
On March 28, 2006, BJ wrote:
To Priscilla
How can you “disagree” that moose numbers are low here i mean do you live here? hunt or enjoy the beautiful country here? i remember a couple years ago when we would rarely even see a moose around as i said before the wolf control is working and once the moose are stable again the wolf control will be stopped and life will be back as it was i know there will still be wolf hunting on snowmachines and everything but thats something that has alwas happened
On March 28, 2006, Jeremy, wrote:
Along with what BJ said I also feal that way, wolves in ALASKA are out of control, We live off of the meat we get from the moose, we do not kill the moose for sport like alot of people in the city’s and states do, we do not find joy in picking up a gun walking out the dore and shooting something that may be eating our scarce supply of food for the winter, but we do as we must. ALOT of people may think, “Why not live off the things you can buy from the stores in towns” It is becuase we were raised this way and we will stay this way for a very very long time to come, If it meens controling a population of a preditore on our food source we will do just that. We do not “Go and murder wolves” We save our food supply from extinction, We do not kill wolves just to kill wolves, we kill them to keep us alive. I said what I had to say RANT AND FLAME ALL YOU LIKE!
On March 29, 2006, Eric Butler wrote:
Personally, I think that the killing of Wolves in Alaska is VERY wrong!!!!! Wolves are majestic, and very beautiful animals…….. They dont deserve what is going on… The people who are hunting wolves need to stop it…. Just thinking about that happening makes me sad and hurt….. I just hope that this will stop real soon!!!!
STOP KILLING WOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On March 29, 2006, karen wrote:
Wolves have a perfect society, each member knows how they fit and what job they are to do. There are no freeloaders.
Besides being one of gods perfect creatures they are magnificent animals.
On March 30, 2006, Priscilla Feral wrote:
For BJ — Friends of Animals has sponsored Dr. Gordon Haber’s field research in Alaska, and we work with another moose biologist in our ongoing legal challenge. We know that the state’s scientific data doesn’t hold up. One just can’t claim that moose and caribou numbers are very low, so aerial wolf massacres are needed and justified.
A year ago, Dr. Haber reportered that a group of wolves he had studied in the Fortymile area had been decimated — five were shot from the air including a radio-collared wolf. Others were found after 24 hours who had been wounded. There’s evidence that the hunter-pilot teams are using radio tracking and assistance from the state to slaughter wolves, and the accompanying propaganda — the state’s thought control excuses all of the violence and suffering as a needed moose farming exercise. We find it obscene.
The state’s wolf control proponents actually want to kill predators — there’s no quality thinking, research or observations that validate it, and certainly, no ethics. Many Alaskans prefer a natural system without human intrusion and manipulations. Tourists don’t travel to Alaska because they’re indifferent to the violence that’s intrinsic in the way wolves, bears and others are routinely treated by Gov. Murkowski’s administration.
Priscilla Feral
Friends of Animals
On March 30, 2006, Alexis wrote:
Why do we still do this to animals? How would you feel if you were just walking along and then, BOOM!!!, you are lying there dead. There is absolutely no reason we should kill animals! Especially not wolves. They are one of the most majestic animals of alaska, and even other places! I love wolves… And not to mention all the animals were here first! We moved onto their territory! What gives us the right to kill them? You tell me!!!
On March 30, 2006, dave wrote:
Listening to the reasoning supporting the wolf hunt, it sounds very familiar to the seal clubbing in newfoundland. wolfs eat the moose, seals eat the fish, and this will not effect the population of either animal and so on. so it must be fair to say the supporters of the wolf hunt also support the seal clubbing. only difference is the seal fur is sold. nobody is trying to profit off the wolf. first off, i don’t know why anybody would want to wear skin on top of his or her skin, thats just disgusting. i would not be caught dead wearing a fur.and when i see someone wearing a fur, it’s hard to hold a straight face and avoid bursting out in laughter on how stupid they look. but that’s for another day, what i am wondering is why no one from the dept. of game and fish,the governor or the 157 shooters (notice i didn’t say hunters)came forward to defend there actions. most likely because the governor already committed political suicide by ignoring the people that put him in office, the dept of game know there history when he’s gone. and the 157 shooters don’t want their clients or coworkers to know because of criticism from coworkers and definitely they could loose the clients that they have. if your going to do something that the majority oppose, you should at least be man enough to stand up and defend your actions, instead of hiding in the shadows. this is only and admission to guilt and knowing that it’s wrong. so stop having your supporters fight your battles,you may have misled them, but you didn’t mislead the rest of us. and as far as the boycott is concerned. ‘WHEN THE WEATHER’S FINE, YOU’LL SEE MY BEHIND HEADING SOUTH OF ALASKA’.
On March 31, 2006, Charles wrote:
To Jeremy, I was reading what you wrote in the paragraph.I took myself out from the thoughts which can anger someone if they hear of some an animal being hurt or killed. Growing up in the largest city in the world (nyc) I can understand that you want to continue your way of life just the way it,s been.Althougt I don,t think your using your power efficently, Jeremy I have land in the catskill mnts. More and more people are coming up and they don,t care about any of these issues or ones like them. They are happy being out of the big city you should check statistics for population increases business in the u.s. is booming soon enough people will be in your backyard, like it or not. So jeremy if you live in a place of such beauty and history why not try to protect all of it…. I might be moving to alaska. I,m a dockbuilder working on some very large projects dams, bridges, bulkheads etc. So six (6) months a Year I will be visting places which interest me ALASKA WOW … Jeremy contact me maybe between your brain and my brain we can keep this area beautiful for along time to come.Its sounds to me like you don,t hate wolves your doing what you were taught. But trust me if you don,t talk to people like Priscilla who is a link of things to come we will all lose in the end. Just as neigborhoods coastlines and countries(iraq) change. please contact me at captainruoff1@aol.com I am in avery large city with a very large voice I would even visit your area if asked. Priscilla please contact me if you read this
On April 1, 2006, Cheri Thomas wrote:
I DO live in Alaska and have for almost 30 years, so I can say that BJ and like-thinking folks are going to believe whatever is said that will justify their desire to see wolves killed. YES. All creatures in the wild are subjuect to cycles. It only takes one hard winter with deep snows to reduce moose populations more than any over population of wolves ever could. And there is NO over population of wolves. Even the board of Fish and Game cannot say they have proof of that one way or the other. I would like to say to all those that DEPEND on moose to eat, that I support your way of life. I would also tell them that if they want to see why moose populations might be low, (Again there is no real proof that the numbers are that low. There are over two hundred killed by cars in the Mat-Su every winter.) I would encourage them to go to the airport when hunting season opens up to see hundreds of “hunters” getting on and off airplanes. Or go stand by the highway and watch the hundreds of trucks going by with tens of thousands of dollars worth of hunting gear. Hunting for big game means big-money for some. And money, like so much in this world today, is all that its about. If moose hunting was only open to those that truly needed it for the next two years, we’d probably see way more moose than we want to. Killing wolves is not the answer. As a last note: Alaskans voted twice against wolf-killing programs. Fortunately, most Alaskans don’t agree with Ed. Unfortunately, those in power and with money, do.
On April 3, 2006, Shelley wrote:
I completly understand those who must kill for food. What is unacceptable is when these wolves are made into designer coats and pelts. I don’t understand why someone would want a dead animal draped across her shoulders! I am only 12 and most of the kids my age really don’t care about wildlife. My friend has a bunny fur purse!! I think people should stop obsessing over possesions and get over it. The only problem is that we can talk about this all we want to, but I don’t see anyone doing anything about it. GET INVOLVED!!
Blog editors’ note: It’s possible for those of us in North America , especially, to feed ourselves well as vegetarians without killing animals. Moreover, no one in Alaska shoots wolves out of hunger. Wolves and other animals are shot due to a warped sense of sport, and because some people prone to violence think that dominating animals and others makes themselves feel adequate. The opposite is true.
Wolf skins are sold for pricey garments, and as you say, Shelley, for foolish accessories. We’re pleased your eyes and ears are open and that you’re involved.
On April 5, 2006, Alexis wrote:
Exactley, I understand killing food, but people kill animals for game and for fur, witch is pretty much useless if you really think about it. It is also kinda gross, I mean, having animal skin on top of yours… Think about it! And also people kill wolves because they don’t know the truth. Stories like The Three Little Pigs give little kids the wrong impression and they grow up to hate wolves. It’s not right!
On April 6, 2006, Barbara Lieberman wrote:
On wolfs. They are beautful, loyal and care for there familys as we do ours.I have always wanted to see Alaska but not now.I do not understand how peole can do that, but you know the most dangers animal on our plant is MAN. They kill for the thrill of it. A wolf kills for food. If you evern lived with one as a family member you could see how they are. I have two that is 94% wolf. and would not trade them for a dog. But please DO NOT KILL what God put here to help us enjoy life.
On April 6, 2006, Alexis wrote:
I agree with you Barbara Lieberman. I love wolves and lived there for 7 years, I am only 11.
On April 8, 2006, Kristin wrote:
I decided to read up a little on the subject because i have always been confused on which side to support. I’ve always loved animals and always will. ive lived in alaska my whole life and that is why i have been bothered by the issue. I completely understand both sides of the arguement… what i want to point out is that it is indeed controlling the population. i know, statistics are boring but bear with me and think about it. there were roughly 7000 to 12000 wolves in alaska as of 2002.. and one pack of wolves has a territorial radius of about 500 square miles.. with 7 to 12 wolves per pack, this would be quite the ideal amount of wolves you would want.. if you had anymore they could possibly be overpopulating. (alaska is roughly 500,000 square miles, its simple math)i got this information from http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/dotclear/index.php?2006/03/09/68-counting-wolves-is-a-difficult-costly-undertaking
of course you could say the information is blasphemy. but people do want what is best for all parties.. believe it or not. alaskans are not as extreme as you think. yes, i notice later after the initial article that you state you are against the “157”. then why are you so against alaska as a state? why and how would boycotting touring alaska would do any good at all? i think that almost everyone that has lived here for a substantial amount of time has grown to respect the wilderness and all about it. so i feel safe saying that most true alaskans don’t want to “slaughter” the wolves. i did give this some thought.. and i wondered, so what would happen if the wolves did indeed become overpopulated? they would eventually become the victims of more painful deaths… if they did become insanely numerous they would fight over territories and would end up as road kill. they would also eat all the available food sources and they would starve to death. what else would happen to them? can you tell me? so in the long run.. which plan is better? please, please, please don’t respond to me unless you have fully read and completely understand what im saying, i don’t want someone saying they dont want them to die because they are majestic creatures and all alaskans can burn. i really would like an intelligable response, if any. oh yeah, I think its absolutely inane that some of you think that natives should change their ways for the good of animals. these people’s past generations (i dont know if they still do or not) have been worshipping animals for all they give to them and all that spiritual stuff. i mean even their god type figures are animals. i would think that they are more connected to the animals and know them better than anyone. espeically those of you that live in cities. i mean really.. think about it. its analagous to a brain surgeous asking a dentist his opinion of what he should do when he is trying to remove a brain tumor. no, not the best analogy i guess, but i hope you know what i mean.
Blog editors’ note: Brain surgery aside, it’s human behaivor that needs to be controlled. There’s a massacre of wolves in Alaska, and killings that are now promoted 10 months out of the year. Of roughly 600,000 residents, 14 percent hold hunting/trapping licenses, and a smaller percentage of those hunters are bent on wolf slaughter for every reason under the sun. They have dominated public policy during Murkolwski ‘s administration, disgraced Alaska and our country as a whole. It’s all violent, deceitful, political rubbish, and a host of Alaskans are saying so including wolf and moose biologists there who are continually marginalized by the wingnuts on the Board of Game.
On April 8, 2006, Alexis wrote:
I am only 11 and lived in Alska for 7 years, but then I had to move to Oregon… but, anyway, wolves are my favorite animals, I have loved them for as long as I can remember! I can’t believe people would want to kill them. And, wolves are going extinct because of people killing them! It is not right!
On April 9, 2006, Kristin wrote:
t”blog editor” - please, did you not read my reasoning? there are 1500 wolves killed every year by trappers and hunters.. AND they have used wolf control..and they have sustained their population and it has doubled in the past 20 years. this simply tells me that wolves are an amazing animals that can adapt to whatever they need to. And they obviously work together because their species as a whole, in alaska, is extremely healthy. like i said before, if there were any MORE wolves in alaska, it could be potential overpopulation.
[Blog editors’ note: Don’t buy into the Fish & Game’s propaganda about wolf populations, moose numbers or much else. They pretty much make it up as they go along. They don’t count wolves, Kristin. They inflate numbers and extrapolate from numbers of dead wolves offered by trapppers. In the vast territory of wolves, many thousands have been horribly mistreated and treated like vermin. The point is it’s wrong on scientific grounds, and it’s unethical. ]
On April 10, 2006, Gordon wrote:
Kristin, it will not matter what you say or how much scientific data you mite have, you could have all the scientific data in the world, and the FoA will still take the postion that they take, it only show you that how radical there way of think is, it also show you the narrow mind type of think you will run across , to them it does not matter when a pack of wolves is pulling the moose calf right out of it mother at birth and I mean as she is giving birth , which in turn kill the mother and calf, then move right on to the next one. but none of that matter, because the blog editor will still try and think of something clever to even defend that, that is why I have not respone much lately to FoA page the best I can do is keep kill the wolves that are eating the moose and caribou that I eat.
[Blog editors note: The best Gordon can muster is to kill, kill, kill, complain, post something inane and then repeat the cycle. Moose weigh 1,200 - 15,00 pounds, so it’s silly for you, Gordon, to be whining about killing moose and caribou at every opportunity. One imagines you’re buried in moose flesh. Eat something else, Gordon, for starters, and quit competing with wolves who are just trying to stay alive in an increasingly hostile, human -dominated environment.
A telling note: Gordon is self-employed as a specialty contractor with a firm in Cantwell, Alaska. Gordon works for a living, despite the complaints about one’s hand-to-mouth existence. ]
On April 11, 2006, Jack Tims wrote:
I find myself coming here again to read the continuing hyperbole of both sides of this debate. To those who support the aerial shooting (I also won’t call this hunting and I don’t know of any hunter who would) you have bought into the mythology of the balance of nature. This is a Hellenistic myth that has persisted to this day. Natural systems are, by their nature, dynamic. Both ungulate and predator populations are subject to wild fluctuations. At best, predator control is a poor tool to temporarily alter populations.
However, the FOA and opponents are equally guilty. You’ve mythologized the wolf to some sort of supernatural status. Don’t get me wrong, wolves are cool animals and I’ve always been impressed everytime I’ve been lucky enough to see one; but they are still animals. You cross the line between fact and belief when you begin to argue their rights as sentient beings. Wolves are cool but they aren’t furry people. Some of their social behavior seems familiar but we are sadly reducing them to a cartoon if we start to debate their sentience.
Wolves do have commercial value - Their fur is unparalleled for parka ruffs except possibly by wolverine. Why? In very low temperatures, they are the only thing ever seen that frost won’t stick to. This isn’t fashion, this is keeping frost away from your face at -40. We haven’t found an effective substitute yet…
I will ask the question I have asked many times in the past - FOA, has your campaign saved any wolves? Have you done any good or have you merely strengthened the legal arguments for the shooters, perhaps advertised your cause some, and raised some money? Hand-wringing and boycotts are not going to affect this; crank e-mails to Frank Murkowski are not going to affect this; what will affect this is sound arguments free of the animal rights rhetoric.
Enjoy tilting at the windmills but remember the fate of Quixote, Treadwell and Chandless…
J
[Blog editors’ note: We’re unsure whether Jack has commercial value, but despite his myopic view of sentience, Jack asserts that wolves are cool animals and that this coolness provides an assortment of cool body parts — accessories for parkas and more. Then Jack lectures us about what will be effective in Alaska as though we want advice from detractors who think wolves are cool garments, and that sentience only applies to Homo sapiens. The overarching issue is about justice, and we’ll continue to address it here whether or not Jack has put on his listening ears.]
On April 11, 2006, Gabriella wrote:
i totally think its wrong what they are doing. wolves are beauriful creatures, and they weren’t made to die. i would do anything to make people stop this cruelty. wolves have done know harm. they want to live in peace this winter. with knowone trying to hunt them down. they have feelings like us. and if there is anything i can do to help save wolves…i would.
Gabriella
On April 11, 2006, Sara Greene wrote:
I can’t see why anyone would want to kill any animal. Is it just because we’re afraid of them? or is it because humans must run the earth? Killing of animals is not right. I dont agree with it. especially when it comes to the majestic wolf. I despise those who kill for sport and for no reason. We used to live in harmony with the wolves. why cant we now?
On April 11, 2006, Hikari wrote:
this is so wrong wolves like other animals deserve to live…. why cant people see that?
On April 11, 2006, Tiffany wrote:
This needs to stop.. Wolves are good animals and these things that we call humans who hunt these animals are the ones that need to be…stopped. They kill out of fear and lack of understanding of these wonderful animals and its wrong. I hate it.. It makes myself and other people who love these animals sick.I love all animals .
On April 11, 2006, Rebecca wrote:
I am saddened that the human race is so damn power hungry…why must we control everything? I wish everyone was more like the Native Americans…they aprreciated nature and valued all creatures. Not only do i speak for the wolves…but for all of earths creatures. People say wolves are evil monsters…but in truth it is the human race who is the evil monsters. We steal the land and ruin it, sometimes i am ashamed to be human….
On April 12, 2006, Terry Maillet wrote:
I do not believe in the killing of wolves or any other animal for that matter. Not unless that is the only way I can keep alive. I do not believe things have to be as they were in the past. Meaning hunting in order to stay fed, clothed, etc.However humans are constantly pretending that this is still the case. Some day each of us will come to our end. I bet each of us will be praying that God will grant us more compassion and mercy than what we had shown to God’s creatures.We are lucky he is forgiving,YES? For we do not seem to have much mercy. I am vegan and I am in perfect health. I hope I see things change before I pass on.
On April 13, 2006, Terry Maillet wrote:
P.S. ONE OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS SAYS THOU SHALT NOT KILL! IT DOES NOT SAY THOU SHALT NOT KILL ONLY HUMANS. IT SAYS THOU SHALT NOT KILL. (PERIOD)
On April 13, 2006, MP wrote:
I wanted to respond briefly to Jack’s posting of April 11 wherein he writes that the best way those opposed to systematic wolf-killing would be to present: “sound arguments free of the animal rights rhetoric.” My immediate response to this is, doesn’t it seem MORE appropriate for legislators to need to present “sound arguments” free of rhetoric heavily-influenced by politics and economics before sanctioning the systematic extermination of another living species?? and, frankly, in alaska’s case, recklessly depleting the precious wildlife that makes their state so beautiful, rare, and (if you want to talk economics) attractive a tourist destination? I think the burden of proof and presentation of a sound argument should come BEFORE the killing starts- and not after once their is an outcry to stop it.
On April 16, 2006, Christina Steele wrote:
I am appalled by these facts and frankly it makes me sick to my stomach…seriously physically Ill to even think about those poor innocent beautiful creatures being slaughtered like that! In my opinion these creatures are far more Intelligent than us in a lot of ways!!
On April 16, 2006, Larry wrote:
OK - I lied- I’m back - and have been lurking. This debate is just too interesting, and although I totally disagree with the blog editor’s put downs of opposing views, I do appreciate the posting of those divergent views
Priscilla- I am not a “wolf hater”. There is nothing much cooler than hearing wolves howl, or watching them hunt when I am out and about- usually moose hunting. But too much of a good thing isn’t. I’ve had numerous opportunities to personally kill a wolf, tried twice, and missed both times. They’re tricky, fast moving suckers! I’m not terribly sorry I missed, but I can separate my personal desires from what is good for the overall ecological scene.
Gabrielle - ” wolves weren’t made to die” ??? Get real - everything dies. Wolves were made to die just like humans or anything else. Wolves are the single biggest killers of wolves.
[Blog editors’ note: Hello, Larry. Welcome back. The looming question is why we’re all here. Wolves use their teeth and intelligence to eke out a living; wish the same was true for two-legged Nimrods. ]
On April 19, 2006, Alexis wrote:
Wolves help the circle of life! If we kill off all of the wolves, then the deer population will go up, and they will eat all of our crops!
On April 19, 2006, Larry wrote:
Well, my teeth aren’t much good for hamstringing moose, or ripping out jugulars afterward.
Nor, at 57, am I particularly fast and nimble. Never learned to use a spear, either, and my varicose veined legs are embarrassing in a loin cloth. :).
So I have to use a gun or bow if I am to bring down game. (And there is a fundamental philosophical difference)
Alexis: hardly anyone (only the truly moronic) wants to “kill off all the wolves.” But those of us who hunt in wolf country do want to share the prey resources, partly because of economic reasons (a big moose is worth about $2,000 in equivalent domestic meats, obtainable for $1.50 in bullet costs plus incidentals, if one is not a vegan), partly for recreational values (hunting - as opposed to merely killing - is FUN), partly because Mother Nature does go to excesses at times, which through “game management - read primarily “people management” - can be mitigated to some extent, and partly because hunters through their various fees and taxes, pay the lion’s share of management, research, and enforcement costs. This “management” often means exercising controls on both prey and predator populations. Do we get it right all the time?
No - but we are learning. With the present level of human encroachment on the “wild” world, we simply cannot afford a “hands-off” policy, in my opinion. That’s my opinion. Your milage may vary….
On April 20, 2006, Bob wrote:
Wolf control cannot reasonably be considered a solution to the “present level of human encroachment” that Larry mentions. What is needed is “human control” — humans long ago exceeded the carrying capacity of Earth — the scars from this excess will take a long time to heal, and will only heal if we learn to live with Nature instead of against it.
On April 21, 2006, Rich wrote:
I saw the FRIENDS of ANIMALS full page ad in HARPER’S magazine for May that decried this slaughter.
Unfortunately the ad ran in an issue that had two articles which were sympathetic to the eating of and production of animals for food. As a matter of fact the last line in A CARNIVORE’S CREDO stated: “Duty requires us, therefore, to eat our friends.”
Ironic isn’t it?
Rich.
On April 21, 2006, Larry wrote:
Bob -“humans long ago exceeded the carrying capacity of Earth”
I tend to agree in a PC sense. Obviously we have not, in a practical sense, since we have not yet suffered a permanent catastrophic decline (the Black Death and ‘flu of 23’ or whenever were merely temporary setbacks. Both my maternal grandparents and paternal grandmother died in that one, by the way.
I strongly agree that our numbers are where they are at the expense of other species- which is exactly why we need to learn “management”, so we can preserve species (including our own) under these circumstances, until we can get our own numbers under control.
You perhaps have a suggestion for “curing” the world of our numbers???
On April 25, 2006, Alexis wrote:
Dear Blog Editor,
Is there anything we can do to help? I mean all we are doing is talking about it, but we aren’t doing anyhting about it! I mean sure, telling people to stop and not participating in such activities does sort of help, but it is not stopping the people that actually do it. I am only 11 and I already know how awful all this stuff is!
[Blog editors’ note: Thank you, Alexis, for standing up for wolves. By supporting Friends of Animals you’re making our work possible. We’re continuing to press for changes in Alaska — through education, ad campaigns,field research, lawsuits, lobbying efforts, and other interventions.]
On April 26, 2006, Alexis wrote:
dear blog editor,
thank you for letting me know this. I appreciate it.
On April 27, 2006, Danielle wrote:
My only comment is that people should think before they boycott anything, including tourism to Alaska, about all the potential ramificaitons of their actions. The fact of the matter is that many PEOPLE who live in Alaska depend on tourism to survive. A boycott against “the government” in Alaska for their objectionable practices is more likely to hurt the people who live in the state. While I agree that the practice is wrong, a better solution is needed than the suggested course of action in this case.
[Blog editors’ note: It’s a matter of economics and politics in Alaska vs death for wolves — trying to go about the business of living.
On April 27, 2006, Lyza Jayne wrote:
Not only did this make me cry, but it stung deeply because as a Pagan, I am deeply rooted in animal spiritualism. My mate is a gray wolf and it pains me that the lask of respect for Mother Nature is running so pampet these days.
When our resources are depleated (speaking of fossil fuels) we will be forced to go back to a lifestyle that will include nature. Everyone will need a little “Laura Ingles” in them. I just hope that there will still be natures creatures to share this world with when that day comes. That day will come…
L.J.
On April 28, 2006, Kusko wrote:
Obviously those of you who are against wolf hunting in Alaska have never visited an interior village in our state. There are no real grocery stores in a native village. People absolutely depend on moose and caribou for sustenance. In some areas, crops do not grow or the growing season is too short. People do wear fur not as an accessory, but as a necessity. There is NOTHING produced on earth that can fend off frost like wolf and wolverine fur.
If you really think that ADF&G is fixing it’s numbers and making up data, you are believing the wrong side. I live here, there are no moose where they used to be, but what do you see, wolves and bears. Soon enough, if we stop predator control, the wolves will overpopulate and overeat their habitat, resulting in a much more slower and painful death called starvation.
I have personally flown with pilots who take our biologists to count moose. I asked them the same question you ask, are the moose numbers down as much as ADF&G says? The answer is simple, the pilot says, “what are easier to spot, a 1,500 pound moose or a 100 pound wolf?” “We see way more wolves than we do moose.”
Please do not buy into FoA plot to stop predator control. The people who hunt these moose and wolves do not take pleasure in killing these animals. Any self respecting hunter feels a touch of empathy when an animal falls.
[Blog editors’ note: We repeat, these wingnuts wouldn’t know how to tell the truth if it jumped up and popped them in the heads. Thanks for sharing, Kusko.]
On April 29, 2006, Chris Newton wrote:
Here’s what I don’t understand. How is it that people on the “right” are always being told they need to be more open minded and not judge others? Kusko presented a very clearly thought out, and might I add first hand, view of the wolf control issues in Alaska and his views were completely dismissed without consideration and he himself was mocked. Now I’ll paint myself with the same paint I used on you. You people make me sick with your patronizing, self centered rhetoric. This is pseudo-intellectualistic elitism at it’s best. You sit around and pat yourselves on the back for being more thoughtful, more feeling, and flat out more intelligent than all of us poor neanderthals who beat animals to death with rocks. In fact, we are too stupid to realize that without smart people like you, we’d all be living in caves and communicating with grunts.
The honest truth is that this issue is none of your business. You don’t live in Alaska, and you don’t have to deal with wolves. Why don’t you spend your time trying to stop the indiscriminate killing of the brown recluse spider, a creature who’s natural habitat has been cruelly eliminated.
The one good thing I can say about your organization is that you at least are honest enough to post dissenting views, even if you do feel the need to belittle the posters.
On May 1, 2006, Priscilla Feral wrote:
Chris Newton’s comment repeats the mantra from other wolf control proponets — that Alaska’s residents speak with one voice. How provincial. What Newton knows is that shooting wolves from aircraft to make moose hunting easier is contentious both inside and outside Alaska. This year’s aerial wolf-killing ended April 30th, and we repeat: The state-sponsored violence shamed not only Alaska, but our country as a whole.
Priscilla Feral
Friends of Animals
On May 6, 2006, Chris Newton wrote:
Provincial? Seriously, I don’t need any help making my point about your elitism.
To address your comment however, I do not dispute the fact that this is a controversial issue even within the state of Alaska. My contention is that a group of people who are not involved in the issue are going to court to stop something that is none of their business.
Also, tell me exactly how this is “shaming our country?” People all over the world kill animals. Shocking, I know.
On June 19, 2006, Rebecca R. wrote:
hi!I’m Rebecca and I am 10 going on 11.WEll I think killng wolfs is VERY wrong!!I think wolves are very beautiful animals and you know what people that are killing wolves,ONE KID CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!
THANK YOU
On October 23, 2006, Louise Mount wrote:
How can those people do that and have that horrible thing on their conscience? I am only 15 years old and I think that is horrible. But what most people don’t understand about animal is that they have feelings just like you and me do. And they also have familes like humans. I always wanted to asked people who slaughter any animal ” How would you feel if these same animals came and slaughtered you and your family, and you couldn’t do anything about it?” But i guess they will never understand.
On April 20, 2007, Ben Ewert wrote:
I live in Minnesota as well as Iowa. It doesn’t make sense that people kill animals like wolves, mountain lions and bears. These animals help control the deer population. Is it any wonder after these animals are driven away that people start complaining about how big the deer population now is?
Mountain lions are coming back into Iowa. One problem is that many people still carry the European mindset of the Big Bad Wolf. We need more of the life-respecting mindset of the Native American. Wolves are beautiful, magnificent creatures that have as much a right to live as we humans do.
On September 15, 2007, Questioning wrote:
I know this is like a year later, but I have a question…..if the theory that the wolves will just eat themselves out of house and home if they aren’t killed is true, then what have we (humans) done to make this true? Obviously for 8000-10000 years wolves didn’t eat themselves into extinction in Alaska, so why is it happening since the 50’s? What’s the trigger that makes it all different now? My guess is the difference now is humans are messing everything up like we always do…..yet the Alaskan natives lived there for 1000’s of years and didn’t seem to have this problem.
Ok, so here’s my question, what did the Natives do for 1000’s of years? Or was this situation basically a non-issue until the white man messed things up? I’m asking this as an honest question, because I’d like to know the history, the real history. In Northern MN and much of Canada, the wolf was called “brother wolf” by the native peoples, and perhaps some hunting may have taken place, but it would have been very rare, if it happened at all. So what did the natives do historically in Alaska? I’m asking for my own knowledge on the subject, and for no other reason. thanks…