State Ordered to Pay Friends of Animals' Fees

On January 24, 2007, Sierra wrote:

im only 12 years old…but i think joining this web site is very cool and a great idea for animal lovers like me and other people out there!

-Sierra

On January 24, 2007, Rita wrote:

Score one for the good guys!

On January 24, 2007, Doris Kaye wrote:

As I’ve said before, I’m proud to be a member of this organization. Well done, Priscilla!

On January 25, 2007, Sheryl Wolk wrote:

Congratulations!

On January 25, 2007, Bent Bay wrote:

You run a very good organization. We in Denmark need something like that.

On January 25, 2007, jeff wrote:

We’ve known all along that judge Gleason is a moron, now she has proven it.
I love animals too Sierra??!!, they’re delicious.

[Blog editors’ note: This comment comes to us from Alaska. We do not approve of this attack on the judge.]

On January 25, 2007, christina cobbs wrote:

Great

On January 25, 2007, Annabeth wrote:

Hurray!

On January 25, 2007, Patsy Griffin wrote:

E-mail me when you receive the money. Great news though.

On January 25, 2007, Rita Campbell wrote:

I am happy to hear of this ruling. Friends of Animals worked tirelessly, and thanklessly, on behalf of Alaska wolf packs. Althought the lawsuit brought a brief respite for the wolves, the predator program, it seems, continues. Ex-governor Frank Murkowski found ways around the law by shifting from aerial hunting to pursuing wolves on ATV’s, and he expanded the range of areas to be hunted. Alaskans have voted, repeatedly, against aerial wolf hunting. Because he ignored the wishes of Alaskans in may ways, so he was defeated by a large margin in the last election.

However, our new governor Sarah Palin stated during the election campaign that she would support “predator control” and the needs of the rural Native community. I would not want to take anything away from our Native community, but I do not believe this is a case of the needs of the Native communities. I believe that is a small part of the issue, and is used as an excuse for a bad program to decimate wolves.

I believe the ones who benefit most are the out of state recreational hunters. They are the ones most in competition with wolves for trophy animals. I care alot about the wolves, as do many Alaskans, and I have written to Governor Palin in this regard. Thank you Friends of Animals for your efforts to lessen the needless slaughter …

On January 25, 2007, marilyn evenson wrote:

Congratulations!! Another victory for the animals. Good for you.

On January 25, 2007, mike dubo wrote:

money is what you are all about.the greed of the animal rights industry is incredible. i challenge you to release the figures on how much your industry takes in for the animals and where it is spent . include wages ,benifits and all other perks such as travel, food ,clothing,
and all other spending done by the administrators of your industry . i’m sure that it’s a small amount because your leadership lives in such a poor ghetto community as darrien conn.

[Blog editors’ note: Is the State of Alaska sending you the bill for $95,000? Impressive.]

On January 25, 2007, Linda wrote:

Congratulations!

On January 25, 2007, dave wrote:

congratulations, the money couldn’t have been awarded to a better group and in this case the right group. intellegence will always supercede foolish decisions, keep up the good work.hit them in the wallet, their brains will usually kick in to gear.

[Blog editors’ comment: Much appreciated, Dave.]

On January 25, 2007, Murph wrote:

The wolves arent being shot because hunters dont like to compete, it is because the wolves are not subsistence hunted, but their prey is, so the wolves have no predators and are overpopulating the state and need to be thinned out. I love animals too, but I also love how many of them taste, and when I hunt I hunt to eat. All of you not in Alaska cant possibly understand the situation.

[Blog editors’ note: Get a grip, Murph.]

On January 25, 2007, Teresa Adele Bettino wrote:

Glad to hear about this. Wonderful!

On January 26, 2007, Barry wrote:

Wolf hunting as predatorcontrol has long been a controversial issue. We have for many years practiced what we like to call wild life management. This is really an oxymoron as wldlife will ultimately manage itself if left alone. However , uncontrolled , we observe extreme highs and lows with large fluctuation in numbers between predator and prey . We, as residents have concluded we need a steady balanced presence with between species .
The population of rural Alaska depend on a healthy presence of moose as moose often represent the main source of protein. Cows are scarce in the bush and the supermarkets are out of reach for many. A healthy moose population is further important for many local economies. A large number of outfitters and guides make a living from guiding and transporting moose hunters in the field. This economy is important and would suffer with decline of moose .Wolf also reproduce in a much faster pace than moose.

There are in truth also other factors to the decline in moose population such as feeding and roaming grounds being developed for housing and business purposes. Hundreds of moose are also killed on roadsystems and the railway. The amount of hunters have not increased significantly and nationwide the number is actually on a decline. Mankind has a need to control the environment and put everything around them in system, wildlife being a part of this need. As we started to interfere with the balance of nature , we have to follow up and continue in doing so. I support predatorcontrol including aerial hunting and do not think this or any other organization should interfere with due process. I regret the outcome of this case but I salute the fact that Alaskans and only Alaskans have a good understanding of what is really going on in our state.

[Blog editors’ note: Your argument is missing a key point: People from outside of your state and inside of your state have registered a high level of disagreement with that position. This case is all about due process, and about interfering so that due process is respected.]

On January 26, 2007, Sue Davies wrote:

Alright! Glad to hear that. I am an Alaskan and I love my state but I hate the attitude here re. animals, wildlife, hunting, trapping, etc. I don’t know what to expect from our new gov. She is definitely much of an improvement over the previous bozo and I think she will listen. But she does come from a pro-hunter background.

On January 26, 2007, Jennifer wrote:

Yeah! That is good news! I think we all put our heads together and I applaud everyone that helped in saving our wolves in Alaska.

On January 26, 2007, ANDREW wrote:

JUDGE, GOOD VERIDICT OR DECISION.
man is the worst predator. kill for fun or for Money. dirty money

On January 27, 2007, AKScott wrote:

How on God’s green earth are Alaskans stuck with your lawyer bill? Your lawsuit ultimately failed and now we get to pay $95,000 to you? Unfortunately Judge Gleason is not up for retention vote until 2010. Guess you have three years to fund your lawsuits from Alaskans.

FoA comments:

Perhaps because there is a God, but certainly because justice prevailed.

On January 27, 2007, Julie Kelly wrote:

Congratulations!! This is wonderful news. Julie

On January 28, 2007, Marjorie Hass wrote:

I am glad that Friends of Animals will get their $95,000. attorney fees paid. FOA is doing the right thing for animals, and I support them 100%. Keep up the good work.

On February 3, 2007, Linda Dugan wrote:

While there is sweet justice in FOA receiving a payback for their cost and time in court, the barbarism towards wolf populations in Alaska continues. Until the hunting of wolves is rescinded it is difficult to feel any sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in this situation.

[Blog editors’ note: The work goes on and
may it continue to be costly for the state of Alaska to gerrymander to justify wolf-control schemes.]

On February 7, 2007, Deidre wrote:

I am so happy that the state has to pay. This is very wonderful news!

On February 9, 2007, pat wrote:

Another win for God’s creatures.
Congratulations!

On February 11, 2007, Alaska wrote:

Can’t you people supposedly for animals rights just leave Alaska alone? They did nothing to you but they did what was needed to be done. What about the Indians? Are you going to tell them they can’t kill animals for survival? All the people in Africa kill to survive. Are you going to say, hey we love animals, don’t kill them? I don’t think so. Leave Alaska alone. If you don’t want to be there, then don’t go. I know more then enough people who would LOVE to go to Alaska that they would make up for you. Alaska gets so many people and you aren’t going to stop tourism because of your boycott alaska campaign. Just leave the state alone and let them do what the feel is right for the survival of other animals, because it seems that you people just don’t care. You say you care about animals, well what about all the caribou that are dying because there are too many wolves? You don’t care about them if you want the wolves to survive. It isn’t a win/win situation here. You need to be smarter than the average bear and understand what is being done in Alaska is for the good of everyone and animal!

[Blog editors’ note: Thanks for the morning
laughter. We haven’t had a rant from one of Alaska’s

hunters telling everyone to mind their own business

for months. Cheers. ]

On February 14, 2007, mykel mapel wrote:

I would rather die then to hurt an animal….

On February 27, 2007, Mary K Patterson wrote:

YES!!! Finally, some teeth into the animal rights. Perhaps, just perhaps, they will listen, instead of forcing the hands of any animals rights group to sue. Compromise, listening, and respect goes a long way. Thank you, thank you Friends of Animals!!!

On March 5, 2007, Andrew Peterson wrote:

Friends of Animals, I thank you for your boycott of Alaska. As a 4th generation Alaskan we are sick of you coming to our state anyway. If you want to start a state wide park, start in the lower 48. We real Alaskans don’t want you here!