Please watch this powerful video by Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, and then share it with every wildlife lover you know:
I have to admit that watching videos of this practice turns my stomach, but there would surely be consequences to many animal species, including wolves and humans, if effective wildlife management practices were banned. Let us not forget what happened in this country when horse slaughter was banned. The resulting surplus of horses has resulted in plummeting horse values, and horses being abandoned and neglected in record numbers. Now, perfectly healthy and well trained horses are selling at auction for less than $200, and some are being purchased by kill buyers for shipment to Mexico where there are no industry controls, and the barbaric cruelty being employed is beyond this writer’s imagination. I would have to say that there has never been a worse time to be a horse in this country. These are the unintended consequences of well meaning animal activists that failed to look at the big picture.
Before anyone starts sending hate mail, please hear me out. Wolves and bears are top line predators, meaning that there are no natural predators to control their numbers. If you love animals, you must think about the consequences to other animal species if they are allowed to overpopulate in any given area. In a worst case scenario, disaster ensues for the overpopulated predator species as well. When their natural food sources become scarce, they will savage and prey on not only each other, but humans and domestic animals as well.
Aerial management may seen unfair and barbaric, but consider the alternative that was used before airplanes were available. They were poisoned with strychnine baits. Poisoning likely effected non targeted species as well - such as eagles.
Alaska has attempted other management methods in the past. This was taken from http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/management/control/predator_management.pdf :
Now let us discuss the impact of these predator species on humans. There seems to be a misconception that managing the population of these species is merely an attempt to preserve moose and caribou for sport hunting. On the contrary, the very lives and existence of approximately 16% of Alaska’s populaton is at stake. These are the native tribes that have depended on wild game as their main source of sustenance for thousands of years. It’s not like they can become vegetarians in these regions. I might argue that the continued existence of rural native Alaskan people are at far greater risk than the wildlife.
Taken from http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5791&page=36 :
”The first humans in the Western Hemisphere are believed to have come from Asia across the Beringian land bridge into Alaska 12,000-15,000 years ago.” It is their home, too. For those that argue that the problem is simply too many humans in Alaska rather than too many wolves and bears, let me point out that there are approximately 635,000 residents or about 1.1 persons per square mile – in an area that is twice the size of Texas and one fifth the size of the lower 48 states. In the lower 48, there are approximately 79 people per square mile. Plenty of elbow room! The state’s population ranks 47th in the state. ”Human activities have had less effect on the ecosystems of Alaska than elsewhere in the United States. Conversion of land to agricultural use has been minimal, as is the extent of land alteration through mining and petroleum development.”
My conclusion: Perhaps you don’t care about the tribes of people who are the last remaining ancestors of the “First Americans”. Do you not care about all of the other animal species at stake when bears and wolves overpopulate? Is there no concern for livestock, dogs, cats, and human children that are attacked when these predators are allowed to diminish too much wild game in a given area? And finally, have you no concern for the effect on the wolves, themselves, when they overpopulate? Aside from them preying on each other when food sources become scarce, it leads to a natural progression of disease and starvation among them.
Posted by Bronco in the Daily Interlake: “The waxing and waning of species populations are regulated by nature and she seems heartless and cruel in her choices at times. Forget romantic notions of her preserving only the animals we hold dear and erasing the invasive and ugly ones. Fish and game management agencies throughout the country have been employing well thought out agendas that have led to game populations that exceed those before we set foot here hundreds of years ago. Those agencies have people in them who are concerned for our wildlife, not butchers who rejoice in their deaths. It’s unfortunate for the wolves, I agree. They are beautiful, intelligent, animals that mate for life and have strong family values. But left to propagate unattended they will follow the coarse of all species who find their numbers swelled to overpopulation. Mother nature introduces disease and starvation.”
Before we jump on the bandwagon and condemn the people of Alaska while we sit in front of computers in our comfortable and safe urban homes, let us educate ourselves about the issues first.
A second email from my friend:
I know all about the protect by killing argument; however, it is my understanding that a well qualified expert disputed with good back-up material the necessity of killing the wolves. The reason the wolves were poisoned, trapped, and destroyed in almost all of the 48 states now 50 was because they didn’t want anyone alive but cattle, etc.
My reply:
I know how repulsive the culling of these wolves seems. I can’t bear to watch the videos. Horse slaughter makes me equally sick, but I now know that when there are too many, it creates a domino effect that puts a great deal of horses in jeopardy that otherwise wouldn’t be in that situation.
I don’t know who the experts are that they are touting, but I do know that the Alaska Division of Wildlife Management does not just hire a bunch of rednecks with guns. They hire biologists and mammalogists with specialized degrees and first hand knowledge of the region.
Knowing the very nature of a top line predator, I can see the possibilities for them wreaking havoc on every living creature in their territory, including themselves. They really don’t have any enemies that prey on them. They also have no qualms about savaging each other, especially if game becomes scarce, or there are too many males competing for females. Death by bullets is far kinder than slow starvation and the inevitable disease that follows, or being ripped apart and eaten while still alive by their own kind. Other methods of management have been tried in Alaska without success. Programs such as sterilization and relocation have been attempted.
I’ve been an animal lover all of my life. I think that the wolf is a beautiful and majestic creature, however, I do not love the wolf above all other animals, including caribou, moose, dogs, cats, lynx, bear cubs, etc., etc. There must be a balance for the good of all. It is not as if Alaska is having a free-for-all mass killing of wolves. Without some intervention on a small scale, Mother Nature could be so much more cruel.
Now for the subject of hunting in Alaska. Game is very abundant, and a substantial percentage of the population consumes wild game. It is a resource that is viewed much the same way that cows and chickens are viewed by the rest of the country. You will never turn the whole world into vegetarians and vegans. Tribes in the northern regions that have lived there for virtually thousands of years have nothing else to eat during a good portion of the year. It is also important to keep Alaska’s wild game hunting and consumption in perspective. There are very few people in relation to its vast land mass. Approximately 80% of animals such as caribou and moose that die are killed by predators like the wolf. Human consumption is a drop in the bucket, and it is strictly controlled. Would it be better to let predators overpopulate and consume them instead? The predators certainly won’t abide by any rules or regulations, and yes, they often kill just for sport. Ever watch a wolf pack eat a deer while it is still alive?
Alaska is like a foreign world for most of us, and it is difficult to understand that hunting and consuming game is a natural part of their lifestyle. Why in the world would I think that a woman born and raised in Alaska, who happens to be Governor, should not hunt as a great deal of the state’s population does? It would be like condemning every politician that eats beef, pork, or chicken. Is it ok to eat meat or wear leather if you don’t kill it yourself?
I’ll say it again: There are a great deal of animal rights activists in this world doing more harm than good to the animals that they seek to protect, because they are reacting out of emotion in almost everything that they do.
Here are a couple of articles worth reading whether we agree with them or not:
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/predator-management.php
http://thehill.com/op-eds/let-alaska-shoot-its-wolves-2008-02-14.html
A third email from my friend:
Why are you accepting this “culling?” I don’t believe it is necessary. You are approving it on what basis? Your experience with overpopulation of horses and dogs and cats????I don’t believe in killing to save unless it is necessary.
And why did the governor do it? I understand she had a really good time and was bragging about it. And what about the polar bears? They certainly don’t need “culling.”
My reply:
Why did Sarah Palin do what?
You are absolutely correct that I am not an expert on Alaska wildlife, and neither are the great majority of people jumping on the bandwagon, and screaming for a ban on wildlife management. I do, however, try to study these issues before declaring a condemnation. I wouldn’t say that I condone the culling of wolves, but I’m willing to state that there could be compelling reasons for doing it. What I’m trying to get across is that I don’t have enough facts to condemn it, and neither do most of the people screaming about it. It’s suddenly a huge issue all over the web because some people see it as a way to damage the Republican bid for the White House.
Now, shall we research the situation concerning Polar Bears in the Arctic before we start screaming foul play? Polar Bear hunting has been restricted in Alaska since 1972. Research indicates that declining Polar Bear populations are the result of melting ice rather than hunting right now.
Back to Sarah Palin – did she shoot a Polar Bear? I do not see an article where Sarah Palin killed a Polar Bear. I do see an article where she displayed a grizzly bear that her father shot at some point in his life. Do you have a link to an article about her shooting a Polar Bear? Why does she not call for a ban on predator management? Perhaps Sarah understands the needs and lifestyle of the people in Alaska that she was elected to serve. Perhaps, having grown up in Alaska, she understands wildlife behavior and the dynamics of management and conservation. As for Polar Bears, it is my understanding that the Department of Interior has recommended that they be added to some kind of endangered species list, but with allowances for energy exploration and drilling. I really don’t know the details. I’m sure they know that they will never stop Arctic “Eskimos” from occasionally harvesting them for food. Of course, Polar Bears probably occasionally harvest “Eskimos” for food as well. Right now the Polar Bear seems to be caught up in a political issue. The environmentalists are trying to use the Polar Bear issue to prevent drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic. It’s kind of like the way that they are using the caribou for their cause as well. It doesn’t look like they are concerned about caribou being wiped out by wolves, though.
Looking for valid statistics on Polar Bear populations won’t be easy. You have to be careful about believing everything put into print by bloggers and liberal news publications with outside political agendas that they wish to promote.
An email from another friend and animal rights activist:
Subject: DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ACTION FUND: PRESS RELEASE
See especially the section on aerial hunting and the discussion in the box regarding Palin’s phony argument that aerial hunting is necessary to protect subsistence hunters.
http://www.defendersactionfund.org/newsroom/sarah_palin.html
According to information on Defender of Wildlife’s Web site, the Alaska Board of Game members are all hunters who are appointed by Palin. The Alaska Board of Game is not “managing” predators to protect subsistence hunters but to increase moose and caribou to inordinately high levels for the benefit of trophy and sport hunters.
And see especially paragraph 3 of the following press release. Apparently the most respected scientific organizations find no scientific justification for Alaska’s current aerial hunting policy.
http://www.defendersactionfund.org/releases/090308.html
My Opinion:
Well I suppose if the Defenders of Wildlife reported it, then it all has to be true, right?
I looked up the letter to Governor Palin that was signed by mammalogists and endorsed by the American Society of Mammalogists. There seemed to be a lot of complaining that Alaska might not be doing enough scientific study, but it mainly seems to center around Alaska not letting the National Research Council have complete control and final say over predator control programs. They claim that there is not enough proof that Alaska is handling it correctly. I might counter that there is not enough proof that Alaska is handling it incorrectly.
Alaska reports:
Relationships between large predators and their prey in Alaska are complex, and no one model fits all situations. It is possible to generalize about some situations, particularly in Interior Alaska. This information on the biology of moose, bears, and wolves, represents highlights from 25 years of research and management programs conducted by universities and state, provincial and federal governments in Alaska and Canada. In 1997, the National Academy of Sciences published a summary and review of predator/prey interactions in Alaska (National Research Council, 1997). More research has been conducted since that review.
You can read the letter and information from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences here if you wish:
http://www.alaskawolfkill.com/Palin_Letter.html
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5791
It seems to me that Alaska is very transparent about its programs, goals, and practices. They provide a wealth of public information:
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=info.main
http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.control
http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.wolf_mgt
http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/management/control/predator_booklet.pdf
http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/management/control/predator_brochure.pdf
http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/index.cfm?adfg=control.predator_prey
I don’t like the thought of wolves and bears being killed, or any animal for that matter. I personally do not like hunting. I don’t like the thought of wolves and bears depleting entire populations of other animal species. I don’t like Mother Nature’s whole set up of survival of the fittest. I usually try not to think about these things.
I’m the type of person that cries when my dog gets a hold of a baby bunny, and you can bet that I will try to save it if she does. I once hit a squirrel with my car and took it to the vet. I’m not very fond of coyotes that hang around my farm, but I once fed two orphaned pups for a couple of months. I hate snakes, but I relocate them instead of killing them. I frequently rescue animals, but I am not an animal rights activist. I despise PETA.
I also think that Alaska should be able to handle its own resources unless it is proven that they are mismanaging them. I think that people fail to understand that Alaskans depend on wild game for their dinner tables far more than the vast majority of Americans. It seems unlikely that Alaska would purposely damage or destroy its own eco system, and I’m not sure why outsiders think that they are more capable and knowledgeable about how to care for it.
I see many politics involved in these arguments. I am sure that it is no coincidence that the issue of Alaska’s predator control programs has been circling around the web like a wildfire since Sarah Palin was nominated as the GOP Vice Presidential candidate.
I care not what the Defenders of Wildlife think about anything, and I do not necessarily rely on what they report as being honest and trustworthy.
OH MY GOD! Shocking photos of Sarah Palin and Fellow Alaskans! In the lower 48, we take the fur off of the hide before we put it on our sofas. We certainly never pose for photos with our dinner before it is prepared or cooked.





















