The state of Alaska, supported by their Governor Sarah Palin, allows private citizens to aerial hunt. Besides wolves, Ms. Palin also supports the hunting of bears with similar methods. Wolves were killed to extinction in YellowStone National Park.(for the benefit of the sheep farmer) Later they were reintroduced. A remarkable thing happened, the ecosystem balanced itself out. Naturally. Now, it can be argued wolves (like deer and rabbit in the lower 48) are a pest and have overrun Alaska, but I doubt this argument has weight...and bear in mind, Alaskans are NOT eating these downed animals...

Why would the government of Alaska allow killing of animals using these cruel methods?

from the Anchorage Daily News (march 2008)

"HB 348 seems an innocuous little bill -- several lines that merely redefine Alaska's wildlife as an "asset." The Department of Law has argued that it and related bills, SB 176/HB 256, simply clarify existing statutes governing wildlife management.

However, the intent of these bills is far-ranging, and hardly innocuous. These pieces of stealth legislation are designed to subvert the right of Alaska's people to vote in this August election on the issue of shooting wolves and bears from private aircraft, and to prevent all future ballot initiatives regarding wildlife management. All three bills are backed by well-connected special interest groups, notably the Alaska Outdoor Council -- which receives heavy financial backing from Outside organizations such as the Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association.

In the case of HB 348, the designation of Alaska's wildlife as an "asset" is meant to put decisions regarding wildlife management solely in the hands of a Legislature that has routinely flouted the wishes of its constituents. In a 1996 ballot initiative, 36 of Alaska's 40 districts rejected aerial predator control. In 2000, 29 of 40 districts did the same. Yet both times, the Legislature overturned that mandate.

In 2000, 63 percent of Alaskans rejected a referendum that would have made unconstitutional all wildlife ballot initiatives. Now, 56,000 Alaska voters are once again demanding that their voices be heard on the issue of aerial predator control, in a ballot measure that has already been certified.

The Alaska Outdoor Council proudly claims roughly 3,000 paying members. Since when do the desires of 3,000 trump those of 56,000-plus?

The answer's simple: when a special interest group (which includes Gov. Palin, who requested the introduction of SB 176/HB 256, and is herself an Alaska Outdoor Council member) attempts to exert its will, and the majority stand by and allow their rights to be stolen. "




money..

Thank you for that information.

That now being explained, considering the forum we are in, I'd like to see the conversation about this topic flow around issues of aerial hunting itself, and not political justifications for it.

Are the wolves endangered, is it true that they have become pests to the Alaskan people to the point where they require some type of extermination, is aerial hunting in fact much crueler than other ways used to kill wolves with the obvious given that all types of killing are going to be painful to the wolf, would widescale killing of wolves damage Alaska's ecosystem severely and if so, how?

Thanks folks!

Wolves account for only about 12% reduction of the caribou population in Alaska...this report by the Alaska Fish and Game an agency which supports aerial killing of wolves.

In the wild, wolves naturally kill off the weak of a herd. This process actually strengthens the caribou herd... just like pruning a fruit tree or rose bush. The new blooms come back stronger.

This has all been proven by studies done on the new wolves put back into Yellow Stone National Park... The re introduction of wolves have strengthen every life form in the park...including some plant life!

"Unlimited" killing off of a species is not only cruel but it hurts everyone and every living being relying on a balanced eco system...including the Inuits that need caribou and moose to survive.

I'm aware of how predators improve the health and genetic stock of their prey by selecting the weakest and slowest and most infirm, and killing them off, ensuring no overpopulation and starvation because of limited food supply, thus benefitting future offspring of the prey animals, but I'm not aware of how predators can benefit plant life. Can you outline that for me? I'm interested in knowing how that happens.

I can see by your response and Ray's little grin that you think politics don't belong here, but if you look at land management and wildlife management issues throughout the US you'll see how highly politicized these issues have been and have become. In Alaska the people of that state have fought through 2 referendums already.. (yes before Palin was Gov)

"Unfortunately there are major problems for wolves in Alaska and elsewhere from heavy government-sanctioned killing, including with the use of airplanes and snowmobiles. There have even been Mengele-like experiments to convert their vibrant family groups (so-called packs) to sterile pairs across large regions. The vital underlying patterns of variation that define natural wolf-prey systems are being ignored and replaced. This is being done with parochial, anti-adaptive farming approaches to management that seldom if ever produce and sustain the high, stable numbers and yields of moose and caribou touted by proponents. Perhaps worst of all, these problems originate primarily from biologists and remain largely hidden from public notice due to outright deception. " Gordon Haber, Ph.D.
www.alaskawolves.org

from what I have read and what I know (personal interest stuff only) the wolf/bear management and caribou/moose management piss each other off. And those calling for better choices are ignored. That.. is a gross simplification.. but I'm sure we're all capable of researching further on our own..

As much as this plays into current VP choices.. these are (imho) deep humane issues that continue to be sold to the highest bidder, from oil reserves, to timber, to polar bears and moose.

aerial hunting is cheap. bottom line.. like I said earlier: money.

This method of hunting is in no way a challenge to the hunter; all it is, is needless infliction of suffering on another living being, for the sake of "sport". Even if it was the case, that the wolves that are killed are being eaten, still the method used is overly cruel.

I am not sure of the reasons given for the hunt but I cannot see the justification. In a natural ecosystem, prey animals and predators populations are in balance so I doubt that wolves are over-populating Alaska.

I also doubt that wolves are causing a die-out of caribou herds, because of this balance factor so if there is an issue with a drop in population of caribou, the perhaps the reason for the drop lies in the activities of Man; since I doubt that these aerial hunters are the same people who have ecological concern, about the impacts that possible oil drilling in Alaskan nature reserves, would have on caribou migration and environmental contamination, I must conclude that fears for the herds of caribou is not the reason for aerial hunting of wolves.

If wolves on rare occasions sometimes attack people, that too is no justification for aerial hunting, since we are talking about unusual events concerning individual animals, and in such attacks, the location of human habitats, the activities of humans in the area and possibly lack of public education about the habits of wolves, must be strong factors in such attacks. If an individual animal had to be culled for some reason, there are cleaner ways of killing the animal.

Many people fear wolves and other animals. If enough feel the same way they try to get permission to kill them. Once you have that goal in mind it takes little to come up with an excuse, and there is always an expert somewhere to back up the excuse. Put together the right sales pitch and the government gives you permission. The people without a dog in the fight, so to speak, don't care enough to change things.

Wolves are very fast, cunning creatures. They can travel 10 miles an hour indefinitely...and sprint at 45 mph. It is very difficult for a hunter to down a wolf using his usual methods...on land using hunting rifles. It can be done, but the hunter has to be really good at his sport. Many hunters are weekend enthusiasts (as demonstrated by Dick Cheney). Supporters of aerial hunting, which do not include the voters of Alaska, Alaska (voters have twice ..in 1996 and again in 2000. affirmed a long-standing moratorium on aerial gunning).

What researchers are discovering are wolves are the crowning glory of the eco system. When reintroducted into Yellowstone Nat'l Park, plant life increased, because deer, elk and moose herds...all herbivores who graze on large amounts of vegetation were naturally culled to size, allowing vegetation to regrow...then of course insects returned..followed by birds, reseeding etc. With the return of the wolf to the ecosystem in yellowstone, elk and moose have had no need to graze in high risk areas, like steam bes...therefore allowing the cottonwoods and other trees to prosper.

So the aerial hunters are incompetent in their "sport" and wolves must suffer because these people couldn't hit the side of a barn with a rock from ten feet away?

Then there must be a lot of unskilled hunters in Alaska, for them to have put together such an effective lobby group, for the use of shotgun hunting from the air.