Alaska Wolf Shooting

[Polishrifleman]

Is this judge on something? What is wolf "habitat destruction"?

This is a great in your face tactic. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Just scrap the old regs and create new ones? What a novel concept.

Alaska revives aerial wolf shooting program

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- The state of Alaska reinstated a population control program Thursday that allows shooting wolves from the air -- more than a week after a judge ruled it was illegal.

The program was reinstated after the Board of Game filed new regulations passed in response to Superior Court judge Sharon Gleason's concerns.

"They are effective immediately," said Annette Kreitzer, chief of staff to Lt. Gov. Loren Leman.

Gleason ruled last week that the board violated its own standards for expanding the program, in part because it did not provide justification for it or explain why alternatives such as sterilization or habitat destruction would not work.

The program, intended to boost moose and caribou populations in five areas of the state, got its start in 2003 in an area of Alaska's interior where residents had long complained predators were killing too many moose, leaving too few for food.

In an emergency meeting Wednesday, the board scrapped its existing regulations and created new ones that list alternatives it considers unfeasible, primarily because they are expensive. The board will seek to make the new rules permanent at a regular public meeting in March.

Animal rights groups fighting to shut down the program may return to court to argue that the process of rewriting the rules was illegal.

"We do not regard it as an emergency when an agency needs to adopt regulations to fix a problem of its own making," said Jim Reeves, the lawyer representing Darien, Connecticut-based Friends of Animals and seven Alaska plaintiffs.

About 400 wolves have been killed so far under the program, which permits pilot and gunner teams to shoot the wolves from the air. The state intends to kill another 400 wolves this year.

Alaska is home to the largest remaining population of gray wolves in the country. State biologists estimate about 7,000 to 11,000 wolves roam the state.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[telomerase]

Are hunters such a vanishing species in America that we have to hire government employees to hunt wolves? That's pathetic.

Animal rights groups fighting to shut down the program

They should talk to the wolves about their views on the ethics of hunting. I used to have a wolf that slept on the bed, and he hunted all the time.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Is this judge on something? What is wolf "habitat destruction"?

So it makes more sense to bulldoze where they live than to shoot them?

You're right, that's a hell of a stretch!

 

[Thain]

Why control the population of one problem species, when you can destroy the habitat of a thousand others!

 

[rick_reno]

If they're killing a total of 800 out of a population of 7000 to 11000 I don't think anyone has reason to panic.

 

[tom barthel]

wolf killing

Those who would be our masters seem to forget the wolves and lions were killed off for a reason. Would this be time for the 3 S rule. That's shoot, (kill it), Shovel (bury the dead wolf),and Shut up (Say nothing to anyone about it). I'm sure the animal lovers are capable of digging up radio collars. It would probably be a mistake to leave your bullet in the body. You eat deer, so do wolves. You eat elk, so do wolves. You eat sheep, so do wolves. You eat beef, so do wolves. Wolves are canines. Canines are not endangered. I love my dog but, If he were a chicken killer he would have to die.

 

[progunner1957]

Hey, why mess around? Why not use helicopter gunships armed with 7.62mm Gatling guns? That way, you could kill whole wolf packs at a time.

I'm not anti-hunting, but I am anti-wolf killing. This is not hunting; it is state sponsored wolf slaughter.

Maybe the politicians should stop playing God and let nature take its course. Nature did just fine for millions of years before politicians were ever invented.

 

[Harve Curry]

I don't have a problem with putting a dent in the wolf population by shooting them from aircraft. I think it would be fun as long as you don't shoot your own prop

 

[Cosmoline]

Gleason was just going by the existing regulations, which the Board is free to change and did in fact change.

The bag limits on wolves are generous in most of the state, but for a variety of reasons they're only hunted as an incidental species to moose or trophy bear. The argument is that in some areas the wolves have been hitting the moose too hard. Whether this is actually the case or not is subject to intense debate. The only way to really find out is to reduce the wolf popluations in certain interior GMU's and see what happens to the moose population.

My own suspicion is that bear and icy winters are killing as many young moose as the wolves, but cutting back the wolf populations will likely bring some increase in moose numbers.

I'm not anti-hunting, but I am anti-wolf killing. This is not hunting; it is state sponsored wolf slaughter.

Nobody is claiming the cull is hunting.

Are hunters such a vanishing species in America that we have to hire government employees to hunt wolves? That's pathetic.

You're welcome to come up here and try your hand hunting wolf with a rifle! The bag limits are very generous, but good luck getting close enough. Your only real chance is to catch one roaming on its own. A wolf pack is probably the second most intelligent creature on the planet. Even experienced trappers have a heck of a time tricking them.

 

[Manedwolf]

A wolf pack is probably the second most intelligent creature on the planet. Even experienced trappers have a heck of a time tricking them.

And that's the reason to blow'em away, huh?

Funny, ask an Innuit storyteller, they'll tell you that the wolves have purpose, they keep the rest of the wildlife heathier by preying on the sick and weak.

THEY know. I certainly don't oppose the hunting of prey animals, especially if you eat them. But there's absolutely no reason to be shooting intelligent predators from airplanes. All they're doing is increasing "herd" size by allowing more sick and weak members of the herd to survive longer, and if they survive long enough to reproduce, the herd gets weaker genetically.

Wolves ARE natural selection for prey animals. And they ought to be left alone.

 

[Cosmoline]

And by "Innuit Storyteller" you mean Canadian arch-liberal Farley Mowat.

 

[Rembrandt]

Your only real chance is to catch one roaming on its own. A wolf pack is probably the second most intelligent creature on the planet. Even experienced trappers have a heck of a time tricking them.

Ever hear of the "Judas Wolf"?.....back in the 60's-70's wolves were decimating new born Elk, Moose, and Sheep populations. Multi-Government agencies would trap a wolf, fit it with a radio collar, then release it. The wired Wolf would go back to his pack thus and give away the others location....hence the name "Judas Wolf". Packs were then shot from Helocopters and proved very effective. Populations of other species began to rise again. This operation was done with the cooperation of the governments of Mexico, U.S., and Canada.

 

[Rembrandt]

.....wolves have purpose, they keep the rest of the wildlife heathier by preying on the sick and weak......

Your premise is flawed....wolves don't limit themselves to sick and weak, they go for the easy meal, newborns.

Wolves killing new born wildlife is not doing the species a needed service. They kill newborns because they are easier prey and have little skills defending themselves.........killing off the next generation will be the end of any species.

Same problem occurs with over populations of Coyotes eating Pheasant chicks and eggs.....that's fastest way to see population numbers drop. Nature then becomes "out-of balance".

 

[carebear]

Maned,

Wolves will often kill all the animals they can, especially moose tired and trapped by deep snows, here, Canada and down in Yellowstone. They eat just a bit and move on. Maybe back when bison herds numbered in the thousands the "sick and weak" example held but modern wildlife biology tells a different story.

Like Cos suggests I think brown bear are killing more than their share of moose calves, but

A) we won't know until we knock down the wolf numbers in specific areas (this isn't state wide, it is in very limited, defined game areas) and see what happens; and

B) We are in no danger of running out of wolves. There's 2 packs living on the boundaries of the Anchorage Bowl, within the bedroom community arc. This program, even with the advantages of land and shoot or shooting from the air hasn't had great success. Wolves are smart and adaptable, they'll be fine.

 

[musher]

Are hunters such a vanishing species in America that we have to hire government employees to hunt wolves? That's pathetic.

You misunderstand the program. Private pilots and gunners are being issued permits to take wolves from the air. They are required to report wolves taken under their permits within 24 hours and the wolf hides must be sealed (have a metal tag affixed).

After that the hides can (and are) sold by the permittees just as any other wolf caught by trappers.

All operational costs are borne by the permittees, not the state. Very few of these pilots will even make enough money to pay for their fuel and other costs. The only direct costs to the state are those associated with managing the permitting and data collection efforts.

ask an Innuit storyteller, they'll tell you that the wolves have purpose, they keep the rest of the wildlife heathier by preying on the sick and weak.

While traditional knowledge can be an important part of understanding natural systems in rural Alaska, this knowledge doesn't always stand up to systematic scrutiny.

If you're actually curious about the scientific underpinnings of the operation do a google search on

low density dynamic equilibrium populations alaska

do some reading. Look up the references and read them. You might then be in a position to discuss the merits of a predator control program (and yes rational people can disagree with the programs on their merits).

Vague references to Inuit (Inupiaq) stories don't really count as incisive criticism. I might point out that the control programs are in interior Alaska, which is the homeland of Athabascans, not the Alaska Inuit, or Inupiaq. As far as that goes, I'd be hard pressed to find native groups in my part of the world that think killing wolves is a bad thing anyway.

Is this judge on something? What is wolf "habitat destruction"?

As far as the judge's opinion goes, it may seem a bit strange, but she did point out some valid inconsistencies in how the 5 different wolf control programs were justified and authorized. I think the point of her 'examples' of alternatives was that the Department of Fish and Game, together with the Board of Game needed to get on the same page with all the various programs and examine and give a rationale for discarding or adopting possible solutions in some sort of consistent manner. She wasn't recommending habitat destruction. I don't know off the top of my head why she mentioned that in particular. These inconsistencies have been addressed, and the programs are probably better off for the exercise.

 

[Manedwolf]

And by "Innuit Storyteller" you mean Canadian arch-liberal Farley Mowat.

No. Farley Mowat is a fraud like that guy who wrote that "million little pieces" book.

I mean an Innuit storyteller. That's why I said "Innuit storyteller", not "Canadian liberal fraud." As in a real person of that culture and ethnicity who grew up in that culture, who had the old stories passed on to them by their elders.

And yes, they do exist. Sit down and listen to a good one tell the story of "how raven created the world" or such, it's fascinating.

 

[Manedwolf]

Your premise is flawed....wolves don't limit themselves to sick and weak, they go for the easy meal, newborns.

Wolves killing new born wildlife is not doing the species a needed service. They kill newborns because they are easier prey and have little skills defending themselves.........killing off the next generation will be the end of any species.

Same problem occurs with over populations of Coyotes eating Pheasant chicks and eggs.....that's fastest way to see population numbers drop. Nature then becomes "out-of balance".

Uh...Hi. Modern wolves have been around for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years. Caribou, elk, deer and moose have as well. Humans haven't. They and all the other species seem to have gotten along just fine without massive "ending of species" without our high-caliber help in the matter.

Perspective.

 

[musher]

They and all the other species seem to have gotten along just fine without massive "ending of species" without our high-caliber help in the matter.

It is true that unmanaged predation is unlikely to cause local extirpation, but in northern environments it usually results in low densities of both predators and prey.

In situations where human harvest of ungulates is desirable, perturbation of the 'balance' can ultimately result in higher densities of both prey and predators.

The reality is that people live in this country and eat the moose. When low density populations can't sustain the needed human harvest, feasible solutions are limited. Predator control is one of those solutions.

 

[telomerase]

You misunderstand the program. Private pilots and gunners are being issued permits to take wolves from the air. They are required to report wolves taken under their permits within 24 hours and the wolf hides must be sealed (have a metal tag affixed).

Oops, as Emily Littela said, "nevermind". -hTERT

 

[Cosmoline]

No. Farley Mowat is a fraud like that guy who wrote that "million little pieces" book.

I mean an Innuit storyteller. That's why I said "Innuit storyteller", not "Canadian liberal fraud." As in a real person of that culture and ethnicity who grew up in that culture, who had the old stories passed on to them by their elders.

What native storyteller? Who told it to you? Your story is in fact drawn almost verbatim from Mowat's "Never Cry Wolf." I don't know that anyone has confirmed that it actually came from a real native, or whether Farley just invented it for political reasons. You're correct he's a fraud.

And yes, they do exist. Sit down and listen to a good one tell the story of "how raven created the world" or such, it's fascinating.

Now you're getting yourself wrapped in a real knot. Most Inuit creation myths don't involve ravens, since ravens tend to be pretty rare in places like the North Slope. Instead they involve a creator/goddess from the sea, which makes sense given their maritime traditions. The most famous raven creation myths come from the NW coast tribes such as the Tlingit.

The Yupik and Athabascan natives I know out in the bush will burn down any wolf on sight. They are considered a pest and rival for food. You don't start finding too much sympathy for them until you get to Anchorage or Toronto

 

[PistolPackin'Papa]

Same thing in the Central Valley of CA. with coyotes.

[/QUOTE]Same problem occurs with over populations of Coyotes eating Pheasant chicks and eggs.....that's fastest way to see population numbers drop. Nature then becomes "out-of balance".[/QUOTE]

20 years ago, we had some of the best pheasant hunting around. Now you have Coyotes around schools, raiding dumpsters and such, but you could drive around the surrounding farm land for days and not see a single pheasant. Our cotton, field corn, and alfalfa land used to have plenty of them. Granted, people droping off their unwanted cats has also been a problem. Someone caught practicing the 3-S theroy around here with wild cats can expect to be in trouble. (Oh the joy of living in CA.)

Coyotes have ruined the deer population, they and the pouchers anyway. Now they are in the valley looking for that easy meal. A friend of mine drove around 1 -640 acre block over a weekend, ( around his home area) & shot 9 of them.

 

[MDHunter]

I am Inuit.....

and although I now live in Maryland, I go back to Alaska about every other year to hunt moose and caribou.

Having discussed this topic with my Mom and sisters (who all still live in Alaska, and one in a village on the southwest coast) as well as all of my cousins who hunt, the response is unanimous - "Wolves are hurting the population of moose and caribou - shoot them if you can!"

I agree with Carebear that bears may also be playing a big part, but my point is - you're not going to find too many Inuits in Alaska, who feel one bit of pity or compassion for wolves. And we're sure not going to wipe them out, so let the AK Board of Fish and Game manage the issue and let's (we people in the lower 48) stay out of it.

Michael

 

[stevelyn]

The Yupik and Athabascan natives I know out in the bush will burn down any wolf on sight. They are considered a pest and rival for food. You don't start finding too much sympathy for them until you get to Anchorage or Toronto

Cos eloquently beat me to it.

Most folks in the Lower 48 don't have a clue about the lifestyle and realities of Alaska.
I've lived in the bush for most of the years I've been in Alaska with the majority of that time on Yukon River and Interior. Understand that out of the 226 villages scattered about an area more than twice the size of Texas, roads connect only a tiny handfull with the vast majority being access by air only, and boat during summer months.

Moose and caribou hunting out here isn't about sport or a narrow paleface definition of "hunting". It's about survival in a place where there is almost no economy. The cost of living in an average village is significantly higher than on the road system as everything from groceries to fuel have to be flown or barged in.

Rural communities have traditionally depended on the game resources to supplement groceries that have to shipped in. Being able to whack a moose or limit of caribou in the fall will feed a family for the winter and they will be able save scarce finances that would have normally been used buy meat to for something else.

Wolf predation cuts into that winter meat supply. A healthy wolf pack of 8-12 wolves will take down a moose or caribou every three days. Add the competition from bears during their active months and you begin to see a dramatic unchecked decline in ungulate numbers. The first consequence for low population numbers is to restrict hunting in the areas where the populations have fallen.

Unfortunately, hunting restrictions only affects families who'll only take one moose a season and does nothing to address the predators that will indiscriminately kill several animals over the course of a year. Hence, the ADF&G has wisely decided to address the predator problem which is primarily wolves.

This is a serious problem that has been going on for about 15 years or better and affects two caribou herds and the moose population along the upper Kuskokwim and some parts of the middle Yukon. Unfortunately when the first predator control program went into place we had the misfortune of having a spineless Clinton toady as a governor that felt giving into eco-nazis and being ruled from the lower 48 was best.......Tony Knowles....

Aerial predator control is the most efficient method of locating and killing wolves in the designated control areas. Wolves are elusive and can cover a lot of ground quickly and normally travel a circuit of 60-120 miles. Airplanes are the best solution for the problem.

Wolves are classified as both big game and furbearers. Two can be taken on a hunting license and up to ten (depending on area) can be taken on a trapping the license. Hunters and trappers take very few due to their elusiveness and I've never heard of anyone limiting out for a season. The aerial predator control program is necessary if ungulate populations are to avoid a crash.

We've had about enough from the Fools for Animals who don't live here attempting to dictate policy.

Regards,
Stevelyn who prefers to hunt wolves from the back of an iron dog.

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

"We do not regard it as an emergency when an agency needs to adopt regulations to fix a problem of its own making," said Jim Reeves, the lawyer representing Darien, Connecticut-based Friends of Animals and seven Alaska plaintiffs.

Last I checked Connecticut had a very small wolf population, ie. zero. Why don't we put some of those tree huggers into the Alaska interior for a week and see how their opinion is at that point. Of course I am not completely inhumane so I would give the wolves a fighting chance by tying chicken drumsticks to each of their Gucci suit pant legs.

Anyone seen the outpost.com commercial where they release a pack of ravenous wolves on a high school marching band? So funny!!!

 

[MinScout]

I'm no ARF, but blasting an animal from a plane or helicopter just seems wrong to me.