I write this from the perspective of a person who was raised in a huntin' and fishin' family in Eastern PA. Personally, I do not hunt. While I strongly support strengthening our gun laws, I am, however, not anti-gun or anti-hunting. More on this later. Meanwhile...
The wildlife "management" practices in AK (Savage Sarah at the helm) are a disgrace, based on junk science, and were dishonestly developed. Predator kill quotas/bounties, according to the (pro-kill stacked) Fish & Game board, have been increased "to re-allocate the harvestable surplus of game animals from predators to humans." More specifically, sport hunters.
Subsistence calculations showed that needs could be met with a moose population of approximately 3,000. These reports demonstrated there was no need to consider or begin predator control. Though these results were published in a State Fish and Game Memorandum; dated Nov. 2, 2001 followed by a Press Release dated Nov. 6th, they were later buried and ignored.
Aerial hunting: sport or management? Take your pick; either way, it's repulsive.
Wolves are "managed" from the air, often chased to exhaustion and collapse before being killed. The puppies of these "managed" wolves, the lucky ones that are found, are shot. The others are left to starve.
From the Anchorage Daily News
Biologists found the 4- to 5-week-old pups when they landed to collect carcasses of adult wolves shot from a helicopter two months ago near Cold Bay, about 600 miles southwest of Anchorage.
Biologists had killed 14 adult wolves, including mothers of the pups.
"The issue then was do we leave the pups to fend for themselves and starve or do we dispatch them," Larsen said. "Our feeling was that it was most humane to dispatch them."
Each pup was shot in the head.
Studies pointing the finger at over-hunting of game, and surveys showing that game populations were grossly under-reported by the state, were suppressed. This is not a "management" justification for the continuing the practice of aerial hunting. This is a LIE and an abomination. The F&G's own reports show that in areas where predator control was practiced, between 60-75% of the game taken was by urban and non-resident hunters. Subsistence my ass.
video (10 min) | shorter clip | transcript summarizing the appalling history of how Alaska arrived at it's current "management" policies.
Oh, but the wolves are not the only keystone species on the menu in Alaska.
Habituated bears are brutally killed in Katmai NP. These bears are accustomed to the scores of humans that visit the park all summer long to observe and photograph them. They show no fear or aversion to humans, and the "hunters" basically walk right up to them and blast away. Fair chase? Hardly.
Katmai bear hunt debate rages on
There is no cap on the total number of bears that can be harvested in GMU-9C.
[snip]
"That bear looks at us and we aren't a threat at all," Josephs said.
A golden grizzly remained within in feet of our camp and the hunters' camp during the entire visit. Everyone kept a close eye on the bear. Josephs predicted the bear wouldn't be around camp much longer with hunters close by. "If she were to survive she'd have cubs next year," Josephs said.
[snip]
By late afternoon, the blonde grizzly continues to swim and eat nearby. She does not know it, but these are her last moments alive.
The hunters are clearly ready and when the opportunity presents itself, they shoot and kill the female. The blonde grizzly goes down. Josephs said the bear was not concerned with the hunters at all.
"That bear trusted us -- it trusted the hunters -- it hung out here the whole time we were here. It had no fear of us."
Fair or not, the hunt is legal.
In the end, the bear dies about 100 yards from the hunters' camp, 100 yards from our camp and just feet from where it roamed all day long.
Katmai bears
Savage Sarah
The video footage/info I've linked to is vital to understanding the complete and utter bullshit that Alaska and its governor try to pass off as "necessary" management practices. And vital to understanding the state's chronic disdain for the will of its citizens.
Alaska residents have twice voted to ban aerial wolf hunting-- first in 1996 and again in 2000. Both times, the Alaska Legislature overturned the will of the people and allowed the Board of Game to re-create the programs after the two-year initiatives expired. 671 wolves* have been shot by Alaska residents in private aircraft over the past four years. And, what's worse, other states are looking to Alaska to justify beginning aerial wolf hunting programs of their own.
[* As of July, the number is over 800 and counting]
Alaska Ballot Measure Update
On August 26, 2008 Alaskans voted for a third time on the issue of aerial wolf hunting. More than 70,000 Alaskans voted to stop private aerial hunting of wolves and bears and to limit the practice to Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel only.
Unfortunately a well funded opposition coupled with a strong turnout in conservative voters led to the defeat of the ballot measure.
On a brighter note, in the lower 48 a U.S. district judge in Montana has just restored protection to wolves under the Endangered Species act. Judge Donald Molloy has issued a temporary injunction that protects wolves in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Brighter yet, Oregon and Washington have recently reported that they now each have at least one resident wolf pack, also now under the protection of the injunction. But this is a temporary victory, and it remains to be seen if the injunction will be made permanent.
Despite the attempts to suppress and downplay empirical and scientific evidence that demonstrates the success of reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, a small victory has been achieved. Small steps have been made in the reintroduction of Mexican gray wolf in the southwest and the unbelievably gorgeous red wolf in the southeast.
And keystone species are necessary.
The return of wolves to Yellowstone, for example, is helping restore the diversity of life within the park. Elk, an important prey species, have altered their grazing behavior... Changes in elk grazing behavior have allowed streambed vegetation like willow and aspen to recover from years of overbrowsing, and these re-established trees provide habitat for native birds and fish, beaver, and other species.
And profitable!
Gateway communities near Yellowstone National Park have reported an economic boon from the return of the wolf. In fact, more than 150,000 people visit Yellowstone each year specifically because of wolves, bringing $35 million in annual tourist revenue to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The economic impact of this figure effectively doubles once money filters through local communities.
But our intrepid VP hopeful on the Republican side appears to be Annie Oakley incarnate. Despite vehement public opposition and volumes of evidence contradicting the so-called "science" she often cites, Savage Sarah seems to have made it her mission to ram through devastating environmental and wildlife management policies in her home state of Alaska. In addition to her "drill here, drill now" ANWR refrain (complete with bald faced lies on the size and scope of such an undertaking), she appears to champion everything and anything that is anti-environment, from aerial hunting of wolves and bears, to landscape-scarring, environmentally devastating open pit mining. Could the old guy have found a worse ticket mate when it comes to environmental issues? I think not.
Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. "On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective," he says of Palin. "I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments," he adds about the state's rationale for gunning down wolves. "In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary."
Last year, 172 scientists signed a letter to Palin, expressing concern about the lack of science behind the state's wolf-killing operation. According to the scientists, state officials set population objectives for moose and caribou based on "unattainable, unsustainable historically high populations."
I was raised in a family of hunters in NE PA. Dad is a lifetime NRA guy, and he and my brother hunt deer and wild game birds. Yep, they are typical Pennsylvania wedge-issue "clingers" who don't always vote with their own best interest in mind. Thankfully, they don't usually vote.
From childhood I was taught respect for nature/wildlife and firearms. I spent many happy hours "down the crick" learning to fly fish for trout with my dad. I have fond memories of my mom teaching me her tricks on the short-range pistol area at the local gun club. I am an excellent shot, as long as the target is a bullseye or a clay pigeon. I've never been able to wrap my mind around hunting as a "sport," but I accept it... IF it is conducted with respect for wildlife and IF the take is used for food. My family has always eaten, given away, or donated the meat and fish brought home. BUT... what goes on in Alaska sickens me. LIES, distortions, and suppression of evidence are used to further the what is clearly out-of-control, non-subsistence sport hunting, and is in no way a justification for Alaska's current management policies. I call this Blood Lust and I rate it right up there with "canned" hunts (shamefully prevalent in my home state) that use ex-pets and petting zoo rejects for "game." Disgusting.