Search Our Site

Search form

social

Finally, the wolves won. Then Alaska's Board of Game changed the rules.

February 01, 2006 | Wolves

On the 17th of January, Alaska's Superior Court declared that the aerial wolf control scheme, in which people in aircraft chase wolves to exhaustion and then shoot them, is invalid.

The airborne hunting permits, issued to boost moose populations for human hunters, flew in the face of the Board of Game's own regulations.

Since 2003, 445 wolves have been gunned down using those permits that were wrongly issued. The state wants to wipe out 400 more wolves under the scheme this season, but the permits were recalled. So Alaska's Board of Game called an emergency meeting -- as though its lack of competence in adhering to its own rules is properly called an emergency.

Sunday, the 29th of January, the Board just flat-out repealed requirements for public notice and input regarding wolf and bear control. It also repealed all requirements and limitations that apply generally to wolf control -- the very bases for the Court's initial January ruling that existing wolf control plans are invalid!

For the first time in history, Alaska's officials are allowing the sale of bear hides and skulls. The Board of Game decided to apply this rule in a part of northeastern Alaska, and the interior areas where aerial wolf hunting has been allowed.

Bruce Bartley, a Fish and Game spokesperson, said that when Alaska gained statehood, many residents thought federal laws had targeted wolves and bears too ruthlessly, and the new state "wanted to treat them as animals worthy of respect in their own right."

As Bartley told the Anchorage Daily News: Things are different now.

Animals aren't worthy of respect these days in Alaska. Their fate lies with a capricious Game Board, or game-playing board. When caught in their games, they try, like peeved children, to change the rules. Friends of Animals' goal is to stop the entire scheme.

Last Friday -- ten days after the wolves prevailed in Court -- we returned, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the Game Board's "emergency" circumvention.

Yesterday, the judge turned down our Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against the emergency regulations adopted by the Board last week. So predator control can go forth, under the new regulations we've just challenged.

We're now considering our legal options.

Please consider making a donation to our efforts on behalf of Alaska's wolves.

Comments

Have you ever tried to grow vegatables in the tundra? Doesn't work real well. That same "pristine" vast wasteland that contains so much precious oil that we should be drilling doesn't yield much in terms of food, other than tasty caribou. Please stay out of Alaska. We really don't want you here.

Obviously, "choosing to be an obligate carnivore" is an oxymoron. Just as obviously, the "chose" applied only to "carnivore", not to the modifier "obligate". My sentence structure could never-the-less have been a bit more clear. "Friends of Animals takes the moral position that it is not acceptable to kill sentient beings to maintain a particular diet, lifestyle or culture." That philosophy has been around awhile, although the proponents are mostly extinct. Currently, you are outnumbered about 8 billion to a few thousand. Which doesn't mean you are wrong, although I think you are. Humans and proto-humans (omnivores, all - well, mostly) have failed to accept that philosophy for some 3 million years, now. Only in the last few decades has it gained a modicum of publicity, although very little acceptance. for example, do you intend to try to placate Islamic extremists with tofu and platitudes, adopt the lifestyle (which accepts meat eating), or fight back against terrorism, which means killing enough of them to make them ineffectual and desist. Those are your choices. Nor do wolves and other predators subscribe to it, for which only total idiots (and there are some) hold them to blame. So why then should omnivores - particularly humans (remember that 3 million year history?) - be held to a different standard? Should I castigate moose for being herbivores and snacking on my strawberries every chance they get? Should we abrogate our responsibility ( in my opinion) as the only species capable of moderating nature's random events toward our own and other species well being (as best we understand it) in our own interests, even in selfish interest (the best kind- or at least the most lucrative - which pays the bills for "management")? So called "sportsman" have contributed billions of dollars over the last century for the preservation and enhancement of "game" habitats (which many "non-game" species benefit from), the re-introduction of once native species, enforcement, and scientific study and understanding of relationships. Many of the so called "environmental" groups have contributed little, except to the coffers of their executive staffs. Educated and reasonably well off "sport hunters", willing to put money where their mouth is (as opposed to poverty-level subsistence hunters) are the best friends a species can have- tho it may be a little hard on individuals of the species at times.

There is nothing in Islam, Judaism, or Christianity which prohibits vegetarianism. Keep in mind that hunting and animal agriculture were developed when the concept of rights did not exist. It's understandable, then, that as we expand our moral values, we will acknowledge other animals' interests, and from there include other animals as beneficiaries of rights. And this will change our outlook on what our responsibilities are. Killing conscious living beings is more than "a little hard on individuals of a species". Ellie Maldonado Friends of Animals

I was reading my newspaper today, sitting in the local library of Ketchikan, Alaska, and I read that friends of animals was going to begin their howl-ins again to boycott Alaskan tourism. I fully understand that friends of animals has ethical views that find aerial hunting of wolves wrong, which I would have to agree that there must be a better way to build the moos population, but why attack the people of Alaska, who for the majority voted against aerial wolf hunting? The town that I live in has a population of 14,000 people on a good day in the summer, which is tourist season, and our economy is falling every day since president clinton shut down our pulp mill and sent 500 families fleeing. The fishing industry has also dropped significantly because of farmed fish and environmental groups, so we have turned to tourism to make money here and keep on living. Why try and take that away from us? We have given up logging and saved the trees, we have cut back on fishing, and saved some lives of the fish, now that we are trying to concentrate on bringing people into our city to support us instead of taking resources out you are trying to take that away too. Perhaps eventually there will be no reason to live here anymore and there wont be anyone to kill anything, but I really enjoy living in the middle of a natural paradise and would like to be able to support myself here where a gallon of milk is five dollars and the rent on my dinky apartment is 800. Please try and attack the government for their decisions not the people who try and make an honest living here in alaska. [Blog editors' note: Thank you for acknowledging that there's nothing ethical about a state-sponsored air force to shoot wolves. When we put economic pressure on the Murkowski administration to cancel the state's disgraceful wolf control program, we hear from tourism operators who complain about the boycott, but otherwise sit on their laurels, doing nothing to object to the aerial shooting program. Hunters also say, "Mind your own business. We do things differently here in Alaska." The tourism boycott is an example of how we do things in the Lower 48. Do make your complaint known to Gov. Murkowski at governor@gov.state.ak.us ]

SOMEONE NEEDS TO STAND UP FOR OUR WILDLIFE, THE WOLVES CANNOT STAND FOR THEMSELVES THEY CAN'T FIGHT BACK FROM PEOPLE GUNNING THEM DOWN FROM PLANES!!! AERIAL SHOOTING IS ABSOLUTELY MIND-BOGGLING TO ME, ARE WE LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY? THIS SOUNDS SO BARBARIC TO ME! OH WAIT, WE NEED TO DO THIS FOR THE HUNTERS, THAT'S RIGHT! AS IF THEY CANNOT GET FOOD ON THEIR OWN. BUT IT IS A SPORT TO THEM! EVERYTHING IS MADE INTO A SPORT THESE DAYS, THATS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR WORLD. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF WAYS THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY THE ESSENCE OF OUR NATURAL WILDLIFE. SOON WE WON'T HAVE ANY WOLVES IN THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT...

If boycotting tourism is the way the lower 48 works, I am glad I don't live there. I might not approve of some government decisions made in other states but I would never attack an economy that has nothing to do with the problems at hand. [ Blog editors' note: The problem is the type of governance that shames not only Alaska , but our country as a whole. Rather than complain that tourists may make tracks elsewhere, do something about the people you've elected. Get politically involved. Oppose the violence.]

I live in Alaska, and I hope you never visit this part of the world. If a wolf pack starts to feed on the local dogs, we kill them. Anyone who thinks a cruise in Alaska is an Alaskan experience is like a moron going to China town and boasting as if they lived in China. Please stay away from Alaska; we are barbaric killers of those wondrous creatures known as Timber Wolves. I promise not to visit your inner city ghettos and try to save your thugs. Next time you hypocrites go shopping at Trader Joes to pick up some organic twigs and berries, remember there was an ecosystem under the asphalt you park your fuel burning dog less sleds. You do not know what is best for me, and I do not want to be like you. Watch a few more documentaries about saving the places you could not tolerate a winter of but would love to visit some summer [ Blog editors' note: Guess what: It's not about you, Joe.]]

bravo Kayleigh, you have it absolutely correct. the boycott hurts no one but the average joe who owns or works at the small tourist based business. in reality, the boycott has had little effect on tourism. tourism is growing in most parts of the state, so much so that i have left my oil field job for one in the tourism industry. the idea that the boycott is putting pressure on murkowski just isnt true. how could you possible believe you are going to economically hurt a government whose revenue is oil based, when oil prices are this high. you have to know by now that, unlike uncle wally, murkowski is not going to budge. murkowski and those like him are going to be here for awhile. alaska is pro hunting, always has been and always will be. we will continue to vote in politicians who are too. i have seen people change their opinions because of the boycott. the boycott is angering people who would normally be against the wolf control. who do you think is going to have a bigger effect on the subject, a few tourist deciding not to come to alaska or a bunch of voters upset with outsiders trying to effect our economy? most of us dont see the boycott as a means to save wolves but as persecution of the people of alaska. sorry, but its absolutely true. your probably not going to get people on your side by making them angry. jimmy allen [Blog editors' note to Jimmy Allen and others: It's a person from Juneau, writing to this blog, who is calling most clearly for a boycott. We'll make an announcement very soon. This isn't to anger people in Alaska; it's to motivate change. You should know (we hope you do know) that the people you say are outsiders do not dislike Alaskans. They simply appreciate the freedom that animals have there. One of the reasons some chose not to live there is to leave a largely untouched land in peace.]

You people are nuts. I'm sure most if not all of you don't live there. Let them manage their own affairs. You folks need to stay with your close friends from left, liberal, gay, bunny-hugging Hollywood types. Try something useful, like praying for world peace, give some of your money to help end world hunger, send a letter or package to a lonely soldier, or buy medicine for elderly who can't afford it. I hope you all leave everything "untouched and in peace" and shut up and enjoy the ghettos and the tall buildings. PLEASE stay where you are!!! Maybe you could all move to a big island with lots of wolves for you to make friends with, where no one kills anything, everyone eats grass and berries, and who knows, without all of life's luxuries, you may be the hunted!!! [Blog editors' note: Spirited little rant. Let's repeat in unison: Boycott Alaska]

On the other hand, I think it would be pleasant to have a state of citizens who vote other than the mean, unhappy, old republican line - like it used to be here in Alaska before "they" all got here. It was much more humane, enjoyable, and civil, then; before the pillagers recently arrived. Alaska can be more civil again. I'd like to invite all those like-minded individuals to not commit to a cause or a lawsuit but to commit to changing the regime in Juneau. Come on up to Alaska. Move in. Make yourselves to home. Come in droves. Vote appropriately. You are all welcome as residents and can help to restore sanity and loveliness to a lovely land. Pillagers have already arrived with their low appreciation of natural things and their exaggerated need to prove something to themselves. If you are humane you are most needed and welcome to become a resident. You are needed as residents of Alaska. Boycott tourism if you wish. Help restore sanity. Move here. Thanks.

Pages