Skip to comments.Wolf-control program challenged in Congress (AK)
Posted on 08/10/2009 12:24:07 PM PDT by jazusamo
AIRBORNE: Hunts allowed with airplanes only when it's a biological emergency
WASHINGTON -- Alaska's predator control program to kill wolves, which drew renewed national scrutiny during former Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for vice president, is under attack in Congress.
Two California Democrats have introduced legislation that would all but ban the practice of shooting wolves from airplanes to control their numbers. The legislation, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. George Miller, would force Alaska game officials to declare a biological emergency that shows the imminent collapse of a species without the program.
Even if the state could demonstrate such an emergency, the law would limit aerial hunting to state or federal wildlife employees, barring private contractors that are currently allowed to kill wolves from fixed-wing airplanes.
"What this bill does is essentially makes it impossible for Alaska to manage wolf populations in any sort of responsible way," said Pat Valkenburg, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "We finally have a program that works and to end it because of the emotional feelings of uninformed people is just not a good idea."
Alaska's Board of Game renewed its aerial predator-control effort seven years ago after complaints from hunters that a healthy wolf population was preventing moose and caribou populations from recovering in some areas, including parts of the state where subsistence hunters depend on game for food. Six areas of the state -- about 10 percent of the state -- have predator-control programs in place for wolves.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
This method of wildlife management is not meant to be sport, it is a practical way to manage wolf numbers in some areas where it's extremely difficult to manage them on the ground.
I don't know why Feinstein and Miller think they know better than Alaska wildlife officials how to manage wolves.
Wolf management Ping!
Clear violation of the 10th Amendment
They are from the south and just know better. If you don’t think so just ask them they will tell you they are much smarter than anyone who oppose them, and will use language to tell you so in no uncertain terms. YOU RIGHT WING RABELROUSER!!
Here we have two morons from a failed state telling another state what to do. These folks cannot competently govern their own state or the federal government as demonstrated by their failed policies. They simply do not know what they are talking about, IMO.
Those two idiots think they know more about everything than anyone else. They're two of the staunchest Marxists in Congress, elected by Marxist-dominated districts. They're pacifying their PETA and environmentalist constituents.
Box all the wolves up and ship the critters to Kalifornia!
Exactly! That's the way I see it also.
Again California is trying to tell another state how to manage it’s business.
Time to break up California.
I think they should just up the bounty on wolves, and allow individuals to cull the packs. This would save a lot of money in fuel and aircraft expenses, give individuals more sport and not be such bad PR. Besides, there really is something inherently wrong with shooting animals from the iar, sort of like fish in a barrel.
Yep, they're doing the same thing that Defenders of Wildlife, PETA, HSUS and most other enviro and animal rights nuts do.
Thank you! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
There are remote villages where the children are not allowed outside to play because of the danger of wolves in the area.
Feinstein and Miller need a refresher course on how much damage these predators do to the ranchers and the food supply those ranchers are raising to feed the world!!!
This reminds me of a story, supposedly true.
The ranchers in a particular state were having trouble with wolves killing their sheep, so the ranchers were killing the wolves.
The feds heard about it and sent some people to the area and scheduled a meeting with the ranchers and some environmental groups.
At the meeting the feds proposed that the wolves be captured, fixed and then released.
One of the ranchers spoke up saying,”I don’t think you boys know what’s going on here. The wolves aren’t screwing our sheep, they’re killing our sheep”.
I think the biggest problem trying to manage wolf populations are the large mostly inaccessible areas, that being the reason they want to use aircraft. I agree with you on the bad PR part of it.
First of all, they are Democrats. But this is really about keeping the negative news focused on Sarah Palin, because they might be able to have a picture of her in a helicopter with a rifle as a stock photo next to their story. Sarah Palin is their greatest fear. That low-pitched humming noise is the gnashing of liberal teeth as they fear they day that she comes into the Lower 48 to campaign for Republicans.
I’m sure that if there was enough incentive, ie planned hunts into back country, drops within known over-populated areas, stuff like that, that there would be a sufficient number of culls, to help. I just can’t understand someone that could shoot an animal from an aircraft. To me, it’s very distasteful and shows no respect for the animal.
That’s true. It took place in some meeting on the subject and a rancher stood up and said that.
The Alaskan delegation needs to introduce legislation that mandates how California conducts its affairs.
We can’t drill in the Anwar Coastal Plain because it might cause problems for the Moose and Carribou, of which there are non on the Coatal Plain. Wolves do cause problems for the Moose and Carribou, but we can’t control them.
Doesn’t anybody get the sense of stupid people being stupid?
These two are an embarrassment. FYI, George Miller is at the heart of the water war going on in California. A massive farmer protest is scheduled for his office on 8/13/09. They will be accompanied by Central Valley Tea Party Patriots.
You'll need something more convincing than a vague feeling. What, exactly, is inherently wrong? Is it that they are at a disadvantage? This isn't for sport, it's because they are predators, and their appetite is exceeding the food supplies.
And besides, fish in a barrel is not a good analogy. They have nowhere to go, and you don't shoot them. Wolves can go anywhere. It isn't like there's a fence around them that makes them an easy target. Alaska is a big place, and there aren't roads to most of it. Maybe if there were some more humane way to do it, like driving in on snowmobiles and capturing them, and taking them into wolf internment camps?
So Miller is one of them that want to put many farmers out of business because of the Delta smelt needing the water that goes in the aqueduct. Those people are absolutely nuts!
Safari Club Goes To U.S. Supreme Court Safari Club International has taken its litigation efforts to the nation's highest court with the filing of an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case U.S. v. Stevens.
SCIs brief defends the production and distribution of hunting TV programs and videos activities of great importance to SCI members and hunters generally. The case involves a federal law that makes it a criminal offense to produce, sell, or possess a depiction of animal cruelty.
But the devil is in the details. The statute's definition of "animal cruelty" could foreseeably include TV or videos that depict lawful hunting. For example, if an outdoor television program filmed a black bear hunt in Pennsylvania where bear hunting is legal, but distributed it in New Jersey where bear hunting is not currently legal, then those involved could be in violation of the law. In this example, mere possession of a bear hunting video in New Jersey with the intent to distribute could also be criminalized. In its brief, SCI argued to the Court that the law as written is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it criminalizes legitimate speech.
The Congressional Sportsmens Foundation joined SCI on the amicus curiae brief, filed on July 27. Many anti-hunting groups, including the Humane Society, lined up on the other side. The Supreme Court will hear the case on October 6, 2009, the first day of its new term. View the brief HERE.
There’s something to be said for that. :)
Interesting, thanks for posting.
I do not need something more than a vague feeling, to feel that shooting animals from an aircraft is inherently wrong. That is the inherent part, it goes against my idea of the mutual respect we should have for a wild animal. I know it isn’t for sport, that is why I suggested having individuals do the culling from the ground, not from an aircraft. It would, to me, be a much more win-win situation, both for the individuals doing the culling and for PR purposes. We hunters/sportsmen/gun owners have a bad enough time as it is with the negative perception people have of us. To shoot animals from an aircraft, even for a good reason, does not sit well with the general public, and there is no way we can change people’s minds about that.
I does feel like the inmates are running the asylum...
“To shoot animals from an aircraft, even for a good reason, does not sit well with the general public, and there is no way we can change peoples minds about that.”
I suspect if you took a survey _in Alaska_ regarding this practice, you’d be in for a surprise. I suspect the majority are just fine with it - and Alaskans are the only ones who should have any say.
Also note that this practice has become common in Texas to cull out of control feral pig populations.
There aren’t enough hunters, and the animals are too numerous and elusive to control them any other way.
Have you even been to Alaska?? Outside of the metropolitan areas, that is? If so, you wouldn't make such a totally dumb a$$, bleeding heart, PETA statement.
Maybe you don't understand that there is a higher small aircraft ownership per capita in Alaska than anywhere is else in the US. Because you can't even get there in all terrain vehicles!! You don't just get in your SUV and drive down the interstate to go wolf hunting, with your fancy Cabella's camo suit and hunters vest. In fact, you don't do that just about anywhere to go wolf hunting.
Talk about stupid, dumb$hit statements. Do some research besides reading PETA and Sierra Club press releases.
And if you actually did have some knowledge about the situation, you would know that it is not "sport" hunting that Alaska is doing. This is rather serious conservation measures to insure that the elk, moose and caribou herds aren't decimated by the over abundance of the wolf as predator.
Sheesh, whadda maroon!
I hear ya!
Wolf control in Alaska is an Alaskan issue that should be dealt with in Alaska. Congress needs to butt out of something they know nothing about other than the drivel spewed forth by a small cabal of hysterical fanatical extremists.
Thank you for your answer to stuartcr.
I could not think of a polite way to say that he/she needed to do much more research on the problem before commenting.
Well said and dead on the money!
Dear Congressional A-holes,
This is our state, we know it better than you could even know. You are clueless bastards pandering to the dregs of society. But out! This is a state and local issue. In other words, shut your coffee holes!
When I read the very uninformed comments made, I was pi**ed.
I may be wrong, but didn’t California Fish and Game do an aerial cull of goats on some of their offshore islands a few years ago?
I don’t know if they used aircraft or not but they have culled island goats.
Alaska’s perfect answer would be to trap the excess wolves and release them on the estates of these clowns.
Yes, they may be fine with it, but I find shooting animals from aircraft to be distasteful.
If the cost per animal was broken down, which would include aircraft maintenance, fuel, pilot services, etc, were figured out, I wonder if that amount could be used as a bounty, to give incentive for more individuals to cull the packs.
Yes. I am a hunter from way back, and a carnivore.
I realise it is culling/animal control, not hunting. I don’t see why organised hunts cannot be conducted via aircraft to those locations, and expeditions sent out from a centralised landing zone.
If we do not want to continually hear from these anti-hunting/gun types, something must be done. Otherwise, I’m betting we will see the end of the wolf-control programs, completely.
Thank you for your most polite comments.
Access from lakes, is very doable. It would not be easy, but can be done, if the incentive is there. The alternative, is to continually see this issue all over the media in the lower 48, which will result in such negative PR, that the culling process, will probably come to an end soon. This would at least control some of the population, instead of none of it.
What? Fish in a barrel? I’ll bet you oppose fishing with dynamite too
Well then Alaska should just tell the feds that it is none of their business how Alaska controls their wildlife. I hope they do. The feds have no business interfering in any of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.