An Answer to an Anti-Wolf Extremist

Here’s a letter to a local Washington state newspaper from a budding anti-wolf extremist, followed by my response letter…

“Damage wolves do”
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to Lorna Smith’s column (April 3), “Why are we so afraid of wolves?”
It’s not the wolf itself, it’s the killing they do to our deer and livestock that I’m afraid about.
I have a friend who lives in Arlie, Mont., where the wolves are abundant. He states that the wolves have completely destroyed the elk herds in his area – and are now preying on the deer.
He also states that the economy has really suffered in the area as the sportsmen are not coming to hunt anymore.
Also, there was an article in the April 2013 Western Horseman magazine. One of the featured articles was “Range Riders of the Upper Green.” The story is of Doc Foster – his main job was caring for the cattle. He states that dealing with the predator-livestock conflict took most of his time – that the wolves attack the cattle herd in a pack and focus on dragging the cattle down by the back and hindquarters. “They are killers,” Foster says. “They [wolves] eat the heart, liver and lungs and then go on.”
Is the wolf an animal we want protected in our area?
Seems like several new wolf pairs have just “arrived” in Washington state lately.
Betty Wagoner
And my response?…

Dear Editor,

It’s bad enough to read a damaging letter from an anti-wolf extremist (“Damage wolves do”) who asks, “Is the wolf an animal we want protected in our area?” as if it’s our birthright to pick and choose which species are welcome and which are not. But when the main thrust of the letter seems to be to spread disinformation—aimed at striking terror in the hearts of hunters—that “wolves have completely destroyed the elk herds” in Montana, well, someone has to set the record straight.

Having recently lived in Montana, I’ve seen and photographed my share of wolves, but also thousands of elk; and some of the mule deer herds were nearly a hundred strong in places. According to a 2012 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department survey, there are 141,078 elk in the state, 55% over their management “objective” of 90,910; but rather than allowing wolves to solve their elk “problem,” they want to reduce the number of both elk and wolves. That policy is not scientific; it’s downright kill-happy.

Meanwhile, there are currently fewer than 600 wolves in that state (hunters and trappers killed nearly 200 last season). Yet Montana wildlife officials say they are hoping to reduce the wolf population to around 450. Of course, that number does not even come close to representing a recovered state wolf population by any historical standards when you consider that 10,261 wolves were destroyed between 1884 and 1886 in Montana alone after a bounty was first initiated there—or that 380,000 wolves once roamed the lower 48.

An alleged threat to the cattle industry is certainly no excuse for today’s rampant killing of these important predators. Out of the approximately 2.6 million cattle in the state, only 74, or .0003%, were taken by wolves in 2011.

But if there has been any drop in business for the trophy elk hunting industry, it’s because wolves keep elk on the move; wilder and less complacent. In one of their most telling remarks, Montana hunters have complained that wolves make elk “too hard to hunt.” Ever their lackeys, state game managers have used that claim as an excuse to promote wolf hunting, rather than sticking up for wolves by pointing out that they are just doing their job of preventing elk from over-grazing.

So next time you hear hunters complaining about wolves, remember, it’s not because they really think wolves are going to eliminate all “their” elk—they just don’t want to have to walk too far from the pickup truck to make their kill.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Oregon Ranchers Want to Get into the Predator-Kill Game

Oregon Ranchers Want More Authority To Kill Wolves

AP | April 16, 2013 1:04 p.m. Salem, Oregon
by:AP
Part of Series:
Ecotrope
Eastern Oregon ranchers are asking the Oregon Legislature for more authority to kill wolves that threaten their livestock.

Gray Wolf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Gray Wolf

Ranchers told a House committee Tuesday that their existing authority to kill wolves caught in the act of killing livestock isn’t enough. Three Eastern Oregon legislators have proposed allowing ranchers to kill any gray wolf they reasonably believe has attacked or harassed their livestock.

Conservationists worry that wolf populations would dwindle.

Both sides are planning meetings to work on a compromise. The House Environment and Natural Resources Committee took no action on the bill Tuesday.

____At the same time, also from Oregon:

URGENT ALERT!

Cougar killing bills are moving to the Oregon house floor.

1. Please immediately contact your representatives and ask them to vote NO on bills that allow counties to overturn the Oregon state law prohibiting the unethical practice of setting packs of hounds on cougars to chase them up trees for easy targets by trophy hunters.

These bills set a terrible precedent by letting counties decide which state laws they chose to acknowledge.

You can find your representatives’ contact information here:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

2. Contact Governor Kitzhaber and ask him to VETO any bills that increase cougar mortality and/or overturn the ban on cougar hounding. Tell him you voted with the majority of Oregonians twice to keep unethical trophy hunting practices out of Oregon, not just out of your county.

Governor Kitzhaber
503-378-4582

http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Pages/ShareYourOpinion.aspx

For more information on cougars go to:

http://predatordefense.org/cougars.htm

Man, I Wish You Were Never Born

Some folks wonder why I sound like such a misanthropist when I talk about the human species. Although to me the answer appears obvious, I suppose I should explain myself to those who might think of human beings as “superior,” “God’s chosen ones” or in some other way entitled to do as they will to the planet and its non-human inhabitants.

I don’t hold all people to blame equally. I certainly don’t blame you, dedicated reader. You can’t help being born human any more than a wolf, sea lion, salmon or slug has any say over who or what they were born. But there are those who seem to go out of their way to fuel my misanthropy. You see, humans don’t just kill other animals to fill their bellies; they destroy them in droves out of spite, to eliminate the competition…or just for fun.

When I hear hate-speech against wolves from hunters who’d rather have them eradicated again than have to work a little harder to “get their elk;” or come across a starving sea lion on the beach and then read that emaciated sea lion pups are washing up in California by the hundreds–all due to their food being robbed by overly-industrious-yet-completely-terrestrial commercial fishermen who have no business taking anything from the sea; or learn that dolphins are being repeatedly shot to death by people along the Gulf coast I tend to get a bit cynical of the notion that man was created in the image of any kind of benevolent god.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013.

In commenting about the recent rash of dolphin shootings, Randall Lockwood, senior vice president of the Forensic Sciences and Anti-Cruelty Projects department at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), said, “One of the things that seems to underlie most intentional animal cruelty and acts of abuse is a need for power and control. A lot of severe animal cruelty [comes from an] absence of empathy, and also a sense that [the perpetrators] have a right to do these things.”

Backing up the premise that people act out of an overblown sense of entitlement, Robert Grillo, founder of the group Free From Harm, writes, “Not only do we assert our supremacy over nonhumans, we act upon it at every opportunity. The notion that human interests “trump” animal interests when we create an imaginary conflict of interest is particularly delusional when one considers that we wantonly kill 60 billion land animals and kill another trillion or so aquatic animals every year just to suit our pleasure in eating them, not for any legitimate need to survive.

“In fact, Professor Gary Francione of Rutgers University continually points to the schizophrenic nature of our relationship with animals. Francione simply asks us to look at the big picture: 99% of our animal use is unnecessary and for purposes of pleasure, entertainment, curiosity and education.”

While Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote, “In relation to animals, all men are Nazis,” perhaps a more appropriate analogy for today’s world would be, “In relation to animals, all humans are serial killers.” How many parents of serial killers have secretly thought to themselves, “I wish Teddy would have never been born?” Considering how well the Earth got by before Homo sapiens came along and started messing with things, and how much mankind resembles a serial killer in its domineering attitude towards animals, I have to say, “Man, I wish you were never born.”

Life on Earth can take a lot of abuse and still come back for more, but it’s never had to withstand more than a few hundred thousand predacious hominids at a time. I don’t find much solace in the prediction by statisticians that the skyrocketing human population “will start to level off when it reaches 10 billion.” TEN BILLION over-consumptive human carnivores devouring everything in their collective path sounds like a monoculture of jabber-mouth two-leggers to me.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013.

Wolves Need Their Own Untouchables

During the reign of Al Capone, when organized crime syndicates held Chicago in a stranglehold, a response team known as “The Untouchables” was formed to restore sanity to the war-torn city. With politicians and the cops in their back pockets, the crime bosses of yesteryear were able to act with impunity—to get away with murder, so to speak.

An analogous situation exists today, with anti-wolf fanatics in the role of the organized crime gangs and wolves as innocent victims. With corrupt state legislators and wildlife agencies in their pockets, organized wolf-haters are flexing their political muscles to push anti-wolf laws through everywhere the embattled canines can be found.

Some recent examples include: wolf hating troops to pressure the USFWS to delist wolves across the US., Big Game Forever, Don Peay and the Utah Legislature want to stop wolves from returning to Utah and, posted by Ralph Maughan on his website on March 26, Anti-wolf, anti-wilderness going after “pro-wolf” Washington state commissioners in hearing today…

Efforts by Washington state anti-wolf forces intercepted-

Below is an alert from anti-wolf folks in Washington State. This is an interesting example of the kind of email campaign that is being used by anti-wolf forces in a state where pro-wolf opinion is strong.

Those who support wilderness and wolves and other wildlife might want to do just the opposite of the recommendations below.
- – – – – -

Eliminate Pro-Wolf Wildlife Commissioners Now!

This is the most important thing that you can do to help hunting and the increasing wolf problem in our state. The Republicans are giving us this opportunity on a silver platter. Remember, all four guys up for confirmation on the Wildlife Commission have had a state senate hearing and they were not voted on. They can sit unconfirmed until their term expires without ever having another hearing. They don’t have to be voted on, but now they are being brought up for a vote. The Senate Natural Resources Committee Chair is bringing these guys up for hearings even though he doesn’t have to. The writing is so clear. The hunting community and ranchers are being thrown a political bone. This session Republicans were unified on gun issues. They only had two or three defecters at most on the anti-gun legislation. The GOP finally has some political clout and they are willing to do what the Democrats do – share the wealth with people that support them. I am a political realist whose passion is preserving our Second Amendment and right to hunt. Republicans in this state want to be our allies, now we have to do our part. We may never again have a chance to make a bigger splash than this. The Republicans on the committee need to hear from us and so does Hargrove. There are pro-hunting Democrats who support managing wolves 100%.

First we need to achieve our goal with each of these commissioner confirmations in committee, then the commissioners will face a vote by the full Senate. There’s a fair chance of influencing these confirmations because the full Senate did approve two of Senator Smith’s wolf bills which are now in the House. These wildlife commissioner confirmations only go before the Senate, so we do not have to worry about passing in the House. Therefore we only have two hurdles, getting the committee to vote as we would like and then getting the full Senate to vote as we would like. It’s a numbers game and it’s hard to know exactly how many messages we need to send to accomplish this goal, so we need as many messages sent as possible. Ask friends, family and any groups you belong, ask anyone you think you can convince to send email or call today.

As of Friday March 22 a Washington legislator informed us that nobody is contacting the Senate Committee regarding the confirmation of the four Wildlife Commissioners on March 26. This is the perfect chance for hunters, fishers, ranchers, and other concerned persons to have a direct impact on the Wildlife Commission. The hearing for confirmations is at 1:30 pm on March 26.

Please take 1 or 2 minutes and call or email: DO IT NOW IF YOU WANT A CHANGE!

CALL:
The committee assistant is Katharine Grimes (360) 786-7419 and ask her to forward a messages to each committee member to CONFIRM Wildlife Commissioners Mahnken and Carpenter and to OPPOSE Wildlife Commissioners Jennings and Kehne.

EMAIL: (copy and paste email list)
Kirk.Pearson@leg.wa.gov; John.Smith@leg.wa.gov; Christine.Rolfes@leg.wa.gov; Jim.Hargrove@leg.wa.gov; Mike.Hewitt@leg.wa.gov; Adam.Kline@leg.wa.gov; Linda.Parlette@leg.wa.gov;

(copy and paste subject)
Confirmation of WDFW Wildlife Commissioners

(copy and paste message or write your own)
Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee

RE: Confirmation of WDFW Wildlife Commissioners

I’m About Sick of Control Freaks

What the hell’s going on with state lawmakers and wildlife agencies lately? With just a cursory glance at the headlines this morning I counted at least a half dozen cases of puffed-up politicians overstepping their bounds by offering up some non-human species to appease the bloodlust of a few of their freakiest constituents.
Headlines like “State lawmaker wants open season on woodchucks,” about Wisconsin state representative, Andre Jacque (R-De Pere), who is pedaling a bill that would remove woodchucks from Wisconsin’s protected species list and allow people to kill an unlimited number of them during a season that would run nearly year-round. Jacque said woodchucks are abundant and a “nuisance.”

Though newspaper journalists are, as a rule, impartial, the article’s reporter couldn’t help but see the disturbing trend going on across the dairy state:

Deer, bears, wolves, mourning doves, even wild pigs – if it walks, crawls or flies in Wisconsin, hunters can probably shoot it. Now a state lawmaker wants to declare open season on one more animal: the wily woodchuck.

The bill represents another expansion of hunting rights in Wisconsin and promises to reignite a years-old debate over whether hunters really need another target species. Attempts over the last decade to create hunts for feral cats and mourning doves, the state’s symbol of peace, drew fierce opposition. The state’s new wolf season sent animal lovers into a rage last year and an attempt to create a sandhill crane hunt last spring went nowhere after opponents mounted an intense campaign to stop it. Woodchucks, also known as groundhogs, aren’t as near and dear to Wisconsinites’ hearts as wolves, mourning doves and cranes.

Here’s an idea, why not let their “nuisance” wolves control the “nuisance” woodchucks? Predators like wolves and coyotes have been in charge of “controlling” woodchucks, beavers, prairie dogs, ground squirrels and other scary rodents for thousands of centuries. But I guess letting nature take care of itself would cheat hunters and other human control freaks out of some of their coveted “shooting opportunities.”

Meanwhile, a Spokane Spokesman Review article, “Idaho sets 2013 big-game hunting seasons, rules,” reports: permits for antlerless elk hunting will be increased statewide under the 2013 hunting seasons for deer, elk, pronghorn, black bear, mountain lion and gray wolf adopted today in Boise by the Fish and Game Commission. The new seasons also include an increase in pronghorn tags and expanded wolf hunting and trapping seasons. Wolf hunting on private lands in the Idaho Panhandle will be allowed year round.

Again, like in Wisconsin, Montana and so many other trigger-happy western states, populations of both wolves and deer or elk are slated for reduction. It seems the work of control freaks is never ending.

Since they don’t have any wolves to scapegoat, wildlife policy-makers in Utah are setting a $50.00 bounty on coyotes, presumably to keep in practice.
And in Oklahoma, spring youth turkey season will begins today for youth hunters ages 17 and younger. Turkeys won’t be safe in that state until sometime in May.

Also in Oklahoma hunting news, on Wednesday 1200 students and 64 teams from Oklahoma high schools, middle schools and elementary schools will convene at the OKC State Fairgrounds to compete in the state’s ninth archery championship tournament. Archery in the Schools has become the most popular educational program the Okla. Dept. of Wildlife “Conservation” has ever introduced. More than 400 schools and almost 50,000 students in Oklahoma are taking an eight week archery session taught indirectly by the Oklahoma Wildlife Department.

Now, I like to shoot arrows at straw bales as much as the next guy, but you know it doesn’t end there for most of these Okies. Sure enough, the success of their archery program has inspired the Oklahoma Wildlife Dept. to introduce other courses in schools such as hunter education, bow hunting and fishing. And this spring the Wildlife Dept. will introduce a scholastic shooting sports program in several pilot schools.…

I could go on, but trying to keep up with every state’s new anti-wildlife programs is really getting to be a nuisance.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Hope for a Humane and Environmentally Sane Future

The following is my review of a new book published by Earth Books…

Often, over the years, I’ve thought about taking on the task of chronicling the ways in which humankind is destroying the Earth, and how we need to change to survive as a species. Now, equally sensing the dire need for such a book, long-time animal activist, Will Anderson, has risen to the challenge with his new book, This is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology.

I have to admit, the title, This is Hope, sounded to me like it could be almost, well, overly-hopeful. But in fact the book takes a hard, realistic look at where we’re headed if we don’t make some major changes in our destructive ways, our eating habits and our view of non-human animals as commodities. For instance, Anderson doesn’t buy into the increasingly popular fallacy that hunting can somehow be sustainable in this rapidly growing human world. Not only does he take on hunting, and those groups who promote it, he employs the term “neo-predation” for the myriad of ways in which the modern world disrupts biodiversity—to the peril of all who share the Earth.

And the author does not fall prey to the politically correct notion that human overpopulation is an overstated myth. Instead we learn that as environmentally-conscious, green vegans who truly want to see a future for all life on the planet, addressing and reversing our overpopulation is a must.

If we are willing to embrace Will Anderson’s prescription for a “new human ecology,” there truly could be hope for the future. As Anderson puts it, “The new human ecology can be the transformation of human behavior all of Earth has waited for.” Some of the positive results he foresees from this transformation include:

• Vast landscapes subjected to grazing and growing food for livestock are released from animal agriculture.
• Some of that land will be banked and rotated with other croplands. Soil erosion and pollution are sharply reduced. Sustainably grown, organic food becomes more reliably available.
• Conceivably, fewer people on Earth and the efficiency of botanical agriculture will allow lower food prices and raise food availability.
• We will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions immediately by 18% to 51%.
• Other human pressures on ecosystems decrease and allow them to trend toward recovery.
• Vegan diets will create better human health. This should result in lower health care costs.
• We stop the intentional impregnation of billions of domesticated individuals from other species, the torment of their enslavement and denial of their innate needs, and their early, violent deaths.
• The science and implementation of wildlife and habitat management is transformed…control by the small minority of people who hunt, fish and trap is ended.
• Livestock fences will be removed. Wild herds of indigenous wildlife can reoccupy habitat and have room to migrate long distances. Ecosystem keystone species like black-tailed prairie dogs will not be cruelly persecuted on behalf of animal agriculture.
• There are no new ghost nets, those fishing nets that break away from vessels, drift with oceanic currents, and continue to trap fish, turtles, marine birds, and marine mammals.
• We stop bottom trawling that destroys sea bed marine ecosystems. Since vegan human ecology does not require fish, it ends the trashing of millions of tons of unwanted bycatch (non-targeted species), eliminates shark-finning that is decimating shark populations, stops the killing of octopi, and ends the drowning of dolphins and turtles.
• We finally create a moral code of behavior that is based upon biocentric innate value; it is more consistently applied to all individuals of all species and ecosystems.

Photograph ©Jim Robertson

TIME TO END A TWISTED TRADITION!

Unless a severe blow to the head or some congenital brain disorder has rendered them incapable of feeling empathy, anyone who has witnessed the harrowing ordeal suffered by an animal caught in a leg-hold trap should be appalled and outraged that trapping is legal in a society that considers itself civilized.

The continuation of this hellish violation in a country governed by the people suggests that either most folks have brain damage, or the majority of the voting populace is blissfully unaware of the terrible anguish someone caught in a trap goes through.

They must never have heard the cries of shock and agony when an animal first feels the steel jaws of a trap lock onto his leg. They must never have looked into the weary eyes of a helpless captive who has been stuck for days and nights on end…

Sidestepping the indisputable cruelty issue, pro-trapping factions try to perpetuate the myth that this demonic practice is “sustainable,” but time and again entire populations are completely trapped out of an area, often within a single season. The winter after I found wolf tracks in Alaska’s Katmai National Park, all seven members of a pack who had filled a niche in and around that preserve were killed by trappers. Though wolves are extinct or endangered in most of the US, but 1500 are permissibly “harvested” in Alaska each year.

Leg-hold traps are now banned in 88 countries and a few enlightened US states. Yet in most states, as in Canada, this twisted tradition is not only legal, it’s practically enshrined as a sacred human right. Compassionate people everywhere must add their voice to the rising call to end this gratuitous torture for good.

__________________________________________

Text excerpted from the chapter “Time to End a Twisted Tradition” in the book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport.

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Snaring’s About the Sickest

In Alaska, bears—in addition to wolves—are routinely hunted, trapped and shot from planes under the deathly ill-advised notion that eliminating those animals leaves more moose or caribou for more hunters to slay. What the Alaska state Board of “Game” can’t seem to figure out is, as the number of hunters goes up, the quantity of moose goes down, simple as that. Will we have to see an Alaska devoid of bears and wolves before the game players finally figure out who’s to blame?

But if anything could be sicker than aerial gunning for bears, it’s snaring them. Bear snaring is a recent addition to Alaska’s long history of animal abuse and exploitation; this new act of depravity was allowed “experimentally” for the first time in 2008.

In the following excerpt from an article, posted January 12, 2012 in the Anchorage Press, Bill Sherwonit dared to imagine just what snaring is really like for its victims:

Picture this: An adult female grizzly bear is roaming forested lowlands on the western side of Cook Inlet when she gets a whiff of ripe, decaying flesh. Sensing an easy meal, the bear follows her nose to a large tree. Several feet above the ground, a bucket partly filled with rotting guts and skin has been attached to the tree; placed on its side, the open-lidded container faces outward, inviting inspection. The grizzly stands and sniffs around the cavity, then sticks her right paw into it. When the paw hits the bottom of the pail, it triggers a metal snare that closes around the animal’s foot. Feeling the pinch of the trap, the grizzly pulls back. As she does, the metal loop tightens.

Two cubs have followed her to the bait. Now, sensing their mother’s agitation, they too become upset. One begins to bawl. This only deepens the adult bear’s determination to free herself. With her free paw she swats and tears at the bucket and tree and she pulls even harder against the snare, which begins to cut through the animal’s thick fur and into her flesh. Now the embodiment of rage, the adult grizzly roars and snaps her jaws, thrashes about. The cubs wail louder.

Eventually exhausted by her struggles, the grizzly mom slumps against the tree, while the whimpering cubs huddle together nearby. More time passes and the trapped grizzly resumes her fight for freedom. The cubs again cry in panic.

It goes like this for hours. A day might pass before the trapper-called a “snare permittee” by state wildlife officials-comes to check the snare, even longer if he’s delayed for some reason. When he does show up, the grizzly mom goes berserk. Depending on their age and personalities, the cubs might charge the person, run off, or huddle in fear. These two retreat into nearby bushes.

The trapper could legally shoot the cubs, now in their second year, but he chooses to ignore the small, frightened bears and heads for their mom. He takes aim, fires his gun, and kills her…

The cubs remain in hiding. Without their mother, it’s more likely they will starve than survive the summer.

Even five years ago, the idea was unimaginable: trap and shoot Alaska’s bears so that human hunters might kill more moose.

Okay, that’s not entirely true. Always trying to come up with new ways to rid Alaska’s landscape of competitors for moose and caribou meat, at least a few predator-control proponents, Ted Spraker among them, were looking toward Maine, then the only state to allow the snaring of bears. The retired Department of Fish and Game biologist worked nearly three decades to increase kills of wolves and bears, primarily to benefit sport hunters.…

Stomach churning stuff—those “snare permitees” must be as callous as they come. I’m just glad Sherwinot saved me the heartache of making the imaginary journey myself this time.

The late, Canadian naturalist and author, R D Lawrence, wrote:

“Killing for sport, for fur, or to increase a hunter’s success by slaughtering predators is totally abhorrent to me. I deem such behavior to be barbaric, a symptom of the social sickness that causes our species to make war against itself at regular intervals with weapons whose killing capacities have increased horrendously since man first made use of the club—weapons that today are continuing to be ‘improved’.”

Contact in for the Alaska Board of Game can be found here: http://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/stop-bear-snaring-and-wolf-trapping-adjacent-to-denali/

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Stop Bear Snaring and Wolf Trapping Adjacent to Denali

Please Tell the Board of Game to Vote “Yes” to Stop Bear Snaring and “Yes” to Create a No-Trapping Buffer Zone Adjacent to Denali!

Dear Wildlife Supporter,

The Alaska Board of Game will meet in Wasilla from February 8 – 15, 2013 to vote on proposals governing wildlife management regulations for the Central and Southwest regions of Alaska.

The BOG has many, many proposals to consider at this meeting – there are many worthy proposals to support and even more that need to be opposed. However, AWA is focusing on two crucial issues: bear snaring (Proposal 105) and protecting Denali’s wolves (Proposal 86).

You may review all of the proposals online via the link below and make additional comments on as many as you choose.

E-mail comments on the proposals are due to info@akwildlife.org by 5:00 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013, and we will deliver them to the Board of Game prior to the start of the meeting. (The BOG does not accept comments via e-mail.)

Comments should specifically state “support” or “oppose” and the proposal number(s) on which you are commenting.

Comments also may be faxed or mailed so they are received by the Board of Game before February 7.

Comments:

ATTN: Board of Game Comments
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Boards Support Section
P.O. Box 115526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526

Fax comments to:
(907) 465-6094

The current BOG proposal book is available in pdf format online at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.meetinginfo. Proposal numbers 45 through 126 (pages 62 – 198) are scheduled to be considered at this meeting.

We are asking you to please comment in support of the following two proposals:

Proposal 105 (page 158), submitted by AWA, would ban grizzly and black bear snaring in the Southwest and Central regions.

* Scientists overwhelmingly agree that bear snaring is indiscriminate, cruel and not biologically sustainable.

* Bear snaring is an extremely controversial method of killing animals. The BOG tarnishes Alaska’s image for residents and non-residents alike by insisting on continuing its war on predators. Bear snaring has never been allowed in Alaska since statehood until the BOG approved an experimental program in 2008.

* Because bear snaring is indiscriminate, females with dependent cubs and cubs themselves are at risk. Bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates and it is for this reason modern scientific management principles discourage the harvest of females.

* Enforcement will be a nightmare for the Alaska State Troopers, who are already stretched thin.

* There are the dangers to other consumptive users, hikers and their pets who may come upon a situation where one bear is caught while its siblings or mother remain free in the area, creating the very real possibility of severe injuries or fatalities.The baited traps also create food-conditioned bears, and animals which learn to associate food with humans are a danger to our communities.

* Bear snaring is archaic, cruel and should be banned.

* Living bears have a very high value as a tourism draw and a source of revenue. They are almost always cited as one of the “big three” species visitors come to Alaska to see.

Proposal 86 (page 126) would re-establish a no-trapping buffer zone adjacent to Denali National Park. This proposal would provide crucial protection for wolves that wander across the Park boundary onto state land in search of prey or mates, where they are targeted by several recreational trappers.

* Wolf populations (and therefore viewing opportunities) have declined significantly in the Park due in part to trapping along the east and south Park boundary. The most recent official survey (Spring 2012) found a total of only 70 wolves in nine packs in the six million acre park – one of the lowest populations in decades.

* Several hundred thousand visitors annually travel to Denali to view wolves and other wildlife. Two or three recreational trappers targeting wolves habituated to the sight and smell of humans should not be allowed to negate visitors’ viewing opportunities (nor the millions of dollars they spend in the state).

* The loss of only one wolf to these trappers can result in a huge impact on viewing opportunities in the Park. Last spring the alpha female of the Grant Creek pack was trapped and killed just outside the Park boundary. The pack produced no pups last year, and subsequently dispersed. For years the Grant Creek pack had offered hundreds of thousands of Park visitors the best, most frequent opportunities to view wild wolves.

[Note: a six year moratorium on submitting proposals to re-establish a Denali buffer zone was enacted by the BOG in 2010. A request to the BOG in January to rescind its moratorium was met with a quick, unanimous refusal to even consider the matter. It is not known how the BOG will deal with Proposal 86 at the February meeting.]

Please take the time to speak out on behalf of Alaska’s wildlife. Our bears and wolves need your support.

As ever, thank you for your support and for your commitment to Alaska’s wildlife.

Best regards,
Tina M. Brown
President
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

PS: We will of course let you know the outcome of these and other proposals after the conclusion of the BOG meeting.

Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, AK 99520
info@akwildlife.org

http://www.akwildlife.org

A Day in the Sun for the Hayden Wolf Pack

The following is an excerpt from the book, Exposing the Big Game: Living Targets of a Dying Sport. The wolf in the photo is the alpha male of the Haden Pack…

 

Winters come early to the interior of Yellowstone, but the third week in October, 2007, was unseasonably warm, and the Hayden wolf pack lay stretched out in the bright afternoon light on a west-facing slope below the tree line, taking full advantage of what might be their last chance to sunbathe until spring. With a snow level creeping towards the valley bottom, the adult wolves knew that temperatures were soon to plummet and they may not get another restful nap like this for a long, long time.

The Hayden pack consisted of nine members, including a gray alpha male, a pure white alpha female, three gray pups born that spring, the sole black pack member (another half-grown pup sporting an extra thick coat) and three gray yearlings—one of whom was away on his own excursion.

As the waning sun sank behind the western hills enough to shroud their rendezvous site in shadows, the alpha male grew restless, slowly getting up to stretch. One by one, the rest of the pack rose and fell in line as their leader started in the direction of the Yellowstone River.

The wolves moved fluidly down a sagebrush slope that led to a bank above the river. The veteran male led the pack south along the bank to a point that provided an easy crossing. He was the first to take to the water, followed by the two yearlings. The stark white female was a harsh, blinding streak as she swam ahead of the pups on this, the safer part of their journey…

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2012. All Rights Reserved