Hmmm…humans are top-line predators as well. Maybe we ought to allow the aerial gunning of humans in order to keep *our* numbers under control?

If your answer is “no”, you might be a speciesist.

In all seriousness, this is an animal RIGHTS blog. Your argument that we need to hunt wolves in order to “save” them is 1) an animal WELFARE argument, which I reject on ethics and 2) silly. (Incidentally, it also sounds like something that might come out of the Bush administration, in all their infinite wisom.)

Wolves are hunted not because there are too many of them, but because they compete with human hunters over big game. Can’t have that now, can we?

If certain conditions have led to wolf overpopulation, we must allow nature to balance out their numbers without our (artificial) interference. If some will starve, so be it. That’s what happens in nature – and it’s not any less humane than chasing them to an exhausted death with coptors.

Or, if you prefer to interfere, and a balanced scientific report can show that current wolf numbers are unsustainable, what about nonlethal methods of population control, such a sterilization. Oh, but wait, the hunters won’t be able to get their rocks off on killing “beautiful, intelligent, animals that mate for life and have strong family values.”

As for your defense of “effective wildlife management practices” – fish and game agencies make their money by selling hunting licenses. Without inflated numbers of game animals to hunt, they lose a source of their revenue. Their agenda isn’t about effectively and humanely balancing wildlife populations, but about serving HUMAN needs. It’s fucked.

Nice try with the propaganda and race-baiting though.

Before anyone starts sending hate mail, please hear me out. Wolves and bears are top line predators, meaning that there are no natural predators to control their numbers. If you love animals, you must think about the consequences to other animal species if they are allowed to overpopulate in any given area. In a worst case scenario, disaster ensues for the overpopulated predator species as well. When their natural food sources become scarce, they will savage and prey on not only each other, but humans and domestic animals as well.

Aerial management may seen unfair and barbaric, but consider the alternative that was used before airplanes were available. They were poisoned with strychnine baits. Poisoning likely affected non targeted species as well – such as eagles.

Alaska has attempted other management methods in the past. See: http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/management/control/predator_management.pdf

Now let us discuss the impact of these predator species on humans. There seems to be a misconception that managing the population of these species is merely an attempt to preserve moose and caribou for sport hunting. On the contrary, the very lives and existence of approximately 16% of Alaska’s populaton is at stake. These are the native tribes that have depended on wild game as their main source of sustenance for thousands of years. It’s not like they can become vegetarians in these regions. I might argue that the continued existence of rural native Alaskan people is at far greater risk than the wildlife.

Taken from http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5791&page=36 :

“The first humans in the Western Hemisphere are believed to have come from Asia across the Beringian land bridge into Alaska 12,000-15,000 years ago.” It is their home, too. For those that argue that the problem is simply too many humans in Alaska rather than too many wolves and bears, let me point out that there are approximately 635,000 residents or about 1.1 persons per square mile – in an area that is twice the size of Texas and one fifth the size of the lower 48 states. In the lower 48, there are approximately 79 people per square mile. Plenty of elbow room! The state’s population ranks 47th in the nation. “Human activities have had less effect on the ecosystems of Alaska than elsewhere in the United States. Conversion of land to agricultural use has been minimal, as is the extent of land alteration through mining and petroleum development.”

My conclusion: Perhaps you don’t care about the tribes of people who are the last remaining ancestors of the “First Americans”. Do you not care about all of the other animal species at stake when bears and wolves overpopulate? Is there no concern for livestock, dogs, cats, and human children that are attacked when these predators are allowed to diminish too much wild game in a given area? And finally, have you no concern for the affect on the wolves, themselves, when they overpopulate? Aside from them preying on each other when food sources become scarce, it leads to a natural progression of disease and starvation among them.

Posted by Bronco in the Daily Interlake: “The waxing and waning of species populations are regulated by nature and she seems heartless and cruel in her choices at times. Forget romantic notions of her preserving only the animals we hold dear and erasing the invasive and ugly ones. Fish and game management agencies throughout the country have been employing well thought out agendas that have led to game populations that exceed those before we set foot here hundreds of years ago. Those agencies have people in them who are concerned for our wildlife, not butchers who rejoice in their deaths. It’s unfortunate for the wolves, I agree. They are beautiful, intelligent, animals that mate for life and have strong family values. But left to propagate unattended they will follow the course of all species who find their numbers swelled to overpopulation. Mother nature introduces disease and starvation.”

Before we jump on the bandwagon and condemn the people of Alaska while sitting at computers in our urban homes, let us educate ourselves about the issues first.