An Alaskan wolf pack apparently hunted and killed a jogger. Hunters are now out to kill the pack. From the story:
Alaska authorities have dispatched teams of hunters to the Chignik Lake area of the Alaska Peninsular to hunt down the wolves they have concluded stalked and killed a special education teacher who apparently was taking a left afternoon run. Candice Berner, 32, appeared to have been killed Monday evening during a run along a remote road outside the Alaska Peninsula community, according to troopers.
The state medical examiner concluded, following an autopsy Thursday morning, that the cause of death was “multiple injuries due to animal mauling.” Based on interviews with biologists and villagers in Chignik Lake, troopers concluded wolves were the animals most likely responsible, troopers spokeswoman Megan Peters said in a statement. The state Department of Fish and Game still wants to conduct DNA testing to help study the incident, but troopers are convinced it was a wolf attack, troopers director Col. Audie Holloway said. “We are as close to 100 percent certain as you can be,” Holloway said. Troopers investigating the scene found many wolf paw prints around the body, which had been partially eaten, and bloody drag marks in the snow, he said. Investigators were able to conclude after the autopsy that the animal injuries caused the death and were not inflicted post-mortem, he said.
The wolved did nothing “wrong” in killing this poor woman. They are incapable of right and wrong, which is to say, they are amoral beings. Hence, hunting them down isn’t punishment. Rather, the lethal action is being taken to protect public safety.
If history is any guide, expect some howling from animal rights activists and others to save the wolves, despite the lethal threat they pose to people. On the other hand, Alaskans are closer to the land. Urbanites usually are the ones who object to killing animals that pose a risk to the public safety. Those who see nature as it truly is generally understand that it sure isn’t Eden.
March 12th, 2010 | 2:44 pm
How horrible! May Candice rest in peace with God in heaven.
March 12th, 2010 | 2:55 pm
I’ve known some wolf experts, NOT animal rightists, who have long claimed there has never been a fatal attack on a human by a wolf. I think even those folks recognize that if wolves get hungry enough, and a human is the only prey they can find, they’ll make an exception.
But generally they prefer to stay the heck away from us, so it seems like there may be more to this story. When a pattern that’s held for hundreds of years breaks, something pushed it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
padraig: Perhaps numbers are up. Remember, there used to be a bounty on wolves that severely depleted their populations. Also, I think wolves killed people in earlier times. But the reason isn’t relevant to the post.
March 12th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
The one assertion regarding wolves and people that I saw said that no wolves had killed anyone in N. America. Given this case, I’m now sure that isn’t true, but the statement in itself said nothing about Europe, where attacks by wolves have definitely been documented.
March 12th, 2010 | 3:26 pm
There was almost certainly a fatal wolf attack in Canada in 2005, and a woman was killed by wolves in captivity in Ontario in 1996. Wolf attacks are rare, but they do happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans
Now that the wolf population is again healthy, a hunting season is probably the best thing to make sure wolves in North America learn to keep away from people.
March 12th, 2010 | 7:02 pm
[...] Hunters to Kill Amoral Human-Killing Wolves » Secondhand Smoke | A … DATAMINDER 3.0: Majority Oppose Euthanasia in USAMajority Oppose Euthanasia in USA » Secondhand Smoke | A First …French village went insane after CIA spiked its bread with LSD …From Trinidad to Indian village, a connection lost and found …From Trinidad to Indian village, a connection lost and found (Feature)Court agrees The Village overpaid taxes – Local | Centre Daily …Fantastic holiday Village in North Cyprus – Bilgi, Turkey Travel BlogThe Mid-Majority : My School: IdahoDay Two: the Speaker and House Majority Leader Back Away from …Chicken Soup For The Indian Romantic Soul « Sachiniti View the Contact Powered by Tools [...]
March 12th, 2010 | 7:26 pm
Respectfully, wolves are statistically unlikely to attack human beings. Sure, you can provide isolated cases where they do, but that hardly warrants a state sponsired killing of them. The’re main objective is eating and reproducing. Killing humans is just not very conducive to obtaining these things. Ironically, by killing them first, and asking questions later, we’re bahaving in a very animalistic way. I thought we were the exceptional species? A more humane, and responsible approach would be to carefully adopt a contraceptive strategy to reduce their reproductive capabilities. And, yes, wolves are amoral, but just because they have no moral duties to us, does not necessitate thta we have no moral duties to them. Otherwise, with this dubious logic, human babies, who are amoral, and hence, have no moral duties to us would mean that we have no moral duties to them! Obvious nonsense.
March 12th, 2010 | 9:36 pm
I don’t really want wolves to be hunted either, but…um…how do you suppose we “adopt a contraceptive strategy to reduce their reproductive capabilities.”?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
THESE wolves need to be hunted. All wolves do not need to be hunted.
March 12th, 2010 | 9:54 pm
All you need to do is walk a hospital ward to see that Nature isn’t Eden and there probably is no interventionist god.
March 12th, 2010 | 10:13 pm
Why is the solution to every problem of nature “adopt a contrceptive strategy”???
I for one am sick of hormonal contraceptives polluting my ecosystem and would like there to be less of that happening. It’s bad enough that there are so many chemicals coming out of humans to screw up the water supply; let’s not get animals in on it too.
March 12th, 2010 | 11:29 pm
Fear of man is the wolves best protection. If we hunt them ,they learn to avoid us. It becomes a natural instinct for them to avoid humans if they learn that we can kill them and can sucessfuly hunt the wolf. Anyone that believes wolves never killed people in North America has very little sense of reality.
March 12th, 2010 | 11:36 pm
BTW the young singer killed here in Cape Breton was killed by hybrid coyotes that are more wolf then coyote and several more dangerous encounters have happened since she was killed. Witnesses to her death have losrt all compassion for the coyote. They couldn’t rescue the poor girl for fear of their own lives. They watched as the wolf/coyotes ripped her face off and then pulled her leg out of her hip joint. Killing animals that kill humans is NOT about revenge. It is about the prevention of a repeat of such a slaughter.
March 13th, 2010 | 1:31 am
@ Bret lythgoe, I couldn’t agree more.
Many animals pose threats to humans and in rare situations, those threats can become reality. It is an awful thing what happened to that woman and I am deeply sorry for her family.
That being said, since 2003, more than 1000 wolves have been murdered (most through the inhumane usage of aerial hunting). This unfortunate event has occured at very controversial time for wolves, as non-science-based “predator control” measures are being taken in Alaska. Their population is dwindling and if this wolf murder continues, they are headed for the same path as the mexican wolf, which has a population of only 42 left.
It will be very difficult to determine exactly which wolves killed this woman, and exactly how many wolves attacked her. State troupers are bound to kill wolves that may be innocent. I don’t want to see any more blood in the snow- human blood, nor wolf blood.
Please consider learning more about the wolves in their situation in Alaska before determining whether they should be slaughtered or not.
Learn more at http://www.defenders.org. Thank you.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 1:34 am
Hannah: Wolves can’t be “murdered.” Only humans can be murdered-by humans, and not wolves or any other animal. I told you folks…
March 13th, 2010 | 8:06 am
I actually do know about the Alaskan wolf hunt and am well educated in the Science of such a CULL. Such a cull is not classed as murder in any dictionary that is aware of what the difference is between killing a wolf and murdering your human neighbor. However if I were to accept your classification of murder then the cull is taking place in order to keep wolves from causing the extinction and genocide of caribou & moose in the areas where the cull takes place. Using defenders of animals as a bench mark of truith is like using gasoline to stem a fire. They are not interested in the real reason why the cull takes place.
The real reason is that Alaskan Wildlife managers called for a wolf kill/cull to protect wolves and the animals they eat. Long term the cull keeps wolves from destroying herds and thus causing more stress upon their own numbers. In fact the greatest killer within wolf society when man is not culling them & wolf pack ratio to food is to high is other wolves. They have an alarming propencity for killing each other in territorial fights.
State Biologists who spend years in University to decide best Wildlife management procedures actually understand those nuances and keep track of such ratios. They study Wildlife and put forth the recommendations for Wildlife management. In this case the Caribou herd was facing extinction and the Biologists put forth a plan that would upgrade the herd from endangered status. The plan worked because the herd had a good bump this year in calf survival. That plan was instituted and it will be instituted again in the future by other Alaskan governors because it works. The herd had dropped from 4,400 to 600 in a few short years because the wolves were killing both calves and mothers which was decimating the herd to the point that it’s survival was in question. BTW, such a shooting program from a plane has nothing to do with hunting whatsoever. It is purely a cull meant to clean out the whole pack so the ungulate herd gets a chance to regain a foothold. Hunting has nothing to do with that program. Strangely those who asked for the cull gets accused of being a vile morons even though the well educated State Biologists whose reversal of herds has brought those herds back from endangered category. Yet untrained emotionalists villify that work for their funding or because they lack the intestinal fortitude to admit the pack & herd are both healthier today then without the cull.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Donnie: The animal rights movement is generally devoid of logic, reason, and rationality. It is pure emotionalism. Your description of ratios and herd health are meaningless to them. You might as well be speaking Swahili. But I appreciate the note very much. It is precisely what we need to reach the rest of the public that doesn’t understand animal rights is not just about being nicer to animals.
March 13th, 2010 | 9:46 am
In his Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife Bulletin Number 13 dated 2002, Mark McNay on page 28 reported that Panuekuk Samsom died on 14 March 1942 from rabies as result of a wolf attack. He lived in Noorvik, Alaska. Also, a ten year old boy named Teddy Segevan from Wainwright, Alaska was killed by a rabid wolf in May 1943.
March 13th, 2010 | 10:44 am
Hello Wesley and good morning. As you and Padraig know I have debated many of the lead hands in the animal rights movement over the years. You are right about the inability to use logical input with them. However I offer Scientific facts to the audience so that they can weigh the facts aginst the emotionalistic blindness that drives the ARA .Thank you for offering us who do understand that it is the species that we must love and not the individuals of each species. When one reaches that point they can cull individual animals knowing the species will be more healthy because of the Wildlife Management Biology.
March 13th, 2010 | 11:13 am
Does shooting (not murdering; an emotional term used by animal rightists and pro-lifers) the wolves thought to be involved in killing Candice Berner solve the problems at the interface between humans and wildlife? Maybe, maybe not. The model for handling these situations is to kill the offending animals and to increase vigilance and protection. Otherwise, killing the three wolves may have little practical impact, much like shooting 3 squirrels at your bird feeder; others in the population quickly fill the void.
This doesn’t mean that killing wolves as part of a wildlife control program is improper, though. As much as it bothers some, regulating the numbers of predators and prey in disturbed ecosystems is often necessary, although the elimination of a species to satisfy human convenience is widely regarded as wrong (although few complained about disrupting the life cycle of the smallpox virus!). Understand too, that the wolves didn’t drag the teacher from a shopping mall, the killing occurred in the wild, where risks can never be eliminated. It’s like running with the Pamplona bulls; you’re more likely to be gored there than at the kitchen table. Frankly, I like seeing the bulls trample an idiot or two.
The concept that we should never harm or even inconvenience other species is just another religious belief, unsupported by reason. Humans evolved as omnivores, scavenging or hunting animals for fat, protein, skins, furs, sinew and bones. Animal fat was even used for fuel. That humans evolved to use tools, fire, other species, and reason shouldn’t be held against us! A confrontation between 3 hungry wolves and a hundred pound human isn’t fair, but a 9mm levels the playing field somewhat.
Our omniverous nature was not forced upon us by the meat-industrial complex over the past few centuries!! Domestic cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens and even dogs and cats co-evolved with the development of human civilization over the past thousands of years. There never existed wild populations of Holsteins, Yorkshire pigs, colllies or American shorthairs roaming the landscape that humans captured and put to work!
As one of thousands of animal species on this planet don’t we humans have the biological obligation to eat to survive and to defend ourselves against predation?
March 13th, 2010 | 11:37 am
Hannah Boresow
Mexican wolves have close to 350 -400 in captivity in a captive breeding program that enhances the 42 currently counted and collared in the recovery on the ground. They will never be extinct as long as that program is viable. So your information is incorrect or false. I wonder about the intent about supplying false information. Also, the wolves in the above case were behaving in a manner known as prey testing and if they had been killed for prey testing in a populated area, Candice would have been spared that horrible death. This isn’t rocket science, when wolves are killing dogs near a community, something that occurs regularly in the Mexican wolf program, and hanging out around humans, they aren’t wondering if you can play the banjo or piano they are looking for a food supply and need to be removed. This is prey testing behavior has occured in every death from wolf attack to date, it allows the animals to become comfortable testing humans before they kill and eat someone. It is very unfortunate Defenders of Wildlife won’t provide correct information on natural wolf behavior. I believe they are single handedly responsible for spreading information that allows a woman like Candice to possibly have believe she was safe running in an area where wolves were actually prey testing humans. People have been snowed by these groups and their money maker agenda’s too long and now people are dying. I also believe Taylor Mitchel was killed by wolf hybrids as well. Science shows the animals 50 miles to the south are hybrid wolves there is no reason to believe those that attacked Mitchel were coyotes. No strong man driven by anger fear and adrenalin, is incapable to driving off a coyote from another human in danger as happened in the Mitchel case but many strong but unarmed men are unable to defend against wolf attack. It is a frightening situation and shouldn’t be compounded by false propoganda.
March 13th, 2010 | 12:33 pm
[Name calling deleted]. Your arguments are non sensical and you use the same old pro hunting arguments that we have heard since the turn of the century. All you needed were a few footprints to convict the wolves and stir the famous anti wolf hatred among your fellow Alaskans.
You blame animal activists for not using logic and yet I do not see where you mention that yesterday it was reported that there were also human footprints other than the victims at the scene.
This could mean that the wolves arrived after she died, regardless of what the medical examiner who obviously is as biased against the wolves as you are has claimed.
And what qualifies Mr. Holoway to say he is almost 100% sure wolves killed this woman. She could have died from a heart attack while jogging or there was foul play involved considering the footprints mentioned in the initial report yesterday, but conveniently dropped from the article since then.
This whole rush to judgement for some reason doesn’t quite pass the “smell test.” There is a lot of unanswered questions that simply cannot confirm the fact that the wolves actually killed this lady.
But then again, out come the hunters and their guns now that these idiots have an excuse to kill. Once again, they will kill every wolf within their sight whether guilty or not and the only thing they will prove in the end, is just how stupid and ignorant the white man is within his own environment.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
They did an autopsy. That would have revealed a heart attack. Like I warned you folks…
March 13th, 2010 | 2:06 pm
Janice:
Your comment about “prey testing” is interesting. I have read that wolves have a concept of “prey image”, that is that they have a sense of which animals are edible, and they will not hunt animals until they’ve learned this. When wolves were reintroduced to northern Minnesota, ranchers saw them using sheep and cattle as cover to sneak up on deer. After a few seasons, the wolves learned that cows are made out of beef, and started killing livestock. If these wolves have formed a prey image of humans, they’re bound to attack again.
The details of the Alaska attack make awful reading – the woman had recently moved up from Pennsylvania, and was jogging alone wearing an iPod. The wolves probably had a chance to stalk her and set up their attack without her noticing – the coroner thought that she was unaware of the wolves until they attacked. She was only 4’11″ tall, and would have been knocked over in the first rush. Ugly. These wolves will have to be killed, or they’ll try and attack more people.
March 13th, 2010 | 3:02 pm
I have been an animal tracker all my life. I can tell a story of animal kills by looking at the kills and even tell from which direction the attack came from on hartd ground let alone in snow. The placement of wolf chase in pursuit or in having a victim cornered so the leader can hold a victim pinned in front while it’s helpers ham string a victim is like an open text book to a trapper or to a person studying animals. I doubt the trackers in Alaska misread the death or how it occurred. But as Wesley noted , the presentation of such knowledgable trackers doesn’t weigh well with folks that want top point fingers in another direction.
March 13th, 2010 | 3:20 pm
Janice, thank you for your important opinions and ideas, however, I do not think you should condemn Defenders of Wildlife (rated the #1 organization for endangered species) as “single handedly responsible for spreading information that allows a woman like Candice to possibly have believe she was safe running in an area where wolves were actually prey testing humans.”
You are correct that there are 42 wolves in the wild currently, and so I should have been more specific in my information; and for that I apologize. That being said, I would like to see where you are getting your information from telling you that there are 350-400 Mexian wolves in captivity. There are actually closer to only 200 wolves in captivity…and although it is nice to think that as long as there are Mexican wolf recovery programs, everything will be alright, that is incorrect. Re-introducing wolves back into the wild does not insure a successful population. That is why Mexican wolves are still on the endangered species list. You can learn more here: http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/mexican_wolf.php
To Wesley and others: I am sorry for my usage of the word “murder.” You are correct and I probably should have used more proper diction such as “killed.” Despite word choice, I think you will find that many grey wolves are being killed unnecessarily and the killings are not all science-based. State troupers have stalled their attempts to pursue these wolves do to extreme weather conditions, and they may turn to aerial hunting as a way to continue the hunt…which is something I fear because aerial hunting is not the way to go about the situation.
I believe that wolf populations do need to be kept in check in order to have a sustainable environment for Alaskans, as well as other animals in the area. Wolves do present a threat, but so does the entire wildlife population of Alaska. I do not support the killings of these specific wolves because I believe that this will not improve relations between humans/livestock farmers/villagers and wolves. Check out this link for more information on ways to improve human-wolf relations:
http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/coexisting_with_carnivores/on_your_ranch/methods/wolves/index.php
I am not saying that these attempts will “fix” all wolf-situations, but I do recommend learning on alternative ways to deal with wolves, rather than just killing them.
Thank you.
March 13th, 2010 | 3:24 pm
Jeffery is correct. Humans have evolved as omnivorous scavengers. (look at the Inuit)
I don’t think wolf would taste very good, though. Probably tough and sinewy.
Any Jeremiah Johnsons out there know?
Maybe they could feed the carcasses to the Kodiak Brown bears up there.
I share your sentiment, Airborne Trooper, over the gun loons. (a real man would make his own weapon and/or kill an animal with his bare hands for consumption and nurishment)
March 13th, 2010 | 11:56 pm
“Jeffery is correct. Humans have evolved as omnivorous scavengers. (look at the Inuit)
I don’t think wolf would taste very good, though. Probably tough and sinewy.
Any Jeremiah Johnsons out there know?
Maybe they could feed the carcasses to the Kodiak Brown bears up there.
I share your sentiment, Airborne Trooper, over the gun loons. (a real man would make his own weapon and/or kill an animal with his bare hands for consumption and nurishment)”
A real man would use the best tool in the animal kingdom. His brain which is also responsible for keeping track of the Science that would notice if to many wolves were killing to many ungulates.
March 15th, 2010 | 4:55 pm
Wolves are an integrel part of are ecosystem. When we start killing them, the unintended consequences, could be emormously bad. How do we ascertain which wolves need to be killed for public safety, Mr.Smith? What sort of identification process would we use? since you stated that THESE wolves, need to be killed, but not all wolves, how do we know for sure who THESE wolves are?
March 15th, 2010 | 8:26 pm
Donnie Mac Leod: You are quite wrong in stating that animal rights activists do not use logic. Have you read the works of Peter Singer and Tom Regan? They use plenty of arguments. One may disagree (and in fact I do disagree with most of their claims), but they’re NOT just about pure emotion.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Bret: Peter Singer isn’t for animal rights. He’s a utilitarian who thinks animals should be given equal consideration in utilitarian constructs. He recently approved using monkeys in Parkinson’s research, for example. But most of animal rights advocacy is purely emotion driven, with graphic photos, anthropomorphism, equating what is done to an animal with what is done to a human, etc.
March 16th, 2010 | 12:43 pm
Hello Bret . You spoke to be directly and I would like to reply directly to you although Wesley has effectively pointed out the Utilitarian philosophy of Singer as they approach their ideology. In fact neither worries about pain & suffering as much as pretending that species are equal only because of Pain perception when you really look at their claims. Neither seems to focus on the fact that only humans adjust to moral values and that that factor alone makes us exceptional animals. Pete Dinger is no deeper in a cogizant reasoning pattern then a linear thinker that has a goal and claims superiority for making his theory fit the goal despite all the tangents that point out his goal is not tenable. As for wolves and ungulates. Man is a bean counter that can do the math and protect the wolf and the ungulates by injecting our humanity into the most cruel deaths of starvation & contagion or over predation.
March 16th, 2010 | 4:49 pm
Mr. Smith: you’re right, Singer is a utilitarian in his ethics. I should have precisely distinguished him from those, like Tom Regan, who believe animals have rights. But it would be misleading to conclude that Singer does not belong in what one might call the radical animal advocacy movement. (for those interested, the current issue of The New York Review of Books, contains a review of a book by Singer and another from his critics and a response from Singer. These books are reviewed by Thomas Nagal, an important philosopher. It’s an excellent synopsis of Singer’s views). Singer believes that all pain, regardless of its possessor, requires equal consideration. His initial book on animal issues, Animal Liberation, was and is a huge motivator for animal advocates. But it’s not true that the animal rights movement is mostly driven by emotion. Please read Regan’s 1984 book The Case For Animal Rights, for an entirely reason driven defense of animals. What’s wrong with graphic photos, as long as they’re accurate? My friends in the Pro-life movement use graphic photos of fetuses, which, in my view is a teaching tool. There are numerous similarities, between humans and other animals, especially mammals, based on sound neurobiological research, and behavioral observations. ”Anthropomorphism” is an INACCURATE comparasion between animals and humans, and then concluding that the animal traits are the same as the human traits. I have not seen this done. Please give an example.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Bret: I discuss Regan at some length in my book. I don’t buy his theory in the least. But he really went off a cliff in my respect when he stated that at some point–not now–violence could be justified to liberate animals. That really did it for me. Source: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?, edited by the real radical Stephen Best, also including such luminaries as the twice convicted felon, Rodney Coronado. As for anthropomorphizing, try Jane Goodall, who I quote admitting doing it on purpose so that we would think chimps are more like us. I quote her too in my book.
March 16th, 2010 | 8:41 pm
Hi Donnie Mac Leod: As I stated before, just because animals have no moral duties to us (since they’re incapable of it) that does NOT mean we have no moral duties to them. Clearly, babies and small children, due to their lack of moral reasoning capacities, have no moral duties to us, but we certainly DO towards them. Does this make adult humans more ”exceptional” than infant or child humans? No sound moral reasoning would support this. How do you know what either cares about? I think that the just view would be to assume that they do care about pain and suffering a lot, unless you can provide convincing evidence otherwise. And, as much as we may profoundly disagree with Singer and Regan, name calling is inappropriate. They’re deserving of respect. Hi Mr. Smith: If Regan support violence, that’s profoundly disturbing, and contradicts his view that all humans and animals have equal rights. He has I believe, a deontological approach to ethics, that we have duties to all humans and animals, regardless of the consequences, due to their possession of human rights. To support violence would mean that it’s ok to sacrifice some rights (the right not to be harmed) for the rights of others, which would make him a consequenialist, and possibly even a utilitarian, which he’s not. In his 2001 book, Defending Animal Rights, he explicitly denounces violence in the name of animal rights. He must have changed his mind, which, if true, makes my respect for him erode completely. It’s hard to believe that he would adopt a position that’s so morally disturbing and repugnant, and as a serious philosopher, would put him in such a contradictory position. However, this still does not alter the fact that they do utilize reason more than emotion. Their positions have to be judged on their logic, not that they also have repugnant postions on other aspects. Otherwise, one would be committed to hating volkswagons, or thinking that they’re bad cars, merely because Hitler, an otherwise evil man, advocated for them. Logic demands that we look at the argument itself, not the possessor of the argument. Chimps clearly are very similar to us, so comparisions between us and them are not that difficult. For her, however, to misled us, by making false comparisions, is clearly inappropriate. But, again, we have to focus on the arguments themselves, that either support animal rights or the opposite, and determine if they’re sound, NOT the morality, or lack thereof, of the transmitters, or originators, of the arguments. Otherwise, you’re engaged, ironically, in emotionalism yourself, by trying to show how repugnant these people are.
March 21st, 2010 | 1:42 am
As an Alaskan Native I grieve for this family’s loss, for I have for decades listening to Alaska Native Elders warning of and hoping that this day would never come. Regrettably it has and based on their warnings, there will be other attacks.
What hasn’t been asked is what condition the wolves were that were killed by the state. The otherwise healthy male and female couple were 40% below the average weight of healthy adults. In other words they were malnourished or starving. Why? Because the predator protectionist policies promoted by defenders of wildlife stopped every single attempt to control their numbers. They actually procreated and ate themselves right out of house and home. Alaska’s wolves have run out of food and now are hunting in and around not just one village, but in villages and cities, all over Alaska. Think about it folks, Alaska is 365 million acres of wildlife habitat and these wolves ran out of food!!!!!!!
How many know that over recent past winters wolves came into the city of Anchorage and Fairbanks and actually took pets of leashes while the pet owners were still holding the leash? Why? It’s simple, they were over protected, overproduced and ran out of their natural prey.
The conservation industry extremists and the defenders of wildlife’s, have enjoyed unbridled success in raising endless amounts of money to protect the wolf and “Save Alaska”. They make a killing in fund raising, while their success is actually killing Alaska’s wildlife. I really wish they fully understood the incredible amount of harm their successes have caused, not only to Alaska’s wildlife, but also irrepairable damage to thousands of families in the Alaska’s Native Community, many who are now homeless because of the successful policies of the Defenders of Wildlife.
Because of their overwhelming success in protecting the wolves, Denali National Park’s 6 million acres of America’s most pristine widlife habitat, has lost 90% of its moose and sheep populations over the last 25 years. One can’t blame that on human hunters since there is no recreational hunting in the parks. The wolves born in the park are now hunting in Anchorage, Fairbanks and countless villages across the state. They’ve sucked up every ounce of protein so that throughout much of Alaska there are no tracks in the snow of any other wildlife, only wolves.
Today, it is a fact that Alaska, once a world wildlife treasure, is now the least productive wildlife state in the nation, bar none. It is a fact that wildlife harvests in Alaska have dropped more than 30% since 2001. It is a fact that more grazing wildlife was successfully harvested within 60 miles of Washington, D.C. than was harvested in all of Alaska. The world’s largest deer specie, the Alaskan moose is now down to an estimate 100,000; down 75% in the last 20 years. There are now 4 state’s that produce 100 times more wildlife per acre than does Alaska.
The defenders are quick to come up with lots of excuses that are based not on fact but conjecture. How about using some of that fund raising machine of theirs to do actually document independent fact based wildlife counts?
We are constantly told by the conservationists that they are only the ones using “Good” Science. Okay? Where is their Science? When was the last time they did a true, independently verifiable, wildlife census in Alaska? The answer is NEVER! Is that “Good” Science? Can you have “Good” Science if you don’t have accurate data?
For the last 25 years their policies and efforts have created an Alaska Wildlife Wasteland. One day will we see a bumper sticker that says, “The Conservationists and Defenders Won, Alaska’s wildlife is Dead!”?
Many may find what I’ve said here politically incorrect, unbelievable or unverifiable. I can’t repeat here all the damage these irresponsible wildlife polices have caused. I am willing to discuss this issues at length with those who can make a difference. To encourage individual research and legitimate dialogue, I offer $1,000 dollars to the first person who can document and prove that Alaska is not the least productive state per acre in the nation in wildlife hunting harvests. I say hunting harvests, because there exists no other verifiable method of counting wildlife harvests in our nation. To answer the next question, no I am not a hunter.
I continue to hope that this trend can be turned around. As happened on Isle Royale, the wolves will soon be eating wolves, if they aren’t already. What anthropomorphic policies will the Defenders of Wildlife propose then?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact