Palin and aerial shooting of Wolves - Page 4

I realize that this is a touchy subject for all sides.  First off, having had to study statistics and having wonderful professors, I know that statistics can be skewed just about any way you would want, I don't always trust them. I would like to see a REAL independant study of the impact of wolves on Alaskan prey animals used by humans for food. 

Until humans learn that they need to work with nature, respect it and honor the boundaries, things like this wolf hunt will continue.  It's just like working with our dogs, as long as we take the time to understand them and their limitations and abilities, work with not against their nature, and treat them with respect, we get jack crap for a working dog.  Strict compulsion , arrogance, pride, superiority, heavy-handedness, and inflexibility get you nowhere with a dog, why should it work with anything else?

Not really sure what you thought you'd accomplish with the photos, darylehret, but I have a strange suspicion an opposite effect than intended has been seeded in many minds today.  As to addressing some of MYOB (not Alaska's) comments......IMO...rather mute now.  Presently, Sarah Palins' opinions and policies might become EVERY state's business.  Personally, I have reservations and concerns that involve both parties and their choices.  As for S.P., I'm not thrilled to hear...."She's a big game hunter."  Doesn't sit well with me......nor does viewing the smug face of that buffoon posing with his trophy.  This election, I'm really at odds whichever way I turn and would imagine there are many such as myself.
 

I live in a different world than the ranchers and realize their mindset is immoveable. Something comes to mind right now, and maybe the darylehret's of the world will ponder the other immoveable mindset......labeled 'Brittany's'.  Monday night's TV programming has a show called 'Jon and Kate'. You know, the reality saga with the 'twins' and 'sextuplets'.  In one scene, they had 'friday-night-video'.  As the family watched a documentary about animals......supposedly a lion attacked and killed a monkey.  Different reactions.  Kate(the mother) was concerned for children watching.  The sextuplets(age 4) were standing around observing with perplexed curiosity and some concern...........and then there was 'Maddy' (one of the twins, age 7). Maddy had more of an hysterical, crying...gut reaction. I saw a much higher emotional response... not on the same level as the others.  The father, Jon, starts explaining the 'circle of life'.  The only one not listening is Maddy.  She's programmed differently.........like many here.

So...tonight, I'll watch S.P.  This election is tough.........for me, anyway. BOTH  the parties made stupid decisions------disregarding and placating women top my list.

 "Not really sure what you thought you'd accomplish with the photos, darylehret, but I have a strange suspicion an opposite effect than intended has been seeded in many minds today."

I'm sure you are right, pictures talk more that words, or the concepts they are meant to illustrate.  While I admit diverting from the original topic of Alaska's wolves to report on the registered ownership of wolves in Montana, let me offer a comparative analogy regarding Yellowstone's wolf reintroduction; imagine transporting grizzly bears to replentish a dwindling Florida black bear population.  That would result in a very different impact on the evironment and its present species, as well as the people.  The point was that this species of wolves never did belong in the Yellowstone region, and this did not occur until humans intervened.  The wolves you see above are obviously not the original predecessors, and about as different as Malinios are to German Shepherds.  The result is entirely different, nothing "restored" at all.

Back on topic; while I don't advocate arial shooting of wolves, I do believe management is necessary.  Wolves do kill for sport, and do kill more than is necessary.  As a keystone species, they can easily upset fragile ecosystems, at the expense of other species, mankind will certainly be the least affected.  By the way, arial shooting isn't the only form of population management taken, Alaska's Department of Fish and Game have euthanized wolf pups also... http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/501699.html

All around the world, the cry for wolf reintroduction has been made.  Anywhere they had once roamed, wolf advocates (or idealists) will push to re-establish that territory.  Very premature, if you ask me, considering that conservationists haven't set precedence by devising an effective management strategy that anyone is pleased with... and of course many will leap for the idea... oblivious and underestimating of the devastating effects it may cause.

Germany hears the call of the wild as wolves return after 200 years

So a few wolves were shot. So what. Ask cattle and sheep ranchers what wolves do to their herds. Overpopulation of wildlife causes massive killoffs as well as sickness among the overpopulated. Those crying about these animals being shot, and hunting in general, have no idea of what happens in the real wildlife world but get their infoo from anti-hunting groups. Really sad. Animals have to be culled to maintain their health and that of other animals in their symbiotic relationship or all die or become diseased. Those allowing this to occur are wildlife biologists and know what to do, not internet experts who know little.

Maybe you should find out the real reason for killing the MANY (not a few) wolves via aerial killing - it's culling, not hunting - nothing ethical or moral about it.  The wolves must go because there is big money in big-game HUNTING in the area, not because the wolves are killing livestock (what livestock is living in the wilds of Alaska, do tell?), and not because wolves are dangerous to humans.  It's because the wolves are competing for the game that big game hunters (not living in Alaska, but coming in with their money to hunt large game).  It's all about money.  The wolves are the losers.  There is no legitimate reason to chase any animal to exhaustion in the snow and shoot from above, nothing humane or logical about it.

I like wolfs to but they need to be controlled we now have to many in Wisconsin 8 hunting dogs killed this year in August during training season alone.  Now they are all the way to farm & urban areas. Just check the distribution map for this year.

http://dnr.wi.gov/ORG/LAND/ER/mammals/wolf/dogdepred2003.htm

Dan Reiter

First and foremost, I do agre IMO aerial killing of wolves is chicken shit. I don't like to see it, the wolf has no advantage. But then I do not live in Alaska so I cannot say what is best for Alaska!

Next is how many of you who think wolves are so harmless "live" where when you walk out your door to go for a walk, the thought is ever present, I may see wolves today with my dog?? If this isn't even in the realm of your scope of thought, why do you think you have the right to make judgement? I live in this reality. How would you like it for you in the cities dealing with gangs etc. If I came along and said now "boys will be boys", don't go getting all upset about their drive by's! Granted people are not wolves, but give it some thought. The wolves do damage, and it is not "us" encroaching into their territory! I have lived in the same spot for 30 years, until 5 years or so ago even though we had wolves, we did not have "so" many wolves! I never thought or worried about them on "my" back door! Now I do. And yes I personally know ranchers and people that have had livestock or their pet killed.

To think it's about protecting hunting shows the knowledge of the anti-hunting crowd. Wolves would cull the weak, leaving more forage for the fewer healthy game animals to become even more attractive targets. When game animals become overpopulated, they get smaller and become less attractive as trophies which would occur if too many wolves were removed. This has proven true time and time again.

Again, it's interesting how internet experts know more about game management than game biologists. I guess the internet lets people opine on things they know nothing about. Isn't it great?

Hmmm. let's see - wolves or humans? Which will it be?  I guess we all know the answer to that one. Anyone who would take a dog into an area clearly marked as an area is frequented by wolves (or a similar warning) is not all that bright.  How many of you would have done that? In this case, yes, the humans were at fault. I agree with Molly, that photo is staged, not a live wolf.

No doubt it's a terrible problem in some areas and I wish there were a good solution that would appeal to all of us, but there's not. If I lived in Alaska, I'd not want to put my family or dogs in jeopardy of being attacked by a pack of wolves although I don't feel all warm and fuzzy about encroaching on their territory and destroying their natural habitat either. Hard to have it both ways, isn't it? I guess we'll soon have to go to a zoo to see a wolf.

I won't vote for McCain but not because of Palin and her stand on the wolf population. I can see her side of it. I won't vote for him for many other reasons, none of which involve her.

I don't have to live in Alaska to have the right to my feelings about protecting our countries' wilderness areas, wildlife and environment.  I don't have to see a wild wolf, but I want to know they are out there, living and thriving.  If I wanted to see a wild wolf, I want to know where I can go to do so.  If I didn't want to live in an area where you have to worry about your dogs being killed by predators, then don't live in a place where predators mingle with people (because the people moved into their territory).  Move into the lower 48 where wolves are not so plentiful.  If I decide I want to mingle with wolves, I can move to Alaska or Canada.  YOu can then deal with the gangs instead of wolves, guns instead of 4-legged predators, traffic instead of difficulty traveling in the snow, heat instead of cold - That's what "free country" means to me.

In the open areas such as Alaska, there is plenty of game (as you say, sick, old, injured, very young are the ones preyed upon by wolves) for wolf and man to hunt and eat.  No livestock to worry about, at least not in wolf territory.  If there are too many wolves, then get legitimate hunters in there to hunt them - sell more permits to people who know what they are doing and enjoy the real hunt for the smart and wary wolf.  Let them bring home their trophies after they worked hard for it.  Aerial killing/culling is the question, and for me there is no legitimate reason for it.  Only politicians like Palin who have an agenda that includes killing the wolves en mass. 

molly