Aerial hunting of wolves-opinions?

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-13-2006
Aerial hunting of wolves-opinions?
25
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 11:36am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr183lk-wQk


After watching this video, what is you opinion? Is this okay? Should it be illegal?


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2001
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 1:49pm

You can not buy a permit to go on an aerial hunt in Alaska. Aerial "hunting" is only done on the discretion of the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Here is a link that explains the predator control program in Alaska. http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.control

Photobucket
VJ-Sig
Avatar for thefalliblefiend
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 1:57pm

"... romanticizing misdirection ..."
Probably due more to confusion than an attempt to deceive.

"It is immaterial that they share 99% of the dna of a dog"
I agree.

"they aren't dogs"
True, (all) wolves are not dogs; however, dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are wolves.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus )

Avatar for thefalliblefiend
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 2:06pm

"Actually, it's more akin to pest control. Like killing woodchucks that are eating your garden."

Maybe, but that seems a stretch. We're not talking about a small plot of land in someone's backyard, but many thousands of square miles of mostly uninhabited wilderness (extremely sparsely inhabited by humans). Usually when we talk about pests we're talking about creatures that are encroaching in areas directly inhabited by humans.

And they are adjudged pests by whom and on what grounds? Are there numbers associated with this? That is, are specific quantifiable claims made?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-03-2008
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 2:21pm

I agree that the video was indeed intense.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-25-2008
Wed, 09-10-2008 - 3:20pm

they are adjudged pest by the Alaska Fish & Wildlife department, which has to authorize hunts, and does so when they (the wolves) become a problem for the elk and caribou populations.


Remember, the elk and caribou provide both food for the indigenous people and a "cash crop" for the state from hunters.


What the Alaskans are doing is managinig the population so that you don't have the "boom/bust" cycle for predators and prey that would occur otherwise.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-23-2008
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 8:46am

Two very important things about wolves from a biologist's perspective: (Warning this is LONG)

1) Not only do wolves share 99% (actually a lot more) of their DNA with dogs - They are the SAME SPECIES!!!! Dogs (Canis lupus familiarus) are a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). They can interbreed and produce viable offspring - they are, in many ways, similar to one another in ways not unlike human races are similar to one another. I would say that a wolf actually has a lot more in common with a dog like a siberian husky that the siberian husky would have in common with, say, a chihuahua. I don't have time to come up with a lengthy list of sources for this, but here is one website that lists several sources at the bottom if you are more interested in this topic. In many ways saying that it is ok to kill the "uncivilized" wolves from the air and not "civilized" dogs would be like saying that it's ok to ride in a helicopter over the Amazon and shoot at the indigenous people who live there. I, of course, realize that is a reduction to absurdity argument (ie. a logical fallacy) but I end up seeing those a lot around election time, so I thought I would use one to emphasize my point. Anyway, in reply to a previous poster - DOGS ARE WOLVES.

Link: http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm (this is actually a pretty cool website if you're into things like phylogenic trees!)

2) This is a more about ALL predators than about just wolves, but anyway, here goes. Anyone with even an introductory knowledge of and/or interest in ecology should realize the important roles that predators play in our ecosystem. The predator-prey relationship, not unlike other biological relationships including symbiosis and competition, form the CORE of population management for the earth. I will also include a link with this point so that those of you who are more interested can read up on it a little more, but the gist is that in artificially controlling a population (be it the predator or the prey) we can wreak havoc on an ecosystem's natural checks and balances. I could lead to extinction or overpopulation of prey species which can lead to overconsumption of certain types of vegetation that could have other important roles that perhaps we don't even realize. In short, ecological connections are FAR more complex than anyone who does not study the topic for a living (and probably even them) could ever understand. Predators are especially in trouble because humans like to be the only predator around. Anyway, since I am not an Alaskan wildlife ecologist, I'll leave it at this: monkeying around with something as important as an ecosystem that we don't really understand does not sound like a good idea.

Link: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html (this is just a simple primer on ecological relationships, but there is a section near the bottom entitled "Complex Interactions in Ecological Communities". It basically discusses the ramifications of removing a specific type of predator - worth a read I think - it's really short)

Last point - this is not about wolves but about politics in general. It is irritating when politicians (ALL OF THEM) use our emotions as a weapon against their rivals. What is INFURIATING to me is that we (as a general population) FALL FOR IT EVERY TIME. It is SO effective. In fact some could argue that it is the MOST effective way to get votes. We have to STOP letting ourselves be manipulated by the fear mongering and other emotional manipulations they throw at us. If you see something that makes you angry, or scared, or any other emotion about a political candidate, check your emotion for 10 seconds, and go find the TRUTH. Then you can make a decision about whether to be outraged. I am not sure about the context of shooting wolves in this video. It looks bad to me, but before I get my panties all in a wad, so to speak, I need to determine the truth behind the propaganda. With the internet, there are a few good websites that are generally non-biased places to get the facts. My favorite is http://www.factcheck.org. It only takes a minute or two to find the truth, but the reality is that it is so much easier just to believe what you are told. Please, for the sake of our country and all that is good about the human race - think for yourselves and get the facts. Don't let yourself be manipulated. The next time you see a smear ad on TV (for either side) you should be OUTRAGED.

Anyway, for those of you still reading, thanks for humoring me and reading this admittedly LONG post :-)

/rant





~Ashley~




pregnancy week by week







~Ashley~

Lilypie 1st Birthday Ticker

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 9:24am

"I don't have any problems with it either. If they were coming onto a farm and killing all the cows the same thing would be done. People in Alaska eat the deer and caribu like we do cows. "

this is not the same situation. we are not talking about a domestic herd of caribou. we are not talking about a clean kill of a predator.

frankly, more people have been killed or mauled by pit bulls. i'm for the aerial hunting of pit bulls.

Bea

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 9:40am

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8851174

news article. read the whole thing for the two opinions but the facts at the end:

"Measure 2 also applies to grizzly bears and wolverines. If measure two passes, it will still remain legal to trap and hunt wolves on foot or by snowmachine, which is how a large majority are being killed now.

This is the third time there's been a statewide vote on this issue. The other votes were in 1996 and 2000, both against aerial shooting. The first vote was overwhelmingly against the issue and the second vote was a very strong majority. However, the state Legislature overturned both of those decisions"

http://www.akwildlife.org/content/view/124/61/

the website belongs to native Alaskans who are hunters. the organization is 35 years old. as far as the voting went, they were concerned and confused that the measure was on the ballot again after being defeated TWICE. for the third vote, the governor used state funds to purchase advertising to promote her preference.

Bea

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 9:55am

I agree with you on this.

"Since I do not live in Alaska and am not familiar with their problem, I will leave it to the Alaskans to keep or abolish arial hunting of wolves."

the problem is: Alaskans have twice voted to abolish aerial hunting. Palin put it back on the ballot and added $400,000 of state money for advertising to promote her side of the argument.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 10:04am

thank you for the long post. especially this part:

"Last point - this is not about wolves but about politics in general. It is irritating when politicians (ALL OF THEM) use our emotions as a weapon against their rivals. What is INFURIATING to me is that we (as a general population) FALL FOR IT EVERY TIME. It is SO effective. In fact some could argue that it is the MOST effective way to get votes. We have to STOP letting ourselves be manipulated by the fear mongering and other emotional manipulations they throw at us. If you see something that makes you angry, or scared, or any other emotion about a political candidate, check your emotion for 10 seconds, and go find the TRUTH. Then you can make a decision about whether to be outraged. I am not sure about the context of shooting wolves in this video. It looks bad to me, but before I get my panties all in a wad, so to speak, I need to determine the truth behind the propaganda."

I became aware of the videos on youtube the day of Palin's selection. i never mentioned them here because i thought the videos themselves are irrelevant and out of the scope of those of us who don't live in Alaska. it would be a HUGE mistake for them to be used in a political ad IMHO.

but i think the means that were used in the state government to promote and ultimately win a measure that Palin personally fosters is worth consideration.

Bea