Alaskans Will Once Again Vote On Aerial Wolf Management

This will be the third time Alaskans get to vote on whether to stop the Alaska Board of Game from utilizing aerial shooting of wolves in specified areas in order to protect and/or bolster herds of caribou and moose. Alaska Center for the Environment has teamed up with Alaskans for Wildlife, according to KTUU.com, to put a stop to this practice.

“We believe in a balanced approach to wildlife management so we are encouraging our members to vote yes on ballot measure 2,”

ACE also says this kind of “hunting” isn’t fair chase but the Alaska Board of Game counters that they don’t view it as hunting, only as a necessary part of predator control. Read more

Listing The Polar Bear Could Be Bad For Bear, Economy And All Hunting And Fishing

On this past Thursday’s Open Air radio show, I shared with you an article written by Hugh Hewitt about the foreseeable troubles and real agendas behind the push by environmental groups to get the polar bear listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act. You can get some information and listen to the radio broadcast here.

In Hewitt’s article he has this to say about what could happen if the polar bear gets protection. Read more

Beware of “Natural” Wildlife Management

Nearly one year ago, I wrote an article that referred to an article that was published in The Outdoorsman, Bulletin #5, July 2004; pages 4 and 5. The title of that article was, “Beware of “Natural” Wildlife Management”. It was written by Dr. Valerius Geist.

Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary in Alberta, is a renowned expert in wildlife management and conservation practices. In addition to teaching, writing about, and lecturing on the subjects, Dr. Geist has performed years of in-the-field research on big game species. He has authored 16 books, seven documentary films and contributed 40 entries to various encyclopedias.

With permission from Dr. Geist, I would like to publish the original article in its entirety. Read more

When Do Wolves Become Dangerous To Humans?

Many of you have probably read several times or perhaps even heard me on my radio show talk about George Dovel and his ongoing efforts to reach people and educate them with facts about wildlife, etc. through his print publication, “The Outdoorsman”. (If you would like to subscribe to Mr. Dovel’s publication, you can write to this address: The Outdoorsman, P.O. Box 155, Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, 83629)

In the latest issue of the Outdoorsman, Dovel presents to his readers some background history on how our media, often times influenced by fish and game personnel and wildlife biologists, react to and present written information about human and wolf encounters. As part of Dovel’s presentation, he includes a great deal of information that he received from one of our very renowned wolf experts. Read more

There Will Be No Satisfaction No Matter What The Determination Of Polar Bear Protection

I have already come to the conclusion that unless the Bush administration, more specifically the Department of the Interior, determines that the world is coming to an end, the first to go are polar bears, that we should all double our taxes to protect them, sell off all our defense weapons, retreat from Iraq and have all the first born in the republican families killed, there will be no satisfaction.

I think the Bush White House thought they were doing a good thing when they agreed to take a closer look at polar bears to see if they needed further protection – further than the “International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears” signed in 1973 by the U.S., Canada, Norway, the former USSR and Denmark, which in 1973 governed Greenland. These were the countries with polar bear populations. Read more

Henny Youngman Might Say, “Take My Wolves…..Please!”

It might be an understatement to say that there’s a conflict brewing between U.S. Congressman George Miller of California and U.S. Congressman Don Young of Alaska. The battle stems from issues over wolf management in Alaska.

The state of Alaska, under the direction of the Alaska Board of Game and with the approval of Gov. Sarah Palin, is using aircraft to reduce the wolf population in specific areas where they are destroying the moose and caribou herds that supply native Alaskans with food. Animal lovers don’t like this and have been fighting the effort for some time. One of the radical groups involved is Defenders of Wildlife, of which it appears that Mr. Miller is a strong advocate for.

Rep. Miller is also the sponsor of HR3663(pdf), the misleading “Protect America’s Wildlife Act of 2007″, which is being promoted as a bill to stop aerial hunting of wolves. Read more

Kenton Carnegie Killed By Wolves

Nearly one year ago, I reported that a 22-year old college student, Kenton Joel Carnegie, was attacked and killed by wolves in a remote area of Northern Saskatchewan, Canada.

It has taken all this time for autopsy results and testimony from assorted experts but finally a six-person jury has agreed that Carnegie’s death was that of at least two wolves.

Paul Paquet of the University of Calgary has stated that he believes the death is consistent with that of a black bear. Recently retired wolf biologist Mark McNay from Fairbanks, Alaska was called to testify. His testimony states that he is certain Carnegie died from a wolf attack. A jury agreed with McNay.

This now marks the first official case of a human death as the result of being attacked by wild wolves in North America.

Tom Remington

Save A Grizzly. Kill A Few Thousand Humans

The world has gone insane and thousands of Americans are leading the charge! There once was a day in my life when I believed that most Americans had a brain. I have since come to the realization that few do and haven’t even the slightest inkling on how to get off their backsides and learn something for a change instead of listening to the nightly news broadcasts and believing whatever it is they hear. It’s a shame and it’s destroying our country!

With that said – and I thought I might feel better about things but I doesn’t – here we go again. Another person claiming to be knowledgeable about hunting and grizzly bears tells the world how it is. An editorial appeared in yesterday’s Idaho Statesman from a woman who claims to want to save grizzly bears by banning black bear hunting and the methods used for such.

Christine Gertschen is responding to the fact that a Tennessee bear hunter screwed up and didn’t properly identify his target before pulling the trigger. He shot a grizzly bear thinking it was a black bear. While he is ultimately responsible for what he shoots at, in fairness we should point out that no grizzly bears had been seen in that part of Idaho in 61 years. Here is some of her lament.

Without guidance from the outfitter who accepted his money for this privilege, he probably did not know that this was indeed a rare bear.

To be totally forthcoming here, the hunter accused was hunting over bait, a legal practice in Idaho and other states. It is unfortunate that in one’s quest to discredit all hunters and guides and the long-time practice of hunting that has served our society well for many generations, she has to begin by generalizing and misleading readers. She claims the hunter lacked guidance from his outfitter. She does not know that. She assumes that because the guide wasn’t sitting in the hunter’s back pocket that he wasn’t under his guidance. Is it Idaho law that requires a guide to be with a client 100% of the time? She also brings money into the picture which is just another blatant attempt at smearing the guiding industry as though somehow this hunter was paying dirty money to do something that was illegal.

Then she does two things. She attempts to convey to readers that the hunter is stupid and then lies by stating that the grizzly bear is a “rare” bear. She doesn’t know this hunter from Tennessee. How in the world can she honestly claim that he, “probably did not know that this was indeed a rare bear”?

The only thing rare about this event was the fact that a grizzly bear was where one hadn’t been for over 60 years. This doesn’t change the facts of what happened but for this editorial to claim a grizzly bear is a rare bear is a lie. Alaska and much of the Canadian Rockies area have more grizzly bears than we humans know.

Gertschen obviously has issues with bear baiting and that’s her right to express her opposition to it. By not having any science or just plain facts to support any of her claims though, she resorts to emotionalism with a effort to win over her audience by crying a river.

This grizzly bear had managed to avoid humans for several years in the wilderness but drought conditions and impending hibernation drove him to the bait. This is a sad waste of a magnificent creature. If we do not act to protect grizzlies, it will not be long before the few small grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 begin to blink out.

Are we to assume from this rant that if the bear had never come in contact with any human, it would be alive today? If that is the case, then perhaps the writer should pack her bags and get out of Dodge on the first train. She is living in grizzly bear country and if she wants to save another grizzly from sure demise, then moving is the best thing for the poor bears.

All animals are a magnificent creature and there will always be circumstances beyond human control that will result in the death of some of these animals. Our fish and game departments, through billions of dollars generated from the sales of licenses, have provided all Americans the opportunity to appreciate the wild animals.

To perpetuate the lie that if we don’t do something to protect the grizzly in the lower 48 states they’ll all be gone is absolutely ludicrous. The writer chooses to describe them as “the few small grizzly bear populations”. There is absolutely no danger of the grizzly bear disappearing from areas in the lower 48 states. A testament to that is the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just removed the grizzly in parts of the Yellowstone National Park area from the Endangered list.

What is laughable is the writer’s attempt to convince us that bear baiting is causing bears to become habituated to humans and thusly the result of the ultimate death of the bear. If one is to blindly accuse bear hunters of habituating bears to humans then they cannot overlook the fact that residents who refuse to bring in bird feeders, pick up and care for their trash, etc. are the cause of far more bear killings than a handful of hunters. So let’s get rid of a few thousand humans and let the bears rule.

Scientists have learned from many years of study that fragmented populations of rare animals lead to what is called the extinction vortex. Respected conservation biologists recommend a system of core reserves and travel corridors designed to prevent fragmentation. While a roadless corridor can go a long way to allowing bears and other rare wildlife to move between populations, if every bear that leaves a protected area or park falls victim to bear baiting, we can never expect to leave a sustainable population of grizzly bears for the generations to come.

It now becomes clear that Gerschen is a sponsor of wilderness management of wildlife. Perhaps in the circles she travels, her peers believe that total wilderness with no wildlife management is the best way to save bears. Far more scientists don’t buy that philosophy at all. The reason we are saving species today and wildlife populations are overabundant in many places isn’t because of the creation of more wilderness areas.

It’s a joke really when the writer says that every time a grizzly bear leaves a protected area – aren’t all grizzlies protected everywhere in the lower 48? – it will fall victim to a hunter. Has the writer forgotten that grizzly bears are not hunted in the lower U.S.? Is she implying that all hunters and going to shoot and kill every bear that comes to visit a bait pile? One hunter made a mistake. That is unfortunate. Thousands of residents in bear country make mistakes everyday that result in the death of a grizzly. Are we now to assume that all people are out to get bears killed?

As the grizzly expands its habitat, it will continue to create more and more bear/human encounters. Through education programs we will teach out hunters about better tactics for game identification and we will continue to teach residents how to live in bear country. For me, I’ll put my money on having far better success in the education process of hunters than the general public. With that said then, if Ms. Gertschen wants to save a bear, she and a few thousand other humans should move to the city and stop being a hypocrite. Blaming bear hunters for the deaths of grizzly bears is inaccurate and only displays one’s ignorance of the facts.

Accidental death of a grizzly by hunter = 1. Deaths of grizzlies from backyard dumpster diving = 100s. So, who should we be attacking?

Tom Remington

The Powers Not Delegated To The United States By The Constitution……

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the sovereignty of each of the 50 states. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” For me this is the real issue behind Alaska’s wolf management program.

United States Rep. George Miller of California has drafted a bill he chooses to call, “Protect America’s Wildlife Act of 2007″ or more accurately named HR3663 (pdf). His bill intends to amend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to put further restrictions on shooting wildlife from aircraft, essentially. The bill is an attempt to meddle into Alaska’s affairs by the U.S. Congress and violate the sovereignty of the state of Alaska.

It would prohibit anyone from shooting any wildlife from an aircraft or from landing an aircraft and shooting any animals. It increases fines for violations and attempts to force Alaska to rewrite its own constitution. The bill reads that, “a state cannot authorize or undertake any action otherwise prohibited under this Act, for the purpose of increasing any game population or for the purpose of sport hunting”. The problem with this amendment, whose intention is to force Alaska to abandon its wolf management plan, is contrary to the Alaska constitution, which states that, “Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.”

The state of Alaska is required by law under its own constitution to manage its wildlife for sustainable yield. When the state has determined that the sustainable yield of moose and caribou in any region is in jeopardy, law requires them to do something about it.

The federal Airborne Hunting Act prohibits the shooting of any wildlife from an aircraft, with exceptions.

These prohibitions do not apply to state or federal employees, authorized agents, or persons acting under a license or permit, who are authorized to administer or protect land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops.

This essentially is the basis of which the Alaska Fish and Game conducts its wolf management plan, which at times has included shooting of wildlife from aircraft.

The fact that Rep. George Miller has decided to sponsor a bill, HR3663, is troubling in many ways. This bill, if passed would set an extremely dangerous precedence. It infringes on the sovereignty of each state to manage its own wildlife in the manner that has been done for centuries. Perhaps Rep. Miller doesn’t think shooting a wolf from an aircraft is an ethical thing to do. That is his freedom to express that as many Americans have done. I know very few people who think sport hunting from an aircraft is acceptable.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin put it as clearly as anyone could in a letter (pdf) written to Rep. Miller dated September 27, 2007.

On behalf of the state of Alaska I am writing to express my displeasure with your introduction of a bill that proposes to end what you refer to as “airborne hunting” of wolves and bears in Alaska. You have misconstrued the reality of life in Alaska and the importance of wild game as food to the people of this state. You displayed a shocking lack of understanding of wildlife management in the North and the true structure and function of Alaska’s predator control programs. You have threatened the very foundations of federalism and the states’ abilities to manage their own affairs as they see fit.

Gov. Palin went on to explain in her letter to Rep. Miller that she was “dismayed” that he never contacted anyone in the state of Alaska before announcing his proposed bill. She also chastised him for inaccuracies in the text of the bill and his oral statements to the media.

I am especially concerned your draft bill threatens the constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty not just of the state of Alaska, but all states. Under our system of federalism, fish and game management is generally conducted by the states, not the federal government. Courts have repeatedly recognized wildlife management as one of the aspects of traditional state sovereignty reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Gov. Palin refutes the notion that the use of aircraft in reducing wolf populations is only to benefit licensed hunters.

Our science-based program is designed to reduce the effect of predators in given areas with the intent to allow a higher harvest of moose and caribou by humans for food. By thinning the numbers of predators in selected areas, we are enabling more Alaskans to hunt moose and caribou and put food in their freezers. Each program is specifically designed, carefully considered and closely monitored. We do not undertake predator control lightly.

Many who oppose the use of aerial wolf management say it is an unethical means of hunting but Governor Palin is quick to point out that this part of their wolf management program is not hunting and that “fair chase ethics do not apply”. The position of the Alaska Fish and Game, with the support of the governor, believe this tactic in the management plan is necessary.

In a press release issue by the governor’s office on September 26, 2007, Governor Palin is quoted as saying, “It appears to me that the Congressman (referring to Rep. George Miller) has been inadvertently drawn into service as a fundraiser for national animal rights organizations that commonly spread inaccurate information about Alaska’s game management programs, and with which we are in court on these issues right now.”

Alaska’s representative to Congress Don Young, Ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Natural Resources stands boldly against Rep. Miller’s bill. In an attempt to thwart off the bill before it even sees the House floor, Young sent a letter to Nick Rahall, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, calling Miller’s bill, “ill-conceived, misguided, unnecessary and highly discriminatory”.

In his letter, Rep. Young explains once again the history of state’s sovereignty and “primacy over all wildlife within their borders”. He urges Mr. Rahall not to even bring the bill up for discussion.

In furthering his campaign against HR3663, Rep. Young circulates a letter (pdf) to colleagues, complete with graphic pictures urging members of the house to oppose Miller’s bill.

Dear Colleague,

I strongly urge you to oppose George Miller’s recently introduced H.R. 3663, the so-called “Protect America’s Wildlife Act.” This egregious legislation not only violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it is being offered by a Member who has little understanding of Alaska and Alaskan wildlife management issues, and apparently zero concern for the fact that his legislation will take food out of the mouths of thousands of Alaskans.

Rep. Miller’s bill would eliminate Alaska’s predator control program which ensures the security of the food sources on which Native and rural Alaskans have survived for hundreds of years. An overabundance of predatory Arctic Grey Wolves threatens these Alaskans’ food supply, and the state’s science and abundance-based program ensures their food security, while maintaining a healthy, viable, and reproductive population of wolves.

This is not “hunting.” It is necessary predator control.

Rep. Young asserts that Rep. Miller teamed up with Defenders of Wildlife and others to draft HR3663.

Unfortunately, Rep. Miller, the Defenders of Wildlife, and other radical animal rights groups who wrote H.R. 3663 ignore these facts, place wildlife ahead of the needs of real human beings, and would like you to do the same. They would like you to believe their legislation will “save the wolves” and end “inhumane hunting.” They will issue emotional press releases and inundate unsuspecting Americans with misinformation, pictures of wolf puppies, and requests to donate money.

This cynical, disingenuous campaign will likely generate thousands of dollars in donations, but should Rep. Miller’s bill become law, it will take food out of the mouths of my constituents and their children.

In nothing more than from the perspective of an American who believes in and understands the U.S. Constitution, we have to realize that Rep. Miller’s bill is over the top. It doesn’t matter whether you or I think that using aircraft to manage a handful of wolves is right or wrong. What’s wrong is that a U.S. congressman wants to mow down the Tenth Amendment and begin letting big government dictate to Alaska and every other state, how to run their wildlife programs.

This is an issue to be decided in Alaska by the Alaska people not by a congressman in California. It is unfortunate that Alaska has had to spend countless dollars fighting lawsuits from radical animal rights groups who put the welfare of wolves ahead of humans.

I don’t fully understand the entirety of the Alaska wolf management program but I have faith that the governor, the fish and game and the citizens can resolve those issues without the federal government’s intrusion. I can also understand the frustration of some over the past history of ballot initiatives and legislative wrangling over wolf management within the last 10 years or so.

For those who don’t know, in 1996 “Proposition 3″, a citizen’s initiative to ban same-day airborne hunting, passed garnering 58.5% of the vote. In this initiative, it included a “biological emergency” clause that basically said that it had to be determined that an emergency had to be in existence before aircraft could be used to save a species.

In 1999, Senate Bill 74 was enacted that removed the “biological emergency” clause.

In 2000, Senate Bill 267 passed the Alaska Congress. This bill essentially repealed Proposition 3. Then Governor Tony Knowles vetoed the bill. The legislature overturned Knowles’ veto. Later that same year, Alaskans for Wildlife filed for another referendum in opposition to SB 267. Ballot Measure 6 passed by 53% to 47%.

Then in 2003, Senate Bill 155 is passed and signed into law by Governor Frank Murkowski. This bill reinstates the use of aircraft in wolf management. Since the inception of SB 155, the Board of Game has adopted wolf programs and Management Units to better pinpoint problem areas.

With this history, it is clear that there would be frustration on the part of citizens and voters. This is no reason to abandon the U.S. Constitution in order to push through agendas. The feds need to stay out of this and allow Alaska to resolve its problems. The Fish and Game department strongly believes in the need for this kind of aerial wolf control and have successfully convinced the Legislature and governor of its importance. It seems that, at least in previous years, fish and game and the legislature has failed to convince the people.

Alaska is a vast state with an abundance of wildlife and there needs to be a good campaign and public relations to all citizens about the wildlife management programs and the importance of everything they do. We will never stop the onslaught of lawsuits from extreme radical animal rights groups but when these groups see that the people of a state are united in their cause, they back off.

I’ll keep you informed as to what happens to HR3663. Hopefully our elected officials will also agree that our Tenth Amendment is much more important than sticking our noses into Alaska’s business.

Tom Remington

Alaska Governor Fires Back At Rep. Miller On Aerial Wolf Management Practice

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin decided not to sit quietly by while California Congressman George Miller, filed a bill to stop the use of aerial wolf management practices. According to KTUU News, Palin told Miller to stop listening to the lies of the special interests.

In her letter sent Thursday, Palin accuses Miller of not doing his homework about Alaska’s predator control program. The letter urges Miller, “…not to swallow the rhetoric of special interest advocacy groups trying to raise money for their inaccurate campaigns.”

Palin went on to explain the state’s efforts to control wolf populations.

“Scientifically based predator control programs will continue in Alaska because we want to increase moose and caribou populations, especially for those rural Alaskans who are so reliant on that game to fill their freezers and feed their families,”

Miller continues to see this as a federal government issue.

“People of the country, last time they visited this issue made it very clear that they wanted it outlawed. They saw this as inhumane, they saw it as inconsistent with standards of hunting,”

Tom Remington

« Previous Page