Dude..did you just pull that out of nowhere? According the Alaska Fish and Game you're wrong on both accounts: Wolves and bears are very effective and efficient predators on caribou, moose, deer and other wildlife. In most of Alaska, humans also rely on the same species for food. In Alaska's Interior, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans kill less than 10 percent. In most of the state, predation holds prey populations at levels far below what could be supported by the habitat in the area. Predation is an important part of the ecosystem, and all ADF&G wolf management programs, including control programs, are designed to sustain wolf populations in the future. The Alaska Board of Game approves wildlife regulations through a public participation process. When the Board determines that people need more moose and/or caribou in a particular area, and restrictions on hunting aren't enough to allow prey populations to increase, predator control programs may be needed. Wolf hunting and trapping rarely reduces wolf numbers enough to increase prey numbers or harvests. Currently, five wolf control programs are underway that comprises about 9.4% of Alaska's land area. The programs use a closely controlled permit system allowing aerial or same day airborne methods to remove wolves in designated areas. In these areas, wolf numbers will be temporarily reduced, but wolves will not be permanently eliminated from any area. Successful programs allow humans to take more moose, and healthy populations of wolves to continue to thrive in Alaska.
A lot of people eat what they hunt. Most do. Why not make it available to sportsmen and create revenue instead of letting predatory animals that could also attack humans "take" them? Have you ever gone hunting? No? Did you eat any hamburger recently... or chicken? Why should humans do anything to obtain food? Why not let nature do it all? Double standards.
maybe they aren't predators, but hogs destroy land like bulldozers. They can mess up a cattle ranch and harm livestock. I will gladly shoot a wild hog from the sky, ground, water......anywhere. Tasty also.
So, it's for sport. Got it. My apologies if there actually exists humans in Alaska that depend on hunting these moose for their survival. No. No. Please. This isn't about hunting moose to feed the hungry. It's about killing animals for fun. If you think that's ok, then I'm not going to argue with you over it. But there's no need to dress it up into something it's not. Speaking of which, back to the double standard brought up by the OP. Why is it wrong for humans to use snowmobiles to kill wolves, but it's ok to shoot them down from helicopters (hardly more "fair") in order to enable more hunting opportunities for other wildlife? What's the difference?
how exactly do you kill a wolf...."fairly"? does the wolf also get a rifle and the ability to reason?
When they talk about fairness, I don't think they mean being fair to the animals being hunted (I don't think that's even a consideration). It's about being fair to the other hunters.
If a person wants to eat what they kill for sport.... why is that so bad? You do know, as I said, most people eat what they hunt and kill... Don't you? It's older than time itself. Modern age... modern ways. Food nonetheless. Look... if someone wants to spend an amount of money that is extreme to others to have a little fun hunting, and in turn paying way too much for a meal... so what? It also puts money into the economy for an ageless act that's legal. People spend money on stupider things that feed no one... all the time. I'll spell it out. Snowmobiles leave tracks on the ground, directly in the habitat of the wolves and other non-predatory animals. If people go tearing across those areas in that manner, it does more harm to the ecology... and it "unfair" to the other animals in the terrain. On the other hand, a helicopter never touches the ground, and the predatory animal is taken out with no harm to the other animals. That is "unfair" vs. "fair." It is not about humans, or the wolves... but the non-predatory flora and fauna in the area the hunt takes place. As for an angle that might be directly "fair" to a wolf being shot from a helicopter vs. a snowmobile... the heli shot is probably less invasion, more quick -with little to no chase - the snowmobile is most likely a lot more intense and abusive... But that part is a just a guess. If I wanted to euthanize a pet, I would think it unfair to first chase it all over town in a threatening manner. Just a thought.
Obviously I'm not a fan of recreational animal-killing, but it wasn't my intention here to pass judgment on hunters. I just wanted to be clear what the goal was in allowing people to shoot wolves from helicopters. And it's clear to me now, the goal was to make it easier for hunters to kill moose. Ok, thanks for that explanation.
animals who are hunted for sport would not be around if they were not protected for this sport. The money to protect them and the money put into breeding them comes from hunters. Cows would be the only large animal around since they are such efficient meat makers. These game animals also have much nicer lives than any animals raised to be food.
Isn't that the department that was restocked with Palin appointments to reduce environmental/endangered species restrictions? (Sincere question, memory failing.)
