Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 30, 2014, 11:28:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82095 Posts in 2246 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Aerial Wolf Shooting.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Aerial Wolf Shooting.  (Read 3417 times)
John Partika
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


« on: July 10, 2008, 02:28:27 AM »

So, I don't know if anyone has heard of this, but the Bush Administration removed some severe legislation against the hunting of wild wolves in Alaska and other states. Now, to me, this is a gross misuse of any power we humans have ever had. From my standpoint, we are addicted to the "Lord Man" idea of ourselves. The planet really isn't ours. Pretty much everything was here before we were, and everything was doing much better before we started messing with it. I don't know, I just find myself completely disgusted with human behavior in general. Here's a video if you want more info. And there's a mess of articles on the subject, so there's plenty of research material if you want it.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Mu_rqmFpL8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Mu_rqmFpL8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Logged

"Receiving human life, one should vow to transcend the rest of humanity, and be of aid to men. Exhausting his mind for others and making this his satisfaction to the end of time."


John Partika
White Dragon Martial Art School
Choy Li Fut Kung Fu
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31017


« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2008, 08:46:31 AM »

Woof John:

Interesting issue.

That said, each forum has its way of being and in that spirit I would like to draw your attention to Rule of the Road #5.   As a general but not absolute rule we look to open threads that have onging relevance.  Certainly your post could fit in the Science, Culture etc forum thread "Wolves, Dogs and Canines" but lurking in your post is such an issue of ongoing relevance, but the title of the thread I think of the sort to lilkely to lead to thread clutter.  Is there a different name you could put to the thread that would express the larger issue?  Or maybe just repost it in the Wolves etc thread on the Science Culture etc forum and delete it here?

Thanks,
Marc/CD
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2008, 09:27:52 AM »

John,

I'm not sure how exactly the Bush administration removed legislation passed by congress, can you explain how that happened?

I'm going to guess you having internet access means you don't live as a hunter-gatherer, in harmony with the earth with no ugly carbon footprint, yes?
Logged
John Partika
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2008, 03:31:37 PM »

To Guro Crafty:

Sorry about that one. I found the wolves and canines thread about five minutes after posting this, I think I will probably delete this particular post from this forum and then move it to that thread.

To GM:

Yeah, just like any other human I am responsible for some of the damage to the planet and things of that sort. What I meant by "Lord Man" was my reference to how we have a tendency to see animals that are useful to us as those that should live, and those that are not, should not live.

As to the Bush Administration thing. Basically, from what I know on the issue, what happened was that I was wrong. I was looking up many different sources on the issue, and I suppose that many of them were a little more politically based rather than fact based. So I do apologize for the posting of incorrect information on this forum.

From what I do know, it would seem the law went up to the states. Alaska's governor actually has claimed that the killing of wolves in aerial shootings is a "leisure activity". Quite interesting, in my opinion, because aerial shooting was originally completely illegal, due to the Aerial Hunting Act passed in 1972. What happened was that Alaska passed a bill or two that allowed the hunting of wolves and bears to artificially inflate the moose and caribou population. From what I've read on the bill, the reason for this is that they want more prey animals for ever more hunters.

I'm going to post a few articles when I move this thread, but I wanted to answer your replies first.
Logged

"Receiving human life, one should vow to transcend the rest of humanity, and be of aid to men. Exhausting his mind for others and making this his satisfaction to the end of time."


John Partika
White Dragon Martial Art School
Choy Li Fut Kung Fu
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2008, 04:46:01 PM »



Yeah, just like any other human I am responsible for some of the damage to the planet and things of that sort. What I meant by "Lord Man" was my reference to how we have a tendency to see animals that are useful to us as those that should live, and those that are not, should not live.



Ever used traps/sprays to rid your home of mice or insects?
Logged
John Partika
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2008, 05:59:45 PM »

Um..actually no, surprisingly enough. I'm pretty lucky. Not many "pests" in my area. The few times I do run into them, I either get them out of the house or use a repellent. I've never been really big on killing something just because it inconveniences me. I try to do the little things too to avoid any unnecessary energy use (unplugging things, turning off lights, not using a car, that sort of thing). But I can probably guarantee that, in one way or another, I've contributed to the current state of affairs. I mean, seriously, i could probably power a third world country with my computer, so I can't really complain about other people's issues, eh?
Logged

"Receiving human life, one should vow to transcend the rest of humanity, and be of aid to men. Exhausting his mind for others and making this his satisfaction to the end of time."


John Partika
White Dragon Martial Art School
Choy Li Fut Kung Fu
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2008, 07:32:35 PM »

Um..actually no, surprisingly enough. I'm pretty lucky. Not many "pests" in my area. The few times I do run into them, I either get them out of the house or use a repellent. I've never been really big on killing something just because it inconveniences me. I try to do the little things too to avoid any unnecessary energy use (unplugging things, turning off lights, not using a car, that sort of thing). But I can probably guarantee that, in one way or another, I've contributed to the current state of affairs. I mean, seriously, i could probably power a third world country with my computer, so I can't really complain about other people's issues, eh?

Well, that's basically my point. We directly or indirectly impact the environment by our very existence. Manhattan island was once lush and green and filled with wildlife, the east river filled with fish. It's very common for urbanites to condemn those who actually live in wild areas from an imagined position of moral superiority, seeming oblivious to the environmental impact their own life imposes on the planet.

It's easy to get upset at hunting wolves, who we generally find to be aesthetically pleasing, or imbue with mystical symbolism as we drive to the supermarket to buy sanitary, pristine foodstuffs in shiny packages, obvious to the destruction of wild habitat and deaths of many animals to ensure our own comfort and nutrition.

Logged
peregrine
Power User
***
Posts: 197


« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2008, 07:38:19 PM »

Eradication is done for a reason. I do not know enough about aerial wolf shooting to support or denounce it, but i do understand the concept of population control. Alaska is a vast resource, with many remote areas so i suspect an aerial approach is necessary in many instances.
In my state goats and wild pigs are hunted for similar reasons. There is aerial goat hunting.

What do you suggest we do if there is an overpopulation of wolves that grow large enough to disrupt the natural ecosystem? in many parts of the country like coyotes they are becoming a threat to humans. Surely the human population is not lessening, so how do we manage civilization? all the while maintaining a reasonable lifestyle? With commodities increasing, how can humans expect to survive if the rising costs of everyday goods make more regulations stricter? I am one to support the environment, but most times that means stricter regulations, which means higher production costs, which forces retail prices higher. With higher prices more people will be without the basics which include food to survive.
Logged
peregrine
Power User
***
Posts: 197


« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2008, 07:41:03 PM »

Um..actually no, surprisingly enough. I'm pretty lucky. Not many "pests" in my area. The few times I do run into them, I either get them out of the house or use a repellent. I've never been really big on killing something just because it inconveniences me.

Does that go to the extent that you would not kill a rodent or roach in your house?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2008, 07:45:07 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka-Volterra_equation

Warning: Math!  shocked
Logged
John Partika
Newbie
*
Posts: 13


« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2008, 10:56:44 PM »

The problem with the eradication bit is that they're not really overpopulating the area. Wolves are barely making a comeback from what we did to them in the past, and then the minute their numbers grow to even a third of what they originally were, we get all upset. Now, there is the issue of the livestock, and production value, and other such things. But, forgoing all of that, I really do think it needs to be mentioned that a lot of people into the eradication ideal haven't looked at it from a past perspective. Wolves roamed in much greater numbers in the past, and the ecosystem did not suffer. You throw humans in, however, a new mathematical variable, and then you run into the problems with the killing of livestock and the issues with the hunters. Two species butting heads over who wants to survive.

You can't really blame the wolves for eating the livestock though. If any of us were hungry in the cold snow, and someone laid out a hundred Big Macs for us, we'd probably eat them. It's not different with wolves eating livestock. In fact, some wolves avoid herds of livestock because they fear reactions from humans.

And if the population DOES get out of hand, I mean, to the point of elk and caribou literally becoming close to extinct in the area, then I would probably go for an "eradication" kind of answer to it, but again, nature was doing just fine until we imposed our standards of how things should go. But, granted, again i can't complain because despite my efforts not to be part of the problem I can guarantee I do wasteful things that do just as much harm.


Oh, and the roach thing. I personally don't like roaches, but I would try not to kill them. If it were one roach, ok, whatever, just take it outside and away from my door and I'm alright. If there's an infestation, however, I would most likely call an exterminator. However, if I had the chance, I would try to prevent the problem before it even happened. I once had an infestation in the house I used to live in. Everyone else was freaking out telling me to kill the rodents running around in the garage (apparently they found a few bags of chips and cheetos a few friends of mine had left back there). I thought about it, and opted to place some repellents around the house, and it worked. Never saw another one again. So, I have a tendency to see different solutions than a lot of people, but that's just me.
Logged

"Receiving human life, one should vow to transcend the rest of humanity, and be of aid to men. Exhausting his mind for others and making this his satisfaction to the end of time."


John Partika
White Dragon Martial Art School
Choy Li Fut Kung Fu
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2008, 09:50:29 AM »

http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/basics.htm
    
     In Alaska, subsistence generally refers to the practice of taking fish, wildlife or other wild resources for one's sustenance - for food, shelter or other personal or family needs.

     Subsistence has been elemental to Alaska Natives and their cultures for thousands of years. It also has become a way of life for many non-Natives in Alaska. Subsistence is recognized by the United States and by the State of Alaska as the highest-priority consumptive use of resources in the state.

     Subsistence hunting and fishing provide a large share of the food supply in rural Alaska. According to the state Division of Subsistence, about 44 million pounds of wild foods are taken annually by residents of rural Alaska, or about 375 pounds per person per year. This compares to 22 pounds per year harvested by Alaska's urban residents. Fish comprise 60 percent of subsistence foods taken annually. Ninety-five percent of rural households consume subsistence-caught fish, according to the state.

     Subsistence is a controversial political topic because managing subsistence involves making decisions about who has access to Alaska's valuable fish and wildlife resources. Disagreements about subsistence arise between and within different groups, including urban and rural Alaska residents, Natives and non-Natives, subsistence users and non-subsistence users, state lawmakers and other groups. Disagreements include who should get rights to subsistence, how resources are allocated under subsistence provisions, and how such decisions are made.

     Subsistence wasn’t a controversial legal issue until the late 1970s, when demands of a growing state population started putting the squeeze on Alaska’s available fish and game, and resource managers increasingly were forced to choose between users. But the underpinnings of the management controversy can be traced to Alaska statehood in 1959.

     On becoming a state, Alaska took over responsibility for managing subsistence from the federal government when it gained authority for managing fish and wildlife. State control of fish and wildlife was a leading argument for statehood, as Alaskans criticized federal fishery management as favoring outside interests and unresponsive to resident needs. The new Alaska Constitution established that fish and wildlife “are reserved to the people for common use” and that “no exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized.” [Alaska Constitution, Article VIII ]

     For the United States federal government, the question of subsistence surfaced in 1971 when Congress was drafting the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The act addressed Native land claims that clouded construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. It extinguished aboriginal hunting and fishing rights in Alaska in exchange for almost $1 billion in cash and 44 million acres of land.

     ANCSA didn’t explicitly protect subsistence, but a Congressional conference report issued with the new law stated that Native subsistence practices and subsistence lands would be protected by the State of Alaska and U.S. Department of Interior.

     Congress made good on that promise in 1980, when it passed the landmark Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. Besides creating new national wildlife refuges and public recreation lands, ANILCA mandated that the state maintain a subsistence hunting and fishing preference for rural residents on federal public lands or forfeit its management of subsistence uses there.

    The State of Alaska, which had established its own subsistence law in 1978, took note of the discrepancy between the laws and amended state law in 1986 to match ANILCA by limiting subsistence uses to rural residents. The fix, however, didn’t last long. In 1989, the state Supreme Court ruled that the rural preference violated Alaska Constitution, including its “common use” provisions regarding use of fish and wildlife.

     As the state no longer guaranteed a rural preference for subsistence as required by ANILCA, the federal government moved to take over management of subsistence on federal public lands. Several attempts by the state to reconcile the two laws by amending the Alaska Constitution failed when supporters couldn’t muster enough votes in the Alaska Legislature to send a constitutional amendment to the state’s voters. Federal managers took over authority for subsistence on federal lands on July 1, 1990.

     In 1995, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in adjudicating Katie John vs. United States, ruled that ANILCA’s subsistence priority extends to freshwater bodies within and alongside federal public lands. The decision pushed the federal government into management of subsistence fisheries.

     Realizing that federal subsistence fisheries management would impact fishing statewide, the State of Alaska again attempted to regain management. Between 1997 and 1999, a subsistence task force was convened, two special sessions of the Legislature were held, and U.S. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska twice delayed a federal takeover of subsistence on federal waters through a moratorium. But in the end, the Alaska Senate failed to pass onto voters a constitutional amendment to that would bring state law into compliance with ANILCA. On October 1, 1999, the rural subsistence priority was extended to inland waters within 34 federal parks, forests, wildlife refuges, preserves and recreation lands. Federal subsistence fishery management had arrived. [Map of Federal Waters in Alaska]

     The federal management program is administered by the Anchorage-based Office of Subsistence Management and regulated by the six-member Federal Subsistence Board. The Board is comprised of a voting chairman appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Interior, and the regional directors of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs and U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

     While there are similarities between the federal and state management systems, they differ on several key points. [See State-Federal Comparison Page]

     The federal regulatory process begins with an annual call for proposals from the public. Proposals are reviewed by 10 Regional Advisory Councils around the state that consider and make recommendations on proposed changes. A recommendation from a Regional Council carries considerable weight. It can be rejected by the Federal Subsistence Board only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, violates recognized principles of wildlife conservation, or would be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence needs.

       Regional councils meet twice annually: Once in the fall to make recommendations on subsistence fish proposals and again in the winter to weigh wildlife proposals. Proposals are forwarded to the Federal Subsistence Board, which convenes at least twice annually. Meetings of the Councils and of the Board are open to the public. There are opportunities to give written comments and oral testimony throughout the federal process
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11990


« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2008, 10:01:46 AM »

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/natives/ak_subsistence.html

Why don't they just drive to "Whole Foods"?  huh
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!