End hunting wolves from aircraft?

[spin]

Big day for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on the gun-control front. First she introduced a bill to prohibit foreign felons from buying firearms; now she’s pushing a proposal to end the practice of hunting from airplanes. Co-sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the bill aims to close a loophole in the ban against aerial hunting that allows the practice to continue in the name of wildlife management. Alaska, for example, allows private hunters to pick off wolves from the air, citing a need to protect other species like caribou and moose — an issue that gained prominence last year with Sarah Palin’s arrival on the national stage.

Under the bill, only certain state and federal officials would retain the right to hunt from the sky, leaving exception for instances of “biological emergency.” The bill also bumps the fine for aerial hunting from $5,000 to $50,000.

“Shooting wildlife from airplanes is not sport — it is cruel and inhumane,” Feinstein said in a statement. “It undermines the hunting principle of a fair chase and often leads to a slow and painful death for the hunted animals. This practice should be banned.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/53147/feinstein-cardin-take-on-aerial-hunting

How the practice of hunting wolves from aircraft started:

In a program begun by ex-Gov. Frank Murkowski, and intensified by Palin, Alaska has sponsored the aerial hunting of more than 800 wolves since 2002 — out of a state population of perhaps 9,000. Pilots chase the wolves through the deep snow, sometimes for miles, until the exhausted animals have slowed enough to be blown away with shotguns. Then the plane lands and finishes the job, unless the wounded wolf has managed to crawl into the deep woods to bleed to death in solitude.

Palin, who won office with the support of powerful hunting groups, has intensified the “cull.” She pushed to offer a bounty to hunters who brought in a left wolf paw (lopped off with a chain saw) and extended the kill order to grizzly and black bears — including sows and their cubs. Before a state court ruled the practice illegal, she offered a bounty of $150 for every slain wolf.

Hunting groups support the program, arguing that it increases the availability of game for poor Alaskans, and the sporting chances of hunters like Sarah and Todd Palin themselves, who have their sights set on moose. But wildlife viewing brings far more tourist dollars to the state, where only 14 percent of the population hunts.

****snip****

The current predator-control program reminds Van Ballenberghe of the 1930s, when Alaskans shot, poisoned and ran down as many wolves and bears as they could. “Blasting wolves from an airplane is not something most people think is a good practice,” he says. “ You can call it anything you want but it’s a pretty ugly business.”

And there’s no convincing evidence that moose or caribou populations are particularly low in most of the area where the hunt is taking place. “Hunters always say there’s not enough game,” said Van Ballenberghe. “No matter how much there is, they always want more.”


http://washingtonindependent.com/5517/predatory-practices

fixed typo

[Obama2012]

1. I'm not anti-hunting, but anybody who wants to hunt wolves from a plane or helicopter

should be hunted first from a plane or helicopter.

That's not hunting. That's murdering.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. Murdering is exactly what they are doing.

They are culling to control population balance.

When certain populations explode or begin to overpopulate, there are many negative side effects. Starvation, disease, population migratoin, and effects to other animals in the related food chain are all adversely effected. Not to mention that when predators overpopulate, dangerous interaction between humans and animals can become mroe common. States usually use hunting and "bag limits" as a tool for population control. As ironic as it sounds, hunters are responsible for a good deal of wildlife funding and the maintainance of animal population's quality of life.

When there is no demand for hunting a particular animal (feral dogs/cats) across a particulary rugged terrain (Alaska) the state must control or contract the culling itself. Bullets are generally very efficient in making a "clean kill" and aircraft allows the 'hunters' to do thire job efficiently.

How would those opposed to aerial hunting propose to solve the population control problem?

[Obama2012]

8. There isn't an overpopulation of wolves, though

The aerial hunt has actually wiped out entire populations in some areas.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. Do you have any data supporting the lack of overpopulation?

The only logical assumption for aerial hunting is population control. The Departments of Wildlife are usually pretty good about predicting populations and issueing the right numbers of tags or torganizing culling hunts.

I would be very surprised if people are wasting their time and money killing non-game animals if there weren't a reason. If not to control the wolf population, I would expect either
a) prey population protection
b) livestock protection

Another thought is that aerial hunting keeps the population in-check... preventing overpopulation rather tnhan adjusting the population after there is a problem.

[Obama2012]

31. They're doing it to make money off out-of-state trophy "hunters"

Nothing more, nothing less.

Look up the stats. They're out there, and even you won't have to look far.

[Euromutt]

33. I can think of a few reasons for killing large predators

Mainly that you can point to the pelt on the floor of your conversation pit and brag to your guests how you hunted a wolf. Yeah, even when Murkowski renamed it a "predator control program," the participating members of the public (who still had to pay for the tag, which seems odd when they're supposedly doing the state a favor) still got to keep the trophy. Whoever heard of keeping a trophy from conducting predator control?

And note that it was "sport" hunting before aerial hunting was made illegal by two ballot initiatives. That was when Murkowski, for all practical purposes, continued to issue hunting permits, only with "hunting" crossed out and "predator control" written on them in crayon.

Wolves are actually pretty smart about what kind of numbers their prey base will sustain. There have been documented instances of alpha pairs not breeding in years when prey numbers were too low to sustain more wolves. The only time they become a problem is when they start considering livestock to form part of their prey base. And that's the result of lack of hygiene on ranchers' part; wolves don't normally consider cattle or sheep to be food (wolves prefer things with antlers), but when a rancher fails to clean up a carcass promptly, or worse, dumps it in a carcass pit on the edge of his land, a wolf pack can come by, have a sniff, have a nibble, and come to the realization they can eat those things. And that's when you get livestock predation.

I volunteer at a wolf sanctuary, in case anyone's wondering.

[E-Mag]

57. What sanctuary do you work at?

I would love to be able to go see wolves in a more natural environment than the zoo.

[iverglas]

63. come north, young man/woman

Or not young, no matter. ;)

Actually, it's for hearing rather than seeing, but I hear it's quite a thing.

http://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/nature/mammals/wolf_howling.html

Algonquin's Public Wolf Howling Program
One of the major breakthroughs in the 1960s wolf research program was the discovery that wolves will answer not only recordings of their own howls, but also any reasonable (or even not so reasonable) imitation by humans. This permitted the researchers to locate, and even to census, otherwise invisible wolves during summer and howling soon became the most popular activity of the Park Interpretive Program. Since then, and including the 2004 season, over 126,500 people had participated in public wolf howling expeditions held in August, often with over 2000 people in attendance. The success in hearing wolves on such an expedition depends primarily on our previous knowledge of the location of an accessible wolf pack, and there is never any guarantee the wolves will stay put between their discovery and the time of the next "public wolf howl." Wolves have nevertheless been heard on 73% of the outings held so far (88% since 1990). Those who have been on a successful expedition unanimously agree that there is no sound which better embodies the wilderness atmosphere in Algonquin than a spine-tingling chorus of wolves, reverberating over the hills and bogs under a cold starry night. What better or more memorable way to experience a precious contact with Algonquin's most famous animal.

If you're lucky, you might see the lights, though.


www.algonquincanada.com

[E-Mag]

75. I almost live that far north :-)

[Euromutt]

100. Wolf Haven, in Tenino, WA

http://www.wolfhaven.org/

It's about half an hour's drive south of Olympia, an hour and a half south of Seattle, and about tweo hours from Portland, OR.

Mind you, the most natural we can swing is rounded enclosures of about half an acre, each containing a pair. It's too difficult to keep packs together in the 29 acres we have.

[paulsby]

62. not to get picky but it aint murdering

murdering is an unlawful killing, and generally with malice. one can be against aerial hunting (i'm undecided) but to refer to it as murder is just rhetoric.

i don't like the idea of aerial hunting. it doesn't seem "cricket", but that's not a logical reason to be against it. so, i'm not against it. if it's an effective means of culling excess population, then what is wrong with it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Its culling the population, not sport hunting

[Euromutt]

27. Notionally, you're correct, but the practice has been different

Initially, it was sport hunting, though what sport can be derived when you let the aircraft do 95% of the work for you is less than clear to me. But two state ballot initiatives prohibited the hunting of wolves using aircraft. So then Murkowski called it a "predator control program" in which members of the public could "help out." But said members of the public still had to pay for the privilege, and they got to keep the trophy. Yeah, it was still called a trophy, even when it was ostensibly "predator control." In other words, it was a wolf hunting license in all but name.

[iverglas]

64. thank you

I understand that those are the facts in a nutshell.

[Obama2012]

29. Except the population doesn't have to be culled.

[ManiacJoe]

37. Then THAT is what needs to be addressed.

Trying to fight the "what" by arguing against the "how" is a losing battle. If the wolves do not need to be culled, then arguing about culling by air travel vs foot travel does not fix the true problem.

[iverglas]

59. why? nip it in the bud

Legislate against the HOW and there will be no WHAT. If there is no money to be made by selling permits to hunt, and attracting big-spending hunters, there will be no hunt, and no need to legislate against it.

If the wolves DO need to be culled, whoever's arguing that can feel free to argue it without having a money-making scheme up their sleeve.

[ManiacJoe]

72. Things do not work that way.

If you legislate against method_a, people are free to use method_b to continue the activity. If the activity is the problem, you need to legislate against the activity, not chip away at the multiple methods that the activity can be done by.

"Big spending hunters" are not the ones doing the culling.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Shannyn Moore has a good post about this today at her blog.

http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/palins-last-shot-included-wolves-ashley-judd/


Alaskans have voted twice to ban aerial predator control, but the Board of Game continues to do as they please. Hopefully this bill will stop it because most of us can't stand the practice.

Also see http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/wolf-in-governors-clothing/

[spin]

15. Two very good links on this subject. Thanks. (n/t)

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I don't think the word 'hunting' applies to chasing down and shooting living things from the air.

[joeybee12]

4. What kind of sick, twisted mind thinks this is "sport'?

Palin and her ilk should be hunted from planes for calling this science.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Its culling the population, not sport hunting.

[Euromutt]

28. See my response to your post above, (n/t)

[JonQ]

41. It isn't, and it isn't posited as such

it's a way of reducing the population, nothing more.

Saying it should be banned because it isn't sporting makes as much sense as saying pesticides should be banned because there is no fun in killing insects that way.

[onehandle]

5. Sorry. Guns trump the rights of all living things.

Are wolves in the Constitution?

No. And neither are brooms.

Only one retail item gets this privilege.

[gorfle]

6. Aerial hunting.

Who is doing this aerial hunting? Is this something done by private citizens or the government has part of a wildlife management program?

If it's private citizens, I think it's crazy. This isn't hunting, it's thrill-killing.

[spin]

19. I believe private citizens with permits...

Aerial hunting is mostly forbidden on U.S. public lands per the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, passed by Congress in 1972. But individual states can allow it for the sake of protecting “land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops.” Alaska governor Frank Murkowski exploited this language in 2003 and signed a state bill allowing Alaskans to apply for permits to kill wolves—which some Alaskans’ fear take a large toll on the moose and caribou that hunters like to shoot—from aircraft.

But when Sarah Palin, herself an avid hunter, took over the governorship in 2006, she instituted a $150 bounty for any hunter who killed a wolf from an aircraft in select areas where moose and caribou populations were not as large as hunters would have liked. A state judge quickly put a halt on the bounty, ruling that the Palin administration lacked the authority to offer such payouts. But the judge was powerless to stop aerial hunting itself as long as it was done in a permitted fashion in the name of “predator control,” per the loophole in the federal ban.
http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/03/22/earthtalk-on-aerial-wolf-hunting-in-alaska/

[tularetom]

9. I'll be 68 next month. I've been hunting since I was 7. I think this is bullshit.

Even as predator control it is of limited value.

Evidently Alaskan Fish & Game officials are not concerned with predation of the moose populations since just a few years ago they approved the killing of moose calves in order to keep the moose population under control.

What it is is Dick Cheney style sadistic killing a living thing for the sake of killing it.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. Yes, it's amazing how Alaska Native people,

wolves and moose/caribou managed to maintain a balance over thousands of years, but now suddenly helicopter intervention is needed to save the prey species. From my perspective this has all been done for the benefit of the out-of-state big game hunters who come up here and pay at a minimum $10,000 to go out in the Bush and get themselves a moose or caribou. These people don't need to hunt for food -- they should just stay home, or if they want to visit Alaska and track the wildlife, shoot with a camera, not a rifle. And leave the wolves alone.

[Obama2012]

30. Exactly

I think it's sickening that people are falling for the Palin shit that this is a necessary cull.

[X_Digger]

10. This belongs in Outdoor Life..n/t

[spin]

14. I considered putting it there, however...

I believe the post involves "gun-related public policy issues" as Sen. Dianne Feinstein is pushing this proposal and Sarah Palin was involved as she had once tried to offer a bounty to hunters who killed wolves, grizzly and black bears.

I also considered putting the post in the General Discussion forum, but I was interested in what gun owners think more than what the average non gun owning DU poster feels.

I own firearms primarily for the sport of target shooting and also for self defense. I am not a hunter, although I have nothing against hunting and may decide to participate in the future.

I do oppose hunting from airplanes. I can see little sport in this form of hunting.

[X_Digger]

22. True, just tired of the 'hunting as justification for 2nd' meme..

Rather not perpetuate that myth :)

I consider myself a hunter though I've not went in three or so years- definitely a sport fisherman.

I think the whole aerial hunting thing is silly, but I don't see any reason to legislate against it. All hunting is 'not fair', unless you're chasing down game and biting it on the ass.

[spin]

23. Like hunting wild boar with a knife?

Knife Hunting Strategy

If you're hunting with dogs, you have two basic approaches. In both cases, the dogs pin the boar, usually by clamping its ears in their jaws. In the first approach, y­ou grab a leg or legs, flip the boar onto its back and expose its underside so you can stab it. In the second approach -- which you might employ if the surroundings don't give you much room to maneuver or if the boar's strength or weight is especially challenging -- you stab the boar from above to weaken it before you flip it over. Then you deliver the death blow from the underside .

If you're hunting on your own -- or if your dogs are trained merely to flush the boar from the bushes, not to pin it -- you wait for the boar to charge, and then you face it head-on. You push it to the ground, and stab it. No wonder knife hunting is considered a test of courage!
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/traditional-methods/knife-hunting3.htm

[X_Digger]

26. Closer, yah..

Still.. I have no problem with the inherent 'unfairness' of modern weaponry, tactics, calls, baits, dogs, etc. Any nostalgia for a certain level of technology as inherently 'fair' is completely arbitrary.

[paulsby]

66. a friend of mine in hawaii used to do this

he was a pretty ballsy guy in general

[spin]

83. And of course there's spear hunting wild boar...

9 year-old Zack bagged this huge wild hog with a spear

http://www.a-wild-boar-hog-hunting-florida-guide-service.com/boar-hunting-6-13-09-am.htm

(I sure hope the kid had some help from his father, who was also on the hunt.)

[Tim01]

13. Poisoning is more efficient, cheaper, and more certain. Have it your way. nt

[spin]

16. I'm not sure that it is necessary...

Because of declining hunter success throughout the 1990s, residents of McGrath were vocal about the need for aerial wolf control. They complained loudly and constantly that there weren’t enough legal moose to hunt. The most comprehensive moose population survey to date was done in the fall of 2001. Alaska Department of Fish & Game Biologists documented moose numbers and the bull/cow ratios within a 520 square mile area around McGrath known as the Experimental Micro Management Area or EMMA, as well as the rest of Game Management Unit (GMU) 19D East. 520 square miles is a relatively small area. It is in fact, just under 12 miles north, south, east and west of McGrath. The target ratio for a sustainable hunted population is 30 bulls/100 cows. Within the EMMA, that ratio fell to an unhealthy 6 bulls/100 cows. Outside EMMA and basically outside the range of lazy 4-wheeler hunters, that ratio was 44 bulls/100 cows-well above the healthy target. Here’s the kicker direct from the Alaska Department of Fish & Games official report:



“The low bull:cow ratio in this area (EMMA) results from an imbalance between hunting and recruitment. The bull:cow ratio in the remainder of GMU 19D East remains relatively high.”



In other words, the science from ADF&G’s own biologists contradicted the need for any predator control. Studies conducted for the McGrath Adaptive Management Team proved that over-hunting was the reason for the lack of moose in the area, not wolves. That data was buried and wolf control was implemented.
http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/wolf-in-governors-clothing/

[Tim01]

17. If this is accurate, then I am probably with you.

What you are saying is the low moose numbers are being caused by over hunting by humans.

This business of "lazy hunters on 4 wheelers" though, how do you expect a human to carry out hundreds of pounds of meat?
Are you in favor of hunters leaving the vehicle accessible areas and just carrying out what meat they can, in addition those heavy horns and their packs?

[spin]

20. I agree that 4 wheelers make hunting easier...

and have no problem with their use.

I also have no problem with flying an aircraft to a hunting area, landing and then hunting.

[E-Mag]

70. I chalenge you and the author of that article

"Outside EMMA and basically outside the range of lazy 4-wheeler hunters"

I would like to see you try and get out even the hind 1/4 if a moose in an area that a 4-wheel vehicle cant go. Once you or the author of that article does that they can call moose hunters that use vehicles lazy. The article from "JUST A GIRL FROM HOMER" seems like a unbiased credible source :sarcasm:

[JonQ]

43. Hard to aim poison

and affect only wolves, and no other wildlife.

Also when animals die they don't just disappear, many other animals scavenge off their carcass, which is now filled with poison.

And how is poison more certain than a bullet? I'd say if anything it's far less certain since you can't force them to eat it, and you can't control dosage very effectively.

[dashrif]

105. No

I had a buddy lose a dog and almost his life to a cyanide trap and the usda told him oh-well

[eqfan592]

18. Thanks Spin.

That was very informative, and it's appreciated. :)

[proteus_lives]

21. If there is an overpopulation, I don't see anything wrong with it.

But I do think it should banned for sports or other reasons.

[Obama2012]

32. They're doing it to artificially raise the caribou population for trophy hunters

[proteus_lives]

35. That's not a good reason.

Is trophy hunting a tourism money thing?

[Obama2012]

36. It's big money

A guy I used to work for was planning on spending $30k on a hunting trip to Alaska. To me, that's sick. Most hunters I know hunt to stock up their freezer. Not to spend big bucks to put a head on their wall like this guy. He even had mounted eagles. It was sick.

[dairydog91]

38. I don't understand it.

Personally, I'm not in favor of a true "ban" on aerial hunting, though I would like it restricted to situations where a population cull has become necessary.

As for spending 30k on a hunting trip: WTH? I've had some venison from hunters, and I was alright with that. As someone who's trying to help grow an orchard, I do think that deer can be a royal pain in the ass, though I don't chase them into the woods. I've killed a few copperheads, but only those that were making my swimming hole dangerous (I limited my hunting area to a few hundred square yards). I guess hunting stimulates some ancient human response, aka the "thrill of the hunt", though I've never been interested in it. I'd rather punch holes in paper.

[iverglas]

68. it took me a minute

I'd rather punch holes in paper.

I thought I'd encountered a new metaphor for boredom ... watch paint dry, read the phone book ...



... punch holes in paper ...

(It took a bit of a search, but I do like that pic)

[spin]

84. It's a little harder to punch holes in paper at a long range...

but I will admit it's boring to watch.

Once or twice I stopped by to watch the shooters at the National Midwinter Pistol Tournament which was held yearly in Tampa for many years until the Tampa Police Pistol Range closed down.

I could watch the shooters for about five minutes max.

It's a lot more fun shooting than watching.

[iverglas]

34. damn, I was positive

there was a thread about the exact same thing arond here somewhere ... I saw it only a minute ago ...

One each now.

The NRA thinks aerial wolf hunting is the cat's pyjamas. As does Ms. Palin, of course.

Dianne Feinstein thinks it ain't.

Huh.

This calls for deep thought.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. The NRA?

I just searched the NRA's site to see if they encourage aerial wolf culls. I didn't find any such thing. Not surprising to me, since you will find very passionate hunters on both sides of the issue. I don't even think it qualifies as 'hunting'. If anything one might call it 'pest control', or 'extermination'. I did find language like this:

"The federal government is holding hearings to obtain public comments regarding the delisting of Rocky Mountain wolves from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is critical that sportsmen attend the hearings in order to counter the emotional claims of anti-hunting forces, who seem to believe that a species’ listing should be permanent. Of course, the success of the ESA comes when a species, like the wolf, is delisted because its numbers recover after once being dangerously low.

Wolves have their place within the ecosystem. But, as with other species, sportsmen must be allowed to appropriately manage their numbers. Delisting will allow state game officials to provide for regulated hunting and trapping. Without this, wolves will continue to take an unacceptably high toll on elk, moose, and deer populations.

Six open house meetings in different states are scheduled on the proposed delisting (all six public hearings will be held from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.):"

Which is agnostic to the method used. Do you have a source that states specifically that the NRA supports aerial wolf culls?

[iverglas]

47. one thread was about the NRA and the aerial wolf hunt;

this one is about Dianne Feinstein and the aerial wolf hunt. I wasn't seeing a reason for two threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=243324&mesg_id=243324

My post 41, just over 24 hours ago.

http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingArticles.aspx?ID=313

The HSUS also opposes aerial predator control, which is not a method even used by typical hunters at all—in fact, it is an essential management tool used by state wildlife agencies. Without aerial control of wolves in Alaska, for instance, moose and caribou populations would be decimated. Professional wildlife managers know this.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Language quibble.

You said "The NRA thinks aerial wolf hunting is the cat's pyjamas."

By that press release, the NRA doesn't even consider aerial wolf culls to be 'hunting'. Granted, there are 'hunting tour' outfits that do it. Edit: Perhaps there are not anymore. Old info, federal law.

A more fair way to state that might be 'The NRA thinks aerial wolf culls by state wildlife managers is the cat's pyjamas.'



I do have a problem with that attitude. You can possibly skip culling the predators, by leveraging the easiest tool wildlife managers have at their disposal; no hunting tags for the at-risk non-predators that season, or longer if necessary.

Edit: that would eat into wildlife management funds though, since hunting tags are a significant chunk of the budget.

[iverglas]

55. not easy to find real info

http://www.slate.com/id/2199140/

Sept. 2, 2008

... Do people in Alaska really shoot wolves from planes?

... The federal legislation (PDF) does have a loophole for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops." (This doesn't just apply to wolves; coyotes and foxes are sometimes gunned down from aircraft, especially in Western states.) Since 2003, Alaska has issued aerial wolf-hunting permits in select areas where moose and caribou populations are particularly endangered. The idea is that by killing the predators, the airborne gunmen can ramp up the number of moose and caribou that human hunters can take home for supper.

Is permit issuing stopped now? I give up. It goes from ballot to legislature to the courts and back around again, from what I can figure out.

[Raskolnik]

42. I wasn't aware that the NRA had expressed an opinion about the aerial wolf hunting.

Could you provide a link?

[JonQ]

44. NRA is pro-guns

therefore any activity in which guns are involved they must support, like aerial hunting, armed robbery, 4 year old accidentally shooting themselves, gang violence, campus shootings, etc. Just like the ACLU actively supports every statement ever made because of their pro-1st amendment policies.

:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

46. indeed

NRA is pro-guns
therefore any activity in which guns are involved they must support, like aerial hunting, ...

They seem to think so on that one, anyhow.

[JonQ]

48. Actually the NRA is made up of millions of members

with a variety of difference beliefs. And I haven't heard them make a strong statement on aerial hunting either way.

Not to mention that aerial hunting is illegal for sport in the US, and has been since 1972. But I'm sure you knew that . . .

[iverglas]

50. actually, who cares?

If they don't support what the NRA says about aerial wolf hunting, let them speak for themselves.

Funny how the NRA speaks for quadrillions of billions of members on everything else, but maybe not on this one.


Not to mention that aerial hunting is illegal for sport in the US

Sometimes there are such interesting subtleties in things.

Aerial hunting to thin the population solely in order to protect other populations so they can be hunted for sport ... that, of course, isn't hunting for sport. In some people's minds, anyhow.

[JonQ]

51. And you've found a strong position issued by the

NRA upper echelons on this subject?

I know you hate guns and all, but you still need to cite your sources.

[iverglas]

52. feel free not to read

what I have posted in this very subthread in front of your very nose.

[JonQ]

53. You had no link referencing the NRA on aerial hunting

only one editorial referencing "aerial predator control". Not the same thing.

Very sneaky and dishonest of you to equate the two, but you are a gun-grabber so the subterfuge is expected.

[iverglas]

54. go tell spin

I'm sure he'll appreciate being told his OP is sneaky and dishonest.

[JonQ]

56. You really don't see the difference between hunting and population control?

Do you?

Are proper definitions another thing, like statistically significant correlations, that you don't feel are important?

[iverglas]

58. let me put on my special spectacles

The hunt in Alaska has generally been just that: a HUNT. Carried out by non-state actors.

Regardless of who carries it out, if the purpose of the "population control" is to preserve other populations FOR SPORT HUNTING, then it is "population control" only in the most disingenuous equivocating sense.

[JonQ]

61. What, in your mind, is population control

of wild predatory species? Not killing them to reduce their numbers apparently, so what is it?

You can argue that in this instance there is no need for population control, and that would be up for debate. But then you're just arguing when these tactics may be used, not against the tactic in general. Kind of like the difference between saying "meat is murder" and "I really just feel like a salad tonight", very different arguments.

So which is it, is aerial population control evil in all cases, in which case there is no need to argue its effectiveness as it would be wrong regardless. Or is it acceptable, but just not in this instance, in which case you'd be arguing against the decision by whoever is in charge of wildlife in Alaska for issuing these permits, not against the practice itself.

[iverglas]

65. please read Euromutt's post 27

It explains it concisely.

[JonQ]

69. His complaint seemed to focus mainly around

keeping the trophy and paying for the privilege.

If the decision to cull these packs was valid, how does the treatment of the carcass and selection criteria for those sent out to do the culling invalidate that? They either need to be culled or not. Arguing about anything else is merely nitpicking details to avoid facing an otherwise losing argument.

Are they expected to send out people who hate hunting? Perhaps draft some peta members to do it so no one is enjoying the process?

[iverglas]

71. oh, lord

Do you wind down eventually?

If the decision to cull these packs was valid, how does the treatment of the carcass and selection criteria for those sent out to do the culling invalidate that?

There we go.

Take the profit "selection criterion" out of it (on both sides: permit-issuer and permit-holder), and let's see how badly a cull is needed.

[JonQ]

78. How about this:

the cull was necessary, might as well make the best of it (a few bucks and a few hunters are happy)?

Does it have to be a win-lose scenario? I prefer win-win.

But that's just me.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. As I mentioned earlier

not allowing people who hit deer in the state of washington to keep the animal, eliminates the practice of using a cheap clunker to 'hunt' deer.

Take away the profit, and only the hard-core poachers remain. An improvement.

Take away for-profit hunting of wolves, and you still have pressure from the hunting industry to inflate game-animal populations by artificially suppressing predators, but it's an improvement.

[JonQ]

121. Wildlife management agencies

don't answer to hunters. They are funded by the state and generally do a pretty good job maintaining accurate numbers (as good as they can) and controlling animal populations.

That's one agency of the government that seems to work pretty efficiently most of the time, and I think most people are happy with the job they do.

If they say 20 wolves need to be shot, does it matter who shoots them? Or what happens with the carcass?

[AtheistCrusader]

74. You're missing the point.

The wolf culls have been ARTIFICIAL suppression of the wolf population to ensure an artificial SURPLUS of elk and such, so that elk and other forms of hunting are more certain to produce results.

It's not to 'protect' the elk and other species, it's to force an overpopulation of elk and other species, to allow more sport hunting of elk/others.


This is a problem, because predators are not the only factor in considering the carrying capacity of the habitat. Overpopulation of Elk in Yellowstone has actually caused the water table to drop. Now that the population is under control, the trees in the valley are coming back, because the elk aren't chewing them to death, which means the beavers are coming back, building dams and such, and the water table is coming back up. Fucking around with the predators to artifically inflate the non-predator populations for hunting is not conservation/wildlife management.

[iverglas]

76. I've been having a hard time verbalizing this one

for some reason. Or so it seems, anyhow. ;)

Over to you & Euromutt, on the two separate but related issues.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Ah-ha. His explanation in #27 explains my earlier confusion

about whether these 'hunting' parties for aerial wolf 'hunting' still existed or not. They apparently do, if Euromutt is correct, but not 'in name'.

[JonQ]

79. Again,

that doesn't argue against the solution, merely whether the solution is necessary at this point.

You're arguing timing, not ethics.

Note: you are saying culling is not necessary at this time, not that aerial culling is always an evil.

For instance, when arguing against the holocaust do you say that it wasn't necessary at that point, as there weren't too many jews in europe at the time? Or do you say it was evil, period, that there was no way it was acceptable?

So are you arguing that culling is not called for at this moment, or are you arguing that aerial hunting is wrong period, because those are two very different things.

I think the culling issue could be debated reasonably based on population estimates, projections and so forth, but that's no longer the ethics question posed in this thread, but a technical one.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. You mixed meanings again.

"So are you arguing that culling is not called for at this moment, or are you arguing that aerial hunting is wrong period, because those are two very different things."


Culling is not hunting. Culling is a wildlife management tool, that hunters do not benefit from, does not produce trophy's, or anything like that. I'll break it out into all three scenarios for you.

As a hunter, "hunting" from aircraft, is, in my opinion, completely immoral. Worse than hunting from automobiles or boats, which is completely illegal in my state, due to it's non-sporting nature. You can hunt ducks or even deer from a boat if you want, but if the boat is under power in any way, and a game warden catches you, you're fooked.

'Culling' from aircraft as a wildlife management tool, when justified by various conditions that warrant it's use in a conservation capacity, is fine.

'Culling' from aircraft while thinly veiling it as a 'management tool', yet selling permits to non-Wildlife Management personnel to perform the culling and allowing 'trophy' taking, and also artificially forcing overpopulation of certain species for the financial benefit of the sport hunting industry alone, is immoral and should be illegal.


Edit: Additional info, which might shed some light on the immoral nature of what Alaska is doing. In washington, if you hit a deer with a car, you do not get to keep the carcass or any part of the animal under any circumstances. The game warden will take the carcass, and perhaps perform post-mortem studies with it, to see if starvation forced it into an area where it was likely to be hit, or if the animal was healthy, etc. Or it may just be destroyed. Under no circumstances does anyone get to keep the animal for food or trophy purposes. This stops people from getting creative and gathering up some old rusted $100 shitbox pickups and going 'hunting'.

Alaska is allowing people to 'cull' the wolves by permit, and keep the pelts, or whole animal. That's not culling, that is hunting being performed under the guise of 'culling'. Not to mention the forced overpopulation of other game animals as a result of reducing the number of natural predators.

[JonQ]

82. So you are ok with aerial culling

as a practice, just not in this instance?

Ok, I won't argue that it is always justified, or even in this case, I was making the general point that *sometimes* it is acceptable. That the tactic itself is not evil, but it is debatable when it should be employed.

We seem to be in agreement.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. yes, as a wildlife management tool

if circumstances warrant, performed by state wildlife management personnel with no 'trophy' taking, I'm fine with it.

Better than trapping, and more effective than going after them on ATV's or whatever. If it needs to be done, fine.

[JonQ]

89. However, I take issue with your other argument

namely that they shouldn't sell permits, or allow people to take trophies.

Assuming that the cull is needed, and that is beyond dispute, does it really negate the good of the cull to allow people to pay for the privilege (to help fund wildlife management organizations) because they enjoy the process (I'm assuming they kill quickly and only the animals they are allowed to).

How does make the best of a bad situation make it somehow wrong?

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Yes, it negates the 'good'.

Because once you have profit motive, people move to exploit it. No trophy taking? Only Wildlife Managment can perform the culling? Significantly reduced motive to inflate the cull for non-necessary elimination of these predators.

Still might have kickbacks and other forms of fraud from the rest of the hunting industry, but it's an improvement.

[spin]

60. Someone mention me? Glad to respond...

The NRA supports Aerial hunting when called aerial predator control on a web page called NRA hunters rights .org.

Aerial predator control is not hunting—unless you are an animal rights extremist and mischaracterizing it as such will win support for a ban on the practice.

That is exactly what’s happening in Alaska, where Alaskans for Wildlife and Defenders of Wildlife are working to drum up support for Ballot Measure 2, which would prohibit the shooting of wolves and grizzly bears from aircraft.

NRA-ILA is actively involved in efforts to defeat Measure 2, which is set for a public vote on Aug. 26.

****snip****

That’s not to say that predator control has no basis or is a shameful practice. A single wolf can consume approximately 12 moose or 24 caribou in a given year, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s ungulate survival calculations. The Anchorage Daily News reported on May 19 that state wildlife officials saved more than 1,400 moose or nearly 3,000 caribou—or some combination thereof—through a winter program that killed 124 wolves via aircraft. The program’s goal was to kill between 455 and 670 wolves. The statewide wolf population is estimated to number between 7,000 and 11,000 wolves.

Preventing depredation is so important because wild game is integral to the basic food needs of rural Alaskans. Wild game is a high quality, local, organic food source preferred over meats shipped in from far away. Many small communities have few or no practical alternatives for meat. Most rural communities are not connected to road systems, are hundreds of miles from large cities, have no commercial-scale agriculture, and lack big grocery stores. Acquiring meat and other items from outside these communities can be cost prohibitive.

Predator management is one of the fundamental ways to preserve native big game populations and ensure that Alaskans have enough food to feed their families. In fact, predators kill more moose and caribou than hunters do, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. And it’s not as if the aerial program is widespread—it only takes place on 9 percent of Alaska’s total land mass.
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=895

Note: before making the OP, I didn't bother checking to make sure that the NRA would agree. True, I do belong to the NRA and have for years. I enjoy the monthly magazine I receive, The American Rifleman as it usually has excellent articles and reviews on firearms, both historical and current. It also contains propaganda, which I largely ignore. I pay my yearly dues to get my membership and the magazine and throw the NRA-ILA literature (which I get in the mail) in file 13. Occasionally, they try to contact me on the phone. I call screen and don't bother to answer.

The NRA does a lot of good for shooting sports and they do have excellent instructors for civilians, hunters and police. The NRA is very good at technical matters involving firearms and their use for sporting and self defense. Their political wing is typical of any political group. They lie and exaggerate to get donations.

Many people believe that NRA members march in lock step to the beat of their drums. The NRA is a big tent like the Democratic Party. Many NRA members that I've known, feel like I do. We consider the NRA view and form our own opinion.

If the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center published a monthly magazine with in depth performance reviews of firearms and their history, I would probably join. Of course, I would also ignore their propaganda.

Somehow I don't think this will ever happen.

[iverglas]

67. only in the sense that the best defence

is a good offence. Even if aimed elsewhere. ;)

I was actually referring to the bit saying "Very sneaky and dishonest of you to equate" aerial hunting and aerial predator control (which I wasn't actually doing). You called it "hunting" in your OP, so I thought you should share some of the opprobrium.

The main problem is that Alaska scammed the rules by calling hunting "predator control". Given that, I think we can call it pretty much what we want.

[iverglas]

45. well, I googled

The link is in tucsonlib's thread about a deal. Maybe you didn't read the thread.


... and I do know that Tucson isn't spelled Tucon ...

[Statistical]

39. :Under the bill, only certain state and federal officials would retain the right to hunt"???

Isn't virtually all aerial hunting done by state & federal officials. Dept of land management. Even in Alaska where the reasons are dubious (killing wolves to build up herds of game animal for hunters) it is still done by dept of land management.

Is this a do nothing bill?

[ManiacJoe]

73. I get the impression that the state employes usually

"subcontract" the job to "private hunters" on a regular basis (if not always).

[spin]

81. Interestingly, Palin opposed Native American hunting...

Palin has attacked Alaska Native Subsistence Hunting

Palin has also sought to invalidate critical determinations the Federal Subsistence Board has made regarding customary and traditional uses of game, specifically to take hunting opportunities away from Native subsistence villagers and thereby enhance sport hunting.

Palin’s attack here on subsistence has focused on the Ahtna Indian people in Chistochina. Although the federal district court has rejected Palin’s challenge, she has carried on an appeal that was argued in August 2008. (State of Alaska v. Fleagle, No. 07-35723 (9th Cir.).)

In both hunting and fishing matters, Palin has continued uninterrupted the policies initiated by the former Governor Frank Murkowski Administration, challenging hunting and fishing protections that Native people depend upon for their subsistence way of life in order to enhance sport fishing and hunting opportunities. Palin’s lawsuits are a direct attack on the core way of life of Native Tribes in rural Alaska.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/9/193512/8898

[iverglas]

86. very interesting

Where I'm at, the constitution says this:

Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(and the interpretations and implementation of treaty and aboriginal rights go on and on, and disputes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers, in particular flare up regularly)

And firearms law has all sorts of special provisions and exemptions for aboriginal hunters.

Even the European Union, in its politically-motivated and wrong-headed decision to ban seal product imports, has exempted aboriginal hunters.

Palin has also sought to invalidate critical determinations the Federal Subsistence Board has made regarding customary and traditional uses of game, specifically to take hunting opportunities away from Native subsistence villagers and thereby enhance sport hunting.

Speaks volumes, and provides interesting background to the issue of the real nature of the aerial wolf "cull" (esp. the issuance of permits allowing private hunters and "trophies").

[spin]

87. I stumbled across this by accident...

and I have to admit I was surprised.

I also found an interesting article from Native American Netroots ...A Forum for Native American Issues. at this link, http://www.nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/164/

[Taitertots]

85. Is the wolf population at risk?

If the wolf population can sustain such actions, then I see nothing wrong with them.


I don't think it is something I would do, but there are a lot of things I don't do that I think should stay legal.

[Euromutt]

90. I'd say that's backwards reasoning

I am active in a wolf conservation organization, so I acknowledge I'm biased on this score. However, there's any number of practices we ban as being inhumane to animals even if it doesn't threaten the general population, the ecosystem, etc. unless there's a compelling reason to do so. So really, the question is, does the Alaskan wolf population need to be controlled, and more specifically, does it need to be controlled by means of private citizens (who pay for the privilege of assisting in "predator control programs," and can keep trophies of the kills they make) using light aircraft?

To the best of my understanding, livestock depredation is not an issue in Alaska, nor are the wolves taking down so many elk and moose as to threaten their numbers, even factoring in local humans who hunt for subsistence. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Alaskan state government used to sell hunting licenses to take wolves using aircraft, and only after the practice was made illegal by ballot initiative did Murkowski (and Palin after him) resort to the "predator control program" dodge. Palin's also been drawing power regarding fish & wildlife issues towards a commission consisting of her political appointees.

I'll be honest; aside from his declared positions on abortion and gay rights, I thought McCain might make a decent presidential candidate. I even considered voting for him, depending on whom the Democrats fielded. Until, that is, he selected Palin as his running mate, and that mostly had to do with her position on wolf conservation.

[Taitertots]

91. No, it is just the opposite of your opinion

Shooting animals isn't one of the practices considered inhumane. The compelling reason is that people want to do it. There doesn't have to be a "need" to justify it. While I don't personally trophy hunt, I don't object to it.


So is it inhumane? No
Is it going to damage the overall population stability? No
Is it going to benefit the people of Alaska? Yes
Why shouldn't they?

[spin]

92. Answers...

Is it inhumane? Yes. Is it sporting? No.

Aerial shooting yields better results than traditional hunting, since it allows the hunter to cover a lot of ground quickly and track target animals from a clear vantage point. Historically, hunters also used planes to drive animals-polar bears in Alaska and elk in Montana, among others-toward gunmen waiting on the ground. But many hunters found the practice unsportsmanlike, since it violates the "fair chase" ethic, and animal rights activists call it inhumane, since airborne gunmen rarely get a clean (i.e., relatively painless) kill. In response to concerns like these, Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972, which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter.
The federal legislation (PDF) does have a loophole for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops." (This doesn't just apply to wolves; coyotes and foxes are sometimes gunned down from aircraft, especially in Western states.) Since 2003, Alaska has issued aerial wolf-hunting permits in select areas where moose and caribou populations are particularly endangered. The idea is that by killing the predators, the airborne gunmen can ramp up the number of moose and caribou that human hunters can take home for supper.
http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_2896.html
emphasis mine

Perhaps I'm wrong since I don't live in Alaska or want to go there to hunt moose or caribou. If so, watch this rather biased video and explain to me how they distorted the sport of aerial wolf hunting. I don't claim to be an expert, but shooting at a moving target from a moving aircraft with a 12 gauge shotgun doesn't strike me as an efficient and humane way to kill an animal.

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

In the lower 48, we hunted predators into extinction. Many feel this was a serious mistake. True, we now have a large deer population but while hunters may love the abundance they pose a serious risk to drivers where I live. Two of my neighbors within 1/8 mile have have their cars damaged in accidents involving deer and my daughter barely avoided an accident when three deer ran into the path of her car a month ago. My son in law who drives an 18 wheeler calls them big rats and his truck lost a headlight when a deer jumped in front of it a year ago.

Sure it's great to have more moose and caribou to hunt, but screwing with the ecosystem in Alaska by killing the apex predator is asking for trouble. It may benefit Alaska in the short run, but prove a mistake in the future.

Mother nature has done an excellent job of managing the environment in Alaska for thousands and thousands of years.

If Alaskans are finding a shortage of game to harvest for food, why not stop out of state hunters from trophy hunting?

Again, I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, just an observer. Tell me where I'm wrong.

[Taitertots]

93. Your entitled to your opinion, here is mine

First: Hunting to extinction is totally irrelevant because we are not discussing anything remotely similar. I only support sustainable hunting. To my knowledge the volume of wolf hunting taking place is sustainable.

Second: It doesn't have to be a sport. Things don't have to be made arbitrarily hard to be valid. I personally don't see the appeal, the things which make conventional hunting more difficult are why it is fun to me.

Third: I question the judgment of the "Animal Rights" people claiming this isn't humane. Organizations that are against all hunting have an obvious bias in the matter. I would be interested in hearing what unbiased sources think about how clean airborne wolf kills are. If it can be shown that there is an undue number of wolves that are being killed in inhumane manner than something should be done.

Fourth: The shortage of moose and caribou isn't about harvesting game for sustenance. It is about making sure there are enough to ensure that hunting (for food or trophy) can continue at the highest sustainable levels.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Hi, I'm a hunter.

Aerial hunting of wolves is fucking unsporting.

How is it any better than rounding up deer with pickups and spotlights?


over-culling to inflate other species, like deer or elk always has unintended side-effects, usually not recognized for years, or decades.

I mean, who the fuck thought that elimination of the wolf would lower the water table in Yellowstone, and re-introducing them would not only improve the health of the elk herds, but raise the water table?

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?newsid=179

[Taitertots]

97. Ok, I'm a hunter too

Rounding up deer with pickups and spotlights is not illegal for the animals sake. It is illegal because shooting on public roads at night is very dangerous. It is NOT because it is not sporting. It is because it is dangerous to humans and hunting volume is already high enough.


Yellowstone is irrelevant! No one advocated hunting them to extinction. It would be terrible.

over-culling to inflate other species, like deer or elk always has unintended side-effects, usually not recognized for years, or decades.
So you have no idea what problems it could cause, but you are absolute that it will cause them.

What does sporting have to do with anything? Do things have to be made arbitrarily difficult for them to satisfy you? I don't feel the need to justify myself by making things extra hard for no reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Really?

"Rounding up deer with pickups and spotlights is not illegal for the animals sake. It is illegal because shooting on public roads at night is very dangerous. It is NOT because it is not sporting. It is because it is dangerous to humans and hunting volume is already high enough."

That's nice, but people who do this, for the most part aren't using roads at all. You are completely wrong about 'why'.

Yellowstone is an excellent example of what happens when you artifically alter the balance of predator/prey. It's bad enough with human depredation of their habitat, and on top of that, agricultural concerns pushing for the elimination of predators. That's why we have a deer problem in Michigan, and oh, hey, nature is still 'trying' to balance things with failsafes like Chronic Wasting Disease. Yellowstone still had bears, cougars, and even coyotes would occasionally take down elk, but the lack of wolves changed not only the physical health of the elk herds (for the worse) but it altered their migratory patterns (basically eliminated them), and led to boom/bust starvation culls of the elk herds, and severe damage to the surrounding habitat, and every species that partially subsists on carrion.


Damaging the natural predator/prey relationship ALWAYS has consequences. I can't think of any that have ever been beneficial.

Besides, surges in the predator populations FOLLOW surges in the prey. If the wolves NEED to be culled, likely some other cause has reduced the prey population to levels that will not sustain the predators, or will not sustatain the predators without risking the continued existence of the prey population. (I.e. Humans)

It's actually all simple math. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka-Volterra_equation

[spin]

99. Much of my info has been from sources that obviously...

oppose the practice of aerial hunting. Since I am no expert on the subject, I have to be careful as the sources are not truly objective.

I believe you are correct when you say that hunting to extinction is not the goal.

I don't have any serious problem with hunters on the ground taking game, nor do I have any problem with flying to the hunting area and landing. My problem is mainly with hunting from aircraft, or chasing the animals to exhaustion with the aircraft and landing to finish them off.

Aerial shooting yields better results than traditional hunting, since it allows the hunter to cover a lot of ground quickly and track target animals from a clear vantage point. Historically, hunters also used planes to drive animals—polar bears in Alaska and elk in Montana, among others—toward gunmen waiting on the ground. But many hunters found the practice unsportsmanlike, since it violates the "fair chase" ethic, and animal rights activists call it inhumane, since airborne gunmen rarely get a clean (i.e., relatively painless) kill. emphasis mine
http://www.slate.com/id/2199140

While I'm not a hunter, I know many hunters who are very serious about not causing their game unnecessary suffering.

Two rules From an article named How To Hunt Responsibly:

Follow up on all shots, even if you think you missed. If you cared enough to fire a shot, you'd better be prepared to track and retrieve the game.

Show your respect for animals by taking only the best shots. It the game can't be hit in such a way as to put it down immediately, then you shouldn't take the shot. Quick, clean kills are the kind to strive for.
http://hunting.about.com/od/hunting/ht/htresponsible.htm

Blasting away with a shotgun at a moving target from a moving aircraft obviously fails to guarantee that you will put the game down immediately. Therefore, even the hunters I know feel it is indeed inhumane.

[Euromutt]

101. As spin points out, aerial gunning IS inhumane

Broadly, there are two ways to do it.

First, you can shoot the wolf from the air. Most hunters, excuse me, "predator control volunteers" aren't good enough shots to get a clean kill. They frequently use shotguns with buckshot to achieve some spread, but they generally need multiple shots to incapacitate the wolf.

Second, you can chase the pack literally to exhaustion, land the place, get out, walk up to the wolf and shoot it while it's defenseless.

I don't hunt, but I don't have an issue with hunting. But in my book, you hunt for food, sport, or both. Aerial gunning of wolves is neither.

And does it benefit the people of Alaska? They don't think so; they voted to outlaw aerial wolf-hunting in two ballot initiatives. That's why Murkowski had to rename it a "predator control program," even though participants have to pay the government for the privilege, and get to keep the trophy (and the law still calls it a "trophy").

[BrightKnight]

102. clubbing baby seals - Wolves are NOT an invasive species.

One reason seals are clubbed is because they compete with humans for fish.

I don't have a problem with any kind of hunting for invasive and destructive species like ferrel hogs. Wolves are NOT an invasive species.

After a conversation with someone in the Forest Service I got the impression that hogs were not being controlled well because there is money in hog hunting.

Why would somebody want to hunt a dog! Do people actually eat them?

[spin]

103. Feral hogs are becoming an increasing problem...

and they are indeed destructive and invasive. They are also edible.

Feral hogs have to be among the ugliest, dirtiest, and meanest critters farmers deal with in protecting their crops from pests. Unlike more common crop vermin such as caterpillars and weevils, however, wild hogs can injure the humans who attempt to limit their activities.

“Some have tusks that reach five inches in length,” says Rick Gilliland, district supervisor for the USDA, APHIS wildlife service. Gilliland works in the Texas Canyon District. “Feral hogs can rip you apart. They are formidable,” he said.

Gilliland and area game warden Gary Self discussed control options for feral hogs during the recent North West Texas Ag Conference in Memphis.

Trapping and hunting offer the best solutions, they said, but success with either will only “put a dent in the population.”

Gilliland said hunters kill between 6,000 and 7,000 hogs each year, a significant number but only a fraction out of a population that's projected at more than 3 million statewide.
http://southwestfarmpress.com/mag/farming_trapping_hunting_best/

[iverglas]

104. feral, ugly, dirty and mean

Sounds like the neighbourhood cats around here ...

[spin]

107. We did rescue one feral cat...

A neighbor found a tiny kitten in the engine compartment of his car. He planned to kill it. (Strangely, he had once been a Baptist minister until he got derailed by excessive drinking.) His 13 year old daughter brought it to us to see if we would try to save it.

After a month of living outdoors, the little fella endeared himself to my daughter. He was extremely brave or possibly stupid and enjoyed playing with my daughter's two Boston Terriers and a roomer's Rottweiler. The Rottweiler on several occasions carried the little kitten around the yard in his mouth.

So my daughter asked me if I wanted another cat. Just before myself and my daughter's family I had moved in this big old hotel we now inhabit, I had an indoor cat that died probably because of poisoned cat food from China.

The catch was that I would have to agree with declawing the cat as she was concerned with the eyes of her Boston Terriers. I did some research and talked to the vet and decided to go with the operation.

Of course, the kitten was checked out to be sure that he didn't have Feline Leukemia or any other serious problems. He was neutered and declawed. He then became an indoor cat. Since we live on a major highway, outdoor cats often have a short and tragic life.

I was very concerned with the declawing procedure but it seemed to have little effect on the cat who is now over a year old. He runs and plays with the Boston Terriers, sometimes they chase him, sometimes he chases them. He's become my best friend.

[iverglas]

110. unfortunately

our feral population is way beyond what my recent impression (a downturn) had been.

Our neighbour two doors down moved in about 5 years ago. She has spent a load of money on landscaping and renovating. She also started feeding the ferals. But while we had for years been dumping a bag of crunchies in a tub in the garage and leaving them to it, she started them on canned. Every two weeks, she has two overflowing blue boxes of the small-size cans out for the recycle.

So obviously, she started cutting into our business. ;) And the ferals began spending less time hanging around ours, and more around hers. They pretty much live in her large back garden now.

And breeding. We'd always pretty much just got the toms.

The problem with that isn't just that she finds herself with an expanding population. It's the raccoons. Apparently, raccoons eat kittens. She knows this because she has had to dispose of two litters of half-eaten kittens. Yeah, isn't that a lovely image. She is at the breaking point with it all.

She has a litter she is trying to catch and place now, and broached the subject with the co-vivant when she heard from another neighbour about Eddie, our second to die in two weeks last month, leaving us with just the one. Much as I have never been tolerant of excuses for not adopting a needy cat (one summer I had to find homes for a young female, a female and her litter of four, and her pregnant sister, after rescuing them when they were abandoned in an apartment across the street, and having already taken in the father a while before), I find myself just not up to it right at the moment.

And now, since you've told me the story of your feral twice now, I assure you that I find your report 100% credible, in its detail and the obvious sincerity of your telling, along with the fact that it makes you look just a little bit of a dork. ;)

(The co-vivant here was much like that with Eddie. He's still recounting Eddie's exploits when the two of them were out gardening ... the time he hid motionless behind a hosta for five minutes, waiting for just the right moment to leap over it and land an inch from Bouchée's face ...)

[spin]

115. True, the story does make me look...

a little like a dork. Being a gun enthusiast, the stereotype would indicate that I like dogs, especially big mean dogs, better than cats.

Oddly, I like and have owned both through my life and usually at the same time. Never had any real problems mixing dogs and cats, and watching them play is entertaining.

Cats appeal to me because of their independence and sheer intelligence. Dogs because of their usefulness, loyalty and devotion.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Nutria too.

Plump vegan rats.

[spin]

108. At least they are not big or dangerous enough...

to force you to climb a tree.

[Euromutt]

109. You'd be surprised

I heard a story about a road work crew near Vancouver, WA that disturbed one pair's nest/burrow/den/whatever. The nutria chased them several hundred yards down the road.

[spin]

111. Wow. Some quick research found this...

Nutria rarely bother other animals, such as cats or dogs, unless those animals are stalking or harrassing them, nor are they generally dangerous to humans. But, like most animals, they will attack when trapped or frightened. Here in Beaverton, nutria usually show a certain amount of caution around people, and will leave the area if they notice that they are being watched (particularly in spots where they don't expect people to watch them.) However, in spite of their normal peacefulness, I have read reports of nutria unpredictably becoming aggressive and threatening humans. It is unknown why this happens, but all creatures have a "fight or flight" instinct, and even a nutria will attack if it feels it cannot escape or has something to protect (like it's young.)

My husband and I have narrowly avoided altercations with nutria when we were walking down a pedestrian path that goes through nutria "territory" near our home. Twice now, we have had large nutria in this particular spot (and only in this spot) threaten us. A "threatening" nutria will hunch up its back in an attempt to make itself look larger. It will keep its head pointed towards you and may even rush forward at you. At the same time it makes a strange half-growl half-hissing noise that is quite unique.

If this happens to you, I suggest backing away slowly and quietly. Neither of the nutria I've been threatened by bothered us after we had moved out of its space.

On the other hand, nutria can be rather curious and quite friendly. In another spot near my home - one that is more "public" space shared with ducks and humans - large and small nutria will calmly take food from the hand, and even snuffingly investigate standing or kneeling humans. Even in this situtation I suggest maintaining a certain amount of caution - a nutria is a wild animal, and no matter how vegetarian or cute, can be startled and react on instinct. In particular, watch small children! A grown nutria on its hind legs is almost as tall as a preschooler. In search of a snack it could topple, frighten, or be frightened by a child. Also, keep in mind that nutria live "in nature" - most have parasites, including fleas.
http://www.conceitedindependence.com/Nutria.shtml

Personal injury lawsuit filed after Nutria attacks shopper

A premises liability lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart after a shopper was attacked by a large rodent. According to the personal injury lawsuit, the shopper suffered pain, suffering, mental anguish, fear, disabling injuries, and medical expenses when she was attacked by a Nutria. While pushing her cart down an aisle, a large rat like rodent ran out from behind a Coke rack. The personal injury plaintiff fell unconscious from the event, to which workers at Wal-Mart replied that she had met “Norman,” the store’s pet rat.
http://www.illinoisinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/05/personal_injury_lawsuit_filed_8.html

But they may be eatable:

Tired of turkey? Looking for something a little different to serve up this Thanksgiving?
How about a 12-pound water rat that culinary experts say tastes somewhat like a beaver, is less greasy than a 'coon but is not quite as good as possum?
Hold the green bean casserole, ma, I'm comin' home!
America's latest taste treat is called nutria and comes to us courtesy of the good citizens of Louisiana, who, apparently, will eat almost anything.
The decision to market nutria as a food source is not due to its wonderful taste (the smell of cooking nutria has been compared to that of Sarin gas), but to the fact that Louisiana has to eat nutria before nutria eat Louisiana.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-97/11-19-97/c07ad135.htm

[iverglas]

112. "Louisiana has to eat nutria before nutria eat Louisiana"

Any recipes for feral cats? My street has to eat cats before cats eat my street ...

Cute stuff. I don't know nutria (nutrias? nutriae?) and had been figuring they were a beaverish thing.

[jeepnstein]

113. It's a Cajun thing...

They'll eat anything. Good folks.

[iverglas]

114. maybe their Acadian ancestors

ate beavers. ;)

I'm a picky eater, and can't eat anything that is extracted from water. Except tuna sandwiches, with a load of onion. So my visit to New Orleans was not a culinary adventure.

[spin]

116. Well, another name for nutria is "swamp beaver"...

feral cat recipes? Reminds me of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmXxrMC5Pv4

[iverglas]

117. I don't know that I want to look (ed)

You might not want to look at these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW_FzDvGrmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-g7Ie0nr2k

Central Canadian yahoos illegally "hunting" ducks in Saskatchewan. Caught and sentenced now.



ed - I looked. Sometimes parodies/mockery, hmm, involve pushing that envelope.

For some weird reason my mum decided at the age of about 65 to be a Harry Chapin fan. But she has two ferals of her own, mum and daughter, who came from my sister's back yard (along with my sister's two, also daughters) and live with her in her senior cits' apt and stroll the hallway of an evening, and reared us all with cats, and it would probably give her nightmares.

[spin]

118. I should have mentioned that the video was parody...

glad to see the idiots were caught.

[SteveM]

119. A couple of years ago, hogs were culled using "automatic" weapons...

shot from helicopters over the Granger Wildlife Management Area, 55 miles NE of Austin. Seems the pigs were just too much for the surrounding farms, and hunting (only by archery) wasn't keeping them in check.

We are in the worst drought in 60 years, and there is no telling how this will affect wildlife (and invasive hog) populations. I do see a lot of "Africanized" oaks (so called by the horizontal and clean-cut manner in which leaves are eaten off lower branches by hind leg-standing deer) in the Hill Country. And the surviving deer are much thinner and scruffier looking. Here in Austin, I try to maintain a feral cat colony in the creek behind the vegetarian cafe (would you believe?) I frequent. It's getting pretty bad back there; one old feral has even tried to venture into the human area where a lot of folks bring their dogs. Desperation. And the next week is already predicted: seven MORE days of 100+ temps and no rain.

[iverglas]

120. I complained because I had no sun

and then I met a man who had no rain.

If I could send some, I would, believe me. It would be one of those mutually beneficial trading arrangements. But I'd do it for nothing.


Okay, all you feral cat fanciers.

http://www.parliamenthill.gc.ca/histoire-history/centre-eng.html



The building where the House of Commons and Senate of Canada chambers are located.

Just off to the left (west) of the building is:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Parliamentary_Cats

The Parliamentary Cats are a collection of stray cats living in the precinct of Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario. The project was originated by Irène Desormeaux in the 1970s. Care of what has become known as the Cat Sanctuary was passed upon Desormeaux's death in 1987 to René Chartrand, who was awarded the Humane Society of Canada Heroes for Animals Award for his work.

Chartrand built a small series of structures resembling mock parliament buildings inside a small enclosure for the cats; however, the animals are free to roam the property, easily slipping in and out of the gates. According to Chartrand, the cats were allowed inside the parliament buildings to help control rodent populations. There are currently around fourteen different cats on the premises. The cats are all spayed or neutered, and receive free inoculations and care from the local Alta Vista Animal Hospital. The care of the cats is entirely reliant on personal donations and volunteerism, and is estimated to cost C$6000 annually.

While formally intended for the cats, the effort also benefits countless raccoons, groundhogs and squirrels who partake in the cats' benefits. Since 2005 a support team of five volunteers has been established to help René with the maintenance of the colony.

[spin]

122. Interesting...

cats are indeed useful for curtailing rodents.

My feral cat has proved useful in catching the occasional outbreak of mice that occurs in this very old hotel we live in.

He does, unfortunately, have no interest in eating the rodents. He merely plays with them. He loves his Science Diet and doesn't seem to regard mice as food but merely as toys. A couple have escaped, but I think he practices a catch and release program like many fishermen. It's disturbing to find that he has caught a mouse and brought it up on the bed where I am sleeping to show me, especially when it manages to run away.

Since we decided to keep him as an indoor pet, the mouse population has decreased significantly.

All's well that ends well.

I love your statement I complained because I had no sun, and then I met a man who had no rain."

Damn, I do need to get that testosterone level checked.

[iverglas]

123. just because I think some in this thread might be interested

I know one former regular here was a bit of a fan of the mini-series Durham County. About some seriously strange people in Ontario, the usual psychopath killing women, the tortured cop with a history, that stuff. If you watch series 1 (it's in series 2 now, but episode 1, so far, was incomprehensible), get past episode 3 of 6, and it gets back on track. Anyhow, that's where this is, in the general Toronto eastern hinterlands area.


http://www.thestar.com/unassigned/article/681632

Meet the coywolf

The predators that are plaguing Durham Region and showing up in urban areas appear to be an emerging species resulting from wolves and coyotes interbreeding.

The larger, highly adaptable animals "have the wolf characteristics of pack hunting and aggression and the coyote characteristics of lack of fear of human-developed areas," says Trent University geneticist Bradley White, who's been studying the hybrids for 12 years.

We're seeing "evolution in action," he says.

... "In many ways, this animal is a creation of human impact on the planet," says White.

Although the coywolf hybrid has only recently been verified through genetic research, White believes they started appearing in southern Algonquin Park back in the 1920s.

... The population growth is a natural upswing following a mange epidemic that wiped out big numbers eight or nine years ago, he adds.

Oh, and has everybody seen the viral squirrel?



http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/681176

The camera's self-timer was set and Alberta's Banff National Park was providing a beautiful backdrop for a beaming couple when a wide-eyed ground squirrel popped into the frame and stole the shot.

The camera's focus locked onto the squirrel and the squirrel stared right back. A few feet behind the furry model, Melissa Brandts and her husband Jackson burst into laughter, their smiles blurred by the camera lens now focussed on the intruder.

Viral squirrel:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/colinm/a-chip-off-the-old-block-3m8o-85h?&r=true&z=1g9h26#responses

[spin]

125. That coywolf is one strange looking animal. (n/t)

[DissedByBush]

124. Hunting wolves by helicopter is way older than 2002 n/t