Letters – Oct. 12
Aerial gunning for wolves goes too far
To discuss controversial aerial wolf gunning plans in Barrow rather than in southcentral Alaska is ridiculous. Furthermore, it should not even be on this agenda, if the full plan is not available in the proposal book that is sent to the public. This is not proper public process.
I strongly object to aerial wolf gunning. This type of management harkens back to the dark days in Alaska and elsewhere when predators were mercilessly slaughtered. In an era of new scientific evidence of the importance of predators to a healthy ecosystem, we should not be so quick to simply kill the predators. Good management has to consider the habitat, careful bag limits, cycles of weather and more. Harvest of too many moose by hunters is a very important factor. With more people on the Peninsula, there are not enough moose for everyone who wants to kill one. Realistically, there never will be. Jumping automatically to aerial gunning of wolves to provide more moose is really going too far in this drive to make Alaska into a moose farm.
Nina Faust
Healthy habitat is the key
I am ashamed that our wildlife is managed by such an unbalanced system. I don’t want the wilderness here to be used as a game farm, and I know I am not alone. Natural predator populations and natural cycles are far more valuable to me than meat in someone’s freezer. Healthy habitat is the key, not predator control. Prescribed burning/habitat management is the way to go, along with a new board of game.
Brad Josephs
No trash left behind
Like so many people who live here, my husband and I drive the Homer Spit every day. Sept. 24 was a nice day and on the first pullout, a large group of people were gathered here for the basket burning event done every year, with food and dancing. On Sunday, we made our usual trip and had the most pleasant surprise. The area where the party was held was so neat and clean. What a fantastic way to have a party and leave the area for the next group of people. As much as we could find out, the facilitator’s name is Mavis Muller. Everyone there deserves a big thank you and it was certainly noticed; we hope by everyone who uses the beach.
Geri Faller
Reading into library’s generosity
The Independent Living Center TRAILS group would like to thank all of the folks at the Homer Public Library for providing the TRAILS Program with a spot to have our monthly planning meeting for the past year. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.
Gabe Chapin and TRAILS
It takes a village
The new school year is close to ending its first quarter. Thanks to the generosity of the Homer community, more than 86 children from over 40 families were able to start their school year off on a positive note. Backpacks with school supplies were distributed to clients of the Homer Food Pantry during the months of August and September.
This year, the Omicron Chapter of Delta Kappa Gamma expanded its donation requests beyond the collection container at Ulmer’s Drug and Hardware. With the help of members of the United Methodist Church, Glacierview Baptist Church, Christian Community Church and Faith Lutheran Church, more than 60 backpacks filled with age-appropriate school supplies were distributed to children in need from the Homer, Anchor Point and Ninilchik communities.
A heartfelt thank you is extended to all of the folks who contributed with kindness and caring. Once again, Homer demonstrated its commitment to helping children succeed at school.
Karen Murdock
Omicron Chapter, Delta Kappa Gamma
Freedom comes with responsibility
During my years of public service, it has always surprised me that less than 30 percent of voters come out to vote. And that includes a mail-in effort for the South Peninsula Hospital service area some years ago.
My parents, who emigrated in the 1920s, understood not only how precious the United States is, but also that voting is the obligation of citizenship, to ensure a continuation of the freedoms we enjoy.
That said, I urge you all, please, take a moment and vote on Oct. 25. That is the mayoral runoff, and it is critical. My vote will go to Mike Navarre, because I believe he is the best qualified to run this multimillion dollar operation called the Kenai Peninsula Borough. His history in the legislature, his contacts there today, and a good working relationship with the governor will be very valuable in the years ahead. As Borough mayor in his first term, and faced with the formidable quandary of beetle-killed spruce trees, Mayor Navarre formed the task force that developed the Spruce Bark Beetle Program that then Sen. Ted Stevens was so generously able to fund over the ensuing years. Many in the borough have and still do benefit from the program. That is the kind of talent I believe we need in the mayor’s office today. As a businessman, he also knows how to keep costs in check. Please join me in voting on Oct. 25.
Milli Martin
Posted by Editor on Oct 12th, 2011 and filed under Letters to the Editor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
1 Response for “Letters – Oct. 12”
Comments are closed
Comments from Homer Tribune’s:
Aerial wolf hunt proposed on Peninsula
• First ever proposal to kill peninsula wolves to increase moose populations
Good Science=Fact says:
October 13, 2011 at 10:25 am
Yep, I completely understand your sentiment. If habitat evaluations and improvements would ever be implemented by AK DNR, I might be on board with temporary wolf reduction to increase moose #’s. Before I go further, could you provide me with proof that the AK DNR has remarkably improved habitat for Moose and/or Caribou during or after predator removal treatments? If not, then I rest my case. However, if yes, please continue reading below:
This recent study by AK DFG correlates predation rates of Moose with different predators in the interior of the state: Black & Brown Bears (summer), and Wolves (Autumn). “Effects of Predator Treatments, Individual Traits, and Environment on Moose Survival in Alaska”. Journal of Wildlife Management:
“we recommend managers implement programs that include collecting comparative data on 1) the relative abundance and take of moose and predators, 2) basic information on moose nutritional status and population composition, 3) the frequency of deep snowfall winters, and 4) the relative effects of different predators on moose survival, because the effects vary considerably among study areas (Boertje et al. 2009: Tables 4 and 5)”.
“black bears were the dominant source of predation mortality during all years except 2007 (Fig. 2)….”Wolves and brown bears were largely secondary predators compared to black bears.”
While the above statements were in reference to the study area located in the interior of AK, I included it to reinforce my point below.
I would prefer the AK BOG to adhere to the scientific process and research the above factors rather than just pull the trigger on wolves and pray. To my knowledge, AK DFG hasn’t done a study evaluating the above factors on the peninsula. If they have, I’d like to see proof. Personally, I don’t feel it’s ethically justifiable to manipulate predator densities for our benefit, especially when we screwed up in maintaining/destroying the habitat. Why should the predators be punished? I think it’s pretty obvious who should be punished.
By the way, I’m on my way to grad school for a M.S. in wildlife biology in the next year…
YEP says:
The principles of wildlife management can only be understood after years of higher education. Simply perusing the internet, even for a lifetime, will never make you an expert on the science of WM. Only a college degree will enlighten somebody to the processes and intricacies that managers concern themselves with when dealing with an issue such as declining moose populations in the presence of wolves and people.
It seems that the best available science contends that moose populations are in decline because of habitat degradation due to fire suppression. The obvious remedy has already been stated, but this is a remedy that won’t have immediate benefits. The transition period between burning and seral rejuvenation will last at least a couple years, during which time the moose populations will continue to decline. To cushion this downward trend, managers have proposed culling wolves, in an effort to alleviate some stress on moose until primary management practices have a chance to fully develop. Obviously, 25 wolves will impact moose much less than 75 wolves.
Nobody is talking about “wiping out” wolves, but a reduction in wolf density will alleviate pressures while the seral stages are set back.
Alaska is a subsistence community, and with the antler restriction in place on the Peninsula, I know a great number of families that don’t have the traditional “full freezer” that they depend on over the winter.
The proposed wolf measure may sound brutal, inhumane, cruel and unnecessary but in reality its a measure aimed at promoting viable moose growth, in conjunction with other management practices, which have been proven time and time again.
Fortunately, the professionals will do their job and will not let the unenlightened and ignorant sway their decision making process. Logic will prevail here on the Peninsula.
Maka’s says:
It’s good to see we have some REAL college educated experts in this lowly crowd of online ignoramuses, however, I strongly disagree with your theory on Wildlife Management “needing years of higher education to understand the reason for the decline of moose in Alaska” … it only takes one soul with common sense to realize the efforts to change the nature of things (costing the taxpayer an arm and a leg in expense – like when the BOG culled the wolves in Yellowstone National Park). Not only does it repeatedly backfire on humans, but it creates a larger problem in the unforeseeable end game.
The most logical step would be #1) to stop humans from killing moose for two years while the moose repopulate. #2) If you are going to kill them, learn how to eat the wolf. #3) Science “lies” for the right price, just like any other business, and we’re all learning that.
Any good logician can look at this picture and tell us moose are in decline from the “human element,” and not the wolf or bear.
When all the new “hunting” residents fill their freezers with moose this year, plus, “the great number of families that don’t have the traditional “full freezer” that they depend on over the winter” ALL, bag their moose this year, your scientific logic will most CERTAINLY be, to start culling the bear too. Have you ever thought of culling the hunt? One hundred hunters will impact the moose more than 200 wolves (who btw eat many other sources of food than moose) while hunter’s hunt ONLY the moose. Who impacts the moose more from this logic?
The proposed wolf measure IS brutal, inhumane, cruel and unnecessary. No amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo can configure the “bush” life in a lab, or on a hunting expedition, or from an airplane without having lived with, and known first hand how to respect the wild bush elements. Then, like you say, in the end “science” will create unforeseen problems in Nature, as human kind always “manages” to do.
With something as important as the survival of “man” AND “nature,” the “professionals” need to be selected by a higher authority of intelligence other than appointed by nefarious agencies, such as gun clubs, trapping clubs, sports hunting clubs, and other unscientific agencies. IMHO, Alaska’s fate hangs with the more personal “good ole boy” agendas than it does with sound scientific awareness. Sad how fast money talks. Please, let the Wolf walk.