It might be an understatement to say that there’s a conflict brewing between U.S. Congressman George Miller of California and U.S. Congressman Don Young of Alaska. The battle stems from issues over wolf management in Alaska.
The state of Alaska, under the direction of the Alaska Board of Game and with the approval of Gov. Sarah Palin, is using aircraft to reduce the wolf population in specific areas where they are destroying the moose and caribou herds that supply native Alaskans with food. Animal lovers don’t like this and have been fighting the effort for some time. One of the radical groups involved is Defenders of Wildlife, of which it appears that Mr. Miller is a strong advocate for.
Rep. Miller is also the sponsor of HR3663(pdf), the misleading “Protect America’s Wildlife Act of 2007″, which is being promoted as a bill to stop aerial hunting of wolves. Rep. Young has pointed out on several occasions that there are already laws on the books that prohibit hunting from the air and that what is going on in Alaska is a necessary wildlife management tool – a tool that is not understood by those unfamiliar with Alaska, the area and the difficulty the geography of the region presents, along with the needs of native Alaskans.
Last Tuesday, Congressman Young, a ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter giving his reasons why his colleagues in Washington should oppose HR3663. In the process, he spells out quite clearly what he thinks of Miller’s bill and his friends at Defenders of Wildlife.
We are now witnessing firsthand one of the most cynical, disingenuous, and misleading fund-raising campaigns ever to be launched by a radical environmental group. Center stage in their campaign is Rep. George Miller’s H.R. 3663, the Wolves are Cute Act, which would end the State of Alaska’s Aerial Predator Management Program.
Young, like so many others, believe that Defenders of Wildlife, along with just about every other animal advocate group, have become so greedy to have money at their disposal to pay big salaries and keep their machine running, they now have to hand select the project they will lie, cheat and steal over, in order to be better able to play on the emotions of people to weasel money out of them.
In their efforts to muster support for H.R. 3663 while raising thousands of dollars in donations, Defenders of Wildlife have been busy inundating unsuspecting Americans throughout the country with emotional photos and inaccurate information about Alaska’s Predator Control Program.
After a plea from Mr. Young to his colleagues to take the time to better understand the truth of what’s going on in Alaska, he offers up a proposal of his own, albeit not the first time something like this has been tried.
Since the sponsor of H.R. 3663 seems to have such a deep love for wolves, and now that the Defenders of Wildlife have raised well over $100,000 on the animals’ behalf, I propose that Defenders use that money to gather Alaska’s surplus wolves and safely transport them to the seventh district of California.
This proposal is a win-win for everyone, and I would suggest my colleagues present it to Defenders of Wildlife representatives roaming the Capitol this week.
A reader here at the Black Bear Blog alerted me to the fact that Mr. Young’s proposal isn’t the first. I did a little research and found out that back in 2000, then Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a state that got wolves dumped on its front door step with the support of Congress back in 1995, suggested that wolves also be reintroduced into New York’s Catskill Mountains.
Part of Mr. Simpson’s motivation is to give New York representatives a taste of their own medicine. Like most Republicans from the West, he resents how Eastern members of Congress pad their environmental records with bills that restrict the use of Western public lands. In 1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents released Canadian wolves in the wilderness of his southern Idaho district. This brought loud protests from nearly all of the state’s politicians. Representative Simpson argues that restoring endangered wolves to the East is as important as saving them in the West.
I first learned of this proposal by Young while reading Amy Ridenour’s National Center Blog, which is part of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Having communicated before with Kevin Kennedy, a member of the Republican Professional Staff of the House Committee on Natural Resources, I sent him an email for more information. He sent along some links where the “Dear Colleague” letter was getting some attention in the media.
Mary Ann Akers’ “Sleuth” blog at the Washington Post has some coverage. She says Young is sending “shockingly graphic e-mail letters to his colleagues with gory photos” and likens it to “the tactics of extreme anti-abortion literature.” Not surprising that animal lovers and those who have never witnessed the realities of a wolf attack would compare it to that of abortions, of which they probably haven’t witnessed either. Notice it’s always a comparison of animals with humans, putting us on the same level.
Kennedy also gave me a link to a story which I had already read and was holding for just the right occasion. The Anchorage Daily News is reporting that residents, living in and around the same areas where the Alaska Board of Game is trying to reduce wolf numbers, are asking Alaska officials to overturn the current ban prohibiting the natives from killing wolf pups in their dens.
This is sure to stir a hornets nest and become excellent fodder for the money hungry wolf/predator advocate groups. They would like nothing more than plaster a photograph of the world’s cutest little puppy wolf dog all over in order to convince you to give them your money. This from a group claiming to care for animals yet seem to care not at all for the moose and caribou or your pet. In order to protect those predators, they tell people who have lost their pets to either move to the city or suck it up and get used to living where the wolves do – they were there first attitude.
As an excellent point of history and education, the same article points out that this was a necessary practice from many years ago in order for the natives to manage their food resources, something our society here in the lower 48 has no interest in, nor do they choose to believe it even exists. Maybe they just don’t care.
Many of the Yup’ik hunters who once controlled wolves in Western Alaska have died, but their stories have passed down, Roczicka said. People who are still alive today often share those stories, including members of Orutsararmuit, Roczicka said.
The natives are saying that if the aerial wolf management program doesn’t work or opponents become successful in stopping the killing of the wolves, they for sure will be seeking approval of this den killing as a necessary means of feeding their families.
Of course this suggestion is vehemently opposed by the conservationists/preservationists.
“We’re fervently opposed to it,” said John Toppenberg, director with Alaska Wildlife Alliance. “It’s been illegal in Alaska for a long time and deservedly so. It’s a Stone Age concept of wildlife management and has no place as a management tool for civilized people. It’s just barbaric.”
Mr. Toppenberg may think its a Stone Age thing, that’s barbaric and has no place in his society but they don’t live in his world. Sorry! Any rationally thinking person would have to ask themselves why there wasn’t a problem with wolf numbers and subsistence animals back when these “barbarians” were handling wildlife management on their own?
I don’t think that Mr. Miller will take Mr. Young up on his offer to transport the extra Alaska wolves to California but Young is trying to make his point even though some don’t like to deal in realities. Much like in 2000 when Rep. Simpson suggested to bring wolves to New York, it didn’t take long to pile up all the excuses and reasons wolves wouldn’t be good in their back yards but looked awfully precious in some unknown rancher’s back yard in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming.
There are just too many people now in this country that can’t see beyond the end of their noses. They may step into the hallway of their mid-town multi-million dollar apartment and see a neighbor and never speak to them. Or, another person walks out of their cabin, hut or shack in Aniak, Alaska wondering where their next meal may come from. The problem is both of these people are real people. They are somebody’s family, humans with needs, albeit quite different. They have a lifestyle they have chosen for whatever the reasons. I may not like the idea of someone killing wolf pups in order to survive but I am still human enough to understand, appreciate and respect that these are people. This is what they know. This is what they choose to be a part of and cannot and will not attempt to force my ideals on them.
I am also one of many millions of other human beings on this earth that place the importance of the human far above that of an animal. I read a comment left by a reader of the Washington Post article in which they asked the question.
“Who do you love more – WOLVES OR PEOPLE?”
This is a far cry from the question asked at the beginning of “The Sleuth’s” blog. She sees the entire effort by Young as a means of protecting his pet dog, proving the point that I don’t think she gets it either. She asks:
Who do you love more – dogs or wolves?
Are humans of lesser value?
Tom Remington
