Aerial hunting

[den]

On the Freefall forum is a massive about the aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska. The debate runs from emotive and uninformed to well informed. (Don't make assumptions about that statement. Some of the anti-hunt are very well informed, as are some of the pro-hunt.)

Normally I'd jump in to a debate like this because I'm an environmentalist and conservationist, but I don't know enough about the facts in Alaska so I'm posting here. From what I have seen and read the predator-prey cycle is a boom-and-bust thing, so reducing the predator numbers will not increase the prey numbers over the long term. There will be a short term increase, followed by a long term decrease caused by starvation, parasites and disease. (Read Mark Stanley's post)

Hunting for control is a highly emotive issue. People see animals dying for no real purpose. Here in Australia there is a huge outcry against aerial shooting of animals. "The animals have a right to live!" is the emotion behind the rhetoric.

Well, as an environmentalist and conservationist, I whole-heartedly support the extermination of wild horses, water buffalo, goats, pigs, cats, foxes, dogs (not dingoes), rabbits, donkeys, and anything else that is feral. I think the right to not become extinct is more important. I think bilbies, narla, numbats, hairy-nosed wombats, quokka, palmer wallabies, rock wallabies, leadbeater's possums and coroboree frogs have the right to not become extrinct.

And that is a very real possibility with all the animals on that list.

Comments

[tygermoonfoxx.livejournal.com]

They arial hunt for coyotes in Wyoming and Colorado. I've seen the results: not pretty. Hunters seldom get a clean shot and they often leave the animal to suffer and die. The die-off from starvation in the herbivores often results in disease being introduced into the human population because the carcasses pile up and are washed into the water supply. It's not so much that the wolves have a right to live as they have a right to die quickly.

I'd also like to point out that there are alternatives. We have areas where wolves once roamed that would benefit from reintroduction. The wolves could just as easily be tagged and relocated to places like that.

Australia's situation is a bit different. You have a unique ecology and the animals you named are not native to the ecology. Here, we're talking about the destruction of a native animal which is part of the prey/predator cycle.

[thewatcher.livejournal.com]

Thought this may be of interest.

In the beginning of this legend, there was a man and woman. And nothing else on Earth walked or swam or flew. So the woman dug a big hole in the ground and she started fishing in it. And she pulled out all of the animals. And the last animal she pulled out was the caribou.

So the woman set the caribou free and ordered it to multiply and soon the land was full of them. And the people lived well and they were happy. But the hunters. The hunters only killed those caribou that were big and strong and soon all that were left were the weak and the sick. And the People began to starve. So the woman had to make magic again and this time she called Amorak, Spirit of the Wolf, to winnow out the weak and the sick so the herd would once again be strong. The People realized that the caribou and the wolf were one. For although the caribou feeds the wolf, it is the wolf that keeps the caribou strong.

Make of it what you will..

-TW