The News-Miner editorial "A Public Purpose?" (Nov. 17) argued that killing young wolf pups in their dens was not reprehensible if it resulted in more caribou and moose for hunters. Such killing of pups at dens might ultimately serve a broader public purpose and critics should broaden their view.
As I read the editorial, I wondered if the News-Miner considers any method of killing predators to produce more game for hunters to be off limits. We now allow practices that were prohibited for many years, such as pursuing wolves with snowmachines, shooting bear cubs, selling bear hides and skulls and hunting same-day-airborne. What's next? Why not bring back poison, widely used by the feds during territorial days? Or allow private use of helicopters with fully automatic weapons? Perhaps we should dynamite traditional wolf dens used for decades.
Are there no limits? Alaska has strongly divided opinions on predator control. Some people endorse the News-Miner's view that aerial shooting is just fine and we need to expand its use. Others think we already are way over the line and have too many private pilots shooting too many wolves in too many areas. But can't we agree that there must be some common ground - some practices that most people oppose with good reason? Practices like using poison. Might those practices include denning? The editorial's claim that denning is good public policy is a very myopic view of a very controversial practice. Setting public policy entails more than the interests of just hunters.
The editorial argues that killing wolf pups at dens is no different than killing dog pups by animal control officers or slaughtering cows. But wolf pups are wild animals and the legal and moral restraints on killing them are different. We clear-cut corn fields each year, but should we also clear-cut forests? We don't manage corn fields and forests the same way just because both grow plants. Nor do we control dogs and wolves the same way just because both are animals.
The editorial also asserts that our public officials given the task of predator control ensure that the killing is swift and efficient. Why, then, did the Game Board remove provisions in the predator control implementation plans that required the Fish and Game commissioner to conduct predator control safely, efficiently and humanely? Can we assume it's now unsafe, inefficient and inhumane? If so, that's OK by board standards.
The editorial concludes by claiming that those interested in wildlife viewing, as well as hunters, benefit when predator control results in more moose and caribou and ultimately more wolves. This assumes that predator control "works." It ignores the fact that many prior control programs failed to produce more game. And it ignores the fact that the current model guiding predator control provides for perpetual control. As moose and caribou numbers increase, predator control continues lest predators increase and again reduce numbers of ungulates. Those interested in seeing or hearing wolves are out of luck, as are trappers wishing to harvest and sell wolf pelts.
Rather than chastising people like me to broaden our view, perhaps the News-Miner might seriously consider that there are limits to predator control, and some practices like using poison and killing pups at dens should be prohibited. Is that asking too much at a time when more than 100 private pilots are shooting hundreds of wolves across vast areas and trappers can set unlimited numbers of wolf traps and snares? We can do the unpleasant job of controlling wolves when we must with tools other than poison and denning. If nothing else, can we agree on that?
Vic Van Ballenberghe of Anchorage is a wildlife biologist and former Board of Game member.