by Share Bond

We are very concerned about any plans to hunt, cull or trap deer, wolves, bear or any other wild animals in state parks, private property, canned hunts, or anywhere for that matter.  We oppose the organized slaughter of wild animals for many reasons, a few of which are summarized below.

There are always humane solutions and, if allowed to, nature has a way of staying in balance without interference from man.

The pictures below represent typical species that are hunted or trapped:

 (((((((WARNING)))))))))).

Click the Bear to see the result of hunting.

Click the Fox to see the result of trapping

Choose an animal for specific information: 

Many thousands of hunters wielding rifles and shotguns will descend on bear country, or, more precisely, on the black bears and the people who live nearby.  The shy animals are trusting of humans and will be especially vulnerable.  Bears are comparatively difficult to kill and easy to wound.  A stricken bear bellows in anguish and pain, panics, and tries to hide.

The admitted trophy hunt is being carried out for "public safety" - a claim that withers under casual scrutiny.  But even the latter is absent in a barrage of sensational reports portraying this peaceable species as a public menace.  A cynical manipulation is plainly obvious, with individual animals' every move emblazoned in sensational headlines.

The Facts:  A hunter is 200 percent more likely to kill a human than a black bear is, and many hundreds of times more likely to cause injury.  Hunters have killed numerous humans over the years.  Black bears have killed no one.  Hunters have caused literally thousands of injuries during that same time.  Nationally, hunters cause nearly 100 fatalities, reported, each year (in 1997, the number was 96).  That's nearly l,000 deaths in 10 years.  Black bears have killed 50 people within the past l00 years.  The two most recent cases, in Tennessee and New York, were in states that hunted bears.

Public safety is critical.  That's why it's so important to immediately implement independent and competent bear co-existence programs.  The simplest means of reducing incidents, and bear incidents are overwhelmingly non-violent, isn't killing.  It's handling human garbage, in restaurant dumpsters, at home containers, in camp grounds.  Actually enforcing the law is pivotal.

There are preventive measures and alternatives to the bear hunt

Treat bears with respect and distance.  Black bears are extremely timid creatures and will usually run at the sign of a person.  If you live near bear habitat and don't want bears on your property, you should not put out a birdfeeder.  Bears are attracted to any kind of food left outdoors.  You can prevent them from coming near your property by storing all food indoors and all trash in air-tight garbage cans.  You can order bear-proof garbage cans and food storage lockers from McClintock Metal Fabricators (800-350-3588) or from Bearproofing-R-Us.

At the top of the food chain, reproducing very slowly and breeding late, the black bear is an ideal candidate for breeding control.  Instead of promoting hunts, the state should work with independent organizations in setting up regional co-existence programs and expediting contraceptive or sterilization processes.  There is no record of bears biologically "overpopulating".  Effective co-existence programs can be implemented immediately.

Bear issues in different states and countries

Despite pleas from northerners who are losing money and recommendations to reinstate the province's spring bear hunt, the Ontario government said their hunt will remain outlawed.

Michael Gravelle, another northern Liberal who had called for reinstatement before the election, said the government was in a difficult position because of the lack of a scientific link between nuisance bears and the hunt ban.

There have been several frightening incidents in Ontario in which people have felt threatened by bears in recent years, prompting calls for a return of the spring hunt.  Ramsay said the public has to be better educated about how to avoid problems with the bears.

In New Jersey, McGreevey is desperate for the bear hunt issue to go away, but we shall not appease him in this.  Continuous pressure is being applied to him until he is batted from office in the next election.  We want to make sure he knows that the ghost of the little bear cub shall haunt him forever.

The second stage of the counter-attack is to ban hunting itself.

There are three major campaigns that are born from the bear hunt and spiral outward with massive possibilities.  The first is an all-out attack against the NJ Fish and Game Council.  Though the Governor has been the focus of responsibility for the hunt, the genesis of the thing began with the Council, and indeed, it is the Council itself which condemns more than ONE MILLION wild animals to searing death every year.  

(Click for information on our Educational Video)

When you have beavers chewing on trees and building dams that flood roads, tell your local officials that killing beavers and destroying dams will not solve the problem - migrating beavers will soon move in and build a new dam.  Instead, certain measures such as wrapping hardware cloth around tree bases to prevent felling, or installing perforated PVC or flex pipes through beaver dams to control flooding are very effective ways to resolve beaver problems.

Any state wildlife agency can get free "beaver baffler" materials for landowners through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Partners for Wildlife" program (call the Branch of Habitat Restoration at 703-358-2201 to locate your state coordinator to find out about this little-known program).  The brochure "A New Way to Solve Beaver Problems", describes these techniques in further detail.  The Fund for Animals provides a hotline specifically for beaver conflict questions at 203-389-4411.

The best systems for controlling beaver flooding are based on deception and exclusion.  The beaver dam can be breached in such a way that the beavers don't hear the sound of running water, and the water level can then be controlled, unbeknownst to the beavers!  Before installing any water level control device, be sure to check if your town requires breach permits or has other restrictions.

We should withdraw from the Interagency Bison Management Plan.  If the Park really doesn't want to slaughter bison, they should be encouraged to withdraw from the Plan that requires them to do so, and develop a better plan that addresses the issues without killing bison.

Alternatives should be explored.  Alternatives were considered in the Plan, but so far money has not been made available to develop a long-term quarantine facility so that bison could be introduced onto reservations as requested by the Intertribal Bison Cooperative.  It's time that money being spent on the slaughter be spent to explore viable alternatives.

America's natural heritage should be protected.  The Yellowstone bison herd is a unique part of our natural heritage and deserves protection.  The Park should fulfill its mandate to preserve our natural environment for future generations.

The Park's population target of 3,000 is not protecting the genetic viability of this unique last herd of free-ranging wild bison.

 (Click for more information on our Educational Video)

When coyotes are in neighborhoods, many people are afraid that they will attack children or pets.  They are generally afraid of people, and rarely attack humans.  The best thing you can do for cats and small dogs is to keep them indoors - both for their own safety and for the safety of neighboring wildlife.  Coyotes are opportunistic eaters, and are attracted to places where they can find "easy pickings" of fruit, trash, or small animals.  You can make sure you don't attract coyotes to your house by taking several additional precautions:

1) Don't keep pet food outdoors and bring in all pet dishes before dusk; 2) Pick the fruit from your trees as soon as it ripens and keep rotten fruit off the ground; 3) Keep trash can lids securely fastened with snap-on lids or bungee cords, and keep trash cans in your garage until collection day; and 4) Have a coyote fence installed which is approx 6-1/2 to 7 feet tall with a piece jutting out at a 90% angle from the top away from the property.

When there are coyote sightings and complaints, traps are setup and the animals are killed.  Sometimes a new non-lethal snare is used that is designed to hold an animal with little or no injury to it.  They seem the best alternative to other traps or controlled shooting.  The traps should be checked at least daily, if not more often, but will this be done?  And usually ensnared coyotes are killed.  The traps are designed so that a child is not likely to become trapped, but oftentimes smaller non-target animals lose limbs in this type of trap.

What happens to other wild animals found in these traps - such as foxes, raccoons or opossums - if they become ensnared?  They are usually killed as well, but any domestic animals normally are released.

Most of the time when claims are made against activities of coyotes, they are untrue or gross exaggerations based on fear.  They know that in order to "get rid of" these animals, they better have a pretty good story to get any action.

The rabbit population is usually a pretty good indicator of what the coyote population is like.  When the rabbits are scarce, the coyote population shrinks.  When the rabbits get abundant, the more coyotes you have.  The hungrier coyotes are, the more havoc they wreak.

While some feel the coyote is worthy of their scorn, they are also worthy of our admiration.  Coyotes are smart in the country, but also smart in the city.  They know that pets are being let out the back door at 6:00 in the morning.  They know which houses have cat and dog food bowls setting out.  They know who has the uncovered bag of pet food or who put their trash out the night before.

It can be frustrating for homeowners, but they are the ones who moved into their territory.  The coyote is just adapting to human encroachment.

You can protect your farm animals by penning them up at night.  You can also employ security.  Donkeys, llamas and Great Pyrennes dogs are used as guard animals.  Solo animals work well because they buddy up with the herd.  If you have two animals, they buddy up with each other instead of with the herd.

If you run into a coyote, leave it alone.  They don't want to hurt you.  They're just going about their business trying to find something to eat.

Wild dogs are a different situation.  In many cases, stray dogs running in a pack are a lot worse than coyotes and bobcats, who only kill for food.  Wild dogs kill for sport.  The coyote is watching one calf.  The wild dogs are chasing a group of lambs and goats.  They're liable to kill 10 or 15 of them.  Wild dogs are, for the most part, products of wild people who delight in dumping pets by the side of the road.

The coyote is an opportunistic, nocturnal canine predator that primarily feeds on mice, other rodents and rabbits.  In urban settings, the coyote has been known to hunt cats and small dogs.  There have been no reports of any human attacks.

When there are trapping fees (usually $200 non-refundable) why would departments make sure the complainers fulfilled any of the mandated requirements first?  Instead of hunting or trapping coyotes, educational materials should be distributed.  There must be a public education program by the department on how to exist with coyotes through community meetings, pamphlets, media articles, etc.  ("Living with the Urban Coyote" is an excellent pamphlet).  Residents will also learn that co-existing with coyotes is the most cost-effective option available to the City's residents.

Questions that need to be asked are:  When people "claim" they were chased by a coyote, did the department catch people chasing coyotes in the act of chasing people?  Did they catch the specific "people chasing coyotes"?  If so, how?  Did they just set traps and catch whatever young coyote happen to blunder in?  What happens to coyotes that aren't sick?

It is estimated that it costs the City (our tax dollars) over $5,000 in time, manpower, paper work, etc. to trap and kill one coyote.  At least 500 each year are destroyed by department Animal Control Officers in each city.  With the cost of living rising yearly, it would now cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,000 to trap and kill a coyote.  So, if the city has money to trap and kill coyotes at approximately $7,000 each, then why don't they have the funds to continue issuing the low-cost and free spay and neuter vouchers?  Why do we have broken unusable cages at some of our inner city shelters?  Why do we not have x-ray machines at our shelters so that injured strays can be diagnosed correctly and hospitalized according to state law?  Why do we not have enough of the necessary pain killers for all injured animals at our shelters?  Why is the department asking the humane community for help with supplying food for shelter animals?  Why are they asking the humane community for funds of any kind if they have plenty of money to trap and kill coyotes per citizen request?

The Facts:  Biologist Marc Bekoff of the University of Boulder Colorado (who wrote the definitive book on coyotes) has provided a wealth of information on their behavior, and historically, they have never shown the aggressive behavior that the resident complainers have attributed to them.  CHASING AFTER PEOPLE?  NO WAY!

It is now common knowledge that "Nature abhors a vacuum".  Take out those coyotes, and they will eventually be replaced by many others.  In the meantime, that vacuum will be filled by rats and other vermin.

DEER   

More and more of the environment is being engulfed by urban sprawl.  Some species, such as deer, adapt amazingly well to our human-created environments.  The short-cropped lawns and tasty flowers in our suburban landscapes provide exactly the kind of succulent food that deer seek out in the "edge" habitat they prefer.

To keep deer from eating shrubs and flowers in gardens, there are several good deer repellents, such as "Big Game Repellent Deer Away" which is available at garden stores.  An 8-foot woven wire fence or high tensile electric wire fence kit (available at many garden stores) will keep deer away from small gardens if installed properly.  We offer a brochure called "Living with Deer" that describes in detail many of these fencing techniques, effective repellents, and lists more than 100 types of plants - including marigolds, daffodils, and hydrangeas - that deer generally find unpalatable and will avoid.

To request a copy, please call or email us at ProtectRWildlife@aol.com.

Once rarely seen, deer now abound, often achieving high densities.  Some people relish the sight of a doe with fawns on their lawn while others react with frustration at the thought of more browsed plants.  All are concerned about increased levels of deer/vehicle collisions.

Controversy erupts when a cry for deer hunting goes up in communities around the country.  Those who favor non-lethal alternatives argue against taking the lives of deer.  Hunters claim that they can solve the problem with bullets or arrows.  Politicians form deer advisory committees in an attempt to reach consensus.  Newspaper headlines report spirited debates at town meetings.  The scenario is all too familiar.

The following information discusses the source of a variety of deer problems as well as misconceptions that lead to exaggerated fears about the presence of deer.  There is a long list of non-lethal techniques that homeowners can use to resolve deer/human conflicts.  Repellents and scare devices tend to work better for low to moderate browsing problems, yet fencing works better on more severe problems.  Therefore, it is important to analyze your deer situation before choosing your deterrence plan.

There are plants that deer will tend to avoid or prefer.  Deer taste buds vary geographically and seasonally, and are largely dependent on what alternative plants are available.  Check your local garden store for information on what types of plants seem resistant in your area.  You can also contact your local Cooperative Extension Service for this information.  To find one of these specialists, see the directory for your state on the web site www.reeusda.gov/statepartners/usa.htm or call your local state university's School of Agriculture.

1.  There are more humane methods available for reducing deer populations.  Spay-Vac is an immuno-contraceptive which has been proven to be 100% effective in preventing deer pregnancy for at least five years with a single treatment.  Using this method and then waiting a few short years for the herd to naturally reduce in size is a much more sensible approach than the one favored by DNR.

2.  Killing a fraction of the deer population will not prevent the high number of deer-car collisions that occur.  Simple measures such as placement of reflectors along the roadside will discourage deer from entering the roadway (especially during dawn, dusk, and evening, when most accidents occur).  Further, the introduction of frequent speed bumps along the road will encourage motorists to reduce their speed in the park.  These are basic, inexpensive options that protect not only deer but humans as well.

3.  It has been argued that biodiversity has suffered due to the presence of deer, especially in comparison to some other areas.  Deer browsing only suppresses vegetation temporarily (as readily shown in recent studies of deer enclosures within parks).  As long as vegetation is scarce, deer fertility rates will continue to drop, consistent with recent DNR estimates that reproduction rates have already dropped by 30% in most parks.  Aided by diligent use of Spay-Vac, the park vegetation can easily be restored without resorting to violent means.

4.  The plan to proceed with wildlife culling is usually implemented prior to the completion of comprehensive studies of each situation.  Current deer population estimates are very imprecise and the health of the herds have been estimated on the basis of very few questionably-selected observations.  It is simply inappropriate to kill any deer under these circumstances.

To keep geese from defecating on lawns, go to your local party store and buy several helium-filled Mylar balloons with weights tied to the bottom.  Set them around your yard - their reflectiveness and bobbing movement will scare them away.  For information on Rejex-It, a grape-flavored goose repellent, call the Bird Barrier Company at 800-503-5444.  A new multi-sensory repellent called "Flight Control" combines a sense of digestive upset with UV-colored warning system.  When applied to grass, it is invisible to the geese but not to humans.  For other long-term, humane solutions to geese/human conflicts, contact GeesePeace.

There is no reason to trap and kill hundreds of wild rabbits when they can be relocated.  If they are killed, rabbits from the surrounding area will soon replace any removed.

When rabbits are on airport property, they should install low (3-foot-high) fencing around the airport grounds to prevent problems.  Fencing is the only permanent solution and is extremely cost-effective!

We are trying to ban all wolf hunting and culling campaigns immediately in the very few states where they exist, whether it is to be conducted by so-called sharp-shooters or hunting members of the public.

When wolves and other large carnivores threaten people and livestock, wildlife managers often resort to killing them.  But now there's hope for a non-lethal solution to controlling carnivores.  New research shows that movement-activated guards with strobe lights and sound recordings can help keep wolves and bears away.

High-technology devices are much more expensive, complicated and limited in effectiveness than a single bullet from a high-powered rifle, but they also allow a predator to live - surely the goal of conservation.

The conflict between people and carnivores is discussed in the December issue of Conservation Biology. Conflicts between people and carnivores are rising as people spread into remote habitats and as large carnivores recover from past eradication efforts.  While wildlife managers often address these conflicts by killing "problem" animals, this runs counter to conservation efforts and could impede the recovery of rare carnivores.  To promote the existence and expansion of large carnivores, conservation biologists should assist with the real-world problems predators cause.

To help find non-lethal ways of controlling carnivores, two experiments were conducted to see if movement-activated devices could deter predators from feeding.  Both experiments showed that the movement-activated guards deterred the predators from feeding.  In the experiment with wild predators, the movement-activated guards decreased the consumption of deer carcasses by about two-thirds (from roughly 3.3 to 1 kg per day).  Similarly, in the experiment with captive wolves, the movement-activated guards decreased the consumption of dog food by about three-quarters (from roughly 0.8 to 0.2 kg).

The movement-activated guards have some drawbacks:  they do not keep the predators away completely, and they are too costly and complicated to be feasible for many wildlife managers.  Even so, movement-activated guards are still promising.  "Non-lethal approaches to managing predation provide a means for conservation biologists to target areas with high predation levels and increase acceptance of large mammalian predators.

Experts fear for wolves managed by states

Plans that Montana, Idaho and Wyoming drafted to manage gray wolves once they're removed from federal protection should be enough to ensure the animals' survival in the Northern Rockies, experts who reviewed the plans have concluded.

But in reports made public yesterday, a number of the experts said they are concerned about whether there will be enough money to properly manage the wolves and how the states plan to monitor the animals.

Gray wolves were first reintroduced to the Yellowstone ecosystem in 1995, and the federal agency considers their recovery a success.  When they are removed from the species list, however, management will pass to the three states, all of which were officially hostile to wolf reintroduction from its beginning.

Under the Wyoming plan, gray wolves in some areas would be considered trophy game and subject to regulated hunting, while in others they would be classified predators and could be killed with few restrictions.  The wolves would be protected in the national parks.

We believe that since this is a national initiative to restore wolves to the Northern Rockies, the people of the nation should share in the cost.

Wyoming's wolf plan needs fixing

Before the ink even dried on Wyoming's wolf management plan, it was greeted by a chorus of howls.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service voiced strong concerns that the plan would not provide adequate assurances to prevent wolves from becoming threatened again.

Expert criticism

Conservationists also believed that the Wyoming plan was too aggressive by allowing the immediate shooting of wolves.  And this past week, in a process called "peer review" (a step in the wolf de-listing process), a group of federal, state, and academic wolf experts from all over the country added themselves to the chorus of concern about Wyoming's wolf management plan.

As part of the endangered species de-listing process, Wyoming agreed that it would not rely on Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks to support all of its wolves, and be committed to maintaining a minimum of seven wolf packs outside of these protected areas.  Yet under Wyoming's current plan, the Game and Fish Department has authority to regulate wolf killing only within the wilderness areas adjacent to the national parks - which covers just 10 percent of the wolves' range outside of the national parks.  Across the rest of Wyoming, wolves would be classified as a "predatory" animal, meaning that wolves can be killed anytime, by anyone.  Given these parameters, it is questionable whether Wyoming could maintain seven wolf packs outside the protected areas.

Not surprisingly, 7 out of the 11 peer-review experts expressed concerns regarding Wyoming's management plan.  Some specifically addressed the "predatory" classification across most of Wyoming:  "This seems like an extreme form of wolf management," said the lead wolf biologist and manager for Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

"In my opinion, Wyoming's plan exposes wolves in Wyoming to risk of catastrophic loss outside of national parks and parkway," said the former lead wolf biologist and manager for Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

"Right at the onset of enactment of the plan within 90 percent of areas occupied by wolves today, wolves would be classed as predatory and would be subject to unregulated take," said a Montana State University ecologist.

Others addressed the seven pack limit:

And some shared more general concerns about the Wyoming plan:  "Some news reports have indicated that Wyoming's plan conflicts with Wyoming's laws.  If so, obviously such a problem must also be solved before one could have faith that the Wyoming plan could be put into effect," said a Department of Interior wolf researcher in Minnesota.

Tri-state concerns

The reviewers also commented on the two other state plans.  They praised Montana's for being an inclusive process that didn't set limitations on the number or range of wolves in Montana.  But they also identified significant weaknesses in Idaho's plan, which, in combination with the Wyoming plan, could threaten wolf restoration throughout the Northern Rockies, rendering Montana's plan meaningless.

Our coalition seconds the peer reviewers' concerns about these inadequate wolf protections.  Their misgivings indicate a flashing yellow light at the crossroads of Northern Rockies wolf recovery, and we strongly encourage state and federal officials to take the experts' concerns seriously and make the necessary adjustments to the wolf management plans.

Officials fighting CWD ponder wolves as a natural partner

The spread of chronic wasting disease toward Yellowstone's famed game herds alarms wildlife lovers, but two top researchers think biologists will discover a powerful ally in an old frontier villain, the wolf.

Wildlife managers have never controlled a major outbreak of chronic wasting disease, a fatal neurological malady of deer and elk first discovered in a captive Colorado mule deer herd in 1967.

No one knows for sure if wolves would target CWD-infected deer and elk, but wolves' uncanny ability to spot vulnerable animals may make them the best natural control for the disease, researchers say.

"Every idea should get a fair hearing and I think disease management is a fair question for a biologist to ask," said Russell George, director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

CWD was first identified in a Fort Collins wildlife research station in 1967.  By the 1980's, it spread across a 30,000-square-mile area of northeastern Colorado and neighboring Wyoming.  In the late 1990's it appeared in Nebraska and South Dakota.  But the real shock was in 2002, when CWD was discovered in Wisconsin and on Colorado's Western Slope.

Many consider CWD the biggest single threat to wildlife in North America.

This summer, an infected mule deer was discovered in Bighorn Basin north of Cody, Wyo., on Yellowstone's doorstep.  Some Wyoming biologists fear CWD will move into the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem in the next year or two.

But Mike Miller, a CWD expert and research veterinarian for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, thinks northwestern Wyoming's robust wolf population will eliminate infected deer that try to move into the park.

The earlier infected animals are killed, the less opportunity they have to transmit the disease.

Predation by mountain lions and coyotes appears not to have slowed the spread of the disease in Colorado and Wyoming.  But wolves are a different kind of hunter.

Mountain lions are ambush specialists:  They attack any deer or elk that they can surprise.  Coyotes are too small to hunt adult deer, although they kill fawns and can severely injure adults.

By contrast, wolves constantly test potential prey, including elk, deer, moose and bison, looking for weakness.  Sometimes wolves kill healthy adults, but most of the time they find some vulnerability in their victim.  This hunting style is perfectly tailored to removing sick animals.

Wolves will certainly bring the disease to a halt.  They will remove infected individuals and clean up carcasses that could transmit the disease.

Geist and Princeton University biologist Andrew Dobson theorize that killing off the wolf allowed CWD to take hold in the first place.

Two polls in the past 10 years show two-thirds of Coloradans would like to see the wolf returned to the state.  But stockmen, who fear wolf attacks on their herds, and hunting groups worried that wolves will take game meant for hunters, vociferously oppose the notion.

Veterinarians have managed to control small CWD outbreaks on captive game ranches, but only by slaughtering every animal in the exposed herds - at a cost of more than $12 million in Colorado alone.  Wisconsin is trying to eliminate all 25,000 white-tailed deer in a 1,150-square-mile area near the state capital, Madison, in a desperate attempt to eliminate an outbreak discovered in 2002.

In a limited trial, Colorado biologists are testing the tonsils of every deer in a herd and killing the infected animals.

Wolves would essentially do the same culling work for free, the theory goes, although they would likely also kill livestock and pet dogs.

Researchers may well have a chance to study how effective wolves can be in stopping the disease.  Waves of wolves radiating out from Yellowstone are approaching the northern borders of Colorado and Utah.  And in Wisconsin, wolf packs are within 70 miles of the CWD zone.

But retired Wyoming Game and Fish veterinarian Tom Thorne thinks animosity against wolves will be tough to overcome.

In Alaska, we are trying to halt aerial gunning of wolves.  Governor Murkowski claims the measure is necessary to boost "game" animal populations of moose and caribou.  Numerous well-known animal advocacy organizations have been urging the Governor to abandon this cruel and unnecessary program and promised to mount a boycott of the state if the plan goes forward.

Opponents said the board's decision ignores Alaska voters' rejection of land-and-shoot hunting in 1996 and again in 2000.  The state Legislature, the governor and now the Game Board have trampled on the voters' wishes.

The predator-control programs were shelved for reasons ranging from public opposition to lack of scientific backing.  Gov. Frank Murkowski was elected last fall at least in part because he championed "active management" of game, which many have said is shorthand for predator control.

But Murkowski surprised many when last spring he refused to allow state biologists to carry out a Game Board-approved plan to shoot wolves from helicopters around McGrath.  He insisted on leaving the killing to private citizens.  Seekins' bill, SB 155, made that possible, by allowing private citizens to participate in a state-sponsored predator control.

The plan calls for eliminating as many wolves as possible from an experimental management area, plus a larger area surrounding it that harbors additional wolves, a total of some 1,700 square miles.  Biologists believe about 40 wolves can be taken as part of a plan to reduce predation in the study area.

Because of the thick woods, pilots are expected to rely on aerial shooting, using shotguns with large-size shot.

The Nelchina basin's moose population has declined 52 percent in the last 10 years, according to Fish and Game surveys.  Even with several mild winters, the moose herd can't increase because too few calves survive into adulthood.

The new land-and-shoot program will be limited to areas that land-based trappers don't work.  The boundaries were proposed to protect the area's trappers from newcomers in airplanes intruding into their territory.  (Great, if they don't get them from the air, they'll surely catch them in a cruel trap!)

Wolf-protection advocates dispute that the pendulum has swung. "Most people believe it's wrong to manipulate one group of animals just to appease hunters, a special interest group.

Please also check:

The Fallacy of Trapping for Disease Control

Contact us

For more information on Protect R Wildlife, how to join our team or become a member, e-mail us at ProtectRWildlife@aol.com

@2003  Protect R Wildlife.  This article may not be reproduced or distributed without permission; however, should you receive permission, appropriate citation must be given to the author, Share Bond, and PRW - www.ProtectRWildlife.org