Must State Suffer Boycott
Simply to Aid Sport Hunters?
to the Editor / Anchorage Daily News / November 14, 2003
Who benefits most from the aerial wolf control proposals approved by the Board of Game? Some true subsistence users may benefit, but the real winners are Anchorage and Fairbanks sport hunters. All hunters are subsistence hunters by Alaska law, but most are sport hunters by true need. My husband hunts, but we both know it would be cheaper going to Carrs.
One of the main advocates of wolf control at McGrath owns two airplanes, the second specifically to hunt wolves. Is he a subsistence hunter? Why was an Anchorage surgeon, found guilty in a notable aerial wolf hunting case, hovering over the Game Board meeting? Is he first in line for a permit to enjoy a favorite sport again and the "experienced" aerial hunter the board is helping? Why allow aerial wolf hunting in Unit 13 but only so far away from communities that it doesn't conflict with trapping? Who subsistence hunts that far out?
Does Gov. Frank Murkowski really support balancing wildlife management by eliminating competition between predators, man and wolf? Does he know shotguns with buckshot wound many animals that wander off to a slow, agonizing death? Will he stop flyby shootings? Why must Alaska suffer through a certain boycott just so selfish sport hunters, who have opposed a vote on the subsistence preference for years, don't have to work so hard "recreating"?
-- Dorothy Keeler /
Wilderness Inspirations / Anchorage
Wolf Song of Alaska, P.O. Box 671670, Chugiak, Alaska 99567-1670