Im only going to reply to this once, as it is getting off topic. The situation you are discussing is another subject altogether, there are other threads about it, or you can start a new one by all means with new information.
A few things about this letter, the vast majority of "scientists" you mention are not Alaskan, and unable to fully understand the situation presented here to make a non-emotion based decision about predator control. You need to keep in mind Popeye, that there is are vast areas millions of acres where wolves are protected and cannot be hunted, where thier poppulations are left to nature entirely.
There are tens of thousands of wolves left to be wolves and for tourists to come here and take pictures of them and live in harmony with nature and blah blah blah.
The major factor you are failing to take into account and that is the human need factor which is entirely legitimate in most communities in AK. Wolves are a competitor for food, that thousands of Alaskans rely on for thier main protien source, second in coastal areas to salmon.
No, we just disagree on what human factors need to be taken into account for some areas.
To adress the last sentence first, subsistence hunters are the focused beneficiary here, no question. The areas in question are closed to out of state hunters. These places are very remote, there are no roads within hundreds of miles, accessible only by small airplane.
As for Palin, she is in a long line of Governors of this state who support the practice. I am among the clear majority who voted so 8-26-08. With %55 percent seeing through the emotional arguments against killing all those innocent wolves.
When you see a full sized rotty get killed and dragged away with ease by a wolf, come talk to me. Or when you have a bear destroy your smoke house with you entire winters worth of salmon, hundreds of hours, and thousands of dollars spent, then we can talk about this. Until then, you simply wont understand. Just like I will never understand plenty of situations presented in a fast moving urban enviroment, such as a complete fear and panic about the presence of a gun.
My point in this whole exercise is that this is clearly a local issue. It needs to be left to local needs and decision makers. I dont give much of a damn about how anyone outside the impacted areas, because they are not impacted.
I wouldnt think about getting involved in such local issues, as I have said about ballot measure 8 in California.
