Feinstein's Bill Will Make Hunting in Alaska Extinct

A couple of days ago, we posted an article about an attempt by United States Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, along with co-sponsor Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, to limit predator control. (It seems that Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island has also signed on as a co-sponsor.)

When we spotted this, we tipped every reporter and media outlet in Alaska we could think of...and nobody thought it worthy of notice except for Eddie Burke and Alaska Public Radio.

I was listening to the Alaska Public Radio bit - here is what they had to say:



For those of you unable to listen (or without the patience), here is what I picked up -- Deputy Commissioner for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Patrick Valkenburg, said that the proposal would "make it impossible" for Alaska to manage game populations.

This intrigued me; previously I thought that the bill merely prevented the state from issuing permits to citizens to assist in predator control, and instead required state employees to do the wolf culling. So I went digging for the text of Feinstein's legislation. It wasn't easy - the text has not yet been posted by Congress in the normal places.

So I went digging in the Congressional Record and found it...it begins on the bottom of page S8274 and continues through pages S8275 and S8276.

And I found that the bill language contains some bombshells that weren't spelled out in Feinstein's press release. Feinstein would like people to believe that the bill merely stops citizens from hunting wolves under permit from the state.

However, an examination of the bill language proves otherwise. Check this out (emphasis added):

(3) ENHANCING THE PROPAGATION AND SURVIVAL OF WILDLIFE.
—No person exempted under paragraph (1) may shoot, attempt to shoot, or harass any wolf, bear, or wolverine for the purpose of enhancing the propagation and survival of wildlife, including game populations, unless—

(A) the head of the fish and wildlife agency of the State and, for game populations on land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, or for game populations on land under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture, determines, based on the best scientific data available, that—

(i) a biological emergency is imminent;
and...

Wait - what's a "biological emergency"? The definition is provided:

BIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY.—The term ‘biological emergency’ means the likely extirpation or a significant and imminent threat to the sustainability of a wildlife population due to predation by wolves, bears, or wolverines, or any combination of those animals.

OK, got it. Let's continue...

(ii) all other practicable means to prevent the biological emergency, including stopping regulated takes of the declining population, have been implemented; blah blah blah.

So, here's the deal. Nobody can even consider culling of these predators unless there is a "biological emergency". A "biological emergency" only exists when the prey population (i.e. moose or caribou) is in danger of going extinct ("extirpation"). And even if that condition is met, the state must first end all human hunting ("regulated takes") of these food animals.

This is in direct contravention to the current policy of the State of Alaska:

Harvesting wild game is extremely important to many Alaskan families. Participating in the hunt and sharing the bounty of economical, wild-grown meat are long-standing traditions.

Feinstein wants to take away the right of rural and Native Alaskans to subsist on herds of moose and caribou in favor of wolves. I don't know what the substitute is supposed to be - perhaps government welfare.

The Alaska constitution calls for managing Alaska's natural resources (which includes wild game) for abundance and for the benefit of the people:

§ 1. Statement of Policy

It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.

§ 2. General Authority

The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.

§ 3. Common Use

Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.

§ 4. Sustained Yield

Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.

This bill interferes with Alaska's ability to maintain it's wildlife for "sustained yield."

The bill is currently in front of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Alaskans need to get in touch with Governor Parnell and their state legislators on this. (I notified all 60 of Alaska's state legislators with our original story, and I'll notify them again with this one.) They also need to get in touch with Congressman Young, Senator Murkowski, and particularly with Democratic Senator Mark Begich, who is a member of the Senate Democratic Majority.

It'll be interesting to see what Begich's position on this will be. Back in 2005, an animal rights group targeted Alaska because of the state's predator control system, and Begich didn't take their side:

A national television figure who expressed a desire to visit Alaska has become the target of dueling invitations - one to come enjoy the hospitality of the Far North, one to boycott until the state stops killing wolves and bears.

The host of "Today," Katie Couric said on air Tuesday that she'd love to visit Alaska to catch a salmon.

Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich responded by issuing an official invitation and a seafood company donated two smoked Cook Inlet sockeye fillets to whet her desire.

But a Connecticut-based animal rights group has asked Couric to stay away.

Friends of Animals faxed a letter to Couric on Wednesday, urging her to join a national tourism boycott over the state's predator control programs and hunting policies, said Susan Russell, the group's information officer.

He didn't seem to mind predator control back then. I wonder what his position will be now? Will he side with his party or with his state?

The Anchorage Daily News reported at the time:

Begich, ever the diplomat, said that all sides of the controversy are welcome in Anchorage, including staffers from Friends of Animals.

“I appreciate their views from Connecticut, but we have a great city here,” he said. “If they want to come up, I’ll get them out king salmon fishing too.”

It's awfully hard to play diplomat this time. Do you support the Alaska state constitution? Do you support hunting in Alaska? Or do you support the anti-hunting whims of Senators from California, Maryland, and Rhode Island?