Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
On the permitted use of the photos: lupinicious.deviantart.com/jou… - Website (not much to see yet): www.lupinity.com

UPDATE: The poll is now closed. Thanks for participating, everyone.


---

Obsolete text:

Please take some time to take part in a poll on whether the Board of Game on the Kenai Peninsula (southern Alaska) should adopt aerial predator control measures for wolves. One should think that it's clear by now that the aerial gunning has proven to be effective to kill wolves, but absolutely ineffective to "save moose" like it's always claimed to be.

The local newspaper "Peninsula Clarion" has the poll up on their website at < poll closed > - the voting is quite close, with a narrow majority of voters opposing such aerial control measures.

In support of an action alert from the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, please help and make sure you vote "No" on this poll. Let's take a stand against such plans and turn the voting result into a clear sign against such measures!

Thanks, everyone!

The URL again:  < poll closed >
You will find the poll on the right hand panel.


Since the discussion on this heats up quite a lot, here's some factual background for a change on why I think the plans of the BOG should be opposed:

* The Alaska Department of Fish & Game's own evidence presented to the BOG in March concluded that predation was not the cause of declining moose populations on the Kenai.
* In Game Management Unit 15A, the ADF&G's own data concluded that poor habitat is responsible for fewer moose.
* In Unit 15C, according to the ADF&G's own analysis, moose populations are not declining. A cited low bull-to-cow ratio cannot be traced to wolf predation, and killing wolves does not negate hunters' prior overharvest of bull moose.
* Following the proposal, any private citizen with a permit – not trained ADF&G biologists - will be allowed to shoot wolves from aircraft.

The BOG will vote on the proposal during their Nov. 11-14 meeting, so there will be very little time to give any input on that, if any, at all.
I believe that polls like this are the only chance for anyone of us to clearly position ourselves. If the poll was for Alaskans only, it wouldn't be freely accessible to anyone outside Alaska, right?

And one final remark:
I do not oppose hunting at all, and absolutely think that predator control measures are essential to minimize conflicts and ensure that conflict situations can be resolved.
However, lethal control measures should only be considered if there is a need for it, i.e. if it solves a problem that cannot be solved otherwise. In this case, in my opinion, this turns out not to be the case.

Add a Comment:
 
:iconadin-jenks:
Adin-Jenks Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011
The elimination of 2-5 packs is kind of a big deal. They are acting like that is barely anything. That reshapes territories and does all sort of other things to the population.

I was totally amused by being called a wolfaboo on the comments portion of the vote though. If they think that their stance is so strong then why don't they make a journal on reasons why people should give the go ahead for control measures. It's all about informing people and letting them make their own decisions rather than calling poeple stupid because they oppose someone wanting to eat wild game at the expense of other wildlife. -endrant-
Reply
:iconmarianoleonardi:
marianoleonardi Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011
Voted. ;)

:ahoy:
Reply
:icondestiny49:
Destiny49 Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011
I can't stand the hunting of wolves, there used to be wolves where I live now but hunting and habitat destruction drove them out
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Just wolves? Why not the countless other animals that are effected by hunting?
Reply
:icondestiny49:
Destiny49 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2011
well, any animal except deer, we have so many where I live that it is considered "over populated"
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Deer are hardly the only animals that are over populated.

Besides in some areas wolves are over populated as well.
Reply
:icondestiny49:
Destiny49 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2011
dude, I'm going to be straight with you, I honestly don't keep track of this kind of stuff. I'm no hardcore activist. I work with sharks most of the time and I may love wolves and agree that deforestation is a horrible thing but I wouldn't go picketting if I had a choice between that and going out on my boat and fishing with friends. I'll sign any petition that involves the protection of wildlife, just don't try to get me to care if there is overpopulation of other species.
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist

Ignorance is bliss eh?
Reply
:icondestiny49:
Destiny49 Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011
not really, I just choose not to get very involved because me going to a rally won't do anything except waste my time and money. besides I work 84 hour weeks depending on the weather
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
That doesn't justify ignorance.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I hate to say it, but wolf hunting be it aerial or on ground, is part of species regulation. And there is nothing wrong with it.
Reply
:iconadin-jenks:
Adin-Jenks Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011
Though I disagree with you I love you because you're not coming in swinging. Thank you for being more level headed than people like Alaskanwyvern. ^^
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
If it isn't species regulation may I ask you what you think it is?

There was a time that I would agree that this is wrong or a bad idea. But I don't think people should jump to conclusions, especially if they don't know the entire story.
Reply
:iconadin-jenks:
Adin-Jenks Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011
I read the follow up articles leading to this, and they are talking about effectively destroying 2-5 packs of wolves from a group of 12-15 packs. To me that is a serious blow to the population and the fact that they are planning on shearing an additional 2-4 wolves from each pack puts all of the packs at risk for destabilization.

I feel like there may be too many packs given the size of the area, but they would move themselves if prey was that scarce. If the committee is so worried about their hunters not being able to find enough game then perhaps they could reconsider relocating a pack or two to areas that have a thinner population. It would put stress on the moved wolves and the wolves that are not moved because they would be changing where their pack ranges are to include the new wolves, but it would be stressful to kill them as well.

I've seen people suggesting neutering an alpha or two, but that wouldn't change anything as he would simply lose his position once the females came into heat and he showed no interest.

So to answer your question, would I call this murder? No I understand that there can be too large of a concentration of animals. I feel like this is something that nature balances out on its own. If we let the wolves over-hunt along side the hunters eventually wolves will starve out, have smaller litters or travel to a new area. When the moose population rebuilds on its own the wolves would come back. I would however, call this an easy out that people are leaping toward when they have other options that would be more humane. There are very few wolves (two or three packs which total out to fewer than 50 wolves) in my area because measures like this were taken too far. It's a touchy subject for me. That is why I am against it in other areas, especially when there are other options that could be looked into.

I'm curious to hear your side of this though. Would you care to tell me?
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist

Given that I haven't read up on this much, as hunting in this part of Alaska is all news to me, I may be a little off.

However, I don't see taking 2-5 wolves from a pack as an issue. In some areas like Idaho, anti wolf extremist would be happy with taking out entire packs. Other states have taken on a 'shoot on sight' objective, and to me, this kind of hunting seems a little more organized.

Now telling me how many they are targeting to kill doesn't exactly tell me how many wolves are in this area. While it may seem like a lot in individual terms, it may not be a major dent in the population.
If these 12-15 packs may 10 or under 10 wolves in them, that's 120- 150 wolves. I really doubt if the populations of wolves was that small they would be pushing for management.
(If that is completely wrong ignore my stupid math. Math is really not my strong spot. < v >)

I don't think it's fair to conclude that the major concerns are the hunters game. While that may be a major part of why these people would support such hunting, it is also to ensure that there is a balance. That humans, prey and predator, can all happily co-exist.

Relocating wolves costs money, and as you said, puts unneeded stress on the animal. It is a quick solution to a long term problem and really does not help the prey populations. While there is no way to really not cause stress on the animals, hunting is more permanent.

Nature balances itself out, yes. But humans are just as much of a part of the balance as wolves or other predators are, are we not? And I agree, it's a shame when management gets taken too far. However both sides of the issue both have the extremist. On one side, people don't wolves hunted at all. On the other, people want wolves eradicated. Neither of these I can agree with.
Reply
:iconpositivelyfreezing:
PositivelyFreezing Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
BOO!!! AERIAL GUNNING IS WRONG!!!
Reply
:iconstray-sketches:
Stray-Sketches Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
just voted 'No.' :3
Reply
:icontsirona:
Tsirona Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2011
Killing should never be considered the solution of the wolf-man conflicts. Unfortunately it is always so wherever wolf is perceived as the main rival in the race for game.
Thank you for spreading the word.
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist

What about the other regulated hunting that happens every year? The hunting of deer, coyotes, ducks, bears, etc?

I don't understand why people seem to think hunting those animals are alright (or if they don't think its alright, why it doesn't seem as big of a deal), but it all goes down hill when it comes time for wolves to be managed as well.

We can't just let wolves overpopulate and run un-managed due to favoritism. I don't think wolves should be 'slaughtered' however this, like other regulatory hunts, is not a slaughter.

It is a shame people don't realize that humans are just as much part of the balance as wolves and other predators are. You wouldn't want to remove wolves from the balance entirely, the backlash would be horrible... Why remove humans?
Reply
:icontsirona:
Tsirona Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2011
Who says that it's all right? Who says that it's not a big deal?
With their advanced technology and insatiable greed humans are no longer the part of this balance but the main originators of it's destruction. They kill, pollute, abuse and ruin yet dare to call it "management". Nature can manage itself wherever it has been left enough time and space to do so. I still hope we will acknowledge that we were at fault and once again become a part of nature, restore ourselves to this balance. We are not sitting on some imagined peak of a pyramid of rulers and subjects, we all are part of a *circle*. And I'm writing it as a scientist.
This post is about wolves, that's why we're discussing the legitimacy of aerial hunting.
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist

Then why don't I see journals urging the regulatory hunting of deer to stop? Animals out there have it worse off than wolves do, rather you're willing to believe it or not.

How are we not part of the balance anymore? We aren't living on entirely different planets than animals are. If we didn't hunt them we would still be effecting them. If we aren't hunting them we are still here. And yes, we are and will always be part of the balance.
There are still people who hunt for survival. You have no idea how ignorant that makes you look to make false claims that humans are not part of the balance just because all of the sudden hunting is deemed wrong, when centuries before hunting was a staple of every day life. While it may be true that some of us can go into the grocery store and pick up meat, it isn't true for all of us.

And yes. I realize that the human race as a whole is not the best species to walk the earth. We have done wrong, we have driven animals to extinction. But guess what. Nature and natural selection have done the exact same thing. The only difference with humans being behind it is that you have someone to point the blame on.

But, I want you to show me a species that actually cares for its prey, other than humans. Have you seen a hawk lift up an injured snake and nurse it back to health? No. Yet humans help injured animals. So we aren't all that bad. Don't make humans sound like the most disgusting beings, because you are one too.

"Nature can manage itself wherever it has been left enough time and space to do so."
Nope. Again, animals don't have as much space to roam as they once did. Do you just expect humans to magically disappear so that animals can balance themselves out?
And again, hun, we are part of nature regardless of what you seem to think. c:

And if we are part of a circle that would imply that we are still very much so part of the balance. So what is it? Are we or are we not part of nature anymore?

Also no. You aren't writing it as a scientist. A scientist wouldn't let favoritism or emotions get in the way. A scientist wouldn't make such a claim that humans are not part of the balance anymore when we are.

And yes. I know what the subject is on. However I see more and more crap about wolves above all else. And I find it disgusting. Why not look into rattlesnake roundups, shark finning, coyote baiting etc.? Protecting wildlife should not be a popularity contest. Gray wolves are doing fine and need to be culled and in some places of Alaska, aerial hunting is required for management. It's a simple as that... Worry about animals who actually need our help.
Reply
:icontsirona:
Tsirona Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2011
You know, hun, I am a scientist. And I do care for all the wildlife, not only wolves, that's why I let myself be emotional. Becouse only creating the emotional connection with the world around can safe us from destroying everything we touch. Not science, not economy or logical thinking as those always lose to simple greed.

By saying, that we're no longer part of balance I mean that we exceed every other creature in our ability and will to destroy. And WILL is a keyword here. Show me an animal that kills for reasons other than getting food, learning hunting skills or because it's driven by instinct. Show me an animal that pays for the sheer fun of killing, that's destroying entire PLANET even though it is perfectly AWARE of this fact.

In my language there are two different words for "huntig" that make it possible to tell killing for fun from killing for survival. Unfortunately English lacks such differentiation.

And yes, nature can manage itself perfectly. All it needs is space, time and maybe some respect. It's high time we started to adapt instead of brutally bending everything to our will. Killing is NEVER the best option (besides the cases, when animals physically threaten human life). I strongly encourage you to take part in some course on ecology, it will certainly do you good, hun.
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I find that very hard to believe. If you were a wildlife biologist you would understand that helping more than they are doing harm. Hell even *Lupinicious seems to understand why we have regulatory hunting and has stated that this isn't an anti hunting journal.

Oh I see. You are far too thick in the head to look past the bad that the human race has done. You're far too thick to understand that we are correcting or wrongs and will cling to the 'bad' in attempt to have valid point. I see arguing with someone like you on this matter is useless, as you aren't educated enough to actually understand what I'm trying to say to you. You aren't a scientist. You're just someone who is over emotional about animals.

Animals kill for 'fun' all the time. And it isn't like humans are permitted to go out and torture the hell out of an animal in the wild. We're supposed to make the kills quick. Hunters can have their licenses revoked if they are seen abusing a kill.

Hunting does not need two definitions lmao.

Again, humans aren't just going to go away. Hunting is in place to ensure that both humans and animals can co-exist peacefully. And we are part of nature, so we are still part of the balance. We can't just let animals overpopulate, but you're saying we can't kill them either? Have you a real suggestion that will actually work other than 'we should learn to adapt'?

I have taken ecology classes, hun. And I used to be anti-hunting before completing these classes. That should tell you something.

If you aren't going to take my words into consideration don't bother replying. I'm not going to argue with someone who is too thick in the head to see both sides of an issue.
Reply
:icontsirona:
Tsirona Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2011
Oh, I do take your words into consideration and just because of it I'm not going to argue with you. It would be completely pointless and a waste of time I should devote to actually working for nature conservation.

I want to remind you, though, the very reason of this post that seams to escape your notice. The Board of Game on the Kenai Peninsula wants to adopt aerial hunting as a "predator control" in order to safe the moose population. Scientific research have proven that wolves are responsible for a mere 6% of moose mortality in this area. The rest is, among other things, caused by bears. 50 % is attributed to road accidents and hunters activity. The influential circles that are calling for this "predator control" are hunters.

If you trully believe that hunters aren't abusing a kill you live in a fantasy world. Have you ever been in a hunt? Have you ever had to finish off a dying animal, blood everywhere, its entrails torn apart? Believe me kid, dying of a bullet in your stomach or having your limbs shot off isn't a peaceful, clean and painless death. If you think that animals kill for "fun" it means you didn't understand a thing of this ecology course. That's what it's telling me. The only creature that is trully overpopulated is Homo sapiens I'm afraid. And remember one thing, those who don't adapt - extinct.

And yes. I do not approve of killing. And it's the only reason I may be proud of being human.
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist

Clearly hun you don't know the first thing about animal conservation. What do you actually do?

And as far as I'm concerned people are allowed to hunt bears. So why is it such a big deal when wolves are the target? Why is it so wrong and inhumane then?
And predator control isn't just to benefit the hunters. It is to benefit the moose population as well.

Yes, a shot in a vital organ is a rather quick death considering how other predators like to kill their prey. But I suppose it's alright for a pack of wolves to drag out their kill. Not many people aim for the limbs, and don't try this emotional bullshit on me.

And I did understand. Animals do kill for thrills, while they may eat their kills from time to time they will just kill to kill.
Take for instance my cat, he would kill rodents, snakes, rabbits, birds etc. just for 'sport'. He had food, he had everything he needed yet he still killed these animals just because they were in our yard. He didn't even eat off of them. The same goes for wild animals. You are the one who is living in a fantasy if you think otherwise.

Don't start that 'humans are overpopulated' crap. And like it or not we must kill to survive. I surly hope you are a Vegetarian.
Reply
:iconlupinicious:
Lupinicious Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2011   Photographer
Thank you, and you're welcome.
Reply
:iconfirestorm09:
Firestorm09 Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I add my vote as a no.. Sadly though the yea sayers think DA members are only spamming the no polls. But just because we vote no on aerial hunting doesn't mean we're spamming. There are just more nay sayers than yea sayers. And I have to wonder if it really is about..getting the money for every wolf viciously and cruelly slaughtered.
Reply
:iconlupinicious:
Lupinicious Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2011   Photographer
I am convinced that the yea sayers are organizing themselves as well. There is a strong pro-hunting lobby after all.
Reply
:iconfirestorm09:
Firestorm09 Featured By Owner May 22, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
It's a shame it's happening at all. At the rate of the wolf killings, my descendants won't get to see them.
Reply
:iconladybrookecelebwen:
LadyBrookeCelebwen Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I voted....and faved this. Hopefully, this doesn't pass....
Reply
:iconladybrookecelebwen:
LadyBrookeCelebwen Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
*to clarify, the first this is referring to the journal, and the second to the hunt wolves from aircraft...
Reply
:iconalaskanwyvern:
AlaskanWyvern Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Seriously, you pretend to have any idea what you're talking about, considering none of you have ever even been to the area? As an Alaska resident of three years, I can tell you that several of my neighbors have had to shoot local wolves themselves to keep them from attacking them or their pets.

You don't live there; it's not for you to decide. Trying to fix a poll on a newspaper site on an issue that isn't yours to decide is immature and stupid. They want the opinions of *Alaskans,* not random hacks from the internet (no offense to the random hacks, but it's true).

I'm not saying to kill all the wolves, or even voicing support either way. I'm saying that meddling in affairs that are none of your concern is wrong.
Reply
:iconbi0terr0r:
BI0TERR0R Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist

I'm all for wolves being managed, though don't you think you are going about this in a wrong way?

The 'you don't live there' argument is poor. I really doubt the newspaper sites poll will sway anything, it's just asking for a public opinion.

Instead of calling these people hacks, you as someone who actually lives in Alaska could be telling them of the damages over populated wolves have done.
Reply
:iconlupinicious:
Lupinicious Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011   Photographer
Oh please, I let people decide who know what they are talking about on multiple levels, not only being a resident.

The Alaska Wildlife Alliance sums it up pretty nicely, and I'm in contact with people who have been involved with Alaska for much longer than three years. Of course, if you keep your animals outside in your yard, on chains, in wolf territory, you are playing with their lives. This is just a thing you don't do if you love your animals...

And I honestly doubt that your neighbor's life was threatened by the wolves.

And if they only want the opinion of Alaskans (where does it say they are only going for their opinion?) they could easily block access to the poll from IP ranges outside Alaska - and then they should also get their page off the internet ;-)

Frankly, I do believe that it IS very well concerning me, even if I don't live in the area. You can't say that starving people in Africa are none of your business just because they are not starving in your backyard. If you reason like that we'll soon have no intact ecosystem anymore anywhere in the world.

I would hope that you as an Alaskan should take pride in and respect the wildlife and wonderful nature you still have up there instead of support shaping it in a destructive way. One thing I don't get is - if the people can't stand nature and wildlife, why have they gone to live in Alaska in the first place? I don't get it, sorry.
Reply
:iconlyrak:
Lyrak Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Meh. I am for controlled hunting, but not by air. That's just not sporting at all. At least from the ground you can sort of be on more even footing, and the animal has a chance to escape. Population control should, after all, be in part about strengthening the existing population, not just reducing it. Natural order=weak are more likely to die so the remaining are stronger. We humans seem to be good at flouting that. >.<
Reply
:iconmysteriouswhitewolf:
mysteriouswhitewolf Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I voted no. Thank you for spreading the word.
Reply
:iconpurinbicchi:
PurinBicchi Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I voted no.......
Reply
:iconhezanthro93:
hezanthro93 Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011
voted. and reposting link.
fair enough if they had strong grounds and were only going to take out a couple of members, [if it was really needed]. though even that statement gives me chills. relocation would be a more humane idea, but impractical because they'd find their way back eventually unless shipped to a different country.

but an aerial hunt is most likely to decimate the entire pack or packs. stray bullets could wound and lead to the death of all the pack members.

it's really sad that people want to get rid of wolves, the only wolf populations in the UK are captive I believe, because the last timber wolf was shot in scotland in the last century. if it was pandas or something that were 'posing a threat to the moose' they wouldn't get rid of all the pandas [i know thats a stupid statement, but it's only because it's wolves that they're doing this] and moose are bloody dangerous to humans anyway!
Reply
:iconlupinicious:
Lupinicious Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011   Photographer
Thank you!
Well, hunting wolves, or any highly social animals living in packs/families, can always have a devastating impact since it's usually not selective at all. For example, you might destabilize the whole pack if you kill the alphas/parents... but anyways, I have no doubt that they wouldn't mind if their actions even eradicated wolves in the area. "Controlling" predator populations like this is imprudent and probably rather serving other interests than what biologists might have in mind...
Reply
:iconhezanthro93:
hezanthro93 Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2011
I suppose they're just going to be gun touters, so they wouldn't understand which wolves held which position,
If they had an expert in the field, then maybe they could be directed to pick off the weaker or older wolves low down in the pack, just to reduce pack size, especially if those wolves were sick or on the verge of being pushed out.
it's still cruel and unneeded though.
Reply
:iconblackpaw00:
blackpaw00 Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Student Artist
i voted no hunting wolves
Reply
:iconwolves3000:
wolves3000 Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011
Where ca I vote?
Reply
:iconlupinicious:
Lupinicious Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011   Photographer
Click here ([link]) and take a look at the right hand side of the page.
Reply
:iconwolves3000:
wolves3000 Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011
Thanks
Reply
:iconquaddie:
quaddie Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011
Done and done :)..
Reply
:iconlupinicious:
Lupinicious Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011   Photographer
Thanks! :)
Reply
:iconquaddie:
quaddie Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011
:)
Reply
:iconrailker:
Railker Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Done! Hard to control something like this in a state that's so massive and relatively unpopulated, aerial hunting even goes on these days it seems. But making sure it doesn't get legalized is a good step towards keeping this from happening. Cheers, thanks for the link!
Reply
:iconlupinicious:
Lupinicious Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011   Photographer
Thanks for voting! :)
I think _trying_ to control it is the wrong approach to begin with, especially in such a massive and relatively unpopulated area. There's just no justification for it, especially after studies have shown that a decline of the wolf numbers after aerial hunts have had no positive effect on the moose populations - it should be quite clear that the wrong measures have been taken...
Reply
:iconrailker:
Railker Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
But as always, politics involve personal agendas and because you can't make everyone happy, they try and keep the most number of people happy or simply do what they think is right, which in the case of Sarah Palin for example is the polar opposite of what science and common sense says SHOULD be done.

Just watched a program on PBS, can watch it online, called 'Radioactive Wolves', and shows how Chernobyl has a thriving ecosystem now that humans have left it the hell alone (not by choice), one that includes lots of wolves. Kindof like that Discovery show 'Life After Man', but with Russians and Wolves, recommend it if you haven't seen it ^.^
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

Featured in Collections

Journals commission info and other by Smoludozerka

Literature - Animal Rights, Environmental etc. by Kjerya-Copenhapen

Journals by Lady-Kelaria


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
October 28, 2011
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
7,070 (1 today)
Favourites
29 (who?)
Comments
92
×