Alaska is set to resume aerial gunning in an effort to wipe out the majority of bears and wolves in its state parks in what opponents call an “inhumane” and “barbaric” move.
The renewed program would permit hunters to kill up to 80 percent of the wolf and black bear populations along with 60 percent of brown bears, The Guardian reported. This polarizing practice is intended to help increase the number of caribou and moose in Alaska. Proponents of aerial gunning claim the overabundance of predatory animals like wolves and bears limits how many caribou and moose can survive.
Videos by VICE
However, the data does not support the rationale behind the move. Because of this, those against the practice of gunning predators down from helicopters, like Rick Steiner with the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility group, are fuming at the decision.
“Alaska’s practice of indiscriminately strafing predators is both inhumane and inane,” Steiner told the outlet. “There is no scientific evidence that this carnage will boost populations of moose and caribou, and there is a growing body of evidence that it disrupts a healthy predator/prey balance in the wild.”
Steiner’s team is behind the report that discovered aerial gunning doesn’t set out what it’s intended to do. Instead, they found that disease, nutrition, and harsh winter conditions—not wolves or bears—were behind the declining population of moose and caribou.
When did aerial gunning start in Alaska?
The practice of aerial gunning and hunting from aircraft in Alaska dates back to the 1940s. It remained in place until an eventual bill outlawed it in 1972. Despite the ban, it’s still a thing over 50 years later thanks to a loophole in the bill that prohibited it as a hobby but allowed its continued use to control predator populations.
Environmental groups suspect the reason we’re trying so hard to control wolf and bear populations is to make hunters happy, as caribou are trophy animals. So, really, we’re right back at “hobby” again.
Critics of the practice point to the lack of data supporting it, the ethical concerns, and the environmental risks. The financial aspect of aerial gunning is another thing opponents often point to—opponents like Nichole Schmitt, executive director at Alaska Wildlife Alliance, who told Anchorage Daily News last month that paying state employees to shoot down innocent wildlife is nothing short of “distasteful.”
