US Alaska to resume ‘barbaric’ shooting of bears and wolves from helicopters

Alaska is set to resume the aerial gunning of bears and wolves as a population control measure aimed at boosting caribou and moose herd numbers, even as the state’s own evaluation of the practice cast doubt on its effectiveness.

The renewed program would allow hunters to eliminate up to 80% of the animals on 20,000 acres of state land. Environmental groups opposed to what they label a “barbaric” practice of shooting wildlife from helicopters is more about sport than scientific practice in part because hunters want caribou populations to increase because they are trophy animals.

“Alaska’s practice of indiscriminately strafing predators is both inhumane and inane,” said Rick Steiner, a former University of Alaska-Fairbanks ecologist now with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer), which opposes the practice. “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.”

The report comes after the Biden administration effectively upheld Trump era rules that allowed for other inhumane hunting practices on federal lands in Alaska, like killing cubs in dens.

Alaska’s “intensive management” allows Alaskan game agents to kill any brown bear, black bear or wolf on some state lands. Nearly 100 bears, including 20 cubs, were killed by helicopter in 2023.

The latest program would allow aerial hunters to kill 80% of wolves (until the population is reduced to 35), 80% of black bears (until the population is reduced to 700) and 60% brown bears (until the population is reduced to 375).

Though the practice’s supporters say eliminating the predators helps boost sagging caribou populations, an October state report that examined predator kill practices came to a different conclusion.

“The goal of the project was to increase caribou calf survival by removing all bears and wolves from the calving grounds,” the report reads. “Data does not exist to evaluate whether the goal was achieved.”

The largest factors in caribou herd decline were “disease, nutrition, and winter severity”, the report states. About 65% died from starvation or dehydration.

Critics say the state also notes that it doesn’t know the practices’ full impact on bear populations because it did not estimate brown bear numbers before allowing the kills. More than half of the brown bears killed in 2024 were adult females, raising further questions about the population’s ability to rebound.

Meanwhile, the state refuses to allow photographs of the slaughter, independent observers to be present, or to subject the program to scientific review by the federal government.

The practice has had other consequences: The National Park Service has ended a more than 20-year study of wolf behavior in the nearby Yukon-Charley National Preserve because the resident wolf population has fallen so low.

Meanwhile, it has reduced tourism in the area because the ability of visitors to view intact wolf packs inside adjacent Denali National Park, one of the state’s major tourist draws, has plummeted. The state has said the hunting program raises revenue from hunters, but critics called it the “epitome of pound foolish”.

“The amount of tourist dollars from people seeking to view these predators in the wild dwarfs any incremental increase in hunting fee revenue the state hopes to realize,” said Peer executive director Tim Whitehouse.

source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/alaska-aerial-gunning-bears-wolves
archive: https://archive.md/7tSZf
 
lmao this is so goddamn dumb, even for the Guardian. I imagine some wanker in London or faggot in NYC wrote this trash.

The reporter (Tom Perkins) lives in a muslim majority enclave in detroit. He does trash articles for hire and doesn't know much of anything. He celebrated his city being taken over by muslims but then was just shocked when the new muslim city government banned pride flags.
 
Maybe I’m retarded but why do the bears and wolves need to be hunted in the first place?

Because they eat other animals. If their population goes up, the population of prey animals goes down. If the population of wolves and bears isn't controlled, what happens is extreme cyclic population growth and crashes within various species. Wolf populations explode causing prey populations to crash causing wolf populations to crash leading to new growth in the prey population.

People like to believe that natural systems are self-regulating and in constant balance. But the real world isn't like that. The hunting the article is talking about is designed to manage the populations of various animals at somewhat stable levels.
 
Because they eat other animals. If their population goes up, the population of prey animals goes down. If the population of wolves and bears isn't controlled, what happens is extreme cyclic population growth and crashes within various species. Wolf populations explode causing prey populations to crash causing wolf populations to crash leading to new growth in the prey population.

People like to believe that natural systems are self-regulating and in constant balance. But the real world isn't like that. The hunting the article is talking about is designed to manage the populations of various animals at somewhat stable levels.
This is the biggest load of bullshit I’ve ever read.
 
The reporter (Tom Perkins) lives in a muslim majority enclave in detroit. He does trash articles for hire and doesn't know much of anything. He celebrated his city being taken over by muslims but then was just shocked when the new muslim city government banned pride flags.

Well, bless his heart.

Maybe I’m retarded but why do the bears and wolves need to be hunted in the first place?

The legally mandated mission of the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) is "To protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state, and manage their use and development in the best interest of the economy and the well-being of the people of the state, consistent with the sustained yield principle."

ADFG has a bunch of top quality biologists and researchers, even for gov't they are top notch, and they've done a lot of good field work and all of that. The crux of the issue is the aforementioned ADFG mandate is subject to a set of various public boards that go from the village level up to regional up to the state-wide level. So I guess the point of your question is that there has been like a fuck load of meetings at all levels of people and scientist and people who actually live there and different user groups have all had their chance to demonstrate user needs.
 
Last edited:
There is really nothing wrong with using helicopters for wildlife removal/capture, it's pretty common in a lot of states and has been for a long time. What is questionable is removing large swathes of predator populations. Yellowstone was a great example of this, with explosions then implosions of elk populations due to lack of predators, which also negatively affected plant species.
 
You never wanted an answer in the first place. So just get on with your big false outrage anti-hunting/anti-gun speech that I fully intend to ignore.
So it is about hunting then. Which is fine. If they are just open about selling helicopter rides to people who want to kill wolves and bears I think that’s fine.

But the whole ‘we need to control the populations of a state nearly the size of the entire rest of the country’ rings a whole bunch of bullshit. Maybe they need to look like they’re doing something lest the eskimos protest because Golden Sky got eaten by a wolf.

It’s to keep them from being so overpopulated that they start encroaching on human territory.
Is this a real problem or some made up hypothetical concern?

You live in Alaska. You should prepare your homestead for wild animals as needed. Urban growth seems to be the only successful way of eliminating species anyway.

Let’s compare the number of bear and wolf incidents with crime and suicide. What’s actually the dangerous part of Alaska?
 
Don't forget that the Western Arctic herd lost like 12,000 animals between 2023 and 2024. When the combined hunts from 2023 and 2022 had a grand total of: 6,662 in all the different tags. That is two years combined in all of Alaska and it is still only slightly more than half of what a single herd lost in a year. We have reached "too much bear".
 
So is this a cull done by the state for reasons of scientific necessity, or are they selling the right to kill bears and wolves to any twat who can afford the licence
or?
you do both at once
find the things that need to die, then sell the rights to kill it

down in Florida we made going after invasive snakes straight-up Whacking Day competitions
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
Let’s compare the number of bear and wolf incidents with crime and suicide. What’s actually the dangerous part of Alaska?
Dude I don't give a rats anus. If you had any grasp on how fast wolves and bears tear you to shreds, you'd keep their population down too. Even if it was about hunting, which it's not. The reality is when food becomes scarce and you have too many predators, they do what all animals do: They migrate. And they'll migrate FAR. They'll go wherever the food is. These animals can cover a lot of ground, very quickly. If they spread far enough, they get close to humans and hunting trails, you have dead people on your hands. And I'm sorry, but wolves and bears are fucking dangerous and I'll happily take 100 dead bears and wolves to save maybe a handful of people.
 
I hate nearly all kinds of bears and view them as mostly as pests.

I'm glad Black bears have become extinct from my area for decades and any government or non-profit entity that tries to reintroduce them can get fucked. We do not need those pests back and our biosphere is doing fine without them. Black bears are more dangerous than many people think.

Brown bears do sort of serve a purpose but they must be kept in check and monitored, especially when it comes to protecting their prey populations and humans.
 
I'm not bothered by this. Helicopters make great platforms for killing shit. That's why everyone with a military post WW2 has them. The people that don't want them. Even in fiction they are great for hunting. In the John Hammond audio memoirs for the game Trespasser, he recommends helicopters for hunting dinosaurs. I have seen people shooting wild pigs in Texas from helicopters. The bleeding heart fag who wrote this article acts like he wants the government to start sending the wolves and bears Stingers. LOL
So it is about hunting then. Which is fine. If they are just open about selling helicopter rides to people who want to kill wolves and bears I think that’s fine.

But the whole ‘we need to control the populations of a state nearly the size of the entire rest of the country’ rings a whole bunch of bullshit. Maybe they need to look like they’re doing something lest the eskimos protest because Golden Sky got eaten by a wolf.


Is this a real problem or some made up hypothetical concern?

You live in Alaska. You should prepare your homestead for wild animals as needed. Urban growth seems to be the only successful way of eliminating species anyway.

Let’s compare the number of bear and wolf incidents with crime and suicide. What’s actually the dangerous part of Alaska?
Crime and suicide rates are so high in Alaska because it's actually a shitty place to live. for several months of the year the sun never comes up and then for another several months is never really sets. It's a terrible place for most people. I have heard being posted there by the military is considered punishment for fucking up real bad. Same way for the bases on Greenland.
 
If they're shooting to kill and quickly finish off any that are wounded, I can't see how that's inhumane in any way, shape or form. The alternative would be to allow these wolf and bear populations to grow unchecked until they deplete their food sources and either starve to death, die from disease or get killed by people acting in self-defense as they migrate.

All of which mean a lot more suffering for the wolf or bear vs. an experienced hunter.
 
Back