Rod Arno's defense of trophy hunting in The Anchorage Daily News letters (“Predator/prey management benefits hunters from here, Outside,“ 9-23-09) almost convinced me for a moment that predator control to support trophy hunting of bull moose which supposedly subsidizes Alaska's game management programs is a good thing. So why didn’t they say so in the first place?

Why weren’t the people of Alaska told about this camouflaged purpose before they were tricked into voting for killing wolves using aircraft in order to benefit the poor, starving residents of the Bush?

Why was the Alaska public misled by being told that predator control was intended mainly to increase the meat supply of those who were “dependent“ upon it? So-called “subsistence.”

Why weren’t we told that the purpose of shooting wolves from aircraft was to encourage more trophy hunting and to benefit the guiding industry? Just as I and others have been saying all along while the State was singing it’s “subsistence” song.

Why weren’t Alaskans told that predator control was actually intended as a round about way to finance the State’s game management program with trophy hunting revenue?

The game management system that exists in Alaska has been and is geared mainly toward killing animals---not appreciating wildlife. Not geared for photographing wildlife except in a few difficult-to-reach enclaves that the hunting establishment has not yet managed to claw it’s way into. Wildlife management is not for viewing wildlife---except some fly-in places. And even then those viewing area animals---such as the Katmai bears---are lusted after by the wildlife killing industry because they have been wiped out everywhere else. Even Denali wolves are trapped right up to the park borders.

There are plenty of people who would pay just as much as trophy hunters simply to see some of the legendary wildlife of Alaska---but the system is geared toward a quick glimpse prior to putting a bullet into the animal. There are many Alaskans who don’t get to see much wildlife because it is now so rare. I used to call myself a “wildlife and wilderness landscape photographer.” Now I am just a landscape photographer because there is little wildlife more exotic than marmots or beavers---and even those have been decimated. In fact, now when I see a moose or other “exotic” or “rare” animal I often avoid “stalking” the animal to get a picture because I don’t want to stress it out any further by approaching it or paying it too much attention.

I live right in a great wilderness area---but in order to get photos of moose, bears, wolves and sheep I have to go to Denali National Park. So why are there animals in Denali and not around here? Easy---because the State can’t get it’s wildlife management mitts on Denali. Because there is no hunting, that’s why. Because that National Park is managed for the benefit of the wildlife and the general public---not just for those who view wildlife only as a repository for bullets.

Mr. Arno says “Alaska’s trade in big-game adventures is over a century old.”

Maybe that’s the real problem. Wasn’t the wildlife “emergency” caused by human overhunting and not by wild predators?

Didn’t trophy hunting and other forms of overhunting most likely wipe out the moose in the first place?

Mr. Arno also says: “You can't find another more sustainable industry in Alaska with as much longevity.” Of course---the wildlife killing "industry" has been subsidized by the State with wildlife being given away as the subsidy.

But just how “sustainable” is “Alaska’s trade in big game adventures” if it is also necessary to slaughter wolves and bears wholesale? How can this slaughter be “sustainable” when it must be facilitated by an accompanying “sustainable” slaughter of wolves and bears? If it is so “sustainable” why is it now necessary to massacre wild predators?

And can even that qualified definition of “sustainable” be true? The long-term effects of the predator slaughter were never scientifically implemented and have not yet been scientifically evaluated. We have the only word of wildlife killers that predator control is “working.”

Where is the benefit to the greater public enjoyment of wildlife? Where are the viewing adventures, the photographic adventures---at least for those who can’t afford the time or money to fly in or visit the few remaining places where such activities have precedence over wildlife killing?

Alaska’s State game management system is and has been under the political control of mainly one special interest user group---the wildlife killing industry. We are now reaping the terrible consequences of an unabated and “sustained” slaughter of Alaska’s wildlife. Things have changed in Alaska but Mr. Arno talks as if it was the good old days described in the defunct Alaska Sportsman magazine which, even back then, just described organized (mostly guided) “adventures” for tame, wealthy, domesticated “sports” masquerading as “fair chase” hunters.

Today, the so-called “hunting” in Alaska is all about unabashed motorized plundering. “Fair chase” just means dismounting the vehicle prior to opening fire---maybe. Hunting in Alaska is a motor sport that could be managed better by the Division of Motor Vehicles.

That said, aside from the very few, mostly Native, “subsistence” hunters, trophy hunters are the most honest hunters in Alaska these days. At least they make no hypocritical pretense about hunting for meat (although many utilize it). But do they, as Mr. Arno claims, really give away all that much meat to locals? Of course there are “laws“ against wasting meat. But how much meat actually lies rotting on the tundra while heads, horns and hides are airlifted to taxidermy shops?

And where is the “subsistence” in all of this? Is it really “subsistence” when rich “sporting types” must pay so some Alaskans can make the claim of being “subsistence users” while begging for scraps from the “sports” who most likely wiped out true subsistence in the first place? The very idea of using modern aircraft, bait and snares to kill predators in order to subsidize getting meat for local “hunter-gatherers” as a by-product is about as far removed from subsistence as we can get---it’s nothing more than using public wildlife and public agencies to subsidize some meat for locals as an excuse to subsidize the trophy wildlife killing industry.

This entire system is out of whack. Too narrow, too focused on the special interests of killing wildlife. Kill, kill, kill---that’s all our game management system is about.

Mr. Arno says those who oppose killing wildlife to manage wildlife for killing are “antis”---but the State is anti-wildlife in the sense that wildlife is managed only in order to be killed. How much more “anti” can we get?

Rudy Wittshirk