The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the sovereignty of each of the 50 states. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” For me this is the real issue behind Alaska’s wolf management program.

United States Rep. George Miller of California has drafted a bill he chooses to call, “Protect America’s Wildlife Act of 2007″ or more accurately named HR3663 (pdf). His bill intends to amend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to put further restrictions on shooting wildlife from aircraft, essentially. The bill is an attempt to meddle into Alaska’s affairs by the U.S. Congress and violate the sovereignty of the state of Alaska.

It would prohibit anyone from shooting any wildlife from an aircraft or from landing an aircraft and shooting any animals. It increases fines for violations and attempts to force Alaska to rewrite its own constitution. The bill reads that, “a state cannot authorize or undertake any action otherwise prohibited under this Act, for the purpose of increasing any game population or for the purpose of sport hunting”. The problem with this amendment, whose intention is to force Alaska to abandon its wolf management plan, is contrary to the Alaska constitution, which states that, “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.”

The state of Alaska is required by law under its own constitution to manage its wildlife for sustainable yield. When the state has determined that the sustainable yield of moose and caribou in any region is in jeopardy, law requires them to do something about it.

The federal Airborne Hunting Act prohibits the shooting of any wildlife from an aircraft, with exceptions.

These prohibitions do not apply to state or federal employees, authorized agents, or persons acting under a license or permit, who are authorized to administer or protect land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops.

This essentially is the basis of which the Alaska Fish and Game conducts its wolf management plan, which at times has included shooting of wildlife from aircraft.

The fact that Rep. George Miller has decided to sponsor a bill, HR3663, is troubling in many ways. This bill, if passed would set an extremely dangerous precedence. It infringes on the sovereignty of each state to manage its own wildlife in the manner that has been done for centuries. Perhaps Rep. Miller doesn’t think shooting a wolf from an aircraft is an ethical thing to do. That is his freedom to express that as many Americans have done. I know very few people who think sport hunting from an aircraft is acceptable.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin put it as clearly as anyone could in a letter (pdf) written to Rep. Miller dated September 27, 2007.

On behalf of the state of Alaska I am writing to express my displeasure with your introduction of a bill that proposes to end what you refer to as “airborne hunting” of wolves and bears in Alaska. You have misconstrued the reality of life in Alaska and the importance of wild game as food to the people of this state. You displayed a shocking lack of understanding of wildlife management in the North and the true structure and function of Alaska’s predator control programs. You have threatened the very foundations of federalism and the states’ abilities to manage their own affairs as they see fit.

Gov. Palin went on to explain in her letter to Rep. Miller that she was “dismayed” that he never contacted anyone in the state of Alaska before announcing his proposed bill. She also chastised him for inaccuracies in the text of the bill and his oral statements to the media.

I am especially concerned your draft bill threatens the constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty not just of the state of Alaska, but all states. Under our system of federalism, fish and game management is generally conducted by the states, not the federal government. Courts have repeatedly recognized wildlife management as one of the aspects of traditional state sovereignty reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Gov. Palin refutes the notion that the use of aircraft in reducing wolf populations is only to benefit licensed hunters.

Our science-based program is designed to reduce the effect of predators in given areas with the intent to allow a higher harvest of moose and caribou by humans for food. By thinning the numbers of predators in selected areas, we are enabling more Alaskans to hunt moose and caribou and put food in their freezers. Each program is specifically designed, carefully considered and closely monitored. We do not undertake predator control lightly.

Many who oppose the use of aerial wolf management say it is an unethical means of hunting but Governor Palin is quick to point out that this part of their wolf management program is not hunting and that “fair chase ethics do not apply”. The position of the Alaska Fish and Game, with the support of the governor, believe this tactic in the management plan is necessary.

In a press release issue by the governor’s office on September 26, 2007, Governor Palin is quoted as saying, “It appears to me that the Congressman (referring to Rep. George Miller) has been inadvertently drawn into service as a fundraiser for national animal rights organizations that commonly spread inaccurate information about Alaska’s game management programs, and with which we are in court on these issues right now.”

Alaska’s representative to Congress Don Young, Ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Natural Resources stands boldly against Rep. Miller’s bill. In an attempt to thwart off the bill before it even sees the House floor, Young sent a letter to Nick Rahall, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, calling Miller’s bill, “ill-conceived, misguided, unnecessary and highly discriminatory”.

In his letter, Rep. Young explains once again the history of state’s sovereignty and “primacy over all wildlife within their borders”. He urges Mr. Rahall not to even bring the bill up for discussion.

In furthering his campaign against HR3663, Rep. Young circulates a letter (pdf) to colleagues, complete with graphic pictures urging members of the house to oppose Miller’s bill.

Dear Colleague,

I strongly urge you to oppose George Miller’s recently introduced H.R. 3663, the so-called “Protect America’s Wildlife Act.” This egregious legislation not only violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it is being offered by a Member who has little understanding of Alaska and Alaskan wildlife management issues, and apparently zero concern for the fact that his legislation will take food out of the mouths of thousands of Alaskans.

Rep. Miller’s bill would eliminate Alaska’s predator control program which ensures the security of the food sources on which Native and rural Alaskans have survived for hundreds of years. An overabundance of predatory Arctic Grey Wolves threatens these Alaskans’ food supply, and the state’s science and abundance-based program ensures their food security, while maintaining a healthy, viable, and reproductive population of wolves.

This is not “hunting.” It is necessary predator control.

Rep. Young asserts that Rep. Miller teamed up with Defenders of Wildlife and others to draft HR3663.

Unfortunately, Rep. Miller, the Defenders of Wildlife, and other radical animal rights groups who wrote H.R. 3663 ignore these facts, place wildlife ahead of the needs of real human beings, and would like you to do the same. They would like you to believe their legislation will “save the wolves” and end “inhumane hunting.” They will issue emotional press releases and inundate unsuspecting Americans with misinformation, pictures of wolf puppies, and requests to donate money.

This cynical, disingenuous campaign will likely generate thousands of dollars in donations, but should Rep. Miller’s bill become law, it will take food out of the mouths of my constituents and their children.

In nothing more than from the perspective of an American who believes in and understands the U.S. Constitution, we have to realize that Rep. Miller’s bill is over the top. It doesn’t matter whether you or I think that using aircraft to manage a handful of wolves is right or wrong. What’s wrong is that a U.S. congressman wants to mow down the Tenth Amendment and begin letting big government dictate to Alaska and every other state, how to run their wildlife programs.

This is an issue to be decided in Alaska by the Alaska people not by a congressman in California. It is unfortunate that Alaska has had to spend countless dollars fighting lawsuits from radical animal rights groups who put the welfare of wolves ahead of humans.

I don’t fully understand the entirety of the Alaska wolf management program but I have faith that the governor, the fish and game and the citizens can resolve those issues without the federal government’s intrusion. I can also understand the frustration of some over the past history of ballot initiatives and legislative wrangling over wolf management within the last 10 years or so.

For those who don’t know, in 1996 “Proposition 3″, a citizen’s initiative to ban same-day airborne hunting, passed garnering 58.5% of the vote. In this initiative, it included a “biological emergency” clause that basically said that it had to be determined that an emergency had to be in existence before aircraft could be used to save a species.

In 1999, Senate Bill 74 was enacted that removed the “biological emergency” clause.

In 2000, Senate Bill 267 passed the Alaska Congress. This bill essentially repealed Proposition 3. Then Governor Tony Knowles vetoed the bill. The legislature overturned Knowles’ veto. Later that same year, Alaskans for Wildlife filed for another referendum in opposition to SB 267. Ballot Measure 6 passed by 53% to 47%.

Then in 2003, Senate Bill 155 is passed and signed into law by Governor Frank Murkowski. This bill reinstates the use of aircraft in wolf management. Since the inception of SB 155, the Board of Game has adopted wolf programs and Management Units to better pinpoint problem areas.

With this history, it is clear that there would be frustration on the part of citizens and voters. This is no reason to abandon the U.S. Constitution in order to push through agendas. The feds need to stay out of this and allow Alaska to resolve its problems. The Fish and Game department strongly believes in the need for this kind of aerial wolf control and have successfully convinced the Legislature and governor of its importance. It seems that, at least in previous years, fish and game and the legislature has failed to convince the people.

Alaska is a vast state with an abundance of wildlife and there needs to be a good campaign and public relations to all citizens about the wildlife management programs and the importance of everything they do. We will never stop the onslaught of lawsuits from extreme radical animal rights groups but when these groups see that the people of a state are united in their cause, they back off.

I’ll keep you informed as to what happens to HR3663. Hopefully our elected officials will also agree that our Tenth Amendment is much more important than sticking our noses into Alaska’s business.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!