To answer Mrs. Spraker (Clarion, Jan. 11), the answer is no, the USF&W is following its own law. Had spraker quoted the USF&W letter, she would know it is not federal policy to engage in predator control. Of more importance is the fact the State of Alaska is breaking state law. Article eight, section four of the Alaska Constitution requires the state to manage fish and wildlife for sustained use, a scientific term of precise meaning. Predators are included in the term wildlife and the court has found constitutional delegates intended to include predators. Regardless, the state has ignored this principle of science for 50 years. Judge Morse said predators were included in the term wildlife. In effect, predators have a constitutional right to exist and to be managed for sustained yield, regardless of urban hunter demand for success (see West v. Board of Game 248 p.3d 689; AK 2010).
Comments (1)
Add commentSore loser
I did a little reserach and found the State of Alaska prevailed. Sounds to me like Mr. West is a sore loser.
V. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court's ruling regarding the applicability of Alaska's sustained yield clause to predator populations but REVERSE its ruling that AS 16.05.255 does not apply to predator populations. We AFFIRM the court's ruling that Defenders and West failed to meet their burden to show that the Board's 2006 predator control plans violate Alaska's sustained [**39] yield clause, and hold that Defenders and West also failed to show that the plans violate the sustained yield pro-visions of Alaska's intensive management statute. We AFFIRM the superior court's order denying West's motion for attorney's fees.