The public’s opportunity to comment on the Alberta government’s proposal to step up the killing of wolves to protect endangered mountain caribou – even though their own science says it won’t work – is closing soon.
The government is forced to provide a plan to respond to the endangered caribou herds under the federal Species At Risk Act in the Little Smoky and A La Peche ranges. Though significant research has shown that it is exploration and exploitation of natural resources, and fragmentation of habitat that has led to the decline of these species, the government’s plan focuses more on half measures and quick-solutions that have proven to fail.
In a seven year stretch between 2005 and 2012, as many as 780 wolves were killed in an attempt to end depredation – though research continuously points out that this solution will not in itself be a solution. Wolf Awareness Inc. stated in a recent press release that at least 676 non-target species were killed in these regions by poison or snares set for wolves, including two caribou.
“Other victims included 163 mountain lions, 70 lynx, 3 grizzly bears, 12 black bears, 38 wolverines, 3 foxes, 73 otters, 173 fishers, 12 moose, 62 deer, 40 eagles (golden and bald), 12 owls, 1 goshawk, and 12 small mammals,” the release notes.
The public has a limited opportunity to formally comment on the proposal that would increase and extend wolf killing, and fence in caribou in a half-cocked breeding ploy. The Fur-Bearers strongly encourages all members of the public to engage in this opportunity and make it clear: killing wolves isn’t a long-term solution.
Comment on Alberta’s draft proposal by clicking here. It closes for commenting on Friday, August 5. If you don’t live in the region or are unable to complete this online survey, you can email your thoughts to email@example.com and copy Alberta Minister of Environment and Parks Shannon Phillips (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Stay on point:this issue is about the proposed plan to kill wolves and fence in caribou for breeding, rather than aggressively protecting and restoring habitat. Keep your comments directed to the facts and provide citations if necessary.
Stay polite and use spell check:if you’re rude, aggressive, misspell words, or use incorrect grammar, readers may become disengaged or dismissive of your points.
Provide solutions:rather than just say what’s wrong, say what’s right. Offer solutions or alternatives to help move forward conversations – we’re recommending pointing to the need for connectivity between protected regions, a complete halt in resource exploitation, and long-term commitment to full ecosystem protection.
Identify yourself:it’s important to include your address when writing politicians so they know who you are, where you’re from, and that your vote will affect them in the next election.
Let us know what you hear:if you receive a message back from your representative, or they would like to discuss the issues in greater detail with us, please let us know by emailing email@example.com.