*Palin's support of aerial hunting is based on predator control, so that poorer Alaskan families have moose to hunt for food (the reason is for human food, rather than prey depopulation)
Specious. Predator-predator competition for prey doesn't significantly impact the prey population unless there's a sudden increase in predators. Beyond that, moose is not a food source for the poor -- just one moose tends to fill two full-size freezers, minimum, and the equipment necessary isn't cheap. Elk and deer are the poor man's prey.
*scientists seem to agree that a decrease in the prey population balance is more due to human influence and environmental damage than predator behavior
Temporarily that would suggest a very limited reduction in the prey population. I don't see why aerial hunting fits in; it's certainly not cheaper.
*scientists seem to agree that culling the predator population does not increase the prey population
IFF (and a big iff) the prey population has decreased due to influences other than predator activity, and IFF the predator/prey balance is significantly off, this is true. But history, especially in Wyoming and other states there by Yellowstone, shows that reducing the number of top predators is something done carefully.
Therein might be a justification for aerial hunting: it's easier to kill predators in the numbers you want and in the places you want. Tag systems with a special season are too unpredictable, and taking off top predators is a lot like adding water to concrete mix: go a teaspoonful too far at just the 'right' point, and you have soup instead of cement to pour. Precision is preferable.
*the aerial hunting thing totally throws me off, because what Alaskan family is too poor to buy food, but can rent a bush plane or helicopter and hire a pilot?
It doesn't seem to make sense to me.
It would sort of make sense if the reason was to prevent predator starvation and disease due to a lack of a prey population. But I read that the moose population in the state was steady and secure.
So could any Alaskans or people more familiar with this subject explain this? Or point me in the right direction for more reading?
The bit about moose, as far as I can tell, is human-predator justification of the urge to kill. If the moose population is stable, there's no reason to be culling wolves.
The cost thing would be a pain in the butt to do, though here's how to go about it: you want a spreadsheet with data sets for (1) cost per wolf eliminated by aerial hunting, (2) change in moose populations due to aerial culling (3) changes in number of moose taken by the poor, and more. The idea is to figure out the price per pound of moose meat provided to the poor by aerial hunting, then compare that to the price per pound before the aerial hunting. If the price per pound is roughly the same, then the aerial program is worth it -- but without some pretty good software for the equilibrium functions of the predator/prey populations, that's going to be hard to establish.
As a hunter, I say it's just idiocy, rich people justifying their will to thrill with pious mouthings.
