Ballot Measures and Subversion of Direct Democracy: Initiatives to Outlaw Aerial Wolf Killing in Alaska
In: Society & AnimalsAbstract
Activists often utilize ballot measures to protect wildlife. However, state executive branches may employ a variety of means to subvert direct democracy. We examine some of these tactics via a case study of two nearly identical ballot initiatives that were intended to outlaw the aerial killing of wolves in Alaska. In the first case, the language that appeared on the ballot was created by an executive branch sympathetic to the measure. In the second case, the ballot language was created by an executive branch opposed to the measure. In the first case, the ballot language accurately communicated the intent of the initiative and it passed. In the second case, it did not communicate the intent of the initiative or pass. Moreover, in the second case, the Palin administration utilized public funds to persuade voters not to support the initiative.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (2007). Predator management in Alaska. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
-
Alaska Division of Elections. (2008). 2008 ballot measures voting guide. Juneau, Alaska: State of Alaska Division of Elections.
-
Alaska Division of Elections. (2017a). An act relating to the same-day airborne hunting of certain animals. Retrieved from: http://www.elections.alaska.gov/doc/oep/1996/oep.htm.
-
Alaska Division of Elections. (2017b). Official summary report of the state of Alaska general election, November 5, 1996. Retrieved from: http://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/96PRIM96GENR/summary.txt.
-
Alaska Division of Elections. (2017c). State of Alaska, division of elections, initiative history. Retrieved from: http://www.elections.alaska.gov/doc/forms/H26.pdf#page.
-
Anahita, S., & Mix, T. (2006). Retrofitting frontier masculinity for Alaska’s war against wolves. Gender and Society, 20(3), 1-22. DOI: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243206286319.
-
Animal Legal & Historical Center. (2017). Alaska ballot measure 6-referendum-An act relating to the management of game. Retrieved from: https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ak-initiatives-ballot-measure-6-hunters-using-airplanes.
-
Ballotpedia. (2017). Measure 2 (primary) amending same day airborne shooting. Retrieved from: http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/ballot.phtml?m=516.
-
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2017). Commonly asked questions about mountain lions. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Mountain-Lion/FAQ#359951244-why-cant-mountain-lions-be-hunted-in-california.
-
Carswell, C. (2016). Line of descent. High Country News, 48(13), 14-20.
-
Coleman, J. (2004). Vicious: Wolves and men in America. New Haven: Yale University Press.
-
Decker, D., Jacobson, C., & Brown, T. (2006). Situation-specific impact dependency as a determinant of management acceptability: Insights from wolf and grizzly bear management in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(2), 426-432.
-
Dizard, J. (2003). Mortal stakes: Hunters and hunting in contemporary America. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
-
Haber, G. (1996). Biological conservation and the ethical implications of exploiting and controlling wolves. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1068-1081.
-
Holsman, R. (2000). Good will hunting? Exploring the role of hunters as ecosystem stewards. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 808-816.
-
Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Licht, D. S., Millspaugh, J. J., Kunkel, K. K., Kochanny, C., & Peterson, R. O. (2010). Using small populations of wolves for ecosystem restoration and stewardship. BioScience, 60(2), 147-153. DOI: 10.1126/science.1205106.
-
Lopez, B. (2004). Of wolves and men. New York: Scribner.
-
Lynn, W. (2010). Discourse and wolves: Science, society, and ethics. Society & Animals, 18, 75-92.
-
Manfredo, M., Teel, T., & Bright, A. (2003). Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(4), 287-306. DOI: 10.1080/10871200390240634.
-
Meyer, K., & Meyer, R. (2009). Lords of nature: Life in a land of great predators. La Grande, OR: Green Fire Productions.
-
Minnis, D. (1998). Wildlife policy making by the electorate: An overview of citizen-sponsored ballot measures on hunting and trapping. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(1), 75-83.
-
National Council of State Legislatures. (2019). Overview: Drafting the initiative and title. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/preparation-of-a-ballot-title-and-summary.aspx.
-
Nibert, D., (2002). Animal rights, human rights: Entanglements of oppression and liberation. New York: Rowan and Littlefield.
-
Pepper, D. (1996). Modern environmentalism: An introduction. London: Routledge.
-
Phillips, N. (1996, November, 6). Same day wolf hunting shot down: Measure 3 passage halts land-and-shoot practices. Anchorage Daily News, p. B1.
-
Reilly, S., & Richey, S. (2011). Ballot question readability and roll-off: The impact of language complexity. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 59-67. DOI: I O.I 177/106591 2909349629.
-
Richardson, M., Sherman, J., & Gismondi, M. (1993). Winning back the words: Confronting experts in an environmental public hearing. Toronto: Garamond Press.
-
Ripple, W., & Beschta, R. (2005). Linking wolves and plants: Aldo Leopold on trophic cascades. BioScience, 55(7), 613-621.
-
Roosevelt, T. (2004). Hunting trips of a ranchman & The wilderness hunter. New York: The Modern Library.
-
Simon, A. (2008). European anthropocentrism vs. American ecocentrism: Clashing values regarding wolves. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptiTmM8Sbc.
-
Simon, A. (2009). The use of historic and contemporary justifications for killing wolves by the Palin administration. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 20(4), 6-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10455750903444288.
-
Staff Opinion. (2003, June 22). Anchorage Daily News, p. H2.
-
Stolzenburg, W. (2008). Where the wild things were. New York: Bloomsbury.
-
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). Quick facts: Alaska. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/AK/PST045216.
-
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2006). 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation: Alaska. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
-
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2011a). 2011 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
-
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2011b). 2011 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation: Alaska. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.
-
Van Ballenberghe, V. (2006). Predator control, politics, and wildlife conservation in Alaska. Alces, 42, 1-11.
-
Van Ballenberghe, V. (2011). Intensive management—or mismanagement?: Exploring Alaska’s predator control programs. The Wildlife Professional, Winter: 74-77.
-
Williams, C., Ericsson, G., & Heberlein, T. (2002). A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30(2), 575-584.
-
Williamson, S. (1998). Origins, history, and current use of ballot initiatives in wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 3(2), 51-59. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209809359125.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 144 | 41 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 8 | 4 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 14 | 9 | 2 |
Ballot Measures and Subversion of Direct Democracy: Initiatives to Outlaw Aerial Wolf Killing in Alaska
In: Society & AnimalsAbstract
Activists often utilize ballot measures to protect wildlife. However, state executive branches may employ a variety of means to subvert direct democracy. We examine some of these tactics via a case study of two nearly identical ballot initiatives that were intended to outlaw the aerial killing of wolves in Alaska. In the first case, the language that appeared on the ballot was created by an executive branch sympathetic to the measure. In the second case, the ballot language was created by an executive branch opposed to the measure. In the first case, the ballot language accurately communicated the intent of the initiative and it passed. In the second case, it did not communicate the intent of the initiative or pass. Moreover, in the second case, the Palin administration utilized public funds to persuade voters not to support the initiative.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 144 | 41 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 8 | 4 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 14 | 9 | 2 |