Faced with declining caribou and moose herds, Alaska is hoping that shooting wolves and bears from helicopters will solve their problem. The program will permit the slaughter of up to 80% of these animals on 20,000 acres of state land. I use the term “slaughter” intentionally as killing animals from helicopters should not be dignified with the term “hunting.” I say this as both an ethicist and someone who grew up as an ethical hunter. Laying aside my moral concerns about the methodology of this slaughter, there is the factual question as to whether it would achieve its stated goal.

In 2023 nearly 100 bears, including 20 cubs, were killed from helicopters. It was claimed that this helped increase the caribou population. To determine the effectiveness of such killings, the state created a report and found that the largest causal factors in the decline of the caribou herd were “disease, nutrition, and winter severity.” It was estimated that starvation or dehydration caused about 65% of the deaths. As would be expected, the state has now refused to allow photographs of the killings, has forbidden independent observers, and does not allow scientific review of the program. This shows that the state officials are not concerned with whether the method is effective, but that they must be driven by other motivations.

Looked at in purely economic terms, the slaughter of predators has already had a negative effect on state revenue. One of the major tourist draws for Denali national park has been the wolf packs. As the state has succeeded in killing wolves, tourism has declined. While the state has claimed that their program raised money from people who want to slaughter wolves and bears from helicopters, “the amount of tourist dollars from people seeking to view these predators in the wild dwarfs any incremental increase in hunting fee revenue the state hopes to realize.” Given that the justifications for the slaughter are untrue, it must be wondered why the state is persisting in this bad idea.

In terms of people having false beliefs, one possibility is that they are operating in sincere ignorance: they hold to false beliefs, but this is because they have had no cause to challenge them. The idea of the “big bad wolf” is ingrained in our culture, as is the idea that predators are a problem. As such, someone unfamiliar with the facts might, in good faith, think that wolves and bears are the problem and that killing them is the solution. They might also have no idea that tourists are paying to come see wolves and that the fees from hunting would be miniscule in comparison. But if someone is aware that there is evidence out there, such as the report mentioned above, they might decide to engage in willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance occurs when a person is aware that evidence or arguments exist that could challenge their belief but chooses to ignore or dismiss such evidence or arguments. They can also escalate by “refuting” the evidence and arguments with rhetoric, fallacies, and simply clinging to their belief. This is especially likely when the belief is part of the person’s ideology or identity. In the United States, “solving” ecological problems by killing animals is usually seen as more of a right-wing approach, and environmentally focused approaches are usually branded as “leftist.” In the case of caribou and moose herds, the main driving factor in their decline is most likely climate change. As noted above, even the state of Alaska’s own report noted that 65% of the deaths were caused by starvation and dehydration. But the right has committed to denying climate change and hence another explanation is needed. Blaming wolves and bears fits this narrative and hence enables willful ignorance. There are also those who know the truth and decide to lie.

The American right has embraced the strategy of lying about climate change, simply denying that it occurs while refusing to offer evidence for their view. In the case of killing predators, it thus makes sense why the state is refusing observers and studies: the officials know that the results would refute their claims. In terms of why they are doing this, one factor could be that they need to appease people who are sincerely or willfully ignorant but expect the state to do something to address the problem. The “solution” they have selected is killing the predators, which will end up costing the state revenue.

Shooting wolves and bears from helicopters is also an excellent metaphor for life in America. Members of the ruling class, such as CEOs of health insurance companies, are like the shooters in the helicopters and we are the wolves. They can hurt and even kill us with near impunity. Some might be tempted to think that their metaphorical helicopter lifts them above the law, but this is not true. The legal system is part of their helicopter (and their gun): they are within the law, but it serves to protect them from us while also serving as a weapon against us. It is only when they walk among us unprotected that they face any meaningful risk of facing consequences, as Luigi Mangione showed. Which is why the CEO response to the shooting was to enhance their security.

The situation in Alaska also provides another excellent metaphor for life in America: we are like the caribou and moose being harmed by starvation, dehydration and disease while our suffering and deaths are being blamed on something else. We are, like the caribou and moose, literally suffering from climate change while the ruling class lies about it. We face housing shortages, poor health care, medical bankruptcy, and economic exploitation while the ruling class blames migrants and transpeople. They are not interested in solving the problems, whether it is the declining numbers of moose and caribou or needless deaths due to Americans being uninsured or underinsured.