March 29, 2015
Recently
the Alaska Board of Game voted to turn down an emergency petition that
would have closed many acres of state and private land outside Denali
Park to the taking of wolves. Denying the petition was inevitable, since
the request did not meet the statutory definition of “emergency.” But
it is interesting to consider what the real reasons might be for the
support for the petition by the anti-hunting/trapping group that
submitted it and members of the public who supported it.
No
one disputes that the wolf population in Denali Park has plummeted in
the last few years. The reason for the low numbers of wolves probably is
not clear but one thing is for sure: It is not logical or fair to blame
hunting and trapping in or near the “hard park” portions of Denali.
The
National Park Service appeared to be neutral regarding the petition. At
times, even the petitioners admit that hunting and trapping are not
responsible for the low numbers of wolves in the park. Park Service
research states clearly that human harvest of wolves is low and
infrequent near the boundaries. Ironically, the most robust, viable and
healthy wolf packs in the park are at the northeast corner, exactly
where the petition sought to restrict harvest on lands adjacent to the
park.
Further, Park Service scientists have documented wolf
losses appearing to be related to starvation in the northwest part of
the park. They believe that this correlates to low prey populations and
unfavorable hunting conditions for wolves in recent years. This is very
reasonable.
There were many public comments supporting the
petition. I read both the petition and the supporting comments, and was
struck by a couple things.
First, the general public is
abysmally ignorant about wolf biology, wolf behavior and wolf management
programs. Virtually all the public support for the petition was from
outside of Alaska and based on emotional arguments that have little to
do with the real world of wolves in and around Denali Park. Here are
some shining examples from the Record Comments submitted to the Board of
Game:
“Please protect our wolves in Yellow Stone National park.”
“The
wolves will always cross over into the higher dimension frequencies. It
is the human that murders and gloats, that will stay in the lower
realms after they die.”
“Please save the wolves; they are vital to the echo system …”
“Killing
these wolves will result in the catastrophic collapse of our own
ecosystem and the subsequent extinction of all living things existing
anywhere.”
“Without the wolves to help manage the caribou
their population will become overwhelming and they strip the land of
vegetation which can lead to mud slides and other problems …”
As
for the petitioners, I’m left thinking that this campaign was more a
way to raise money than to actually benefit wolves. It was anti-hunting
and -trapping, NOT pro-wolf. One has only to observe areas near the park
and similarly situated to see this clearly demonstrated.
Denali Park is 6 million acres. According to the Park Service, the number of wolves fell from 143 in 2007 to 50 wolves by 2014.
Just to the east lies Game Management Unit 20A. This
smaller area (4.2 million acres) is mostly state land. It is managed by
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. GMU 20A features one of the most
productive moose hunting areas in the entire state. It supports 10,000
moose and in the neighborhood of 300 wolves. Humans harvest several
hundred moose each fall in the unit and wolves take about another 2,000
moose. As in most of Alaska, the take by predators is far higher than
the human take, a fact conveniently ignored by most wolf supporters.
Virtually
every biologist, trapper, hunter and bush resident knows that wolf
populations reflect the availability of their prey. When prey is
abundant, wolves flourish. When prey populations are low, wolf
populations become low.
So it’s clear that folks who
honestly want to see more wolves should not be wasting their time
petitioning to close lands adjacent to the park to harvest. Instead they
should be supporting more intensive ADFG management on these lands.
What
management regime is more “pro-wolf?” The one that results in 50 wolves
on 6 million acres? Or the one that results in a robust 300 wolves on
4.2 million acres that also produces thousands of pounds of moose meat
for Alaska families?
Pete Buist of
Fairbanks is retired from the Alaska Division of Forestry. He is a past
member of the Alaska Board of Game. He holds degrees in biology and
forestry from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Syracuse
University.
No comments:
Post a Comment