A ruling on Monday by U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland in Anchorage is putting the brakes on wolf-population-control efforts in Alaska.
Many people in the Lower 48 — conservatives included — don’t know what to think about wolf culling. Environmental groups have used the issue to attack former governor Sarah Palin and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). But their decision to use aerial shooting to protect other species from over-predation made perfect sense.
The state wants to launch an emergency aerial wolf kill on a federal wildlife refuge in the Aleutian Islands, in order to save a herd of caribou that has plummeted in size from 1,200 animals in 2002 to just 250 today largely due to wolf predation. An aerial wolf kill could protect this summer’s crop of caribou calves, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wants to study the issue further before taking action. The federal judge decided to give the USFWS the time it wants.
Larry Bell, the assistant regional director for the USFWS in Alaska, says the agency will wrap up its study by December. Meanwhile, Cindy Beamer, general manager of Isanotski Corp., which represents Alaska Native residents in the area, told the Los Angeles Times, “The wolves don’t have enough caribou to eat, [and] where the wolves are camping out, [there] now are houses that have little seven‑ and ten‑year‑old children.”
In case you’ve bought the environmentalists’ claim that no wolf has ever killed a person in North America, think again. The most recent example: On March 11, 2010, in Chignik Lake, Alaska, wolves ran down and killed Candice Berner, a 32-year-old teacher.
Mr. Miniter would do well to more deeply research his material when it comes to this topic.
I've lived in Alaska over 40 years and have followed the wolf issues closely.
The facts of the Unimak Island situation are as follows (and these are derived from data provided by the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game):
1. Of the 400 caribou, the ratio of bulls to cows is 5:100, a very bad ratio.
2. Most of these 20 or so bulls are older and so tend to produce either no pregnancy despite mating or unhealthy calves which are apt to die regardless of predation.
3. From 2000 to 2008, residents of the island took 12 animals. From 2001 to 2008, non-Alaskan trophy hunters took 90 bulls.
4. Trophy hunters take only the biggest, healthiest bulls for obvious reasons.
5. There are about 400 bears on the island and bears are very effective predators on caribou calves. However, unlike wolves, bears have trophy hunt value and so seem safe from the decimation program ADF&G was suggesting.
6. The residents of the island actually prefer to hunt the nearby mainland as the terrain is much better. They also have a strong marine component in their diets.
As to the teacher's death, there are indications the residents of Chignik were habituating wolves to the area by feeding them so as to make them easier to trap. Additionally, as the coroner obviously has no experience differentiating a wolf attack from a large dog attack (and there are always loose dogs in Alaskan villages) these findings are circumspect a best.
It is common for the anti-predator crowd up here to "cry wolf" and raise safety issues. But considering there are over 300 injuries or deaths annually in Alaska due to loose dogs and only a handful of wolf attacks over the decades (and these all under extenuating circumstances such as habituation, provocation, etc) the real danger becomes obvious.
We who actually live here, unlike Mr. Miniter, are familiar with the avalanche of false and misleading information that accompanies any attempt to justify unwarranted and unscientific wildlife management, especially as it applies to predators in Alaska. Presently, our ADF&G is administered by appointees put in place by ex-governor Sarah Palin whose environmental views are well-known and extremist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBTW, as any wildlife biologist will admit, unless you actually witness the event there is usually no way to distinguish between true predation by wolves and scavenging of already-dead carcasses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur Fish and Game Dept. was recently the target of a letter to our governor, Sean Parnell (lt. governor under Palin and sharing many of her views) in which 55 former biologists with F&G denounced the widespread, frequent, and casual use of predator control which has become the signature of wildlife management ala the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game under its Palin-appointee, Denby Lloyd.
It is a popular "hot button" in Alaska to portray the poor, little state of Alaska vs the big, nasty feds. When you see this being used as a discussion point it generally indicates the weakness of the state's argument that it has to turn to this sort of rhetoric.
I've long advocated establishing a wolf pack in Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C. Doing so would please environmentalists, who could enjoy the wolves' night music close up and who hitherto have only imagined it occurring in fly-over country. It would please law-abiding citizens by reducing urban gang presence after dark and by deterring use of the park as squatting grounds by vagrants. It would improve the urban environment by culling the numbers of stray cats and dogs. And morever, it would reduce the swarms of rats that have long plagued our beautiful Capitol.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo Dobieman: I read with interest the further information you posted as it is helpful to hear another side.
Then you got to the end and called Palin's environmental views "extremist", which pretty much makes you delusional. And since you are delusional, I have to assume you made up or twisted the information you presented. You had some credibility and then lost it just so you could call someone a name.
Clearly her views are not in the extreme as a good portion of Americans share views similar to hers.
Here is a tip for you, just because YOU don't agree with someone, does NOT make them an extremist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedobieman essentially parrots the points made in a local newspaper but I agree none the less. Fish and Game has failed to effectively manage the caribou population and one could assume that past performance could predict future results, i.e. more bad decisions. Hunting was banned in 2008, so we have had one or two calving seasons since then. Let the ecosystem do its thing. Or, if you truly need bulls, why not import a few? Culling wolves will not increase bull population. As for young children being threatened by predation, that is part of the program if you chose an aboriginal lifestyle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedobieman you bring up some good points, but claiming that 'as any wildlife biologist will admit, unless you actually witness the event there is usually no way to distinguish between true predation by wolves and scavenging of already-dead carcasses' is not really true. Yes indeed, one cannot tell with 100% certainty, but any one that knows animal behavior/biology can get an excellent idea as to what animal killed the teacher.
Your also off the mark if you think there is no way to tell the difference in if a large dog or wolf attacked someone. Animals kill in certain ways and a wolf will usually kill in a different more efficient manner than a domesticated dog or even semi-wild dog.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse