Recently, Coke Wallace, a Healy trapper, placed a horse carcass on state land near the northeastern border of Denali National Park to attract wolves; he then set snares around the area and left. His tactics were legal and successful. Wolves were attracted to the carcass; a collared female from the park was trapped near the dead horse. Reports state that the wolf had been trapped for a week before Wallace returned. (A male wolf was also trapped, albeit not as close to the bait.)
The female wolf that was killed was the only remaining breeding female in the Grant Creek pack — the most viewed pack in Denali National Park. Because of her death, the pack will probably have no pups this year — at a time when the park’s wolf population is the lowest it has been in over two decades. Furthermore, studies show that the loss of just one reproductive female from a pack can negatively affect the entire pack, which could fall apart as a result.
This wolf was wearing a radio collar attached by scientists; ironically, she was part of an ongoing study to determine the effects of the 2010 elimination of the Denali buffer zone on park tourists.
From 2002 to 2012, the area in which the two wolves were trapped was protected by the Denali buffer zone; wolf hunting and trapping were not permitted near the park border because park wolves are habituated to humans, they are important to the ecosystems of the park, and they are valuable for wildlife viewing. Tens of thousands of visitors — and their money — pour into Denali National Park each year to view wildlife; many come to view wolves.
Denali wolves are so important that at the 2010 Fairbanks Board of Game meeting, the park service submitted a proposal asking for the expansion of the buffer zone, which was widely supported. The board received a 35-page petition containing more than 500 signatures supporting an expansion of the buffer zone, including more than 100 signatures from residents of the park area and nearly 300 from Alaskans. Denali assistant superintendent Elwood Lynn stated, “We believe that the buffer will enhance or protect wolf viewing opportunities in the park....”
In contrast, only a handful of trappers opposed the buffer zone. One of them was Wallace. Another was Al Barrette.
Despite overwhelming support for the buffer zone, the board completely eliminated it by a 4-3 vote — and placed a 6-year moratorium on buffer proposals. Notably, one of the board members voting against the buffer zone was newly appointed trapper Al Barrette, whose appointment was later overturned by the state Legislature because of his extreme views.
The views of a handful of trappers outweighed the views of hundreds of other Alaskans, the Park Service, and the tens of thousands who visit Denali National Park annually.
At the now infamous 2010 Fairbanks meeting, board member Ted Spraker supported the buffer, adding that trappers would be blamed if wolf sightings within the park declined: “The trappers would get a black eye, whether or not trapping affected people’s viewing opportunity.” While one trapper, Wallace, has now clearly affected viewing opportunities in Denali National Park, the black eye actually goes to the state of Alaska for the series of poor wildlife management decisions that led us to the deaths of the two Grant Creek wolves — and to the potential deaths of more park wolves when trapping season resumes.
While we cannot undo the damage that has already been done, we can demand change to help prevent further damage. Ask Commissioner Cora Campbell, Gov. Sean Parnell, and the board to (1) immediately issue an emergency closure to any further wolf take from state lands along the northeastern boundary of Denali National Park, and (2) re-establish the Denali National Park buffer zone: Campbell can be reached at 465-4100 and at cora.campbell@alaska.gov ; Parnell can be reached at 465-3500 and at sean.parnell@alaska.gov. The Board of Game can also be contacted, c/o Kristy Tibbles, at 465-6098 and at kristy.tibbles@alaska.gov .
• Brown is president of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.
Comments (47)
Add commentUltimate responsibility...
...lies with the Governor's office.
What baloney
Read CRaig Medred's piece on this if you want a more accurate portrayal. If the Feds want a buffer then they should offer to lease the state land for that purpose. Put your money where your mouth is. What is it worth to you? For Most Alaskans allowing traditional trapping on state lands is more important. If the wolves of Denali are threatened then apply for threatened or endangered listings. But we know that would be ridiculous as they aren't anywhere near threatened, don't we.
Wolf populations are down in Denali because ungulate populations are down. It's basic biology and not trapping that is resulting in the population declines.
As ungulate populations rise so will wolf populations. Having a few fewer wolves will help in this regard with wolf populations increasing several years after the ungulates recover. Look back and it's the circle of life doing what it does.
Feds should just relax. Everything is going to be ok, Alaskans have it covered.
ARTCLE
An other example of mans total disrespect for nature and our surrounding.
interests
Concerned, I'll read Medred's piece. Thanks for the reference. But just a note, some of his other pieces have been a bunch of horse crap.
But your assumption is that wolf trapping takes precedence over other resource usages. What about tourism? If this trapping, by a single trapper, significantly reduces the experience for park visitors, doesn't that have an impact on the state. I'd wager that it doesn't take many independent visitors to outweigh the economic value of two wolf hides.
The Board of Game is packed with extremists from the Palin era, and Parnell has continued the practice. If we want to have balanced management of our game resources, the solution is simple: We need a new governor.
What ever happened to right
What ever happened to right and wrong?
Coke Wallace walked this horse in, killed it, and then set snares around the carcass.
Everything about this is wrong. Our ethics are slipping away.
Should have used 10-15 cats
Should have used 10-15 cats instead. Horses are way too noble of an animal for such treatment.
I am guessing...
that, like Rough Cut, Coke would ramble on about his "right" to trap and kill because he's a human being and therefore is the pinnacle of intelligence and ability, being on top of the food chain and such.
But I am also sure that if someone else smarter and more cunning than Coke were to crack his computer, empty his bank accounts, completely wreak havoc with his credit report, and catch him in a foothold trap or crush his legs under a deadfall, he'd scream about the moral "unfairness" of it all.
It is indeed true that we have evolved as omnivores. But trapping for fur or enjoyment is no more justified by that than rape is justified by our evolution as sexual beings.
BOG a Sewer of Ethics
Why is Cliff Judkins still the Chairman of the Board of Game? He should be fired for his illegal hunting trip with Corey Rossi and Bob Bell...WHY?
Corey Rossi and Bob Bell and Cliff Judkins--current Chair of the Alaska Board of Game--have a predator-like mentality when it comes to their trophies that is NOT unlike those of notorious serial killers like John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer.
That Rossi would make a fiberglass replica of the musk ox horns he had to destroy illustrates the point. They are just sick.
And Cliff Judkins is a known poacher of coyotes. His attempt to change the rules to allow subsistence hunters to keep their horns means he is unsuitable to serve on Alaska's Board of Game in any capacity.
The same goes for the rest of Sean Parnell's and Sarah Palin's BOG appointments. They have absolutely polluted game management in Alaska.
Putting aside the question of what is a successful businessman doing on a subsistence hunt competing with the local residents of Northwest Alaska for a limited resource (as Judkins did), we see how incestuous is the relationship between the guide-dominated Board of Game and trophy hunters in the fact Judkins has now submitted a proposal that would make legal exactly what he wanted to do.
Apparently, if you serve on the board and feel personally inconvenienced by a rule, you just go ahead and change it.
My god. This is not a state
My god. This is not a state or federal "land" issue. This is sick in the head behavior and something better be done about it!
Not a federal issue
concerned....
It might do you some good to consider that the original proposal in 2010 to renew the buffer zone was supported by a petition of 500 signatures, many of them local residents'. It was not a move by the federal government but by involved locals seeking to maintain what they considered a vital buffer zone given that most animals don't recognize political boundaries. This buffer zone had been in place for 10 years and had given rise to a great deal of research. Trappers in the area were at most inconvenienced by it. Indeed, only 5 trappers wanted the buffer zone removed.
That's 500 vs 5, if you're counting heads. There was no federal involvement whatsoever other than the Park super indent also requesting the continuation, hardly the depth of involvement you imply.
So why did those 5 recreational trappers win? Because one of them, Al Barrette, was also on the regulatory body, the Board of Game. Because the BoG is composed entirely of hunters or trappers. Because certain members of the BoG have a personal vendetta against predators.
The result is this present incident which is far more than the trapping of one wolf.
It was not a "poor us vs The Big Bad Nasty Feds" issue. It was a highly-biased board vs local residents situation. And the board made the wrong decision, as predicted.
The BoG/AC system is a moral morass
hug-em...
In addition to the situation you point out there is yet another ethical issue ongoing. Michael Crawford is the chairman of the Kenai Advisory Committee. On 3/23/12 he was convicted of a wildlife violation for attempting to trap wolverine out of season. The state's statutes for cause for removal from the Board of Game (assumedly they also apply to AC's) precisely states conviction for game violations within the past 5 years is grounds for removal. Parnell, Campbell, and Boards Support have all been notified of this situation. Crawford is still chairman.
Excellent commentary. Only the three entities you suggest
contacting aren't listeners.
We need a new governor.
I trap, I do it almost every
I trap, I do it almost every winter. I do it for money and I enjoy getting out in the cold nastiness of winter. Keeps me going. In southeast I have taken many many wolves and have been thanked by people because the deer population grows in those areas when I have really good years. I'm a responsible hunter, fisherman and trapper. I have even used a dead horse as the owner of one had to put it down and I saved him the trouble of dealing with it.
But the more I read about this buffer zone the more I lose trust in the people that changed this. Honestly I don't really care about the people that signed the petition because I could go downtown and get 100 in a few hours saying we need cheaper booze. But if there is in fact only one breeding female resident in that whole area maybr they need to transplant some from southeast. Southeast islands can be WRECKED by one 7 solve pack that moves through. Is this the same area where we were doing predator control? Not a whole lot adds up to me with this whole scene. And I don't trust a bunch of annonomous posters talking about these people as if they know them. I'll bet most of this is just rumors and hearsay. If not, file a complaint, get a petition signed and see something done.
Stu~
How would you define "wrecked"? In terms of ungulate decline?
It was a little sneaky though.
After ten years move the buffer zone and stake out a fresh spring carcass. Probably took a week before the wolves believed their good fortune.
Well dust, dont think you
Well dust, dont think you need to be hand lead through this one but ok. Sounds like your baiting me :)
Anyway, when large transient packs move through they can wipe an area clean of deer. I trap and hunt in the same areas. From my experiences I can say that when I take out three to eight wolves in the same area each year I see more deer in those areas the following fall. Before I began trapping said area I remember having to hunt elsewhere for my limit.
I target the passing packs. The locals seem to stick higher up and I only see them when I'm on my way alpine or goat hunting.
Further aspects of the issue
According to Tom Meier, Park biologist, the traps/snares were not checked for a week. During this time, the wolf was scavenged by a wolverine. It is my interpretation of that aspect that probably the pelt was then worthless.
If so, that wolf's death was without any value at all.
Alaska trapping regulations, despite many proposals to change the situation, do not require a trapper check their traps at any interval. The AST wildlife trooper I spoke to about this said essentially a trapper can put out traps at the start of the season and not have to check them until months later at the end of the season. Under the regulations our present Board of Game has set, this is totally legal.
Are wolves more nomadic
than territorial, particularly bordering active human hunting? Wolves may lack thumbs but I always placed them above my own 'forensics' in the wild, not apples and oranges but rather wolves vs coyotes.
Stu~
No, no - I wasn't baiting; I wanted to hear your experience. Thanks.
You are differentiating between transient and resident individuals based on a geographic differential, did I understand that correctly? Have you ever noticed a drop in transient numbers in a given year when you have killed 3 - 8 wolves in the previous year or two? I'd be surprised if the replacement rate were high enough to have a steady encounter rate, and I'm assuming that it is during the drop that the increased ungulate numbers are observed.
Trapping wolves and ungulate populations
Alaskstu...
The same comment about ungulate populations going up after you wipe out the wolves can also be made about human hunting. Remove that and the ungulate population would increase. However, I doubt that would be a popular move. It is much easier to place the blame on the wolves which have interacted with the ungulates for tens of thousands of years.
Also,I don't doubt there are people who thank you for killing off the wolves. There are people in Alaska who would kill each and every wolf in the state if they could.
When I see these sorts of comments I am reminded of the effort by trappers to be allowed to go after the wolverines in Chugach State Park a few years ago. F&G reported as best they could tell there were only two wolverines left in the entire park, yet the trappers wanted to be allowed to trap them.
The wolf taken in the buffer zone was not only the sole reproducing female in the pack, she also had a radio-collar which means years of research have just been jeopardized by one man's desire for a few bucks. And he didn't even get those dollars given he apparently didn't check the set in a reasonable amount of time to prevent scavenging.
This was an indefensible action by one man who has negatively affected many people...visitors, local residents, researchers...with his disregard for decency and ethics.
Impunity of the Board of Game in this issue
I have received an email from Dale Rabe of Fish and Game that essentially says F&G cannot overturn the Board's rulings or regulations except in the narrowest of circumstances, and this does not seem to fit their criteria. There is a petition process to address such instances but as he points out it is rigorous.
The BoG is not required to abide by public comment as it has proven with the buffer zone. Basically, and I do not exaggerate, it does what it wants. The Legislature could overturn it but that is incredibly unlikely. The Governor could (I believe) overturn it but he owes too much to the trophy-hunting crowd that dominates the Board. And Cora Campbell is not about to act independently. So the only real recourse is either a lawsuit (extremely expensive and lengthy) or replacing the Board with one more open to science and ethics.
For all practical purposes, the Board is invulnerable. They can, as they have with the buffer zone, issue a dictate they will not consider a matter for X years and that's that. It is out of the public's control even though it is supposed to serve the public interest.
Alaska's wildlife belongs to ALL Alaskans
Something commonly forgotten or lost when it comes to discussions about our wildlife is that the state constitution plainly and simply says all resources (and wildlife is considered a resource) are owned EQUALLY by ALL Alaskans. That means the little granny who never gets outside city limits has just as much ownership of the moose, wolves, bears, fox, caribou, etc, as Rod Arno and Ralph Seekins. No resident trapper or hunter has more claim (or less) to these resources than any other Alaskan. Yet, consistently, the Board of Game treats our wildlife as the property primarily of hunters and trappers, and anyone else is secondary in their considerations.
Put forth the idea that someone who just wants to be able to see a wolf when they go out hiking has just as much right to that wolf as a trapper and you are in for one heckuva tempest. The difference is after that hiker sees the wolf, it is there for the next hiker and the next and the next but if a trapper takes the wolf, it is gone forever and only the trapper benefits. There is this strong bias, unspoken (and you'll never get anyone in authority to admit otherwise), to the consumer first. Anyone else...the photographer, the hiker, the conservationist, the non-hunting/non-trapping Alaskans which are 84% of the state's population...they take a backseat to the trappers' interests.
And so we see 500 people ask for the buffer zone, 5 trappers speak against it..and down it goes. As far as the Board of Game is concerned those 500 petitioners can go twiddle their thumbs.
As if the lack of trap-checking regulations isn't bad enough....
Called F&G here in Fairbanks and spoke to one of their biologists familiar with the trapping regs. He said there are no general regulations about the distance a set can be from a dwelling other than what private property laws dictate. In effect, if you own an acre of land and your cabin is smack up against one border of that acre, a trapper could put in a trap or snare ten feet from your cabin and as long as he is not on private land or land closed to trapping he's perfectly legal.
Don't have to check their sets until the end of the season. No requirement as to how close they can trap when around dwellings other than private property considerations. Able to use almost anything for bait (you ought to read the lax regs on that topic). Able to use snow machines and ATV's to pursue wolves (as long as they are stopped when actually shooting the wolf; if you've ever driven either of these vehicles of course you know you have to stop in order to be able to shoot as it takes both hands to control them while in motion, so that's a useless rule) to exhaustion and then shoot them.
It would be nice if ADF&G would just be honest and admit they have declared war on Alaska's wolves, along with the Board of Game.
"[....] We were eating lunch
"[....] We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.
In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy; how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable side-rocks.
We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes—something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."
- Aldo Leopold, "Thinking Like a Mountain"
Honeypot
the BOG. And Parnell. Not one of them has the scientific training of a screen door, or any interest in understanding anything other than money and having a good ol' boy's perspective of the world.
Folks do know that wolf hides
Folks do know that wolf hides are worth money, don't they? Trappers kill wolves for pelts which are worth good money. I don't think that wanton waste is allowed - i.e. just killing the animal and leaving it there.
Wanton waste
Outdoor Junkie....
I talked to an AST wildlife trooper about the question of when traps have to be checked. He very clearly...and I believe with some dismay, too...said a trap needs only to be checked once, by regulation, and that is at the end of the season when it is to be removed. So a trapper catching any wildlife is not required to check periodically and thereby prevent loss of fur from scavenging, etc. In Coke Wallace's case he apparently did not check the set for a week and a wolverine scavenged the wolf. I read that as indicating the pelt is now worthless as wolverines are not noted for the delicacy of their touch. Yet, legally Wallace did nothing wrong. As I've said before, that wolf's death was a total waste on all counts and yet it was all legal.
BTW, I think the wolf values its fur more than a handful of dollars' worth. Being as they can't really survive without it, it has an intrinsic value to them. However, I also realize trappers taking Alaska's wildlife provide a vital service to the starlets and stars of Hollywood who cannot otherwise function without a fur coat. Too, we have the Ivana Trumps, the Zsa Zsa Gabors (granted I believe she is now deceased), and others of their ilk who must also have a fur coat to be a complete human being in their own perspective but the days when a fur was the difference between someone living or dying in the wilds are long gone with the advent of Polar Fleece and other synthetics. Now, it's just vanity. Thousands of Alaskan animals dying often brutal deaths so someone can look good.
OK Dobie, just go strip naked
OK Dobie, just go strip naked and live free with the wolves. Jeeeez!
Head outside of Juneau in SE
Head outside of Juneau in SE and you get a very different view of wolves. I don't mind that trapping is looked down upon by many in this forum, as was said, the wildlife here belongs to everyone. Head down to Petersburg, wrangell pow and if you come back with a wolf you most defiantly get congrats and thank yous.
Like a responsible hunter I use what I kill. I remember killing a squirrel when I was 11 and my dad took that time to teach me how to make a camp fire and then cook the squirrel because "we eat what we kill."
I enjoy the wild here as much as anyone and more then most. I follow the law in every ascpect but I don't use it as a guideline. As was also stated the laws are pretty lax when it comes to trapping. If I can't check my traps at least every day it's only because of weather. If weather looks to bad for awhile, I pull my line.
Question, Stu~
I'm curious how the people who would thank you for killing wolves view living in Alaska. Is Alaska viewed as a potentially wonderful game park provided we can eliminate those pesky and terrifying predators who compete with us? Would these same people support complete predator eradication? Now, there are likely as many viewpoints and personalities as there are individuals who hunt and trap predators, so I certainly don't expect you to speak for an entire group or even that there is a unified viewpoint; I was just curious what the general sentiment might be.