Killing and Trapping Wolves Near Denali National Park... Should it be legal? (Fairbanks: condo, income)

[6.7traveler]

I'm not an anti-trapping activist but this article in the Fairbanks newspaper intrigued me and makes me wonder why this is allowed if true:
http://www.newsminer.com/opinion/com...fa36ea15c.html

The article states that only 5% of visitors to Denali National park report seeing a wolf down from 50% ten years ago. There is an all time low of only 48 wolves in the park compared to 170 wolves ten years ago. The author states this is due to a narrow strip of state land that cuts deep inside the park where hunting and trapping is allowed, sometimes killing Alpha males and pregnant females.

Does anyone have a right to bait, lure, trap and kill such a rare animal such as a wolf in today's day and age? Especially so near a national park that people from all over the world pay lots of money to come visit? Can anyone chime in and condone this or should we reinstate the buffer zone?

My personal thoughts are it's one thing to trap a very common small animal in Timbuktu Alaska where there is abundance of a certain kind of animal, but wolves in and near National Parks should be off limits... Surely Alaska is big enough to find another trapline.

[Frostnip]

I don't really care about tourists seeing critters, but I do think there should be a buffer zone for hunting and trapping around preserves. Maybe not for all species (I mean, there what seems like infinity of certain animals, particularly those lower down the food chain), but at least for the ones with more limited populations and a large but local individual ranges, like wolves or bears. The animals don't know where the magic line is, and allowing resident animals to be taken if they stray just outside the preserve kind of defeats the purpose of having the preserve. This applies to wolves moreso than most other animals, too, because of their social structure - if you hit a certain individual it can have a disproportionate impact on the whole local population's reproduction for a year or more.

I'm not sentimental about wolves, or anti-hunting, but I think Alaska's current rate of wolf culling overall is hard to justify in terms of either ecology or human necessity, given that the wolf population is more inherently self-limiting and slower to boom than that of our other big predators, that they're so rarely a nuisance species, and how little use we make of the bodies.

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by 6.7traveler

My personal thoughts are it's one thing to trap a very common small animal in Timbuktu Alaska where there is abundance of a certain kind of animal, but wolves in and near National Parks should be off limits... Surely Alaska is big enough to find another trapline.

I agree.

It's yet another example of how moronic the masters of this state usually are.

In this case, I believe it comes down to a stubborn application of boneheaded politics- "States rights vs. the Feds".

National Geographic recently ran a story on this. One guy is responsible for the most recent high profile wolf killings in this area, and he apparently does it mostly just to **** people off.

[heathen]

If the overall population in the region (not just the park) is getting close to not being sustainable, then yes, land managers should step in by whatever means necessary.

On the other hand, the tourists see wolves when they have dens close to the park road. I'll bet even the park's total count is biased toward the park road area, just due to cheap access for biologists and their techs. Few wolves near the road doesn't necessarily mean the overall population is unsustainable.

The corridor of state land referred to is along Stampede Trail (Into the Wild and the magic bus...) which only cuts into the northeastern corner of the park: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali...NP_map_NPS.jpg

Full disclosure: I'm not against trapping or predator control, including animals we have a particular emotional attachment to. To me, killing a wolf is morally no different than killing a vole (both mammals with similar nervous systems), as long as you're not putting the overall population in danger, in either case. On the other hand, I don't feel that killing either should be done without cause. Kill a vole if it's getting into your house, kill a wolf if they're threatening human subsistence, or if trapping is a primary source of income with few other options.

[riceme]

I have no moral objection to trapping or hunting but Coke Wallace sounds like a menace, not to mention an ignorant a**hole that gives hunters and trappers a bad name. And I'm sure he enjoys that status.

How Can 6 Million Acres at Denali Still Not Be Enough? -- National Geographic Magazine

I care zero about whether a bus load of gringos get to see wildlife on their summer vacation and would generally prefer that the wild places we have left remain wild. A little road obliteration project through the park wouldn't hurt my one feeling at all.

[riceme]

Originally Posted by heathen

Full disclosure: I'm not against trapping or predator control, including animals we have a particular emotional attachment to. To me, killing a wolf is morally no different than killing a vole (both mammals with similar nervous systems), as long as you're not putting the overall population in danger, in either case. On the other hand, I don't feel that killing either should be done without cause. Kill a vole if it's getting into your house, kill a wolf if they're threatening human subsistence, or if trapping is a primary source of income with few other options.

^best stated.

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by heathen

On the other hand, the tourists see wolves when they have dens close to the park road. I'll bet even the park's total count is biased toward the park road area, just due to cheap access for biologists and their techs. ..
.. Kill a vole if it's getting into your house, kill a wolf if they're threatening human subsistence, or if trapping is a primary source of income with few other options.

The population surveys are done by air, so I see no reason why their count would be biased.

And, wolves aren't threatening human subsistence in the area.

Agreed that the population drop is most likely somewhat complex and not entirely due to abandoning the buffer zone.

FWIW, I do care about more tourists having the opportunity to see wolves. Wildlife viewing is one purpose of our national parks.

[heathen]

Originally Posted by Blind Cleric

FWIW, I do care about more tourists having the opportunity to see wolves. Wildlife viewing is one purpose of our national parks.

But does that give the park (the feds) the right to regulate outside their boundaries (land belonging to the state, native corporations, municipalities, private individuals)?

IMO, if the park finds that it needs some kind of jurisdiction over lands outside its boundaries to protect wildlife viewing for its visitors, then it needs to lobby for expansion, initiating the whole public process that would entail.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Blind Cleric

FWIW, I do care about more tourists having the opportunity to see wolves. Wildlife viewing is one purpose of our national parks.

Besides this:

https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/news/econ-benefits.htm

and this:

https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/news/econ-benefits.htm

[Rance]

If those wolves are killing off all the moose, maybe they need to be thinned back a bit?