Killing and Trapping Wolves Near Denali National Park... Should it be legal? (Fairbanks: appointed, how much)

[TheKezarWoodsman]

Originally Posted by Blind Cleric

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.

Air population surveys tend to not notice many animals, its normally only those out and about, in a thickly forested region (not sure how thickly forested denali is), a animal can be hard to see. Moose and other larger animals are easier, wolfs and other smaller animals (not small like a marten, but small enough to be able to dissapear into the sticks.

[stiffnecked]

Originally Posted by TheKezarWoodsman

Air population surveys tend to not notice many animals, its normally only those out and about, in a thickly forested region (not sure how thickly forested denali is), a animal can be hard to see. Moose and other larger animals are easier, wolfs and other smaller animals (not small like a marten, but small enough to be able to dissapear into the sticks.

How many aerial wildlife surveys have you participated in here in Alaska???

[Frostnip]

Originally Posted by Rance

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

They're not.

[mitgreb]

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.

Surely Mt McKinley National park is big enough to satisfy your needs for wolves!

[TheKezarWoodsman]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

How many aerial wildlife surveys have you participated in here in Alaska???

Never said i did, nor have i ever stated i ever visited alaska. What i was merely refering to is many other states (and canadian provinces), have heavily miscounted game doing aireal surveys. It is normally good enough to get a base estimate, but can at times be very inacurate. Assuming these numbers are true, trapping should be banned inside the park, and possibly outside it for a range of say 50-100 miles (last part could be debatable), but before passing laws on what can be done outside, i was trying to bring up that i feel it should be backed by other methods of population counting. One could trap, tag and release wildlife as many states do, you could interview local trappers/hunters who venture into the backcountry on what they feel it is like (without telling them why ofc), you could require registration of all trapped wolfs in that area (may already be in place, not sure, nor do i feel like pulling up alaskas digest atm).

I think of it like buying a product after reading 1 review, that 1 review could be extemely on point, or it could be the oppisite of the truth for whatever reason. Before you go invest money in that product, you should make sure you have a decent idea of what your dealing with.

[TheKezarWoodsman]

Originally Posted by mitgreb

Surely Mt McKinley National park is big enough to satisfy your needs for wolves!

I support banning trapping in National Parks, but not National forests. And i feel that a extension or a no trapping boundary around parks should be only for endangered/threatened species in the area, but only after multible methods of population counting have been used, as stated in my above comment.

National parks should also have hunting bans, as the Parks tend to attract people who want a more 'civilized' experience, whereas forests, or even wilderness areas, attract those who want a 'i am all by my lonesomes' expeirence. Forests should be used for economics and recreational purposes (and trapping can be both), Parks only for recreation, and a softer less rugged recreation. Wilderness areas should be for recreation, but all recreation, rugged hunting/trapping/backpacking included, but no logging/resource extraction (except in limited situations such as cutting a stand of dead dry trees, or other purposes which also benefit the health of the forest).

This is my take, YMMV

[RayinAK]

Folks, trapping in those areas, if permitted by F&G and the Board of Game, should not be a problem. Now in the park itself it should not be allowed. What I don't like about the Board of Game is the killing of late-season moose cows (antler-less hunts) around Washington Creek, around Fairbanks, North Pole, and so on. But then, that's my opinion because I like to see moose in my backyard and near the roads, something that has become rare in recent years.

The News Miner article is just an opinion from someone who does not like the idea of trapping wolves in that area, and opinions are like rumps, as everyone has one. Read what the Board of Game has to say about it, not just someone's opinion.

[stiffnecked]

Originally Posted by TheKezarWoodsman

Never said i did, nor have i ever stated i ever visited alaska. What i was merely refering to is many other states (and canadian provinces), have heavily miscounted game doing aireal surveys. It is normally good enough to get a base estimate, but can at times be very inacurate. Assuming these numbers are true, trapping should be banned inside the park, and possibly outside it for a range of say 50-100 miles (last part could be debatable), but before passing laws on what can be done outside, i was trying to bring up that i feel it should be backed by other methods of population counting. One could trap, tag and release wildlife as many states do, you could interview local trappers/hunters who venture into the backcountry on what they feel it is like (without telling them why ofc), you could require registration of all trapped wolfs in that area (may already be in place, not sure, nor do i feel like pulling up alaskas digest atm).

I think of it like buying a product after reading 1 review, that 1 review could be extemely on point, or it could be the oppisite of the truth for whatever reason. Before you go invest money in that product, you should make sure you have a decent idea of what your dealing with.

You really don't have any idea how aerial surveys are conducted.

[6.7traveler]

It was interesting reading the link to that Nat-Geo article and all the different view points. While I understand it's completely legal, I do think it's somewhat bad taste to do so on the border of a national park when it's not necessary to do so.

I also don't care if tourists see wolves or not, but the fact that they are seen much less frequently nowadays seems to confirm that there are probably less of them. I would like to see a healthy wolf population that remains in the park and hopefully they can sustain the numbers.

[riceme]

Originally Posted by 6.7traveler

It was interesting reading the link to that Nat-Geo article and all the different view points. While I understand it's completely legal, I do think it's somewhat bad taste to do so on the border of a national park when it's not necessary to do so.

I also don't care if tourists see wolves or not, but the fact that they are seen much less frequently nowadays seems to confirm that there are probably less of them. I would like to see a healthy wolf population that remains in the park and hopefully they can sustain the numbers.

Right. Unless I'm missing some urgent reason to do it, this is a total dick maneuver. It is legal, but it seems like... cheating.