Killing and Trapping Wolves Near Denali National Park... Should it be legal? (Willow: transplants, school)

[RayinAK]

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.

The article is just an opinion from someone who does not agree with the Board of Game and F&G. Unlike in other States, Alaska has a large wolf population, and the number of wolves in the park may fluctuate from year to year. That's quite normal, and is taken into account by the Board of Game. You have to understand that just because it's close to the park it does not mean that it is the park where trapping takes place. The hunting and trapping regulation apply from GMU to GMU, which by the way, also have a border lines. Should GMUs have buffer zones as well?

If you want to see a healthy wolf population at the park, then you have to have a healthy moose and caribou population as well in the park. Were there is food, wolves thrive. If there is no food, wolves move to areas where food is available, and at the same time stop breeding until food is plentiful again.

If you want to know more about Denali Park, its wildlife, and the politics of the whole thing, here is a good article:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...nal-parks-text

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The article is just an opinion from someone who does not agree with the Board of Game and F&G....

If you want to know more about Denali Park, its wildlife, and the politics of the whole thing, here is a good article:
How Can 6 Million Acres at Denali Still Not Be Enough? -- National Geographic Magazine

Riceme has already posted that link in this thread.

Here's another story with some background on how the Board of Game was stacked, and has used disgraceful techniques to promote the interests of a minority of Alaskans

https://www.hcn.org/articles/alaskas...et-even-hotter

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Blind Cleric

Riceme has already posted that link in this thread.

Here's another story with some background on how the Board of Game was stacked, and has used disgraceful techniques to promote the interests of a minority of Alaskans

https://www.hcn.org/articles/alaskas...et-even-hotter

It's not just a minority of Alaskans the State tries to protect. There have always been arguments between the State and Federal government relating to lands, and access to them for trapping, hunting, and travel. But in relation to hunting, trapping, and fishing in Alaska lands, that also includes Native communities. The Board of Game is comprise of Alaskans, Native and non-Native alike. The fact is that the areas surrounding the Denali Park are not park lands, but GMU units.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...ard.bogmembers

At least we have a Board of Game one can testify to relating to hunting, trapping, and fishing. The meetings are open to the public. But all of that aside, we are arguing about somebody's opinion published in the news miner. If you read the comments to the opinion posted at the News Miner, you will get a lot more details on the issue.
------

The Governor is a public official, put in office by the public. The members of the Board of Game are appointed by the Governor, much like the US President appoints his or her cabinet members (these aren't voted in by the public). But the Board of Game members are bound by State laws. Here is a list of previous board members, and please notice the governors that appointed them:
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...d.past_members

[6.7traveler]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The article is just an opinion from someone who does not agree with the Board of Game and F&G. Unlike in other States, Alaska has a large wolf population, and the number of wolves in the park may fluctuate from year to year. That's quite normal, and is taken into account by the Board of Game. You have to understand that just because it's close to the park it does not mean that it is the park where trapping takes place. The hunting and trapping regulation apply from GMU to GMU, which by the way, also have a border lines. Should GMUs have buffer zones as well?

If you want to see a healthy wolf population at the park, then you have to have a healthy moose and caribou population as well in the park. Were there is food, wolves thrive. If there is no food, wolves move to areas where food is available, and at the same time stop breeding until food is plentiful again.

If you want to know more about Denali Park, its wildlife, and the politics of the whole thing, here is a good article:
How Can 6 Million Acres at Denali Still Not Be Enough? -- National Geographic Magazine

Well, I'm not giving you anymore rep points for your amazing northern light pictures now .

My only concern is does the board of game even know what they are doing? Sure, they seem to know how to reduce wolf populations, but can they ever increase populations without bringing relocated wolves in? It seems the number of wolves has been consistently dropping, not fluctuating. Will it ever rise again? Does the board promote the interests of a few hunters and trappers at the detriment of others?

I'm not a proponent of buffer zones around GMU's and never mentioned that, but a buffer zone for wolves right around Denali National Park, which is one of America's greatest treasures, just doesn't seem like a radical idea to me.

Or we could let a very small minority of people trap a few more of Denali's pregnant females and alpha males by placing a dead horse surrounded by traps right on the parks border. If they continue to decline in numbers, well that's just nature, and we can always relocate some wolves back into the park like Yellowstone had to do.

Again, I understand this is all completly legal. I also understand the article was an opinion piece. Hopefully the board of game knows what they are doing and the wolves don't get completely wiped out in the coming years. It would be a shame if wolves had to be relocated to Denali because we wanted to protect the "rights" of a few crazy Alaskans who seem to be doing this just because they can. Placing a dead horse surrounded by traps right on Denali's border is not being a good sportsman, hunter or trapper, it's being a d*** and gives other sportsmen a bad name.

[gentlearts]

I know nothing about the ecosystem in Denali, but I watched a fascinating documentary on the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone.

The result was beneficial in ways they did not anticipate. Originally, their goal was to just reintroduce the wolves because they had been over hunted, and also the elk population was out of control. What happened was, when the elk population was reduced, entire areas which had been stripped by the elk started to grow back...trees, grasses and wildflowers, etc. This resulted in 8 new beaver colonies, which in turn affected the stream ecology. The wolves have benefitted the bears and other animals who eat from carcasses of the elk. They described it as a constant stream of food, rather than a feast or famine situation. The elk even forage less, because they spend more time watching out for wolves.

It seems to me, the lesson to be learned is that nature will take care of things if it is left alone. As soon as we think we know better, the balance of things gets cockeyed.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by 6.7traveler

Well, I'm not giving you anymore rep points for your amazing northern light pictures now .

My only concern is does the board of game even know what they are doing? Sure, they seem to know how to reduce wolf populations, but can they ever increase populations without bringing relocated wolves in? It seems the number of wolves has been consistently dropping, not fluctuating. Will it ever rise again? Does the board promote the interests of a few hunters and trappers at the detriment of others?

I'm not a proponent of buffer zones around GMU's and never mentioned that, but a buffer zone for wolves right around Denali National Park, which is one of America's greatest treasures, just doesn't seem like a radical idea to me.

Or we could let a very small minority of people trap a few more of Denali's pregnant females and alpha males by placing a dead horse surrounded by traps right on the parks border. If they continue to decline in numbers, well that's just nature, and we can always relocate some wolves back into the park like Yellowstone had to do.

Again, I understand this is all completly legal. I also understand the article was an opinion piece. Hopefully the board of game knows what they are doing and the wolves don't get completely wiped out in the coming years. It would be a shame if wolves had to be relocated to Denali because we wanted to protect the "rights" of a few crazy Alaskans who seem to be doing this just because they can. Placing a dead horse surrounded by traps right on Denali's border is not being a good sportsman, hunter or trapper, it's being a d*** and gives other sportsmen a bad name.

There will be bad examples of trapping, hunting, and fishing. I don't disagree with you on that.

If is very difficult to tell the reasons for the wolf population increases and declines. This is a 2012 article relating to the issue:

Are Alaskan trappers to blame for declining Denali Park wolf population? - Alaska Dispatch News

[Metlakatla]

It would be a shame if wolves had to be relocated to Denali because we wanted to protect the "rights" of a few crazy Alaskans who seem to be doing this just because they can. Placing a dead horse surrounded by traps right on Denali's border is not being a good sportsman, hunter or trapper, it's being a d*** and gives other sportsmen a bad name.

Completely agree. Decent people don't do this. And please. Coked Wallace isn't trapping as a public service no matter how much he blows about protecting Denai's moose from predators.

[Frostnip]

Moreover, if the concern about the moose population was genuine, they could just reduce the quantity of moose allowed to be taken by humans on non-subsistence hunts. Wolves tend to get non-breeding animals like those that are too old, too young, injured, or ill, all which are liable to die from some other cause anyway. Humans tend to go for prime specimens.

[RayinAK]

The areas I hunt at in the interior of Alaska have plenty of moose habitat because of the almost yearly wildfires that take place in these places. The following is just an opinion of mine, and one my hunting friends and others who have hunted in the areas for many years agree with. The specific area is GMU 20B, around Globe and Washington Creeks, where we have hunted since the early '80s.

Back then I could sit at my campsite that we set on a ridge between the two creeks above and make moose calls or grunts. I could hear moose responding to my calls all around the campsite. There were very large packs of wolves at both sides of the ridge, and sometimes we could see them on the trails, or just chasing after moose in the valleys below. There were moose and wolf tracks everywhere along the trail, and wolf howling through the night.

Somewhere perhaps in the early '90s F&G decided to have early moose hunts for the benefit of families with young children (the children were allowed to hunt moose just before the moose season opened in September). Hunting was very good through the '90s, and wolves were plentiful. But F&G started the "antler-less" hunts with the excuse that moose were overeating their habitat, something that was not true. The practice continues to this day.

We noticed a decline in the moose population somewhere in the early 2000s, and in recent years five of us spending over 15 days hunting day in and day out, are lucky to kill a moose on the trails. Now we have to take Argos and such down the valleys below and into the water. Even so, we rarely see adult bulls to hunt.
----------

The antler-less hunts also take place around Fairbanks and North Pole, and seeing moose around North Pole is becoming rare. In my opinion, trapping and hunting outside the Denali Park has nothing to do with the decline of the wolf population in the park as long as such activities are monitored and regulated. But at the same time, F&G should stop the antler-less huns to allow for the moose population to increase. If the moose populations increase to the point where the moose are over-eating their habitat, their numbers decline in a natural way along the existing wolf population in the area. Hunting and trapping hardly put a dent on both populations, specially in areas that are very difficult or almost impossible to access. Wolves themselves (eating each other), bears, and nature kill more of these animals each years that hunters and trappers ever will.

[Music_Man]

My bumber sticker: Eat Moose, 10,000 Wolves Cant Be Wrong!