Wolf Scientist Says Denali Wolf Pack is Decimated
by Mary Pemberton
AP, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Published: March 4, 2005)
Anchorage (AP) — Trappers are picking off the remaining members of a wolf pack that has strayed from Denali National Park and Preserve onto state land, a researcher who has studied the pack for a decade said Friday.
Gordon Haber, whose work is paid for by the animal rights group Friends of Animals, said it was alarming and he would again appeal to the state for an emergency closure of hunting and trapping in the area.
“All of these wolves have been trapped,” Haber said. “This group that has been around for the last 40 years is virtually on its last legs.”
Alaska trapping season runs through April 30.
He planned to make a personal appeal to the Alaska Board of Game at its meeting Friday in Anchorage.
The group, known as the Toklat or East Fork wolves, are one of Denali’s most visible wolf packs, delighting thousands of park visitors each year.
Haber’s account, at this point, is unsubstantiated, said Philip Hooge, an assistant superintendent at Denali. But he said the park was worried enough to send wildlife biologist Tom Meier on a flight Friday to the area where the alpha, or breeding female, was trapped last month.
“Gordon only seeing two individuals is not positive confirmation that they were trapped,” Hooge said. “Obviously, we are concerned and we are out looking.”
Hooge said the park also had heard reports that a second female in the pack was trapped and a pup was running around with a trap on its leg. Those reports, too, are unconfirmed, he said.
Haber wants the state to issue an emergency hunting and trapping closure where the remaining members of the pack have been seen after the death of the alpha female. It is within a few hundred feet of the park’s northeast boundary and on the outside edge of a wolf buffer zone.
The state refused a previous request that Haber made in a letter Feb. 17 to Wayne Regelin, acting commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Regelin responded five days later in a letter that said the loss of one wolf did not rise to the level of an emergency.
Regelin did not immediately return a call for comment Friday.
“Essentially the group has been decimated,” Haber said. “Yesterday, I found them right in the middle of the area.”
The problem arose Feb. 11 when Haber said the alpha female, or breeding female, was trapped. He and a pilot were on a routine tracking flight when they watched as trapper Coke Wallace loaded the radio-collared wolf onto a sled for the ride to his home 12 miles away, Haber said.
When Haber flew over the area on Wednesday he saw only three members of the original 11-member group. The alpha male, a 2-year-old and a pup were resting on a high ridge inside the park about four or five miles from the trapping site, he said.
On Thursday, he spotted only two members of the group, the alpha male and the 2-year-old. This time they were 10 miles further east and in the middle of the trapping area. The pup was missing, Haber said.
The wolves are being lured to the area by a bait station with the carcass of a large animal, perhaps a horse, Haber said.
“Each time they come back apparently they are being trapped. They don’t realize how dangerous the area is,” Haber said.
It is unlikely that the other members are alive, especially since they were 2-year-olds and pups, he said.
“There is no reason why they would be separated on their own,” Haber said. “They have never been separated in all my previous observations.”
Haber said the Toklat group is one of the most visible and most-studied pack in Denali, perhaps dating back to the late 1930s.
Haber said after the alpha female was killed he appealed unsuccessfully to Wallace to pull up his traps and snares, placed on a path cleared by snowmobiles just outside the buffer zone.
Wallace has not returned repeated calls from The Associated Press for comment. He told the Anchorage Daily News that since there are thousands of wolves living in central Alaska the killing of just one has no impact.
“I haven’t done anything wrong,” he said. “My impact out here is inconsequential.”
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
18 Comments
On March 5, 2005, Vivian McNamara wrote:
“How can we help you, Gordon Haber?” Message from a reader of the Los Angeles Times about a member of the Toklat Pack being trapped outside the park:
I have signed hundreds of petitions to Alaskan authorities to no avail. I work as a volunteer with big cats and wolves and I am just so frazzled about this situation.
I have visited Denali 4 times in the past 4 years and I don’t want to go back this year due to the killing of the wolves.
Sincerely,
Vivian McNamara.
El Segundo, California
On March 7, 2005, Priscilla Feral wrote:
Petitions to Alaska’s politicians, or to the Secretary of Interior, don’t have the impact of a pledge to boycott travel to Alaska until the wolf control program is cancelled. See the wolf photograph on FoA’s Web site, and click onto “Virtual Howl-In” to send your Boycott Alaska message to Gov. Frank Murkowski. To support Gordon Haber’s work and FoA’s interventions for Alaska’s wolves, your membership support is needed.
Priscilla Feral
Friends of Animals
On March 14, 2005, Jennifer wrote:
While I can understand your views, wolves are not cuddly little puppies. They are not your garden variety dog, who you could bring in to your home and tame. They are wild animals who kill moose at an alarming rate.
As a life-long Alaskan, I can say that over my lifetime I have seen the amount of moose around dramatically drop. I can’t understand why you stand behind the wolves so much, but you don’t care at all about the decimation of our moose population.
While you may not agree with the aerial hunting, I assure you it is necessary. You are unfairly presenting the aerial hunting. It is not the round up chase down hunt that you portray it as. In fact, anyone who knows anything about flying would know that the commercials you put out with a plane in hot pursuit of a cowering wolf could tell you that it would be impossible to hunt a wolf like that. Planes just don’t have that capability.
I have nothing against you, or your points of view. I just feel you are inappropriatly portraying Alaskans as a bunch of wolf killing heathens. Believe it or not, we don’t wear wolf fur coats all around and eat wolf puppies for breakfast. Everyone in this state appreciates the majesty and beauty of wolves. However, we also appreciate the moose, who are a big symbol of Alaska themselves.
Please, if you are going to be posting all of these stores about Alaska, and Alaskans, get your points straight and be fair to us.
On March 14, 2005, Priscilla Feral wrote:
In reply to Jennifer’s thought that we’re “portraying Alaskans as a bunch of wolf killing heathens,” we assert that Alaskans don’t speak in one voice. Moreover, the image wolf-haters cast through numerous blog postings are their own creation.
Priscilla Feral
Friends of Animals
On March 19, 2005, Beth Branson wrote:
I am bemused by the hubris inherent in the concept of ‘animal management’ . Would it not be wisdom manifest if we humans would establish LARGE no-hunting zones, and let the wolves, caribou, bears and moose sort it out? After all, they were coexisting in a population harmony long before humans intervened.
Is there a subsistence living coefficient to consider? Then so be it. If traditions are to be preserved, hunt with traditional methods. No traps. No guns. No snow machines. Enter the food chain, boys.
Problem is, humans are parasitic in their invasion of wild lands. Each individual must get their ‘fair share’, without consideration of the destructiveness of their exploitation.
Perhaps the moose population is declining because of human impact??? Humans must drive everywhere, and they insist on driving at high speeds, at night, cell phone in one hand, coffee in the other…. oops… oh well… what’s one more moose?
On March 22, 2005, Darren wrote:
Well said Beth. These beautiful animals were living in harmony long before humans messed things up by disrupting the natural balance of life. Today’s hunters with their $1,000+ guns, laser scopes, chemical scents, aircraft and deadly traps ARE PARASITES without mercy. Stop killing moose and ALL wild animals. You’re no longer cave people. But you see it’s more than just food to a lot of hunters. Sadly, some just love to kill and watch the animal fall and bleed. I think it’s a defect of some sort. The need to feel big and powerful over something.
Blame yourselves Alaskans and check the facts on your lying game board too!!
On March 24, 2005, Beth Branson wrote:
I cannot decry subsistance hunting. Life lives on life, and if I do not kill my own food, another hunter will do it for me. Trophy hunting, on the other hand, is a deplorable offense against life.
If you have studied population ecology, then you are familiar with the predator/prey relationship. When the coyote population flourishes, the rodent population diminishes. Some coyotes starve to death, or are weakened and killed, and the rodent population responds with a surge. Our tender human sensibilities do not like to see the starving and suffering, so we interfere with Programs. It is our emotional engagement that causes the problems!
Ultimately, human populations fit the ecological model. Our population continues to grow geometrically, therefore other animal populations recede. Stem the human tide, and some harmony will reestablish itself. Animal Management Programs are just temporary distractions. It is the human population problem that must be addressed.
On April 4, 2005, Alec Permison wrote:
I will decry subsistence hunting. Especially of wolves. There is no need for it today. Try eating vegetables.
But let Alaskans follow their foolish ways. Let them appoint the senator’s daughter to represent them. Let them kill off their famous wolves for a few hundred dollars. Let them spoil their parks for a bit of oil proceeds. And let’s see where all this “management” leaves them. One day soon we may be able to sell Alaska back to Russia for roughly what we paid for it.
On April 4, 2005, Elizabeth Fiala wrote:
I made my way here by an article up on MSNBC and then had to google the matter to bring me here. I’m saddened due to the fact that one, this is allowed to happen. I’ve loved wolves since I was in 4th grade and had first even read about them. I credit the novels by Jean Craighead-George for my continueing love of the wolf. The gruesome and cruel deaths that are being submitted to them now shock me. Haven’t we passed this already? Didn’t we realize the cruelty years and years ago? Of course, that was when we were all joined in order to help the wolf survive and encourage their numbers to what they are today. Now that they are in not-so-desperate straits, I suppose it’s ok to hunt them? I don’t understand the need to hunt something like that, it’s entirely ironic. But I’m preaching to the choir and it’s nothing no one here hasn’t heard or thought.
And now I feel so helpless, as a girl out in Midwestern Nebraska where a place like Alaska is so far away. If I knew a way to honestly help, rather than just talking to a wall as it were - I’d surely like to know how.
On April 5, 2005, Monica Ashmore wrote:
I, too, made my way here via MSNBC and then Google. After reading about the inhumane trapping and snaring of ANY animal, not just the wolves, it still amazes me that we consider ourselves human beings. It appears to me that animals are much more “humane” than the humans are! I have never seen animals subjecting other animals to slow, agonizing deaths. Nor do I know of instances of animals killing just for the sake of killing. Humans not only do this to animals, we do this to other human beings, as well. It is absolutely incredible that we are supposed to be the more intelligent species…hmmmm. I think “natural selection” of humans is a little slow in coming! My feelings of frustration in not being able to immediately stop this cruelty from happening is overwhelming. Education takes time and must be targeted at the young and those with enough intelligence and sensitivity to be able to learn. Unlike Mr. Wallace which is quite evident in his ending comment in the article above.
On April 7, 2005, Gordon wrote:
Please do sell us back to the russia, maybe we will finally get left alone, no that won’t work, you are trying to tell Canada what to do about seal hunting oh well
On November 7, 2005, Tanner Eggleston wrote:
I have been moose hunting since the 1980’s and it would be a sure thing that i would get a moose the feed my family. But in the past ten years i have only gotten 5. So this year im gonna start trapping to dwindle the population of predators. Ya i know you guys like to look at them but me and my family will starve if they keep killing moose.
[ Blog editors’ note: Sounds bogus to us. Unjustified, too. Sounds like you need to look for a job to pay for the groceries.
On January 25, 2007, Winchester Mag wrote:
I have a few logical points for all of you people who are against Alaska trying to control their wolf population:
1.) We all can agree wolves are part of nature. Guess what, so is man. Mankind has been part of nature for as long as man has been around. Wolves do what is in their interest - kill. So does man.
2.) Do you understand that the more wolves that are in Alaska, the less of all the other critters there will be alive. If the 3000 (est) wolves were removed from the state, there would very likely be a twofold (est) increase in general game populations. Wolves kill calves of moose and caribou, not man. Fact = 70% of all moose calves die before their first birthday due to predatation from wolves (and bears). Who’s the bad one here again?
3.) Alaska is handling the wolf problem in…Alaska. Why can’t Alaska handle their own issues whitout it becoming a national issue? To those of you who are against wolf control, I ask, are you living in Alaska? Ever even been there? If not, why do you let your emtions and feelings get in the way of what Alaskans themselves are doing?
I think your intentions to save the wolf could be considered noble on the surface. However, this logic carried out to the extent that it has, ultimately goes against human nature.
Regards,
Winchester Mag
On January 25, 2007, Bob wrote:
As to the above logic, the first point contains a fallacy of generalization. Wolves are not humans. While a wolf must kill another animal to survive, humans do not need to do so. Humans with rare exception are free to choose what they eat, where they live, and what they wear.
The second point contains the fallacy of a hypothesis contrary to fact. It is unknown as to what would happen if the wolves were removed from Alaska. But one possibility is that Alaska’s ecosystem would collapse. It’s an ecosystem that had stood the test of time until humans entered the picture in far greater numbers than the wolves.
Point three stated above contains the fallacy of an appeal to authority and is just more unsupported rhetoric — peppered with questions whose answers should anyone be duped into answering them are of no relevance to the discussion of stopping wolf control.
Bob Orabona
Friends of Animals
On January 25, 2007, Blog Editors wrote:
We’ve received a post with substantial text regarding Isle Royale, Michigan wolves which is inapplicable to the instant case.
Because many visitors seek information directly relevant to Alaska’s biocommunity, politics, and control policies, and thus to avert confusion, we have not posted it, but we thank all readers and writers for their concern regarding this issue.
A warm welcome to our newest participant — Sierra!
On January 26, 2007, Winchester Mag wrote:
To whom it may concern:
I posted a reply to this blog, speaking of the Isle Royal moose/wolf study that has been going on for many decades. I posted the factual revelations of said study. I submited facts, not opinions, but for some reason that submition of mine was purposely not allowed to be posted by the moderator(s)
I submit to you that the Isle Royal moose/wolf study is the closest we have for understanding pred/prey dynamics that has ever been conducted in North America.
[Blog editors’ note: The most relevant studies to the case in Alaska are those involving Alaska. And when it involves Board of Game actions, the lack of specific information pertaining to the herds in Alaska is just as important to notice. We want to assure the writer that we are appreciative of the correspondence, and we did contact a wolf biologist to ensure we were not dismissing relevant information.]
[Winchester Mag continues:] Please allow me to add further to the discussion with an attempt to bring factual data to the surface, as opposed to posting what may be percieved as mere opinion.
One of the best sources for predator/prey dynamics regarding moose and wolves can be learned from the studies conducted at Isle Royal Michigan. To my knowledge, this is one of the most indepth studies in an area where moose and wolves co-exist. For the record, there has never been hunting for either speices, at least in the last 50+ years.
A breif bio of the Isle Royal moose and wolf being self introduced to the island = moose have only been present since about 1900, and wolves since about 1950. Isle Royale wolves are the only predator of moose. Summers of Isle Royale are short and cool, the defining season of Isle Royale seems to be its long, snowy winters. Typically, the first frost arrives in mid-September, and a month later the first snows will have fallen. A very similar climate to many parts of Alaska.
Onto the results of the 50 plus year old and ongoing study:
Aerial surveys provide an opportunity to estimate how often wolves kill moose. Sites where wolves have killed a moose are routinely found by following wolf tracks in the snow. At the end of each winter season they took the total number of kills found, divided by the number of days that they observed the wolves, and divide that number by the total number of wolves on the island. The result is a statistic known as the per capita kill rate. When joined with predator-prey theory, this statistic reveals tremendous understanding about how the number of wolves influences the number of moose and vice versa. By collecting this statistic each year for more than 20 years, they have been able to examine how the per capita kill rate changes with, for example, climatic conditions, abundance of moose, and abundance of wolves. On average, a pack with four wolves might kill about 28 moose a year — that’s one moose every 13 days. Source -http://www.isleroyalewolf.org
From that website, it illustrates the the population estimates of both species for the last 40+ years. In 1965 the data shows 700 moose/30 wolves. 1970, 1250 moose/18 wolves. 1980, 800 moose/50 wolves. 1996 the moose population peaked at 2500 moose/16 wolves (4 wolves from the all time low). 2005 data shows 450 moose/30 wolves. In my estimation, there is a stark contrast in numbers when the wolf numbers go up, the moose numbers go down. additionaly, it makes mention of an estimated moose population in 1930 of two or three thousand moose, which is decades before the wolf took up resedency there.
We can all agree that the wolf does indeed belong in the ecosystem. However, it has been well documented that they have a major negative overall impact on the populations of other wildlife, hence the predator control programs that the state of Alaska, and their biologists, wish to implement. In closing, I submit that if wolf numbers are kept in check, far more amimals will exist long enough to see their first birthday. I fail to see why allowing more moose calves a chance at life is bad.
Hopefully if the moderators here are not too terribly insecure, they will allow my post to go through.
Thank you for allowing me to speak in this discussion.
Regards,
Winchester Mag
[Wolf biologist Gordon Haber responds: Contrary to the writer’s claims, there is no scientific (or other) justification for the Alaska wolf control programs. The writer relies on details from wolf-moose research on Isle Royale. However, as an island, Isle Royale is a special ecological case: it does not allow for much wolf and moose ingress and dispersal. Thus Isle Royale is not very relevant to the mainland systems at issue in the Alaska wolf-moose controversies, where ingress, dispersal, and seasonal migrations of wolves and moose are of central ecological importance.
The Alaska wolf control programs — which originate from Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) biologists without peer review via a dark-ages state “Board of Game” process — have been widely discredited by scientists inside and outside Alaska. (citations omitted).
Perhaps the simplest way to debunk the underlying claims about needing to do wolf control if there is to be moose hunting is to consider Game Management 20A, an 8,000 square mile area south of Fairbanks. According to ADFG’s reports, since 1983 (a), GMU 20A moose numbers have increased 2-3-fold in the presence of natural or near-natural wolf numbers and (b), 20A has become by far the best moose hunting area in Alaska and one of the best anywhere.]
On January 26, 2007, Winchester Mag wrote:
Thank you for allowing my above submision to be posted. Also, let the record show that Gordon Haber is a biologist whose work is funded by the animal rights group Friends of Animals.
[Blog editors’ note: Dr. Haber’s wolf surveys
and field research are sponsored by FoA.]
On December 9, 2007, from the bush wrote:
We all take the view point we choose and defend it. What strikes me is that no human lives in a bubble and has zero impact on the planet. But we then decide what we do is okay and that we alone have the discernment of what is moral, valid, justified etc and and if someone falls outside of our parameters then they are wrong. Example-how many friends of the earth types drive cars, wear petroleum based synthetics etc…how many sea mammals, seabirds, fish etc were killed by oil spills so they could drive their automobile or wear their polypropolene fabrics or whatever?
Madonna singing to save the rain forest while she tools around in her Mercedes and lives in mansions. Even Gordon Haber pollutes. My thoughts may be seen as ridiculous
so argue in which ever way you see fit and fight for your cause but he who is without sin cast the first stone.