Examining the Mistreatment of Alaskan Predators
Today Alaskan land is split between small towns, icy roads, oil wells, and a whole lot of national park land. Alaska is inhabited by a diverse and beautiful set of animals, some of those animals are admittedly dangerous. All of the animals are a part of a delicate ecosystem that should not be interfered with. Sadly, The Alaska Board of Game has slashed the predators population by aerial shooting of wolves, allowing the practice of baiting brown bears, spotlighting, and extending the hunting seasons into the months when the animals have pups. Since 2002, when Governor Frank Murkowski took office, hunting laws have been horrifically loosened and animals’ lives have been gravely affected. The rhetoric used to convince people that this is okay was the fact that they were conserving the food supply and protecting civilians from danger. Lethal management of the predator population is not only inhumane and misguided, but also ineffectual. There are much better non-lethal ways of management to control the wolf and bear population. Alaska should implement more humane and efficient ways to control the population through the development of buffer areas between forest and townships, relocation of predators, and designating land for predators to inhabit.
In the 1980’s the government developed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act or ‘ANCILA’, it’s purpose was to designate more Alaska land to be protected as national parks, wildlife refuges, designated wilderness areas. When congress passed the act it successfully established 100 acres of newly protected land. By doing so, that made two thirds of Alaska land managed by the federal government.
As soon as he was elected Governor Murkowski began making changes to the Alaska Board of Game, which is the seven person board responsible for most wildlife decisions. In 2003, one year after he took office, Governor Murkowski appointed six people to the state game board, including two Fairbanks game guides who echoed his support for predator control in Alaska (O’Connor). He replaced them with new appointees who were experienced hunters and trappers, and were supportive of reducing predator population with lethal force. Trapping, snaring, baiting, spotlighting, and same-day airborne hunting have been common practices since. Chasing a wolf in a helicopter for miles and miles until it is tired is not right, and a horrific act that it is hard to believe the Alaska government spends resources to do it. Without the unbalanced board of game that Murkowski put in place, I highly doubt these practices would have been reestablished. It is a major step backwards for Alaska as far as proper wildlife management goes.
Alaska officials support of lethal management has never included environmentally stable support, meaning that decreasing prey populations have never shown substantial growth throughout the years of practicing these hunting and trapping techniques. While I agree that predator management is necessary in Alaska, it certainly does not have to be done lethally. Telling the public that its necessary for “subsistence” is misconstruing the truth. They do not need to brutally attack wolves and bears alike to maintain a higher caribou and moose population. Lethal management is not necessary especially when even higher population totals could be achieved with non-lethal management. There have been instances in which non-lethal methods were used and harvest animal population increased, Wayne Regelin formerly Director of Division of Wildlife Conservation reported back in 2002 that, “Beginning in November 1997 and extending to April 2001, the department sterilized the alpha males and females in wolf packs in the control area and moved subdominant wolves to other locations. The caribou population increased from 22,000 to 38,000 during this period (Regelin).” During that time period they were sterilizing the alpha males and females of different wolf packs and relocated subdominant wolves to other locations. These methods are much more socially acceptable, humane, and they do not mess with the delicate balance of the ecosystem.
Banning the “normal” hunting practices of Alaska on National Park Land is definitely a step in the right direction for Alaska, but it has to deal with a lot opposition from the mass amount of hunters who occupy The Last Frontier. It is difficult to understand why hunters of Alaska have such an opposition towards the rule changes; rather than killing predators through the unfair and inhumane methods they use now, the could simply let the bear population grow at its normal rate and they could hunt them the real way. That is without a doubt more rewarding to the hunter.
The content of the National Park service proposal talk about the nature of Alaskan hunting throughout the years and how the State of Alaska has been negligent and uninterested in reforming the laws to better fit the guidelines and objectives of ANCILA. When referring to the spotlighting of black bears, the baiting of brown bears, and the manipulation of hunting seasons the National Park Services proposal had this to say, “These practices are not consistent with the NPS implementation of ANILCA’s authorization of sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves.” It is hard to believe that a state could simply ignore federal guidelines, alright maybe it isn’t. Either way the fact that Alaska Board of Game has been able to pass off these laws in the name of “subsistence” for the last 30 years is not okay. I hope that Alaska will realize the oversight it has been making in the past, and will pass this proposal to restore balance to the predator prey dynamic of Alaska.
If the National Park Services proposal is passed, it would provide more equal hunting for everyone visiting Alaska, as well as balance out the predator-prey dynamic that the wilderness operates on. If the current hunting and trapping regulations stayed in place the dynamic would only continue to become more and more unbalanced. Alaska’s hunting laws of today are wrong. Not only are they inhumane, inefficient, and expensive, they also lack any substantial evidence to prove that moose and caribou population truly benefit because of this method of predator management. The development of non-lethal tactics to control the predator population will be equally as effective, much more humane, and a lot more cost efficient.
Way, Jonathan G., and Jeremy T. Bruskotter. "Additional Considerations for Gray Wolf Management after Their Removal from Endangered Species Act Protections." The Journal of Wildlife Management 76.3 (2012): 457-61. Print.
"Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves." U.S National Park Service. Federal Register, 4 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Langlois, Krista. "Sweeping New Rule for Alaska's Predator Control." High Country News. High Country News, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Chambers, Mike. "Murkowski Names Six to Board of Game." Murkowski Names Six to Board of Game. Associated Press, 19 Jan. 2003. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Regelin, Wayne. "Wolf Management in Alaska with an Historic Perspective, Alaska Department of Fish and Game." Wolf Management in Alaska with an Historic Perspective, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1 Mar. 2002. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
"Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)." ANILCA Program Home. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Palach, Brad, Ashley List, Dan Coleman, and Jason Cheney. "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) - Native Allotments, Alaska Department of Fish and Game."Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) - Native Allotments, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
