From: asatj@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.wolves
Subject: The Wolf Summit
Date: 20 Dec 92 13:51:34 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

Hi All-

  Thought I had better clear up a few things.
 
  First, yes the wolf hunt as proposed by the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game has been posponed by Governor Hickel.  He has invited various groups to
meet to, as he puts it, "show people Outside that we do not intend to kill all
of the wolves"; in other words, he thinks that by merely explaining the "logic"
behind the plan, everyone will go away happy and leave Alaskans alone to do as
they please, which is, of course, to continue with the proposed hunt.  The
latest news is that the meeting, or "Wolf Summit" to use the governors words,
will be boycotted by several enviromental groups, including the Alaska Wildlife
Alliance (to which I belong), unless the hunt is called off by the Board of
Game for 1993 and the meeting is moved to Anchorage (if Fairbanks is
experiencing one of its cold snaps - that is, below -25 degrees Fahrenheit - it
becomes illegal to fly aircraft and therefore, no one will be at the meeting). 
These are not unreasonable demands: remember that a citizen's board sponsored
by ADF&G approved of aerial wolf hunting only in an emergency (eminent collapse
of a prey population to unrecoverable levels without human intervention) and
that ADF&G instead threw that recommendation out and caved in to pressure from
hunters from Interior Alaska.

  Second, in my unprofessional opinion, it is a mistake to think that Alaska's
wolves could be moved to some other location so far away from their home
habitat as the governor and others have stated (though more in anger and jest,
I believe) and expect them to fill a niche in a foriegn enviroment.  Though
wildlife has successfully been re-introduced even in Alaska (muskox come to
mind), I can think of dozens of examples where alien wildlife have been
introduced to try to solve some seemingly simple problem only to lead to an
even greater unforeseen problem, most of which are with us now.  Left alone,
the wolf will re-introduce itself to its former haunts, as is already
apparently happening in Yellowstone.  One of the prime arguments of state
biologists here is that they do not intend to eliminate wolves but to actually
increase their numbers by temporarily reducing their numbers so as to increase
the available prey (I hate the word "game") population.  Yes, this sort of
artificial management of wildlife will in the long run (though not the long,
long run) increase the number of wolves in those areas because wolves have a
better survival rate in their offspring than do their larger prey.  However,
this is a smoke screen; the persons backing this do not care for wolves and see
them as competitors to be eliminated.
 
  Finally, it is important to know that polls taken here by a professional
pollster (and a conservative one at that) have shown that the majority of
Alaskans do not support this proposed action.  Though I am neither a hunter nor
trapper (nor are most persons in this state, contrary to popular opinion), most
of the persons I know who are trappers and hunters do not support this plan. 
Right now, again according to ADF&G's own figures, about 1,000 wolves are
killed each year throughout the state through legal means out of an estimated
population of 7,000 statewide.

Alan Julliard
asatj@acad2.alaska.edu
"Isness is this business..."

 
                   
Newsgroups: alt.wolves