For Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage residents who thought aerial gunning of wolves would never be considered in our backyard, think again. Such plans are in the works at this very moment. In March, the Board of Game (Board) directed the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to develop wolf control plans for the Kenai despite the fact that ADF&G did not support the proposals calling for such actions. Because the Board gave ADF&G insufficient time to complete their control plans before the proposal book was released, the public will have little opportunity to weigh in. Opportunity for locals to have their voice heard will be further limited by the fact that the proposals will be considered during the Arctic meeting in Barrow.

Passage of Alaska’s intensive management law in 1994 has led to years of controversy over how the state’s predators would be managed. Today many view the state’s predator control programs as increasingly unbalanced and unscientific. In March of this year, the Board of Game gave us a prime example of this when they directed ADF&G to develop intensive management plans which included aerial wolf control to protect moose populations in two Game Management Units (GMUs) on the Kenai Peninsula. This was after state biologists explained that the moose population issues on the Peninsula were mainly due to overharvest and habitat limitations, not increased predation.

To be sure, the situation on the Kenai is complicated. On parts of the Peninsula, namely GMU 15C, the bull to cow ratio has declined, leading the Board to rightly restrict harvest, a strategy that is expected to solve the problem. Today, hunters are being asked to protect more young bulls by temporarily reducing their harvest in order to insure the long term survival of the moose population. And since the moose population in GMU 15C is already meeting population objectives set by the Board, predator control has no basis in science and can’t be justified.

However, in GMU 15A, which is mostly comprised of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, moose have not met population objectives for quite some time. Are predators to blame here? Not according to biologists who mainly attribute the moose decline to habitat limitations. More specifically, they cite large scale fires in the past which created robust, yet temporary habitat leading to unsustainably high moose numbers on the Kenai, a situation unlikely to occur again. In recognition of this, biologists recommended that the Board reduce the moose population objectives for GMU 15A, but did the Board heed this scientific advice? No. Instead, they opted to unjustifiably expand the taking of wolves, a misguided approach which potentially harms not only wolves but also moose productivity and habitat on the Refuge.

In addition to the Board’s decisions being biologically unsound, there are other logical concerns over instituting aerial wolf control on the Kenai, not the least of which are the safety and enjoyment of visitors and residents on the Peninsula. While there should be a great sense of unease over using such heavy-handed management in one of the most densely populated and well-known areas of Alaska, such concerns are apparently not a cause for unease with this Board.

Alaskan politicians and political appointees have repeatedly opted for lethal predator control as their management tool of choice, rather than viewing it as a last resort when all other management alternatives are not available. While politics will always play a role in how Alaska’s wildlife is managed, science should guide the final decision, especially with so much at stake in one of Alaska’s most iconic wild places.

Theresa Fiorino is the Alaska Representative for Defenders of Wildlife, she holds a BS in Wildlife Management and an MS in Environmental Sciences and Policy.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch. Alaska Dispatch welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.