Kenai refuge won't enforce Alaska decision targeting 'predator species'
Craig Medred |
Jan 17, 2012
Guns blazing, the state Board of Game is charging ahead with plans for aerial wolf hunts on the Kenai Peninsula, but there's a problem. Most of the land the wolves roam is within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, and officials there reiterated Tuesday that they are not going to play along with the state. "The answer is no. It is not going to be allowed on refuge land," said refuge manager Andy Loranger. A fundamental difference in wildlife management philosophy divides state and federal government. What state officials calls "intensive management," federal biologists call "aerial wolf control." The two are pretty much the same thing viewed from different directions. The state looks at the Kenai's ecology from the standpoint of a moose, or moose hunter. The refuge looks at the Kenai's ecology from the standpoint of a moose, a wolf, a bear and more. Killing a bunch of wolves, in the Board of Game's view, might help more Kenai moose survive, which would be fine under state law. Killing a bunch of wolves, in the refuge view, would result in only one thing for sure -- a bunch of dead wolves. And federal law doesn't allow for killing wolves just to kill wolves. Both entities have the law on their side. State law backs intensive management. Federal law backs multi-species management, which means wolves are due as much consideration as moose. Legally, Loranger said Tuesday, he can't go along with an attack on wolves solely to boost moose numbers. That position could change if the moose were endangered, but they're not. The moose population is simply depressed. A state intensive management plan conceded the main problem is habitat. Fifty years ago, moose flourished after forest fires scorched tens of thousands of acres on the Peninsula. Willows and aspen -- great moose food -- sprouted after the fires. Those plants disappeared as the landscape transitioned from shrubbery to spruce forest. The forest can't support many moose, only an animal or two per square mile. When the Kenai moose habitat was at its peak, it supported more than 4 moose per acre on what was then known as the Kenai National Moose Range. Today, the same lands in the now forested national refuge, support less than 1.5 moose per square mile. What the Kenai Peninsula really needs for moose to prosper is another big wildfire, but both state and federal officials have been reluctant to let fires burn because of risks to communities, cabins and some gas and oil facilities. In addition, all the smoke might worsen air quality in Anchorage, which sits to the north of the Peninsula across Turnagain Arm. Unable to set a fire, the state wants to open fire. Fewer wolf mouths to feed should, theoretically, mean more moose survive. Somewhere between 80 and 125 wolves live on the western side of the Peninsula. More than half would have to be killed to make a difference, and the population would have to be held down for years. The Board approved a five-year program to include hunting, trapping and aerial shooting by both state employees and the public, if the wolves can be found on -- or lured -- to state or private land, where they can be killed. There have been suggestions that maybe the state could radio-collar packs and follow them until they strayed off refuge lands to make this easier. Loranger said federal officials aren't going along with that idea, either, because it would violate refuge management mandates. "We have a very wide range of range of mandates," he said. "One of them is … to maintain biological integrity and diversity. It's inconsistent with the state's mandates for intensive management." Loranger added that he fully understood why the board did what it did. The Board of Game, he said, appears to be trying to do its best to adhere to its interpretation of state law. The refuge, he said, is doing the same thing, only with federal law. "We do work under different mandates," Loranger said. Some federal officials, however, are wondering what happened after they were led to believe state wildlife biologists had concluded aerial wolf control on the Kenai wouldn't be worth the effort -- or the political fallout.
by wolfcrow | January 19, 2012 - 11:22pm
If the state wants to do ignorant redneck/hillbilly management like it is now the feds are right. Too bad the feds doesn't own more land so more land is managed using science instead of idiots on the game board!!!!
by TRW | January 19, 2012 - 2:31pm
"...and god gave Men dominion over all..." Sadly, for some men, proving their prowess is best accomplished by extermination of the Natural World, the work of their other evil god, the devil. This attitude is far more ancient then the new "mono-theisms" of of the modern world. Roman & Greek mythology incorporated themes of a war against nature by the slaying of monsters, other even older religions contain these notions as well.
by barb3000 | January 18, 2012 - 9:45pm
It's not the wolves fault that the Kenai can't support more Elk. If every wolf was killed off there still wouldn't be any more elk than there is now. There simply is not enough food for them. They are big animals and require large parcels of land to survive. This type of stupidity is what has changed the landscape all over the US. Blame the wolves for every head of livestock that bad weather killed off, blame the wolves for every sheep that dropped dead and on and on until there was no wolves at all. And guess what happened, smaller predators moved in and did more damage than a wolf could ever do. The constant killing of wildlife the US government calls predator control so the US ranchers don't loose a cow is total insanity.
by Oldhaines | January 19, 2012 - 8:07pm
Never been any Elk there Barbie. Go back to greenie land.
by jwcehc | January 19, 2012 - 6:59am
Barb, stick to the lower 48 and at least read the article. No Elk on the Kenai. We are talking about Moose up here.
by TheChemist | January 18, 2012 - 6:19pm
Give me a FAL and a helicopter and I'd do it for free.
by ragnarock | January 18, 2012 - 8:42am
The feds seam to have forgotten the states constitution that they ratified, that says the state owns the wildlife no mater whos land it roams, state native or federal,having said that they do have a point about intensive managment, it does not treat all wildlife like the valuable state resorce it is,the states intensive managment law flys against the states constitution ,as does the feds anilca subsistance provision,the legeslature should repeal the intensive managment law along with the states subsistance law that was written as an attempt to comply with title 8 of anilca,the managment of Alaska's fish and wildlife has and will always be a sorce of significant controversy.statehood was brought about in good part to get the feds out of manneging our wildlfe and salmon, had effective wolf controll be alyed consistantly across the state durring the Knowels admenestration the intensive managment law and its bear extermination efforts would not have become a reality,the feds need to either give back or pay for the wildlife they stole when ANILCA was passed in 1980. they can't have it both ways
by HD907 | January 18, 2012 - 11:10am
Niether the State or the Feds should have it both ways I agree but how do you square the Feds exclusive guide use areas with your statement that "they can't have it both ways"? Shouldn't the State be enforcing our laws equally on Federal lands and not picking and choosing as they are doing with this business of allowing guides to have exclusive use areas on Federal land but the State has outlawed that (for good reason per the Owesechek Decision) practice on State land? It seems the state; if they really believe in our constitutional authority, should be more than willing to force the Feds out of the exclusive guide use area business. After all, the practice of exclusive use guide areas on Federal lands shift's about 80% of all commercial hunt guiding activity onto state lands and it disenfranchise most hunting guides altogether. Not to mention that the Federal program of exclusive guide use areas has upset game population on state land and significantly contributing to all this 'intensive management" quagmire we're in on State lands.
by Oldhaines | January 17, 2012 - 9:57pm
No real issue here. 1.Turnabout is fair play, no more enforcing Federal fish and game laws on state land or water. 2. End all cooperative enforcement agreements with federal officials 3. No access across state lands or waterways for Federal Officials. Note to self: Get ready to buy a small long-liner and enter the newly unregulated Halibut fishery! |













Comments