Single Page
What cheats Alaska hunters of more moose: Wolves and bears, or insects and hares?For years now, the Palin/Parnell Board of Game has been trumpeting the claim that moose and caribou populations across Alaska are being kept below carrying capacity by predation. They’ve ignored rebuttals by numerous biologists that some of our moose populations are actually at or above optimum density, and are suffering as a consequence from malnutrition, pathogens, and increased vulnerability to harsh weather and predation. Recent newspaper articles by retired agency biologists Rick Sinnott and Vic Van Ballenberghe are particularly informative. Their critics reply that even where moose are eating themselves out of house and home, some of these hoofstock are still being eaten by wolves and bears. The fewer moose that end up in predator bellies, the more can end up in human bellies. Even if we succeed in harvesting only one in ten moose that wolves would have killed, that’s still one more moose for our dining tables. End of story. Or is it. There is a vast scientific literature on predator-prey relationships. This covers not just wolves and bears preying on moose and caribou, but a huge range of species. In case after case, we find that predators can benefit prey populations by reducing the spread of pathogens (diseases and parasites) and by reducing competition from other herbivores. The issue is one of balance. Under what conditions do benefits outweigh costs? Under what conditions, if any, do wolves or bears indirectly help more moose or caribou survive than these predators kill? Contrary to what some people might think, asking this question isn’t some kind of Liberal plot to trick Alaskans into sacrificing our traditional lifestyle as hunters. Just the opposite. It’s a “plot” to save our lifestyle. If, Heaven forbid, you ever come down with cancer metastasizing throughout your body, you wouldn’t thank a doctor who refuses to consider any treatment but surgery because he doesn’t believe in medication or radiation. Nor should you thank a Board of Game that refuses to diligently consider any alternative to exterminating predators because killing is their single solution to all problems. Elsewhere in North America, some moose populations are being devastated not because of too many predators, but because of too few to minimize spread of ticks, lung worms, brain worms and other pathogens. Anyone interested in this should pay particular attention to the wolves and moose of Isle Royale in Lake Superior. Although this is an island population of moose that can’t go anywhere else to escape from wolves, the moose have survived and often become so numerous that they are debilitated by malnutrition and parasites. They don’t get enough energy and minerals from their food, leading to bone disease. Parasites suck their blood, cause horrendous hair loss, and infect their brains. Debilitated moose are called “walking carrion.” If wolves get them before harsh weather does, these moose become predation statistics. If winter wins the race, they get eaten anyway, but now as scavenging statistics. Bad though pathogens are at Isle Royale, without culling of debilitated animals by wolves, infestation rates might be much higher. So we’ve got to wonder how important wolves are for limiting the spread of pathogens among our own moose? A second role played by predators is limiting competition with other prey species for food. That’s particularly important where there isn’t enough food to go around -- which is currently true on the Kenai Peninsula. Food production has been shrinking rapidly for the past few decades (see Rick Sinnott’s Nov. 17 Alaska Dispatch analysis for details). Worse, a lot of the remaining food is being eaten by other herbivores. Among the most voracious are snowshoe hares, whose abundance can vary more than 100-fold between periods of scarcity and peaks like the current one. Browse is also lost to a plague of insects and plant pathogens such as Geometrid moths, Bruce spanworm, sawflies, fungi and root rot. (Read the article by Dr. John Morton, supervisory biologist for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge). Another Piece to the Puzzle. Steve You make a good argument about the need for a comprehensive analysis of the situation before committing to action when dealing with predator-prey issues (or just about any issue for that matter). While you mention biological factors other than predators that affect moose populations, you (and the Board of Game) left out some human factors; namely, the extent of fatal moose-vehicle collisions and what can be done about it. Unfortunately, moose-vehicle collisions are a significant factor on the Kenai Peninsula, the area of controversy at the recent BOG meeting. According to the Alaska Department of transportation and Public Facilities Alaska Traffic Crashes: Crash Data, the Kenai Peninsula accounts for about 25% of the moose road kills in Alaska. The report says, “While overall accident rates and fatal accident rates probably reflect road conditions, traffic volumes, and driver error, collisions with moose may be more dependent on environmental conditions (snowfall patterns in Southcentral Alaska and hours of daylight) and are often the consequence of animal foraging behavior and visibility.” Based on data I received from ADF&G, during the past decade (2001/01- 2009/10) there have been 2,188 moose killed by vehicles on the Kenai Peninsula. This averages 219 moose per year and includes only confirmed kills. Injured moose that wander off and die in the woods are not included. Previous studies on the Kenai Peninsula have shown that road kill composition amounts to 41% cows, 51% calves, and 8% bulls. About two thirds of these accidents have been in Units 15A&C where the Board of Game recently approved wolf control. Unit 15A had 774 moose killed over this decade ranging from a low of 45 in 2005/06 and 2009/19 to a high of 134 in 2003/04. Unit 15C had 710 moose killed by vehicles during this decade with the low being 40 in 2008/09 and a high of 105 in 2003/04. That’s a lot of carnage, not only of moose (especially calves) but vehicles and in some cases passengers. In fact, it amounts to 43% of the moose taken by hunters on the Kenai Peninsula during this decade (5,031). Over this time period, hunters in Unit 15A have harvested 1,418 moose ranging from a low of 110 in 2009/10 to a high of 230 in 2001/02. The moose harvest for Unit 15C has totaled 2,717 with a low of 208 in 2000/01 to a high of 341 in 2003/04. The Board of Games stated purpose for wolf control in Units 15A&C is “to reallocate moose from wolves to harvest.” While it is not clear how many moose are killed each year on the Kenai Peninsula by wolves, it is fairly certain how many moose are killed by vehicles. Just imagine how many more moose there would be for hunters if we could substantially reduce moose-vehicle collisions. Of course, not all the moose saved from vehicle collisions (or wolves) would be taken by hunters, but at least there would be greater opportunity and in more accessible areas. Although effort has been made to reduce moose-vehicle collisions, it is obvious that much more is needed. Given that the time and place for moose-vehicle collisions is well documented, it would seem like a collaborative effort between ADF&G and ADOT&PF could come up with some innovative approaches to reduce this serious problem; like motion detectors wired to warning lights to warn motorists that moose are near the road. I mentioned this in a letter to ADOT&PF and while they said in their reply that this is a “top concern” it apparently isn’t enough concern to ADF&G/BOG to be an alternative to wolf control on the Kenai Peninsula. I think that ADF&G/BOG failure to consider moose-vehicle collisions on the Sterling Highway when deliberating on wolf control for Units 15A & C is a significant flaw in their decision-making process. According to the Department of Law (File No.: AN20091 03937) the Administrative Procedure Act requires the Board to "pay special attention to the cost to private persons of the proposed regulatory action." This requires that costs to private persons be one of the factors explicitly discussed during deliberations. Any reasonably significant costs to private persons should be acknowledged and discussed, inc1uding indirect costs. It seems to me that if the BOG is going to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act it needs to explicitly compare alternatives to wolf control, most notably, reducing moose-vehicle collisions as an option for increasing calf survival and thereby the bull:cow. Savings to moose and motorists could be substantial. Why is it that the Alaska Dispatch will publish any old article from an ex-ADF&G biologist that is against predator control, but refuses to publish rebuttals or articles for predator control from ex-ADF&G biologists? Next thing you know, we will see an article here exclaiming that aliens, space radiation, and a secret 1940's government experiment that escaped is the real cause of Moose and Caribou decline, just as long as it is against predator control. It Time for the Dispatch folks to put on their big boy pants and allow a conflicting view if they want to be taken seriously as journalists. Hello jwcehc, If you reread the article, you will note that it does not oppose predator control. It notes the conditions under which predator control might help moose, as well as conditions where it might harm moose. It notes that the Kenai Peninsula is currently suffering from a plague of snowshoe hares, suggesting that this is a period when we need more predation, not less. It says nothing about the hare situation elsewhere in Alaska. Most of all, it emphasizes the need to have biologists -- whether currently employed by a government agency or not -- provide whatever data they have before we draw ANY conclusions about whether predator control on the Kenai will do more good than harm. As the editor says, if you know of any biologist who has strong data showing that lowering wolf numbers would not benefit hares to the detriment of moose, please invite that biologist to present the evidence. You might be interested to know that reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park has been a boon to moose, which are now at peak numbers. Nature is complex. Managing wildlife populations to meet our needs requires surgical fine tuning, not a battle-axe approach. Stephen Stringham, PhD Steve, Yes, your article is implying that to replenish moose populations, ADF&G should instead increase wolves on the Kenai to reduce the snowshoe hare population, thus providing more food for moose (at least you spent most of your article arguing that point), and they should spend more time studying it before proceeding with wolf control. It also doesn't help that you also start off the article by hammering on preditor control and list two ex ADF&G biologists that are on record against preditor control. If you seem to think that wolves prefer rabbits/hares over large ungulates, and a large wolf population will eat only hares, then I think you need to turn in your PhD. While hares may be a part of their diet, they are a target of opportunity, not a primary food source for a large carnivore like a wolf, which needs a minimum of 3 to 10 pounds of meat a day to survive and an average of 5 pounds a day to be in reproductive health. Spending years and many dollars trying to find the percentage hares represent in a wolf's diet is a red herring at best. Thank you for your feedback. Scott Woodham here. I'm the editor largely responsible for our opinion pages. If you know of anyone who has a rebuttal to this commentary -- or anything at all that has appeared on our site -- please encourage them to submit it to the address that appears at the end of each commentary we post: commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com You had me intrigued about this until you launched into your Iraq war opinion and diatribe. Unfortunate because your emotionalism places your argument in a whole new light. Pity that- |
Comments