In just over two months, 143 wolves have been killed in Alaska's controversial aerial-gunning program, which was launched in late January despite two public votes against it. Hundreds more wolves are scheduled for extermination in the campaign.

At the behest of hunting groups, the Alaska Board of Game is allowing hunters to use aircraft to kill up to 140 (80%) of the wolves in this 8,000-square-mile area by the end of April. Here, hunters are required to use the land-and-shoot method, in which they chase down wolf packs using aircraft then, as the wolves collapse from exhaustion, land and shoot them.

The Board of Game has also approved aerial wolf hunting elsewhere, including a 1,700-square-mile area near McGrath, where hunters are allowed to shoot at least 40 wolves from the air. (To urge the governor to cancel the program, click here.)

The purpose of the wolf-killing plan is to cut down the competition for moose and caribou. Hunters have loudly complained that wolves eat too many moose calves, leaving too few moose for sport hunting. Some wildlife biologists and conservationists, however, question Alaska Fish and Wildlife's data on moose population size and demographics. But even if the data were accurate, the moose population in question has been shown to be at or above the objectives set by the state.

Governor Frank Murkowski's decision to side with trophy hunters and resume the aerial killing of wolves has caused a national uproar, particularly since Alaska voters have twice (in 1996 and again in 2000) affirmed a long-standing moratorium on aerial gunning. The governor has brushed aside the criticism by stating that "people who have never visited Alaska imagine wolves as majestic creatures that shouldn't be touched, but they never look at the majesty of the moose calf, and the right for that calf to reproduce."

The HSUS has found no record of Murkowski commenting on the rights of a moose with regard to human predation.

Murkowski further justified his stance in the face of negative public opinion: "We've got a state to manage and a game population to manage, and we've got to do it not on a basis of emotion but on a basis of sound science."

But Murkowski's statements suggest that he himself is overlooking sound science on the role of both predator and prey in ecosystems and the complexity of the predator-prey relationship. Clearly he, too, is allowing emotion and personal bias to color his vision of nature, or what he thinks nature ought to be. He, no doubt, is also influenced by the extra revenue generated by non-resident licenses as well as caribou and moose tags.

For more background information, please continue on to page 2. The Complex Nature of Ecosystems

The factors affecting moose population size and calf survival are complex; scientists are often unable to find a clear relationship between wolf abundance and the survival of prey animals such as moose.

Some studies suggest that the moose calves that wolves eat are those who wouldn't have survived to adulthood anyway, while other studies indicate that wolf predation may only affect prey populations in certain circumstances, such as during an especially harsh winter. In general, native predators do not cause population declines in prey animals unless the prey population is already declining for other reasons, such as habitat degradation, exotic diseases, or over-hunting. Even if scientific evidence indicated that wolf predation were consistently limiting a particular prey population, simply wiping out the wolves in that area is unlikely to be sufficient (or necessary) to increase the number of prey animals.

And what of the effect of this lethal management plan on wolves? Aerial hunting practices cause tremendous stress for wolves, disrupt pack dynamics by separating adults from their young, and can result in wounded wolves who are too physically compromised to survive in the wild. Under the new regulations, even pups (juveniles born this year) may be killed.

Wolves are ecologically important predators. Research in Yellowstone National Park demonstrates that wolves help to boost biodiversity and maintain ecological stability within the park. The presence of wolves has coincided with changes in elk behavior, causing them to avoid high-risk areas such as streambeds, thus giving young cottonwood and willow sprouts a chance to grow. The trees, in turn, decrease erosion and add cooling shade over the stream, improving habitat for birds and fish. Research also suggests that the decline of aspen groves in Yellowstone and other areas of the Rocky Mountains may be at least partly because of the absence of wolves.

Sport Hunting and Trapping of Wolves in Alaska

Stopping this misguided aerial-hunting program will (unfortunately) not deny trophy hunters an opportunity to kill wolves. The gray wolf is classified in Alaska as both a big game animal and a furbearer, and can be legally hunted and trapped in most areas of the state during an 8½-month hunting season and a six-month trapping season. The bag limit ranges from five wolves per hunter per season to ten wolves per hunter per day. There is no limit to the number of wolves that can be killed by trapping.

In 1996, when the aerial-gunning ban went into effect, many suspected that the number of wolves killed annually by hunters would decrease. However, that did not turn out to be the case. In fact, some estimates show that the wolf kill (from recreational hunting and trapping) has doubled in the past 25 years.

More than 7,000 wolves—approximately twice the number of wolves currently living in the entire lower 48 states—have been killed via legal hunting and trapping in Alaska from 1996 to 2001. That's only the reported kill; the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has suggested that the unreported kill may equal or exceed the reported kill.

Wolves as Economic Stimulators

The people of Alaska clearly don't want aerial hunting of wolves—as the two state-wide votes against the practice demonstrate. Likewise, in many polls since the early 1970s, an overwhelming majority of Americans has supported efforts to protect and restore wolves in the United States.

The value of protection and restoration campaigns cannot be overestimated. Simply put, wolves are worth more alive than dead. Studies have shown that wolves are so appealing to people that the species has had a positive effect on tourism and associated industries in areas where the animals are present.

When studying wolves at Yellowstone, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service projected that the animals would attract more sightseers and visitors to the park and would generate an additional $23 million annually to the local economy. Merchants in Yellowstone's gateway communities attributed a recent economic upturn to the return of the wolves. And the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minnesota, added $3 million to the local economy in 1995 and created the equivalent of 66 full-time jobs.