Letter to the Governor about Denali Wolves
Alaskans FOR Wildlife
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
Re: Killing of Denali Park Wolves
Dear Governor Walker:
It is no secret that our State is in deep fiscal trouble. As we are well aware, you have just
proposed, out of necessity, deep cuts to many services, the most alarming part is to cut
education funding to the core, but also re-instating taxes, and halving Permanent Fund
dividend checks, amongst others. The State’s income stream has dropped by 88 percent.
We need new revenue, fast. Stopping the killing of wolves in and around Denali National
Park could be one small, relatively quick, way to increase tourist dollars. Wolf viewing
opportunities have dropped drastically, causing some tour group operators to pull out of
the business. Any increases of revenue at this time would help the State. We’re not pro-
trapping, although we recognize that it is a part of traditional cultural heritage in rural
areas. However, allowing just a couple of hunters or trappers to kill wolves in and around
the Park may not be the best or highest use of these animals.
Biologists tend to look at total numbers of wolves, although, according to wolf expert
Gordon Haber, the health and cohesiveness of wolf families is equally important. Each
family develops its own hunting techniques, passed on through generations. The most
likely casualties of hunters or trappers are the alpha wolves in a group. If they are killed,
survivors often disperse, unable to hunt effectively without alpha leadership, and then
often starve. Last spring, an Outside hunter killed the pregnant female and alpha male
from the East Fork family at a bear baiting station northeast of the park. The East Fork
family has since scattered; that hunter killed not just two wolves and their unborn pups,
but unknowingly killed much of the rest of the family as well, now diminished to just
four survivors, down from 17 last year.
The Board of Game (BoG) is mandated by the State Constitution to manage wildlife
resources for the greatest number of citizens. Both the BoG and the National Park Service
(NPS) allow wolves to be hunted or trapped almost limitlessly throughout the Preserve
portion of Denali National Park, and to its northeast. Benefiting just two or three non-
subsistence hunters is definitely not the “highest or best use,” when potentially millions
of tourists and Alaskans could be enjoying the beauty of their wildness, at the same time
bringing in additional funds to the State. For years, both the BoG and the NPS have been
actively blocking pleas from biologists and the public alike to halt killing of Denali
wolves. They dismissively reject all calls for a more balanced use of wildlife in and
around Denali, their only concern seems to be to maximize access for hunters and
trappers. Non-consumptive users, tourists, including Alaskans (80% of Alaskans do not
hold hunting or trapping licenses), are completely ignored.
Denali National Park generates close to $520 million in annual revenues for our State.
Tourists coming to Denali want to see wildlife, and wolves are right at the top of their
list. The most recent (2015) update from the NPS states that wolf numbers in the park
have dropped to just 57 individuals, down from 143 in 2007, a loss of 60% in eight years.
In 2010, 45% of visitors got to see wolves. That year the BoG removed a conservation
buffer bordering the north-east corner of the Park. Today, viewership has dropped to
around 5%. Increasing wolf-viewing potential would increase tourist dollars
substantially.
According to biologist Rick Steiner, and many other wildlife advocates, the easiest way
to do this is with an exchange between the NPS and the State, not of land title, but of
creating a permanent no-kill wildlife conservation easement in those areas used
frequently by wolves wandering out of the Park. In return, the State would gain Federal
real property of equal value. Wolves can legally be hunted and trapped almost
everywhere else in Alaska.
Loosely quoting Marybeth Holleman, co-author of Among Wolves, “It is simply a shame
that wolves cannot have just this one place in our great state where they are not
incessantly harassed and hunted, for the enjoyment of visitors viewing them, and for
scientific wolf behavioral studies of family groups living lives undamaged by hunters.”
The public, as well as the State, are definitely losers with the status quo. We know that
you have been approached on this issue before, although as yet there has been no
resolution, or any visible movement on the issue. With this ongoing unjust situation
remaining as it is, we, too, feel that it is a shame for the wolves, and a shame that the
State cannot benefit from these lost tourist dollars, all so that a couple of hunters can have
their “sport.”
Respectfully yours,
John Breiby, Wasilla
Jim Kowalski ?
Frank Keim ?
Fran Mauer?
Et Al….
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
Re: Killing of Denali Park Wolves
Dear Governor Walker:
It is no secret that our State is in deep fiscal trouble. As we are well aware, you have just
proposed, out of necessity, deep cuts to many services, the most alarming part is to cut
education funding to the core, but also re-instating taxes, and halving Permanent Fund
dividend checks, amongst others. The State’s income stream has dropped by 88 percent.
We need new revenue, fast. Stopping the killing of wolves in and around Denali National
Park could be one small, relatively quick, way to increase tourist dollars. Wolf viewing
opportunities have dropped drastically, causing some tour group operators to pull out of
the business. Any increases of revenue at this time would help the State. We’re not pro-
trapping, although we recognize that it is a part of traditional cultural heritage in rural
areas. However, allowing just a couple of hunters or trappers to kill wolves in and around
the Park may not be the best or highest use of these animals.
Biologists tend to look at total numbers of wolves, although, according to wolf expert
Gordon Haber, the health and cohesiveness of wolf families is equally important. Each
family develops its own hunting techniques, passed on through generations. The most
likely casualties of hunters or trappers are the alpha wolves in a group. If they are killed,
survivors often disperse, unable to hunt effectively without alpha leadership, and then
often starve. Last spring, an Outside hunter killed the pregnant female and alpha male
from the East Fork family at a bear baiting station northeast of the park. The East Fork
family has since scattered; that hunter killed not just two wolves and their unborn pups,
but unknowingly killed much of the rest of the family as well, now diminished to just
four survivors, down from 17 last year.
The Board of Game (BoG) is mandated by the State Constitution to manage wildlife
resources for the greatest number of citizens. Both the BoG and the National Park Service
(NPS) allow wolves to be hunted or trapped almost limitlessly throughout the Preserve
portion of Denali National Park, and to its northeast. Benefiting just two or three non-
subsistence hunters is definitely not the “highest or best use,” when potentially millions
of tourists and Alaskans could be enjoying the beauty of their wildness, at the same time
bringing in additional funds to the State. For years, both the BoG and the NPS have been
actively blocking pleas from biologists and the public alike to halt killing of Denali
wolves. They dismissively reject all calls for a more balanced use of wildlife in and
around Denali, their only concern seems to be to maximize access for hunters and
trappers. Non-consumptive users, tourists, including Alaskans (80% of Alaskans do not
hold hunting or trapping licenses), are completely ignored.
Denali National Park generates close to $520 million in annual revenues for our State.
Tourists coming to Denali want to see wildlife, and wolves are right at the top of their
list. The most recent (2015) update from the NPS states that wolf numbers in the park
have dropped to just 57 individuals, down from 143 in 2007, a loss of 60% in eight years.
In 2010, 45% of visitors got to see wolves. That year the BoG removed a conservation
buffer bordering the north-east corner of the Park. Today, viewership has dropped to
around 5%. Increasing wolf-viewing potential would increase tourist dollars
substantially.
According to biologist Rick Steiner, and many other wildlife advocates, the easiest way
to do this is with an exchange between the NPS and the State, not of land title, but of
creating a permanent no-kill wildlife conservation easement in those areas used
frequently by wolves wandering out of the Park. In return, the State would gain Federal
real property of equal value. Wolves can legally be hunted and trapped almost
everywhere else in Alaska.
Loosely quoting Marybeth Holleman, co-author of Among Wolves, “It is simply a shame
that wolves cannot have just this one place in our great state where they are not
incessantly harassed and hunted, for the enjoyment of visitors viewing them, and for
scientific wolf behavioral studies of family groups living lives undamaged by hunters.”
The public, as well as the State, are definitely losers with the status quo. We know that
you have been approached on this issue before, although as yet there has been no
resolution, or any visible movement on the issue. With this ongoing unjust situation
remaining as it is, we, too, feel that it is a shame for the wolves, and a shame that the
State cannot benefit from these lost tourist dollars, all so that a couple of hunters can have
their “sport.”
Respectfully yours,
John Breiby, Wasilla
Jim Kowalski ?
Frank Keim ?
Fran Mauer?
Et Al….
Letter Concerning Wolf Viewing Opportunities in Denali
Gentlemen, hope you have a prosperous New Year,
I am a naturalist and field educator for Denali Education Center working in the Park for the last
5 years interpreting fauna, flora and ecosystems. I am very concerned about the wolf situation in
the Park and seemingly no advocacy from the Park. Maybe the Park is doing something but hav
not heard or seen anything.
It is true most wolf sightings are seen along the Park road, but also within the Park where I
hiked frequently. Yes it is true that "sightings are dependent on the behavior of the wolves
frequenting the park road", but that has gone down in the recent present as well as in the back
country. Frankly, the numbers are down and the opportunities are lower and lower each year.
The write up in the NPS web site does not address why or how to remedy this situation.
The section "Protecting wolf viewing opportunities" states that "Denali is recognized as one ofthe best places in the world for people to see wolves in the wild. Wolf viewing offers park
visitors and the Alaskan tourism industry substantial benefits." I believe NPS needs to change
this statement because it is not true. The best place to see wolves is in Yellowstone after
the controversial and brave introduction of Canadian wolves in the Park. The population is
thriving and the Park rangers embrace the increase of wolves but mostly tracking individual
wolves demonstrating the importance of some wolves to the family unit. I hope we never have to
introduce wolves in Denali National Park.
The benefits to the Park are in visitor numbers and the dollars spent in and around the Park.
Visitors are not getting their money's worth and the Park should not state "this is one of the best
places in the world to see wolves." It is not.
This question in the subject line "Are Wolf Viewing Opportunities in Denali at Risk?" was th
heading in the mammal section of the Denali National Park web site. It is a good question and
the narrative that followed is informative reading but the question was not answered. I will
answer it here. Yes, wolf viewing opportunities in Denali are at great risk. When viewing
opportunities reach a high of 47% in 2007 at 143 wolves to a low of 4% in 2015 at 48 wolves for
two consecutive years, I would say viewing opportunities are bleak. Yes, the most recent update
from the Park, 2015, wolf population is at 57 but still a drop of more than 60% in just eight
years. Great Risk?? Yes.
The risk is not in population numbers that is frequently stated. The risk is in individual wolves.
The importance of individual wolves and family units are not cited as important in the narrative.
Why is this continually ignored when the scientific data is there especially continuously coming
out of Yellowstone National Park. The data is fully documented here in Denali but not
recognized by your biologist. Family units do matter.
Individual wolves that get trapped or shot like in 2012 and 2015 do matter when the
alpha pregnant female is shot and the alpha male is killed in the Stampede corridor. It is not just
a number game. Yes, the narrative in the website does state these individuals were "mos
vulnerable to being legally harvested (i.e. trapped and shot) when they venture fearlessly beyond
park boundaries." They follow the food, it is not a case of fearlessness. Face the fact that
animals get shot legally or illegally. And if they get shot legally, it is still a lost to the Park notjust a insinuation that nothing can be done to prevent it.
The narrative does go on to discuss the closures and attempts to continue the closures which is
good, but does not say any thing how these family units were totally dissociated and lost. Is does
not stay how one and two year olds can die living on their own or trying to join other units. Is
does not say how the yearlings are not trained to survive on their own. It takes three years to
fully instruct and teach a new wolf pup. Killing alpha parents is a major animal behavior
situation that hurts the park's viewing opportunities and also answers the question: why the
numbers are so low. It is the individual wolf that matters not population. Please ask the question
why Yellowstone National Park has more sightings of wolves then Denali. The Biologist there
get it like Rick McIntyre, park ranger.
On another note, wolves are not agriculture products that get harvested. Wolves, "park wolves",
get killed when they get trapped or shot. Please stop using this nondescript word "harvest" to
denote an actual life ending activity. State the fact, wolves are not harvested, they are killed.
The entire article has been updated from previous articles and I commend the Park biologist for
the update and staging the question of viewing opportunity risk. The narrative does not go far
enough in "What's next? Great question.
Denali Park does not address this question adequately. We all know that wolves will continue to
follow the winter caribou to their feeding grounds. We don't need to study this. We don't need
"to document where collared wolves are harvested," (killed). We know they get shot when baited
or trapped and by whom. We do not need a "new study" to find the same results we know
already. This is a delay tactic to a known tragedy that can only get worse.
What is the Park doing to "continue to advocate for measures that protect natural and healthy
park wolf populations and provide opportunities for visitors to see wolves...." as stated in the
last paragraph of the web site. What exactly are the biologist and park administrators doing to
protect the wolves? No narrative at all. There must be something, anything other then
"monitoring". We may not see their "wild charisma of their gait, their fur, their yellow eyes."
Why? They may get harvested (killed) waiting for a new study.
I am a member of Alaskans FOR Wildlife in Fairbanks and this is what we are doing as
advocates.
If the Park officials are doing something, anything then let us know. Maybe we can join forces
with you instead of writing letters to you like this one.
Be a leader in the state and protect the animals that is your mission. Don't work in silence. Be an
advocate.
Roy Catalano
roycatalano@gmx.com
I am a naturalist and field educator for Denali Education Center working in the Park for the last
5 years interpreting fauna, flora and ecosystems. I am very concerned about the wolf situation in
the Park and seemingly no advocacy from the Park. Maybe the Park is doing something but hav
not heard or seen anything.
It is true most wolf sightings are seen along the Park road, but also within the Park where I
hiked frequently. Yes it is true that "sightings are dependent on the behavior of the wolves
frequenting the park road", but that has gone down in the recent present as well as in the back
country. Frankly, the numbers are down and the opportunities are lower and lower each year.
The write up in the NPS web site does not address why or how to remedy this situation.
The section "Protecting wolf viewing opportunities" states that "Denali is recognized as one ofthe best places in the world for people to see wolves in the wild. Wolf viewing offers park
visitors and the Alaskan tourism industry substantial benefits." I believe NPS needs to change
this statement because it is not true. The best place to see wolves is in Yellowstone after
the controversial and brave introduction of Canadian wolves in the Park. The population is
thriving and the Park rangers embrace the increase of wolves but mostly tracking individual
wolves demonstrating the importance of some wolves to the family unit. I hope we never have to
introduce wolves in Denali National Park.
The benefits to the Park are in visitor numbers and the dollars spent in and around the Park.
Visitors are not getting their money's worth and the Park should not state "this is one of the best
places in the world to see wolves." It is not.
This question in the subject line "Are Wolf Viewing Opportunities in Denali at Risk?" was th
heading in the mammal section of the Denali National Park web site. It is a good question and
the narrative that followed is informative reading but the question was not answered. I will
answer it here. Yes, wolf viewing opportunities in Denali are at great risk. When viewing
opportunities reach a high of 47% in 2007 at 143 wolves to a low of 4% in 2015 at 48 wolves for
two consecutive years, I would say viewing opportunities are bleak. Yes, the most recent update
from the Park, 2015, wolf population is at 57 but still a drop of more than 60% in just eight
years. Great Risk?? Yes.
The risk is not in population numbers that is frequently stated. The risk is in individual wolves.
The importance of individual wolves and family units are not cited as important in the narrative.
Why is this continually ignored when the scientific data is there especially continuously coming
out of Yellowstone National Park. The data is fully documented here in Denali but not
recognized by your biologist. Family units do matter.
Individual wolves that get trapped or shot like in 2012 and 2015 do matter when the
alpha pregnant female is shot and the alpha male is killed in the Stampede corridor. It is not just
a number game. Yes, the narrative in the website does state these individuals were "mos
vulnerable to being legally harvested (i.e. trapped and shot) when they venture fearlessly beyond
park boundaries." They follow the food, it is not a case of fearlessness. Face the fact that
animals get shot legally or illegally. And if they get shot legally, it is still a lost to the Park notjust a insinuation that nothing can be done to prevent it.
The narrative does go on to discuss the closures and attempts to continue the closures which is
good, but does not say any thing how these family units were totally dissociated and lost. Is does
not stay how one and two year olds can die living on their own or trying to join other units. Is
does not say how the yearlings are not trained to survive on their own. It takes three years to
fully instruct and teach a new wolf pup. Killing alpha parents is a major animal behavior
situation that hurts the park's viewing opportunities and also answers the question: why the
numbers are so low. It is the individual wolf that matters not population. Please ask the question
why Yellowstone National Park has more sightings of wolves then Denali. The Biologist there
get it like Rick McIntyre, park ranger.
On another note, wolves are not agriculture products that get harvested. Wolves, "park wolves",
get killed when they get trapped or shot. Please stop using this nondescript word "harvest" to
denote an actual life ending activity. State the fact, wolves are not harvested, they are killed.
The entire article has been updated from previous articles and I commend the Park biologist for
the update and staging the question of viewing opportunity risk. The narrative does not go far
enough in "What's next? Great question.
Denali Park does not address this question adequately. We all know that wolves will continue to
follow the winter caribou to their feeding grounds. We don't need to study this. We don't need
"to document where collared wolves are harvested," (killed). We know they get shot when baited
or trapped and by whom. We do not need a "new study" to find the same results we know
already. This is a delay tactic to a known tragedy that can only get worse.
What is the Park doing to "continue to advocate for measures that protect natural and healthy
park wolf populations and provide opportunities for visitors to see wolves...." as stated in the
last paragraph of the web site. What exactly are the biologist and park administrators doing to
protect the wolves? No narrative at all. There must be something, anything other then
"monitoring". We may not see their "wild charisma of their gait, their fur, their yellow eyes."
Why? They may get harvested (killed) waiting for a new study.
I am a member of Alaskans FOR Wildlife in Fairbanks and this is what we are doing as
advocates.
- We are soliciting, writing letters, personally visiting representatives of the state government including the governor to reinstate the Stampede border;
- Calling on Secretary Jewell to intervene
- We are asking the state to swap federal land for the Stampede Corridor and attach it to the Park;
- We are endorsing and promoting a non consumptive candidate for the Board of Game to get vital representation on this decisive Board.
- We are organizing residents and visitors of Denali National Park to participate in this endeavor
- We are contacting the news media
If the Park officials are doing something, anything then let us know. Maybe we can join forces
with you instead of writing letters to you like this one.
Be a leader in the state and protect the animals that is your mission. Don't work in silence. Be an
advocate.
Roy Catalano
roycatalano@gmx.com
