Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists provide most of the arguments that continue to thwart efforts to protect Denali wolves from trapping and shooting in critical areas outside the park.  In earlier entries I considered two versions of the longstanding “population” argument, as elaborated recently by ADF&G biologists Matt Robus and Cathie Harms.  

 

Another old argument resurfaced in a May 6 Associated Press story about the snared Denali wolves.  Recently retired ADF&G biologist Randy Zarnke, who is president of the Alaska Trappers’ Association, threw up his hands with the familiar, “What’s the answer?  Do we create another buffer around the buffer? Animals move, and if they move outside the park, we have to have some area where we agree that’s the boundary.”  

 

The existing “buffers,” i.e., the areas of state land adjacent to Denali where wolves are protected, are grossly inadequate.  It was obvious from the moment they were created that they omitted large areas that are integral to the park ecosystem, where Denali caribou, moose, and sheep have traditionally wintered and thus where wolves from near and far areas of the park go to hunt and trappers await them.  All of this is explained in the April 20 blog entry, the October 2002 report linked on the Reports page, the December 2007 paper linked on the Reports2 page, and elsewhere.  Even just a glance at a map of the existing buffers (the blue areas in Figure 1 of the April 20 entry) would leave many readers wondering about the major gap in the northeast park boundary area.        

 

ADF&G biologists like Zarnke often try to create the impression that there is already a generous buffer but here come the zealots again, never satisfied.  On the contrary, the objective is to expand the existing insufficient buffer to the well defined area identified as essential from more than 40 years of research.  What is needed is straightforward, reasonable, and especially justified in view of the high non-consumptive values that are at stake, including for Alaskans.

 

Per details in the April 20 and earlier entries, five current ADF&G biologists in particular should be held accountable for obtaining the necessary protection - Denby Lloyd, Ken Taylor, Doug Larsen, David James, and Don Young.