Wolf hunters, some possibly using AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles, have so decimated wolf populations outside Denali National Park in Alaska that the state is shutting down hunting and trapping in areas adjacent to the park.
"Hunting seasons for wolves in Game Management Unit 20C within the townships in the Stampede corridor area bounded by Denali National Park and Preserve will close on Monday, April 2, 2018. Trapping seasons for wolves in Game Management Unit 20C within the townships in the Stampede corridor area bounded by Denali National Park and Preserve will close on Monday, April 9, 2018," the state said in an emergency closure order.
According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game officials, the current wolf harvest has surpassed the five-year average, "and there is potential for more harvest to occur before the end of the regulatory hunting and trapping seasons."
Park Service biologists have said five collared wolves were killed this winter by hunters or trappers. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility staff said Tuesday the state of Alaska has no idea how many wolves have been killed this year. And while the group maintains that one hunter used a semiautomatic rifle recently to kill ten wolves outside the national park, it added that the state has not confirmed those kills.
“While I am glad that Governor (Bill) Walker has acted, I am concerned that it may be too little, too late,” said Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska professor and PEER board member who has led the charge for permanent buffer zones around Denali. “The historic high level of take has already altered wolf ecological dynamics, not counting these reports of additional kills just now coming in.”
Alaska and Park Service officials long have been at odds over the state's hunting seasons and limits on predators. In 2016, the Park Service announced it was ending a long-running study of wolves at Yukon-Charley National Preserve because packs had been wiped out by hunting and predator control. In 2014, state predator control officers killed an entire pack that used the preserve.
Hunting of wolves outside Denali in 2015 prompted a petition with more than 100,000 signatures calling on then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to intervene to halt the killings of wolves that wander out of the park. At the time, trappers and hunters had reduced the wolf population in and around the park and its adjacent preserve from 143 to 48 over a seven-year period.
In 2010, the state's Board of Game, despite Park Service opposition, had removed a no-trap, no-kill buffer zone on state land adjacent to the park. That buffer zone had applied to a rectangular block of land due west of Healy, Alaska, that follows the Stampede Trail. Wolves that leave the park and follow caribou to wintering grounds on this landscape are subject to trapping in some places.
Park Service officials in the past have tried to protect wolves. In 2014, they proposed a permanent federal prohibition against certain hunting practices, such as the hunting of wolf and coyote pups and adults in early summer when they den and their pelts have little commercial value.
And the agency has repeatedly requested the State of Alaska and the Alaska Board of Game to exempt national preserves from state regulations that liberalized methods, seasons, and bag limits for predator hunting. The requests have been denied in the past. State officials have also objected to the use of repeated temporary federal closures, and advised the NPS to seek permanent regulations.
Sport hunting occurs on about 38 percent, or more than 20 million acres, of the land managed by the National Park Service in Alaska. In these national preserves, sport hunting generally occurs under state regulations.
According to a release Tuesday from PEER, "studies show hunting and trapping outside Denali is having a big impact on the viability of wolf packs inside Denali, which is Alaska’s top tourist attraction, drawing more than a half-million visitors annually. Not only are Denali wolf family groups disrupted, but visitor viewing success has plummeted as well."
Significantly, the release added, "Alaska has agreed to participate in an independent National Academy of Sciences review of its predator control programs for the first time in 20 years since the administration of Governor Tony Knowles (1994-2002), the only governor in Alaska history to prohibit lethal predator control programs."
“Alaska’s predator control program is clearly out of control,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Alaska should put predator control on hold until it gets a handle on what is actually occurring.”
In response to the recent excessive losses at Denali, Alaska citizens are renewing their call for the governor to establish a permanent no-kill buffer protecting all park predator species – wolves, bears, lynx, wolverines - along the boundary of Denali, to restore the natural ecosystem and visitor viewing success in the park.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
AR-15 semiautomatic rifles?? Really?? Insert vomit emoji.
equally true "some possibly not using AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles"
Very sad and disappointing that officials in Alaska are letting this take place have family in Alaska visiting over and Alaska visiting over this summer saddened to hear this!!!!! Saint Louis , Mo. It seems like greed is taking over!!!!
Great! Now there will be more moose an caribou to see.
It would be more exciting to see a wolf killing the moose or caribou, killing to survive. Unlike little PAB with his snow machine chasing down animals in the open and playing shooting gallery. Wow what hunting acumen! We put people in jail for doing that in Michigan,additionally loss of snow machine, gun, license, and fine and that is just for taking one deer by unfair chase methods. Send that boy to the Upper Midwest we will show him what fair chase hunting is, however, questionable whether he could grasp the concept.
.
What is the signficance of some "possibly" being shot by an AR-15? What difference does the type of rifle make?
Fair chase, perhaps?
Ecbuck, AR-15 might be a little light for a wolf. You might wanna use something bigger like an AR-10. AR is just another semi-auto rifle that looks different. But gotta sensationalize it!!! Is there a harvest limit on them in AK? Oh well about another 60,000 left in North America.
And what is not "Fair Chase" about an AR-15? As Scottjp notes, an AR 15 (which is little more than a .22) is a little light for a wolf.
For the edification of those who never served, that "little more than a .22" is why the M-16 was the primary weapon of the US military from 1969, when it replaced the M14, up until recently when the M4 took it's place. The M4, of course, shoots a similar but improved round. Also little more than a .22, but improved.
Did some research and found out that one guy did get all 10 wolves legally and tagged properly. Also found out that they were harvested over 100 miles from park. But maybe that's close to some people for their agenda. Article claims decimating wolves?? There's 10,000 wolves in Alaska?? I wouldn't claim 10 out of 10000 is decimating.
Killing all the wolves Again? With semi automatic rifles no less. I wish someone would take your guns away, that is not hunting it's a massacre. Wolves have complex social relationships and killing so many decimates their social structure. Most people don't want fur products anymore because of instances like this. How is killing 10 wolves acceptable? Oh yeah, some people will do anything for a buck. Seems many Americans are unable to learn or just don't care. When they are gone they are gone forever.
This comment was edited to remove gratuitous comments.—Ed.
Nancy, what difference does it make that it was (possibly) done with semi automatic rifles?
So now we understand ecbuck does not understand the term "fair". and Scottjp seems to think specific management areas have no meaning as long as there as wolves in the State.
Clueless
It doesn't quite seem fair to use a firearm that can repeat fire that quickly. I remember watching a movie where there were a group of hunters lobbying a Congressman about their particular use of AR-15 style rifles to hunt ducks. It was of course a joke, but they were rapid firing them until they managed to hit one.
Isn't the traditional firearm for hunting a bolt/level/pump action rifle where the hunter needs to take careful aim and can't rely on being about to take a second shot in succession? Several states don't allow a semi-auto to be used for hunting big game. The rationale is that it becomes too easy and requires less discipline.
y_p_w. The difference between trigger pull, target acquisition and next trigger pull with a bolt/lever action vs AR-15 is insignficant. If the first shot is missed, the animal is likely to take off making target acquisition, not reload, the primary timing factor.
To me to be "fair" you would have to give the animal a weapon he could fire back.
OK, I'll bite.
How much time and how recently have you spent firing a bolt action and a semi-automatic rifle? Do you hunt? Have you ever had to use a firearm in self defense?
Or is this yet another topic that you are expert in based on reading studies written by someone you agree with?
"To me to be "fair" you would have to give the animal a weapon he could fire back."
Now THAT is a great idea ! A few years ago at the beginning of deer season, I saw a sign outside a restaurant that said: "Deer hunters Beware ! BAMBO will shoot back."
Rick, I don't hunt but I am well experienced in both bolt action and semi-automatic rifle fire. I have been fortunate enough to not have to use a gun in self defense though I am trained and prepared if I need to. I have researched the issue from sources that I have no idea whether they agree with me or not.
Thanks for the polite response, Eric. You almost but not quite answered all my questions. Please look at the original post and see if you can do a more faithful job? I know how you feel when people don't do what you've tasked them to do; please make for more complete answers?
The guy is allowed 10 wolf per season and he filled it. Looks like a good day hunting to me. 223 Rem is the most common wolf caliber used in Alaska and AR-15 are commonly used for hunting, so that's not shocking at all.
Sure it is. The AR-15 is that scary black rifle. Who needs a black rifle to hunt?
Sorry Rick, you will have to help me. What question did I fail to answer?
I suspect those bemoaning the “possible” use of an AR15 or semi automatic rifles being “unfair’ would be equally outraged if hunters were trapping them or using a bow and arrow because while “fairer’ would certainly result in a more painful demise. So which do you prefer? Quick and painless or fair and more suffering? Of course the answer for many here is they want an end to all guns and all hunting. That is of course as long as an American Indan or Inuit isn’t involved, then it is magically OK. Want to restrict hunting to bolt actions? While I am sure there would be some pushback, I doubt very much that would change the number of wolves killed. I will repeat my belief that “most” sportsman care about and contribute far more to wildlife preservation than the general public. Sadly (to me) hunting is in a slow decline as I think it is an important and positive part of our culture.
Wolf management and the manner of killing are two different issues. It obviously does not matter to the wolf what type of weapon leads to its demise. But the use of an AR-15 speaks to the ethics(or lack thereof) of a hunter who has no relation to prey other than to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible. To my mind it is a moral issue.
What is unethical about using an AR-15 versus any other rifle?
The possibility of rapid firing. That a .223 Remington is less likely to result in a clean kill compared to a more powerful round.
I am sure this was just an oversight on Kurts part but also stated in the emergency order Kurt is quoting from.
“there are no conservation concerns for wolves in Game Management unit 20C, which includes a large portion of the park”
It sounds to me like the state is doing its job and far from “decimating populations”.
I am also puzzled by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s statement that they have no idea how many wolves are killed since regulations require each pelt to be “sealed”.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/webintra/wcnews/2018/orde...
Not so sure the first is really true. The second may have validity but not sure that is a fairness issue. Then again given this article, it would appear the 223 was pretty leathal.
An AR-15 or any other AR-15 “type” rifle available to civilians is no more lethal or capable of firing more rapidly than any other semi-automatic more traditional hunting rifle, rifles that are commonly used for hunting and have been in use for decades. Yes, an AR15 “looks” more dangerous or intimidating but “looks” is as far as it goes. An AR15 can accommodate a number of different calibers.
This article and some of the comments here and on the Travelers Facebook page only serves to highlight the lack of education and dishonesty that exists in both the gun and hunting debate.
I respect that some people feel hunting or gun ownership is wrong just as I respect those on the other side but be honest about it. I for one think an AR15 looks rather ridiculous for hunting but that said, it has a reputation of being both reliable and flexible.
Speaking of honesty, here is another article which addresses the wolves pictured which were killed legally, NOT in the emergency closure unit mentioned, OUTSIDE of Denali NP and other facts that were omitted. Per another article it has not even been established if the wolves pictured were shot or trapped.
Articles like this do nothing but damage the credibility of National Parks Traveler and PEER.
For a different perspective......
https://craigmedred.news/2018/04/04/a-wolf-dies/
Roger that, Wild!
At least on Kurt's site here the opportunity exists to respond under the article unlike so many news outlets that would further their agenda with obvious bias not allowing a response. So many good aspects of the Traveler.
we are about to do a tracking of wolves for photography in Gardner Yellowstone so this report sickened me. Why is it that Americans love to kill anything that moves in the wild regarless of the balance of nature.?
i guess this is what happened to the buffalo- all wiped out which in turn created the north American Indian holocaust, wipe out anything that stands in our way mentality. I am donating $50 bucks-$1 for each wolf pack killed.
glyn Woolley Corsham England
The majority of civilian AR-15 type firearms are .223 Remington, which is similar to the military 5.56x45mm NATO round. I don't even know if it's legal to hunt a fairly large aniumal such as a wolf with a 9mm firearm. A 9mm AR-15 is mostly useful for target shooting.
I have no issue with hunting or hunters. But a typical AR-15 can fired as fast 3 shots per second by an experienced shooter. The Vegas shooter was averaging about 9 per second using his bump stocks. Even ignoring that since it wouldn't be accurate, can a traditional rifle really be fired 3 times in a second?
Also - talking to ex-military who would typically use their M-16/M4s single shot, there's very controllable recoil, so rapid firing can actually be more accurate than trying to do the same with a bolt-action rifle.
someone may be able to pull the trigger that fast but there aren't going to hit anything after the first shot.
I've heard of SWAT style competitions where there's a requirement to be accurate while firing within a certain amount of time. And my worry is about someone not terribly disciplined who just empties it quickly because it can be done.
y_p_w - what is your worry if they aren't going to hit anything?
"my worry is about someone not terribly disciplined who just empties it quickly"
y_p_w , that is a legitimate concern but again many many hunting rifles have this same capability. It is always a concern when hunters shoot too quick, don't sight in their rifles properly, take poor shots etc. As with any group there will unfortunately be a few bad apples. In my experience "most" are responsible and ethical.
Why would anyone think that "won't hit your target" is the same as "won't hit anything"?
I wouldn't neceesarily say I worry about the undisciplined hunter not hitting anything. I'm more thinking that someone undisciplined might replace careful targeting with combat-style rapid fire and then manage to hit the target by replacing a quality shot with quantity shots. Maybe one that just injures the target. Isn't it called "spray and pray"?
Oh, so now anyone hunting with an AR-15 is automatically "undisciplined?" There is no evidence here, nor am I aware of anywhere else, that "undisciplined" hunters were using "spray and pray" with AR-15s nor that such tactics would be any more effective than when using a bolt or lever action rifle.
Where did I say "everyone". I'm saying that A) the .223 is a generally poor round to hunt anything as large as a wolf and B) I worry about the temptation of someone undisciplinned who might miss and in frustration (and possibily dangerously) rapid fire in the hopes of hitting the target.
Probably not the best caliber but it sure is effective on humans which generally weight more.
yet there is no evidence that happened here or in any other case. Fact is, an "undisciplined" hunter can cause problems regardless of the weapon. The problem isn't the weapon, it is the undisciplined hunter.
What a sad commentary on blood thirsty men who think killing a wolf is an honorable thing. Wolves are always called killers, but it is truly men who are the true killers for they take that which they do not need and leave in their wake a slaughter of an animal that is part of the world that GOD created. Who are you to destroy a work of GOD? SAVAGES!
Whose god, Penelope? If it is the one I assume you follow, I've read that he or she creates all creatures big and small. Will you get as indignant if I step on an anthill? Hit a squirrel with my car?
This illustrates how hunting is not the great ally of "conservation" that it claims. Hunting conservation is far more concerned with promoting actions that improve hunting opportunities than it is in conservation efforts the conserve healthy ecosystems. Unhealthy ecosystems, because they are unbalanced, will often have a surplus of species that hunter like to pursue, while healthy ecosystems require that a balanced predator-prey equilibrium be maintained, and in that scenario, the numbers of predators that the environment can support must be protected from human predation so that they can maintain smaller populations of hunters preferred species up to and not exceeding the carrying capacity of the environment. Hunters profit by unbalancing the environment in order to promote game species even when doing so harms the natural ecosystem. Responsible hunting of food species in a controlled way within a healthy ecosystem is sustainable, game hunting and the hunting of predator species is not.
Wolf Kills are flat out a disgrace, there is literally no reason to kill wolves in or around Danali, unlike the excuses that hunters have in the lower 48 as they blame wolves for attacking their cattle or farmlands. It's just pure bloodsport, with nothing to gain. Absolutely disgusting behavior.