Hollis French Speaks Out On Wildlife Management Policy
(JUNEAU) – On March 26th Hollis French reviewed recent wildlife management practices in Alaska, in a speech to a large crowd in Juneau.
You can listen to the presentation here:
Hollis French on Wildlife Management, 3/26/10 (16:10).
Here is the text of his remarks:
Thank you. To begin, I’d like to thank the Alaska Wildlife Alliance for presenting this event, and Dr. Alex Simon for hosting tonight’s forum. And Thank you for the invitation to speak. It is an honor, and I appreciate it.
It’s been a bad month for those of us who believe in sensible wildlife policies. While I am a long-term optimist about our wildlife future; while I believe that science will prevail and while I believe we can realize the goal of sensible wildlife policy here in Alaska: I am not saying it’s going to be easy.
We are going to have to work, to shake things up, and make some changes; it might even take an election.
As I say, The events of the past month have highlighted just how far we have to go. I want to talk about them a little. There are five events I want to zero in on.
Number One. Let’s examine the recent decision of the Board of Game regarding the buffer zone for wolves outside Denali Park. You all know the issue. For the sake of brevity, let’s just review the numbers:
6 million acre park
122 square mile buffer zone
For those keeping track
70 wolves, lowest number of wolves in the park since 1987
4 trappers
Several hundred thousand tourists
4-3 decision
Makes your blood boil, doesn’t it?
The decision swung in the opposite direction of what park authorities had asked for. The federal authorities had recommended expanding the buffer zone to protect the wolves that wander outside the park’s boundaries. Those particular wolves are the ones typically seen by busloads of tourists who visit the park every summer and contribute heavily to our economy.
The Board declined to keep the buffer zone as such, and opened it to hunting and trapping of those 70 wolves.
So this does bring us to the Board of Game. Event number two is the Governor’s most recent appointment, Mr. Al Barrette. Mr Barette was one of the deciding votes in reducing the buffer zone. Some think that he had a conflict of interest in the vote. He’s a trapper, and he tans hides for a living. Mr. Barrette turned some heads recently by quoting from the Book of Genesis in support of his view regarding our rightful place in the universe. He said that we are to subdue nature and control it and that is was the sin of Adam and Eve that brought on this state of affairs.
As I said, there’s a long way to go from where we are to a statewide wildlife policy based on science.
Mr. Barrette will come before the Legislature for confirmation before this session is over. He will get a hearing on his qualifications before the Resources Committee, upon which I serve. I am looking forward to the hearing.
Item number three is the state’s decision to spend $100,000 producing a video explaining the state’s predator control program. You really have to wonder what they were thinking. Indeed, from reading the news reports, THEY are wondering what they are thinking. This is from the Anchorage Daily News article:
The person in charge of making the video said one of the hardest parts of the project has been identifying the target audience.
“People who already understand this probably aren’t going to watch it and people who don’t like predator control no matter what, may not watch it.
But at least it’s an attempt to give people some valid information,” he said. “And then they can dislike predator management for valid reasons.”
Let me make a prediction about the future of those videodiscs. Land Fill.
Item number four on how our state currently manages wildlife in Alaska is from the Yukon Charley..
Two weeks ago a radio collared pack of wolves was shot from a state operated helicopter near Yukon Charley National Preserve. The cost of these efforts – the shooting alone – is estimated to run around $1,000 per wolf. The explanations for what happened were embarrassing. The first thing we heard was that there was a collar malfunction of some kind. Collar malfunction? Collar malfunction? I feel like Jon Stewart is taking over my body here. Like the collar was supposed to deflect bullets? Or make the wolf invisible?
Maybe we should take the $100,000 for the video and invest it in binoculars for the shooters in the helicopters. So that the state employees shooting the wolves can see the collars put on the wolves by federal employees.
Finally, in our list of bad administration moves on wildlife, there is our new director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, Corey Rossi. Many people saw Commissioner Denby Lloyd’s appointment of Rossi as the state’s new wildlife director as a big step backward, and I think they are correct. Mr Rossi does not have the qualifications to do the job.
There is a silver lining in the cloud of that appointment. The silver lining is the response of the thirty nine retired state biologists and supervisors who signed a letter of protest. What did the letter say?
“This appointment marks a departure from the standard of science-based management for which the department has always been recognized,” the letter reads. “We believe this appointment will erode staff morale, result in resignations, reduce broad public support for state wildlife management, and potentially jeopardize some wildlife resources that the division manages for all citizens of the state.”
That letter gives me hope. We may not win this battle, but the letter is proof that there are people willing to speak out against the flawed wildlife policies of this administration.
I know that, of the people who signed that letter, Vic Van Ballenberghe is here tonight. Good work, Vic.
That act of resistance on the part of those that signed the letter of protest will prompt others. I have had the opportunity to help in the resistance as a part of my job in the Senate. A few years ago a bill came to my committee that would have removed the obligation for the board of game to consult science before authorizing a predator control program. The bill never left my committee. We practiced a little predator control control, so to speak.
Stopping that legislation, while it prevented worse policy, didn’t fix the already bad wildlife policy on the books – the Alaska Intensive Management laws.
Here’s an example of this flawed policy at work.
In the area where the Yukon Charley pack was taken out, to fulfill Intensive Management goals, the aim is to reduce the wolf popluation by 65%. The hope is that this effort will manipulate the Caribou population, making more resources available for hunters.
Now, the State of Alaska is required to favor Alaskans over non-Alaskans when a hunting resource is scarce. So this should mean that non-resident hunters haven’t been allowed to harvest caribou in the region where those wolves were shot. In fact, a non-resident caribou hunt took place in that area last fall.
The result of this hunt? The ‘harvestable surplus’ of caribou – a number that was reached through coordination between state, federal and Canadian authorities, since the herd also ranges into Canada – was exceeded within 24 hours of the opening date. An emergency Caribou hunting closure was placed on the area several days later.
Who harvested these caribou? The data isn’t out yet, but during the 2007/2008 season, local residents only harvested 12% of the caribou in the hunt. Data claims that out of state hunters had better success than local hunters.
A rational Board of Game would have learned from this hunt to ensure that local Alaskans have first access to a scarce Alaskan resource in their own backyard.
But that didn’t happen. The Board of Game rejected a proposal on that topic this past March, submitted by their own Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee. It would have eliminated non-resident harvest of caribou in the area where the state is actively killing wolves to benefit Caribou populations.
What did the board of game do instead? It placed further limitations on Alaskans harvesting Caribou from the herd, while maintaining the non-resident hunt.
So what can we do about these issues, which range from propaganda campaigns to predator control that benefits sport hunters?
To begin, we need to keep this conversation going, and take it to new forums. There are a lot of people in this room who continually make their thoughts known, whether it be through letters to elected officials or letters to the editor. We need to also learn to use Facebook and other social media. Without a strong grassroot campaign, the goal of reasonable wildlife policy will continue to elude us. Keep up the good work.
I think the state of Alaska – led by a strong governor – has the ability to be proactive. Here is what I’d change tomorrow, if I had the ability to do so:
To begin, the state of Alaska shouldn’t have to spend money on shooting wolves out of helicopters. There is no reason for an expensive and controversial program, particularly when the results merely provide non-Alaskans with an opportunity to come into our state and shoot caribou.
We can also go one step further, though, to eliminate the need for expensive predator control programs. The state of Alaska should give local residents a true subsistence priority, much like the federal government gives rural Alaskans today on federal lands. This is controversial, true, but I don’t think elected officials should merely bend with the wind when they are elected. A rural subsistence priority makes sense on cultural, logistical, and economic levels.
Recently I spoke with a young woman from Bristol Bay, who reminded me that she and her family have been practicing sustainable living, eating locally grown foods in the region, for hundreds of years. As an Alaskan, I want to see that way of life continue well into the future.
Should I, from Anchorage, have a chance to hunt moose and harvest salmon in Alaska? Absolutely. But should I have that chance to harvest wildlife in an area that can only sustain local resident harvest, while living in Anchorage? I don’t think so, not when I’m flying in from Anchorage. Logistically, allocating scare resources to the people closest to them makes sense.
The final area I’d like to address – and this area spans a topic broader than wildlife management alone – is the role of science in government.
I think science is something we should embrace. From it, we can gather valuable insight towards how we should manage our resources in a sustainable way. Science doesn’t answer tough moral questions, such as whether or not the state of Alaska should enact a rural subsistence priority. But using scientific inquiry, we can learn a lot about whether a game population can sustain out of state hunting pressures.
Science can incorporate traditional knowledge of resources, and be conducted in culturally responsible ways. It can integrate population counts from the air with observations from rural residents who harvest a resource. It can provide a foundation for decisions, if those appointed to head the Department of Fish and Game are selected for their scientific credentials.
One disclaimer for you: I’m not a wildlife scientist. I’m a politician. As Governor, I’d select someone who is a wildlife scientist to head a department that manages wildlife resources in the state. I hope this idea doesn’t sound too revolutionary to you!
Beyond all else, we need to remember that wildlife politics in Alaska will never be simple. Allocating scarce resources will always boil down to moral questions, and a tension will always exist among consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife uses.
Given the status quo, with the current administration and legislature, we must continue to speak out on this topic. We can’t get frustrated by not seeing progress.
As a candidate for governor, I will do my part. I promise you that I will work to implement everything I spoke about tonight if elected in November.
I promise here tonight and tell you that I’d work towards establishing a rural subsistence priority,
that I’d broaden the views on the board of game,
that I’d reject state appropriations to preach about predator control, and
I’d certainly eliminate the aerial shooting of predators in instances to benefit sport hunters.
With your help advocating for a balanced approach, I’m confident that you and I will be able to see changes in how Alaska’s wildlife is managed in the not-so-distant future.
THANK YOU
