Food conditioning is the most serious potential problem.21 As noted, NPS has done an excellent job of preventing this from happening in Denali. Given that a lapse could easily lead to rapid conditioning, this should remain the highest possible priority, especially with regard to cooking, food storage, garbage, and related policies at Teklanika Campground.
Dog activity at Teklanika and elsewhere is a close second to food conditioning in its potential for triggering problems. One of the best-known characteristics of natural wolf behavior is the intolerance, in general, of an intact, established family group to any outsider canids, especially near a den. Dogs are also often treated opportunistically as prey. Dogs pose other serious risks for wolves, notably by vectoring viral and bacterial diseases.
Nonetheless, the Denali superintendent continues to reject professional advice to prohibit dogs in the park, and even encourages dog mushing in the park, showing the ultimate inconsistency with the goal of maintaining the wilderness state of the Denali ecosystem and of keeping people and wolves apart. Park visitors bring their dogs to Teklanika, tether them outside their campers, and routinely walk them along the park road through some of the Toklat wolf family's most heavily used areas. NPS employees take the NPS sled dogs for daily summer walks along the road from park headquarters westward for several miles or more, even though the Mount Margaret wolf family dens only a short distance up the road and regularly hunts in this area. Even without a progression to aggressive behavior while protecting their young, during hunger, and in other circumstances, it is tempting fate to expect the wolves to continue ignoring dogs in their midst.
Park visitors can follow a few easy preemptive guidelines but keep the issue in perspective. While a wolf attack is possible, it is highly unlikely. There are many serious risks for people at Teklanika Campground and throughout Denali from hazards other than wolves, most of which rank much higher than wolves in their likelihood of occurrence. More people, by far, are attacked, injured, or killed in Alaska by moose, bears, goshawks, dogs, and other people, for example, than by wolves. There is probably a comparable likelihood of being struck by lightning or crushed by an old spruce tree falling onto a tent in the middle of the night during a wind. I have interacted closely with Denali wolves for forty-three years but still consider myself in much greater danger from a variety of hazards on the streets of Anchorage, one of the safest cities in the world.
* * *
Field notes #74
May 2000
5:23—4 of the 5 pups are now back inside the den (3 went via lower burrow and 1 via upper). One pup is exploring by itself 3–35 ft away near edges of bluff & slightly to N. The yearling walks off to the brush and lies down out of view. All is mostly quiet again.
5:33—the lone exploring pup comes back down to the lower burrow on its own, sliding several feet on loose dirt just above the burrow. It shakes itself off, then goes into lower burrow & disappears inside. Now no wolves in view. The pups look like they probably emerged from the den almost a week ago. They seem to see well and at a distance, and are well past the “vacuum cleaner” stage. They have their legs and are able to scurry about fairly well. They seem to be able to negotiate their way all over the slope and to the bluff atop without any problems. They are definitely in the exploratory stage of development, with individual pups and groups readily exploring 30–40 ft or more from the burrow. All five look normal size and healthy.
* * *
A wolf approaching in a quiet, calm way is probably following the easiest route to some travel destination (especially if this happens on the park road) or diverting temporarily in a natural investigative mode. One should hold his or her position, standing somewhat assertively but calmly, looking the wolf (or the most assertive wolf of a group) straight in the eyes. Talk to the wolf in firm but otherwise normal tones. If the wolf approaches within about ten feet, seems to want to come closer, and isn't simply trying to pass (on the road or another narrow route), it would probably be a good idea to pump these responses up with some arm waving and maybe foot stomping and mean-face yelling, even if the wolf still seems curious rather than aggressive. If a wolf comes into a campsite obviously to steal or beg food, combine all of these responses into the fiercest-looking-and-sounding crescendo possible, so that hopefully the wolf will remember this unnatural foraging attempt as an unpleasant experience.
Kantishna Subsistence Hunt
Besides trapping along the northeast-east park boundaries, as detailed in the next chapter, Denali's wolves are subjected to hunting in the park itself, during the annual Kantishna subsistence hunt in the heart of Denali National Park. Certain local hunters are eligible under a provision of the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to obtain permits from the National Park Service for this annual September hunt.
The hunters' objective is to shoot a moose for meat, but they are also allowed to shoot any wolves or bears they might see—up to an astonishing ten wolves per hunter.22 Recall that wolf pelts are not usable in late summer to early fall, so there is no reason for hunters to take wolves this time of year. In fact, some of these hunters kill wolves merely because they view them as their moose-hunting competitors. Even though they have the administrative ability to do so, and even though there is no legitimate subsistence use of a wolf or wolf pups at this time of the year, the NPS has not closed this area to wolf hunting.
Collaring Deaths
In March 2001, three wolves died in Denali National Park during or shortly after radio-collaring by a U.S. Geological Survey biologist who does research in Denali for the National Park Service. Two of the three dead wolves were alpha animals from the famous Toklat and Sanctuary family lineages of eastern, road-accessible areas of the park. NPS concluded that at least two of the three deaths most likely happened because heart valve irregularities predisposed these wolves to higher anaesthetic risk, that the biologist followed proper protocols and exercised good judgment, and that the deaths were of little biological or other consequence. I take issue with virtually all of these conclusions, based on my observations of what happened and research familiarity with the Denali wolves.
The heart valve explanation for at least two of the three March 2001 deaths is little more than speculation, as there was no direct evidence of such. A more likely explanation is that the biologist unknowingly darted these wolves with a drug intended for much larger moose or caribou, because of the similar appearance of the darts and dart guns, and because he routinely carried all three. He also exercised poor judgment in subjecting the Sanctuary alpha female to the inherent risks of darting at a time when the survival of that family lineage depended almost entirely on her, by replacing the Toklat alpha male's collar well before this was necessary, and by undertaking capture activities without regard for the timing of the wolves' all-important courtship and mating activities and pregnancy.
He showed even worse judgment in closely approaching the four Toklat wolf pups with a helicopter five months later—when they were only four months old—in order to separate out the new alpha male for radio-collaring. None of the pups were seen since. It's likely they scattered in panic in response to the helicopter. They then may have become lost, with little chance of surviving: pups of that age could not survive on their own for long. The capture effort could have waited a few months, when the risks of separation would have been much lower.
It would be difficult to imagine many biological consequences of greater significance than have followed the recent Sanctuary and Toklat losses. NPS emphasized that only 8 (2 percent) of the 327 wolves that had been radio-collared in Denali through March 2001 were known to have died of capture-related causes. However, as with wolf management in general, there is much more to consider than simple head counts in determining impacts, especially when the deaths include alpha and other key individuals.
Soon after these radio-collaring deaths, Sanctuary was terminated as a family lineage and is being replaced by a different lineage. This is the third human-related termina
tion of a family lineage in that eastern wolf area of Denali since 1982. Without human-caused deaths, it is likely there would otherwise be persistence—with the Savage River family lineage, which was already well established when I began studying it in 1966, and lasted until winter 1982–1983. Effects on the Toklat were likewise severe. Within a period of less than a year, the neighboring decades-old Toklat family lineage sustained losses of its alpha male, his last genetic contribution to the lineage (the four 2001 pups), the reformulating group's demanding four-month time and energy investment toward raising these pups, and the resulting starvation death of the alpha female.
In both cases these amount to human-caused experiments that never should have happened, especially in the wilderness areas of a national park. Both cut short much more interesting and biologically valuable streams of information. For example, the Toklat alpha male and female (who were most likely siblings) constituted one of the closest, most efficient pair bonds I have seen in forty-three years of research.23 I had monitored this pair closely since its first litter in 1998. It would have been a major contribution to the understanding of social organization in general to have been able to determine its duration and long-term reproductive success under natural conditions.
In short, Denali wolves have been subjected to an ongoing crapshoot by National Park Service wildlife managers. There are also major ethical and aesthetic concerns from which NPS is not excused, and there have been and likely will continue to be major wolf-viewing losses for many thousands of visitors in the most accessible area of the park. These 2001 collaring deaths are only the latest manifestation of NPS's refusal since the early 1990s to adhere to provisions of its own, ANILCA-mandated, Denali General Management Plan, which emphasizes the importance of individual wolf family lineages and the need to protect them.
* * *
Snapshot: Dr. Gordon Haber
Jonathan B. Jarvis
Jonathan B. Jarvis is director of the National Park Service. He wrote this statement for Dr. Gordon Hater's memorial service in Anchorage, Alaska, on November 6, 2009.
I worked in Alaska for five years as the superintendent of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. I knew Gordon and though his bright focus was rarely on my park, I appreciated his knowledge and passion.
As stewards of the Alaskan national parks, some of America's great national treasures, it's hard for us to imagine what it will be like not to have Gordon either standing at a microphone or tugging on our sleeves telling us what we need to do to protect one of the most iconic animals in the park.
He helped shape the way we view, and the way the world views, Denali wolves. His passion was informed by his work and he was never, ever shy about passing his views on to us all, sometimes at different decibel levels, over four decades.
We may not be hearing Gordon's voice in the same way over the next four decades, but I suspect that those who have worked with, listened to, and sometimes argued with Gordon will be reminded of him anytime when, in the course of our duties, we're lucky enough to see or hear any of the animals he loved.
* * *
* * *
Snapshot: The Hamburger Drop
Johnny Johnson
It was early April 1972 when six of us started out for McKinley. We hiked out the park road with snowshoes, set up our base camp on Traleika Glacier, and climbed a new route up McKinley. We were all local guys, so we pretty much knew what we were getting into, but still it was a long climb, seven and a half weeks in all. Every now and then, we'd see Gordon's plane; he checked up on us much more often than the park service did.
On the way back out we found that our cached food had been covered in an avalanche, so we made a radio call to the park service and asked them to leave some food at Eielson for us. We were back on the Traleika Glacier, hungry but glad to be off the mountain, and all of a sudden here comes a plane flying out of the clouds straight toward us, and then it circles over us a few times, and it's flying real low, about sixty feet above the glacier, and then these boxes start dropping from it, these brown cardboard boxes.
We all ran over and opened them, and inside were six sacks, each one filled with hot hamburgers and french fries. We were all jumping up and down on that glacier, and gulped that stuff down. But after seven and a half weeks on freeze-dried food, those burgers didn't settle so well; a couple of us got pretty messed up digestion, which isn't much fun when you're dressed up in all that cold-weather gear.
By now, as we went through McGonagall Pass, it was spring breakup and we were hiking across bare tundra and then through slushy snow six feet deep. We had only eighteen miles to go, but it took us four days; the conditions were that hard. About halfway through, here comes Gordon's plane again, this time he drops roast beef sandwiches, apples, oranges, and gallons of ice cream.
I saved my orange and later, when we were about ten minutes from the park road, I was sitting on a rock with Bill Ruth, and I pulled out that orange and shared it with him. It was the best gourmet meal I've ever had.
When we all got back to headquarters, everyone was so happy to see us, most of all Gordon. We all told him he was our hero—even if that rich food probably did slow us down by a couple of days.
* * *
18 See chapter 2 for more about these two wolves joining the Toklats. See “Collaring Deaths” later in this chapter for more on the radio-collaring deaths.
19 Haber alludes here to Occam's razor: in the face of two competing hypotheses, generally the simpler explanation is more likely to be true.
20 Read more about this wolf in chapter 2.
21 Some suggest this may have contributed to the 2010 death of the teacher in Chignik on the Alaska Peninsula, who was killed by wolves during a cross-country run at dusk, as there were unconfirmed reports that some residents had been baiting wolves to bring them in closer for hunting. Her death occurred two years after ADF&G biologists shot twenty-eight wolves (including fourteen pups still in the den) in that region.
22 In 2012 the NPS and the Denali Subsistence Resource Commission reduced the bag limit to one wolf per hunter during the fall period because of concerns that large numbers of wolves could be taken. After November 1, the limit is five wolves. Outside NPS boundaries, the limit remains at ten wolves. These are hunting limits; there is no bag limit to trapping wolves within the preserve and outside the park. The reporting of wolf kills during the subsistence hunt is entirely voluntary. Therefore, the number of wolves killed inside Denali National Park and Preserve during this hunt is unknown.
23 This pair bond was described in chapter 2.
CHAPTER 11
PARK WOLVES IN DANGER: THE DENALI BUFFER SOLUTION
AS EARLY AS 1972, HABER ADVOCATED FOR A NO TRAPPING/NO HUNTING BUFFER zone to protect park wolves as they crossed the boundary of the park onto state lands in the Wolf Townships and Nenana Canyon. The Wolf Townships (also called Stampede Trail) is a rectangular chunk of land that protrudes into the park, with park lands on three sides. In 2000 the Alaska Board of Game established a partial buffer. Haber found this compromised buffer to be inadequate. He proved correct when, in just one year, the winter of 2007–2008, at least twelve and as many as nineteen park wolves were killed just east of this buffer--causing a significant drop in the park's wolf population. So in 2008 he and Rick Steiner petitioned the ADF&G Commissioner to expand the Denali buffer—and were denied. Then they wrote the superintendent of Denali National Park, requesting that the National Park Service more assertively work to protect wolves outside park boundaries.
At a 2010 Board of Game meeting, four months after Haber died, the NPS did propose an expansion. However, the board not only voted down this and four other expansion proposals but went even further: they abolished the existing buffer entirely and placed a moratorium on considering future buffer proposals. Since the buffer's removal, several key members of Denali's most-viewed wolf groups have been killed in the Wolf Townships, one group—the most often seen of all—has disintegrated, and visitor wolf-view
ing success has decreased by more than 70 percent.24 In this chapter, Haber explains why protection on this sliver of state land is essential to arguably the most scientifically valuable and the most-viewed wild wolves in the world.
AS STATED IN THE ANILCA-MANDATED DENALI GENERAL Management Plan (GMP), the objective in managing Denali wildlife is to preserve the range of natural behavior, patterns, changes, and processes of all park wildlife. Yet astonishingly, not one of the groups of wolves that use the Denali area is protected from hunting and trapping.
Much more is known now about the territories and movements of Denali wolves and the distribution and movements of their prey than when the Denali National Park boundaries were drawn, first as Mount McKinley National Park in 1917 and then as Denali National Park in 1980. The map boundaries—even with the 1980 park additions, which were originally proposed primarily to protect Denali's wolves—do not align with this world-class wildlife system's most important ecological boundaries, especially in the northeastern area, where Denali's most important wildlife wintering area is left largely unprotected. The most glaring omission from true ecological boundaries is the Wolf Townships, a rectangular notch that juts into the eastern park just a few miles from the park road. It is an essential and regular part of the wolves' natural ecosystem territory.
It might not be possible to change the park boundaries, but much more could be done to protect Denali wolves with adequate no trapping/no hunting designations in adjacent state areas and inside the 1980 park additions. For instance, the state and National Park Service have provided full protection to Denali caribou since 1972—both within the park boundaries and on state and private lands outside and on inholdings in the park. It would be a sound move from biological, scientific, ethical, aesthetic, educational, visitor viewing, and other standpoints to do the same for Denali's highly valued wolves.
Among Wolves: Gordon Haber's Insights into Alaska's Most Misunderstood Animal Page 16
