The Fortymile Plan Team
One activist's experience
by Alex Bury

Editor's note: Alex Bury is a local wildlife activist who was sought by the Fortymile team after the Alliance resigned to help restore the illusion of "balance." Alex resigned from the team after one meeting.

Back in February, I was thrilled to get a call from Fairbanks inviting me to join the "Fortymile Caribou Herd Restoration Project Team." The caller, Susan Will (the meetings coordinator) was refreshingly blunt and honest: There would be wolf control, period. The team had already come that far. So I was not being invited to help decide if the natural ecosystem should be messed with, but how. The team wanted somebody to represent the wildlife protection view. I was excited, honored, and completely impressed with the apparent democracy of the process. Needless to say, the fact that the team would be discussing a non-lethal wolf control method was the biggest draw.

So off I flew to Fairbanks, more dressed up than I get for church. I was met at the door to the meeting building by none other than Craig Gardner himself. Craig (he insisted on first names) is the Fish and Game biologist who leads the team, and a big promoter of wolf control. Craig was not just polite or welcoming, he was downright gushy with his "What a treat to meet you," "So happy to have you here," and "We're just thrilled you came all this way."

During introductions I discovered that I was sitting between Christie Spence, from the Yukon Dept. of Renewable Resources, and two trappers, Pete Buist and Joe Mattie. I wish somebody had been monitoring their blood pressure when they discovered who I was. Everybody else, though seemed real happy to have me there.

We got right to business. First, Craig Gardner and Rodney Boertje, another Fish and Game biologist, gave us an update on the Fortymile Caribou Herd. The herd is not only doing fine, they said, but even growing. I kept waiting for the bad news--some disease, perhaps, or imminent habitat destruction--to explain why they felt the need to "control" wolves, but Craig and Rodney sat down. That's odd, I thought.

Next, Bob Hayes and Christie Spence gave a presentation on some experimental wolf sterilization they had going on in the Yukon. Christie was my age and seemed quite charming. She had borrowed a pen from me and we had even shared a joke about being the only two young women in the room. That was before I was introduced as someone concerned with animal welfare.

Bob and Christie told the rest of the team of how they had just spent a ton of money to sterilize wolves in the Yukon and now knew, well, nothing about the effectiveness of wolf sterilization. The sterilization itself wasn't non-lethal; they talked about wolves "not recovering in the field" (that means dead, right?). They didn't know if sterilization was effective, how it affected the ungulate population, if the summer kill rate by wolves had changed, or if it would work long-term. They were quite sure, though, that it was expensive. When they sat down I held my breath, sure that their report would be met with discouragement and frustration. Instead they were applauded and thanked for offering such valuable information.

The real fun started after that. We attacked the wording of the plan, and when I say attack, I mean it: It was an assault on honesty and common sense like I have never seen, before or since. And this is where I came in.

Because the BOG meeting where the plan would be voted on was coming up, the team wanted to insure that their proposal was worded in such a way that the public would swallow it without any naughty thoughts of slaughtering wolves. I was their token animal lover, on hand to alert them to any phrases that might make other compassionate folks upset.

I sat back, amazed, as they spent literally hours over single sentences. It was exhausting--I had to keep the chocolate flowing. How to word it so that trappers and hunters would be happy while keeping the general public (the majority of Alaskans) quiet?

What it boils down to, plain and simple, is this: A few wolves will be sterilized (some of which will die during the procedure) and a few will be moved. Hundreds, though, will be "harvested" by being caught in steel-jawed leghold traps and wire snares.

There was no mention of all the other animals that will be killed in these traps and snares. There was no discussion of what this sort of carnage would do the delicate, natural ecosystem--not a peep from Mr. Northern Environmental Center (David van den Berg).

I had been assured, before the meeting, that issues of "humane-ness" and the environment would be addressed, in fact, that is why I was invited. But the barbaric cruelty of traps was never mentioned at the meeting, even when I bought it up. And as for the environment? They must have run out of time before they could consider what ecological havoc increased hunting in the area would cause (increased both during the plan, to trap more wolves, and after, to kill more caribou). The only environmental issue mentioned was Charlie Warbelow's concern that any attempt at habitat protection would lead to some areas being closed to ATV's. The rest of the team fell all over themselves to reassure Charlie there would be no such habitat manipulation!"

A big problem was how to assure the public that the sterilized wolves would be protected from trapping. There would be a lot of money invested in these eunuch animals, after all, and nobody wanted to hand those silly non-hunters ("they just don't understand") a soapbox to whine on. The trappers, though (brilliantly represented by Pete and Joe), demanded a guarantee that no areas would be closed to trapping and that nothing would happen to them if and when they trapped a sterilized wolf the day after surgery. Needless to say, they got it.

It took over two hours, but the resulting paragraph made it sound like F&G cared about the fate of the sterilized wolves but, in reality, it gave trappers free reign. It was here that Craig Gardner assured the trappers (the entire team was real worried about upsetting the trappers) that he would continue to work closely with them on the locations of the wolves and that they shouldn't worry about the sterilized wolves. This is fair chase? Craig later went on record (Anchorage Daily News, March 12) denying that F&G communicated with trappers about the location of animals. This guy really needs to run for office--he's got all the skills needed.

They actually asked me, in all sincerity, if I thought that "animal lovers" and "other greenies" would be happy with the new wording of the plan. Perhaps, said I, a problem could arise over the fact that trapping is the major component of the plan but the plan proposal tries to cover this. I just didn't understand, they told me.

I think I left Fairbanks with a pretty clear understanding of the plan. It is wolf control by trapping, plain and simple. The sterilization nonsense is nothing but a smoke screen, a decoration to fool the public, and the team knows it full well. I spent that day watching, with growing disbelief, a small group of people determined to pull the wool over Alaska's eyes, for invalid and unethical reasons, and for personal gain. The consequences, if this plan goes into effect, will be disastrous.

This plan is an example of politics at its worst--power, money, and responsibility being used for harm instead of public good. When I later testified against the plan at the BOG meeting, I quoted Martin Luther King:

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is is politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' Conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?'

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe or political or popular, but we must take it because conscience tells us that it is right." It fell on deaf ears that day, but the words remain valid for those concerned with the future of Alaska's wildlife and environment.