Working Paper 94-63 February 1994

By Kimberly L. Bruckner

This paper was written in conjunction with the Fall 1993 Natural Resources and Environmental Policy Seminar of the University of Colorado Interdisciplinary Graduate Certificate Program in Environmental Policy. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Consortium or the University. For more information, contact the Conflict Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail:

"No matter what their point of view is, people have very strong opinions about wolves." -Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt

"Goose bumps form as you recognize the unmistakable howls of a wolf pack....What is this animal that fires our imagination so, at once repelling and attracting us?" -The National Parks and Conservation Association

© 1994. Kimberly L. Bruckner. Do not reprint without permission.


Environmental policy debates can be seen all over the United States, but perhaps nowhere does the spotlight shine so strongly as on the state of Alaska regarding its wildlife management policies. At times, Alaska seems distant and remote from the politics and events of the lower 48 states. Yet last year, with the announcement of a state wolf-control program, the nation was thrown into an uproar.

Vehement debate began in Alaska during November of 1992 when the Division of Wildlife Conservation in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) announced a scheme to boost the state's caribou and moose populations by reducing the wolf population. Director David Kelleyhouse declared the state had outfitted 25 wolves with radio collars the previous summer and would be able to track and shoot up to 475 more wolves from helicopters. The effect on caribou and moose, he said, would "create a wildlife spectacle on a par with the major migrations in East Africa" (Waterman, 1993, p. 52). The overall goal was to reduce the number of wolves by 80 percent in three popular game-hunting areas: Nelchina Asin, Fortymile and Delta. Between 300 and 400 wolves would have to be killed each year for five years.

Kelleyhouse's announcement hit the New York Times on November 19, 1992. Reaction to the plan was immediate. Soon the ADFG office was flooded with over 20,000 letters opposing the plan, and the three telephone lines at the Juneau office recorded over 5,000 calls. Surveys showed that as many as three out of four Alaskans opposed the plan (Waterman, 1993).

Some of the opponents did more than write letters. Animal-rights groups immediately called for a tourism boycott, which the Alaska Tourism and Marketing Council estimated would cost the state's $1.1 billion tourism industry $85 million in 1993. Wayne Pacelle, national director of the Fund for Animals, explained, "We felt that the governor would not be swayed by pleas for compassion or biological arguments, but only by naked economic pressure" (Waterman, 1993, p. 52). With that, Alaska Governor Walter Hickel succumbed to the pressure and on December 22, instructed the ADFG to suspend the wolf control program for 1993. In turn, the boycott was dropped, but the trouble was far from over.

Governor Hickel called for a January "Wolf Summit" and invited journalists, conservation, hunting, and tourism groups from all over the country. His aim was to appear as open as possible on this issue and listen to all who had concerns. It was a manipulative move. The summit was held in Juneau, a renown hotbed of support for wolf control, and conservationists were met by over 500 demonstrators clad in blaze-orange hunting clothes or furs with wolf-heads attached. Hickel spoke to 1,500 at the conference center and won a standing ovation from the "furheads" when he claimed, "I will not be part of the State of Alaska giving away its sovereignty" (Waterman, 1993, p.52).

No concrete solutions were obtained until the following June. That month a state board approved a control hunt by state game officials only. It also extended public wolf trapping season in the northern areas. Hunting season was to start in August and hunting by plane would be allowed. The conditions were that the plane was required to land and the hunter must then move at least 300 feet from the plane before shooting.

The Principle Issues

Since this debate began, so many opinions and arguments have been thrown at the public that it becomes difficult to discern what the real issues are in this case. Before going any further, I will explain the principle issues involved. After careful and unbiased reading, one comes to understand what is really at stake.

Key issue #1: Messing with Nature.

Manipulating the environment is bad science. Wildlife scientist Gordon Haber, who has studied wolves for over 25 years, repeatedly claims that caribou herds fluctuate wildly in size due to natural conditions and despite wolf predation. The state estimates that 5,700 caribou roamed the Delta area last fall - considerably less than the peak of 10,900 in 1989 but above the low of 4,000 in 1979. "What's critical is that the state has said, and the media's fond of saying, that moose populations are being overrun and depleted by exploding wolf populations which is nonsense. Haber says that killing wolves will not guarantee a larger Delta herd but would "most definitely" destroy the "intricate and highly evolved" social structure of the wolf packs (Miller, 1993). Traditions, critical to a pack's welfare, are passed from one generation to the next. When more of the pack is killed, those traditions are lost.

Hunters and trappers in Alaska kill about 1,000 wolves annually, but Alaska officials say there still are too many preying on caribou in an area bordering Denali National Park. Claiming that the Delta caribou herd is near collapse, state game managers say they have been forced to prohibit sport and subsistence caribou hunting in the area. They want to reduce wolf populations so the caribou can recover and, eventually, hunting can resume. The Game Board believes it can restore the herd to 9,000 by 2002 if 150 of the 200 wolves in the area are eliminated.

Environmentalists are not so quick to agree. As one opponent stated, "This managerial approach to nature, with its resort to violence, is a glaring example of how industrial society transposes its technical fixes and its 'rationality' onto the fragile complexity of nature. Instead of blaming wolves, accept that human predation and human-created environmental stress may have quite a bit to do with the caribou's condition" (Call off the Hunt, 1993, p. B2).

Key Issue #2: Alaska's battle to control its own resources.

The debate has turned into a question of who will chart the future for America's last unspoiled wilderness. Will it be the national government, acting for all Americans, or Alaska on behalf of Alaskans? The dispute highlights one of the greatest cultural gulfs in America -- that between space- squeezed urbanites in the Lower 48 and sub-Arctic Alaskans with more space than they know what to do with. These two divergent sides have almost no sympathy, patience, or understanding for each other. "We have the right to care for this land according to our knowledge of the north. That right must not be trampled," Hickel told Alaskans recently (Balzar, 1993, p. 5a).

The message from Alaskans seems to be: If the state yields to outsiders on this, what's next? We'll manage Alaska our way, thanks, and the rest of you can butt out. Demanded an Alaskan fur trapper, "We don't tell them how to run their riots down there. Why are they sticking their noses into how to run our state?" (Balzar, 1993, p. 5a).

Native Alaskans and residents out in the bush derive direct economic benefit from these natural resources and claim it is they who should have primary control over them. Conservationists and animal-rights activists, who seek to protect the land from despoilers, argue otherwise. State officials assert privilege in the name of home rule, federal officials on behalf of the country.

Because federal taxpayers hold deed to 60 percent of Alaska, this kind of us-versus-them friction has added heat to public policy debates in Alaska before. But never with this much intensity. The more than 20,000 calls and letters received by the governor's office all had the same point of view. "Don't kill the wolves. Don't play God and favor one animal over another. Can't one place be left wild? We're going to New Zealand instead. Bye." The proponents of letting wolves run free see the greater threat to the wolves' future as a threat to wilderness. With the on-going extension of humankind, Alaska's wilderness remains a last source of opportunity and hope, self-sufficiency and self-determination.

Key Issue #3: Should wildlife management be for the direct economic benefit of humans or more for the enhanced preservation of species?

In real life terms, the hunt has come down to a benefit- cost analysis. With the boycott putting Alaska's tourism industry at risk, tourism officials now ask to be included in wildlife management. "The economic impact of the tourism industry can't be ignored, nor can the value of a visitor's sight of a wolf in the wild," said the vice chair of the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council. "One way or another, a broader range of values must be considered from now on" (Williams, 1993, p. B1). With natural resource management reduced to a struggle for control, to a simplistic consume-or-conserve debate, attaching dollar figures to intangibles, such as the thrill of seeing an Alaskan gray wolf loping across the tundra, will likely become critical. But it's sad too. Said a wilderness guide and member of the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association, "Before I die I'll see a dollar value placed on the sighting of a wolf, and wolves will finally fit into cost-benefit equations. I may live to see all wildlife assigned a dollar value, but I'll die unhappy with the figures. Because when we've reduced everything to a dollar value, Alaska will be a diminished place" (Williams, 1993, p. B1).

Key Stakeholders and Their Interests

Not only are the main issues important but so too is understanding who the key stakeholders are in this debate and where each interest and position lie. The Alaskan wolf hunt debate involves a number of stakeholders and the nature of the debate itself has conjured up a fair amount of anger and animosity amongst all sides.

A key stakeholder and largest supporter of wolf control is the contingent of game hunters and trappers, including such sportsmen's groups as the Alaska Trapper's Association and the Alaska Outdoor Council. Hunting, after all, is big business in Alaska. In 1992, 95,000 hunters and trappers paid the ADFG $5.2 million for licenses and big game permits. Guided big game hunts can cost, on the average, about $10,000 per animal, with no money back for bad shots (Waterman, 1993).

Said Ralph Seekins, president of the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, "The predators are at the point of destroying the game in Alaska. Wolves end up being a game vacuum-cleaner, and they need to be shot off" (Waterman, 1993, p. 56). Agreed the head of the 700-member Alaska Trapper's Association, "Our concern is that the wolves are increasing. We're concerned for the wolves and the caribou. I'm a trapper, so it really doesn't benefit me to say we should go out and kill wolves. We're for controlling wolves, not annihilating them" (Miller, 1993).

An outspoken supporter of wolf control is the director of Alaska's Division of Wildlife Conservation and originator of the aerial hunting plan, David Kelleyhouse. Kelleyhouse was wildlife manager of the Delta area for a wolf-control project in the early 1980s, earning him the title "Machine Gun Kelleyhouse" among animal rights advocates. He sees this controversy not as one about biology or environmental concerns. He sees it as a controversy about fundamental relationships between humans and wildlife, about hunting and game management to maintain high wildlife values in multiple use areas outside Alaska's millions of acres of parks, preserves, and refuges. Relying on his expertise as a professional wildlife biologist, he does not see non-management as a rational alternative. As he stated in his letter to Alaska Magazine, "By managing for abundant populations of all species, Alaska has provided annual sustained yield harvests and unlimited viewing opportunities. No species of wildlife managed by the state has ever been threatened or endangered in Alaska-testimony to sound wildlife management policies since statehood" (1993, p. 6). He goes on to say that with the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, over 120 million acres of new national parks, preserves, refuges, and wilderness areas were set aside. Human needs for consumptive use of wildlife must be met on a greatly reduced land area, contributing to the widespread controversy over who can use the wildlife in these area and how wildlife should be managed. He believes active wildlife management is necessary in these areas to provide fair opportunity for hunters. The purpose of the wolf control plan, according to Kelleyhouse, is a way to balance the interests of the hunters with the needs of the wildlife viewers and animal protectionists.

Then there's the other side; the environmentalists, animal protectionists, wildlife lovers, and people who hate the idea of shooting live creatures. This contingent claims the program amounts to game ranching, making it easier for recreational hunters to bag caribou.

"The idea they would knock down so many wolves, that's an outrage," said Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals, based in Norwalk, Connecticut. "It's an obscene gesture for the benefit of mostly out-of-state caribou and moose trophy hunters. We will not condone such cruelty. We will not be silent. We will continue to howl until the wolf killing stops" (Williams, 1993, p. J14).

Environmentalist groups oppose the plan for different reasons. Some protest from a biological standpoint, claiming wolf control is unnecessary. Others protest because of the plan's method of killing. They claim the method of land-and- shoot is cruel because aircraft can chase a wolf until it is exhausted and too weak to flee the hunter. Said Sean McGuire of Fairbanks, "I've lived in the bush. I've seen wolves killed by so-called land-and-shoot hunters and I've vowed to stop them. They'd come in the spring. I'd be working traplines, and hunters in planes would be chasing the wolves until the pack dropped in exhaustion. Then the plane would land, and the guys would get out and blow the wolves away" (Williams, 1993, p. B1).

Overall, environmentalists see the wolf plan as just plain wrong. They see it as more than a fundamental relationship between humans and wildlife, which ultimately decreases the argument to one of economic benefit, or as an argument of controlling Alaska. It's about the struggle to allow the remaining wilderness and wildlife to remain free. The Alaskan gray wolf best embodies the struggle. In a nation constrained by rush hours and deadlines, the wolf gives form to our increasing longing to be free. Stated Renee Askins, founder of the Wolf Fund, "The wolf is a signal that, although embattled, wilderness still exists. To kill a wolf in such a way is to destroy a part of our remaining wilderness" (Williams, 1993, p. B1).

Other key stakeholders include Native Americans living in the more than 200 remote communities who are allowed to hunt for subsistence. These people derive ten times more meat from hunting and trapping game than from livestock. Apanguluk Charlie Kairauiak, who spoke for Yupik Inuit elders at the January wolf summit, argues against wolf control on the basis of what he calls traditional management. If the state would prohibit the taking of mature breeding animals by subsistence hunters and limit lucrative trophy hunting for only the biggest bulls, stronger caribou and moose gene pools could establish themselves and wolf control would be unnecessary (Waterman, 1993). Native Americans agree that some wolves need to be killed, since that is their competitor for food, but they do not like the state's plan because it does not include a preference for Alaska Natives. "I'm in favor of killing the wolves; right now the wolves are taking food from my family," says a village council member. "But let the Alaska natives do it; that's real" (Williams, 1993, B1).

The Official with the Authority to Decide

Throughout this entire controversy, there has been one major official with the authority to make or break the wolf plan; Governor Walter J. Hickel, a 74-year-old Republican. Rejected by his party in five tries to regain the governorship he held in the 1960s, Hickel ran and won as an independent in 1990 on a platform of developing Alaska's resources to keep the state prospering as its oil wealth declined. The control of wildlife to help hunting and guiding certainly falls into that category.

At first, the governor stubbornly backed the decision to conduct the wolf kill declaring, "You can't just let nature run wild" (Strohmeyer, 1993). But when the plan led to a tourism boycott, Hickel called off the hunt fearing national protests could invite federal intervention. Instead, he convened the January Wolf Summit. "Alaska has a sovereign right to manage its fish and game, but it cannot act independent of public opinion--that would be political disaster" (Williams, 1993, B1).

His summit, however, was a feeble attempt at compromise and no minds were changed. As the tourist season progressed and tour deposits were secured, Hickel and his Board of Game quietly moved to reinstate the wolf kill. When Friends of Animals learned of the reinstatement last June, they promptly purchased large ads in The New York Times and USA Today denouncing the proposed hunt. The governor responded with a lawsuit contending that the ads contained lies. In an interview with Travel Weekly editor Christopher Elliott, Hickel claimed the ads were a cheap way to raise money on the East Coast. When asked about Friends of Animals' contention that the wolves would be stalked and killed and the implication that some wildlife in Alaska is treated inhumanely, he vaguely answered, "What about the treatment of people? You can not separate the two" (Elliott, 1993, p. 31). Hickel's real concern is people, not the environment. His attitudes and statements make that clear. His reinstatement of the wolf kill has proven to the nation that his favor does not lie within the wild.

Legal Setting

With the reinstatement of the wolf hunt came relegalization of same-day aerial hunting of wolves. The new rules made it legal to hunt wolves after tracking them by aircraft, provided that hunters hold trapping licenses and are at least 300 yards from their planes when they shoot the animals. However, it is almost impossible to enforce these rules, and most shooting is done right from the aircraft. In 1971 Congress passed the Airborne Hunting Act to curtail the practice of using airplanes that facilitate the killing of wolves in Alaska. This act provides for a $5,000 fine, a year in prison, and confiscation of the aircraft and firearms of any person who shoots or harasses animals from the air. The ADFG countered the act by issuing permits for land-and-shoot hunting.

Those rules and the new wolf-control plan angered 29 members of Congress, who asked US Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and US Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy to ban all same- day aerial hunting and trapping on federal lands.

"Land-and-shoot hunting, in any disguised from, is inconsistent with the recognized principles of sound wildlife management," said letters to the secretaries, released by US Representative Peter DeFazio, D-Ore (Rosen, 1993). DeFazio introduced a bill in September to amend the 1971 Airborne Hunting Act by giving the Interior Secretary the right to veto any state's aircraft- supported predator-control plan. However, this Congressional plea to ban aircraft-supported hunting on federal lands does not apply to Alaska's wolf-control plan since the program is authorized only for state land.

Defenders of Wildlife also took a political stance in September in hopes of urging Babbitt to halt the upcoming wolf hunt programs. Defenders called on the secretary to investigate possible inappropriate use of federal funds and also reiterated the virtual impossibility of enforcing the land-and- shoot policy.

Administrative Setting

Administratively, the odds are stacked against the wolves too. Long-term supporter of safeguarding wolves, Vic VanBallenberghe, became a member of the Alaska Board of Game in 1985. As a member, he succeeded in convincing the group to severely reduce wolf control. But then in 1988, Governor Steve Cowper refused to reappoint VanBallenberghe even though he received more letters of endorsement than any other appointee. Later, three other board members who had voted against wolf control were also removed (Waterman, 1993, p. 60). Changes have also been made on the board between January and June, not surprisingly altering the balance even more toward wolf control.

Public Perceptions and Misunderstandings

Public perceptions and misunderstandings abound amidst this debate. It is difficult for one to decipher if even claimed false reportings are not actually true. Each side wants to gain as much public support as possible and readily broadcasts their view of the truth.

Supporters of wolf control highlight that one of the key points missed by the public was that the project involved only a few hundred of the state's estimated historic high of 5,900 to 7,200 wolves that were preying on specific, underpopulated caribou herds in three areas covering 3.5 percent of the state (Roberts, 1993).

Said ADFG information officer, Bruce Bartley, "Most of the national coverage has failed to grasp that, although we're talking about reductions of 75 to 80 percent in these control areas, that does not jeopardize the wolf population in Alaska, or even in those areas. People (who called in) were so upset they could barely speak. If what I knew about the issue was only what I'd read in the papers, I'd be mad too. But once we explained it all to them, nobody hung up mad, although some didn't like it" (Roberts, 1993).

Another point overlooked was that thousands of square miles previously open to hunting and trapping of wolves were to be closed by the plan.

"The general public hasn't been given the facts and perspective," complained Bill Hagar of the Alaska Wildlife Conservation (Miller, 1993). He accused conservation groups of using a flashy animal species to manipulate public opinion.

The tourism industry was hurt with the false reporting that the decision to hunt wolves was made, in part, to attract tourists. The tourism industry cried this was not true. Comprised of thousands of small business people who live on and love the land, the industry has continuously supported preservation of Alaska's wilderness. For example, Alaska's three biggest helicopter companies all announced they will not subcontract with the ADFG to be used as aerial gunships. Many Alaska tour companies already contribute money to wildlife conservation organizations, and others have agreed to contribute (on a per-guest basis) to a new fund being established by Alaska Conservation Foundation called Protect Alaska's Wildlife.

Despite their efforts, however, it was the tourism industry that felt the brunt of the nation's contempt for the wolf-control plan after environmentalists pushed for a tourism boycott. Those who lead boycott campaigns want people to act on the basis of their information. The problem, however, is that the information is not always accurate or complete.

Following the Board of Game's decision last fall to resume state-sponsored wolf kills, animal rights and environmental groups sent a blizzard of direct mail condemning aerial wolf hunting as "unnecessary and unethical". Some of the mail exaggerated the threat to Alaska's wolves saying "thousands of wolves" could be slaughtered and that the "species could be exterminated" (Williams, 1993, p. J1).

In response to this misinformation came further misinformation. Hunting groups sent a flood of faxes and television and newspaper ads saying rural Alaskans could starve this winter if the number of wolves preying on moose and caribou was not reduced.

The truth is, about 400 of the state's estimated 7,000 wolves would have been killed. And federal welfare, state aid, and Alaska's strong community spirit would make starvation highly unlikely. Even though the boycott was called off after 18 days, had it continued another month or more, industry leaders say it would have cost Alaska $85 million this year. Public misunderstanding could have dealt a severe blow to Alaska's $1.1 billion industry. The tourism industry never supported wolf control in the first place.

The Latest Update

Yet despite the boycotts, the wolf summits, and quarrels, The Board of Game implemented rules October 1 that authorized the state to kill up to 150 gray wolves. The rules do not permit shooting from airplanes, but do allow kills from the ground. Alaska's much-protested plan began quietly and without notice during the last week of October of this year. Two ADFG officers trapped wolves, unknown to any animal rights activists. As of November 1, at least three wolves had been killed.

The hunt may have started quietly, but the clamor is just beginning. Animal rights groups once again called for an international boycott just as the tour-booking season began on November 1. Stephen Wells of Alaska Wildlife Alliance calls the backlash "absolutely a well-deserved black eye on Alaska. People are outraged" (Kanamine, 1993, p. 3a).

So the battle continues - the fight for wilderness versus the fight for the interests, economic and otherwise, of man. The debate is far from over. It will be interesting to see what effect the current tourist boycott has on Alaska. European tourists are still sending faxes due to the last boycott demanding the wolf hunt be called off. What is a state to do? Does it bow to public pressure completely or stand for its own independence? Whether right or wrong, Alaskans are having to deal with a bit more than they bargained for when the wolf hunt was first announced November of 1992.

Author's Reflections and Recommendations

This debate is an excellent example of an intractable dispute, a dispute that does not seem to have any solution that can satisfy both sides. A key factor in intractable disputes, one that is certainly present here, is polarization. Key stakeholders and the involved public are polarized on opposite ends. They are either for or against the wolf hunt. Neither side will be appeased unless their wish in fulfilled. This makes it rather difficult to find a solution that everyone will agree with.

Another factor present in this dispute is escalation. When the ADFG first announced the plan for a wolf hunt, no one imagined that the public would react so strongly. The ADFG was not prepared to deal with this much attention or revise the plan. As media coverage of the hunt increased, more and more organizations, environmental groups, hunting clubs, and regular public became involved. Discussion and debate was raised to a height higher than expected. As the debate continued over time, the two divergent sides became more and more engrossed in proving the other side wrong. Now that the debate has escalated to such a height and has continued for so long, it will be difficult to bring both sides together again in agreement over how best to preserve part of Alaska's wilderness while still maintaining part of Alaska's well-being.

One of the main problems with this environmental debate is the lack of communication and understanding between opposing sides. The wolf summit convened in January could have provided a wonderful opportunity to bring all parties together for a rational and intelligent discussion. What went wrong? Part of the problem was that Governor Hickel never intended the summit to be carried out as such. He obviously never read the book Managing Public Disputes, by Carpenter and Kennedy. Not a single guiding principle to solving public disputes was followed at the summit. Principles such as respecting personal values, not tolerating personal attacks, making binding commitments, and determining an ultimate goal before discussion begins were broken within the opening hour. The odds were stacked against the environmentalists before anyone arrived. Besides strategically holding the summit in Juneau, a hotbed of wolf-control support, Hickel called for the summit during the time most of the press was preoccupied covering the Presidential inauguration. Media coverage of the wolf summit was put on a back burner.

When solving public disputes, it is necessary that all sides gather together for an effective roundtable discussion. All opinions and interests need to be aired in an atmosphere conducive to arriving at some sort of solution. Hickel's wolf summit was not the shining example of what needs to be done. Instead, it is a shining example of how not to conduct a roundtable discussion due to the havoc created when guiding principles to effective dispute resolution are not followed.

Another problem with this debate is that the wolf control program is being implemented for the wrong reasons: to increase moose and caribou in an area popular with game hunters. The Alaska Board of Game deserves the flack it has received. The same type of wolf kill program has been going on in the Yukon since last January and has received solid support from Yukoners because it was implemented for reasons even environmentalists can accept; a decreasing moose and caribou herd used exclusively by natives for subsistence. Members of the Champagne and Aishihik tribes alerted Yukon officials two years ago to dangerously low levels of caribou in the territory's southwest corner. Since then there has been no licensed hunting of those caribou, and natives voluntarily stopped their unregulated subsistence hunts.

Alaska could follow the Yukon's example. Officials could easily halt licensed hunting of caribou in the area until the herd increases again to a level that is safe to hunt. Wolves should not have to suffer the consequences of man's economic interests.

The failure is Alaska officials trying to pass off a political- economic-based plan as a sincere environmental conservation one. The public is not stupid. True, misinformation has harmed those not directly involved and there is a lesson to be learned from that. The public needs to take responsibility to learn the truth, to find out the facts before making assumptions. Yes, I believe the wolf kill is wrong, but not because wolves are near extinction. Wolves are thriving in Alaska. It's wrong because wolves are being blamed for our own economic selfishness. I do not believe Alaska can promote itself as a wilderness state while at the same time killing a vivid symbol of its wild. As Pacelle stated, "The challenge is not to kill wolves; Americans have proven adept at that ignoble task. Rather, the challenge is to live with wolves. That is the mark of decency" (1993, p. 8).


Balzar, John. February 25, 1993. "Intervention by 'Outsiders' Get Alaskans Hot Under the Collar." The Los Angeles Times. p. A5.

Brown, Ben. April 22, 1993. "Wolf's Return About Control of the West." USA TODAY. p. A1.

December 27, 1992. "Wolf Hunt -- Ad is Equivalent of Ransom Note." The Seattle Times. p. A15.

Elliott, Christopher. September 23, 1993. "Governor Hickel's Concerns Cover Needs of Environment and People." Travel Weekly. p. A3.

February 4, 1993. "Alaska Moves to Reinstate Wolf Hunt." The San Francisco Chronicle. p. A2.

January 15, 1993. "Alaska Convenes Wolf Summit." United Press International.

Kanamine, Linda. November 1, 1993. "Outrage Over Start of Alaska Wolf Kill." USA TODAY. p. A3.

Kanamine, Linda. September 8, 1993. "State Plan to Kill Wolves Pierces Alaskans' Cool." USA TODAY. p. A6.

Kelleyhouse, David. May/June, 1993. "Rational Alternatives." Alaska. pp. 7-8.

Mader, Ian. July 17, 1993. "The Good/Bad Wolf." The Toronto Star. p. D6.

McNamara, Sean. December 23, 1992. "Alaska Drops Plan to Kill 300 Wolves." USA TODAY. p. A3.

Miller, Ken. January 14, 1993. "Alaska Wades Deeper Into Wolf Morass." Gannett News Service.

Miller, Ken. October 8, 1993. "Humane Society: Boycott Wolf-Killing Alaska." Gannett News Service.

October 12, 1993. "Call Off the Hunt." The Montreal Gazette. p. B2.

Pacelle, Wayne. May/June, 1993. "Living With Wolves." Alaska. p. 8.

Roberts, Rich. June 15, 1993. "Little Safety in Numbers; But Alaska Plan Will Call for Killing of Fewer Wolves." The Los Angeles Times. p. C1.

Rosen, Yeneth. September 24, 1993. "Howl-In Protests in Alaska as Wolf Plan Nears." Reuters, Limited.

Strohmeyer, John. September 30, 1993. "Let the Alaska Wolves Run Free." USA TODAY.

Waterman, Jonathan. May 1993. "Sheep's Clothing - Alaskan Wolf Control: Is It Wildlife Biology? Or Plain Old Politics?" Outside. pp. 51-60.

Williams, Marla. January 24, 1993. "To Kill or Conserve? Alaska's Dilemma is Who Decides and Who Benefits." The Seattle Times. p. B1.

Williams, Marla. March 14, 1993. "Call For Boycott Resounds Despite Alaska's Canceling of Aerial Wolf Hunt." The Seattle Times. p. J1.

Williams, Marla. October 2, 1993. "Howls of Protest." The Montreal Gazette. p. J14.