While I applaud Rick Sinnott and Alaska Dispatch News for alerting Anchorage residents to the new push for a moose hunt at Kincaid Park, both the reporting of this news and Ira Edwards' proposal to the Alaska Board of Game raise serious concerns and demand further context and scrutiny.
First I'll address the story itself (ADN, Dec. 29). The placement of Sinnott's piece -- complete with front-page banner headline -- suggests it's important local news. I agree. But it is also a lopsided story, heavily slanted toward Edwards' perspective. Nearly all the "reporting" is based on his viewpoints and beliefs. His claims are largely presented as fact, without apparent verification and almost no rebuttal. This is disappointing, given Sinnott's own wildlife expertise.
Because this is a news story, Sinnott no doubt felt obliged to keep his opinions out of the piece, but he could have found others who would rightly challenge Edwards' assumptions and conclusions. Though Sinnott includes Department of Fish and Game findings that provide alternative perspectives, they are buried deep in the story and not used to directly challenge Edwards' claims.
Sinnott takes Edwards' statement that he "canvassed most organizations that schedule events in the park" at face value, as well as his claim that their responses ranged "from favorable to neutral." All of this is self-serving and should have been substantiated. The fact that "no organization has told (Edwards) it would oppose a moose hunt" means little, because we don't know all the groups he canvassed. I'm betting he didn't ask wildlife or conservation groups for their opinion.
Sinnott adds that a 2010 survey indicated 70 percent of local residents support an Anchorage moose hunt, including parks like Kincaid. But we don't know enough about that survey to determine whether residents who use and appreciate the parks support such hunts. I'd bet the percentage of park users approving a hunt would be substantially less than 70 percent.
All in all, the story gives an unbalanced and highly favorable spin to Edwards' push for a hunt. I challenge several of his claims.
First, Edwards says "every time we have an event at Kincaid there's a moose in the way." That's ridiculous. It's the exception, not the rule, that moose require changes in an event or present a danger to participants; those circumstances tend to make it into the news precisely because they're unusual.
Yes, there are certain times of year when moose should be taken into special consideration by event organizers (and others): in late spring and early summer, when cows with newborn calves are especially vigilant and protective; and the autumn rutting season, when bulls especially are likely to be stressed and easily agitated.
Given all the information that's available about moose, local residents should know this and take extra precautions.
Though Sinnott refers to "troublemaker" moose, in fact human actions have largely contributed to the upswing of moose-human conflicts at Kincaid, whether in organized events or other, informal recreational activities. Two excellent examples are the "well publicized skirmishes" Sinnott recounts in his story. As I have previously discussed in pieces published by ADN, ("The problem isn't agitated moose, it's people showing bad judgment," Oct. 3, 2013, and "Explosion of new trails at Kincaid is a big part of conflicts between moose and people," Oct. 28, 2013), people's poor decisions led directly to the shooting deaths of the two moose.
We are supposedly the more intelligent species, yet we sometimes behave in remarkably foolish, ignorant, or stubborn ways.
To repeat: the problem at Kincaid Park isn't trouble-making moose. The animals should not be hunted for public-safety reasons, Edwards' chief rationale for starting a hunt there. And if a persistently dangerous moose is identified, authorities not sport-hunters, should remove it.
Sinnott's story also makes it clear that there's been no upsurge in moose at Kincaid. In fact, based on Fish and Game studies, it's more likely moose numbers have dropped since the mid-1990s.
Nor is there any evidence that moose have become more aggressive. Based on my own experiences -- I visit Kincaid many times throughout the year -- I'd wager Kincaid moose are as habituated to people as they've ever been, if not more so.
That's not to say individual moose won't sometimes become agitated and aggressive. A protective cow moose with calves approached too closely or suddenly in early summer, an adrenalin-boosted bull moose in mating season that feels cornered -- yes, they may attack a careless, unaware, or pushy person. But this is not new behavior, it's normal.
Edwards' blanket statement that cows are more dangerous than bulls -- the reason he gives for proposing an antlerless moose hunt -- is another dubious assertion.
Yes, cows are more dangerous for a period of time after they've given birth to calves. But bulls present a much greater danger in autumn, when Edwards proposes his hunt. My experience from late summer into winter is that cows, even those with calves, are remarkably tolerant of human (and even canine) passage, as long as a person or dog doesn't try to get too close or harass them.
I would also argue Edwards' point that bulls have "more intrinsic value" than cows. What's his expertise to make such a judgment? Again, his opinion masquerades as fact.
Though neither the number nor behavior of moose has changed substantially, what has shifted at Kincaid is the human element. As Sinnott wrote, "Nowadays the park crawls with people most of the year."
Actually, "crawls" isn't the best word choice. Many of the people who recreate at Kincaid are moving fast: runners, soccer players, skiers, and especially cyclists. The explosion of single-track trails and those who use them are the single biggest change that's contributed to Kincaid's so-called moose "problem."
Those trails have greatly fragmented what remained of Kincaid's already diminished woodlands. Thus it's now harder for moose to avoid us humans, and that in turn means more encounters. More conflicts.
Those who say we must have either a moose preserve or a moose hunt are creating a false choice. We can have both moose and human recreation. But people need to take more responsibility for their actions, they need to pay more attention to -- and show tolerance for -- our wildlife neighbors.
There's another important point to consider: Edwards says October is the best time to stage a hunt because the park attracts fewer people. That may have once been true, but not necessarily anymore, not with the abundance of cyclists drawn to the single-track trails during fall's "shoulder" season.
If allowed, an October hunt would displace a substantial number of people. Are the state and municipality really going to ban other recreational activities so that a few people can hunt moose despite no credible evidence that having such a hunt will eliminate moose-human conflicts? The only way to do that would be to kill all the moose. And who wants that?
In short, I can find no good reasons to break with long-standing policies and allow a hunt at Kincaid or any other municipal park. I hope the city holds firm on its prohibition of hunting and the discharge of firearms in local parks.
The presence of moose enlivens and enriches the visits of many locals drawn to Kincaid. Instead of killing them, why can't we humans behave more responsibly and respectfully, so that both species face less danger from each other?
Anchorage nature writer Bill Sherwonit is the author of more than a dozen books and has written many essays and commentaries about Alaska's wildlife and wildlands. His most recent book is "Animal Stories: Encounters with Alaska's Wildlife."
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com