Howling Controversy Over Wolf-Killing and Boycott : Tourism: Even those opposed to ‘wolf management,’ disagree on how to stop the program.

Once again, the actions and values of citizens in one state have kicked up a fury outside, and the controversial stratagem of a tourism boycott hangs over the holiday visitor season.

Previously, the issue was gay rights in Colorado. At present, it’s wolf protection in Alaska.

Now, as then, those angry with the state disagree strongly among themselves about whether a boycott is the proper response, or one likely to damage the wrong targets.

The background: Alaska hunters want more caribou to put in their freezers. They believe a thriving predator population is keeping some caribou herds in the interior of Alaska from reaching maximum size. In particular, a Connecticut-sized chunk of spruce forests and foothills south of Fairbanks has been off limits to hunters for a couple of years because of a sparse caribou population. But it is not off limits to bears and wolves.

Environmentalists and animal rights activists see a perfectly natural cycle underway and see no need for human interference. Caribou herds fluctuate dramatically in size, and there are plenty of the animals in more remote parts of the state.

But local hunters are less patient. Flexing their political muscle, last year they successfully urged the state to undertake the snaring and shooting of up to 80% of the wolves in this region to speed up the growth of the caribou herd. The wolf kill began with the first snowfall of winter. Up to 150 wolves are destined to die, strangled by neck snares or shot while they writhe in the traps. Hunters braced for a struggle, anticipating the reaction in the Lower 49 would be outrage.

And it has been. Animal protection organizations such as Connecticut-based Friends of Animals and the Fund for Animals in Washington, D.C., with the support of some Alaska environmentalists, called for a tourism boycott in January. If the wolf kill is not stopped now, they believe, it will spread and increase in coming years.

They have taken out advertisements urging Americans to spend their travel money elsewhere. And, maybe more importantly, they rallied support via the lively network that animal rights supporters maintain among themselves.

“It’s a last resort. But we’ve exhausted all other efforts to halt this killing,” says Wayne Pacelle, director of Cleveland Amory’s powerful Fund for Animals, based in Washington, D.C. “Cold, hard cash is the only thing this governor will understand.”

Indeed, in 1992, a brief call for a tourism boycott from animal rights groups resulted in Alaska Gov. Walter J. Hickel backing away from a plan to have wolves shot from the air. At the time, tourism officials openly worried. Some said the impact on Alaska’s No. 3 employer, the travel industry, could be worse than the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.

But the hunters persisted, and this time Hickel says he is not going to budge. The killing of wolves will continue. “We believe the state has a right and a responsibility to manage its wildlife resources,” says spokesman John Manly.

Manly expresses hope that curiosity about the controversy may actually prove a boon to travel here. “We think more will be interested in coming than will be put off by our wolf management program.”

At least some environmental groups who disagree with Hickel on most everything else are hoping so--they want the boycott to fail. They argue that a trip to Alaska will energize more Americans to come to the wolf’s rescue.

Groups like the Sierra Club oppose the wolf kill and at the same time sponsor many wilderness trips to Alaska. They have come out strongly against the boycott. And the scores of Alaska guides and small-scale outfitters who specialize in eco-tourism in Alaska say they feel particularly vulnerable. They, too, oppose the wolf kill. And they recognize that their natural clients are the most likely to respond to save-the-wolves appeals.

Even the abbreviated 1992 boycott threat cut their business 10% while it apparently had no measurable effect on the cruise ship and tour bus business.

To try to fight back, the Sierra Club and the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Assn. launched an advertising campaign last week with the slogan: “Alaska Needs Its Wolves. Now The Wolves Need Us.”

The coalition urges visitors to select trips and spend money in Alaska with those who oppose the wolf reduction plan. “Visit Alaska, Get Involved, Stop the Killing,” the ads say.

Mainline tourism companies and state tourism officials appear to be quietly accepting the wolf reduction program.

Alaska hunters believe the controversy is so much emotional hype. They point out that wolves are not endangered in Alaska, like elsewhere in America. And they believe many Americans have confused this plan for wolf reduction with wolf eradication, which is not the aim.

Moreover, they note, the Alaska State Constitution provides for the management of wildlife for the benefit of human hunters. In the harsh climate of the Far North, hunting is one of the traditional pastimes and rewards, they say.

Some hunters believe that urban Americans are not being honest with themselves in the debate. After all, many city dwellers freely eat beef and lamb, which are raised across great tracts of American land where ranchers have displaced many varieties of natural predators. Up to 90,000 coyotes, for instance, are killed in the U.S. each year to protect sheep flocks.

“The way we live here is much more in tune with the outdoors and the environment,” says Mary Bishop, a Fairbanks hunter.

Right now is the peak booking season for the short summer. Officially, both sides are calmly claiming gains.

“Our reaction has been enormous,” says Pacelle of the Fund for Animals.

The governor’s spokesman, Manly, responds: “We’ve heard no dire reports on the impact of the boycott.”

Times researcher Doug Conner in Seattle contributed to this story.