The Alaska Department of Law filed more legal briefs in the ongoing court proceedings surrounding the intensive management of the Mulchatna caribou herd.
The filings come in response to a May 7 Superior Court order that addressed, but did not overturn, the state’s emergency bear removal regulation. The matter stems from a lawsuit by the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.
The emergency regulation, adopted by the Board of Game on March 27, was put in place to help reverse the decline of the Mulchatna caribou population. State biologists have identified high bear predation as a critical factor contributing to the herd’s continued low numbers, prompting the state to authorize targeted bear removal efforts in key areas.
The Mulchatna caribou herd is located in southwestern Alaska, encompassing parts of the Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim River, and Lake Clark regions. Historically, the herd’s range extended from Dillingham to Bethel and as far as Lake Iliamna.
In its ruling, the Superior Court clarified that does not have the jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order against the March 27 regulation. Because the emergency action was not part of the original case, the court determined it could not block its implementation. As a result, the State of Alaska is moving forward with the bear removal program.
The Board of Game has emphasized the importance of the Mulchatna caribou as a subsistence resource for many Alaskans. In adopting the emergency regulation, the Board was relying on the authority of Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution and the Intensive Management Act, which mandate the prioritization of wild game populations for human consumption when numbers are insufficient to meet demands.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, in coordination with the Board of Game, also has a statutory responsibility to manage wildlife populations sustainably and in accordance with state law. The agencies maintain that the emergency measures are necessary to support the recovery of the caribou herd and to safeguard a critical food source for rural communities.
While the state plans to seek clarification on certain elements of the court’s order, officials have confirmed that the ruling does not prohibit bear-culling activities permitted under the emergency regulation. The Department of Law has reiterated the state’s intent to remain in full compliance with the decision while continuing essential wildlife management efforts.
So the Alaska Wildlife Alliance was concerned about a ‘due process’ issue for the bears. Huh.
When any four-legged predator (population) runs amuck, the Board of Game is obligated to enact measures to protect the prey populations that are also part of the human food chain. The due process for the bears will be found at the muzzle end of a rifle.
Two-legged predators, on the other hand, are afforded ‘due process’ in the court system. Sometimes it is also found at the muzzle end of a firearm.
These lefty liberals need to stop anthropomorphizing wild game; they should take their Zen and go back to the land of fruits and nuts or where ever the heck it is they came from.
But..but..Yogi and Boo-Boo!
I seem to remember an Alaska Magazine cover from the 1960s showing Caribou at Telaquana Lake – well North and East of Illiamna. Or maybe it was a relative’s photo. At any rate, that country is likely ready to be restocked with hungry caribou.
Years ago the National Academy of Science evaluated Alaska’s predator control programs and found that they weren’t based in science.
ADFG continues to waste millions and millions of dollars on programs like this one that ignore science. In this case the vegetation caribou eat is changing, and becoming less favorable for their survival so their number are dropping. They can kill every bear in Alaska and that fact doesn’t change.
ADFG is run by morons.
Morons write letters like yours…
These bears are the same ones that live in my neighborhood. We shoot them on sight and will continue to do so until such time as we have one hell of a lot less bears are whole more moose and caribou…
Unlike you, our Villages are 400 plus roadless miles from the nearest Costco…
Our Biologists have lived in Bethel for decades, unlike the activist lawyer that took us to court and has never been here or been deprived of bear viewing…. She lives in Alyeska and we all wish she’d just keep her nose stuck in her yuppie mocha cup.
Bingo!
Amen Willy. 🙏
Willy, yeah, we’ve seen the crap that goes on out in the bush, where no one gives a rip about getting a hunting license, or following any of the rules the rest of Alaska does.
I watched a bunch from one village go moose hunting, out of season, with .22 rifles. They gut shot the moose before it ran off, and they lost it. But they were proud of themselves. They said, “At least we hit it.” Poor moose probably suffered for days before dying in agony.
I was trained as a biologist, and understand science. You don’t. I’d cut every penny ADFG gets for this unscientific nonsense that passes for their opinions on predator control.
“……..I was trained as a biologist, and understand science………”
I’ll call that bullspit……..unless you got your degree from an Al Gore School of Science…..
Well said Willie !
AKD, oh my, the National Academy of Sciences!
I hate to break it to you pal, but a credentialed argument is always a fallacy,
The simple truth is Caribou numbers are in decline due to low calf survival. Think predation.
Bob: Don’t overlook significant poaching, brucellosis, obvious overgrazing that occurred in MCH range in late1990’s, and habitat change. Moose are moving in as shrubs and especially willows are increased in area, while lichen availability favored by caribou are reduced.
ADF&G have benn killing wolves in the area where MCH are with little or no effect.
The predator control doesn’t reverse the decline, regardless of the cause of the decline. But a reduced predator population can help calf recruitment recover. Obviously, if a high percentage of calves die due to climate or range decline, a high number of predators can and will exacerbate the decline, and cause recovery to be lackluster at best. Mr. Science above (AKD) would know that if he/she had bothered to read any of ADFG’s published management documents or even their emergency hunting closure statements.
Anonymous biologists should be completely ignored.
Fact: ADF&G are political driven morons.
That said, when un managed, the ungulate populations in the interior of Alaska have extreme cyclic population swings that last decades.
When the biomass of say, moose or caribou increase, the bear, and wolf densities increase. Predators effect the calf mortality rate the hardest, resulting in predator pit conditions.
The predators themselves die off, due to having killed off the food sources they depend on. These predator pit cycles are measured in 100+ year cycles.
Contrary to outside white nonesense narratives of natural “balance”, the interior of Alaska always had low human population densities, due to the lack of dependable food resources.
Human beings relied primarily on fish, birds, hares (also cyclic), small game, ect.
The primary method to harvest moose and caribou was the use of snares. There was no Alaska “Serengetti” of wildlife most of the time. The interior is comparable to the Great Basin region of North America in terms of resources incapable of supporting large human populations relying on hunting or harvesting wild plants.
People did not concentrate in villages, rather family based clans occupied drainages and occasionally gathered for Potlatches as a community a few times a year.
This is why the Federal lands managers cause disgust when having to listen to their dribble about “protecting” wildlife and any concern of “subsistence” whatsoever. It was a primary task of the federal territorial government to eliminate a functioning Native culture when incorporating Alaska into the American Empire, of subservient subjects.
Bottom line is one of the few useful tasks the State ADF&G actually does, in rare circumstances, is predator control. It benefits human beings, the ungulates and predators.
The AWA needs to get over their made up, out of touch with reality, aversion to lethal control measures for predators. Suppressing predator pressure is key to a balanced environment.
“……..Fact: ADF&G are political driven morons………”
In the case of brown bears, the “politically driven morons” (or, better described, the “money driven morons”) was the hunting guiding industry of the post-statehood era who got the guide requirement past under legislated law instead of game regulations (and it was so successful for their industry, they got sheep and goat guide requirements passed years later). ADFG cannot relax the requirement because it’s in black letter law, passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor. It’s law, not regulation.
Alaska controls 75% of the North American brown bear population. It’s the only place in the United States you can hunt them. They’re the ultimate game animal in the eyes of many. With so few resident, licensed Alaskan hunters, and with an animal even fewer of those Alaskans would harvest twice, the vast majority of the hunting pressure are (and should be) non-residents………and they pay aplenty to participate.
Want to reduce brown bear predation in distressed caribou range? It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out how. But with so many economic, access, time, seasonal, and other limits that the department has to work with, they long ago realized that the method they use to be the most productive.
Then comes the legal/emotional garbage………..
This crap has gotten so tiring………..
Let me guess.
Global warming….
Or do you call it climate change now since the globe is actually cooling.
Kill the bears to sustain the caribou population for human hunters that want/need to put meat on the table.
Yet another guess By DoneWithIt.
Keep guessing DWI, as that appears to be all you’ve got. Lacking genuine analytical ability, you’re just spitballing your way through life.
Hey, you’re not alone.
Keep on guessing Bucko. Way down the trail, who knows, you might even guess correctly.
Could/would you post a .pdf of Judge Rankin’s ruling, please.
Good idea.
Maybe post Judge Guidi’s first opinion in this case, as well. That’s the first opinion that found the authorization to kill bears was unconstitutional based on two provisions of the Alaska Constitution.
Guidi was noted as very conservative judge.
He retired and the boys at ADF&G got cure and cooked up a not-very-clever work around.
Not surprisingly, the new judge assigned to the case after Judge Guidi retired didn’t find ADF&G’s antics very amusing.
So, without valid legal authorization, the boys are out in a helicopter running down bears and shooting them.
So much for “fair Chase.”
Really classy by the boys.
What’s next?
Contempt proceedings?
Alaska’s being run by world class goat ropers.
We get what we deserve in this little experiment in democracy here on the Lost Frontier.
Onward …………
Time for another Covid booster.
Once again DWI missed the mark with an irrelevant cheesball comment.
This issue is about adhering to the Alaska Constitution genius. Try and stay with the right-of-way.
There’s only one simple truth when it comes to bears: The only good bear is a dead bear.
It helps when they’re ‘berry fed.’ Yummm!
I like bears. Yes they can be deadly when confronted. But doing what bears do, they are carnivores. Just like sharks. So we have low salmon count should we all go out and kill the salmon shark? Or go after off shore pirates stealing our fish. Wolves also do what wolves do to survive. I am not a hunter so I go to store to get what I need to survive. But I also need gas and oil to survive the weather. But a lot of people are too green and fight us for it’s recovery to supply the State with revenue and citizens with low fuel costs.Never lived in a village. I will end why don’t you have raffles for hunts to make it more challenging rather than just flying over and wasting them. That is not a fair fight. Get on the ground track them and hunt them. I do not like these slaughters of any thing. Like the Indians, Buffalo etc.. You can’t control Mother Nature
BooHoo.
Stop sniveling.
“………So we have low salmon count should we all go out and kill the salmon shark?……..”
Why not? Especially if you eat them. So why is there still a single shark annual limit, especially after the department studied their numbers and found so many filling PWS? This is especially since…….
(1) everybody (including ADFG and the feds) have determine that whatever is happening to the chinook is happening in the ocean, and……..
(2) Salmon sharks run PWS are eating the hundreds of millions of pink salmon that so few want to eat anyway?