The Alaska Department of Law filed a formal request for a hearing to challenge the Alaska Superior Court’s recent determination that the Department of Fish and Game acted in bad faith by adopting and implementing an emergency regulation for bear removal in support of the Mulchatna caribou herd.
The court’s May 12 ruling followed a temporary restraining order issued earlier, halting predator control efforts initiated under a regulation adopted by the Board of Game.
The emergency measure by the Board of Game was aimed at reducing predation by bears on the declining Mulchatna caribou herd, a critical resource for rural subsistence users in western Alaska, which has been dramatically reduced in the past decade. In 2016, the herd was estimated at around 27,000 caribou. As of 2025, the population is around 15,000 caribou, well below the department’s minimum population objective of 30,000.
Attorney General Treg Taylor defended the State’s actions, stating that the Fish and Game operated within its legal and constitutional boundaries. He emphasized that the agency followed all applicable laws and judicial directives, asserting that the characterization of the State’s conduct as bad faith was unfounded.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang echoed this defense, characterizing the accusations as harmful to the department’s credibility.
He highlighted the program’s support among local communities and its early signs of success, including increased calf survival rates. Vincent-Lang underscored the Department’s compliance with the Court’s orders and affirmed the State’s intent to seek legal remedies to resume the program.
“As the filing and affidavits show, neither I nor the Department acted in bad faith in authorizing predator control activities to rebuild the Mulchatna caribou herd,” said Vincent-Lang. “Such accusations are baseless and attack the credibility of the Department. Our predator control program, supported by local users, communities, advisory committees, and the Alaska Federation of Natives, had already shown success with improved calf survival and herd growth.
Stopping this effort in its third year puts that progress — and our commitment to rural subsistence users—at risk. We are complying with the newly released order but will pursue legal avenues to restore this program, which is clearly authorized under Alaska’s intensive management statute.”
The controversy centers on a five-hour hearing held on May 6, during which the Superior Court declined to evaluate the legitimacy of the emergency regulation, citing jurisdictional limitations.
The court’s May 7 Order explicitly stated that it did not prohibit predator control efforts and did not address the validity of the emergency regulation itself.
On May 9, the State informed both the court and plaintiffs of its intent to proceed with bear removal activities under the still-active emergency regulation. These efforts were halted once the court issued the temporary restraining order.
In its May 12 ruling, based solely on the limited record from the May 6 hearing, the court concluded that the State acted in bad faith. However, the State argues that the court’s decision was premature and based on an incomplete record, without evidence or examination of the emergency regulation process.
Emergency regulations in Alaska are governed by distinct statutory provisions and remain valid for 120 days. The State maintains that plaintiffs had not formally challenged the regulation’s legality through the current case or separate legal action. The court also did not evaluate the Board of Game’s emergency finding before concluding that the State’s actions were irrational and arbitrary.
The State’s latest filing seeks a hearing to present excluded information, including the statutory authority for the emergency regulation, the subsistence importance of the Mulchatna caribou, and whether the emergency regulation’s validity was ever properly before the Court.
A decision on whether the court will grant the requested hearing remains pending.
Repeal AS 16.05.408 (Nonresident Alien Hunter to Be Accompanied By Guide) in its entirety and allow ADFG to apply the guide requirement as needed by regulation instead of statewide law. Then allow non-residents to hunt brown bears in GMU 17 by registration hunt with no tag fee and no guide requirement.
Problem solved within two years.
Air taxi operators in GMU 17 get a boost in business.
Air carriers to Alaska and GMU 17 hub towns get a boost in business.
ADFG simply closes the hunt when numbers decline to their goal.
Repeat as needed in any GMU necessary in the future.
No muss, no fuss.
That might be a great revenue enhancement, but do little for predator reduction for several reasons. This “aerial ungulate enhancement” is by far the most effective, efficient, method of achieving the goals.
“…….This “aerial ungulate enhancement” is by far the most effective, efficient, method of achieving the goals……….”
Yup……..if the courts go along. I’m proposing a solution that has worked in all south-central GMUs; regulation relaxation. When ADFG slowly started to relax regs for residents (1 bear annually, all year round season, no tag needed, no fee, etc) south of the Alaska Range, harvests went up markedly. Quickly. There was a lot of resistance by resident worry warts at GMU Advisory Committee meetings (ie, lots of meaningless noise), but no court challenges.
We don’t need guide requirements in Alaska Law. The department should have full control. The years when commercial fishing and hunting industries had half of the Legislature as members is long gone. Now the Legislature is 98% lawyers………..thus, we go to court………..
Reggie that’ll never fly. APHA has a strong death grip on the bear hunting industry and won’t let it go. I batted this same idea around till I was told to shut up and sit down. Ask any guide to justify the logic of all non-resident bear hunting by guide and they can’t. It’s about the money.
You are 100% correct, just like every other issue in this society. A cabal of people have grip on the control of the issue, and the entire universe can collapse around it, and they won’t care. That’s why they got the guide requirement in the Alaska Statutes to begin with: to make it more difficult or impossible to relax or eliminate. So now the environmental industry has a grip on the recovery of ungulate populations (especially calf recruitment) through the courts, and the APHA and Legislature couldn’t give a rip.
Thanks for your reply, Freedom.
The irony is that nonres hunters are often guided by nonres guides.
True! Talk about irony!
APHA???
What is that?
Alaska Professional Hunters Association.
If the predators are not culled, they will eat themselves out of house and home till the prey is decimated, to the detriment of subsistence users.
Then why are the “subsistence “ users sitting around waiting for the State to do the killing for them? The people residing in non-road connected AK could easily take care of the problem themselves just as it was dime min the homestead days here in the road system. But they won’t. And everyone knows it.
True! And that illustrates yet another regulation relaxation that ADFG has utilized in some units: the sale of brown bear skulls and hides. Many hunters are unaware of how much money they can get for a hide or skull.
Catch the interview with Ryan Scott, ADFG. ‘www.radiokenai.com, “Podcasts”, Thurs, Hr 1 of “The Talk of the Kenai”. ‘https://radiokenai.com/podcasts/ksrm-920-am-92-5-fm-podcasts-talk-of-the-kenai/
We wouldn’t be in this mess hadn’t the majority of “ biologists working at AF@G gone to the very same “higher education “ establishment as the very unelected judges hindering the management of game for the maximum benefit to the people.
“management of game for the maximum benefit to the people” is not the standard.
The Alaska Constitution requires management by “sustained yield.”
He court found the State botched the constitution.
It’s about the constitution, not education.
Hey Joe. Take a guess at what sustained yield means. Pay particular attention to the word “yield”. Now apply some logic and see the fallacy of your argument. If you can.
The judge found ADF&G personnel who testified in court were not “credible”.
Link the Judge’s decision on May 12, 2025, so
MRA readers can read the decision and decide whether the follow on determination by the judge concluding that the State acted in “bad faith” was justified.
ADFG (Lang) have been wasting our money for decades. They follow ideology, not science- so said the National Academy of Science, and now they are not following the Alaska Constitution- so our courts have established.
For hundreds of thousands of years predators and prey have coexisted without government intervention. We don’t need government trying to invent a problem to justify its existence.
So you advocate for periods of explosive population growth followed by times of overpopulation, habitat degradation and ultimately starvation? All except the omnivore’s of course. Your green is showing comrade.
Yes n, and how many species are now extinct?
The state biologists cannot kill enough bears and wolves around the calving caribou to affect their survival in the state of Alaska. The courts do not need to invent a problem to justify it’s existence.
Actually F&G can remove enough predators to enhance ungulate populations.
They have done so in the past, most notably in 20A.
Basically what an urban judge has determined is that a few villages can be deprived of the opportunity to have caribou meat on their tables… so that anti-hunters and wildlife “watchers” can have peace of mind. Very sad. What has Alaska become?
It’s become lazy when those same villagers won’t get off their butts and take part in the process. Waiting for the gov to take care of them.
As usual.
Let’s just stop with the silly elections and allow “judges” to rule the US with absolute authority.
What could go wrong?
From AI:
“The Book of Judges narrates the period in Israel’s history between Joshua’s death and the rise of Samuel, focusing on the repeated cycle of sin, oppression, repentance, and divine deliverance through charismatic leaders called “judges”. It highlights the consequences of Israel’s disobedience and the need for a leader who could bring lasting peace and faithful leadership………”
Looks like the wild cycles you cited above to N on ungulate biology. Boom and bust, but with people, until a real leader finally arrives……………