Category Archives: Predator Control

Protected Wolves in Alaska Face Peril From Beyond Their Preserve – NY Times, 7/14/17

By , in the New York Times

Within the 2.5 million acres of the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve in central Alaska, wolves and other majestic animals are protected. But animals like wolves do not respect lines drawn on a map. And a recent study suggests that efforts to limit populations of these predators outside those borders is having negative effects on wolves living within the preserve.

The study, published in June in Wildlife Monographs, suggests that when the Alaskan authorities were limiting wolf populations outside the Yukon-Charley preserve, survival rates of wolves within the preserve were lower than usual. The findings highlight the notion that managing wildlife within human-imposed boundaries requires communication and cooperation with the authorities beyond a preserve’s boundaries, and could have implications for wildlife management programs elsewhere.

Read the full article at the New York Times

Read the study itself here.

Killing predators isn’t always wise game management – ADN opinion 7/16/17

From Alaska Dispatch News, by Vic Van Ballenberghe, July 16, 2017

“In 1994, Alaska’s Legislature passed the Intensive Management Law intended to increase populations of moose, caribou and deer and thereby provide increased harvests for hunters. Hunting organizations supported the bill that paved the way for large-scale predator control programs. The prevailing model crafted at the time by Department of Fish and Game biologists predicted that in nearly all cases, reducing wolves and bears would increase moose and caribou numbers and would ultimately benefit hunters. The Board of Game eagerly adopted this model and vigorously applied it after 2002 across a broad area of the state. Thousands of wolves and bears were killed as part of intensive management programs featuring controversial, extreme methods including public aerial shooting of wolves, gassing of wolf pups in dens, trapping bears and shooting bears from helicopters.

From the beginning, some biologists warned that managing wildlife was far more complex than simply reducing predators. We knew that predation sometimes limited prey numbers, but other factors often overshadowed predation. These included food quantity and quality, severe winters, dry summers and hunting. We stressed the importance of conducting field studies before implementing predator control, during control to monitor progress and after control to evaluate effectiveness. But some of the approved control programs lacked the necessary studies and information to justify, implement, monitor and evaluate predator reductions…

…My own analysis of statewide moose harvests before and after aggressive, intensive management showed no significant increase in harvests as a result of reducing predators. Intensive management didn’t result in larger moose harvests despite an increase of about 5,000 hunters per year on average during aggressive management programs.”

Read the full article at Alaska Dispatch News

 

Alaska Dispatch: Alaska game board shoots down bid for Denali wolf buffer

ADN article by Zaz Hollander, February 24th, 2017.

Read the full article at Alaska Dispatch News

The Alaska Board of Game has summarily rejected a no-kill zone for wolves on state lands north and east of Denali National Park and Preserve during its first consideration of the contentious wolf buffer since 2010.

The unanimous and fairly quick vote of the seven-member board came Friday afternoon during a weeklong meeting in Fairbanks amid heavy pressure from the public, wolf advocacy groups and the National Park Service to ban hunting and trapping on state lands next to the park.

A Park Service study last year linked the presence of a buffer to more wolf sightings for Denali visitors, though dens near the park road were a bigger factor. Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists say relatively low numbers of moose, caribou and sheep influence wolves more than any buffer.

The board’s decision marks the latest salvo in a long and recently inflamed war over predator-control policy between state and federal officials.

A Park Service proposal called on the board to close a 150-square-mile area, including the Stampede Corridor, to hunting and trapping during the spring breeding season and into the summer. Another proposal from the Denali Citizens Council and Alaska Wildlife Alliance also included Nenana Canyon and called for a year-round ban.

The board voted down the broader proposal, rendering the Park Service proposal moot. They did not vote on it.

Continue reading the full article at Alaska Dispatch News…

Citizens letter to Governor Walker on predator control

The following letter has been submitted to Governor Walker on August 15th, 2016.

The letter has 150 signatories (from 28 Alaska communities), including several former Alaska Board of Game members, a former ADFG commissioner, a former gubernatorial Chief of Staff, scientists, writers, photographers, doctors, lawyers, artists, musicians, teachers, hunters business owners, and so forth — all Alaskans, all with equal constitutional say re: Alaska wildlife.

If you wish to weigh in further in support of this ask, we would encourage you to email Governor Walker directly at:

governor@alaska.gov

—————————————–

IM2014

Click to enlarge

August 15, 2016
Honorable Bill Walker, Governor
State of Alaska
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
RE: Requested adjustments to State of Alaska predator control/Intensive
Management program
Dear Governor Walker,

Over the past 13 years, lethal predator control/Intensive Management (IM) in
Alaska has expanded dramatically. A graphic display of the increase in predator
control areas in Alaska from 2001 – 2014 can be found here:
http://unbearableterms.tumblr.com/post/72770119451/predator-controlareas#.V5U5kTV5-8A

The Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG) reports that each year, Alaska
predator control programs directly kill approximately 200 wolves, 150 black bears,
and 10 brown bears. However, this total does not include the number of pups and
cubs that die after being orphaned by the program, nor does this total reflect the
increased predator harvest that has resulted from the liberalization of predator take
regulations, including liberalization/elimination of bag limits, significant extensions
of hunting/trapping seasons for predators, elimination of brown bear tag
requirements, baiting/snaring of bears, permitting the take of sows with cubs,
permitting use of helicopters to run IM trap lines and bear snare sets, and so on.
Clearly, the actual kill in Alaska’s predator control/IM program is significantly larger
than the total reported.

Alaska’s lethal predator control/IM program, as currently practiced, is unscientific,
unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unethical, inhumane, and controversial.

Accordingly, we the undersigned Alaska citizens, respectfully request that you make
three important and reasonable adjustments to Alaska’s predator control/IM
program, as currently conducted by ADFG:

1. Replace lethal predator control methods with non-lethal methods;
2. Terminate the “collaring for later control,” or “Judas wolf” program;
3. Prohibit all IM within 5 miles of federal conservation units.

As discussed below, you have the authority, indeed the responsibility, to order such
adjustments in this state program.

I. Replace lethal predator control methods with non-lethal methods.

We recognize that state statute provides authority for IM programs, but statute and regulation do not prescribe what techniques must be used for such.

State law and regulation (5 AAC 92.110 and 115) provide the following IM authority to the ADFG commissioner:

The commissioner or the commissioner’s designee, including contracted agents
of other governmental agencies, may reduce [wolf and bear] populations in an
efficient manner, by any means, but as safely and humanely as practical,
including the use of a helicopter.

While the state explicitly prohibits use of certain methods in its lethal predator
control program (e.g., machine guns, bombs, explosives, pits, fire, smoke, electronic
night vision scopes, expanding gas arrows, etc.); and generally authorizes use of all
other methods (lethal and non-lethal); it does not affirmatively require use of any
specific method. Notably, nowhere does statute or regulation require the use of
lethal vs. non-lethal methods for predator control/IM.

For instance, while 5 AAC 92.110 authorizes the department to lethally gas wolf
pups in dens using carbon monoxide, and to otherwise kill pups in dens (“denning”)
in predator control areas (with the approval of the commissioner), it does not
require such. And while poison is authorized to kill predatory animals
(AS.16.35.200), written permission is required from the Board of Game.
Similarly, while statute and regulation authorize the use of state employees,
helicopters, and other equipment in IM, AS 16.05.783 (e) prohibits such without
direct approval of the commissioner:

The use of state employees or state owned or chartered equipment, including
helicopters, in a predator control program is prohibited without the approval
of the commissioner.

We further note in 5 AAC 92.110 (control of predation by wolves) and 5 AAC 92.115
(control of predation by bears) the following:

After the board has adopted a predation control implementation plan, the
commissioner may, at any time during the period for which the plan is in
effect, determine whether to implement the plan and may, by regulation,
amend the plan to apply additional restrictions in light of circumstances
existing at the time of implementation.

Clearly, implementation and/or amendment of IM plans, including methods to be
used, remains within the discretionary authority of your administration.

On this point, we note that during the administration of former Governor Tony
Knowles, IM was successfully implemented using exclusively non-lethal methods
(e.g., translocation, sterilization, diversionary feeding, habitat enhancement through
wildfire policies, etc.). These non-lethal methods represent effective alternatives to
the lethal control methods.
There are numerous problems with Alaska’s current lethal predator control/IM
programs, including that they:
• Are based on poor science and inadequate predator/prey population
surveys;
• Are not scientifically peer reviewed;
• Do not recognize or protect natural variability of dynamic ecosystems;
• Do not account for the growing ecological impacts of climate change;
• Are designed for mostly urban, not rural subsistence, hunters;
• Are not supported by many Alaska citizens;
• Can result in prey populations exceeding habitat carrying capacity, thus
degrading habitat;
• Can lead to unintended consequences, including increasing predation due to
immigration of predators into control areas;
• Prioritize consumptive use of wildlife over non-consumptive use, contrary to
the Alaska constitution; and
• Produce little scientific evidence that the programs are effective.

It is time for reputable, professional wildlife scientists in ADFG to admit such, and
provide scientific leadership on this issue to the Board of Game and commissioner.
Further, it is clear that the state’s lethal predator control program is currently
financially supported in large part through the federal Pittman-Robertson “Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration” program. This federal program contributes the single
largest component of the annual budget of the ADFG Division of Wildlife
Conservation. Although the state maintains that its federal aid accounts do not
reflect direct support to actual IM operations, it is apparent that lethal control is
indeed being supported, inappropriately, with these federal funds (e.g. collaring for
later control, as discussed below). In addition, most of the state’s funding for survey
and inventory monitoring, and assessment of impacts of the lethal predator control
program, derives directly from these federal wildlife restoration funds.

As you know, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is now drafting a new proposed rule to
clarify whether such uses by states are permissible, and the U.S. Department of
Interior Inspector General is preparing to conduct an audit of the past use of these
federal funds by the State of Alaska, paying specific attention to this issue of funds
used for lethal predator control. The continuation of the lethal predator control
program, with support by these federal wildlife restoration funds, jeopardizes the
continuation of this substantial funding source to state wildlife management.

Finally, as aerial lethal control involves chasing and often wounding wolves and
bears from aircraft, this can cause significant suffering of animals. As such, this
practice violates the state legal requirement to conduct predator control “as
humanely as practical.” While “humane” is not defined in statute, it is generally
taken to require compassion, kindness, and sympathy for animals; and to require
that actions cause the least possible harm, pain, and suffering. The practice of
chasing, shooting and wounding wolves and bears from aircraft does not meet this
legal requirement of humane treatment.
In addition, bear baiting/snaring conducted in GMU 16 is exceptionally cruel and
inhumane, as snared bears can struggle and suffer painfully for days before
succumbing or being killed.
Governor, you and your ADFG commissioner clearly have the authority to substitute
exclusively non-lethal IM methods for the lethal methods now in use. The IM
surcharge you approved this year can be used to support the non-lethal IM effort.
Non-lethal IM will effectively sustain ungulate populations for human harvest, will
comply with statute, and will increase public acceptance of state wildlife
management.
For the above reasons, we request that you order the substitution of humane, nonlethal
predator control options for all lethal control options now in use.

II. Terminate the “collaring for later control,” or “Judas wolf,” program.
Secondly, we ask that you terminate the practice of “Judas wolf” collaring/killing.
As you know, this program places tracking collars on wolves, and then state gunners
track the collared wolves back to their family group/den, where as many as possible
are then killed by state biologists. The “Judas” animals are often spared in order to
lead state gunners to other wolves for elimination.
We note the following in July 7, 2016 correspondence from Bruce Dale, Director of
the ADFG Division of Wildlife Conservation:

A total of 28 wolves were fitted with radio collars since 2005 in the Upper
Yukon–Tanana wolf control area. This is the only area where radio-collared
wolves have been used to locate wolves during a wolf control program. These
wolves were all radio-collared between fall 2011 and spring 2016
(Regulatory years 2011 through 2015; RY11–RY15). A total of 179 wolves
were killed by ADF&G during RY11–RY15 in this wolf control program.
We estimate that approximately 30% of wolves killed by ADF&G in the Upper
Yukon–Tanana wolf control area in the last 5 years were associated with
collared wolves.

Wolves serve a critical role in terrestrial ecosystem stability, and are intelligent,
social animals, with strong family bonds. We find it reprehensible that this very
sociality and family bond is being lethally exploited in state predator control efforts.
This program adds another layer of concern regarding the inhumane killing of
wildlife from helicopters. The program also raises legal questions regarding
compliance with FCC licensing of airwaves used for tracking, as well as NEPA
compliance.
The “Judas wolf” collaring/killing program is unethical, inhumane, an
embarrassment to Alaska, and should be ended immediately.

III. Prohibit all IM within 5 miles of federal conservation units.

Finally, we ask that you prohibit all state predator control/IM programs (lethal or
non-lethal) within 5-miles of any federal conservation unit – National Parks,
National Preserves, National Wildlife Refuges – to minimize impact on wolves and
bears from these conservation units and the consequent erosion of ecological
integrity of these national interest lands.
On this point, we note that over the past decade, state IM programs have targeted
and eliminated most wolf family groups (packs) from Yukon-Charley Rivers
National Preserve, including most of those collared for federal research programs.
As a result, the Park Service now concludes that the Preserve is “no longer in a
natural state,” and there are not enough survivors in the Preserve to maintain a
“self-sustaining population.” In a 5-year period, state IM efforts have killed 90
Preserve wolves from nine packs, and terminated the 20-year federal wildlife
research program.

As example in 2013, all 24 members of Yukon Charley’s Seventymile Pack, including
two with radio collars, were shot by ADFG-authorized private airplane gunners,
eliminating the pack altogether. In 2012 and 2014, ADFG helicopter gunners shot
all 19 members of the Lost Creek Pack, including two collared animals, eliminating
that pack as well. And in March 2016, state helicopter gunners shot and wounded a
female Yukon Charley wolf along the boundary of the Preserve, and then pursued
the wounded animal into the Preserve, where they illegally killed her. Of the 18
other wolves killed by state predator control in this area this spring, half were
young of the year.
Yet despite the state IM program, calf survival in the Forty Mile Caribou herd has not
increased in the past 5 years.
State predator control on the boundaries of federal conservation units is causing
significant harm to the ecological integrity of these federal lands, it isn’t achieving
the stated goal, and it further erodes the state-federal relationship. This practice
needs to end.

In conclusion, the manner in which we conduct our activities, including how we
manage and treat our wildlife, is an important reflection of who we are as a society.
Throughout the Murkowski, Palin, and Parnell administrations, Alaska’s predator
control programs have grown more aggressive, inhumane, costly, unscientific,
ineffective, and unacceptable to most Alaskans. These lethal predator control
programs seriously tarnish the image and reputation of Alaska, which in turn poses
risk to our sustainable tourism industry.
As you are aware, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have
recently published rules restricting lethal predator control on these federal
conservation units in Alaska. This welcome federal action reflects a growing
national sentiment that such lethal IM programs are inappropriate, and should be
ended.
Unfortunately, your administration has, so far, continued aggressive, lethal predator
control/IM on other lands in Alaska.
Governor, we are better than this. We need new “rules of engagement” in Alaska’s
predator control program.
The reasonable adjustments we request here present an opportunity for you to
restore responsible wildlife management in Alaska, sustain ungulate populations for
human consumption, and honor your commitment to represent the interests of all
Alaskans.

As a way forward, we encourage you to convene an independent, science-based
Intensive Management Working Group to examine these, and other such proposals.
We look forward to your positive response.
Very Respectfully,

[150 signatories (from 28 Alaska communities), including several former Alaska Board of Game members, a former ADFG commissioner, a former gubernatorial Chief of Staff, scientists, writers, photographers, doctors, lawyers, artists, musicians, teachers, hunters business owners, and so forth — all Alaskans, all with equal constitutional say re: Alaska wildlife.]

Please help: your signatures are needed on this petition to protect the Denali National Park wolves!

The Denali Citizens Council (DCC) has set up this online petition in support of AWA’s Emergency Petition asking the Alaska Board of Game to create a no hunting/trapping buffer area to protect wolves just outside of the park’s eastern boundary. The DCC, a co-signer on AWA’s Petition to the Board, is trying to collect as many signatures as possible to forward to the Board before its March 13 meeting.

Click here to read the text of AWA’s Emergency Petition.

Click here to sign the DCC’s petition.

Thank you!

The buffer zone, as proposed in 2012

The buffer zone, as proposed in 2012