THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF THE SOUTHCENTRAL BOARD OF NEW SOUTHCENTRAL WILDLIFE REGULATIONS
The March 2023 meeting of the Board of Game resulted in a mixed array of new regulations that provided some positive changes, but also highlighted the imbalance of the Board and the challenges facing wildlife.
New to the Board of Game? We’re here to help.
The Board of Game is a seven-member Board of Alaskans who make all the State wildlife management regulations, including population objectives for specific species, hunting and trapping season lengths, bag limits, and rules around how hunters and trappers can kill wildlife (ex: motorized or non-motorized access, weapon type, bait restrictions, etc).
The Board of Game meets twice each year to debate proposals on rotating regions of Alaska. Anyone can submit a proposal to the Board of Game, and anyone can submit written comments or testify at the Board of Game meetings. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) provides biological reports and comments, but all the decisions lie with the Board of Game members.
How is the Board of Game membership determined? The Governor nominates individuals who are then (most often) confirmed by the legislature. There are no designated seats for Alaska Natives, biologists, or interest groups – the Governor has tremendous amount of influence over the Board of Game composition. Currently, the Board of Game is dominated by commercial guides, who account for over 80% of the Board of Game members. There are currently no biologists on the Board of Game.
AWA provided comments on 37 proposals before the Board of Game (including one we wrote!) of which we supported 21 and opposed 16. Of these 37 proposals, the Board of Game made 14 decisions that were good for wildlife and 17 that were bad for wildlife (Figure x). The Board took no action on five proposals, either because the issue was taken up in a different proposal or was deferred to a different regulatory cycle.
THE GOOD
Wildlife Can (Safely) Cross the Road
Proposal 145 - This BIG VICTORY for wildlife and AWA was awarded when the Board supported our proposal to establish ¼ mile hunting and trapping buffers from new highway wildlife crossings on the Cooper landing bypass. The Board even strengthened the proposal with an amendment that prohibits any taking of wildlife within the setback (you can’t stand ¼ mile from the crossing and shoot into the crossing – no wildlife make be hunted or trapped within ¼ of the crossing structures). This is the first AWA proposal the Board has passed in decades. Highway crossings have proven very difficult for many species, especially moose. These crossings are critical to the safety of wildlife and humans by reducing vehicle and wildlife collisions. Affording wildlife a safe migration corridor makes sense morally, fiscally and ecologically. Thank you to the 300+ people who submitted comments in favor of this proposal – your advocacy made the difference!
Maintaining the Status Quo for Wolverines and Ptarmigan
Proposals 159 & 162 - AWA opposed these proposals to extend wolverine and ptarmigan hunting season in central Kenai Peninsula and Homer respectively. Thankfully, the Board of Game rejected these proposals. This provides both species some relief from harvest. Wolverine populations in Units 7 and 15 are challenging to monitor given their secretive nature. The current regulatory season attempts to minimizes risk to mothers with kits, and the Board recognized the need to protect female wolverine. The Board also rejected a proposed expand the ptarmigan hunting season in February and March, recognizing that such a lengthy season could result in overharvest and eventual conservation concerns.
A commitment to protect nannies
Proposals 85 & 116- AWA opposed a proposal to open an archery-only Mountain goat hunt in unit 14C. The Board rejected this proposal because the Mountain goat population is declining and could not support a new hunt without creating conservation concerns. Later, the Board also passed a proposal that increases the penalty for killing a nanny, which improves the health and safety of Mountain goat groups.
A little reprieve for wolves and coyotes
Proposal 158 - AWA supported this proposal to shorten the trapping seasons for coyotes and wolves in Units 7 and 15 by 26 days – and the Board agreed! This alleviates some pressure from these species, reduces the chances that non-target species will be accidentally trapped (such as dogs, moose, and bears). Removing the early coyote season also makes regulations less confusing for trappers and recreationists.
No bear baiting in McHugh
Proposal 103 – The Board rejected a proposal that would have established a bear-bait hunt in Unit 14 C, specifically the McHugh Creek Drainage area within Chugach State Park. Habituating brown bears to bait in an area close to the State’s largest municipality would have likely increased bear-human conflicts. AWA was pleased that the Board seriously considered these concerns and refused the hunt.
No bear-baiting in the backyard
Proposal 143- AWA opposed a proposal that sought to reduce the distance of bait stations from permanent structures from the current 1 mile setback to a half-mile setback in Unit 15. The current regulation requiring a bait station to be one mile from any permanent human-occupied area has been in place for over 40 years. Decreasing the bait distance from these structures would have increased human-bear conflict, particularly around campgrounds, homes and schools. The proposal also sought to define a permanent structure as one that is occupied or State-maintained, which would have removed protections from recreational areas like the Tsalteshi Trails in Soldotna.
A few trap setbacks from multi-use trails
Proposal 146 - Trail users will have a little more confidence recreating on four trails within Kachemak Bay State Park after the Board approved this 100 yard trap setback proposal. Although the Board amended the original proposal, they adopted regulations that would require any traps set within 100 yards of four trails to be elevated 3 feet from the hard ground, covered under water or ice, or enclosed in boxes.
Proposal 149 - Additional progress was made to establish some trapping setback regulations when the Board supported a proposal to establish trap setbacks along the perimeter of some campgrounds in Unit 7. This proposal targeted high-use campgrounds, which serve as entry points for multi-use winter trails (ex. Russian River Campground). Unfortunately, the Board amended the regulation from a 100-yard setback to a 50 yard setback and allows trapping closer than 50 yards if traps are elevated 3 feet from the hard ground; underwater or ice, or enclosed in a box.
THE BAD
A wounded bear doesn’t count
Proposal 75 - The Board rejected a proposal that sought to have wounded bears count against a hunter’s bag limit in Kodiak. For example, if a person shot a bear and it ran away, that bear would fulfill that hunter’s bag limit regardless of whether they found the bear or not. AWA supported this proposal, as it would decrease the number of wounded, and possibly dead bears, because hunters would be more considerate of shot selection and shot placement. Such a regulation would have also encouraged a hunter to conduct a more thorough search for wounded bears. We were very disappointed to see this proposal rejected, as hunter will continue to be able to wound one or multiple bears in pursuit of one they can locate. We will continue to seek accountability and promote regulations that reduced unnecessary waste and pain for wildlife.
No restriction after killing a female brown bear
Proposal 77 - Similarly, the Board failed to support a proposal that would have eliminated the ability for a hunter to get brown bear permits the following season if they kill a female bear in Kodiak. Bear densities in Unit 8 have shown a significant decline in recent and years and protection of female bears is critical to the long-term sustainability of the population.
Longer seasons for Brown Bears (including baiting) on the Kenai
Proposal 134 - Brown bear seasons were extended in Units 7 and 15. AWA opposed this proposal because increasing season length in the Spring (including bear baiting) will mean hunters are more likely to reach the harvest cap by end of summer, when Defense of Life and Property kills are highest and moose hunters are in the field also looking for opportunities to hunt brown bears. We expect that the harvest cap will be met before the end of the season, which means the hunt would be closed Emergency Orders. This creates confusion for hunters, as some may continue to hunt if unaware of the emergency closures, and they may still kill the bears as Defense of Life and Property while hunting and recreating in the fall. Furthermore, the reporting for brown bear kills takes a few days…hunters will likely reach the harvest cap, but ADFG will not know the cap has been met until they report days later. Once an Emergency Order is issued, more than a week may have passed of legal hunting is excess of the harvest cap.
Intensive Management renewed on the Kenai Peninsula
Proposal 130 - The Board renewed the Kenai Peninsula Unit 15 C Intensive Management Plan, which will continue to allow the State the opportunity to implement predator control measures on wolves if moose populations fall below objectives, and conduct habitat improvement projects for moose. AWA opposed this proposal because the Intensive Management plan that is no longer needed – moose are thriving in this area. ADFG data clearly indicated that moose population and harvest goals are being met or exceeded, and thus there is no need to restore the abundance of moose by implementing potential aerial gunning or intensive trapping of wolves. AWA is supportive of ADFG conducting habitat projects to improve conditions for moose when warranted, but we are concerned to see an Intensive Management plan renewed when moose populations are exceeding the program goals.
No relief for sheep
Proposal 109 - AWA supported a proposal to close sheep hunting on the Kenai Peninsula, Unit 15, because ADFG data shows that the sheep population in this region has declined by 80% since 1968. Unfortunately, the Board denied the closure. The Board currently uses a Full Curl Management scheme, but these regulations have not prevented profound sheep decline. Closing the season would have reduces pressure on an already stressed and disappearing sheep population, and the Board’s decision to reject this proposal puts the population at further risk.
Dam.
Proposals 155, 156 and 160 - AWA advocated strongly in support of a proposal that requested a 6 year moratorium on beaver trapping in Units 15 and 7. Beaver ponds provide important wetlands for salmon rearing and support a diversity of other wetland dependent species. Beaver populations in this region are a mere 20% of their historic abundance – trapping has severely depleted or even extirpated beavers from some southern peninsula river systems. Peatlands on the southern Kenai Peninsula have been drying at the rate of 6-11% in surface area per decade since the 1950s due to a 62% decrease in annual available water on the western peninsula since 1969. These peatlands are integral to salmon-bearing watersheds. Unfortunately, the BOG did not support closing the Anchor River and Deep Creek Drainages for six years to allow beaver to recolonize and subsequently re-invigorate the regions wetlands. Beaver dams generally improve habitat for rearing salmonids by storing water that can be used by juvenile salmon for overwintering ponds, particularly coho salmon; regulate water temperature; and assist in wetland formation and maintenance upstream of the structure. This is an unfortunate missed opportunity to restore wetlands, beavers, and fish habitat, using the best and busiest wetland engineer – the beaver. Another proposal requesting to limit the number of beaver sets per lodge and requiring marked beaver traps also was not supported.
The Board denied the moratorium but did shorten the season by a few weeks. Shortening the season is better than nothing, but does not provide the relief these beavers need to continue being a keystone species for this ecosystem.
A moose hunt in Kincaid Park?
Proposal 203 - AWA occasionally supports new hunting seasons, to provide opportunities for hunters with disabilities but opposed a proposal to open up parts of Kincaid Park to a moose harvest to accommodate this special hunting opportunity. Unfortunately, the BOG supported the proposal with some amendments. Kinkaid Park is used heavily by locals and tourists year-round for hiking, dog walking, bird watching, biking, skiing, etc.. The safety involved with trying to close and divert users from a hunt area is a major safety issue. In addition – watching and photographing moose in Kincaid park is enjoyed by many year-round. AWA believes that other State-owned lands would have been a better and safer choice.
The UGLY
A false bill of goods: State-sponsored killing of bears and wolves on the Mulchatna caribou calving grounds
On the last day of the meeting, ADFG announced a new Predator Control program on the Mulchatna calving grounds, in Wood-Tikchik State Park.
Main points from ADF&G’s presentation at the Board meeting (here's the audio, starts at 9:02am)
This spring (May 10- June 5) ADF&G is going to the Mulchatna calving grounds in the Tikchik basin (half of the predator control area will be in Wood-Tikchik State Park) a week before calving.
The agency will take 2 fixed wings and 1 helicopter, flying for 30 days if weather allows, to aerially shoot every wolf, black bears and brown bear of any sex and age class.
The agency estimates killing 15-25 brown bears. In the last 10 years, only 2 bears have been killed by hunters.
ADF&G estimates between 54-112 brown bears use the area each year.
To date, 24 same-day airborne wolves have been killed. Only 4 other wolves have been sealed out of the Game Unit. 21 wolves have been killed by same-day airborne hunting this year.
All hides and heads of killed predators from the program will be shipped to Anchorage for the hide and horn auction
We were shocked to hear about this plan because 1) there was no opportunity for public comment, 2) ADF&G research confirmed that predators are not causing Mulchatna caribou herd decline.
In 2022, the issue of Predator Control on the Mulchatna herd was raised at the January Board of Game meeting. AWA commented against Predator Control, citing research from ADF&G and the Fish and Wildlife Service that predator control was not effective in recovering the Mulchatna caribou herd. ADF&G gave a presentation on the status of the herd. They expressly stated that Predator Control on wolves should be revisited, because wolf predation does not impact the herd’s overall health. The leading causes of Mulchatna caribou herd decline, according to ADFG, are poor habitat, disease, and out-of-season harvest.
We contacted ADF&G to inquire about the cost of this program, a whopping $415,000 is budgeted for this “spring removal”. The program is funded exclusively by State money. We will be tracking this program closely to ensure transparency and accountability. There is no doubt that the Mulchatna caribou herd is in crisis, but the Board of Game is responsible for providing actual solutions, not scapegoating predators. Follow our blog for more information on this program.
A missed opportunity for more ethical trapping
Proposal 81 - The Board failed to support the use of breakaway foot snares along the Kodiak road system to reduce impacts to non- target species like deer, bears, dogs, etc. The snares are used to target smaller species like foxes. This proposal was widely supported and would have provided a safety mechanism for non-target species in high traffic areas.
Proposal 147 - Recreationists must remain on alert for traps along permanent, maintained, multi-use trails in unit 15 C. The Board failed to support a proposal establishing trap setbacks along heavily used ski and snowmachine trails and where dogs have been recently trapped. This proposal was submitted by the Homer Advisory Committee and received over 300 comments in support of setbacks. Despite public support, the Board denied the modest proposal to reduce conflict between user groups and balance regulations to meet multi-use needs of skiers and trappers.
Proposals 148, 150-154 - Recreationists in Unit 7 (Cooper Landing area) were also denied trap setbacks at multi- use trails, at road side pullouts, backcountry access points (often where backcountry search and rescue dogs are training or deployed), along highway pullouts, and along Kenai Lake beaches. Even more disappointing was the Board’s refusal to support a proposal requiring that signs be posted at all active trapping access points in Unit 7. Even the Alaska Wildlife Troopers emphatically supported a proposal in 2022 (also opposed by BOG) to have trap signage and labeling of traps. The 2022 Wildlife Trooper comment stated, “There are no other ways in Alaska to passively take fish/game with unmarked devices except by trapping. Crab/shrimp pots, burbot set lines, fish wheels, bear bait stations, gill nets, etc., all require markings. Trappers should be held to the same standard other resource users are. Trap/snare identification would greatly enhance AWTs ability to enforce illegal traps and incidental catches of moose, caribou, and dogs. Secondarily If the number were punched/inscribed onto the trap, it would also aid AWT in recovering stolen traps. The proposal to have an affixed or stamped means of identification would simply bring this method of take into alignment with ALL other resource users.”
Click here to listen to Alaska Wildlife Alliance testimony (Nicole Schmitt, Executive Director AWA)
Click here Public Comment 11 to read AWA’s written comments to the Board of Game
Click here to listen to the full meeting audio
Click here to see the Board’s decisions on all wildlife proposals
Click here to see all information shared at the Southcentral BOG meeting
News coverage of the meeting
Peninsula Clarion
Homer News
KDLL
