Opinions

Intensive game management has worked well for Alaska

"Has intensive management 'worked?' " The question appeared in a recent Alaska Dispatch News opinion piece concerning predator control in Alaska.

It's a fair question. Unfortunately, the writer's conclusion that "aggressive intensive management has not "worked" is mistaken. And in fairness to Alaskans and readers everywhere who care about management of our state's wildlife, a correction is due.

Throughout most of Alaska, where wilderness is the rule and wild creatures roam in place of livestock, people have long hunted moose, caribou and deer for food. The Alaska state Legislature recognized this when it passed the Intensive Management Law in 1994. The law requires that the Board of Game identify prey populations especially important to Alaskans for food and ensure those populations provide adequate and sustained harvest. Where objectives aren't met, the board is required to consider intensive management.

[State rejects citizen bid to change Alaska predator control]

The intensive management process begins with the department investigating causes behind low numbers in specific prey populations followed by proposed steps to increase those numbers. These can include hunting restrictions and smaller bag limits, predator control and habitat improvement. Along the way, predators and prey alike are managed for healthy, sustainable populations.

In the recent opinion piece, annual statewide moose harvests from 1994 to 2015 were used "to see if hunters have indeed taken more moose after intensive management was implemented." That approach is flawed. Intensive management is applied to relatively small, specific areas to rebuild individual prey populations; statewide harvests are too general to accurately reflect the results.

Using that broad brush, however, the author finds "only 143 more moose per year were taken following aggressive programs implemented during 2003-2015. During a time when moose harvests generally ranged from 7,000 to 8,000 per year, those 143 moose represent an insignificant increase of less than 2 percent."

ADVERTISEMENT

Insignificant? Not quite. Without intensive management, we wouldn't expect moose harvests to increase at all. Nor would we expect harvests to remain steady. As a matter of fact, without intensive management we would look for harvests to decline leaving many who depend upon moose meat — rural Alaskans particularly — to go without.

Asked "Has intensive management worked?" we point to the Southern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, in serious decline a decade ago until hunting seasons were closed and wolves briefly removed from calving grounds. Given that edge, caribou rebounded and the herd today provides hunting and viewing opportunities for Alaskans and visitors alike. Wolves, with prey now plentiful, are prevalent as ever. In this case intensive management clearly worked.

[It's time for Alaska to end extreme predator control measures]

On Unimak Island to the southwest, however, caribou and hunters who depend upon them for food haven't had the benefit of intensive management. The Unimak herd, which historically numbered as many as 7,000 animals, fell into a cycle of decline sometime after 2005. Hunting seasons were closed as caribou numbers plummeted. By 2009 the herd had dwindled to 400 animals and biologists discovered that any hope for the herd's recovery was being gobbled up on the calving grounds by opportunistic wolves. Most of the Unimak herd's calving occurs on federal lands where a proposal by the state to remove wolves was declined. As a result, the herd fell to 200 animals by 2011 and today remains closed to hunting. Alaskans who have long counted on these caribou for food must now do without.

Sometimes intensive management results are subtle. Hunters living near Allakaket, McGrath and Skwentna today report seeing more moose following predator control in these areas. They're also finding moose more accessible. Once compelled to travel great distances to harvest moose, hunters are now finding them closer to home; instead of investing a week to locate a moose to harvest, hunters are taking animals within one or two days. In these instances, intensive management's success may be measured in efficiency and cost savings found in fewer days spent afield and less boat or all-terrain vehicle fuel burned. The department is currently working on a detailed analysis so the public can judge its benefits.

Not all programs pan out. In cases where intensive management falls short of objectives, hurdles are examined and adjustments made. Failing that, unsuccessful programs are suspended. Indeed, much of the expense behind intensive management goes toward research and monitoring to make these programs more effective. Who pays these expenses? Hunters, trappers and several outdoors organizations last year eliminated the need for state general funding by shepherding legislation that now provides direct funding through license and tag fees.

"Has intensive management 'worked?' " The answer isn't hard to find. It's in the turnaround of the Southern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, and in the Fortymile and Nelchina herds where greater harvest opportunity is now available on the road system; it's in the healthy moose populations of Game Management Units 13, 16, 19 and 20; and in the faces of Alaskans given opportunity to live off the land to the degree they choose by participating in a tradition old as time. In that context the answer is clear: Intensive wildlife management works.

Bruce Dale is director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. He has traveled the state as a Fish and Game biologist and pilot.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com

ADVERTISEMENT