Tony Knowles’ and Matthew Kirchhoff’s July 24 submissions included incorrect information that needs to be addressed.
They both concluded that the Mulchatna predator control effort last month was a disaster because some female caribou showed poor body condition and the herd’s range was over-browsed, and as a result the herd might not be increasing for possibly a century, and predator control would not increase the chance for herd growth.
These statements showed that these two do not understand caribou biology.
Caribou herds that exceed the carrying capacity of their range will often show reduced body condition — that’s what happens when you have less than adequate food available.
They need to understand the seasonal feeding behavior and range use of caribou. As vascular plants, which are primarily fed on from spring through fall, begin to shut down growth with the arrival of winter, caribou shift to foraging on lichens and dormant plants that provide minimum sustenance. The goal here for female caribou is to maximize body condition and fat production during the vascular plant growing seasons and then make it through winter with minimal loss of body condition, so they can successfully calve.
Climax lichens are not the only food source in winter. Both observation and stomach content analysis has shown a number of vascular plant species including sedges regularly fed on. And on over-browsed winter range, caribou shift use to adjacent less used areas. Even on an over-browsed range when winter conditions are not too harsh, caribou can enter spring in reasonable shape. Climax lichens do not take a century to recover.
A number of caribou range studies in Alaska, including my own studies, have shown variable recovery times from 10 to 30 years depending on soil types, summer weather and use.
One additional statement was that Fish and Game reported to the Board of Game in 2022 that there was no evidence that a 10-year wolf control program had any effect on the Mulchatna herd decline.
Therefore, they said this program should also be stopped. I disagree — just because wolf predation played little if any role in the herd reduction does not mean that wolves will not interfere with that reduced herd’s recovery. The exact same thing can be said for bear predation.
— Jim Lieb
Palmer
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.