A judge recently ordered the state to pay $513,000 in a lawsuit over a controversial predator control program in Southwest Alaska.
The Department of Fish and Game program involved shooting bears from aircraft in an effort to reduce the predator population and boost the Mulchatna caribou herd, which is important to hunters in the region.
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance sued in 2023, and on Dec. 31, a Superior Court judge ordered the state to pay up.
Anchorage Daily News reporter Zachariah Hughes wrote about the decision and says it looks like the state will continue to pursue so-called "intensive management" of predators in the region.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Zachariah Hughes: In the case of the Mulchatna program, the state, since 2023, has sent aerial teams in spotter planes and a helicopter and targeted bears, shot bears from the helicopters, to remove them. And in the state's telling, this is a program that's really designed to protect and boost the Mulchatna caribou herd in the region. That's a herd that's been really flagging for many years now.
And the first year, they took out more than 90 bears. The second year, it was in the 80s. The third year, a court injunction was issued, and that halted the predator control program after about three days, but all together, we're talking about just shy of 200 bears from that region of Southwest Alaska.
Casey Grove: The Alaska Wildlife Alliance's lawsuit is not just about the science of it, or, you know whether or not predator control should happen, but the part that they won on is about the public notice. Tell me more about that.
ZH: Well, this was decided in the spring, back earlier in 2025. The lawsuit was filed, I believe, in 2023, and these things take a while to wind their way through. But it was not really about, "Is predator control good or bad? Is this a worthwhile action?"
It was more about the Board of Game and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, according to the plaintiffs, did not public notice this in a way that is statutorily required. They didn't give the public enough time to weigh in on this. It was a rushed process, and two different Superior Court judges sided with them and said they're right, this was not adequately noticed. The state got in a little bit of hot water because they said, "OK, well, that rule is not valid," but they then quickly passed an emergency order that basically did the same thing. They decided that that was legal, sufficient legal cover, to launch the third season going after bears in 2025 and that's what led to a kind of hasty injunction.
CG: And so what's the state's position on this going forward? From reading your story, it sounds like, is it just a case of they've maybe tied up the loose ends that this lawsuit brought up, and they feel like they're OK to go forward?
ZH: So as far as I know, the state feels like it does have authorization, it does have a legal recourse to go and do the full bear cull in Southwest Alaska around the Mulchatna herd's calving ground again, for a fourth season, but we'll see. The lawsuit that's in state court, there could be a ruling in that before May, when the program is set to launch. But I believe the state is proceeding as they did last year, as if this is going to happen.
