Opponents of a controversial predator control program in Western Alaska are seeking a court order to halt this year’s work before state officials kill any more bears.
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance last week filed an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring the state Department of Fish and Game from starting its planned bear- and wolf-killing program in late spring and early summer. If the predator control takes place, it would be the third year of a state program that has so far killed 180 bears and 19 wolves.
The program is aimed at boosting the population of the faltering Mulchatna Caribou Herd. The herd, which in the 1990s numbered about 200,000, is down to only about 15,000, according to the Department of Fish and Game. Hunting of those caribou has been closed since 2021.
Even though a state judge ruled on March 14 that the program violates the Alaska constitution, the Department of Fish and Game is preparing to embark on its third year of bear and wolf removals. The Alaska Board of Game on March 27 approved the department’s emergency petition to resume the program.
Department officials, in arguing in favor of the emergency determination, told board members that they needed to be able to get into the field in time for the caribou calving season to make sure that bears are not preying on newborn calves.
The department contends that predation, mostly by bears, is keeping the Mulchatna Caribou Herd population low.
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance and other opponents of the predator control program contend that the state’s plan is based on faulty science and that other factors, including habitat changes, are responsible for the drop in caribou numbers. They argue that the state’s program could harm bear populations, including the internationally famous population that roams Katmai National Park and Preserve.
The March 14 ruling came in a lawsuit filed in 2023 by the Alaska Wildlife Alliance. Superior Court Judge Andrew Guidi found that the predator control program violated constitutional mandates for due process and sustained yield.
A separate but similar lawsuit filed by Anchorage attorney Michelle Bittner is still pending.
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance, in its April 10 memorandum in favor of a restraining order, said the state’s efforts to continue killing bears “suggests the Department and Board are contemptuous” of the judiciary’s role in interpreting the state constitution.
The emergency regulation was not justified or legal, the memorandum argued. “The effort to circumvent the court’s ruling (in) this case through an emergency regulation is misguided and unlawful. Blatant efforts to sidestep court rulings must be recognized by the judiciary as such, and rejected,” the document said.
The Alaska Department of Law will take action to support the predator-control plan, a spokesperson said.
“The State’s position is that the Board acted within the available law to address an emergency regulation petition. The State intends to oppose the motion,” Patty Sullivan of the Department of Law said by email.
