4201(1-11).pdf ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 VAN BALLENBERGHE - PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA 1 PREDATOR CONTROL, POLITICS, AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN ALASKA Victor Van Ballenberghe Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA ABSTRACT: Lethal control programs aimed at reducing wolf (Canis lupus) and bear (Ursus arctos and U. americanus) numbers while attempting to increase densities of moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) for hunters have occurred intermittently in Alaska, USA, for the past 3 decades. These programs were accompanied by considerable controversy, much of it directed at methods of - ing by private citizens. From 1976 to 1983, 1,300 wolves were taken in several areas of Alaska by a combination of helicopter shooting and private trapping. Adverse public reaction largely restricted wolf control from 1984-1994 when a snaring program again produced controversy and that control program was terminated. In 1997, a National Research Council review suggested numerous biologi- cal standards for Alaska’s predator control programs. The review strongly endorsed the approach of conducting predator control as adaptive management. Control proponents sponsored legislation in the 1990s that mandated intensive management of certain depleted populations of ungulates deemed important for consumptive use by humans. The primary management tool to increase such populations is predator control. Intensive management also required setting population and harvest objectives for ungulates. These objectives often were based on historical highs that are now likely unattainable and almost certainly unsustainable. Implementation of intensive management programs involving reduc- tions of black bears and brown bears as well as wolves has now been approved in 5 areas of Alaska totaling about 43,000 square miles with up to 610 wolves scheduled to be shot by April 2005. Approval of additional programs is pending. Controversy now is focused not merely on ethical objections to ungulate populations, protection of habitat integrity for ungulates, and population viability of preda- tors. Recommended biological standards and guidelines for justifying, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating control programs are not being applied ALCES VOL. 42: 1-11 (2006) Key words: Alaska, Alces alces, bears, Canis lupus, caribou, moose, politics, predator control, Rangifer tarandus, Ursus arctos, Ursus americanus, wolves Lethal predator control aimed at reducing wolf (Canis lupus) and bear (Ursus arctos and U. americanus) populations while attempting to increase densities of ungulates for hunters has been a highly controversial issue in Alaska, USA, for decades. Much of the controversy centered on wolves and methods of control including the use of poison, bounties, aerial shooting by private pilots, helicopter shooting by state employees, and snaring. Other issues including the quality of data used to justify, implement, monitor, and evaluate control pro- grams were also part of the debate. In recent years the controversy broadened to include bears. Approval of large-scale programs, now totaling about 43,000 square miles with up to 610 wolves to be shot by spring 2005, has raised several conservation concerns. These programs were adopted with weak implemen- tation, monitoring, and evaluation protocols, no study plans, and no research components management law, population and harvest ob- jectives have been set that, in many instances, PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA – VAN BALLENBERGHE ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 2 are based on historical population highs for ungulates that are now likely unattainable and almost certainly unsustainable. As a result, poorly designed control programs may forever chase unattainable objectives, and long-term conservation problems may outweigh short- term gains. In 1995, Governor Tony Knowles re- quested that the National Academy of Sciences conduct a review of past control programs and provide recommendations for future efforts. This review was conducted by the National Research Council (NRC 1997) and addressed biological and socioeconomic issues. The review contained 17 broad conclusions with 16 recommendations. Of these, 8 recommen- dations applied to the biological aspects of the review. In addition, the review contained a section with decision-making guidelines. Contained in the report were many recom- mended biological standards and guidelines. - tempt to provide standards to guide Alaska’s ensuring that sound science was incorporated in predator control programs. Following the release of the NRC re- port, Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) assembled a team to design a predator control program in the McGrath area of interior Alaska (ADFG 2001). Many of the NRC’s standards were incorporated in the team’s plan. Shortly thereafter, Frank Murkowski was elected governor and the McGrath pro- gram plus several additional areas were ap- proved for control. These programs largely abandoned recommended standards and did not follow an adaptive management approach. programs and a return to the McGrath model wherein the NRC’s recommended standards and guidelines were applied. A Brief History Following World War II when Alaska was still a U.S. territory, a federal poisoning and aerial shooting campaign began (Harbo and Dean 1983). By the mid-1950s, the program had greatly reduced wolf numbers in much of south-central and interior Alaska. Wolves persisted in some areas largely because the In the Nelchina Basin near Glennallen, a 20,000 square mile area, only 1 wolf pack remained, reportedly spared for study. Aerial shooting on the North Slope reduced wolves to very low levels and they remained low for decades. After statehood in 1959, the controversy over poison was so intense that it was per- manently banned by the new state legislature (Harbo and Dean 1983). Aerial shooting and bounty payments, however, continued through the 1960s. Large numbers of wolves were tak- en and densities remained low. After passage of the Federal Airborne Hunting Act in 1972 and termination of the bounty, wolf numbers increased as ungulate populations declined following irruptions in the 1960s (Van Bal- lenberghe 1985). In some instances, there were spectacular crashes evidently precipitated by severe winters and accelerated by predation caribou (Rangifer tarandus) herd declined from 90,000 in 1962 to 8,000 in 1972. The Tanana Flats moose (Alces alces) population south of Fairbanks went from 23,000 to 2,800 during 1965-1975 (Gasaway et al. 1983). Faced with declining ungulate populations by the mid-1970s, hunters demanded wolf control in several areas and ADFG responded by proposing helicopter-shooting programs. Despite legal challenges, these programs ac- counted for 1,300 wolves at a cost of $824,000 between 1976 and 1983 (ADFG 1983). By 1984, considerable public opposition largely terminated state-sponsored control programs, nevertheless, taking of wolves by private pilots, termed “land-and-shoot” hunting, continued. This served as de facto wolf control in certain areas where terrain features were suitable, and regulations requiring hunters to land before ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 VAN BALLENBERGHE - PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA 3 as a new administration proposed more shoot- ing of wolves from helicopters (Franzmann 1993). Governor Walter Hickel received more than 100,000 letters of protest. A wolf-snaring program emerged as a substitute to aerial shoot- ing, but also provoked international protests as video footage documented wolves chewing their frozen feet caught in snares. In the 1990s, political involvement in control issues increased greatly. In 1994, hunting and trapping interests successfully lobbied the state legislature for an “intensive management” bill that mandated efforts to re- store depleted ungulate populations to former levels of abundance. The bill’s clear intent was a strong emphasis on predator control. In 1996, however, a ballot initiative banning public land-and-shoot wolf hunting passed by a large margin. Efforts by the legislature to resurrect the public’s use of airplanes to shoot wolves resulted in a public referendum in 2000 that again banned this practice. In 2003 and 2004, after a decade largely free of major predator control programs, a new state administration headed by Governor Frank Murkowski approved 5 new programs involv- ing the use of private pilots to shoot wolves from airplanes. Affected areas total about 43,000 square miles with about 610 wolves scheduled to be shot initially and undetermined others to follow in subsequent years. In addi- tion, hunting and trapping seasons, bag limits, and methods of take for wolves in these and most other areas of the state were liberalized. from mid-August to May, there are no trapping bag limits, and wolves can be pursued and shot from snowmachines. Currently, hunters and trappers take about 1,500-1,700 wolves programs, from a total population crudely estimated at 7,500-11,000. Black and brown bear populations also are scheduled for reduction in certain areas. In March 2004, the state Board of Game (BOG), a 7-member body that promulgates hunting and trapping regulations and sets predator control policies, revised its bear conservation and management policy to include a section on predation. Methods and means that the BOG may consider include relocation, sterilization, use of electronic equipment for communica- tion between hunters, sale of hides and skulls, trapping, baiting with human-derived foods as an aid to hunting, same-day airborne taking, and diversionary feeding. Efforts to reduce bear numbers by lengthening autumn hunting seasons, opening spring seasons, increasing bag limits, and eliminating hunting tag fees have occurred during the past 2 decades in certain areas where bears were thought to prey on moose at high rate. In 2004 the BOG approved baiting of brown bears as a predator control measure in one area. Although baiting of black bears has long been legal, this is the brown bears. Early Standards and Guidelines for Preda- tor Control Although poorly documented, the stan- dards and guidelines used by ADFG and the BOG for predator control in several wolf control programs during 1976-1983 included preparation of “issue papers.” These consisted of reviews of the available data including predator population status and trend, harvest information for predators and prey, predator- prey ratios, and crude information on habitat where research resulted in ungulate popula- aircraft, reliable population estimates for ungulates were generally unavailable. Wolf population surveys in winter based on aerial track counts and observations of live animals were supplemented with trapper reports to estimate wolf numbers. At that time the BOG adhered to a policy PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA – VAN BALLENBERGHE ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 4 prohibiting poison. This policy allowed pri- vate pilots to take wolves in certain areas under a permit system in accordance with Federal Airborne Hunting Act provisions, and directed ADFG employees to take wolves by helicopter shooting where feasible (ADFG 1983). BOG policy prohibited total elimination of wolves leaving 20% of the pre-control wolf popula- tion. Despite these guidelines, there were neither formal requirements in the predator- control regulations requiring certain types of data or standards for data quality necessary to justify control, nor were there protocols for implementing, monitoring, or evaluating control programs. In the late 1980s, the BOG adopted an “emergency” standard for justifying control programs. Under this standard, wolf control would be infrequent and not applied unless prey populations were demonstrated to be at low densities and were unlikely to recover without control. Protocols were established to determine if wolf predation was limiting ungulates rather than some other factor. Con- trol programs would cease when prey popula- tions had recovered. The BOG rescinded this standard by 1991 to accommodate proposed helicopter shooting of wolves under a zoning program as part of a strategic wolf management plan. In certain zones, ungulates would be managed at high densities and wolf numbers would be kept low. The intensive management statute, passed in 1994, mandated new standards for management of ungulates. These were based on restoring “depleted” populations to former levels of abundance, but depleted applied at any level of ungulate abundance, low, medium, or high, with the overall goal of increasing opportunity for hunters and to of human consumption. No attempt was made to understand the potential effects of habitat quality on moose numbers. Under Governor Tony Knowles, 3 broad standards were mandated for control programs. Control would be based on sound science, would have broad public support. These standards precipitated debate on what con- stituted sound science and who determined science quality, and on methods of measuring public support. The National Research Council’s Standards and Guidelines The National Research Council review (NRC 1997) addressed two basic questions: 1. In attempts to understand interactions be- tween moose and caribou and their habitats and predators, have appropriate types of data been gathered, and has enough been learned from past research to identify the information needed to enable us to predict quantitative responses of prey populations to predator control efforts? - - them? The committee reviewed past and present control programs, Alaska’s biomes, people, and wildlife species of concern, predator- prey interactions, wolf and bear management implications of predator control, and decision making. The resulting report included 9 major biological conclusions and 8 recommenda- in the recommendations provide the basis for suggested standards and guidelines for preda- tor control programs. These included: 1. Wolves, bears, and ungulates should be managed with an adaptive management approach. 2. Management actions should be planned ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 VAN BALLENBERGHE - PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA 5 their outcome. Control actions should to determine whether or not predictions are borne out and why. 3. Managers should avoid actions with un- interpretable outcomes or low probability of achieving stated goals. 4. The status of predator and prey popula- tions should be evaluated before predator reduction efforts occur. 5. Better data on habitat quality should be collected and carrying capacity of the prey’s habitat should be evaluated. 6. Changes in the population growth rate of prey and in hunter satisfaction should be monitored. 7. The scope of studies of predators and prey should be broadened and better data on bear ecology should be collected. 8. Development of long-term data sets should continue and better data on long-term consequences of control should be col- lected. the carrying capacity of moose habitat should be further investigated. 10. Decision-makers should be more sensitive to signs of over-harvest. 11. Decision-makers should be more conser- vative in setting hunting regulations and designing control efforts. The NRC review also contained a section on decision-making that reiterated several of the standards and guidelines listed above and provided additional standards (NRC deciding whether or not to reduce predators was to identify reasons for wanting more ungulates. These include biological emergen- cies, subsistence emergencies, lifestyle and recreational hunting demands, and viewing ungulate numbers must be increased should be determined. Population models and cost- necessary to meet the projected demand and to estimate costs of predator reduction. Once these issues have been addressed, ecological investigations should be conducted to assess the likelihood that predator reduc- tion will achieve desired goals. Necessary studies include: historic population trends of ungulates, current ungulate population trends, emigration studies, an evaluation of habitat conditions, studies of predator and identifying ecological consequences of predator control. and survival or decrease predation rates. These include habitat manipulation to improve the quantity, quality, or distribution of habitats; non-lethal control methods for predators in- cluding diversionary feeding, sterilization, and translocation; selective removal of individual animals or wolf packs; timing of removal methods to identify those that are most hu- - tions to concentrate actions in critical areas effects on predator populations. Finally, predator reductions must be - show clear results. The report noted that most past programs resulted in unclear results. Pre-treatment and post-treatment monitoring areas were not maintained, and weather condi- tions were often poorly measured. “Wherever possible, predator control programs should be design to ensure that knowledge is one of 1997:130). PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA – VAN BALLENBERGHE ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 6 Application of the NRC’s Recommended Standards, 2000-2001 NRC’s recommended predator control standards and guidelines came in 2000 and 2001 when Alaska addressed a long-stand- ing demand for wolf control by residents of McGrath on the Kuskokwim River in interior Alaska. In 1995 the BOG received reports from local residents that moose numbers had declined greatly from high levels in the 1970s and wolves were thought to be keeping moose numbers from increasing. Preliminary data collected by ADFG indicated a moose:wolf ratio of 12:1. The BOG approved a control program to take 80% of the wolves in the area but the program was not implemented, nor were similar plans approved subsequently. Governor Tony Knowles appointed a stake- holder’s group called the “Adaptive Wildlife Management Team” in 2000 to review the issues and to provide recommendations to the ADFG Commissioner. The team found that the moose population to support the harvest demand of 130-150 annually. ADFG biologists estimated that 3,000-3,500 moose could provide the desired harvest and the team adopted this and the de- sired harvest as population and harvest goals (ADFG 2001). The team recognized that there - moose, quality of moose habitat in relation to moose body condition and pregnancy rates, movements of moose in the area, and more precise estimates of moose, wolf, and bear populations. ADFG biologists prepared a detailed study plan that was peer reviewed by The team recommended a program of wolf and bear reduction involving wolf trap- ping by local residents followed by aerial shooting (ADFG 2001). Bear hunting by local residents would be encouraged if bear predation on neonate moose was found to be important. Moose hunting seasons in a portion of the area would be closed until the moose population increased. Studies and monitoring The entire program would be conducted in would reconvene periodically to review progress and suggest alternate approaches as necessary. ADFG’s Commissioner approved the plan early in 2001 with the provision that aerial shooting of wolves would be done by ADFG employees using helicopters rather than by BOG approved the plan, but before it could be implemented a moose census in autumn 2001 indicated 3,660 moose in the area versus the previous claim of 869. Clearly, previous estimates were based on faulty censuses done under poor conditions and moose numbers Plans to reduce predators were suspended in light of this new information. In general, many of the NRC’s recom- mendations were followed in designing this Predator reduction was to begin immediately rather than be delayed pending additional data despite very limited information on key predation. And, wolf control, bear reduc- tion, and moose hunting closures were to be simultaneously applied thereby confounding interpretation of results and complicating as- sessment of the relative importance of these limiting factors. Predator Control Programs 2003-2004 Frank Murkowski was elected Governor of Alaska in November 2002 and shortly thereaf- ter appointed 5 new members to the 7-member review the McGrath program. In March 2003 the board approved a predator control program for the McGrath area incorporating several important changes from the previous plan ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 VAN BALLENBERGHE - PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA 7 (BOG 2003a). Aerial shooting of wolves by private pilots under permits issued by ADFG replaced the proposed helicopter-shooting program conducted by ADFG employees. About 35-45 wolves were thought to be in the control area and all were scheduled to be shot. Bears were to be translocated after capture by ADFG personnel. The Adaptive Wildlife Management Team was disbanded. Subse- quently, the wolf control area was doubled in size and the moose population objective was doubled with no in-depth assessment of habitat conditions or carrying capacity. The harvest objective for moose in the area was increased from 130-150 to 400-600. And the peer-reviewed study plan designed to guide research and monitoring was shelved. A second predator control program was approved in 2003 for the Nelchina Basin (Game Management Unit 13, hereafter Unit 13) (State of Alaska 2004a). Unlike other areas of concern, moose in Unit 13 remained at moderate densities following declines from higher levels in the 1980s (BOG 2003b). But the BOG approved a control program under provisions in the intensive management stat- ute to restore ungulate populations to former levels of abundance. About 140 wolves in the control area were to be shot by private pilots and moose hunting seasons would continue during the control program. In accordance with previous research indicating heavy bear predation on moose in this area, liberal bear hunting seasons and bag limits continued, numbers were approved. No study plan was required and no additional data collection conducted to obtain routine management information. Limited data on habitat quality were available, indicating persistently heavy use of important browse species by moose in several areas, but carrying capacity was additional animals. During winter 2003-2004, 17 wolves were taken near McGrath by aerial shooting with 11 more taken by trappers. Private pilots took 127 wolves in Unit 13. In spring 2003, 90 bears were translocated at McGrath, with 35 additional bears moved in spring 2004. The BOG approved two additional preda- tor control programs in March 2004. These include an area in Upper Cook Inlet near Anchorage (Unit 16B). Moose numbers and harvests were thought to have declined during the past 10 years while wolf numbers increased (BOG 2004a). No quantitative data were available on the effect of wolf predation on moose numbers. Bears were suspected to be important predators of moose but no quantita- tive data were available. Habitat conditions and carrying capacity were unknown. Despite wolf control program using private pilots under permit to take about 80% of the wolves in the control area beginning in autumn 2004 (State of Alaska 2004b). Moose hunting seasons remained open and no further steps to reduce bear numbers were approved. A study plan was not required and no additional data collection routine management information. The second program approved in 2004 was in Game Management Unit 19 (Unit 19) in the Central Kuskokwim River area of interior Alaska. Moose numbers in this area apparently declined during the 1990s but crude estimates suggest moderate densities persist relative to other areas in interior Alaska (BOG 2004b). As is the case for Unit 16B, no quantitative moose, on the effect of bear predation, or on moose habitat quality and carrying capacity. The BOG approved a control program using private pilots to shoot wolves in this area begin- ning in autumn 2004 (State of Alaska 2004c). Moose hunting seasons were not closed. No further steps were approved to reduce bear numbers other than through continuation of liberal hunting seasons and bag limits. A study plan was not required and no additional PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA – VAN BALLENBERGHE ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 8 gathered for routine management. The BOG approved an additional program in November 2004 (Board of Game 2004c). The program includes portions of two Game Management Units, 12 and 20E, located in the eastern interior. Wolves will be reduced in an area of about 6,600 square miles; brown bears will be reduced in a 2,700 square mile portion of the total area. Wolves will be taken by public aerial shooting and bears will be baited. Up to 60% of the bear population may be removed. Research during the 1980s and limiting moose and caribou in this area (Gas- away et al. 1992) and a wolf sterilization and implemented. As with the other programs, a study plan was not required, and there were no plans to collect additional data. The 5 areas approved by the BOG for predator control in 2003-2004 (McGrath, Unit 13, Unit 16B, Unit 19, and Units 12 and 20E) total about 43,000 square miles. Private pilots with permits to shoot wolves may take up to 610 wolves in winter 2004-2005. This will be in addition to wolves taken in routine hunting and trapping seasons that in recent years accounted for 1,500-1,700 animals. How well do the predator control programs approved in 2003-2004 conform to the NRC’s recommended standards and guidelines? In from the process used in 2000-2001 to design a control program in the McGrath area. For 16B, and Units 12 and 20E) did not involve a citizen’s planning team. The Unit 19 pro- gram was preceded by a team convened to review the issues, but the level of biological detail involved was substantially less than for McGrath. By disbanding the McGrath team, the BOG lost the opportunity for future valu- able input, including that from one resident of McGrath who served on the team from the outset. For McGrath, much of the groundwork was complete by 2003 as a result of the team’s efforts. Nonetheless, the decision was made to proceed with wolf control despite the 2001 moose census that indicated nearly 4 times as many moose as estimated earlier. Studies in progress at McGrath on moose calf mortality, bear translocation, and moose population characteristics continued through 2004. Similar studies are not in progress in any of the other areas, and the BOG did not identify the need for such studies when it ap- proved additional programs despite obvious The BOG failed to recognize the impor- components of predator control programs including current, quantitative data on preda- tor and prey numbers. This ignored the NRC guideline of evaluating the status of predator and prey populations prior to predator reduc- tion. Furthermore, the BOG risked repeating the mistakes made in some control programs conducted in 1976-1983, as well as later at McGrath, where prey numbers were greatly underestimated and wolf control was sus- pended when adequate censuses occurred. The BOG’s approval of wolf control in Unit 16B despite warnings from ADFG that data alarming. The BOG also retreated from the McGrath model’s approach of requiring study plans that provided protocols for implementing, monitoring, and evaluating predator control actions and for conducting additional studies. Peer review of the McGrath plan in 2001 by biologists outside ADFG with no stake in the plan’s outcome resulted in several ADFG revisions to the study plan. Similar reviews of plans for other areas, if they had been re- quired, would undoubtedly have resulted in improved designs. most previous predator control programs in ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 VAN BALLENBERGHE - PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA 9 Alaska and Canada had unclear outcomes, in part because the programs were primar- ily management actions based on particular assumptions about predator-prey dynamics. These programs were not designed to test those assumptions. “As a result, less has been have been possible had they been better de- By continuing to implement similar manage- recent BOG actions will result in more unclear outcomes and continued inability to improve the design of future programs. A consistent and often repeated concern in the NRC review pertained to ungulate habitat quality and carrying capacity issues. Obvi- ously, predator reductions will not result in increased ungulate numbers if the necessary habitat to support more animals is lacking. In theory, all predators could be removed with no response in ungulate numbers if habitat linking ungulate nutrition, body condition, growth rates, pregnancy rates, and survival to habitat quality (Klein 1981). Furthermore, winter severity can lower carrying capacity as snow buries forage and increases the energy costs of movement (Parker and Robbins 1984). The NRC review recognized these important to predator control programs, and provided suggested guidelines for incorporating them in management actions. The BOG’s ap- proach in approving recent control programs was to accept crude, qualitative information and broad generalizations on habitat quality and carrying capacity rather than requiring quantitative data. This is a serious breach of recommended standards. In general, the BOG’s recent approval of programs to reduce wolf and bear numbers, in an attempt to increase ungulates, represents a retreat from the sound science standard in place in Alaska the previous decade. Arguably, most of the important biological standards and guidelines recommended by the NRC (1997) have not been followed. The NRC strongly recommended that predator control should be done as adaptive management, that management actions should be planned so that outcomes are clear, and that programs with a low probability of success should be avoided. Contrary to NRC recommendations, the BOG has begun a process where there is less atten- of results and more reliance on anecdotal and qualitative information to justify control programs. This approach jeopardizes progress made during the past 2 decades in applying sci- ence-based management to the controversial practice of predator control in Alaska. A fundamental, underlying problem in applying recommended biological standards and guidelines to predator control in Alaska is the State’s intensive management statute. This 1994 law requires a political standard aimed at restoring depleted ungulate populations to previously attained levels including historical highs. In many instances such highs resulted from irruptions linked to large-scale predator control in the 1950s and 1960s. Peak popula- tions were clearly unsustainable and restoring them now is likely unattainable. Furthermore, estimates of the magnitude of peak popula- tions, even those reached as recently as the 1980s, are often little more than guesses and Despite these problems, the BOG, guided by the intensive management statute, has con- sistently set ungulate population and harvest objectives at high levels, or, as was the case in McGrath, raised previous objectives in the absence of data on habitat quality and carrying capacity. The net result of this is to commit the BOG to approving perpetual predator control programs that chase unattainable objectives. Such an approach may repeat the historical pattern of wolf and bear control that triggered ungulate irruptions and subsequent habitat damage and sharp ungulate declines. PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA – VAN BALLENBERGHE ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 10 Intensive management and its accompa- nying widespread predator control will likely place established conservation principles at risk in those areas where predator control pro- grams are implemented. Fortunately, predator control will not occur on some federal land including national parks. Conservation prin- ciples at risk include sustainability of certain carrying capacity as wolf and bear populations are suppressed. Past predator control programs in Alaska, including the federal poisoning — ungulate irruptions were triggered followed by habitat damage and ungulate declines. But the Tanana Flats moose that increased from 2,800 in 1975 to about 11,000 by the early 1990s following wolf control from 1976 to 1983. Now, the population is estimated at 16,000 and shows density-dependent signs of including reduced twinning rates, poor body condition, reduced growth of calves, female reproductive pauses, and increased age of intensity of winter forage plants is very high. In response, the BOG recently increased the moose population objective by about 10 %, a debatable management strategy. Alaska’s record of managing high-density ungulate populations demonstrates a consistent carrying capacity or quickly responding once problems are apparent. Clearly, the irruptions of the 1950s and 1960s were unmanaged and the resulting sharp declines were, in some - rently, the Tanana Flats moose population is at high density as a result of past wolf control, but despite recognizing the problem, managers were unable to respond quickly; antlerless harvests did not begin until 2003. Public opposition to harvesting cow moose has complicated matters. In the Nelchina Basin, moose increased during the 1980s as wolves were heavily harvested. Moose declined in response to severe winters thereafter. Man- agers failed to anticipate the decline, having overestimated carrying capacity. Now, despite moderate moose densities, predator control aims to again increase the Nelchina Basin moose population and repeat past patterns of increases and declines in response to winter weather. The Board of Game’s recent approval of programs to reduce bear and wolf numbers in an attempt to increase ungulates represents a retreat from earlier programs that incorporated most of the NRC’s major biological standards and guidelines. Arguably, most of those standards are not implemented currently with monitoring, and more reliance on anecdotal and qualitative information. This approach and wasted effort with failure of ungulate numbers to increase at worst, if undetected factors rather than predation are limiting. Alaska’s intensive management statute is a major barrier to implementation of the NRC’s recommendations. Efforts to chase unattain- able population and harvest objectives with poorly designed predator control programs risk long-term sustainability of ungulates, protection of habitat integrity, and predator population viability. REFERENCES (ADFG) ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. 1983. Wolf management programs in Alaska 1975-1983. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. rebuild the moose population in GMU 19D. Prepared by the adaptive wildlife management team. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. (BOG) BOARD OF GAME, STATE OF ALASKA. 2003a. Findings of the Board of Game and guidelines for a Unit 19D east predation control program. Department of Fish and ALCES VOL. 42, 2006 VAN BALLENBERGHE - PREDATOR CONTROL IN ALASKA 11 Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. _______. 2003b. Findings of the Alaska Board of Game authorizing wolf control in portions of Unit 13. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. _______. 2004a. Findings of the Alaska Board of Game authorizing predator control in the western Cook Inlet area in Unit 16B with airborne or same day shooting. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. _______. 2004b. Findings of the Alaska Board of Game authorizing wolf preda- tion control in the Unit 19A portion of the central Kuskokwim wolf predation control area with airborne or same day airborne shooting. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA _______. 2004c. Findings of the Alaska Board of Game authorizing wolf and bear predation control in portions of the Up- Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. FRANZMANN, A. W. 1993. Biopolitics of wolf management in Alaska. Alces 29:9-26. GASAWAY, W. C., R. D. BOERTJE, D. V. GRANGAARD, D. G. KELLYHOUSE, R. O. STEPHENSON, and D. G. LARSEN. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose implications for conservation. Wildlife Monographs 120. _____, R. O. STEPHENSON, J. L. DAVIS, P. E. K. SHEPHERD, and O. E. BURRIS. 1983. Interrelationships of wolves, prey, and man in interior Alaska. Wildlife Mono- graphs 84. HARBO, S. J., and F. C. DEAN. 1983. Historical and current perspectives on wolf manage- ment in Alaska. Pages 51-65 in L. N. Carbyn, editor. Wolves in Canada and Alaska. Report Series 45, Canadian Wild- life Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. KLEIN, D. R. 1981. The problems of overpopu- lation of deer in North America. Pages 119-127 in P. A. Jewell and S. Holt, edi- tors. Problems in Management of Locally Abundant Wild Mammals. Academic (NRC) NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 1997. Wolves, Bears and Their Prey in Alaska. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. PARKER, K. L., and C. T. ROBBINS. 1984. Ther- moregulation in mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) and elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni). Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:1409-1422. STATE OF ALASKA. 2004a. Game Management Unit 13, Wolf predation control area. 5AAC 92.125. Wolf Predation Control Implementation Plan. Register 170, State Regulations. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. _____. 2004b. Game Management Unit 16B, Wolf predation control area. 5AAC 92.125. Wolf Predation Control Imple- mentation Plan. Register 170, State Regu- lations. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. _____. 2004c. Game Management Unit 19A and 19B, Wolf predation control area. 5AAC 92.125. Wolf Predation Control Implementation Plan. Register 170, State Regulations. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. VAN BALLENBERGHE, V. 1985. Wolf preda- tion on caribou: the Nelchina herd case history. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:711-720. YOUNG, D. 2004. Status of the GMU 20A moose population. Report to the Alaska Board of Game. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA.